The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I haven´t found any Barnstar that merits an important contribution in the Natural history, paleontology, zoology, botany and other biology sciences' articles. I would like to propose either a barnstar for each of the biology sciences or a common one for all biology articles.
--Francisco Valverde08:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The The E=MC² Barnstar was created as a barnstar for all fields of science and mathematics. It specifically lists, but is not limited to "astronomy, biology, geology, mathematics, medicine, minerology, and physics". – ClockworkSoul14:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The reason we have the general barnstars is so that we don't end up with a massive foam of specific barnstars on every conceivable topic. I know that it may seem unfair, but the community came to the conclusion a while back that it was a reasonable solution to the potential problem of overwhelming "creeping barnstarism". However: you do have the option of proposing a wikiproject barnstar for one of the biology-related wikiprojects. – ClockworkSoul22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree in what you say. But in this case, I believe, it would be a good proposal, taking in account that the wikipedia has had to create the separate wikispecies sister project. In any case, I will propose as you say a barnstar for biology at the biology wikiproject.--Francisco Valverde08:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Bio-Barnstar - suggestion for a new barnstar given in recognition of exceptional article contributions in the life sciences.
I agree with Francisco in that I would like to see a bio-barnstar. The life sciences are still an enormous category. I drafted a graphic file for the bio-barnstar using different authentic images from biology.
I see your point, ClockworkSoul. You would like only big categories for barnstars. Life sciences not sufficiently big? Ultimately, I don't mind whether this goes onto the main barnstar page or somewhere in the biology wikiproject.
I really like the E=mc2 design, but I would be surprised if after writing about cell division, I would be awarded this physical-looking barnstar. I would prefer to give something like the graphic proposed to outstanding bio-authours.
Totally support the idea! Even is we did create a barnstar for physics, mathematics and biology, for example, I still don't think that would lead to an excessive number of barnstars. Biology is arguably the widest topic of the 3 (from genetics, physiology, human anatomy to entomology and ecology, that's a lot of articles!), and could easily have its own barnstar. I'm not sure if I like Jasu's proposal though, if we decide to make this barnstar I'd like to see different ones to choose from. IronChris | (talk)15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose until the design is shown to be biologically meaningful. All I see is randomly selected patterns. Biologists deserve better. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I see, I didn't make the design sufficiently clear and I didn't explain it properly. It's meant to represent different areas of biology from 12 o'clock: neurons, leopard fur (for mammals), yeast cells, EM of cell, light microscopy of cell. The centre is blastocyst injection. Maybe part of the problem was the shrinking which made some nice pictures, like the neurons almost unidentifiable. Please suggest what you would like to see and I will make a 2nd draft. All the best, Jasu14:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the images are very unclear due to reduction and the chopping needed to put the pieces together. Perhaps use fewer images. - UtherSRG(talk)14:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
SupportOppose I love UtherSRG's idea of a sea star. It could look really good, of course there is the problem of getting a suitable image of one. It would have to be really flat, and be of about the same shape as the others. --liquidGhoul14:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Or it could just be the typical barnstar given a "skin" of a sea star. Or a sea star superimposed on top of the typical barstar. - UtherSRG(talk)14:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Bio-Barnstar - suggestion for a new barnstar given in recognition of exceptional article contributions in the life sciences.
Support Here is what I came up with from Uther's suggestion. It is from Haekel's print on the sea star article (PD old license, so it is alright). I took out the prettiest one, and cleaned it up slightly. It still needs some cleaning up round the edges, but I am really tired (1am). If someone wants to clean it up, I would really appreciate it! I have left it at a large size so people can edit it before shrinking it. Thanks --liquidGhoul14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
support very pretty! It's not the one I would have picked from that print, but it's quite a remarkable star! - UtherSRG(talk)15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I was originally going to pick either 11 or 12 as they resemble other barnstars more, but they were boring. I also think this represents that biology is complicated. --liquidGhoul15:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Support also like the simplicity of the idea. Samsara pointed out that the 1st draft was more a molecular biology barnstar - he's right there. Another ideas was: 5 star edges - 5 kingdoms. But it will be hard to fit that into the little space available in a 110x110 PNG. I can assure you the pictures I used for the 1st one are great photos but they are mostly robbed of their beauty when shrunk to icon size - as I also realised from your comments. Worked on the graphic file and uploaded a small PNG with transparency, slightly increased contrast, and somewhat reduced brightness to be more visible on the typical white background of the wikipedia. Jasu16:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits, I like it! The one on the right below is the better of the two, but I still like the wavy one. --liquidGhoul13:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Support - We can really use a bio barnstar, and I think the above would serve well to do this. I also like the two stars below. Kukini12:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are the other 2 for your consideration. They are no. 11 & 12 pointed out above. Jasu17:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps (with a little editing) the following photos (from the Commons) could be considered : JoJan18:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice pix, JoJan. I especially like the middle and the right one. Here's a little caveat: to make them into 2D star icons will be difficult with the ones that are not photographed from the top down, like the one on the left & right. But we could of course leave them shortened by perspective and deviate a little from the average barnstar look. Jasu08:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really like the idea of a photo, they are a bit too complicated (very hard to get a perfect photo!). Below is the best photo, but an illustration is still better in my book. --liquidGhoul13:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There was much talk lately about the bio-barnstar proposal, but these past 5 days there hasn't been more said. What is next? What is there to be done? Can we move this foward...? It is the first time I involve myself in a barnstar proposal and I do not know what is the procedure. I seem to read there is quite a support for a bio-barnstar and a considerable preference for the second proposal... Please, could someone tell me what next? Thanks. --Francisco Valverde17:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
finalising the bio-barnstar proposal
Dear all, here are my suggestions for finalising the bio-barnstar proposal. Please add your suggestions & comments.
We should count supporters & encourage more comments, possibly by putting up a link on the biology portal talk page.
We should start identifying users that made great contributions in biology and honour them with the new award.
My rough count of people that commented positively above (please add or remove yourselves): Francisco Valverde, Jasu, Kukini, IronChris, SP-KP, UtherSRG, liquidGhoul, Samsara, Guettarda = 9 in support; JoJan, you were also involved in the discussion. What's your final vote? (I just gave my support - see above JoJan16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)) No, clear votes in opposition, as far as I can see.
I think we could go ahead with the seastar. It's seem to be the majority opinion. Agree/disagree? ClockworkSoul & evrik pointed out correctly that there shouldn't be endless category barnstar on the main barnstar page. They suggested instead to make this a project barnstar. Let's make it the Wikiproject biology barnstar. Agree/disagree?
That's up to you. I've seen Samsara has already awarded one. Well done.
We already have a link on the Portal Talk:Biology page (that is how I found it). I second finalising it, and moving to the WikiProject awards. I will do it in a few hours if it is not already done (gotta go to uni). --liquidGhoul00:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikihalo
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Image
Name
Description!
The Wikihalo Award
The Wikihalo Award There are no particular requirements for this award. However, as it is the community that chooses who receives the award and who does not, it is unlikely that a user will receive the award if he/she does not appear to be of the highest standard. This award was introduced by The Neokidon 21 January 2006.
