Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 10

MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 4 June 2007. The result was keep. Xoloz 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar: Gender and Class

Why is this called "The Working Man's Barnstar? Surely a gender-neutral title would be a simple and less anachronistic choice. I would suggest that the name of this award would be far less shrill to non-patriarchal ears if it were updated to "The Worker's Barnstar" or "The Labourer's Barnstar" or something along those lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:58, 6 July 2006

  • I definitely agree with you on that. There are lots of women working on Wikipedia as well, and I do a lot of spelling/grammar corrections--hard work for the nit-picker, and I don't want to be called a working MAN, because I'm not a man!--Snowgrouse 18:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Good question. Take it up on Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals. --evrik 13:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • While this is at least 100 years old, Man doesn't always refer to males, it can refer to humanity in general. -- febtalk 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it is more of an expression. The working person doesnt sound very good does it. thuglas T|C 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • How you think it sounds? That's hardly objective. Cheeser1 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Look in the Proposal Archives. this was discussed last year at great length. -_evrik (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion belongs here:Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes

--evrik (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Moved discussion over to that page, leaving it here for now too. Please note additional comments there.A mcmurray (talkcontribs) 06:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

The Barnstar for most pointless Wiki bureaucracy encountered by me thus far goes to this page and its creators and maintainers. Congratulations!!!

Andreas 08:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes!Dryzen 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Barnstar for most sarcastic and simultaneously useless Wikipedia edit goes in a two-way tie to the above two posts by me. :-) Congratulations!

Well done me. :-) Andreas 15:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Want to propose a change to our barnstar and award roster?
Visit Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals!

Template talk:Barnstarpages

re WP:SERVICE awards

So what's the status of this page? Are these loathsome, or sublime? User:Evrik doesn't think they ought to be in {{Barnstarpages}} while I think they should... what steps need to be taken to get these on {{Barnstarpages}}, if indeed they should be there? Are there improvements to be made, communities to be consulted, or what? Herostratus 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the proposal here and on surface inspection, it was archived by Ed before it could really have any meaningful discussion. You mentioned on Evrik's talkpage that there was a lot of support, which I assume was on the VP discussion - I'm just trying to find that now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I found the discussion here, and it seems to me that there was no consensus reached. I think you should either repropose this or put it up for delisting, because evrik's actions were right in this instance. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the question is not about the awards, but about their listing on {{Barnstarpages}}. I think too many editors have voted with their feet on the awards to take it back to the small group that watches Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals. There isn't really a forum (as far as I know) for whether they should be listed on {{Barnstarpages}}. I think they should; you and evrik think they shouldn't. That's three people, so far... how can this be resolved? Can the question of listing on {{Barnstarpages}} be taken to Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals? That seems odd, but who knows? Herostratus 02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The awards were never approved by the community. The reason evrik removed them from the template was because of that fact. The listing on the template comes with approval bestowed by the community. When the awards were listed, it gained approximately 50% approval at best. Unfortunately Ed archived it early, IMO - but that doesn't change the fact that consensus was never reached, and it thus connot be considered as an official award. I urge you to relist on New Proposals and we'll advertise the listing on the Village Pump and elsewhere. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hrm. "Approved by the community" is slippery concept. They have been "approved" in the sense that scores of editors are using them. One school of thought about policies etc. is that they are, or should be, mainly codification of current practice... at any rate, it would seem wrong to bring the awards themselves to Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals where handful of editors - fewer than are actually using the awards - could reject them. No way am I willing to participate in any process where the awards could be destroyed... they are too much in use for that to make sense. I'm willing to take the question of whether they should be listed in {{Barnstarpages}} to discussion, though. Is that possible? Herostratus 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, no. Inclusion on the template is based upon consensus from the community. If tons of editors are using these awards (though I confess I have yet to see any editors doing so) then it is a straightforward matter to quickly achieve consensus. Advertising on the VP and CP (and contacting the current users of the awards, obviously) seems to me the best way of ensuring "a handful of editors" does not represent the community, but if that's what happens, that's what happens. But it seems obvious that consensus never was reached and that quite a few in the community were against awards based on people, not edits. Now, you can either propose it and we'll let the full listing run and gain as much community input as possible, which will also solve this template problem, or I can submit it to MfD and get a definitive decision from more than a handful of editors. Frankly, I don't care about the result (though if they're kept I think the service names need to change), but consensus is lacking from the larger community on this issue. I can't believe I got the words "consensus" and "community" that many times into this paragraph. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Argh. I said "scores", not "tons". Obviously you're not going to get "tons" of editors using the awards if nobody knows about them. Talk about catch-22. Sending this to MfD would be an egregiously unfriendly act. What the hell kind of project is this, anyway? If your purpose is to destroy awards, shouldn't you make that clear in the project title and so forth? Sheesh. If you "don't care about the result", what the hell are you doing in a project like this? I disagree with the whole premise of your action, if you send this to MfD. You know as well as I do that a bunch of people who know and care nothing about organizational development and volunteer motivation are going to screech "Editcountitis! Editcountitis! Squarrrk!" and join up with the No Fun Brigade to quash these. It is perfectly valid that a large number of users may find these awards to be pleasing and motivational and still constitute a minority. People who don't care for these awards should not use them and leave the rest of us alone, and people who don't care about the awards should not be voting on them. And people who "don't care about" the care and feeding of volunteers should't be associating themselves with a project which at least ostensibly is designed for that purpose. Herostratus 18:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I joined this project because I was concerned about the smooth running of our awards system, not because I intended to force my thoughts on proposed awards through the process. I don't care about whether most of the awards stay or go, what I care about is that the community has the opportunity to accept or reject them. You are taking a very strange attitude to this in refusing to submit WP:SERVICE to any kind of community scrutiny. If the community is happy with it, than it will remain; if likely to delete it, then it shouldn't exist anyway. Simply claiming that people who don't like it should stay away is silly, why should we if it is rejected by the community? Should we shut down AfD because people who don't want articles on Wikipedia should just not read them? Come on. Be civil, open a proposal, and let's get on with it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't have a smooth running awards system if you don't have any awards, which is where all this seems to be tending. What do you mean anyway, all or almost all of the awards are given by users individually, how does that need you to run it smoothly? Look. It seems incontrovertible that the only purpose of having awards is to further the encyclopedia. Awards don't write articles, so their only contribution is to morale. Right? Awards that contribute to motivation are good. WP:SERVICE contribute to motivation, and even if they didn't they certainly don't detract from it. Whether the No Fun Brigade and other non-expert editors who don't understand or care for this sort of thing are willing to be busybodies about it is of mild interest but not really germane, and not indicative of community acceptance, which can be determined by usage as well or better than six people voting.

