Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards/major overhaul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Page Split

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

Do we need to split Wikipedia:Other awards? Specifically, so we need to creat a page for Wikipedia:Wikiproject awards? --evrik 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

While listing 'awards by wikiproject and wikiorganizations' seems like a good idea (to see which awards have groups giving them), I think it is only one of possible categorization. And we should not limit ourselves to Wikiprojects, as there are other organizations (regional noticeboards, places like DYKs and FAs discussions which give some other away).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that there are other organizations. If they ever decide to come up with awards, we can revise the verbage. For now I'm going to make the split. --evrik 21:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories?

Currently we have one category for wikipedia namespace pages and for the images: Category:Wikipedia awards. We have a category for templates (Category:Award templates) but not all templates are listed there (ex.Template:The Template Barnstar), quite a few images, especially from the proposed and rejected barnstars/awards/etc. are not categorized, and then there is commons with its commons:Category:Barnstars which lists only some images from commons:Barnstar, including some (but not all!) which are certainly not Barnstars (but for example PUAs). In other words, we need order. I propose the following:

  1. all images should be moved to Commons
  2. Category systems should be the same here and on Commons for ease of reference
  3. Images should be moved to relevant image categories, separate from page categories (to reduce time loading the normal category)
  4. Images should be moved to one of the following categories:

Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 1

  • Support evrik 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --South Philly 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2

  • Neutral I need a better example. evrik 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --South Philly 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3

  • Oppose I like them all in one place. evrik 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • On some older computers, or ones not on broadbad loading a category with images is a painstaiking process. For that reason we should not force a user who wants to look at list of pages to have to look at the list of images.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --South Philly 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 4

  • Oppose I like them all in one place. evrik 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Consider: I think it would be useful to easily see which images are used for what class of awards, and especially to have a category for unused images which we may reuse in newer proposals.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --South Philly 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

  • Comment - I agree that all barnstar (and other award) images should be moved to the commons. This reinforces the idea that no "fair use" images are allowed. And it also more easily allows their use at other wikipedias and sister projects. (Especially since most don't involve actual "words".) Also, all the award associated markup language (if in templates, or elsewhere) should be organized into categories. And since these are specifically not mainspace categories, they should likely indicate that in the name. (e.g. Change wikipedia and user to Wikipedian, and remove "personal"). As for page division, Wikipedian awards and Wikipedian Barnstar awards (with associated sub-pages, such as proposals) should be enough? - jc37 16:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Committee

:The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it. The discussion has been continued below this box.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I think we should form a committee braintrust to help oversee all of this. --evrik 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Committees make me fear overbureaucratization. Well, let's see if we have any other comments, if people want to form a committee, why not, but if we have no comments in few days, what shall we do then?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • overbureaucratization is not a real word. -evrik 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    •  :) One way or another, I am afraid it is mostly the two of us here...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Well then we are a committee of two. ;-) Seriously though, having some sort of brain trust or working group would make the work in this araea and more consistent. --evrik 17:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • At one point, there was a wikiproject that was created to deal with the Barnstars. That was set aside when the Barnstars were generally accepted. One thing that was lost in the transition is a corps of people willing to tend to the page. Right now, most of the people seem to have gone away, but I think we should have a volunteer committee to give continuity, spread the work, lend expertise, and guarantee fairness and quality.