The Wikihalo appears headed to the dustbin. Does anyone (especially those that voted for its deletion) mind explaining why they didn't list it here if they had issues with it? it seems like the process was short-circuited. evrik23:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that most of the people, if not all of them, who voted to delete the award at the MfD didn't realize that this page existed, and they probably weren't aware of the procedure and praxises that we use concerning awards. As I see it, it was a simple misunderstanding. I'm sure the award will not be deleted. Let's hear now what people think is wrong with the award and how any problems can be fixed. Regards, Redux03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned clearly on that page, I am all for retaining the award as a PUA but not for having an elaborate process of nomination, voting etc. I believe that the MFD page is the right place - the delete votes that I saw were all against the forks of the page and the instruction creep, but not against the award per se. AFAIK, the image is not up for deletion and the image description page can still be used for retaining the award. --Gurubrahma04:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
If we can agree on changes that would improve the award, and if under this new format there is consensus to maintain a "wiki award" status, then there'd be no need to move it to PUA. It'd be listed with the other wiki awards that are not Barnstars (the Other Related Awards, which are the same as Barnstars, except that they don't feature a Barnstar in their image). It's only a PUA if the award comes into being (and continues to exist) without community consensus. Regards, Redux04:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Here I am, one of the inconsiderate narrow-minded users who voted to delete the award before discussing it here. ;-) I knew I had seen some cool new improvements at Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia lately, but I had no idea about this page. And I had no idea how organized this project was. Anyway, I came here to discuss the wikihalo award. I am concerned about the RfA-like process of voting for the recipients. I think it would be fine to keep the award, but I don't like the idea of stratifying the community. I acknowledge that there are several users who have (at least at one time or another) held a tremendous amount of influence in the community. The board members, some of the developers, most of the bureaucrats, and several other dedicated or otherwise notable users come to mind as Wikipedia "god-kings" who really do deserve something more meaningful than an ordinary barnstar. But I have doubts about this voting process. It's hard to imagine that anyone could possibly vote oppose in good faith without hurting the nominee's feelings or starting an unnecessary conflict. Such unfortunate events are common in RfA's and even in RfB's, but in those cases they are collateral damage in a process that is necessary for identifying trusted users to whom special sysop privileges may be granted. So, since a failed wikihalo nomination could be potentially disastrous if someone were to sincerely oppose it, I don't think we need to take the risk. On the other hand, if no one ever does oppose wikihalo nomination, then the voting is pointless. How should recipients be chosen? I don't know. But voting is probably a bad idea. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this? --TantalumTelluride04:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
From what has been said both here and at the MfD, it would seem that the following aspects of the award need reviewing: 1) Voting is not appropriate: a voting process seems to be rejected as the method for attributing a wiki award. So far, opinions are divided, some would like to make it just like other awards (anyone can give it to anyone they like), whereas others would prefer to find a third way, so as to retain a "differentiated" award; 2) Regardless of the specific process, instruction creep and several subpages as part of the "bureaucracy" are not a good idea. The idea would be to simplify as much as possible the "inner workings" of the award. Subpages would be deleted. I suppose we can take it from those two points. Goals: 1) Either elaborate a new attribution process or decide that the award is going to be just like all the others (anyone can give it to anyone); 2) Establish a set of very simple ground rules for the award to function. Regards, Redux12:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Proposed Changes
I've come up with a general idea to change the voting procedure. In some ways, it is similar to Esperanza's user page award, but it is much more simplified. I have a draft of a suggested page in my sandbox. Feel free to edit it or make suggestions here. If you don't like the concept at all, just let me know and we can start all over. But I doubt anyone is trying really hard to come up with anything better. Of course, this is just a very basic first draft. We should probably discuss the award process thoroughly before we implement any new designs. --TantalumTelluride21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
How it works: Only one wikihalo is awarded each month (the exact length of time can be changed) in order to maintain the award's prestige. Five nominations are made each month by whomever shows up first. A voting method is used to determine the winner, but only positive votes are allowed. This prevents unnecessary conflicts. The nominee with the most positive votes at the end of the round receives a wikihalo. --TantalumTelluride21:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
After seeing all the instruction creep, I am beginning to rue why I opposed the originally proposed editcountitis and agecountitis norms of Wikihalo - it was one year, 10K edits, exemplary behavior, period. That seemed to be much better and simpler in comparison to this proposal - I mean, we have 800 admins, the ppl who are judged to higher standards than others; even if only half of them lived up to that promise, it would take 400 months and I am not even counting other exemplary editors who decide not to become admins. --Gurubrahma03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with any previous discussions about this award (I just got involved while making the rounds through MFD), but I think the system in my proposal is significantly less complicated and less bureaucratic than the current system. Do you mind explaining the original "simpler" suggestion, or can you give me a link to the relevant discussion? --TantalumTelluride03:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Wikihalo and a glance at the history of Wikipedia:Wikihalo should be of some help. The problem of creating a hierarchy of awards is that it creates a implicit hierarchy of users, which is not a very good sign. btw, I just realised that the image of Wikihalo is linked to several userpages, and on closer observation, found that it is part of the user box wich states "This user assumes good faith." --Gurubrahma04:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I was concerned about that, too. I don't like the idea of making some users "better" than others by giving them a community award. Of course, there are several users who are held in very high regard by the rest of the community, but I think there is a problem with trying to identify them individually. We really need some more feedback from users who are experienced with designing awards. In its current form, the award is already divisive, as evidenced by the somewhat tactless comments in the MFD discussion. So it probably needs to be changed. How can we change it to address the concerns that you (Gurubrahma) outlined above? --TantalumTelluride20:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The other problem with Wikihalo that many people at SFD MFD picked up on is that - whereas barnstars are awarded spontaneously for good work by one editor to another - the wikihalos are voted on. I for one don't like the idea of saying "no, this user doesn't deserve an award". It creates a far greater divide between those awarded and those not awarded that barnstars which are done in the spirit of fun. Seems very much like "let's organise some spontaneity". Grutness...wha?12:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Since there seems to be no serious effort here to reform the award, I'm inclined to vote for its deletion at MfD because it is too problematic in its current state. --TantalumTelluride19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd support delisting this or deleting it but suspect that an actual deletion discussion may not be the most pleasant discussion! ++Lar: t/c19:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The Eisenhower official may be awarded to individuals who contribute greatly to Eisenhower and Eisenhower-related articles. This is part of the Eisenhower museum. Introduced by General Eisenhower on April 15, 2006.
I think this would be fine as a wikiproject award, but why not create a five-star like award instead of the picture of Ike? evrik15:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Userbox Star The Official Award of Wikiproject Userboxes. This can be applied by using the userbox {{User Barnstar}}. The Userbox Star can be awarded by contribution to Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes or for creation/significant edit of a popular, creative, or otherwise notable userbox. A list of users who have been awarded the award can be found in the "file links" section of Image:Barnstar-Userbox.png.