Anyway, to the extent that you or other members of this project don't get what awards are about, I certainly question whether you should be attempting own or oversee {{Barnstarpages}}, therefore I am restoring the version of January 3rd. Herostratus 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • and I am removing it until you get some agreement from the people here. --evrik (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, well, I'm going to MfD this then, because I have grave concerns about awards based on people and not edits, and with no consensus ever achieved, this needs to be sorted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Who are "the people here"? Right now it looks like evrik and Dev20. I'm not at all sure I understand what this project is about and until I do I'm not sure sure, as I said above, that it ought to be entrusted with anything. Herostratus 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You're getting very emotional about this, chill. I only ever wanted consensus on this issue and the MfD is providing that. Consider what a ringing endorsement you just got! The awards are untouchable now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Very good. Yes I was surprised to see the result. OK. Can they now be restored to {{barnstarpages}}, is there any objection to this. Herostratus 12:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in my view that's absolutely fine. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Archived all 2006 discussions. I left a few which seem to be either still active or still *relevant* (you might say ;)) Wjhonson 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this WikiLove?

I've been reading through the discussions here, and I'm sorry, but I believe that this whole ... program has gotten political in the sense that rather than really handing out awards to good editors, which is the project's goal, it is simply a battleground for wars on minor syntax errors or all that cordinator shit going on up there. I mean ... really? It's so ironic that it's unbelievable - I don't know what it is about this project. I understand that some debate needs to go on since the barnstars are official - but there have been outright attacks on editors, through name calling, accusations, etc. I mean pardon the crude similee, but this is like Omar al-Bashir going throughout Africa to end genocide. I know this all seems very pointless- but what I'm getting at is evidentley there is a problem with this project - and I'm not sure how to fix it, my point is that it needs to be fixed.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
good point - I'm giving you this barnstar thing Dr Spam (MD) 11:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Laughing point.svg HAHAHAHAHA "barnstar thing"... I award you the laughing point (PUA: for users who make one laugh ;) Rosa 02:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


There's a lot of concern been expressed recently about the few numbers who are actually voting regularly. What do people think of having a weekly bulletin that anyone can sign up to receive that will give them a quick update of what's new, what's archived and the current status of the proposals? That way people can vote on what they want, and we have a cool way of monitoring the development of proposals. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this project, so I'm not sure how things work around here, but in my view having a bulletin updating users on newly qualified barnstars is a must, so the lesser used barnstars that are new are used more. also, i think this bulletin should be made more obviously available, i.e., it could even have a small space in the Village Pump, so users who are not really involved in this process can also see new awards. however, whether to include current status and archived proposals is a debatable issue. Smomo 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, the idea was definitely to distribute it to non-members. I was thinking, when I said current status, something like the RfA report, but calculated on a weekly basis. Maybe just a quick note should be added about whether an award was promoted or archived would be better? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on intro.

