Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive13

• 1
• 3
• Archive 5
• 6

Proposed Gender Inclusive change to "Working Man's Barnstar"

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After seeing a number of comments about why the barnstar is called "The Working Man's Barnstar" (Template talk:The Working Man's Barnstar, Image talk:WMBarnstar.png), I decided to be bold and just change it to the gender neutral "Worker's Barnstar." I'd like to move the template, too, but am unsure what kind of havoc that would play on the system. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can assist me?

It occurs to me that this could have been discussed and vetoed before. If WP consensus is still opposed to a change, I would like to propose a new barnstar called "The Worker's Barnstar" and have it in addition to the Working Man's Barnstar. This way, people can opt for a gender-netural award. (And do a little bit to fight systemic bias.) -- Merope ^Talk 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ehhh ... I kinda like the old name ... --evrik 01:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• After having thought about it for a while. I'm reverting the edit. I think it was too bold, and done without the proper dioscussion. As for the award itself, I think that in many ways that {{The Working Man's Barnstar}}, {{ The Tireless Contributor Barnstar}} and {{The Barnstar of Diligence}} are all duplicative. If we’re going to change the name, I’d like to see us tackle the defintion as well to help us differentiate it from the other awards. --evrik 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see much difference between WM and the Diligence Barnstar. My guess is that WM is for unglamorous work like wikifying, copyediting, etc., whereas Diligence is for ... hell, I don't know. But the Tireless Contributor award seems more geared towards writing than editing. I'd be perfectly happy if the Diligence and WM were conflated to one category. (In fact, when thinking of alternate names for "Working Man's", I thought of "Barnstar of Diligence" only to realize that that already existed. Perhaps that's telling.) -- Merope ^Talk 15:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Anyone else? --evrik 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll just make one quick statement: I don't think it's necessary to change the name. I believe this barnstar was created based on the term "working man" (I don't know for sure since this barnstar was created before I came on board). It's not meant to be offensive to women. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not offensive to women, it just excludes them. Think for a moment how you'd feel if you received an award that didn't even match your gender. Would a "Great Gal" award appeal to you? Granted, that's a stupid name, but I don't see a reason to have a deliberately exclusive term for an award. -- Merope ^Talk 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't we call it, the "Working Man's Barnstar" or the "Rosie the Riveteer Barnstar?"--evrik 20:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I like the idea of just having one barnstar called "The Barnstar of Diligence". The problem with having gender-specific categories is 1) not everyone's gender is identifiable by their contributions and 2) it presupposes a binary system of gender (and thus ignores genderqueer individuals). Someone giving an award shouldn't have to figure out a person's gender identity; that kinda defeats the purpose. I understand that "working man" is a popular slang term, I just think it's outdated and exclusive to use. -- Merope ^Talk 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• I renamed the barnstar to "Working Person's Barnstar" at Template:Barnstars before noticing the discussion here. I don't think it's a big deal, but "Working Man's Barnstar" sticks out as an obviously non-neutral term, especially in an award that's supposed to be a positive gesture rather than a source of controversy. ―Wmahan. 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• And as 149.43.x.x elsewhere noted (in what should be particularly obvious on Wikipedia), "Working Man's Barnstar" is POV. (The term ought to used as an example of POV in the Manual of Style). Pinkville 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• My 2¢/€/etcs' worth: "Working Man's" might upset some folk, "Working Person's" seems too politically correct; choose an entirely different phrase, e.g. "Laborer's", "Artisan's", or, as suggested above, the simple "Worker's"...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• This whole discussion lacks a good sense of humor, and smack of being PC. Does anyone besides Merope really object to this? I personally don't think that it is POV. To me, this is a niggling little issue, but I also think that the award is redundant. I think that if we are going to change the name, we should rewrite the definition to separate it from the Barnstar of Diligence.

What about The Hard Workers Barnstar? --evrik 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the award is redundant, and I think that the whole problem could be solved by combining the two awards and having just the Barnstar of Diligence. I can't think of how the two awards are distinguished from one another, and furthermore, I can't think of how we could create a distinction between them. As for other people really objecting, the fact that someone other than myself changed it should answer that. Besides, it's not my fault that Wikipedia is made up of mostly male editors. -- Merope ^Talk 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I fully support merger of those barnstars, as I argued some time ago that the Diligence Barnstar is confusing. I think merging it with WMB is a good idea, and Evrik's proposal above for The Hard Workers Barnstar seems like a very nice solution to both problems.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose renaming the Working man's barnstar, because man is a gender neutral term to start with. I have no opinion on merging it with the barnstar of diligence. --tjstrf 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is the first time I heard a discussion about the name being offensive, though many people seem to have gotten this barnstar and no issues I heard so far. I am going to wait for more comments before I speak my mind on this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've looked over the various arguments and proposals, and here's the best idea the I have to offer. It is understood by most that we have three stars that, at the minimum, cross somewhat in their scope: {{The Working Man's Barnstar}}, {{ The Tireless Contributor Barnstar}} and {{The Barnstar of Diligence}}, therefore I propose that we collapse these three barnstars into two, in the following way:
  1. {{The Working Man's Barnstar}} should be retired from the "official" roster. Any effort to shoehorn its name into something politically correct will come across as awkward and artificial anyway, as such things tend to do.
  2. {{ The Tireless Contributor Barnstar}} should continue to be awarded in recognition of extraordinary quantity without sacrificing quality ("tireless Wikipedians who contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality").
  3. {{The Barnstar of Diligence}} should be modified slightly, so that it is awarded to recognize extraordinary quality, scrutiny, and/or precision. In this way it will complement the Tireless Contributor Barnstar instead of conflicting with it.