We could also let people list themselves as emeriti once they decide to stop active participation. --evrik 17:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Nah, I don't think it's necessary. Normal editing activities should be sufficient. The way we chose barnstars in the past was already getting some flak for being too bureacratic. Forming a committee would make it worse. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • See, I think that normal editing doesn't work, because no one has a sense of ownership, or responsibility. --evrik 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I am with Deathphoenix on this. Appears to be too much of instruction creep at one level and a solution in search of a problem at another level. Maybe instead of weighing opinions of just two users like me and Deathphoenix, you should probably flag this off at appropriate forums such as Kindness campaign, Community portal and Village Pump. Or even having a mention in Signpost should help, imo. --Gurubrahma 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's funny that you talk about creep, and then talk about getting other opinions. If we had some sort of braintrust, then we wouldn't have to go begging for opinions. BTW, I've asked about twenty people to comment. --evrik 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I once proposed a committee to reform our RfA process. The situation there, however, was and is rather different: there is a much, much greater number of people involved with the process with some regularity. And even there the idea was turned down. For this forum, where we have only a rather limited number of users participating somewhat regularly, I can pretty much say that (a) From a pragmatic point of view, the proposal is almost certain not to be accepted; and (b) It really isn't necessary, given, as I just said, the relatively small number of people participating — except for the people who drop in occasionally to discuss a specific award that they might be sponsoring/interested in, but that is not enough to justify increasing the bureaucracy of the process.
    That being said, I will again point out the inadequacy of this support/oppose "vote" format that seems to have taken over this forum. It is as unnecessary here as a committee, and it limits the discussion to either approving or rejecting an idea, making it difficult for us to "polish" an original idea and make something that was good even better, or salvage something that had an interesting concept behind it, but wasn't all that well structured in the beginning. I've commented on that in the talk page. Redux 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I would say that bercause of the small number of people, we shoudl develop a braintrust to help things move more smoothly, and with greater consistency. :-) --evrik 17:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Awards are meant to be informal, a formal committee is quite inappropriate. Barnstars do not determine status.--Cat out 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, but the braintrust would soley be to tend to the pages and the process. --evrik 18:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the Barnstar process and the Barnstar people work well as is. I don't see a need for a brainstrust. Borisblue 03:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am one of the people Evrik asked to comment. I do think that the Barnstars process needs organising, but I do not think that Barnstars are so important that I feel I have time to contribute here. I normally just do not have strong opinions about them. So, I guess we have to work with what we have. --Bduke 12:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Evrik asked me to comment as well. I think that the only thing that holds back chaos and anarchy is a group of good volunteers. I say that having an informal group can be a good thing. --South Philly 01:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bah! barnstar committees are evil bureaucreep

I dont think we need voting of any sort for barnstars or other awards whatsoever. These are informal expressions of wikilove and completely outside of the encyclopedia part of wikipedia. Lets 'waste our time' on the encyclopedia, and not on voting what is and isn't an appropriate award. once an award has been given, from one user to another, by what right would anyone vote it out of existence? Pedant 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This whole enterprise is run by consensus. Building a braintrust is nothing more than trying to pool resources. --evrik 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think all this overseeing and re-organization of barnstars and other awards is completely unneeded and presumptuous. Most awards are self-explanatory, and don't need to be categorized or given a bureaucratic seal of approval. I for one am going to strongly resist 'ranking' awards, and will not tolerate meddling with any awards I have created or awarded. These awards are backstage gifts between users, and should not be subject to bureaucratic tampering. Ranking an award or redefining it pollutes the purity of the motivation behind the gift of it, and obscures the value of it as well. Pedant 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


IN ADDITION AND PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY by cut and paste moving of barnstars to a central page, the 'what links here' connection has been destroyed, making it impossible to see the history or recipients of a given barnstar. I think it should go back to how it was before all the 'fixing'. Pedant 20:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to have a subpage for each Barnstar, but this already achieved through its image and templates page (the latter are getting subst now, though). And we most certainly would not take away any former awards - but I think we should stop giving out some confusing ones (Surreal, Diligence), and make sure the rest are not overlapping or outright confusing (Life...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Braintrust

Well, let me ask, would anyone volunteer to be part of a brain trust?

  • I would--evrik 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renewed call for a Braintrust

