Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive13

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

When I moved the NASCAR award off of the proposal page I made a mistake that I am trying to rectify. I am putting this notice here as an attempt to be open about this. You can see here when I placed the NASCAR award on the WikiProject page. Because the award had limited support (Look here to see the archive) and was not star-like, it should have gone to the WP:PUA page.

To date, the award has only been awarded once, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR has not listed the award on their page. Does anyone have an issue with this? --evrik 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is too un-starlike for a WikiProject award. WikiProject NASCAR covers a wide span of articles, though, and my opinion is that the award should be redesigned. --Gray Porpoise 17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

While it's a nice photo, I agree that it should be redesigned. - Jc37 13:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The "zOMG! star!!!" seems too pointless to be listed on WP:PUA. I think that it should get a better description- or if that can't be done, delisted. --Gray Porpoise 00:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the inherent problem with PUA's. --evrik 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but most PUAs at least have descriptions that what they should be awarded for. This star's description just says the name, who introduced it, and "zOMG!!!" --Gray Porpoise 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestion as to a better description? - Jc37 13:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Award for a new user, who despite setbacks and learning curve (such as early deletions) learns the ropes and begins contributing. Sort of an encouragement to make sure good editors don't get frustrated early and leave.

I am thinking specifically here of a new editor who's first attempt was a translation, which was speedied half way through because it was not properly in user space. But he rewrote and finished it. I think a cookie is not enough recognition of the amount of work it takes a new user to learn all the little rules of WP.

And this award would be a nice offset when these sorts of things happen.

--Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• An exeptional new user award already exists. Michaelas10 19:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yup. --evrik 00:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Created to recognize those editors who tirelessly contribute in a genuine fashion to Christianity-related articles. —Aiden 04:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Propose and support. —Aiden 04:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't look anything like a barnstar. Michaelas10 12:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Saint's Star Award, created for use by all in recognizing individuals who can be described no other way than as saints of this community. This award is also used by the Saints WikiProject, WikiProject Catholicism, and WikiProject Christianity. Created for saints of the Catholic Church of Wikipedia by Essjay.

• Oppose as a topical award, barnstar, or WikiPorject Award. There already is an award. --evrik 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The award doesn't exist as a personal user award (PUA). Also, I support image 2.--JuanMuslim ^1m 23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Mild Oppose per MIchaelas10, doesn't look like a barnstar --SeanMcG 02:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you look at the PUA page, you will see that many awards don't look like 'barnstars.' Also, right now the vote is whether or not to have this particular PUA rather than approving a particular image. Unfortunately, this Barnstar and award proposals page can be very confusing in that regard. --JuanMuslim ^1m 03:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• PUA's dopn't need consensus or approval by the community. Anyone can post anything they want on that page, which is why it's an eclectic group. --evrik 14:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• This entire process is confusing. I mean even the current introduction to this page is a bit misleading because it leads one to believe PUA's must be voted on. Barnstar and Award Proposals (BAP) is where Wikipedians offer and discuss ideas regarding the "standard" Barnstars, Wikiproject awards, Other Related Awards and Personal User Awards, which may include, but are not limited to: creation of a new barnstar, altering or changing an existing barnstar or award, or delisting an award entirely.
• While there is no set policy, I brought the award here first because I'd like to see community approval before attempting to use it. To Juan: I was trying to figure out a way to incorporate a barnstar, but was unable to find anything that looked good. I think you may be on to something with your edit, but I think it might need a little word. Specifically, I'm not sure I like the wax-effect on the Cross. —Aiden 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And, what about the size and placement of the star and cross and fish? And colors? --JuanMuslim ^1m 06:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Anyone can make a PUA, but since there is already a Christian-related award, don't you think you are reinventing the wheel?--evrik 01:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the problem some Christians may have with the Saint's Star Award is that the award is more on the side of Catholicism with its reverence of Saints and all. Some Christians may also not like the Saint's Star Award because it doesn't include a cross.--JuanMuslim ^1m 03:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative support, but get better images first.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• The first proposal isn't at all bad, but it doesn't incorporate the barnstar motif in itself. Would it be possible to superimpose the red cross over the barnstar itself? If not, I could certainly go with image 1. The second image with the separate barnstar looks like the barnstar were just included to have a barnstar there. Badbilltucker 14:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• There is already a Christian Star ... I think we should add the first image to the PUA and be done with it. No new images are necessary. --evrik 01:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Here is a barnstar I created, for RC patrollers who tirelessly monitor the edits made to Wikipedia. Scienceman123 talk 03:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Try to make the background transparent. Otherwise, it's fine!--Ed^{talk c E} 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! Scienceman123 talk 21:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose We already have:

Image:Barnstar2.png - The Editor's Barnstar Occasionally known as the Deletionists' Barnstar. Sometimes, text removal is the most effective editing. This barnstar is awarded to individuals that display particularly fine deletions, omissions, reductions, reversions, blocks, bans, and other removals.