Hope my opinion is helpful. :) – ClockworkSoul 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree with this proposal. Even though I favor a gender inclusive name (and, no, "man" is not gender-inclusive), I wince at some of the suggestions because they sound too PC. ("Working Person" in particular bothers me, and "Worker" sounds like an award given in Soviet Russia.) In poking through about three dozen instances of the Diligence awards on userpages, it doesn't seem to be used solely for improving the Wikipedian community, as Deathphoenix claims. In my randomly selected group, it was awarded for as many different things as copyediting, sockpuppet investigation, fixing templates, admin coaching, AfD participation, editor reviews, deletions, using English well (?!), and, most frequently, for "your hard work." I see no harm in expanding the definition to include people who perform some of the least glamorous chores on WP. Perhaps conflating the two categories will further the notion that their efforts are valuable to the encyclopedia. -- Merope ^Talk 22:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, those are the originally-conceived use of these barnstars, even if people award them in other manners. One of the good things about barnstars is that it's relatively informal: people are free to award whatever barnstars they want, to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, even if it's contrary to the barnstar description (though it gets confusing for the awardee!). --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Technicallly, man is all inclusive ... hence "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" is redundant. Sorry, I was trying to be funny. --evrik 19:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There is certainly a difference between the Barnstar of Diligence and the Working Man's Barnstar. The BSoD is for people who work for the betterment of the community (ie, "community service"). The WMBS is for people who do a lot of the repetitive and laborious tasks. There is a difference between the two. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Note: this is in response to Merope's reqest that I lend my opinion on the matter of merging the WMBS with the BSoD

I personally like the "Working Man's Barnstar". It's an old and common phrase that still denotes hard work ethic and determination. It's not offensive in any way and should be taken as a compliment not as a misogynist insult. There isn't a better or more common phrase in the English language to represent the same exceptional qualities. If one can find such a phrase than I'd support it. - Patman2648 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, let me reiterate: I have never claimed that it is offensive. I do not think that it is misogynist. What I do maintain is that in a project with members who do not identify as "man", it makes sense not to have an award that is thus named. I realize that Wikipedia is made up of mostly men, but, please, try to think for a moment how it would feel to receive an award that is named after a group you do not belong to. -- Merope ^Talk 15:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

as the creator of the barnstar of diligence I'd like to point out that it's just another barnstar, and it doesn't really matter what it's awarded for. The point of a barnstar is to spread wikilove, and show some appreciation for another editor who has done something that's worth recognising. As for gender neutrality, I happen to be of the gender that has one broken X chromosome and one unbroken one -- I'm a man -- but I'd be pleased as punch to receive a barnstar called the 'Good Gal Award' or any other "female" award, an award is an award and it's the thought that counts. I'm pretty much against any codification or reorganising awards in any way. In my opinion being bold includes creating a new award for anything, any time it suits you, and give them away like Mardi Gras beads if you want. I don't think we need to change any existing awards or fix them to make them NPOV at all. WP:NPOV and WP:AGF imply6 that everyone is deserving of an award, just for the simple fact that they are giving their work to humanity for free. Barnstars for Everyone and Every Occasion wikipedia is not paper or gold and digital awards are free, and if you think 'award X' is not appropriate boldly make one that is, is the way I see it. Let's all get back to work. User:Pedant 03:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Man" is not gender exclusive nor is it an insult. Any change based on the idea that we might insult someone is an exersise in pandering to those who think they have the right to be offended at everything. This seems... silly to me. ---J.S (t|c) 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would feel pretty weird if somebody awarded me "The working woman's barnstar". - Mike | Talk 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat's aproach to the issue

I find this "political correctness" debate to be somewhat silly and not inline with wikipedias aproach to these awards, that they are no big deal. I however feel "man" can be replaced with "wikipedian" since man doesn't seems ambigious enough for some. In otherwords a "Working Wikipedians Award" or "Hardworking Wikipedians Award".

The barnstar of Diligence and WMB should stay as two seperate awards. It probably is prudent to estabish what they are for in greater detail.