I think the whole fiasco involving the Islamic Barnstar Award -- Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive12 shows the need for a committee of people willing to provide some sort of neutrality in the process. --evrik 15:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the people who look at the Barnstar pages are sufficient. I think one of the problems with the Islamic Barnstar Award is that it somehow become much more serious that it really was. We were standing around offering advice on how to improve the image, but somehow it became more than that. I think it really didn't need to be as big as it became because it's supposed to be a Wikiproject award. That's all. It wasn't even an official Wikipedia Barnstar. As for whether a Braintrust is needed, perhaps it is, but not an official one. People who look at, and maintain the Barnstar pages should be sufficient. I'm probably not the perfect person to ask about this, since I used to be a Barnstar contributor quite a long time ago, but admittedly haven't done too much on these pages (such as making barnstars or commenting on them, which is what I used to do), so maybe I'm not aware of whether the Barnstar process has become a lot more bureaucratic than it used to be, but we used to just make Barnstars, edit them according to suggestions, then bring them up to a vote when it seemed like we had reached that stage. We were pretty informal, we never put our name on any list of "Barnstar Wikipedians", we just showed up to provide feedback or vote on images when necessary. I don't know what it's become now, but maybe we should revert back to the way it was done. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need for an official committee, which braintrust seem only another name. Wikipedia works best as an adhocracy: if something is need to be done, let's do it. Be bold, ignore all rules, Wikipedia:Ignore all rulesavoid instruction creep and read up on iron law of oligarchy :) We don't need any official group to oversee Barnstars, people who are active here do a fine job, and if we need more people we just need to advertise the project and our needs on WP:VP and related places. Of course as I suggested above we may need a few more rules and guidelines, but they can be worked out without any 'braintrust', I believe.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think a committee is needed so much as an article called something like "A Guide on Selecting Barnstars and Awards". It would seem that the members of a particular WikiProject would get to decide which is the best award for them unless there was something seriously flawed with the image. The lack of a standard process creates a serious cloud of non-neutrality over the entire process. For example, it's sufficient for 3 days and 3 votes for the Saint's Star Award to be selected as a WikiProject Award. Since June, over fifty people have made several comments and/or voted on the Islamic Barnstar Award, sometimes three times based on new suggestions or the introduction of a new section, etc. And, now its as if we're asking for more people to vote. And, even so, when you look at it, the original Islamic Barnstar Award has still survived as the most supported image. But it looks as if the process is being extended long enough until another image is selected. --JuanMuslim 1m 17:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The Islamic Barnstar Award is just a WikiProject Award. I think the people in WikiProject Islam should be free to use whatever image they want as their WikiProject award. In that respect, now that we've got a whole host of alternatives, I think the award that you use can be safely placed out of the Barnstar Wikipedians' hands. Just form a poll in WikiProject Islam and see which image those folks would prefer to use. As a WikiProject Award, I think this can be brought out of our hands. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That would not be a legitimate vote in the eyes of evrik.--JuanMuslim 1m 00:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • It would be a legitimate vote in my eyes. If this were an official Barnstar, I would concur with evrik. However, this is just a WikiProject Award, which is somewhat akin to a Personal User Award (albeit on the scale of a WikiProject instead of personal users). Please conduct the poll with my compliments, and my official endorsement. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I like your idea. At one point in the previous discussion on the wikiproject award, I e-mailed pretty much every member of the Islam Wikiproject, Muslim Guild, etc to get their input because the discussion on the award proposals page was pretty much dieing down. And, now, the discussion has reached that point again. So, I'll do as you have suggested but I'm not sure how fast I will get to it. I also need to create another image that was I suggested. Right now, though, I need to focus on completing a non-Wikipedia project. I can't believe how much time I've spent on this selection process. --JuanMuslim 1m 15:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
            • (Shameless plug: why not just run the entire "WikiProject Award" process under the WikiProject Council? It would be trivial to create a "Gallery of WikiProject Awards" or some such and have the projects add/update entries as desired.) Kirill Lokshin 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, if you already have consensus among the members of your WikiProject, I say you should just be WP:BOLD and use the image that the members have agreed upon as your WikiProject Islam Award. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The barnstar pages started as a WikiProject, but then was converted. Somehow in the conversion, the "members" portion of the project was shed. --evrik 15:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmm... not from what I remember. Although I did get into the Barnstar pages a little later than some of the old stalwarts like ClockworkSoul, I still don't really remember there ever being a list of members, nor do I remember Barnstars ever having being referred to as a "WikiProject" when it was first started. Or were you referring to something else? (not that it really matters, this is beginning to stray into meta-history discussion) --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a guide such as the one I mentioned earlier could be created to define the do's and don't of a possible standing or temporary committee and to help build up some legitimacy for such committees. A standing committee could help oversee the entire mess whereas a temporary committee would help to oversee a temporary mess. The guide should begin by stating that "Images are not Articles."--JuanMuslim 1m 04:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I also think that the guide could mention active Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about graphic design who are willing to assist in developing proposed images. Everyone can contribute to developing an article but not everyone can contribute to the development of images. What would be cool would be a built in graphics editor, or make a recommendation to free editors, or some other method for leveling the playing field. --JuanMuslim 1m 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I suppose a list of people who are willing to contribute to developing images (and maybe provide suggestions on editing the images) would be useful, but I don't see the use of any sort of official body (whether we call it a committee, braintrust, or whatever) that would provide any sort of official oversight over the use of barnstars. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that we should pattern the committee in the form of a WikiProject that focuses on the maintenance of the pages, and providing continuity and equal treatment. --evrik 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside opinion