Comment In response to the look of it, the picture is actually just a screenshot of it. the barnstar is just a regular-looking barnstar but is meant to be put inside of a userbox.
Oppose Not good to have a barnstar for helping with something which many users(including Jimbo) think is not a good idea. JoshuaZ14:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The Award for User Page Excellence would be awarded to those with exceptional userpages, either for design, content, or writing. Introduced by Frater5 on April 29, 2006.
I have looked for some kind of recognition for excellent user pages, but haven't found anything. Please correct me if something like this already exists. –Frater5(talk/con)18:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Barnstars are generally given for consistently highly quality work in the article space. I'm not sure if a fine user page qualifies for a fine barnstar. Perhaps a general award? – ClockworkSoul20:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice design, but I think Barnstars should be reserved for people who improve the Encyclopedia. Keep as a general award. Borisblue23:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Now that this is a general award, I think this is a fabulous idea! I'm also a fan of userpages, and this is a good way to award people who really put some effort into it. Somecallmetim21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hm...the two are too different to be considered mutual. One is awarded based on votes, where as the AUPE can be awarded by anyone. If I want to give a user-page award to a page I like, I shouldn't have to get the approval of other Wikipedians. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the Esperanza Award at all, but it is too limiting for general use. Let there be a general award and the Esperanza for an extra bit of recognition. –Frater5(talk/con)01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Clockworksoul and Borisblue have it right: a Barnstar is not the choice for work on a user's own user page (although the user could be awarded some of our already-existing awards for being helpful to others and assisting them with their user pages — such as the Random Act of Kindness Barnstar). But a general award (or even a PUA) would be ok. Redux21:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Support with a few conditions. It should be a general award instead of a barnstar. And a wittier name is the "Endowment for an Excellent User Page" The Person Who Is Strange23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Award for Effort
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Image
Name
Description!
Award for Effort
The Award for Effort is for those users who may make mistakes but try their best to help Wikipedia. It would be a personal user award. Introduced by Jedi6 on May 1st, 2006.
Oppose, I agree with evrik, there are several other awards that can be applied here, and don't sound nearly as condescending. --Deathphoenixʕ02:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If we have a number of awards overlapping, they will each loose importance. If this is to be a PUA, then ok, of course; but if it's to be added to the main Barnstar list, then no. And of course, there's no way we can use a copyrighted image on a Barnstar or any other award. If a smiley is required, it would be better to use the one from the Wiffle Bat, as we did for the Barnstar of Good Humour. Redux21:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. As much as I like the design, this is too generic, the design makes me thing of 'good humor' instead of 'effort', and the description 'users who make mistakes' makes me wonder if all people would be happy to receive it. Suggest resubmitting under new idea, or simply make it an alternative version of 'The Barnstar of Good Humor' (shame to waste the image).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Peace Dove Award
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Image
Name
Description
The Peace Dove Award
The Peace Dove Award may be awarded to anyone who helps new users. This award was introduced by General Eisenhower 19 May 2006
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This Certain Elephant should be used to award people who bring good new ideas to WP. This Uncertain Elephant should be used to award people who defend WP from the influence of “original research” too seriously.
Oppose. Agree with evrik. They were also proposed in bad faith as they have only been used to reward people, in the "certain" case, who wrote an article that was later deleted as original research, and, in the "uncertain" case, to those who supported, or indeed had anything to do, with the discussion of the deletion on AfD. Note the terms "who bring good new ideas to WP" (i.e. OR), and "too seriously" (i.e. those who want to remove OR from WP). --Bduke22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Am I the only one who thinks having an ElephantAnus as an award is a little strange?? Don't know about you, but personally I wouldn't want to start my day to that. That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, not a good idea to have an award for bad behaviour. I'm guessing this is suppose to cut down on bad behaviour, but I'm quite sure that in some situations this may have the opposite effect, and in other situations it just ends up spreading badwill.--P-Chan16:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain whose behavior you call bad, Slicky or Bduke? They both had good intentions and both wanted to make WP better. The problem is that Bduke believes that materials in WP must be taken from a "reputable" (i. e. American, or, in the worst case, Western) journal. Slicky believes that only content and importance of materials should be taken into account, and all scientists (including those from poor countries, which do not spend substantial money for PR) have the right to participate in the world science process. So, who of them is right? Rcq23:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I do not believe anything of the kind. I have taught science in two universities in non-western countries, I do not come from America and I do not believe American sources are more reputable than other sources. The difference is that I follow Wikipedia policies and these do not allow "original research" and insist that verifiable sources have to be cited at least for anything that may be disputed. If Slicky really does believe what you say, then he is of course entitled to believe it, but it should not be used as a basis for editing Wikipedia. I think Rcq wants to change Wikipedia policies. These "awards" are not the way to go about it. Slicky's behaviour is not bad. He was just not following the policies for creating articles on wikipedia, so the article was deleted in good faith. --Bduke00:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, dear Bduke, you just do not understand what you believe in. For example, the article Uncertainty principle is mainly based on the "original researches" of Heisenberg, Kennard, and Robertson. And that article, formally, violates WP policy. Why do not you suggest to delete it? The papers of Arbatsky are more "verifiable", just because they are more accessible. And it is very likely that, at the moment, there are more alive people, who have read his papers. And nobody, including you, have disputed their contents. Do not fight with Elephants. They are stronger than you. ;-))) Rcq15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. (1) Here "good new ideas" does not mean "OR". Unfortunately, in most cases, when somebody brings OR to WP, those ideas are not good. So, note, Certain Elephant is only for those, who bring good new ideas. (2) Uncertain Elephant was accepted by Khoikhoi, who likes the award. (3) I do not insist that the awards should be used widely in WP. As regards Bduke, the award was really deserved. :-) (4) As regards OR, I do not believe that the term is well-defined. I talked to Arbatsky (the author of the certainty principle)... Yes, it was kind of local publication, which does not really differ from self-publication. And what does it prove? The humankind will have to accept it, whether you like it or not. Rcq00:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose; there seems to be a major misunderstanding of exactly what OR means; Uncertainty principle is in Wikipedia because it has been independently verified by peer review. Had Messrs. Heisenberg and Kennard posted uncertainty principle to Wikipedia instead of getting it peer reviewed, it would have been deleted. Telling people to Ignore All Rules is one thing; rewarding them for it is quite another. Besides which, encouraging people to post their original research to Wikipedia is effectively encouraging them to give up any patent/intellectual property rights they may be entitled (most patents are invalid if the information is already available to the public). smurrayinchester (Talk)15:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you, but this is you, who has misunderstanding of something (or, in fact, of many things). (1) Arbatsky's papers are already published (they are publicly available, in juridical sense). And, as far as I know, he does not want to patent anything in them. (2) As far as I know, Arbatsky is not Slicky (who created the article in WP). (3) The papers were peer reviewed. How do you want to measure the "independence" of that peer review? In fact, you imply that the papers were not peer reviewed by referees from a "reputable" journal. But, as you can see from above, even Bduke cannot explain, which journals should be considered "reputable". Maybe you can? Your opinion is welcome. ;-) Rcq20:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