--Cat out 16:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is also highly acceptable to me. It plays on the well-known phrase without being exclusive. -- Merope ^Talk 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummm. I'm struggling with the idea that gender-inclusiveness must always and everywhere mean gender-neutral. I'm all in favor of inclusiveness. I'm against gender-neutral. Being called a "working man" is a high compliment to a man (and may be to a woman; I wouldn't know). Strongly oppose retiring this barnstar or renaming it. Inclusiveness is achieved by increasing otions, not reducing and them. If you don't want to rec'v a working man barnstar, then design one that is more agreeable to your taste; don't dictate to other people what they are not permitted to buy/choose/wear/display. Is the world supposed to be limited to all and only those things that are agreeable to you? Thanks! --Ling.Nut 05:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Working MAN" is not NPOV. It should be gender-neutral, and I find it offensive that men seem to jump to knee-jerk conclusions (putting a negative stamp of supposed PC gone wrong, whereas gender equality is a basic human right) about "man" including "woman", because it DOES NOT. How would you men feel if you were awarded the "Working Woman's" star, eh? Because grammatically speaking, "woman" includes "man" (let alone biologically speaking--it's the women who carry the male babies out into this world), not the other way around. It would probably offend men. Besides, as we've been told time and time again in my Uni (Bath Spa University) by our professors, inclusive language is a sign of high-quality academic writing, so I agree with Cool Cat in that it should just be renamed to "Hard-working Wikipedian's" star. That includes everyone and doesn't piss us hard-working females off. All respect to you, dear WikiMales, just respect us WikiFemales in return, ok?:)--Snowgrouse 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Final resolution

Since there has been no consensus I believe the award should stay as it is. --evrik (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the policy in the face of no consensus, but I'm amazed it doesn't appear possible to agree on a gender-neutral name that doesn't sound politically correct. The first alternative I see above, for example – "Hard-working Wikipedian" in Snowgrouse's post – seems appropriate, so there's probably others as well. Maybe this issue needs a post at the Village Pump, Current surveys, etc...?  (Or have all these already been tried...?)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would be okay with Hard-working Wikipedian. --evrik ^(talk) 15:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Me too. Or stay the same either. Don't think we want a "Working Girl's barnstar". How about a Frilly Pink Barnstar of Lace and Awesomeness award? That's gender neutral User:Pedant 03:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd also be ok with Hard-working Wikipedian award. --Cat out 11:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it should stay as is. I generally don't like to soften names for long-established awards for the sake of political correctness.

--Deathphoenix 11:45, 20 November 2006

LGBT Barnstar

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• 
  Design 1
• 
  Design 1 sharpened per Evrik
• 
  Design 2
• 
  Design 3

User:Dev920 had proposed an LGBT Barnstar; I have come across this and, having too much time on my hands, have made these two designs. Only after uploading have I noticed these guidelines, so, trying to keep to the guidelines, am posting this here. I am no graphic designer, nor am I associated with LGBT, it's just... a bit time and I like to play with graphics a bit. I realise they are faaaa-har from perfect, so if the proposal is passed but the design does not, it's okay by me. Regards to all. --Ouro 13:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Design 1 I like the idea of the barnstar yet i am straight. Cocoaguy 03:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I think it's a good idea, even though I'm straight. I support Design 1 and oppose Design 2. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 18:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am also straight, but it makes no difference really. I also prefer the first one. --Ouro 18:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Design 1 - I think it is exactly what I was looking for and commend Ouro for his fine efforts! Dev920 (Please vote here) 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Design 1 is very nice, and if there isn't a LGBT barnstar there certainly ought to be one. Herostratus 06:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• I also prefer design 1 and I thank you for making a Barnstar for the LGBT Wiki community. Jeffpw 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• You have my vote for the first one. Good job! CaveatLector^Talk 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Design 2 Thanks for taking the time to do this! Yonmei 06:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't like either design. I think this should also be a wikiproject award for something like Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and not a barnstar. --evrik ^(talk) 15:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why wouldn't it count as a society barnstar (sexuality and society is in that category)? Dev920(Mind voting here?) 15:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there is broad enough support for a new barnstar ... and I still think the image needs work. --evrik ^(talk) 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not very helpful if you don't specify what needs work. Dev920(Mind voting here?) 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• It's not a very good image. I don't know what to tell you to do to improve it. --evrik ^(talk) 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a brilliant image. Why, then, do you disagree? There must be a reason, then an improvement. Sic probum est. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• The image is poorly executed, and it is blurry. --evrik ^(talk) 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to diagree, I think. I can see no blurriness or poor execution. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, Dev920. I see no blurriness at all, and I love the use of the Rainbow flag within the star. I don't see how somebody can say it is poorly executed, since it looks like any other Barnstar, except for the rainbow color. Trying very hard to assume good faith here:-s Jeffpw 22:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Evrik, I have sharpened the image, see above, although the difference is, if you ask me, minute. What do you think now? --Ouro 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• If I were to say which I liked the best, it would be the first image. I think that the first is the best use of color, but I don't think the colors are vibrant enough to make the star stand out. --evrik ^(talk) 14:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you make the colours too bright/vivid, then the characteristics of the barnstar itself begin to fade away and it dissolves and looks somewhat washed out. --Ouro 15:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I oppose this as a new barnstar - it's too specific. I would support it as a wikiproject award if it were adopted by a wikiproject. --evrik ^(talk) 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. LGBT covers a massive number of articles, well sufficent for a barnstar in its own right. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• See my comments about the wildlife barnstar. I think that the definition of the award needs to be well-defined. Is it just for Category:LGBT? I think the award is too narrow for a barnstar, but would not oppose it as a wikiproject award or a PUA. I'm still not thrilled about the image, and if the toipic is as broad as you say, what topical category would you have it cover? --evrik ^(talk) 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Seems to me the LGBT Barnstar fits right in on the Barnstar page under Topical Barnstars. If there are Barnstars given for sports articles, Current Events, Economics or even making templates, for God's sake, then there is certainly room for a LGBT Barnstar. Further, there are hundreds of LGBT articles, and the category is expanding. There are also many LGBT participants on Wikipedia who don't necessarily edit on LGBT topics, but contribute a great deal to Wiki. These are all valid reasons to have a LGBT Barnstar. I have already placed this Barnstar on a user's page, for their contribution in a gay related mediation (I note that the image tag allows copying), and received a very pleased reaction. Even if it is not adopted by Wikipedia, I will continue to use it as my own personal LGBT Barnstar to give out. Jeffpw 20:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What Jeff said. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I guess you guys have no interest in working through consensus, or even reading my comments. IMHO, these are the things that need to be done before this award needs to go forward:

1. Develop a better image.
2. Build broad support for the creation of a new barnstar, as opposed to a wikiproject award or a PUA. Right now only six people support the award.
3. Answer this: Is it just for Category:LGBT? Is it meant for Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies?
4. Write up a clear definition of the who what and why of the award.

Try addressing these issues. --evrik ^(talk) 20:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading them Evrik. But I'm also noticing you are the only one objecting to the image, you are the only one arguing for a wikiproject award instead of a barnstar, thus it appears to be you who are not interested in working through consensus. There are eight votes on here, and you are the only opposer. Try abiding by the consensus you claim I'm not working to, hmm? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are six comments in favor. The reason why I am suggesting a WikiProject award is because the threshold is a lot lower than for a barnstar. --evrik ^(talk) 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision:

Image	What to type	Category	Description
	{{subst:The LGBT Barnstar|message ~~~~}}	Category:LGBT. See Sexuality	The LGBT Barnstar is awarded to editors who make significant contributions to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender articles that expand Wikipedia’s knowledge about homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, typical behaviour, notable LGBT people, events and movements, sociological issues, and population statistics.

Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I like your Barnstar description, Dev, but I was wondering if it could be broadened to include "to anyone who identifies as LGBT and has made a significant contribution to Wikipedia as a whole". Jeffpw 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that would qualify as an Editor Award, and not a Barnstar, Jeff. I also suspect that that would be rejected by the community on the basis that it is restricted to a certain section of editors on the basis of their personal information. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Concur with Dev, Jeff. Reads nice and imho the way it should. --Ouro 08:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Dev - disagree with Jeff. Nicely written, Dev: nice design too. Yonmei 13:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So, what happens now? --Ouro 08:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to leave it up til December for anyone else to object, and then add it to the list. Do you want to take it down earlier? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 10:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• the common practice is to leave it up for at least two weeks. The way it is described right now, I think it is better as a WikiProject Award rather than a Topical Barnstar. -- evrik ^(talk) 15:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so until about December then. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've designed one; opinions?--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, why is it drssed in a cute little rainbow toga? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 08:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't some people do that in pride parades?--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

and it's meant to be a sash.--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs)