Image:Barnstar3.png - The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service.

--evrik 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Oppose Yea, evrik's right. We need to find a better use for this, or we can't use this at all--Ed^{talk c E} 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, any ideas? Scienceman123 talk 00:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This doesn't mean exactly the same thing as the Barnstars2 & 3. They both talk about editing articles, but this one is about editing articles and Recent Changes. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♫-) 03:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Recent Patrol should be added to 'The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar', this may be added as a possible second image, but not as a new Barnstar. We have to many Barnstars, and we really need rules as discussed here before we create many more.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, already covered by the barnstars mentioned above. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support as PUA. --Gray Porpoise 02:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose a type of award to recognise IP editors (such as a few who I know: 1, 2) who make useful contributions to our encyclopedia.

The one program I have for creating such a barnstar is horribly slow and hopelessly primitive, so I have to ask if another editor can create one according (preferably) to this design:

. . . (perhaps larger?)

This will of course be a Personal award, and I don't think I need to say that it won't be for vandals. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♫-) 19:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• As a PUA, fine. As a branstar, my gut reaction is no. Actions by IP editors are already covered by all the awards. --evrik 01:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand…? —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♫-) 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I rephrased my comments. --evrik 23:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Now I see. Actually, that's what I intended it to be. Even though it would have the barnstar in it, is would actually be a Personal User Award. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♫-) 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Does someone want to design it? --evrik 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really see a need for it. We don't have an award for 'non-IP editors', IP ones can receive normal awards - although considering dynamic IP and that many IP contributors are not even aware they have a talk page, I don't really think awarding IP anything is a worthwile idea; rather, convince them to register and give them a 'exeptional new user award'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Every so often, a proposal for a barnstar to be given to an anon user comes up, and almost all the time, we've had consensus not to do so. I can't be bothered to look for the diffs, but some of the reasons for opposing this include: IP addresses are shared by several people, anonymous users prefer to stay anonymous, anyone who wants a barnstar should register anyway, and anonymous users have no ownership over their own user or user talk pages (technically, neither to registered users, but IPs own their pages much less than registered users do). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I want to start an award to appreciate an editor's work at reviewing FACs, which is a very hard work, and often quite thankless. I propose a new award for it, called "The Reviewer's Award" (to be added under Wikipedia:Other awards). I have already conferred the award privately to Tony, and want it to be visible for use by everyone. I propose the following image for it:

Original: The Reviewer's Award

Edit 1: Reduced lighting. Sharper image.

— Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I would support, but I personally (no humour intended) think it may look better as a barnstar. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I had given it a thought, but since the award contains (and rightly so) the FA star as against the barnstar, I had no option but to call it an award, and not a barnstar. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Alright then. Support. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  19:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, you could reduce the lighting at the top of star just a bit. Michaelas10 19:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The lighting was present in the original lens image (as part of shine of the glass lens). I have edited the image to reduce it even further, and it can be totally eliminated if you wish. I have also made the image sharper with the holder more opaque and lens more transparent. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Michaelas10 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support the concept, but is this an organized group of people? --evrik 00:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you mean the group of people who review FACs, the answer is no. Anyone can review FACs, though there are very few "FAC regulars". Even the regulars aren't an organized group. But I do not see why that should be a problem. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support the idea.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Any suggestions for the image to be used? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have a comment creating an award for a small group of people. I like the image, and have no prblem with it as a PUA, but to place it on the other related award page, I think it needs to have broader support, or broader impact.
  

  

  Featured Article Medal

What do people think about broadening the definition of the Featured Article Medal?

I don't agree that it is about a narrow group of people. Though the number of FAC regulars is limited, this award can be given to anyone who does exceptional review of even one article. We can broaden the definition of Featured Article Medal, but I would prefer not to do it. It is quite different to review articles than adding info to articles. Also, the FAM is historically associated with the idea of being a major contributor to featured articles, which this is not. In fact, quite naturally, this would mostly be given to those who oppose an FAC because of various shortfalls in the article, and many a times, due to their exceptional review, the article may not survive the FAC. Giving the FAM in this case would be wrong as the contribution had not led to an article being a featured article. If we want, we can broaden the definition of this award to span reviews of Featured List Candidates, and Featured Portal Candidates. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, no reason why this shouldn't work as an award. FAC reviewers are about as valuable as FAC editors. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A great idea. There definitely need to be different recognitions for a) users who do the heavy lifting to improve articles to FA candidacy and b) users who take the time to review, critique, and maybe even (heaven forbid) contribute some edits themselves to those FACs. –Outriggr § 00:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support and disagree that the pool of people needs to be wider. If it does grow, great--in the mean time a barnstar for some often tough work is a fine idea. Marskell 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• I like the idea, bu would like to see the scope of the award expanded. --evrik 01:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said above, we can definitely include reviewers of Featured list candidates, Featured portal candidates, and Featured topic candidates. Also, reviewers in Featured article review can also be included. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image 1