Evrik's reverting me again on the basis of no discussion, so I open it to you all. Which version of the intro to Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals, mine, or Evrik's? I cleaned up the turgid prose and simplified the instructions and guidelines on the actual page, removing the transcluded intro, which I saw as pointless transclusion. Your thoughts? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't they basically the same thing? Wait, you are not seriously telling me that huge wheel war above is due to those two different versions of that page? You do realise that the changes between them are minor? Please don't tell me that was what that was all about, because that, quite frankly, is ridiculous. Smomo 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The dispute to which you refer was over the edits of the main page, but particularly over my removal of the coordinator section. This is a different one, one that I want to head off early here before it turns into another stupid revert war because of "lack of discussion". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The page was designed to have the transclusion because when it had all the elements together the page was difficult to load. It works fine as it is and should stay that way. Also, Dev920 introduced her version without running it by anyone. --evrik (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you not also agree evrik, and lets be honest here, that you introduce changes or make decisions without really running them by anyone? Smomo 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The point is that many of these changes were done to improve the efficiency of the page and changing them without first discussing them many be counterproductive. --evrik (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And the question I am asking is "Do they improve the page?". Because it seems to me that Evrik will never agree with any edit I ever make, so let's have some outside community input. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking truthfully, I dislike both of them. That section needs to be entirley redesigned to be made much easier to understand. In a way, a good example of what i mean is WP:GAC, which, on the right, makes it very very clear what has to be done with an easy step-by-step process. That is what should be available to users here, in my opinion. :) Smomo 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Lol. I'm playing with my utterly adorable but utterly terrified guinea pig at the moment, but I'll see what I can do. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

--evrik (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Created a draft at the address above. Please make any changes you feel necessary. Smomo 22:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Suits me. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, before acting, I would like to reach some sort of consensus so I don't get winged at later by anyone. Can people please post here as to what they think needs to be done (if anything). The only problem with reaching consensus is that often people just don't post on a subject, ever, or only one or two people post their views, especially in a small project like this one, and then when changes are implemented, people start moaning that proper consensus wasn't reached, even though they didn't take the time to post themselves. Anyway, give me some comments. Smomo 17:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • To me, the columns are confusing. Also, should there be an attempt to discuss size and shape of images? What about national awards? That was never addressed and simply put off (see Archive 14). One thing that has been said many times, but never codified is "... any person or group can have an award and they can list it on the PUA page, to list it on the other pages they first have to be vetted by the community. --evrik (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I've made some chages, as to what evrik said. I need to have more input on the size shape of images, and national awards, and everyone must discuss them before we can go ahead and add it. Also, to people looking at a preview of the page, you must be aware that the contents box will not be visible and when the page is transcluded onto the proposals page the headings line up properly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smomo (talkcontribs) 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I like the proposal. Highlighting the rules better may have haleped me avoid the issues I had with my Congressional Wiki Project Barnstar proposal.--Dr who1975 19:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've been bold and updated the intro page to reflect the draft. If anyone has a problem with this, rather than just reverting my edit straight off the bat, please mention it here first so we can discuss the problem. Thanks, Smomo 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put it directly on the page because it's easier to edit and so there's actually a lead section. It looks much better than before, good effort Smomo! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
While I would probably agree with you that it looks better without transclusion, evrik seemed to be pretty set on the idea it should be transcluded. I'm not entirely sure why, he didn't say, but I expect he will make his views known soon enough, and we can decide if this needs to be addressed again. Seems a bit of a minor point, but evrik seemed to have pretty strong reasons, so it would be nice to hear why. Smomo 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible reorganization