There is little point in continuing this debate, but I will leave it with a final point. Arbatsky's papers are publically available, but they have only been published, as far as I can see, in a self-publishing manner. There is no formal peer review. If you believe there was please state who exactly peer reviewed it and what was the consequence. It could of course have been peer reviewed for a scientific journal and rejected. His home page gives web links to the papers. It does not give links to any publication in a scientific journal, whether a reputable one or not. This is why the article was OR in the way that the uncertainty principle most certainly is not OR. This is not the place to argue whether Arbatsky is correct. If he is, he will publish it in a proper scientific journal and then someone can recreate the article citing the journal article. Also note that I was not asked to state what a reputable journal was. I was merely countering the assertion that I thought they were American journals. --Bduke23:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Suppose I have come up with a theory that Tony Blair and Lionel Blair are the same person. I can come up with plenty of evidence (they've never been seen in the same room together, they're both male, they're both called Blair), but every peer-reviewed journal I've gone to has turned me down telling me that "this is a load of rubbish". Should I bring this new idea to Wikipedia? Should I be awarded a certain elephant for this? If another Wikipedian deletes this information, should they be punished with an uncertain elephant? (Incidently, for what counts as a reputable journal, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Which science journals are reputable?). smurrayinchester (Talk)20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
(1) If you really believe in the "idential Blairs theory" you can, of course, bring it to WP. But it is likely that other Wikipedians will say that "this is a load of rubbish" and will ask the proof. You will show your proofs, and it is unlikely that you would persuade anybody. Your article will be deleted, just because your idea is not good. And it is unlikely, that anybody would grant you the CE award. You can, of course, award your opponents UE, but the award will not be well-deserved in this case. (2) In the case of the certainty principle situation is completely different. The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof was published, and you can check it yourself. In fact, at least hundreds (more likely, thousands) of specialists have read it. Nobody has objections. As you can see, even Bduke agrees that the certainty principle "seems reasonable enough". It was deleted only because it is "original research". But, for example, Pythagorean Theorem is also "original research". And what does it proove? (3) UE cannot be considered "punishment": nobody can be forced to accept it. (4) As I said, the certainty principle was absolutely formally published. The publisher was Ch. Pyzhik, the journal was "Fontanka physics". Who exactly was the referee is kept in secret, as in other journals. The conclusion of the peer review was that papers are of very high quality, and they should be published. Rcq15:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You really do not understand the WP policy on OR. Pythagorean Theorem is NOT "original research".
No vote. The images look good, but are intended for very specific situations. As regards Bduke, he just seems to be an old retard who fights with everithing new and great. This is typical for all non-entities, and, IMHO, the certain elephant was too polite in this case... Sorry. Kabantu23:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose these "awards" were created with the sole intent of pushing an agenda (reinstatement of an article that was deleted after an AfD as original research) and to attack those who opposed it. Disclaimer: I originally nominated the Certainty Principle article for AfD (with no recommendation for deletion or keeping) and received the elephant anus "award" for my efforts. I've deleted it from my talk page as I found it offensive and I believe the awarder intended it to be offensive. Gwernol19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If an award stirs or may stir any kind of negative feelings in the community or the receiver, then we shouldn't have it. It would defeat the very purpose of the Kindness Campaign (stress on the word "kindness"). Redux21:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I hereby award you this award for your "tireless" contributions "fixing" WikiProject NASCAR articles. Congratulations!
I'd like to nominate this barnstar for outstanding contributors to the Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR. First given out to User:D-Day by myself as a personal award, we agree the image represents the project's spirit. The image is free use from the United States Government. I watched for several months for a free use image of a NASCAR car with no tire that was dragging the body leaving a trail of sparks, but I found none. This image does a good job of showing the "never quit" spirit of NASCAR teams that we hope the project members exhibit. Royalbroil04:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As a WikiProject award, it seems interesting. Normally, we only call an award a "Barnstar" when the image of a Barnstar is at least incorporated into the award's image. In this case, with the design you proposed (using this photograph), it would be better to call it NASCAR Award, maybe? Redux23:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you award an award instead of a barnstar for a WikiProject? Could it serve the same purpose (for contributions to the WikiProject)? If so, they it should be an award. Royalbroil03:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. The only difference between a wiki award and a Barnstar, which is in fact also a wiki award, is the name, and the naming varies only because of the use (or lack of) of the likeness of the Original Barnstar in the award's image. As a matter of fact, Barnstars and the other Wikipedia Awards used to be listed in the very same page, WP:BS, when it was less complex then today — it was broken down mainly for organizational purposes, not as any indication that other awards are less important then a Barnstar. Redux03:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
File under PUA, or course. You know how sometimes you hate checking your watchlist, especially when you see that certain someone or an IP has edited your favorite articles? The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person that, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world, you can relax, and do something besides cleaning up another mess. May be awarded to any person who consistently brightens your day, but especially where their involvement in something that is bothering you lightens your load. Thatcher13113:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Support Although there are barnstars (said below) that cover good behaviour and such, there isnt one that actually covers civility as such. Because of this, I think that this barnstar is a perfect candidate to become a barnstar for civil members of wikipedia - • The Giant Puffin •20:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. I am for the idea of the award, but against using the Esperanza coffee lounge iconography as the centerpiece for the barnstar's image.--SomeStranger(t|c)13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the top left a little unfocused? Otherwise, looks good. This isn't really covered by the other barnstars; though it's a similar concept, it's slightly different. --Rory09620:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I say we change the name to award and place it on the "Other Rlated Awards" page. Objections? --evrik14:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
CVG Barnstar
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Let's have a barnstar for articles in the (in Wikipedia) major field of computer and video games! In the absence of any other, I suggest the Mariostar (which I think is pd-ineligible). --Seahen 19:54, 28 March 2006
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The Sapphire Barnstar.
My new proposal is a barnstar with a sapphire dropped in the middle. It would be awarded to those who have done a good job on contributing to/making Geology and rock/mineral related articles.
I think there would have to be a big groundswell of support from a wikiproject community, otherwise it is too narrow. Also, it's just a bad image. evrik22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Withdraw I wish to withdraw my proposal. It is indeed a bad image, and I've realized it serves no practical use. --Kschwerdt51421:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
To be awarded to diligent sorters in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting. This was proposed to me on my talk page by Kukini. I tried to create a graphic, but my free trial of Photoshop wore out.