• I've just added this image as the possible Religion Wikiproject Award. You are welcome to add or suggest other versions. Please state whether you support the idea for the award and then state if you support the suggested image, and if not, you may suggest another possible version for the award.--JuanMuslim ^1m 00:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• It's just struck me that perhaps a barnstar just for Islam is a bit narrow. How about a barnstar which encompasses all religions and faith systems. It will also prevent the glut of "How come Islam gets a barnstar and such-and-suchism doesn't?" copycat barnstars on creation, and sidesteps the mosque/crescent issue. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 09:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• ehhh, religion is already covered under general barnstars. I think the more specific ones should be generated as there is interest. --evrik 12:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, there's already a consensus for the Islamic Barnstar Award. Some editors disagree about the image to use. --JuanMuslim ^1m 03:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Islamic Barnstar is exceptionally well designed and visually pleasing. I'd hate to see it changed... If anyone is concerned about the lack of Christian, Judaic, Hindu, etc. barnstars then an incentive exists for someone to create one! There are clearly people here with a great deal of graphic design talent. The wa to solve this problem is to add more - not dilute the existing one. --AStanhope 02:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• There is already one used for Christianity-rleated articles. --evrik 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Per JuanMuslim above --- Already consensus for an Islamic Barnstar, don't think that's even at issue. BYT 09:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• There are always the Template:The Society Barnstar for Category:Society and Template:The Barnstar of High Culture for Category:Culture. --evrik 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I support the idea for a WikiProject Religion Award so that people of every religion can receive an award for their contribution to religion-related articles, especially because Wikipedians are not all Muslims, Christians, or Jews.--JuanMuslim ^1m 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps, but that's a darn ugly image. --evrik 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed! LoL. Hopefully, other people will propose other versions. --JuanMuslim ^1m 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Couldnt you make it looks nicer, it looks like someone was sick on a barnstar. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Everyone who votes here at the Barnstar and awards proposals page assumes it's like voting for articles or images for deletion, you know, vote support or oppose and move on. Right now the vote is whether or not to have this particular Wikiproject award rather than approving a particular image. Unfortunately, this Barnstar and award proposals page can be very confusing in that regard.--JuanMuslim ^1m 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, looks nice, although I expect some may raise issues on how the 9 symbols were selected, and critique it for making some equal (or first), not including others. To avoid this I'd suggest we allow several images, and if people want to reorder the symbols or exchange them for others, let them do so.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• This proposal has languished for more than two weeks. I'm going to archive it soon unless there is a groundswell of support. --evrik 14:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support of award only The barnstar is WAY too cluttered. Needs to be redesigned. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 11:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support of award only - If there are already at least a few barnstars for specific religions, their's no good reason to include images related to them in this barnstar. However, I do think having a barnstar to be awarded to editors for great work on belief systems which do not yet have their own barnstars is a very good idea. Badbilltucker 13:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image 1	Image 2	Image 3	Image 4
Image 5	Image 6	Image 7	Image 8
Image 9	Lion of Judah

• If we do a Judaic award, how about a barnstar shaped like a Star of David? --Gray Porpoise 20:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You should first consult with the WikiProject that will be associated with the award. One problem with this current system is the lack of collaboration with the various WikiProjects. --JuanMuslim ^1m 15:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• There is some discussion of a six-pointed star on their discussion page. --evrik 17:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I support the idea for such an award. Perhaps, other versions of the award will be suggested.--JuanMuslim ^1m 23:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think we should encourage the community to develop their award, if they want it. --evrik 14:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• I dont think its appropriate, not only is it potentially offensive to non-Jews, the Star of David has only recently been attributed to David - it used to be thought of as belonging to Solomon, and originated in medieval Grimoires, e.g. the Lesser Key of Solomon. Something more Jewish, and less devisive would be a menorah. --User talk:FDuffy 14:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think the menorah overwhelms the star and isn't that well integrated. --evrik 04:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• How about the Ten Commandments in image six: ? IZAK 07:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The Ten Commandments are too ambiguous really: Judaism, Christianity and Islam all feature them. A star of David is better as that is uniquely Jewish. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Smurray: By the same token, the five-pointed star is both a communist symbol (in red) and is on the US flag (in white) 50 times so it's not suited for Judaism at all, and the six-pointed star can be found on dollar bills and the Great Seal of the United States and it's used by the Mormons (see other choices in hexagram), so nothing is unique. It is Judaism, and Judaism alone, that gave the world the Ten Commandments, so there is nothing to be shamed of, especially with Hebrew lettering on it. IZAK 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The star of David isn't uniquely Jewish; it first appears in mediaeval Christian grimoires. --User talk:FDuffy 19:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• I've created an adaptation of the Menorah idea, where the barnstar IS the menorah. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• I don't see alot of support for the idea from the wikiproject. --evrik 14:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Images 5 and 7 are great ideas. I think I'll go for 7 but if 5 gets voted by most, don't consider me oppose. Michaelas10 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 7 is nice, but a bit vague - some candles on a star - could be WikiProject:BirthdayCakes. 5 is overwhelmed by the barnstar/menorah. What about 5 menorah's arranged like the barnstar - with the flames at the centre? --User talk:FDuffy 19:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