Well, I think it's sweet (I can't get over thinking of it as a cute little gay Roman barnstar), but I prefer mine (or Ouro's, as he made it). :) Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 14:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If I had to choose only one, I'd still go with my original choice (design #1); but I do like the rainbow toga one, too. Can't we have more than one Barnstar? Jeffpw 18:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's what this waiting period is for, to decide on a single barnstar. Sorry Jeff! Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 18:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, Dev. I'll be happy with whichever is decided, so long as the LGBT community gets a Barnstar. Jeffpw 20:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I like the image with the sash, Image:Ashadeslgbt.png. I think that if the nominator were content making this a WikiProject Award we could all agree on an image and post it to the page. I'm still not sure if there is enough support for a new "barnstar." --evrik ^(talk) 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Evrik, you're the only one who wants to make it a Wikiproject Award - everyone else who has voted on this wants it to be barnstar. Please stop pushing something nobody else agrees with and then claiming the alternative has no support. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments Dev, try not to single out evrik. Evrik is just trying to make sure that the barnstars contributed to Wikipedia are generally approved by the community and are a good addition to the Wikipedia awards offered. Most of his criticisms are meant to be constructive ones and they are not only meant to challenge the proposals but to make them better elaborate on the merit of adding the barnstar. Just wanted to add my two cents.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look previously, you will notice that we have heeded all of Evrik's criticisms - I have created the table thingy, we've produced a sharpened image etc. But Evrik continues to mention making it a Wikiproject award in every post, though it is clear that no-one agreed with that (except for the person below now). I have asked him to stop pushing his views, but he will not. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support 1 or 1 (sharpened) as Wikiproject award; it is broad enough to be a Wikiproject award, but is probably too narrow to be a full blown barnstar; we reserve those only for the most wide reaching topics; Science or Society are both very broad, while LGBT is really a subcategory of Society. Laïka 10:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but then so is the Business and Economics Barnstar, and that's in existence. In my opinion, LGBT studies encompasses every LGBT person, movement, event and about half of the sexuality articles. This is a massive and vast array of articles, and I think should have a barnstar. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't forget the Template making Barnstar, Dev. That's even narrower than the Economics one. I fail to see why a section of Wiki that has hundreds of articles is getting opposition about having its own Barnstar. I note that evrik proposed a "Human Rights" Barnstar, and there are far less articles in that category than in LGBT. So I guess my question is: Why the double standard?Jeffpw 14:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• No double standard ... the star itself was already in use and approved as the WikiProject Award for Philadelphia issues. --evrik ^(talk) 16:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In looking at the category the the Barnstar of Liberty addresses, I saw approx 260 articles. The LGBT category has roughly 1500. Let me rephrase my question: Why is the Human Rights catefory not considered too narrow for a Barnstar, but the LGBT category is? I'm going to have a look at the economics Barnstar now, but I am reasonably sure it will also have less articles related to it. Jeffpw 16:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It seems to be Human rights star which is the anamoly here, not LGBT star. Comics has at least 7,886, Aircraft over 2,100 articles; Architecture and Computing likewise cover 1,000s and 1,000s of topics, yet none of these are Barnstars. Besides this, I can count at least 600 human rights articles, and Category:Companies of the United States alone contains well in excess of 1,000 articles; I'd guess that Economics and Business could apply to well over 15,000 articles at least... Wikiproject Trains was rejected even a Wikiproject star, and they have over 7,000 articles. As you can see; 1,500 is actually fairly small even for a WP award. Nevertheless, I agree that it is an important part of culture, which is why I didn't recommend it become a Personal User Award as I would have with most similar awards. Laïka 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support 1 or 1 (sharpened) --Cat out 11:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support only as a project award - As it deals with only a comparatively small section of the larger subject of anthropology. I note that there is a large project dealing with this subject, but that does not mean that a project of similar size and activity covering business, economics, human rights, or similar larger issues would not have as many articles. Number of articles is not the determining criteria here, but the broadness of the field itself. Badbilltucker 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I don't understand you, Badbilltucker. The "field" of LBGT encompasses approx 250-500 million people on the planet. How much larger does this field have to be in order to be seen as important enough for a Barnstar?Jeffpw 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • One could just as easily say the "field" of insects covers several trillion insects, the "field" of foodservice covers a field probably as big, if not bigger, than this proposed award, and the "field" of astronomy covers an infinite number of astronomical objects, using each of these as cause for a general barnstar in each case. The number of articles is only related to the number of editors working on the subject, not the breadth and scope of the subject itself. Any groups of similar size dealing with any of these other subjects could doubtless produce more articles of generally at least the same level of significance. Badbilltucker 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • • Badbilltucker, I'm not sure you have an complete picture of what LGBT studies on Wiki actually is doing. If you look at the category and topics, you will see it is not only about political issues, but about the arts, sciences, law, religion, media, language and many other sub-topics. In short, it is a very broad-based project that branches into most other areas of Wiki--a microcosm of the real world, actually. That is why I feel that a topical LGBT Barnstar is both welcome and necessary.

If, after consensus is reached (which I don't see at all right now), the decision is taken to have this as a Project award, I will happily agree to it--providing, of course, that it is still called a LGBT Barnstar. That was the compromise that was reached with the Scouting Barnstar, and I think we can all agree that Wiki needs to be consistent in its policies.

