Wikipedia talk:Four Award/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Four Award. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Nomination of User:WxGopher?

I was planing to nominate User:WxGopher, for his work on the article Climate of Minnesota. However, after reading the criterion for the four award, I am somewhat confused as to whether he is eligible. WxGopher created the article Climate of Minnesota in 2006 and continued to edit it until it's GA win in 2008. He then continued to work on it until it became a Featured article 3 days ago. Does that qualify him for this award? --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 22:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence on the talk pager that the article ever appeared on the main page as part of the WP:DYK stage.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Split articles

A shot in the dark here, but when I wrote Evolutionary history of lemurs, it earned one of these awards, but the article has recently been split. The taxonomy information has been moved into its own article (Taxonomy of lemurs), and I will (eventually) gain credit for creation, GA, and FA. Depending on how you look at it, you could say that it shares its DYK credit with the original article, especially since split articles cannot be nominated for DYK. Basically, if I had been smart when I wrote the article, I would have created 2 articles, not one. What's the official verdict on this? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be apt to decline the nomination based on the purpose of the award. The first stage is taking the encyclopedia from a redlink to encyclopedic topic for the reader. The second stage is taking the topic to a point where it has a substantive amount of content with at least one interesting fact. Both of those stages were reached for this topic in the original article in a sense. I think you have to document that the separate topic has its own points at which these two stages were achieved for this specific topic and if you can't (by pointing to both a creation date and a DYK date) then you can not claim credit. In this case it sounds like the creation date is a date where you copied existent content and moved it just changing the location of an existing encyclopedic topic and then opted not to claim DYK credit (which frowns upon forks/splits).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The lion-share of the content of both articles was created during that initial article creation. In many cases, my other lemurs articles didn't point to the article itself, but the "Taxonomic and phylogenetic classification" section explicitly. There were many interesting facts in the article at the time, but I had to pick one, and most people are fascinated by evolution more than taxonomy. The reason why they originally shared the same article was due to a naming convention for section headers: evolution and taxonomy are usually kept under the same header. (Basically, the content of both articles were expansions of sections on the article Lemur.) I had always known that Evolutionary history of lemurs was a large article (bordering 100 kB), but it was when the article went TFA that it became apparent that it should be two articles, not one. I would have nominated for DYK following the split, but couldn't. I regret not creating two separate articles from the start—the two halves of the article never fit together anyway. There will be other similar articles eventually coming along... Anatomy of lemurs, Ecology of lemurs, and Conservation of lemurs. Fortunately, their parent sections are more clearly defined. But whatever you think is best. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Expanding from redirects

What if you expanded an article from a redirect, and managed to reach every other requirement (i.e. DYK, GA, and FA)? Does that still count? Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's in the FAQ above: "This award does recognize advancing that you started by replacing a redirect." – VisionHolder « talk » 05:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I read the FAQ before I commented, but must have missed it. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 00:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Disturbing self-promotional and competitive tone

.. in the section at Wikipedia:FOUR#History. I don't know of any other page on Wiki written to advance individual editors' contributions in the history of a venue. Quite un-wikilike, even beyond the usual for the reward culture. Could someone rewrite it to remove the glorification of individual editors ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer not to lose the history. I could move it to a subpage somewhere. Is that O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can't say I see any problem. There's an argument for getting rid of "scoreboards" altogether—the last time the matter came up consensus was overwhelmingly to keep, but that was two years ago—but that's a different matter. The history section is so tucked away, nobody's going to find it unless they come looking for it. – iridescent 19:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  - Whatdyamean, tucked away? It's at the top of the page, before the list of recipients, before most of the relevant info, and it's purely self-promotional (I wonder who wrote it all?). What does it add? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    - "Tucked away" as in "on this page"—since this isn't linked anywhere except on the assorted userpages of the winners and a few other pages, nobody's going to come unless they're interested in it. (No mainspace links, unused on any templates, very few WP-space links and most of those false positives from the link in TTT's sig—this page gets around 10 visitors a day, it isn't a high-profile area like FAC where appearances are important.) – iridescent 22:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
      - That's encouraging, although even if no one reads this page, it's curious that we permit such puffery-- I attempted cleanup. And discussion of the self-promotion in Tony's sig goes back years, related to signature guidelines, but no one has yet convinced him to reduce it ... it was again having to read around his long sig that brought my attention to this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
        Meh, it's just a good use of gamification. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
        Sandy, thanks for the feedback on our project. Your editorial contributions are largely appreciated. I restored two components of the history of the project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
        
        P.S. Sandy, you should notice some of the short lags between promotion at FAC and nomination here. A lot of people really strive for this. You also should note that my efforts to track down a lot of the older awards has given people motivation to try to clean up older articles to take to FAC. One of the lines of the history regarding getting the older articles is definitely an important part of the history.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
        
        Sandy, you might want to sort on the creation date and note how many of the 10 oldest articles were FOUR awards awarded in since August 2010.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Credit where credit doesn't exist

The Good article item says, "You must significantly help in improving that same article... with you being credited, to Good Article status.