Read the end of this thread - It's the culmination of quite a bit of wrangling and constant accusations, among other things (the page history is a mess - constant changing of internal wording or responses, and Juan adding Evrik's talk page discussions). While I truly sympathise with Juan in wanting to continue this discussion, I think more outside opinion would be helpful. As you can see, I offered this, but Juan "strongly opposed". At this point the page is archived to forestall any further accustaions or negativity, and in the hope that the start of a new discussion might be more fruitful. - jc37 16:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major overhaul

[edit] Proposal

I think we need to do some reforms, the sooner - the better. First of all, we need a clear definition what is the difference between a Barnstar, an 'Other Related Award' and a 'Personal User Award'. The last one is easy, the first two are not. Issues:

  1. Barnstars vs Other Awards:
    1. Easy:
      1. Wikipedia:Other awards contains several awards with the word barnstar on it. I think they should be renamed not to have that word or moved to the Barnstar page (Spoken Barnstar, Scouting Barnstar, Bio-Barnstar]]
      2. Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals states: The "Barnstar" image should be generally reserved for Barnstars, and rarely (if ever) incorporated into other awards. This rule is being broken on a regular basis. As I don't expect we are going to change old images, I suggest dropping this rule altogether, and to replace it with the following text: 'The "Barnstar" word should be generally reserved for Barnstars, and never incorporated into 'Other Related Awards' or 'Personal User Awards.
    2. Not easy:
      1. Wikipedia:Barnstars page does not define a barnstar at all (other then saying it's an award that can be awarded by anyone). We need a definition. What do our current rules say about barnstars? Well:
        1. Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals notes that: Barnstars, however, are meant to be unique and exceptional: the addition of a new Barnstar should therefore be proposed and reviewed by the community, and be added to the Barnstars list only by community consensus on a page specifically designated for Barnstar and award discussion. This is OK and needs only some minor grammatical changes if any for the defintion.
        2. Wikipedia:Other awards states: While barnstars are generally reserved for a long-standing pattern of excellence, the following awards are more often given to honor specific actions or events. This is more tricky, especially when one examines some specific Barnstars and ORAs. Let's do it:
          1. Barnstar page lists three categories:
            1. General Barnstars are awarded not for work or contributions that do not fall into a specific Wikipedia category, but instead that describe contributions or editing along a specific theme.
              1. Note that 'contributions or editing along a specific theme' can refer to virtually everything. I'd suggest removing 'contributions' from that section, as the barnstars here are related to editing practices and 'contributions along a specific theme' is related to the sections below.
              2. I'd suggest moving The Original Barnstar to it's own category, as it can be (and was) awarded for basically everything.
              3. I think we have too many strange and not precise Barnstars there. Unless we can get better definitoons, I'd suggest moving the following Barnstars to ORA section (which we can clean later): The Barnstar of Diligence, (Do not mess with the barnstar of diligence, it is what it says, and it's exactly appropriate as it is. Committees should check with the recipients, givers, and creators of any award before tampering with it. This page is being run without consultation of the community at large and there can exist no consensus without consultation Pedant) The Surreal Barnstar and The Resilient Barnstar, and either the The Barnstar of Good Humor or The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, which essentially are about the same thing.
              4. See also bottom of the post for some more ideas on how to reform this cat.
            2. Category Barnstars are awarded in recognition of excellent contributions that fall into one of the following seven major categories listed on the Main Page. The categories are listed below, along with several examples of some of the subtopics that are associated with each.
              1. This is basically sound although some barnstar descriptions can use adjustment to make sure they are not overlapping and clarify some issues:
                1. The Barnstar of High Culture: - why 'high'? Is it not applicable for popculture then? Suggest removing the 'High' from the name, or renaming it to 'The High Barnstar of Culture'. Or at least note in the barnstar that it is not only about high culture/class.eering' to the Technology Barnstar.