If Stub-Sorting is too specific, then how about a barnstar for great contributions toward stubs? This would include the creation of ideal stubs, good catagorizing, the creation of stub templates and catagories. What do my fellow Wikipedians think about this?? --SBrools(talk)
I think that one of the exisitng Barnstars would suffice. Especially the workigman's barnstar, or the Rescued from Deletion Award.evrik16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
ISTR there's also a barnstar for diligent and repeated minor edits, which is pretty much what stub sorting is. Grutness...wha?00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey y'all...I still think a barstar for Stub Sorting, which is an endless, challenging task, would be a great thing for us to have. Kukini20:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not use the template barnstar? It's not quite the same, maybe the definition of the award can be tweaked? evrik14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Support. I think there should be a stub sorting barnstar, as this is a very specific type of work in which users can be of service. Kukini12:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Support. I don't see the harm in it and well, it is a rather unique trade. Perhaps it should be extended to include sorters of categories as well? Valentinian(talk)22:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to archives this proposal for lack of support. It can be resurrected again later. --evrik15:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Support I myself am a member of the project. It looks great, but evrik's right. You need support for this. Why don't you talk to some other members of the Stub sorting Project and tell them to post an opinion here??? It could work..........--Ed15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Support. Stub sorting can take hours and sometimes span over days if new stubs show up overnight. And I'm also a member of the project :p SynergeticMaggot17:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Support after all the hours that I put in with the various Rail stubs, I know how much work is involved here (and I'm only going through one subclass of stubs). Slambo(Speak)18:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Support, obvious niche, and a nice-looking image. I suppose there's already the "minor barnstar" (not that I have one, snerf), but stub-sorting edits aren't so much of the utmost quality, as the uttermost quantity. :) (I thought about this earlier, and pondered an array of teeny barnstars, themselves arranged in a star shape, but that'd be hard to make visually clear at typical award image sizes.) Alai18:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Support. Stub sorting is a long and tiring work, and users who do it should be awarded a proper barnstar. Plus I like the artwork :) Mushroom (Talk) 19:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Lloyd's Gold Medal Barnstar for Business and related issues
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I am surprised that there is no specific Barnstar in respect of business, and issues such as economics and law (insofar as they relate to business), business history, etc. I should like to propose a new Barnstar to remedy this ommission.
I do not propose that the Barnstar is narrowly-construed. Lloyd's of London, for example, has spin-offs into newspaper publishing (Lloyd's List), history (HMS Lutine), and marine insurance. Each of these is potentially eligable for the award.
My proposed Name is a tip of the hat to Lloyd's, which can award a Gold Medal to particularly deserving employees. My proposed Barnstar is a bit more democratic in its nomination and award, however. I envisage it spreading out from Business 'pedians for articles which are, at first glance, apparently unconnected.
Not being very good at programming, or sure of support, if anyone who wanted to design an appropriate star they would have my gratidude. --Major Bonkers11:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Note Is it possible to put a briefcase next to this barnstar because at first glance, it does not relay business to me until Smurrayinchester pointed out the gold bullion --Jcw6907:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Support, agreeing with Evrik's proposal that it be a Topical Barnstar and with Jcw69 and Piotrus's that the graphic be modified to more clearly convey the concept of business. However, instead of only a dollar sign, I would add Euro, yen, and pound symbols as well. The briefcase might be cleaner--perhaps a briefcase charged with the gold barnstar? Tellumo06:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The Atomic Award may be awarded to anyone who makes a major, good and balenced contribution to the pages on nuclear, atomic, radioactive, radiation or related matters. This award was suggested by Cadmium20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I was awarded the Atom Barnstar by DV8 2XL, this was a version of the science barnstar, I think that for an award made to a person whose edits on radioactivity, atomic, nuclear or similar matters should have an award where the atom is right in terms of scale. If you look at the Geiger-Marsden experiment you will understand why a visible nucleus is very very wrong. If you want me to I will redraw the award.Cadmium
I started with the Science Barnstar and I removed the nucleus, in a real atom the nuclear size is so small that on a scale drawing where you can see the overall size of an atom the nucleus is too small to be seen. I was asking if a separate topical award should be created, I can (given time) make a new picture which is much less like the science barnstar.Cadmium07:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Indigenous American Star
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The Indigenous American Star in an award made with the purpose of recognizing efforts made to improve Indigenous Resources on Wikipedia, and introduced within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Created and designed by Aaron Walden on 25 March, 2006.
Support. Highly representative of the related Wikiproject; and at the same time, designed in a way that makes no clear reference to a specific Indigenous group, which is always a risk when it comes to ethnic matters. Perhaps the term "Award" can be more accurate here imho. Phædriel♥tell me - 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Support, Since it's a raccoon/rat thingy with a star on it, rather than a star with a raccon/rat thingy with on it, I think we should call it an award... Spawn Man23:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Support The 'coon got me. :) GangstaEBEA 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)*Neutral I think the image needs to be resized to fit with the other stars. As for the naming ... I would say Award or Star, as that is what the bulk of the wikiproject awards are. --evrik16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The da Vinci Barnstar
Image
Name
Description
The da Vinci Barnstar
The da Vinci Barnstar may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced and beautified numerous Wikipedia articles with applicable, quality images of artwork.
(This award was created and designed by The Man in Question on May 15, 2005.)
I noticed there was an award for people who make good graphics, and one for people who contribute nice photos — but what about nice pictures? — The Man in Question06:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, yeah, the Graphic Designers Barnstar is sufficient. However, I do like the design. Quite some time ago someone already beat me to a design based on the Vitruvian Man, but this one looks pretty good. Maybe this could be salvaged and used for another purpose? --Deathphoenixʕ02:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Although personally I'm satisfied with the present image for the Graphic Designer's Barnstar, which was created by Sango123, it is always possible to replace the award's image. It's not unprecedented, provided that we could establish a sufficient consensus for that. When I presented the idea for the Graphic Designer's Barnstar, a million years ago, there were almost no suggestions of images for it (only the present one and one other possibility), so we never really got to pick and choose the image. Fortunatelly enough, Sango was able to come up with a good image from the start, or else the award might have gotten stuck on not having a decent image. Redux20:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there is no need to replace the GDB, but I agree it would be a shame to waste this nice design. Here are a few suggestions: 1) for Renaissance-related contributions 2) for inventor-related Renaissance 3) for Polymath-related contributions 4) for Italian-biograhies related contributions. Note that it is not unprecedented to have an award for several issues (for example the Barnstar of National Merit is given both for [any] specific-country AND geography in general contribs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I am going to be bold and say that we use the daVinci image for programmers and bot builders. --evrik02:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Image
Name
Description
The da Vinci Barnstar
The da Vinci Barnstar may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work (programming, bot building, admin, sysop, link repair, etc.)
Support for bot builders/programmers (Leo was a great inventor), but oppose as an award for sysop activities - this should be a completely separate award. Misza13TC19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, since I don't support a separate sysop award, I thought this was a nice compromise. -evrik22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Barnstar for programmers, etc.