    Ive uploaded two examples of this - image 8 and 9, more proof of concept than final design - if someone knows how to clean them up/make them transparent, feel free. --User talk:FDuffy 20:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Could Image 3 be cleaned up a little? —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♫-) 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• I cleaned it up. --JuanMuslim ^1m 05:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Image three looks real nice --T-rex 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think #3 or #8 are the best two. --evrik 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative support, #3 or #5 get my vote.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• This proposal has languished for more than two weeks. I'm going to archive it soon unless there is a groundswell of support. --evrik 14:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• The "Star of David" is a poor choice, in my opinion. A quick look at the history of the "Star of David" (see this page) reveals that the star was first adopted by the Zionist movement in 1897. And the star only became strongly associated with Judaism from that point forward. Also, a literal translation is not "star" - it is "Shield of David"... I think a design with the Lion of Judah would be more appropriate, although a menorah would not be a bad choice. I don't particularly care for the menorah-based designs here. :( 75.21.68.196 20:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Another thought might be have a design that is some sort of mezuzah with a barnstar on it... 75.21.68.196 00:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support #2 I like the six-point blue barnstar. I propose a married approach between 2, 3 and 7: A blue David-shape barnstar with a Star of David middle hole. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 11:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• I like Kitch's idea above. Badbilltucker 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Original Idea

Slightly lighter image

Still lighter

Transparent background

I have created this for contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky and others who contribute significantly to Kentucky related articles. I'm open to other suggestions, but I'd really like to see our contributors get some recognition. --Lamont A Cranston 13:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I like the concept and the name. The image could be brightened. Looks good! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Slightly lighter image of the right. Looks a wee bit washed out to me, but I'm still working on it. Lamont A Cranston 22:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Here's a still lighter one (Bluegrassstar3.jpg). Lamont A Cranston 22:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think that some version of the image is fine, but that the background should be transparent. Is there a lot of support in your WikiProject for this? --evrik 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A transparent background is no problem. As far as interest, we have a very small Wikiproject, so I doubt there will be a flood of support. But I think that some kind of recognition really motivates people, and a Bluegrass Barnstar might just encourage a casual user to get a little more involved.Lamont A Cranston 02:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I just tossed up an image. --evrik 13:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• This proposal has languished for more than two weeks. I'm going to archive it soon unless there is a groundswell of support. --evrik 14:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there is enough support to justify the award. I think that archiving is appropriate. Lamont A Cranston 15:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I like the transparent one at the right end best. Badbilltucker 21:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikibrains Barnstar

For brilliant contributions and achievements!!``F3rn4nd0 09:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There are a lot of awards for this already, in every category. I also don't like the image. Michaelas10 09:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not really necessary. --evrik 13:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -I don't like the idea per Michaelas, and the image looks too scary.--Ed^{talk c E} 01:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Way redundant. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 11:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose this barnstar to award significant contributors to the Highways WikiProject and all its descendant projects. --Kitch ^{(Talk | Contrib)} 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose the design. --evrik 19:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose design, although I have no real reservations about having such a barnstar created. Badbilltucker 13:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Behind every bot, there's an operator. I know there is already the DaVInci Barnstar, but these people deserve to be thanked for al their work with their own barnstar. What would we ever do without AntiVandalBot, Tor Tawkerbot2? I don't know what we would do without them. I don't know where we would classify this yet, but what do you all think? NauticaShades^(talk) 12:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think there is already a programmer's award going around, but I can't seem to find the address. Anyone knowns? Michaelas10 13:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• • {{The da Vinci Barnstar}} --evrik 16:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have explicity stated in my nomination that I think a more specific barnstar would be appropriate. NauticaShades 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose duplicative of existing award. --evrik 20:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've had this idea since the Satchel Cohen hoaxer affair back in July of this year for which I handed out a "Defender of the Wiki" barnstar to Yanksox, Tyrenius and Kjkolb for their excellent detective work in exposing it. So the idea popped into my head that we need a "Sherlock Holmes" inspired barnstar for all editors who put in the extra legwork into discovering an entire ring of elaborate hoax articles and sockpuppets.