                2. The Society Barnstar: Currently states: (Economics, government & politics, law, royalty & nobility, war). It is not a good listing; the Society barnstar should be a social science equivalent of the hard/natural EMC2 banrstar. Therefor it should state: (Social sciences and list them. Economics can stay, g&p should be transformed into political sciences, r&n is completly redundant (too specific, similar to high culture, what about other classes) and should be replaced by sociology, psychology should be added here, war belongs more to history and is again to specific. We should note here that history has its own barnstar (epic one).
                3. The Barnstar of Life. This is the one I have most problem with. The name can imply biology - which actually raises a good question which barnstar is applicable for biology? EMC2 doesn't sound too biological, altough biology fits the 'natural sciences' part. Then we have a problem that what is covered by this barnstar (education, food & drink, language, sports & games) is 1) not the same as what is covered by the Category:Personal life which this barnstar is supposed to cover (this category does not cover education and language, for example), and it overlaps with the culture, society and sport (below in topical) barnstars. I'd suggest retiring this barnstar. We can keep the image and even the name and now make this barnstar cover biology and such topics. Yes, this would break the 'categories as on main page' but 1) they are already broken and 2) the images/names of the existing category barnstars would make more sence then
                4. The E=MC² Barnstar: Rephrase '"Hard" sciences' into 'Natural sciences'
                5. The Technology Barnstar: Remove transportation (it is rather self-evident), add engeneering. I'd add notes to this and EMC barnstars that one (EMC) is about theoretical applications, the other (technology) is about practical. Perhaps add the words 'engen
                6. The National Merit Barnstar: there is a proposal in voting to spolit it between National Merit and Geographical Barnstar. Sounds good to me, especially as National Merit is often awarded for history and culture and other issues (note that this is yet another example of how barnstars don't follow the main page categories divisons)
            3. Topical barnstar is for a topic or area of substantial interest to users of Wikipedia.
              1. The problem here is that these category seems ready to become 'everything and a kitchen sink' (to certain extent this also affects the general category, too). I'd suggest that we:
                1. Move 'Running Man Barnstar' to Other Related Awards, renaming it an award. Rationale: Sport is too detailed for its own Barnstar. It is alraedy covered by the Category Barnstars (now, Life and Society, after the reform, Society only), and if we keep it here it will open the Barnstar category to the flood of various other barnstars (if we have sports, then why not games? or music? etc.)
                2. Move The Oddball Barnstar and The Current Events Barnstar to the Category section.
                3. The remaining Template Barnstar can be added to General Barnstar section.
      2. Considering the Barnstars in the General section, I think this could be split into two sections, this time clearly divided into:
        1. Personality-Barnstars: The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar and the The Barnstar of Good Humor or The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar (whichever one we keep). The Surreal Barnstar and The Resilient Barnstar if retained may also go hear, the Diligence one - perhaps, but it is so messed up that I am not sure where it would fit well. Overall this category would be for editors who are 'nice' in a specific way without looking at what article's they edit.
        2. Editing style would be about text-editing style of an editor. I.e. it looks and 'how' do they edit the articles, not 'what' articles: The Working Man's Barnstar - repetetive tasks like working with categories or stubs, The Minor Barnstar - various minor fixes, The Tireless Contributor Barnstar - for adding lots of text, i.e. content creation in the purerst form, The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar - self-explanatory. Looking at that list I actually think we are missing two possible good Barnstar here: English Language Barnstar - for people who do copyedits improving the English language, and Reference Barnstar - for people who work on adding references to the article and are generally involved with WP:V and such projects. The Photographer's Barnstar, The Graphic Designer's Barnstar, The Rosetta Barnstar, The Template Barnstar are also self-explanatory and fit here.

