Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Four Award/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Golden W Award

Hello all, this award inspired me to create another, that I'd love comment/collaboration on. My working title is "the Golden W Award," and it is for an editor who has content in every main page section. The Golden W with Laurels is for a contributor has done it three times or more.

The Golden W, awarded for having content featured in every area of the main page.
The Golden W, with Laurels, awarded for having content thrice featured in every area of the main page.

Anyway, if anyone wants to help, let me know what you think needs to be done before we move it to WP space and start awarding it. Maybe it needs its own wikiproject, like WP:FOUR. Let me know what you think. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 07:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the award. I need to figure out how to get Rod Blagojevich corruption charges on the main page on Jan 29th because I have not been in the anniversary section yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
A nice idea, and a difficult one to achieve- I was hoping at first this would be "every type of featured media", which would be an equally difficult and worthy award. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I like it because its difficult, but not unreachable, and you Tutnums and Looshpahs need something new to keep you motivated. So what needs to happen for this to go live? I think a project page a lot like this one is the way to go personally. Because there aren't legions of people eligible, it should be easy for just a couple of editors to manage. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 14:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You need to do something like we did at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award. Make a proposal. Then make people aware of the proposal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively, start it in the userspace first. Do we know of anyone who has managed this? J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Proposal Active: Please Support

I've got the proposal up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/WikiProject_Golden_W_Award. Any editors that would like to help get it going are encouraged to go there and support it. Thanks for the support here, TonyTheTiger and J Milburn. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 11:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Directory entry added

Just a note, I've added an entry for this project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia#Article Improvement and Grading and will archive the proposal. Please review and correct any issues on the directory entry. -Optigan13 (talk)

What about FLs?

This might require a new award, but is there anything for Featured lists? In my case, I created List of lemur species and took it to FL very quickly. There is no "Good list" class like their is for articles. It's not terribly important to me—I have about 7 articles in the works that will eventually qualify for this award (I hope). I'm just curious.

But then again, some FLs are don't require too much work to put together and promote, so maybe they don't merit it. Any thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen featured lists go via GA before. However, featured lists are generally considered that bit easier than featured articles. I don't think there's much call for a "good list" classification, and I don't think there's much benefit to routing FLCs through GAC first- I would be inclined to say lists should not be part of this award. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I concur. However, the rare featured list that was formerly a GAC might be cause for reconsideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed- the only trouble with that is that it may encourage the unecessary routing of future FLCs through the already backlogged GAC. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple awardees

As much as I like to have the most FOUR awards, I am wondering what has happened to recent work by Sasata and Ian Rose. I am surprised not to see any recent noms from them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I know for a fact Sasata has gotten some more since then. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I also think that the now-retired User:Hurricanehink probably has a few since 2007.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Recruitment

Attention everyone! Wikipedia:Triple Crown is looking for editors to review the nominees. So please sign up and reviews the noms. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd party nominations

Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) has come out of retirement and feels that he may be due FOUR recognition for the following. If someone wants to put together these nomintaions with proper diffs and links that would be great.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Tropical Storm Vamei - made November 19, 2005, DYK on November 23, 2005, GA on July 28, 2006, and FA on March 24, 2008
  • Tropical Storm Henri (2003) - made June 12, 2006, DYK on June 16, 2006, GA on June 16, 2006, and FA on December 6, 2006
  • Hurricane Bob (1985) - made October 29, 2006, DYK on November 2, 2006, GA on November 26, 2006, and FA on August 22, 2009
  • Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina - made December 16, 2006, DYK on December 21, 2006, GA on December 20, 2006, and FA on December 29, 2006
  • 2000 Sri Lanka cyclone - made January 5, 2007, DYK on January 9, 2007, GA on January 18, 2007, and FA on February 17, 2007
  • Cyclone Elita - made January 21, 2008, DYK on January 23, 2008, GA on February 27, 2008, and FA on April 9, 2008
  • Hey, I was working on that too! :) I reviewed and approved Cyclone Elita, however I'm not sure if Hurricane Bob is eligible; Hurricanehink was retired at the time of its FAC and did not participate. Thoughts? (Kudos to Hurricanehink for all these great articles!) LittleMountain5 22:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Collaborations