Lastly, I would hope that all people interested in discussing this topic would return to civility. I find it ironic that a Barnstar, which should be something positive, is becoming the catalyst for some unpleasant bickering. For the record, I feel that you've been discourteous to Dev, and evrik (until this evening) was the only one who was objecting to this nomination. If you read the thread all the way through, you will see he objected to one thing after another, finding something new to object to after the previous objections were appeased. My assumption of good faith is being sorely tested. Jeffpw 21:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A large chunk of the debate immediately preceding my last comments has just disappeared. Does anybody know who edited them away, and why? Jeffpw 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dev920 removed the comments because it was an "irrelevant dispute" (from the history:"rming irrelevant dispute - hopefully it will not continue")--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I felt it was descending into a circular argument not related to the barnstar. Added to the unpleasant comments Badbilltucker has just added to my talkpage, I felt it wise to remove our dispute entirely. If this does not meet consensus, we can by all means put it back. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• The discussion was based upon the above party repeatedly seemingly failing to assume good faith on the part of anyone who disagreed with the award being given out, and interrogating anyone who disagreed with it being enacted as a generalized barnstar. If the standard rules of decorum can be followed from this point forward, and allow people who have honest disagreements to not be subject to cross-examination for their disagreements, then I think there is no reason to revive those comments. Badbilltucker 17:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind him, he's just upset that he threatened me with an ArbCom case and realised he couldn't actually open one. He also seems miffed that he can't have the last word on this matter, and keeps trying to falsely accuse me before insisting he doesn't want a reply when I defend myself. Why don't you simply stop attacking me Bill, and this whole thing will go away? You know, get on with the actual barnstar discussion, like I wrote above before you came in again to insult me? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• The latest revision is decent... I think this should be a topical barnstar, and definitely not a barnstar to be awarded to Wikipedians who identify as LGBT (such an award would be un-Wiki, IMO). --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support 1 or 1 (sharpened) I think the image is both in keeping with traditional barnstars and very clearly associated with LGBT imagery. Nicely done. vertium01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support #3, but #1 (sharpened) is okay, too... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support #3, but #1 is OK. -- tasc ^words_deeds 12:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

The two week discussion period is now up! There are currently 8 editors in favour of a barnstar (Dev920, Ouro, Cocoaguy, Springargh, Herostratus, Jeffpw, Deathphoenix, and Vertium), 3 for a Wikiproject award (evrik, smurrayinchester, and badbilltucker), and 4 (Caveatlector, Yonmei, Ashadeofgrey, catout, SatyrTN, and Tasc) whose contributions have been about the design and not the type. By my count were 9 supports of Design 1, 4 supports for Design 1(sharpened), 1 support for Design 2 and 3 supports for Design 3. I think a Design 1 Barnstar has it. I will add it to the Barnstar page now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wildlife Barnstar

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Note: A consensus is trying to be reached for the naming of this barnstar, please refer to the Consensus Building section.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Another barnstar I propose is a topical barnstar called The Wildlife Barnstar. I propose a design like this:

• 
  Version 1 uploaded Nov. 3, 2006¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Concerns: Uneven tips.
• 
  Version 2 uploaded Nov. 4, 2006¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Concerns: Uneven tips.
• 
  Version 3¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Concerns: Image seems blurry.
• 
  Version 4¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Concerns: Image seems too dark.
• 
  Version 5¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• 
  Version 4-Alternative (less shadows)¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• 
  Version 5-Alternative (less shadows)¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of rewarding this award would be to award it to editors who make significant contributions to wildlife articles.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision:

Image	What to type	Category	Description
	{{subst:The Wildlife Barnstar|message ~~~~}}	Category:Biology. See Biology	The Wildlife Barnstar is awarded to editors who make significant contributions to either wild or domestic animal related articles that expand Wikipedia’s knowledge about various animal species, habitats, behavior/characteristics, endangerment, and population statistics.

¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Support, barnstar tips seem to differ though. Also, do you propose this as a barnstar or as a WikiProject award? Michaelas10 (T|C) 16:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing this in general as a barnstar (topical).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposing use of this as a barnstar until the barnstar tips concern is fixed. Michaelas10 (T|C) 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestion as to what the tips need? Is the beveling on some of the sides bothering you or do you mean the size of the spokes or the lining up of the spokes? I uploaded a version 2 to even out the spokes and line them up a bit better.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You just made it worst. The left side of the barnstar needed to look exactly like right one, not the opposite. Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, the photoediter wouldn't cooperate, I'll see if I can find a better way to adjust the correct side.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok 3rd attempt at this variation to even out the tips. I may not try another on this variation as per Badbilltucker's vote unless its a truly wanted design.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Support version 4 alternative Support version 5 Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral I'd like to see th award better defined. --evrik (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok how does this work: The purpose of rewarding this barnstar is to award editors who make significant contributions to wildlife articles such as extensive detailing of species origin, habitats, behavior/characteristics, population statistics, etc.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Question - I'm serious here. How do you define "wildlife" in this instance? Are you referring only to species found primarily in the wild, or also to other species (horses, dogs, cats, rabbits, whatever) which also appear frequently in relation to human society? My reason for asking is that, at this point, I know of no barnstars which can be awarded for these more domesticated species, and think that that situation should probably be rectified. Badbilltucker 20:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The barnstar could possibly be applied for both wild and domestic species of wildlife if the editor demonstrates the following achievements of merit listed above.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Support barnstar, because we don't really have any barnstars for contributions on biology of any species but human. However, I might favor a different design. Badbilltucker 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - We DO have a barnstar for contributions on biology - it's called the "Bio-star" Dyanega 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I like how you design the barnstar. --Jacklau96 01:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support; I'm sick of having to use the bio-star instead of being more specific. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 04:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The image is kinda blurry. --evrik ^(talk) 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok no problem, how does version 4 look?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's better. I woiuld also like to see the name or the scope better defined. If this to be a topical barnstar, I would like to see it's description fully developed before it gets placed. --evrik ^(talk) 14:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• as an aside, this award hasn't had a great deal of support. --evrik ^(talk) 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok I updated the revision and attempted to define it as much as possible.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Great. Now, I think that we need a groundswell of supporters. --evrik ^(talk) 19:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Silly question. How many supporters is required for a "groundswell"? I've left messages on all of the "Tree of Life" project pages, and hope that however many responses we get is enough. Badbilltucker 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • It's undefined, but it should be more than a handful, and the award should be up for comment for at least a couple of weeks. --evrik ^(talk) 16:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - It looks great and is a welcome alternative to the bio barnstar -- Serephine ♠ talk - 15:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support the concept. Some comments though -- I think the first of the four versions is best; all that extra shadowing just seemed to make it worse. Also, perhaps it might be called the "zoologist's barnstar" rather than the "wildlife barnstar". --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Since the shadows are a matter of personal taste I created an alternative image of version 4 with less shadows. If it still looks like it needs work by all means I allow anyone to work with the provided images.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I suggest that the words "contributions to both wild and domestic wildlife articles" in the guideline be changed to "contributions to either wild or domestic wildlife articles". Overall I support the award. Nick Thorne 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good suggestion, I made the minor change to the description.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support version 5- Additional comment: I support version 5 of the star, it seems to be the clearest one of the lot. Nick Thorne 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but will oppose unless... the image is made slightly lighter. The image at the moment is way too dark to tell what it actually is. I like the idea, but not actually the star... Thanks, Spawn Man 06:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, image lightened.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Not much else to say, good work!--Kugamazog 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support v.5 alternative Good design. Great idea. ↔ ANAS - Talk 18:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose unless and until someone changes the Wikipedia article to reflect this new definition of Wildlife. Dang those pesky plants, they seem to think that just because they only create and fuel the world animals are able to live in, they're important or part of the wild life of an ecosystem. Or who knows what they think, other than those investigating their secret lives. Traditionally animals are wildlife. At least someone up there realizes that this is the Zoologist's barnstar, not the wildlife one--oh, drat, it's yet another tree-hugger, Ginkgo100. KP Botany 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I realize that the primary focus in the proposal is animals however notice "habitat" in the description. Animal habitats refer as well to the ecosystems, plants, and other living things that are contained in their environment. If the name is misleading I allow those involoved to vote for a name better suited for the barnstar if it is a major problem.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, everything about it is about animals, only habitats as they relate to animals are included (animal... habitats), and all the arms of the star are about animals, or so it seems. If it is about wildlife the entire focus should not be about animals. If it's about "animals only" it should be called the zoologist's barnstar, not the wildlife one. It's either wildlife and there's more than a single passing and off-hand reference to plants, with no visual representation of the plant world, or it's about zoology. This one is, thus far, about zoology, not wildlife. And if it is about animal habitats, really, then it includes all sorts of things that aren't wildlife in addition, like the waters of the ocean--and maybe there are some awesome marine geologists who should get a wildlife barnstar. It has a nice sound to it, and is attractive in relation to its name, however its name already means something different than what is intended by the descirption and visualization, so, yes it is misleading. KP Botany 23:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Alright then, a rename might be the best solution. Adding on to the description would seem a bit contradictory as you pointed out due to the design. It is not exactly easy to encompass a design which will visually satisfy all that you describe. As one minor note, retrofitting this award to include plants/living things might confuse it with the pre-existing Bio-star (as concerns have been raised above), which is what I'm trying to avoid, seeing as this is aiming to be more select to that field of biology. So, all that being said, it can easily be discussed to rename the barnstar or someone can propose their design which will visually satisfy a description that includes plants/living things. Either way I hope to see editors get the chance to recieve recognition with this kind of barnstar.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaming is fine by me if your original intention was to honor someone who works in zoology, as it seems. I recently did a SuggestBot request (the SuggestBot request page) and was crushed by the low quality of some of the animal articles it recommended for me to work on, and with some of the related articles I looked at. I can't find information anywhere about the Bio-star, though, so it wouldn't conflict with a non-existing barnstar--maybe it once existed, but no more. KP Botany 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• The OED defines wildlife thus "noun the native fauna (and sometimes flora) of a region". I think we should stick with the common usage of fauna. I am not convinced that we should include domesticated animals, perhaps there would be scope for another barnstar for that category as I believe there may be for plants if people feel that strongly about it. I do not like the word zoology in this context because of the implications regarding keeping animals for display etc. If we really do feel we need to change the name, perhaps we could call it the Fauna (or perhaps Faunal) Barnstar. Then there would be no confusion. Nick Thorne 20:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly support with name changed to Fauna Barnstar. AshLin 09:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus Building