I hereby propose the Baker Street Irregulars' Barnstar which is a homage to the "group of street urchins who helped Holmes out from time to time". DarkAudit (talk • contribs) suggested a barnstar wearing a deerstalker cap and smoking a calabash pipe. I hope a skilled artist could really play with this idea. I also would like to differentiate this award by establishing a panel of administrators and senior users to review nominations before giving out such an esteemed award and being inducted as an official "Irregular". --  Netsnipe  ►  11:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose we have a lot of other awards for hard work and vandal whacking. --evrik 16:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - However, if anyone ever restarts the Wikipedia:WikiProject Holmes, such a thing might well be very useful there. Badbilltucker 21:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This Barnstar is very different from the Photographer's Barnstar. This Barnstar is for those that find images for Wikipedia from other sources (internet, scans, etc.) and upload them on Wikipedia. Pictures from places like NASA are very useful to Wikipedia (many are Featured Pictures), but somebody has to find them an upload them first. Other find pictures on flickrs and such, which requires even more work, suchas emailing the user for permission. Many pictures on Wikipedia are not taken by Wikipedians, and credit is due to those who find those images. NauticaShades 22:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose We have a lot of other awards to recognize individual efforts. --evrik 19:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

With the recent call-to-arms[1] by Brad Patrick from the Wikimedia Foundation and comments by Jimbo and Angela, a few more editors are getting involved in the battle against linkspam and excessive external links in articles where singl euse accounts add copious vanity links or links designed to promote their pagerank (see: [2]). At this stage it nearly seems to be a losing battle, so more help is always needed and welcome at WP:WPSPAM. I believe that linkspam is a serious threat to Wikpedia in the short to medium term. Reverting linkspam requires courage and a solid understanding of policies with the reward of lies, threats and general abuse on ones talk page from the vested interests. I'm fairly new there but see some of the people have copped a lot of flack with no recognition. Fighting linkspam is not the same as dealing with simple vandalism, as it requires judgement and tact as to what is in fact spam and what is a worthy external link.

There doesn't seem to be a specific award (yet) for this important role so I am proposing there be one. To date I've dished out a few Image:WikiDefender Barnstar.png's but hope that a creative person could come up with a nice image and name. -- Moondyne 06:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose this is why the Image:WikiDefender Barnstar.png exists. I suggest we add the words link spam to the definition. --evrik 14:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per evrik. "Fraudulent purposes" includes link spam. Michaelas10 (T|C) 17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This probably isn't a great idea, but I suggest having a barnstar for those who start many articles that are needed but Wikipedia doesn't have a page on them yet. I only really thought of this because it does really apply to me, as I don't really do much but start articles that Wikipedia doesn't have but greatly needs.

Comments, questions, anything... post. Sharkface217 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK medal

New articles are a focus of the WP:DYK project and they already have a medal. I encourage you to submit newly created articles there for consideration. Suggestions can be made at Template talk:Did you know. — Moondyne 03:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Moondyne. --evrik 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like to make a proposal for a barnstar for the above named project, and possibly for wikipedia:WikiProject Cat breeds as well, if they find it acceptable. I regret to say that my own graphic abilities are severeley limited, if not in fact nonexistent. However, I would like to see a barnstar that has a black feline silhouette seen from behind (something along the lines of the Midnight Louie silhouette here, maybe a bit thinner though) apparently using the barnstar as a kind of scratching post. If anyone with any abilities would like to make such a draft design, I would be more than gratified. I would also welcome any other proposals. There are already several substantial contributions from editors dealing with the subject of felines, including featured articles, and I think that it's time that they were rewarded with a more specific barnstar. Badbilltucker 13:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose the addition of a general barnstar called the Stubmaker's Barnstar. I propose a design like this:

Version 1 (uploaded Oct. 29, 2006)

Version 2 (just uploaded ¤~Persian Poet Gal 00:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