It seems to me, having given the subject only a cursory review, that part of the problem here might be the fact that it is an independent project. A project who has, as a part of its scope, the duty to help determine which if any other projects should be giving out awards and what those awards should look like is very likely going to encounter bad feelings whenever it does anything anybody disagrees with. Perhaps it might work if the award recognition process were to have a set of individuals who regularly take part in the discussions. Maybe it might be possible to encourage the coordinators or other semi-official leaders of the various WikiProjects to regularly take part in the discussions? By doing so, you would be more likely to ensure that the results are generally acceptable and that there is a sufficient number of parties involved to ensure that all sides are represented. Of course, I have no clue how such a thing could ever be practically accomplished. John Carter 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, anyone is welcome to sign up. I should point out that this project doesn't "guard the gate", it keeps it nice and oiled. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's never been true. There has always been a certain amount of gatekeeping, That's what the WP:PUA page is for, those who couldn't make it past the gate. If you don't believe me, look at the archives. --evrik (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, various leaders from other WikiProjects could be invited by someone to sign up here. Smomo 16:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternately, it could be created as a kind of task force of the Council, if and when the proposed reorganization of projects takes place. I would personally think that group might be the best place to discuss all activities specific to projects which might benefit from outsider involvement, like creation of project awards. John Carter 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think that's a great idea. Do you want to mention that at the Council page or shall I? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Purple barnstar to not include medal

An anonymous user left me a message today [2] with a good point about the purple barnstar. Which I quote here:

Your web site graphic of the purple heart "barnstar" is inappropriate and offensive to members of the United States Armed Services who suffered injuries to be awarded the medal. Reducing the purple heart to something awarded to wikipedians involved in anti-vandalism efforts seems disingenuous and is in bad taste. Please consider what message you are trying to send by posting this item on your user page, and whether it reflects poorly on the wikipedia community.

I agree with their opinion so perhaps the image should be changed so that it does not include an actual image of the medal, but instead is just purple. I don't have the graphic talent to makes the change, so I will leave it up to others to change should we agree to make the change. -- Gogo Dodo 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice point, if you think it should be changed, you can open a discussion at Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals under the 'Changing exisiting awards proposals' section and see what people think. Thanks! Smomo 22:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ooops, wrong place. Sorry. Message copied to Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals#Purple barnstar to not include medal. -- Gogo Dodo 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar naming discussion

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Barnstar#Naming? that might interest folks who hang out here. Pjbflynn 23:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Page naming

Does it bother anyone else that Wikipedia:WikiProject awards and Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards are two completely different pages? I think it would be less confusing if we avoid giving two project pages identical names except for capitalization – Qxz 16:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I never noticed that before. What would you suggest? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggecting renaming/moving Wikipedia:WikiProject awards to Wikipedia:Awards by WikiProject for more clarity and to prevent confusion. If we do so, I'd recommend changing the shortcut and checking What links here to make sure we can fix any links we might break. Thoughts? Vassyana 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
A bit clunky. What about Wikipedia:Awards WikiProject? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars

I have just started a article with the title mentioned above. Perhaps, it would be interesting contributing\starting with me to this list; it might be fun if their is some kind of a competition between several users, to be on top of that list! When it is finished, their can be added subcategories, mentioning what type of awards the users have, from who, for what, and what kind of contributions they add. So, what do you say; might be interesting?

the Old and respectable Kashwialariski 15:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would question both the value of the article to wikipedia and the possibility that, after its creation and initial expansion, several people might try giving a greater number of awards to people they like simply to improve their placement on the list. If that were to happen, whatever value the awards might have would probably sink to nil as people try to improve their favorites' places in the standings. John Carter 18:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I utterly oppose this idea. Barnstars are personal awards from one wikipedians to another, they should not be seen as some symbol of status. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I have plenty of barnstars and other awards, they do not mean much, so having a list like this would not be useful to Wikipedia as a whole. Honestly, that list is e-peen counting at its worst. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I want a Biography Barnstar

If you go on my page you will see loads of Contributions please give me one

Czesc26 (UTC)

We are not responsible for giving out Barnstars on Wikipedia - that is done by the users themselves at their own discression. I'm afraid you can't just go around asking for Barnstars - you have to wait for someone to recognize your good work and give you one. Try joining WikiProject Biography and people might notice your contributions more. Smomo 18:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Unfortunately Smomo's right. If you want to give yourself something I suggest you look at WP:SERVICE--Dr who1975 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Is it just me, or is it just odd that WP:BS links here? I'm finding this rather ironic. bibliomaniac15 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't redirect here, it redirects to the Barnstar's page, and thats not ironic at all. Go and do something useful. Smomo 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding to guidelines

I would like to add to the 'How to use section' that I originally wrote that users should check to see if other Barnstars cover their proposed idea first. If anyone has a problem with this, leave your comments here. Smomo 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I think there should be a Mentor's Barnstar Sethdoe92 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Please head over to WP:BAP an submit an official proposal, using the guidelines on the page. Thank you. Smomo 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


What is the pencil and paper barnstar for? Plz respond on my discussion page (complaints department) Ootmc Signme!Complaints Dept. 21:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiHalo is supposed to be the most prestigious award here is it not?