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Point me in the right direction if a barnstar like this exists, but I was thinking about a barnstar that we could give to people who work toward software and programming improvements for Wikipedia and using Wikipedia. For example, off the top of my head, for someone like User:CryptoDerk for his vandal fighting program, or for someone who works as a developer, or for someone who submits fixes to Bugzilla. I can't think of a decent name for this potential award; "The Programmer's Barnstar" came to mind, but I didn't know if that would be too restrictive. Anyway, what do people think about this? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!)01:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There is an anti-vandal star ... but what about, The Original Barnstar, The Working Man's Barnstar, The Barnstar of Diligence or The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. evrik16:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not use the template barnstar? It's not quite the same, maybe the definition of the award can be tweaked? --evrik15:13, 1 May 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 looked through the list of barnstars, and I haven't found anything especially for bot builders. It takes a certain type of person to build a bot; I've tried my hand at programming for a while with no avail. Bot writers do us a big favor by writing useful programs that other people want to use but don't want to make. Let me know what you think. (^'-')^Covington08:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be included under the template builders barnstar. I think we should expand the deinition of the template award. See my commnets abouve about the The Stub Sorting Barnstar. evrik19:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure the template barnstar is really appropriate for bot building; they are completely different things. I like the idea (I know a few bots that could with rewarding). Smurrayinchester18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the Template Award should be expanded and renamed to include all the technical work involved at wikipedia. --evrik14:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The Dinosaur Star is awarded in recognition of exceptional article contributions articles relating to paleontology or dinosaurs. This is part of WikiProject Dinosaurs. Introduced by Spawn Man & Sango123 on 22 June 2006.
Support, I came forward with the idea to Sango & she created the barnstar. I changed its name to Dinosaur Barnstar, (I accidentally missed out the barn). I think it would make a good addition as there is a lot of unrewarded work going on over the subject... Spawn Man23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The Indigenous American Star in an award made with the purpose of recognizing efforts made to improve Indigenous Resources on Wikipedia, and introduced within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Created and designed by Aaron Walden on 25 March, 2006.
Support. Highly representative of the related Wikiproject; and at the same time, designed in a way that makes no clear reference to a specific Indigenous group, which is always a risk when it comes to ethnic matters. Perhaps the term "Award" can be more accurate here imho. Phædriel♥tell me - 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Support, Since it's a raccoon/rat thingy with a star on it, rather than a star with a raccon/rat thingy with on it, I think we should call it an award... Spawn Man23:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Support The 'coon got me. :) GangstaEBEA 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)*Neutral I think the image needs to be resized to fit with the other stars. As for the naming ... I would say Award or Star, as that is what the bulk of the wikiproject awards are. --evrik16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I'd like to upgrade the "Stargate Star", a WikiProject Stargate award for excellent contributions to the project, to a full WikiProject Barnstar - rather than just a personal award. The award is already in use and accepted by the project as a whole. The Star is located at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Award. -- Alfakim -- talk 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No objection here, mostly through ignorance; I don't know how significant the difference between a "personal award" and "full WikiProject Barnstar" might be or mean. Regards, David Kernow11:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what the difference is either, but I'm in an agreeable mood, so I support. (Disclaimer: I have 2 of these) --Tango22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Lol.. the difference is minimal. If it is upgraded, we will have the right to call it a "barnstar" rather than a "star". Support, of course. -- Alfakim -- talk 00:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily, the upgrading is simply to chnage it from a PUA to a Wikiproject Award. There has been some debate about what can be called a barnstar, and the consensus was that there had to be a lot of support to name something a barnstar. --evrik13:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Proposal to split Geography Barnstar from the Barnstar of National Merit and include the regional awards
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Old Gepgraphy Barnstar: Barnstar of National Merit
Category: Geography (Geography and articles about nations)
The Barnstar of National Merit may be awarded to an editor who contributes significantly to expand or improve Wikipedia's coverage of any given country.
It may also be awarded to those who create a particularly fine article regarding Category:Geography.
New Geography Barnstar Proposal #1: Blue Marble Barnstar
Blue Marble Barnstar
I think we need to have a geography award, and then a whole section, or page for regions and countries as people decide they want them. This would include the two proposals below. Thoughts? --evrik03:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion re the Blue Marble Barnstar: Rather than a picture of the Earth as the center of the barnstar, color the barnstar with a two-dimensional image of the Earth...? David Kernow11:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Support, although this may be somewhat too general: I tend to think of Earth or planet, not geography here. Perhaps David's suggestion would be better? Plus the name 'Blue Marble' is perhaps too poetic.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Support - Many editors feel that Wikipedia is sorely lacking in Africa-related content and this award recognises editors doing good work on Africa-related topics. --Jcw6919:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
In response to evrik's question, it's a regional notice board. I would rather not get too hung up on definitions of WikiProjects versus boards. A group of editors with broadly similar editing interests came to consensus on this design and have been happy with it. Looks like almost two dozen awarded thus far before Jcw69 thought to make it official projectwide. The way awards are organized, I suppose that I support this as an other award. - BanyanTree19:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Support, as BanyanTree and mark said above, as well as the distinction for the lack of Africa-related articles as Jcw69 said. dewet|✉20:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutral, this is already covered under the official Barnstar of National Merit, and they've already been awarded for excellent work in several countries: India, South Africa, Poland, Russia, Australia, Canada, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Belarus, Brazil, New Zealand, Portugal, United Kingdom, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Fiji, Hungary, Italy, Japan, The Maldives, Norway, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Rhodesia, Ukraine, Macedonia, Kenya, Tanzania (notice that this award has already been given for work on some African countries). Wouldn't it be nice if some other African countries got some representation? However, this would also be appropriate as a WikiProject award, so my vote is neutral rather than oppose. --Deathphoenixʕ02:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I never said African was a nation (if you think I did, please tell me where I said it was). However, I said it would be nice if some exceptional work related to other African countries (ie, countries in the continent of Africa) were rewarded with the Barnstar of National Merit. In any case, I have no objections to this being a Wikiproject Award, but there is no need for this to be made an official barnstar when the expressed purpose of the BoNM is to award exceptional work on any country. The BoNM was explicitly designed to recognise work on all nations so no one country gets treated above any other country. When we designed this Barnstar, we were very careful not to make it look associated with any one country. In fact, the ribbon itself is supposed to be "UN Blue". --Deathphoenixʕ04:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You ignored the second part of my sentence, or perhaps this is non-obvious to people who edit in fields with a lot of other contributors. For the most part, there are so few Africa editors that many people on the board spread themselves across multiple countries. For example, I am one of two regular editors on Uganda topics, along with Ezeu. I also am one of what looks like two people on the Sudan geo pages, of a few in Rwanda and feel like I'm the only one on conflicts in the eastern DRC, as well as dabbling in Burundi and Ethiopia. Ezeu also helps cover Kenya and Tanzania. Mark Dingemanse covers the entire field of African linguistics. A continent is simply too broad a topic to have a WikiProject and the number of editors too few (which requires common knowledge to be coordinated), but there is enough recognition of how pitiful the wiki's coverage of Africa topics that we're willing to help each other out where possible and make a point of telling new users about the board as the one place an Africa editor may get a relatively quick response. You could give me four BoNM rather than an Africa Award, I suppose, but that just ignores how the Africa editors are 'organized'. - BanyanTree12:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes I did, my apologies. In that case, you deserve the Africa Award, or multiple BoNMs for multiple African countries. That's up to someone else to decide what they want to give you. In any case, my neutral vote stands. I believe the BoNM is more appropriate, but that this award is still fine as a Wikiproject award. --Deathphoenixʕ15:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