I believe the purpose of rewarding this award would be to grant it to users who create superior stubs on a regular basis that inspire full-fledged articles.--Persian Poet Gal 00:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me what you all think of the new version. I sort of tried to incorperate the smaller star idea. If it still leaves some to be desired I would greatly appreciate if someone would try their own personal version and post it here :).¤~Persian Poet Gal 00:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• You need to add something to represent "that is a stub barnstar" in the 2nd edition. --Jacklau96 07:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmmm, I'll see if I can do something to it again some time this week.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think the barnstar should be more...colourful.Yeah. --Jacklau96 13:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Or maybe half a star, or a tiny star, or just a framework of one as if it were under construction. - Clockwork Soul 16:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Nice ideas thanks for the suggestions, I honestly wanted at least set up the proposal as quickly as I could :). I will see if I can change the design but if I can't I really welcome anybody to try their hand at it. ¤~Persian Poet Gal 17:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Approve proposal, but agree that the design could use a bit more color. Badbilltucker 16:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Approve: I agree with this barnstar, as many great Wikipedians only contribute through stubs. Yes, I do fall into that category. Sharkface217 03:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that the DYK medal is a better choice for people who start new articles, as it encourages quality. I also think that exceptional work can be honored with an existing award. --evrik 04:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Evrik. Stubs are fine (and I've created plenty!) but should not be encouraged at the expense of quality. DYK fits the bill here - IMO, if the new article is not up to being DYK-worthy, its probably not worthy of justifying an award. — Moondyne 05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• I understand your basis for opposition but the purpose of this award is to give it to those who think of imaginative stubs on a regular basis and contribute necessary/important new articles. Articles which, even though may not be full fledged yet, were beneficial to add to wikipedia and have a good meaty basis that may inspire it to be expanded.¤~Persian Poet Gal 00:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well I still cannot understand how thats so different from a DYK medal. I've contributed several dozen DYK articles (and have been awarded accordingly) and your description above sounds similar to the criteria for DYK. I don't want to sound difficult, but your rationale is no clearer to me. Producing large numbers of stubs that aren't up to DYK standard (1000 characters - by way of comparison, this section is already 2500 characters) hardly seems something that we should make a special case of rewarding. Admittedly the DYK criteria specifically excludes stubs, but at least it sets some minimum standards. — Moondyne 01:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Although in theory, the character limit is 1000 characters, I and most other updaters generally exclude anything that is less than 2000 characters in the main body, and most are well over 2000. As Jimbo exhorted at Wikimania, we need qaulity not quantity, and apparently only 30% of articles are more than 2kb. As there are a large percentage of articles which already are POV, unencyclopedic, etc, thie shows we have a real problem. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Approve. I don't think that the DYK medal applies for this. We might want a better image, though. Maybe a Barnstar without the points or someting, or a pencil drawing a Barnstar. NauticaShades 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - we should prmote quality as decreed by Jimbo and per Moondyne. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Those standards are definitely worth being adhered to but as an example "The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar" awards those who show a pattern of kindness. Are there specified standards as to what those acts of kindness must meet, of course not. What I mean by creating quality stubs on a regular basis is not the quantity matter but the fact that they create new articles consistently which add on beneficially to Wikipedia (but technically have not made them full-fledged). Now I admit the standards for this award are not set in stone but much like the example I provided above there are barnstars which standards are loose yet followed by.¤~Persian Poet Gal 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. This barnstar would be awarded to users who have made signicicant improvements to Nintendo-related articles. I know that it needs work, perhaps in the color design of it. The size of the pixels in the image to make it look 8-bit are at my maximum preferred size. When I tried larger pixels, the image was just unpleasing. Should I tone down the sharpness of the original picture, or what? More info can be found here.—Captain538[talk] 03:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral not realy thrilled with the image. --evrik 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The resoulution of the star is VERY low. --jacklau96 13:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • ...That's on purpose. NauticaShades 16:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Approve. I like the award, but you might want someone to make the image transparent around the edges. NauticaShades 16:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Try to make the resoulution better and add something that represents Nintendo. --Jacklau96 07:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the designing. Good enough for a PUA though. Michaelas10 (T|C) 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have a CVG Star already, and one of NIN's subprojects has a star of its own already. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 20:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Current star

The Geo Barnstar I

The Geo Barnstar II - the resoulution is better

Well, I don't like the currently geography barnstar. I would like to change it... Any comments? Jacklau96 06:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the current star. --evrik 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Geo Barnstar II looks better here.
  Keep current barnstar, now I'm reminded of it!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC), updated 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the current star, a much better designing. Michaelas10 (T|C) 16:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay --Jacklau96 01:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't discard Geo Barnstar (II) though; maybe it could be offered as an alternative, or say as a "Minor geography edits" award...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the current star, more attractive and professional design. ↔ ANAS - Talk 19:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've created this for members of WP:ARCH and anyone else writing articles on architecture or architects.