So how can this be acceptable? 6 editors, most of whom belong to one WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies [announced here]) "vote" in favour and voila, it's given? With all due respect, I don't think dev920 is in the same league as Jimbo and Angela. --kingboyk 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this even matter? IvoShandor 20:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Not greatly, no, but then does anything? --kingboyk 10:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope. But then, Jimbo and Angela were given honorary awards and were never actually proposed. And also I can't help it if no-one knew about it except WP:LGBT (someone else told them, I had nothing to do with the entire process). I proposed a reform process so that we could subsequently promote the awards and make them more meaningful, but unfortunately Evrik got involved and the whole process has stalled. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not criticizing you (sorry if I gave that impression) and no doubt you deserve a ton of barnstars, but it just seems odd that an award User:Phaedriel (one of the most popular Wikipedians ever, I'd wager) declined because she felt she wasn't worthy is now being given out like candy :) 6 people, mostly from your WikiProject, giving the nod in a not-advertised nomination for our top award (?) isn't really a strong display of consensus. I'd prefer to see 50, at least - and you may well get 50 supporters, too! --kingboyk 10:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am really all for that, but I didn't think there was any point in requiring that until we hit a critical mass of voters. If you look through the edit history, you'll notice I rewrote all the pages and had a large number deleted, but Evrik decided to argue over the requirements to stand. If we do ever get them settled, I'd like to promote the award through VP, AN, and the Signpost and get some more people voting on it. I'd really like to see 50 people supporting a Wikihalo nomination, but I don't think that many people know about it... :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And you haven't mentioned all of the "illegal" wikihalos that I've seen around. Well, I'll try do a cleanup. Let's try to bring this award back to life. I think we can recreate back the Wikihalo discussion page, there's a lot to discuss. I support a one month long discussion for every nomination, this isn't a joke, but our highest award. I also understand Kingboyk concerns, yes, 50 votes is a good standard. But we must make this process known. I'll ask AzaToth if he can make a Qxz Ads for us. Any one has ideas on how to "advertise" this award? BTW, I'm starting to nominate a bunch of wikipedians who I think deserve this award. Also, I support the removal of the need of nominee's acceptance: if this is Wikipedia's highest award, then nobody can refuse it. It's only the community who can decide if somebody deserve it or not. Happy editing everybody, Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 12:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the Wikihalo being the top Wikipedia award, I tend to disagree. There is no scheme of saying one award is higher than another, these should be no big deal, like adminship. It is turning into an MMORPG with the awards. Regardless, if yall want to revive the award, you have my blessing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure about that. I wasn't very keen on the idea when Phaedrial got nominated, and my good friend Lar argued a point well (basically that if anybody deserved she did, but that the whole idea didn't sit too well with him). Put it another way, I'm not too fussed if it stays or goes, but if it stays it shouldn't (imho) be handed out like candy. --kingboyk 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How about announcing nominations for the award on, say, the village pump? I see that there are currently 2 eminent Wikipedians nominated; I'm sure they'd get a lot of support if people only knew about it :) --kingboyk 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. I'll do it right now ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if we're going to hype it that much, we should announce nominations on the community portal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Announced in the Village pump (news). Dev920, I'm not quite familiar with the community portal :-( Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle

I'm not sure where to fit the idea of the triple crown: awards for editors who get a new page into Did you know, write a good article, and contribute a piece of featured content. Should this link from the bottom of the personal user awards page? DurovaCharge! 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, slot it in wherever you want it to go. Great idea, btw. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll link from the bottom of the PUA page. DurovaCharge! 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP BS redirect.

Hi all. Wonder if I could get your thoughts on something - Is there any chance that we could take out the WP:BS redirect to get to the Barnstar page please? I don't know about the US or other countries, but in the UK, BS often refers to something as "Bullsh*t". Take for example, the redirect WP:CB, which refers to the Wikipedia essay WP:Complete Bollocks - do we really need to look at changing the BS redirect? Your thoughts and comments are welcome. Thor Malmjursson 12:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Peronsally, no, I do not think this is an issue. Yes, the letters BS are sometimes used to refer to 'bullshit' over here, but lets remember that Wikipedia is not censored, and therefore I don't think that any sort of change is necessary. If anyone is laughing at this at Wikipedia's or anyone else's expense, they can chuckle all they want as far as I'm concerned. Smomo 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I just want to say, WP:BS is how I got here. Don't change it. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 18:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User page awards - why?