On Amagi-class battlecruiser, Parsecboy (talk · contribs), Maralia (talk · contribs), and I collaborated to each write (or rewrite) roughly a third of it. Parsec was the one who created it, but we both made significant edits that day and during the next week to bring it to DYK/GA and eventual FA (Maralia came in later, during the FAC, so she probably doesn't qualify). Would both Parsec and I be able to claim FOUR credit for this? Seems like a place where bending the rules is sensible and not a slippery slope, but I'll bow to whatever y'all think. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maralia was not there for the creation or DYK, but you contributed on the day of article creation, you contributed to the DYK nomination, you contributed to the GA review, and you nominated and contributed to the FAR. Perhaps it is time to bend the rules for you. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a very slippery slope. Your day one contributions here and here seem to be contributions to its significance as a DYK candidate. I do not think that your contributions were part of the creation of the article. IMO, there is one page creator. The page was about 8000 KB before you made an edit. I.e, it was already created. In terms of WP:GOLDENW and WP:CROWN, I think you could claim credit for this one, but I don't think you get the credit for the first of the four steps for this award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(sorry, forgot about this conversation) In a true collaboration, the initial page start can last a few days as we marshal our sources together. I contributed on day one and added about 7,000 bytes of content on day two. That seriously isn't good enough for both of us to receive credit? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that in a way you helped create the article; but on the other hand, this is the Four Award, and technically, you weren't the editor that started the page. :/ Personally, I think you'll just have to settle for a triple crown. But don't get me wrong, great job on the article! Sincerely, LittleMountain5 00:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that prior to your involvement in the page it looked like this. The article was already "started" before you were involved. Stage 1 of four is for creating an article from nothing (or a redirect). There is probably some room for allowing credit for adding to an article that is so insignificant that it would be WP:CSDed. I don't think this article was anywhere near that stage when you got involved. By the time you were involved the article was clearly a stand alone article with encyclopedic content that would pass WP:N. You have to get involved in the article before it has any encyclopedic content or be the first person to add encyclopedic content to get credit for stage 1. In any article there is a particular edit where it becomes clear that this is an article. In the case where the page is created by someone who does not add encyclopedic content, then there is room to argue for two people being given credit for starting the page. If a page is started as a redirect there is room for two page creator credits and if the initial page creator adds no encyclopedic content for some reason there is room for two page creators. In fact, two of my credits are for page starts without encyclopedic content Chicago Board of Trade Building and South Side (Chicago). It is possible that there could be a conclusion that only the person who adds the first encyclopedic content deserves the page start credit. However, both the redirect creator and the initial encyclopedic content creator have an argument in my mind. No one else actually started the page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess a way to describe collaborating on starting the article would be to say all parties involved in the article up to the point that it had encyclopedic content are collaborators on starting the article. Of course, in almost all cases there will only be one such person.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but I can't very well make an edit at the same time as him. It was at 8,000 bytes—because it was a collaboration, so he adds his half and I add my half. Would this had been different if he had stopped at 2,000 bytes to let me add my bit? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I have stated it as clearly as I can. Creation of the article is taking it from having no encyclopedic content to having its first morsel of encyclopedic content. Everything after that is development of an encyclopedic topic that already exists. Others may have their own views, but mine is as clearly stated as I can make it, but here it is again. Collaborating on starting an article involves being productively involved in the transition from a redlink to the point of the article's first edit which gives it encyclopedic content. That is my opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
In most cases this will mean the first edit is the creation. In some cases a subject starts as a redirect and the first and second edit are involved. In some rare cases, articles are created that would fail WP:CSD for G1, G2, A1, or A3 and an editor could add encyclopedic content to save such articles as the page creator for WP:FOUR. There are some grey areas with A7 and A9 CSD saves. Not sure where I stand on those.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

I passed Grey Currawong just a few minutes ago, and I'm not sure which 'creation date' should be added to the records. The article was originally created way back on May 4, 2003 as a redirect, but the encyclopedic page was created on October 21, 2006.[1] Thoughts? LittleMountain5 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the creation of the article, not the redirect, for which Casliber can claim his Four Award, so list the expansion date as the creation date. J Milburn (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! LittleMountain5 14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What if there's a name change

About a year ago, I started an article called Vicki Lynne Cole, and got DYK credit. As a result of the DYK, there was a move discussion, and it was moved to Bring Us Together. It passed GA a week ago under the new name, and I am giving FA some thoughts. Would it be Four-eleigible?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not, unless it was merged into another, preexisting article. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is most certainly eligible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

10, 25

I am thinking we should get 10 and 25 templates to acknowledge people who achieve 10 or 25 of these. Does that sound reasonable? If so, how do I seek someone's service to create such templates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Four Award Ribbon

I have boldly created a ribbon relating to the Four Award, for those who like to display ribbons. Where should this be displayed (other than WP:RIB) to raise awareness of it, assuming this ribbon is thought suitable? Regards, EdChem (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you create a general FOUR award Barnstar and maybe 10 and 25 ribbons for those who have achieved milestone FOUR awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a 10 award ribbon, as requested. May I assume you liked the original ribbon? Not sure about the barnstar, I thought there already was one at Wikipedia:FOUR#Talk page notification. EdChem (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The ribbon and 10 award ribbons look great. We could also use a 25 award ribbon. I don't see a barnstar for the FOUR award, just a general FOUR notification template four individual FOUR award recognitions. Is there a way to put this ribbon and 10 ribbon in message substitution templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Glad you like them.  :) I am considering a 25 award ribbon, I want something distinctive rather than just changing the 10 to a 25. I have raised the barnstar question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards#Barnstar for WP:FOUR Award. My template writing experience is not extensive. EdChem (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Four_Award/Archive_2&oldid=1190139800"