Original	Edit 1	Edit 2	Edit 3 - a different tack.
Edit 4	Edit 5	Edit 6

• support Edit 1 Cocoaguy 18:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What do we think? --Mcginnly | Natter 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I like the idea. Can you tilt the image so we see more of the star? --evrik 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure, how's that now? --Mcginnly | Natter 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the idea, but am not completely thrilled with the design ... I will reserve judgemt until later! :-) --evrik 01:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Later when? When the image has been edited or after your Tea?:-) I've included the original now for comparison purposes.--Mcginnly | Natter 13:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • After some other users have had a chance to comment! --evrik 14:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support idea, oppose image it looks really ugly. The star looks more appropriate for 3D graphic designers.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support idea, oppose image also. I wonder if it could done as a blueprint? Although the Template barnstar is alread a blueprint. But no harm if they end up looking a bit similar. Herostratus 02:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• I've posted edit 2.--Mcginnly
• Support idea but not as a Barnstar, I'd go with image 1 if I had to chose, perhaps few more variants would be nice?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit2 - this is not "my" barnstar, but I absolutely adore the wodnerful idea and execution! Bravada, talk - 15:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• This proposal has languished for more than two weeks. I'm going to archive it soon unless there is a groundswell of support. --evrik 14:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2. I love how this one looks. NauticaShades^(talk) 19:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added edit 3 to try and enthuse people --Mcginnly | Natter 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I like edit 2 myself. Badbilltucker 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 3. It is architectural and clever. Well done.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 Tough call but I have to say I simply love Edit 2! Very nice use of the Eiffel Tower.¤~Persian Poet Gal 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 20:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 3 On reflection I think edit 2 is a bit crass and gaudy - whereas edit 3 is a subtle, wry take on the barnstar format - in the history of architecture there had to be an existing design for a building that actually resembled a barnstar. As this discussion has been running for over 2 months now, perhaps we can agree that consensus has been reached for the barnstar in principle, but not for the design. Accordingly I'm going to create the barnstar with edit 3 unless I get strong objections. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I support a star fort design. Go ahead. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• I could live with #4. --evrik ^(talk) 15:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. 4 going once. --evrik ^(talk) 20:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    2. 4 going twice. --Mcginnly | Natter 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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)

[edit] 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)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The LGBT Barnstar