Why are there awards for having great/pretty/beautiful/nice userpages? How do they help the project? Why do we want to reward this behaviour? Stevage 04:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Because new users like it. Also, I believe it's partly a leftover from Esperanza and its culture. Nominate it for removal, and I'll support. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll support a removal too. I imagine the only thing they do is distract users from improving the encyclopedic side of Wikipedia and instead make them focus on decorating something which is secondary to actual articles. GizzaChat © 12:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
*shrug* Unless people are going around looking for people to nominate this award to... or people are working specifically on their userpage all day... I don't see a huge problem with it. I have one, and I don't edit my page much. The EA one was a problem because it was actually something people were working towards - this one is more incidental. – Riana 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this award is good in principle, but not in its current form. Many user pages offer very interesting content, which does help the project - or at least, people's knowledge. I'm talking about interesting factoids, DKY, excellent photo galleries, etc. On the other hand, especially well-designed or good-looking user pages are usually a result of bored Wikipedians who spend all day editing their user page instead of focusing on the main space, where their contributions may be more needed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar etiquette?

Should a section be written (or does one exist elsewhere) on Barnstar "etiquette"? For example, it should be placed on the receiver's talk page, but does the receiver move it to his user page or should it remain on the talk page? Is it customary for the receiver to thank the giver, or is this unnecessary? How important is it for a receiver to "return the favor" and award a barnstar to the giver? Hoof Hearted 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't give barnstars to people who have given me barnstars, and vice versa, unless we have a compelling reason to do so. It is customary to thank the giver, as it is for all gifts received, no? And as the general rule is you do not edit someone else's userpage, and it is posisble they won't notice your barnstar unless they have watchlisted their page, it is normal to place it on the talkpage. Tbh, this is all fairly common sense, so no-one's really thought to write it up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right that it's all common sense. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some nuance of WikiLove due to my ignorance. The main question I had regarded moving the barnstar from a talk page to a user page. (Do some consider that bragging?) The rest were minor points that I thought could be included in a write-up. If no one else sees a real need for an etiquette section I'll leave it alone. Hoof Hearted 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain Astronaut Award

I tried to award the "Public Domain Astronaut" and I couldn't get it to work properly. The size of the image was too large even when I used |100px|, so I put a copy of the thumbnail image into WikiMedia Commons so that this works:

I award this Public Domain Astronaut Award to Novalis for their great efforts in helping wikipedia by killing off copyright violations. Fanra 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just go into edit on this page and copy and paste where needed.

If anyone has any suggests to improve this, please let me know. Also, the award listing on this page should have a link to this template I created, I feel.

How Are You Nominated For A Barnstar?

See Title

Winn3317 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no formal nomination process; just do stuff and a Wikipedia will give you one. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


I am ALMOST positive of this, but I don't want to mess up, so I just want a bit of back-up. I can give out barnstars even though I am not a admin right? N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 18:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any user can give out barnstars. Smomo 21:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a non-zero-sum game --Kim Bruning 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK people, we need a major cleanup operation