weak support - whilst this award has its place due to the lack of information on African topics, is it not a bad precident to set to make an award for a specific geographic category? Most other barnstars are for "anti-vandalism", etc. and so appeal to the broader public. However, it is a good idea. -- Chris Lestertalk16:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Deathphoenix and Ynhockey. As an award for the WikiProject, it would be interesting. But generally speaking, it is redundant with the Barnstar of National Merit — unless the user were to have done great work in articles pertaining to the African continent in general, and not any specific country, but I suppose that'd be an exception, hardly warranting an award just for it. So, to summarize: yes, but only as a WikiProject award. And the image looks great, btw. Redux21:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
This specialized type of 'The Barnstar of National Merit' has been proposed over a year ago, when the image was uploaded to Wikipedia and discussed on userpages, but as far as I can tell it was forgotten, although interestingly a ribbon for it is already included in the Wikipedia:Ribbons. I have found the image while doing clean-up of Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board and I think that we should formalize the use of this award (especially as the ribbon has been awarded for at least one year). I'd suggest adding a new smaller table listing various types of [Country's] Barnstar of National Merit at WP:BS, under the entry for the generic BoNS. To avoid cluttering the page with dozens (hundreds...) of those (are there any others?) I'd strongly suggest that they should be kept as small thumbnails (I'll leave the design of the table for specialists in that area).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the national variants of the BoNM are nothing new. They started popping up almost immediately after the original Barnstar was introduced, over a year ago. During the discussions for the creation of the original BoNM, it was decided that the Barnstar should not be country-specific, but rather be something general, that could be awarded for any country or nationality. When the variants appeared, we decided that they were okay as user awards, but not to be listed in the main Barnstar page. Since then, a number of variations was created. The full list can be found at Commons, at Barnstar#Barnstars of National Merit. They are all completely usable, and have been available for use for quite some time. I don't see any need to make any kind of change in that. It's all been discussed already. Redux23:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it should. I thought it already was. I'll go over there now, and if it's not already linked, I'll do it. Redux00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
All done. There already was a link to the Barnstars page at the Commons, but to make sure that it would be noticed, I added a direct-to-section link at the BoNM description. Hopefully, it's to satisfaction, but please feel free to improve on it as seen fit. :) Redux00:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should rewrite the description to allow for people to substitute (a specific country's award into the BoNM). --evrik20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Proposal to replace Atlas Award and Cool as a Cucumber Awardwith Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience, to be awarded to editors who remain calm in the face of turmoil
Here's a thought: I'm not sure, but I think the Sandbox is cleanup by a bot these days, making the original intent of this award obsolete. Also, the "Cool As A Cucumber" awards are not especially popular, despite the nobility of their intent. For these reasons, I propose that we "merge" the awards into the Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience, to be awards to editors who remain calm in the face of turmoil. – ClockworkSoul15:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment -I think the phrase beneath the pic should be changed a bit because as it is now it only refers to the sandbox and I believe the Cool Cucumber didn't refer specifically to this case but was a general award for editors who remain calm in the face of turmoil.Rosa00:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The original intent was not made obsolete by the bot, look at the edit history of some of the award recipients. Some truly objectionable stuff is often removed by our helpful editors. However, I agree with the reasoning that makes the 'Atlas award' defunct, yes it is a copyvio, unless used in the Atlas article, so the image is no good, without the image the name is no good. Support the merge and I like the new image a lot, (with the minor quibble that it is not traditional to have an even number of stones in a zen garden). My vote is do whatever necessary as long as there is still an award to give people who manually repair the sandbox, this is a task done by new editors fairly often, and it's a good way to award them and encourage their continued contributions. Just because I created the award doesn't mean I'm hung up on keeping it, but there needs to be something appropriate to replace it.Pedant17:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience may be awarded to an editor who has shown extraordinary patience in the face of toil or turmoil. This award was introduced on 31 March 2006 by ClockworkSoul.
Only edit I'd suggest is removing "in the form of serene acceptance". If consensus is to keep, suggest sentence rephrased to avoid double "in the". Best wishes, David Kernow21:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Now I like the "toil or turmoil" at the end of the first sentence. I imagine a disciple asking a Zen master something along the lines of "But what lies between turmoil and toil, O Master?" and being given the word/mantra "Urm" to meditate on, "to know that the expression of not knowing leads to satori", etc, etc. Gawsh, David02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Image
Name
Description
The Atlas Award
The Atlas Award For Raking the Sandbox Clean may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in fishing disgusting and unwanted items from the Wikipedia sandbox. "The sandbox is not a litterbox." This award was introduced by Pedant on November 92004.
Oppose This award did not have its original image removed, the original award is an extremely low-resolution picture of a portion of an advertisement and credit was given to the copyright owner. A picture of a copyrighted picture is not copyrighted. The image still exists on our servers and has passed the deletion vote already. This proposed "new" image is in no way related to sandboxes. The original was part of the famous bully-kicking-sand-in-the-face-of-a-97-pound-weakling advertisement by Charles Atlas and is referenced by the Charles Atlas article. Pedant19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment The original image was moved to File:Black and white drawing of a man's arm flexing.jpg. The fact of the matter is that it is copyrighted, so there is no question that it cannot be used for the award. Fair use only applies to usage that is directly related to the image itself. Also, Pedant, please read Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. In fact, a picture of a copyrighted picture is still copyrighted. I've removed the reference to the original award because its inclusion on this page is not a fair use. ~MDD469600:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The old image is not acceptable, but the new image simply doesn't make sense. We should find a suitable replacement image for this to fly at all. – ClockworkSoul01:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Replace image as per ClockworkSoul; how about a cartoon of a neatly-raked sandbox? Also, suggest it has a different name (say "Moonraker" or "Sandraker" award) as the link described above between Atlas and a raked sandbox feels too tenuous. Good idea for an award, though. Regards, David Kernow17:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Image
Name
Description
Cool as a Cucumber Award
The Cool as a Cucumber Award is awarded to a Wikipedian who remains cool when the situation gets hot, and even turns into a big pickle. This award was introduced by Theresa knott and Func on September 152004
Uneasily Neutral (I'd like to support it) – it's not aesthetically pleasant but it's a very useful award...I like the idea behind it. Could use an improved image, any drafts? Rosa21:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
How about a barnstar called something along the lines of "Bright Idea Barnstar" that is awarded to editors that make commendable proposals and suggestions? --Gray Porpoise13:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this proposal needs to be fleshed out, with some good examples, and a better image. --evrik14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert graphics maker or anything, I just made that image to be improved upon. Still, I would like the barnstar, if created, to be shining with an exclamation mark. --Gray Porpoise15:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This barnstar would be for sharing ideas, while existent barnstars are for contributing to articles, having a good attitude, and strengthening the community. --Gray Porpoise15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Image
Name
Description
Wise Man Award
The Wise Man Award may be awarded to those who frequently answer questions asked at the reference desk. This award was introduced by Russian F on June 262006.