Uff. I hope that with this we will finally be ona good way to fix the awards mess. I think that such a division (content category, editing style and personality) can also be applied to ORAs.

All of that does not yet answer what are the differences between Barnstars and ORAs. In term of content creation, it's easy: Barnstars are more general. But in term of editing style and personality, I am not yet clear. For example, the FA and DYK medals from ORAs look to me 'on the same level' as Current Events/Template Barnstars. The Bio-Barnstar is very similar to my proposed new Life Barnstar. And the remaining editing style/personality ORAs are really no different IMHO from te current Barnstars. We really need a clear-cut distinction for them, because otherwise what's the point of having two pages? Honestly, is there a difference in scale between Defender of the Wiki Barnstar and Wikipedia Motivation Award? Or The Barnstar of Good Humor and The Cool as a Cucumber Award? If the division is supposed to be by 'long-standing pattern of excellence vs. specific actions or events', I fail to see it in the awards. I think it would make more sense to drop the Barnstar/ORA division, and rather divide the awards between content/editing style/personality, viewing anything named Barnstar as a major award, and Award/other as a minor one, with a general suggestion to award givers that they should start with a minor award.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

That's alot to take in. Without commenting otherwise, I think we should form a committee to help oversee all of this. --evrik 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask for comments on RFC. And for anybody reading this, an update: new Barnstar (Geography) has been voted through.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree that having a reform, maybe or maybe not along the lines of above (I'm not a member, so I won't say anything one way or another) might be a good idea. Maybe around the end of the year would be the best time to discuss some restructuring of the awards and, possibly, you're all going to love this, creation of additional awards. There are right now about 1100 WikiProjects, which, given the current number and variety of awards, means a lot of them have no real award to give. I'd try to help make a little, but my talent in the visual arts is about as pronounced as that of your average congenitally blind person. Badbilltucker 18:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • We need to move this forward. We especiually need a threshold of support for awards, and maybe even for WP Awards. --evrik (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Some proposals

  • I propose that we set a thirty vote threshold for any new barnstars, and a fifteen vote threshold for new WPA's and other awards. --South Philly 03:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I propose that we suggest in the rules that only members of the WPA committee be allowed to move new awards to the awards pages. --South Philly 03:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I propose that we say that a WikiProject has to have been in existence for six months and have 30 members to list their award. --South Philly 03:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need a committee. However, all attempts to delist or remove current barnstars is futile because they are too well established in the community. No consensual standards can be retroactive. Also, the idea that only members of this committee are entitled to edit certain pages is thoroughly unwikipedian and should be dropped immediately. Finally, all such voting bars are utterly arbitrary - a better bar is a consensus as a percentage. Say roughly 65% for a normal award and 75% for a barnstar. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I like the idea of a numeric threshold. --evrik (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the members of the WikiProject itself can serve as the committee, but agree with Dev that it is thoroughly unwikipedian to try to limit participation and editing. Numeric thresholds will only work if we get more people involved in the project. I think we need more than a handful of "support" !votes for something to go through, even if there is no opposition, but I don't think setting an arbitrary number at this point is a good idea. When clearer standards emerge (and again, we need far more people participating in this discussion to set those standards) they need to be clearly stated on the project and proposed awards pages, as right now the process is confusing and nebulous and, hence, open to widely varying interpretations. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Where is this wikiproject? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The most any award has ever received is twenty votes. That's why I think that is a good standard from here on out. It's not that hard to get twenty votes without violating WP:Canvas, and there are some who think there are too many barnstars as it is. There is also the proposal to creat five more category barnstars. You can weigh in here Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards. --evrik (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Evrik, thank you for ressurecting this :) Wikipedia growth and lack of good user statistics make me prefer to avoid tresholds like '30 users'. Let's stick with a well-defined WP:CONSENSUS - 80% of in favour can do whatever they want (list, delist, etc.). I still believe we need to fix the current BS mess: some BS are overlapping, others are awared for more trivial/specialized areas then some ORAs... Of course, we would not take a BS away from anybody who got it, but some confusing BS should not be awarded again. I suggest voting on delisting of Barnstar of Life, The Barnstar of Diligence, The Surreal Barnstar, The Resilient Barnstar, and either the The Barnstar of Good Humor or The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, which essentially are about the same thing, renaming The Barnstar of High Culture, redefining Society Barnstar and Technology Barnstar, and ORAing The Running Man Barnstar, The Barnstar of Liberty, The LGBT Barnstar, The Fauna Barnstar, and The Business and Economics Barnstar, and finally moving The Oddball Barnstar and The Current Events Barnstar to the Category section and the remaining Template Barnstar to General Barnstar section. Thus we will kill the evil 'other (read - anything goes) Barnstars category', make the categories logical and comprehensive and reduce the accumulated confusing cruft in General barnstars. Please note I explain my specific reasoning above in my old posts.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

With the possible exception of the fauna barnstar, all those barnstars are now well established in the minds of the Wikipedian community and should not be changed at the will of a few WikiProject members. I suggest we tighten up our rules but leave what is done as done. People just aren't interested in discussing new barnstar proposals or changes, so we may as well drop it and get to work on the future. Btw, can everyone please have this conversation here as the number of separate conversations is confusing and unhelpful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
We cannot 'enshrine' a half-kicked door. Either we tighten the policy and do a major reform, or we do nothing. We cannot tighten the policy and say 'look, those other guys were first, so we will keep their confusing awards, but you are just too late'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm done with this Piotrus. --evrik (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Awards_major_overhaul_26ec.html"