I believe many of the Barnstar pages, such as WP:BAP, WP:BS and others, require some form of rewrite. My main reasoning for this is that there are lots of users who are just completely confused by the whole process. It needs to be made clear on WP:BS how to give out barnstars, when they should be given out, how to make new awards and other things which we get a lot of questions about here. Any thoughts? Smomo 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think WP:BAP is fine, we've already rewritten that. WP:BS could probably do with a longe rintroduction explaining all the things you just mentioned. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth do we need an "approval project" for awards that can basically be given by anyone, to anyone, for any reason? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, you know. >Radiant< 07:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not as bad as, lets say, BAG. Pretty much, we can't stop anyone from making and passing something out, but that page mainly just figures out what goes on WP:BS and what gets sent to PUI. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Echoing Radiant's comment, since barnstars can be given to anyone by anyone for basically any reason, I'm just not sure why there would need to be bureaucracy built around user awards. This seems like instruction creep, and it really should be avoided. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree too. I'm about a half a step away from an MfD listing here, can anyone give me a good reason that wouldn't be called for? This is totally unnecessary bureaucracy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's been feeling that way for awhile around here . . . IvoShandor 10:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject doesn't own the Awards process, it maintains it. It is utterly false to claim that proposals are scrutinised by us; we are similar to WikiProject Good Articles - maintenence of a process that needs looking after. Awards have to have the consensus of the community, because stupid things get proposed. Look through the archives for the Burnstar, or the other various silly ideas proposed. The proposals process is to get the community a chance to review ideas, as all ideas are reviewed on Wikipedia. Anyone is welcome, and encouraged, to vote on them. I think threatening us with an MfD is like threatening WikiProject Stub sorting with an MfD, destructive and unhelpful. If you want to help, go contribute to some proposals. A successful MfD will not solve anything other than remove the people who keep the process tidy. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
So what's wrong with handling barnstars the same way as anything else? If I want to give out "The barnstar for articles that start with the letter B," who cares? It's silly and stupid, but that just means it'll rarely get used. On the other hand, if I come up with a good one, it'll get used frequently. Either way, disapproval or approval in that case can come from the community, by utilizing or ignoring what's put forth. Why do we need some special process? As to stub-sorting, the big difference with stub sorting is that they don't require approval for someone to go along and stub-tag an article. They won't come along and tell you "Sorry, you're not allowed to stub-tag that, we didn't vote on whether you should or not." And if they ever started to pull that, I'd call for their reform or shutdown in a heartbeat. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can essentially do just that with Personal User Awards, they don't require a process. But barnstars are supposed to recognise significant achievement in a particular area, and as such they have to be carefully considered. Just like when someone proposes a new policy, there has to be a development of consensus before it's offical. Read WP:BS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talkcontribs) 11:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Whatever gives you the idea that barnstars are "official"? Or even that the "significant achievement" is defined anywhere other than in the mind of the person handing out the barnstar? I've seen several stars handed out for reasons I consider specuous; that doesn't make them invalid. >Radiant< 11:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge WP:BAP into WP:BS?

Tony Sidaway has unilaterally merged WP:BAP into WP:BS with an edit summary "bypass bureaucratic nonsense". [3] I feel deeply offended by this insult to BAP. However, since there is a conflict, I would like to open the issue to wider discussion, so that we can act with consensus. Please discuss. --Deryck C. 11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A barnstar is just a pretty graphic on someone's user page given in appreciation of an editor's work. This page ((Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals) is a waste of time. You don't need to regulate or approve shows of appreciation. The best response to my action would be to abandon this timewasting abuse of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I would add that as far as I'm aware this wikiproject isn't about approving awards, but rather promoting the use of such awards to encourage civility and fellowship (wikilove, if you prefer). This is an excellent sentiment and overall is performed admirably. I'm only concerned with the abuse of Wikipedia by purporting to hold "approvals" discussions for awards that are completely within the discretion of the giver and the receiver. --Tony Sidaway 12:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This conversation is indeed redundant. Tony went on in performing laundry to a very old pile of dirty clothes. Let it dry please, so that BS doesn't acquire one of the other more popular meanings. NikoSilver 12:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for historical reasons, "barnstars" are the highest class honour on Wikipedia. Therefore, to maintain this standard, a procedure was set up so that people don't create barnstars for too simple subjects. BAP has never (as far as I know) been rejecting an award unless the award promotes bad faith. Instead it is a place where people discuss on improvements to award images and decisions, and is a centralized place where people judge whether an award can hold a "barnstar" status. As bureaucratic it sounds, but it ensures the quality of barnstars given out in Wikipedia so that barnstars don't lose their meaning. If there ought to be change to the meaning of barnstars to Wikipedia, be it initiated by a decision, a consensus, but not a unilateral decision. --Deryck C. 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Deryck - I'm curious why you think that and where this meaning has been defined. There are plenty of barnstars for "simple" subjects, and there are at least as many barnstars not approved by the BAP as there are "approved" stars. It would seem that BAP has been rejecting lots and lots of awards. Aside from that, BAP has zero influence anyway over users giving barnstars for other purposes than BAP has intended. >Radiant< 12:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK. I admit it's still debatable. Still, I mostly award (and have been awarded) intuitive trophies that match the specific reasons, disregarding these pages. BTW there are (less) popular meanings for BAP too! :-) NikoSilver 12:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, this is complete bollocks. The term "Barnstar" developed on another wiki, it's a generic term for an award although the most usual form on English Wikipedia is the star-shaped image that has become familiar here. A "bad faith" award would be against the civility policy and (as with any proffered award) can be declined by the recipient. It's a bit rich that you are accusing others of wanting to promote a "change to the meaning of barnstars to Wikipedia", for your own interpretation is completely ideosyncratic.
Walk away from that timewasting page. Forget about it. If you ever feel like showing your appreciation for someone's work, feel free to do so in absolutely any way you like, up to and including making your own barnstar. That's it. No silly bloody "approvals" nonsense. Let's get rid of this abusive, wasteful and silly bureacracy. It's harmful to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 12:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone has listed the page for deletion:

--Tony Sidaway 13:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That page is poorly maintained. Some like the "Religion and Spirituality barnstar" have received unanimous support for almost 2 months yet it is still not a barnstar. And seriously, 2 months is enough for any discussion to reach a concensus even if there's any objections. But now, where do we propose our new barnstar? Here? OhanaUnited 16:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I forgot a thing, Wikipedia:WikiProject awards redirects all new proposal to the page that is about to be deleted. So does that mean it's now free-for-all to put up a WikiProject barnstar without gaining community approval? This starts to look nasty. OhanaUnited 16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, I did. If the members of a project want a project barnstar, it doesn't need the approval of people outside the project. Herostratus 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It has always been the case that Barnstars can be awarded without "community approval". They are simply expressions of one editor's regard for another's work. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Our goal was never to say who gets what; that is the editors decision. However, as Ohana stated, this page was neglected and now it has come down to an MFD to bring the issue to attention. I would suggest this: reduce WP:BS to explaining what the Barnstar is, to Wikipedia and how it works. Then, we can have a gallery of said images exisiting at another location (even a userpage would work; I would volunteer mine for this task). How does this sound? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I can assist you as well. OhanaUnited 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Prefer to wait until the MFD closes in a few days? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to find a balance between being bold (to create barnstar) and its consequences (e.g. provides bad faith). But I'm pissed off that someone is suggesting to delete all 70 affiliated pages because it shows us some examples why those barnstars are not recommended (or created alreadY). OhanaUnited 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Transparent Barnstar

Since WP:BAP seems to be about to disappear, I suppose this is the best place to come with a barnstar idea. I would like to create a barnstar for transparency and wisdom of leadership, which I would call "The Transparent Barnstar," which would look pretty much as you'd expect: like a glass star, perhaps with something interesting in the background so it doesn't look opaque. So obviously, I could just create this, except I'm not very good with image creation. Can anyone help? Mangojuicetalk 16:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I was thinking is a star that is outlined in black, and the fill is white. But, using Inkscape, I can change the opacity of the white fill, so it looks clear. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Environment Barnstar

Before WP:BAP gets killed, I want to move the proposal of a new barnstar to here. The following is the original content from the discussion page of WP:BAP.

After voting, the project chose to use Environment Barnstar.png. The award is for Wikipedians who contribute significantly to environment articles or the project itself. Right now, the name of the barnstar is either "Environment barnstar" or "Environmental barnstar". Suggestions on picking which name are welcome.

The description will say "The environment barnstar (or environmental barnstar) is awarded to Wikipedians who have made significantly contributions towards environment articles or Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment.OhanaUnited 02:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Environmental Barnstar sounds right to me. Colonel Tom 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: as Environmental Barnstar, of course the project can still use it as their award. IvoShandor 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
How long does it have to wait before officially becomes a recognized barnstar? OhanaUnited 00:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Good image, although it looks vaguely familiar (above). · AndonicO Talk 00:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't need this vote, just add it. Mangojuicetalk 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Environment Barnstar

Before WP:BAP gets killed, I want to move the proposal of a new barnstar to here. The following is the original content from the discussion page of WP:BAP.

After voting, the project chose to use Environment Barnstar.png. The award is for Wikipedians who contribute significantly to environment articles or the project itself. Right now, the name of the barnstar is either "Environment barnstar" or "Environmental barnstar". Suggestions on picking which name are welcome.

The description will say "The environment barnstar (or environmental barnstar) is awarded to Wikipedians who have made significantly contributions towards environment articles or Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment.OhanaUnited 02:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Environmental Barnstar sounds right to me. Colonel Tom 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: as Environmental Barnstar, of course the project can still use it as their award. IvoShandor 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
How long does it have to wait before officially becomes a recognized barnstar? OhanaUnited 00:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Good image, although it looks vaguely familiar (above). · AndonicO Talk 00:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't need this vote, just add it. Mangojuicetalk 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)