• Support should be a PUA or a wikiproject award. Was forced through without a lot of support. --South Philly 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • In what conditions would such an award arise? "THANKS FOR BEING GAY!"? I don't mean to sound offensive, but isn't the point of these things to show your appreciation for someones tireless editing?--Indolences 06:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The LGBT Barnstar would not more be given to someone for being gay than the Humanities Barnstar would be given to someone for being human. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support move to WikiProject Page. --evrik ^(talk) 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting!! futurebird 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)More content is needed in these areas. Let's give out stars! futurebird 05:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you're missing the point.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by South Philly (talk • contribs) 13 Feb 2007, 13:38 (UTC).
    • I agree. Should this be counted as an oppose vote? Raystorm 12:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Editor modified vote above, reads now as oppose. Raystorm 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Oh, and thank you very much for informing me of this proposed removal. The barnstar isn't thanking someone gay, anymore than than the Scouting barnstar is about congratulating Scouts. It's for people who have made notable contributions to LGBT-related articles, which is a broad enough field to merit its own barnstar. Read the text: The LGBT Barnstar is awarded to editors who make significant contributions that expand Wikipedia’s knowledge about homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, LGBT life and culture, notable LGBT people, events and movements, sociological issues, and population statistics. That's a big area, covering hundreds of anthropological fields. And that was the point I made when I proposed it. Futhermore, the proposal was not "forced through", it simply lasted the recommended period of time, two weeks, instead of just hanging around until evrik decided to archive. I fail to see how sticking to the guidelines is somehow forcing through a proposal. The level of support was the normal amount for a Barnstar proposal, and I made this summary: 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. As far as I recall, 8 vs. 3 is a majority of 72% and that's not counting what the 4 other voter's views may have been. There is nothing wrong with this barnstar, process was followed and consensus achieved. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose delisting. This Barnstar is given anybody, regardless of their sexual orientation, for contributions they have made to LGBT articles on Wiki. As such, it's broad enough in scope to warrant being a barnstar and not a project award. LGBT articles are not just edited by LGBT project members. This Barnstar has been given to at least one (that I know of) heterosexual editor who is not a project member. Further, I take umbrage to the comments of both South Philly and Indolence. Dev has debunked South Philly's comments, so I shan't say much, except that if s/he was opposed to this Barnstar, s/he should have stated the opposition at the time, and not months after it was passed with consensus. Indolence, I have found that people usually are aware that they are bing offensive when they say "I don't mean to be offensive". PLease see WP:CIV before posting more comments like those you made above. Further, if you don't know under which circumstances this Barnstar is given, then you probably aren't in any position to make intelligent commentary about its validity here. Jeffpw 11:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose delisting. Barnstar is given to anyone who makes important contributions to LGBT articles, regardless of sexual orientation and/or belonging to the LGBT project. Not everyone who edits a LGBT article belongs to the LGBT project (in fact, I'd say most don't). It certainly isn't given to someone for being gay, as Indolence says. It should stay. Raystorm 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Raystorm's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 14:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose delisting. A barnstar for work on LGBT-related articles is a perfectly valid idea, and should in theory be unrelated to the contributor's own sexual orientation. If it's being awarded for "being gay" (something for which I see no evidence), that's a matter to be discussed with the people giving out the award, not a reason for delisting the barnstar altogether. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose delisting. I've seen no reason to delist it, and think it is a perfectly valid award. Aleta 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• WikiProjectize and Support delisting as Barnstar per my old comments - we have to many specialized barnstars. We should delist half of those we have (I should probably just nominate them...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• How is this any different from the gender studies award? --South Philly 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to take that up with WP:GS - ceratinly the fact that they have proposed their own barnstar is no reason to delist ours. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting. If you can have a barnstar for Neuroscience, why not for GBLT issues. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose de-listing. LGBT studies is a huge subset of humanities studies so it is more than appropriate. Since it is such a large and established field, rather than just a group of wikipedians, it should not be a project award. Koweja 21:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose delisting; LGBT is a large area of the project, spanning many areas including many not covered directed by Wikiproject LGBT (eg: someone who made great edits to the articles on Lesbos Island, Homer's Phobia and Kele Okereke; topics too broad to be covered by any category star, yet linked by LGBT). Laïka 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And with smurrayinchester apparently having changed his mind, the previously mentioned majority is now 82%. The current support for delisting is 22%. This listing is now 8 days overdue. Is this enough for you, Southphilly, or do you think this is being "forced through without a lot of support" as well? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting as per Smurrayinchester. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 16:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Would there be any objections to expanding the scope of the above award to include editors who do great work on assessment of articles, like, for instance, this one? Badbilltucker 17:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand. --evrik ^(talk) 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now there is no specific award to be given to people who engage in assessments of articles for the various projects, although several have begun such assessments. Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia/Assessment is one of several pages dealing with the subject. Several of the assessors, including myself, work to assess articles of more than one project, and, on that basis, engage in work which very well might not qualify for any specific project's award, although it would possibly/probably be considered of importance to wikipedia in a larger sense. I only included the link to at least one proposed recipient to make it clear I was in no way looking to make an award for myself, which I don't think I would deserve in any event. And, given the similarity of the work of reviewers and assessors, I thought that it would be easiest to just expand the "scope" of this one award to include those deserving of awards for assessments. I hope that clarifies things a little. Badbilltucker 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ehhh ... I think that good actions can be awarded with the original barnstar. --evrik ^(talk) 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Feel free to delete this section then. Badbilltucker 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This Barn Star would be a good idea for the Wikipedia:Wikipedians for the conservation of energy page. Cocoaguy 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, that project is rather undefined: Is it for improving energy conservation articles or supporting energy conservation itself? I have a feeling that it may become subject to a MfD. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 04:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral It needs to be better defined and perhaps a constituency. --evrik ^(talk) 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• The organization has been deleted. However, an award for articles related to energy could be successful. --Gray Porpoise 18:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Can someone make a Award for Teens who edit Wikipedia? A Teen (Age 13-18) whom has 500 useful edits should be given a award for their work. If you need more information, please leave me a message. Senator Heimermann 00:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments A barnstar is awarded not on the sole fact of who the editor is (or age group in this case) but on the significant contributions they make to articles. It balances out the grounds for rewarding the barnstar in the first place. So I would suggest that you amend your proposal and base it on contributions that an editor has made to teen related articles or something like that.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Have a great day, Senator Heimermann 00:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• More Comments Sorry but you have to edit more than that. Wikipedia does not reward awards based on a popularity contest (or edit count for that matter, unless the bulk of the edits contributed in significant ways), they award based on contributions. Your award cannot simply reward those who are teens but rather contribute to teen-related articles or something. Your proposal still is not based enough on the contributions.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, what's to stop me from putting "Metros232 is 16-years-old" in my profile right now and, by that simple act, I now receive the award. Metros232 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:Metros232 and his friends are mad at me at this time.

I think a lot of people are watching what you are doing, and are not finding you an amusing person. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedian should be awarded barnstars on the basis of their contributions, not their personal information. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Need to clarify the copyright status of the image, or else replace it. --Guinnog 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment soccer has an award. --evrik ^(talk) 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, it can be found here: Template:Football (soccer) star.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.