Shall we reach a consensus? The award has been up for proposal for nearly a month now and mostly there is support for its creation. Shall we begin to reach a consensus for an image and a name if there are no other oppose or neutral opinions to voice? As a recap names that have been proposed for this star are:

• The Wildlife Barnstar (original)
• The Zoologist Barnstar
• The Fauna Barnstar
• The Animal Barnstar
• The Animalia Barnstar
• The Wild Kingdom Barnstar

And the images that have been proposed can be viewed up in the gallery section.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 09:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support in ascending order, 4 alternate, 5, and 5 alternate as best choices. Support in ascending order, Animal Barnstar, Fauna Barnstar, and Wildlife Barnstar. While I acknowledge that Animal Barnstar is most obvious, it is also the hardest to define, and I think Wildlife, although occasionally inaccurate, does the best job of conveying the intended scope of the barnstar. Oppose name Zoologist Barnstar as it seems to me that the name could be seen as making it apply only to those who work on articles relating directly to Marlin Perkins and other zoologists. Badbilltucker 15:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support only if it is not named the Wildlife Barnstar, or else, if this is the name chosen, someone should rewrite Wikipedia's definition of Wildlife to conform to the new meaning. Having a hard time with this general Wikipedia tendency to disown Wikipedia articles as sources of information on Wikipedia whenever convenient to do so. Otherwise Strongly oppose continued systematic bias against plants. Why not "Wild Animal Barnstar?"KP Botany 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support 5 alternate, Fauna Barnstar Nick Thorne 06:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - If someone can come up with a specific term which includes almost all animalia but also clearly rules out the inclusion of homo sapiens, that would clearly be best, I think, given that I don't think this barnstar is intended to be applied to people. And I thought by the inclusion of only animal related items in the barnstar picture that it was clearly only applying to animalia. Also, I personally would support a different Plant Barnstar, or maybe Tree of Life Barnstar, if someone were to propose it. The Plants might count only as a project barnstar, maybe, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants deals with the entire scope of the proposed barnstar, but it would still be a specifically available barnstar. Badbilltucker 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• So far the image v.5 alternative seems generally agreed upon but as Badbilltucker said the name is still an issue. I still can't quite put my thumb on a name which will best describe the barnstar and there is still split consensus as far as which to pick, brainstorms are much appreciated at this point. Also as one minor note, I tweaked the description in the revision to make sure people understand it is mainly for awarding animal-related contributions.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Update: After reading the Animal article for some ideas I am adding these two more names to the proposal list: The Animalia Barnstar & The Wild Kingdom Barnstar.

• Support either version 5 or its alternative for an image. Support either "Animalia Barnstar" or "Fauna Barnstar" for a name; these seem to be by far more general than others, just like a barnstar should be. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Verion 4 alternative - and I'm fairly ambivalent about the name. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support version 5, fauna barnstar; not all editors of animals pages consider themselves zoologists; what about ecologists for example? IronChris | (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support #5 as Topical Award. Or maybe tropical... :-) NauticaShades 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Update: I think it is safe to leave the proposal 1-2 more days before closing, considering how long it has been I think a fair consensus can be reached. If I understand correctly the image which seems most agreed upon is V. 5 alternative and the name seems to be leaning more toward The Fauna Barnstar. If no other comments are left after 1-2 days I'll create the template and post it up on the barnstar page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Could you repost the final versioin and description here. I'm confused as to what was agreed on. --evrik ^(talk) 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sure no problem evrik, however it is not being agreed upon yet. Unless more votes come in that are drastically different the final version may be something like this (this is based on the votes which leaned toward using the image V. 5 alternative and the name The Fauna Barnstar).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Closing and Finalizing

Now that a month of discussion has passed for the addition of this barnstar I am closing and finalizing the proposal. Based on consensus reached above the most agreed up image was V. 5 alternative and the name shall be The Fauna Barnstar. I will create the template and add the barnstar to the topical section now.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, how many people supported it? How many opposed? What is the final outcome? What is the rule, if any, that this met, for adding this particular barnstar? KP Botany 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a breakdown of the finalization:

Support= 14 votes (not counting duplicates for name or image votes)

Neutral= 1 vote

Oppose= 1 vote

The final outcome seemed a support to create this barnstar to commemorate users, as mentioned, who have contributed to animal-related articles in an exemplary manner to the critera listed in the final proposal box below.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Final Version:

Image	What to type	Category	Description
	{{subst:The Fauna Barnstar|message ~~~~}}	Category:Biology. See Biology	The Fauna Barnstar is awarded to editors who make significant contributions to either wild or domestic animal related articles that expand Wikipedia’s knowledge about various animal species, habitats, behavior/characteristics, endangerment, and population statistics.