An award for the people who devote countless hours slaving away to answer the questions asked at the reference desk. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Russian F (talk • contribs)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I think we need an award for people who create maps for Wikipedia. Making a new map is not easy, and such work should be recognized. There is a related project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Unfortunately my graphics skills are near null so I cannot create an image for that award. Note: this would be a more specific award then 'The Graphic Designer's Barnstar'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk16:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
{{{1}}}
This is a proposed award for WikiProject Firefly which we'd like to be able to award to our members for outstanding work on our project articles. Note of explanation: Browncoat is the term used to describe fans of Firefly and it's a sci-fi western, hence the Old West sheriff badge look plange15:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I would encourage the members of your wikiproject to offer their support for the design of the award. --evrik15:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Shiny! I'd better start watching those episodes again to try to earn one of these. Ah - it's a hard job but someone's got to do it.... Sophia16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems like we will soon have a special category for 'sci-fi shows awards'. I don't oppose that one, but... well, Firefly is not *that* popular (compared to shows like ST, SW or SG1). How many people are involved in that WikiProject?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk16:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
We just started about a week ago and already have 8 members, but if you look at this, we have more potential members. Also, it's not a proposed Barnstar but a proposed Project Award, don't know if that makes a difference? plange17:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I am proposing a new barnstar for users that make contributions in many areas, and do not deserve barnstars in one particular area, but in areas all around. The user can revert vandalism, fix disambiguation links, fix typos, resolve NPOV on pages, expand articles, etc. The user does not just stick to one area. Tell me what you think. --WillMak05038920:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I was unsure if that was what an original barnstar was for or if the original barnstar was just like a pat on the back for a job well done. This one could be used for users who make exceptional strides in all parts of the Wikipedia community, but if the original barnstar is used for this, then I rescind my proposal. --WillMak05038923:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: One barnstar to symbolize many barnstars? In that case, I suggest something like the Society Barnstar. Only, make the sub-stars all different types, rather than all the Original. Seahen17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Another proposal. This barnstar could be awarded to a user who has spent much time fixing disambiguation links. I know the working man's barnstar may be similar to this, but we have an award for someone who reverts many vandalisms, I do not see why we cannot have an award for somone who fixes many disambiguation links. The picture itself may need work, but I think this award is needed. --WillMak05038918:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
These images already exist and are used for the admins
The Admin's Mop & Bucket
Admin Mop
Support. I'd rename it to 'Mop'n'bucket barnstar' :) I do think that it should be limited only to sysops, as otherwise it would be too similar to 'The Working Man's Barnstar', 'The Editor's Barnstar' and some other similar barnstars.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. The mop pictures is very poorly drawn sorry. If you put a good picture of a mop over the star, I'd support. And maybe over a silver star rather than a red/dark star. Spawn Man23:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If you stop and think about them recieving the award, it is really like you are giving a chunk of the community one, too. When you give this barnstar you give it to the support voters in their RFA. You give to the 'crat that decided their voters had a consensus. And you give them the barnstar. With one award given to one sysop, you give the community an award. so it's not for sysops only. It is for crat's and active RFA voters. Except only the sysop getting awarded gets a barnstar on their page. :-) GangstaEB (talk • contribs • count • ice slides) 12:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This topical barnstar is for any user who has put a tremendous amount of time and effort into their own Userpage or their own talk page. For an example of the standard of work, see User:thefourdotelipsis and its corresponding talk page. The awarded user's Userpage should be organised and a marvel of WikiMarkup, rather than simply a bunch of templates, as seen on my own userpage. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. IIITalk to me!10:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Often you see people doing great things around Wikipedia. Sometimes you are lazy and forget to thank people for what they are doing. Sometimes you are not lazy and do thank the person, either on an article talk page, or on their user page. Sometimes, when you're really excited, you might want lots of people to know about the good work you've seen. This page is your place to do that. This award was introduced by Pcb21 on 27 April 2004 .
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Current barnstar
My barnstar
Design #3
Do you think that the current barnstar barstar by Cyde should be replaced with mine? Or should the inside barnstar in mine have it's color replaced? Michaelas1013:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
NO WAY The original barnstar is the original barnstar. I would fight tooth and nail for the retention of ALL of the original designs, for historicity. Pedant20:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
(Enlarge Image for full version)
The Super Barnstar like the Original Barnstar, only huge! It is used to celebrate Wikipedians whose work goes far beyond just deserving one award, but allows "awarders" (for lack of a better word) to recognize those people without littering the page with repetitive images.
Feel free to modify the image to your whim. It is just a stretched out version of the Original Barnstar's image, so it looks somewhat blurry.
Well... it's big. I don't know... I'd rather have lots of little stars than one big star as well. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk)15:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to retract my proposal in realization that it is truly unnecessary. I just come up with the most useless ideas when I get eager about proposing new awards. --Gray Porpoise21:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Purplr Star Ribbon
Purple Star
I recently stumbled upon a forgotten ribbon. From what I understand, the creator (no longer editing) has intented it to be a Purple Heart like award, given to Wikipedians who have been hurt by others, for example by having their user pages vandalised, being mistakenly blocked (for too long, or affected by range blocks), being personally attacked, etc. I think it is not a bad idea for an award, although it would need a picture to accompany the ribbon. On a ribbon note, I think it would be good idea to merge the two lists at WP:RIBBON, and to add a note to every award that has a ribbon that it has a ribbon :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Support, but only if it is used for real injury, like Wikipedeans who get sacked from their jobs because some idiot troll writes to their boss. Some people have left WP for this. People who get blocked etc. have not received a real injury in the course of their work on WP. --Bduke12:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Support; I've created a corresponding star. I think it should be simple and subdued colourwise. Should this be given to users who have been attacked or Wikistalked, causing stress, but which hasn't extended beyond WP (like the sacking example). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk)14:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Philadelphia Award
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Also, how do people feel about making this a free speech topical award? --evrik14:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I've recoloured the star to be closer to the real bell colours. I like that idea; perhaps extend the scope slightly to democracy-related subjects. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk)14:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
SupportI support the proposal and support the comments that have been made thus far. I like the first proposal (the middle image with the bell) as it includes the liberty bell, a symbol of freedom. Also, Evrik said, "Also, how do people feel about making this a free speech topical award?" I support his (her) suggestion and since free speech was originally a thing constitued in the United States, I especially think it is important to leave the bell in. Shannonduck talk21:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
. The others are nice but can't compare with this one. --Francisco Valverde 16:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
. Pagrashtak 23:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Blue Marble Barnstar
SteveRwanda 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The Medal
The Medal v2
The Ribbon
.png)
How about a barnstar called something along the lines of "Bright Idea Barnstar" that is awarded to editors that make commendable proposals and suggestions? --Gray Porpoise 13:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
,_meditation_with_statue.jpg)
My proposed barnstar
Here's its ribbon
The Admin's Mop & Bucket
Admin Mop
Current barnstar
My barnstar
Design #3
Purplr Star Ribbon
Purple Star
The Liberty Bell
First proposal
The Liberty Star - Final version