The GA process doesn't provide "credit" to anyone. The nominator is not a special position, and the nom need not have done anything except notice that the article probably meets the criteria and suggest that someone review it. It might be possible to require the person to "participate in the review", but if the article clearly meets the criteria, then it's possible that only the reviewer will "participate", i.e., by posting a note to say that it meets the criteria and will be listed. It would be undesirable to encourage editors to engage in needless make-work "participation" solely for the purpose of technically complying with the Four Award.

On balance, I think that the simplest solution is to drop the "with you being credited" statement. What really matters is the significant improvement in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A good point, though I will note that I've seen people ask whether the regular editors of articles are ready for a GA review. I agree that the Four Award should not be denied on a technicality. J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes FOURs are judged based on whether you did the work to make it a GA and not on the technicality of being the person who got it promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

How about "Most of the time, you will be the GA nominator; this is not, however an absolute requirement, and if you were one of those most responsible for making the article a GA, this is an acceptable substitute."--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that you have to be the one most responsible. Above we said we allow for collaborations. 30-30-40 efforts could be credited 3-ways. What is important is that you significantly contributed to the article. We are not looking to reward 10-10-80 contributions as collaborations. Note that there has yet to be a collaborative nominee.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

E.G., I have two four awards where I don't have the most edits: Inauguration of Barack Obama (773 Lwalt, 605 Aaron charles, 579 TonyTheTiger) and Chicago Board of Trade Building (197 LurkingInChicago, 158 TonyTheTiger).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the standard have been that the article would not have gotten through all four stages without you rather than you be the most important. I am not averse to disallowing collaborations and making this award more stringent if done so across the board.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I wrote "one of" Surely if you are not one of the ones most responsible, you should not be claiming credit. But in any case, few nominators at FAC are not one of the main editors, that would be commented on there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Not an absolute requirement" somehow has a tendency to turn into "a requirement in practice, although we'll deny it in public" on Wikipedia. If we need to address this, wouldn't it be good enough to say something "You are not required to be the person who nominated the article for GA status, but you must be one of the people significantly responsible for the article meeting the GA criteria", or something like that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Suits me.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds about right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Feel free to improve, of course. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rereview

Calling User:Little Mountain 5. Before this award had really charted its course, a bunch of awards were recognized. I am not so sure that I earned all four stages of Chicago Board of Trade Building. Specifically, I think maybe it should be withdrawn for my unimpressive contributions at the time this earned its DYK credit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Leave a note on my talk regarding this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Little Mountain 5 00:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be uncredited. I also think we should review some of the early awards. I guess we remove it from the main table and put it down with the other delisted one. We need to asterisk it as not an FFA though. How do you think we should handle it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, after pondering it a while longer, I think it should be too. I'll go through the old ones if you want. (What qualifies as old? Awarded pre-2010?) As for what to do with the them afterwards, I think we should just add them to the existing delisted section, and maybe rename the FFA column to "Reason" or something similar, explaining why each entry was delisted. (e.g. "FAR on [date]" or "Ineligible per DYK guideline") What do you think? Little Mountain 5 03:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Came by again to see what is going on. Surprised it is still listed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going through them one by one here. I haven't got to yours yet, but I'll remove it now anyway. Cheers, Little Mountain 5 05:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Four Award articles

I created Category:Four Award articles and started tagging articles manually. At, User_talk:Rjanag#Category:Four_Award_articles, I have been debating with Rjanag (talk · contribs) about whether this is a talk space or article space category. Note that there exist Category:Good articles and Category:Featured articles as an article space category and Category:Wikipedia featured articles & Category:Wikipedia good articles as a talk space category. From what I can tell the official GA count comes from the article space category, making it the official one AFAIK. However, he seems to more in favor of this being a talk space category. Calling for opinions, even though I have already tagged about 75% of our articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

When I first saw it, it bugged me, but I have no objection to the category being a mainspace one while it is hidden. J Milburn (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it will get much use, but why not?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned at User_talk:Rjanag#Category:Four_Award_articles, I think it's preferable to add this category to talk pages rather than articles. The categories Tony is comparing this to (Category:Good articles and Category:Featured articles) are populated by the icons {{good article}} and {{featured article}} at the top of the page, so they don't clutter the category list. This category, on the other hand, has been added manually into the category list at the end of the article and is mixed in with actual content categories. Therefore, even though it is hidden and thus doesn't show up in the article itself, from in the edit window it still clutters up the list. This problem is completely avoidable because, as I noted at User_talk:Rjanag#Category:Four_Award_articles, there are numerous ways to work this category into the talk page instead (such as addint it into the {{ArticleHistory}} template).
As for Tony's claim that "the official GA count comes from the article space category, making it the official one", this is just plain wrong. The count in {{GA number}} comes from an entirely different category, which is a talkpage category and is populated by the {{ArticleHistory}} template (see [1]). I'm not sure why Tony thinks the article-space category added by the icon is official, since another editor already told him it isn't. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If added to the talk pages, would it need to be hidden?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, these categories are usually not hidden when placed on talk pages. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree the category should be hidden, but I have no opinion on whether it should be a mainspace category or talk page category. However, if it is hidden, does not seem to do much harm, either way - and can only be helpful and beneficial to the project. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the real point of the category? The talk pages' article histories show that the articles went through DYK, GA and FA (creation is a given), so why bother? The majority of Wikipedia's users (readers) are not-logged-in IP-ers who don't have accounts and won't see the hidden category. Category:Good articles and Category:Featured articles identifies quality articles through the icon in the top right corner but Category:Four Award articles rightly doesn't do that, so the cat means nothing to the average reader. The only people who see it are logged-in readers and editors. Are those of us who know about WP:FOUR going to be inclined to click the cat link to see what else is a FOUR winner? I know I'm not. Most FAs went through all four steps, just perhaps not via the same editor. For those people who don't know what FOUR is, should we really be promoting something that rewards people for not editing in a collaborative manner? That's what FOUR is for. Not for rewarding an article, but for rewarding a single editor for not working collaboratively. WP:FOUR already pats editors on the back for not working together, most of us have listed the articles we've gotten to GA or FA on our user pages. This is just more ego stroking for editors like Tony who are desperate for recognition and for their articles to be recognised. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- We have had several discussions about collaborative efforts at WP:FOUR. See FAQ5 above. Also see two threads above where the edit counts for Inauguration of Barack Obama (773 Lwalt, 605 Aaron charles, 579 TonyTheTiger) are discussed. There are very few FAs that have three editors with over 500 edits. So I don't know what your point is about non-collaborative editing. Not even the main Barack Obama or the Ronald Reagan articles can make this claim.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  - The big orange box at the top of this page says: " Q5: Is it possible for collaborators to all receive WP:FOUR recognition? A5: Yes, but it very difficult to do so and will rarely be possible...." Admittedly I didn't read the rest of it, but in the few cases where efforts have been collaborative, they aren't really highlighted where any intriguing eyes are looking. Either way, why ot address the rest of what I said? WP:FOUR is for rewarding the editors, not the articles, so the articles shouldn't be highlighted in this way. How much hand-holding and congratulating do people need? Matthewedwards : Chat 05:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    - It is rarely possible, because usually a single person has created the article that others may want to collaborate on in terms of FOUR credit. Regardless, categories exist for the purpose of either helping readers or editors. This category is about to get moved to talk pages, which makes it more of an editor category. Whether or not you as an editor would use the category, does not mean that those involved at this project would not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
      - OK, well I do think that placing the category on the talk page is better, but still, the category tells people that it went through Creation, DYK, GA and FA. All of which can be figured out by looking at the article history template at the top of the talk page. So I still don't really get why it's needed. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
        It is probably as needed as Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles and Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles, which just gives WP:DYK some statistics.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added this category into {{ArticleHistory}}. Now all that needs to be done is remove [[Category:Four Award articles]] from all the articles in Category:Four Award articles (should be easy to do with AWB). Then, for each of these articles, adding the following line into the {{ArticleHistory template should place the article into Category:Wikipedia four award articles.

|four=yes

(It may take a couple days for the category to show up if you don't purge or null-edit the page.) After this is done, I can delete Category:Four Award articles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that this is a talk page category, is it categorized correctly. Maybe its parent cats should be different than the mainspace version of the category.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hamlet chicken processing plant fire/archive1

Note discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hamlet chicken processing plant fire/archive1. If anyone would like to take over the article, it needs some cleanup.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Candidates

I saw Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles and wondered if there is a way to request a subset of that list of articles that are former good articles. If this list is say less than 500 or so, we might be able to go through it to figure out a complete set of current WP:FOUR articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Annoyingly, there is not a category for featured articles that are former good articles, but I should be able to get you a list with AWB. Give me a few minutes. J Milburn (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm compiling a list of all articles in that category that have, at some point, been promoted to good article status. May not be absolutely complete, but it should be. Will be ready in about 10 minutes. J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:J Milburn/DYK, GA and FA is a list of everything in the DYK/FA category that has, at one time, been a good article. User:J Milburn/DYK, GA and FA minus FOUR is the same list, but without anything in the category of articles which have been given the Four Award. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Something is wrong with one of those lists because there are about 186 FOURS and the difference between the two list is only 126. Is that what you were talking about in terms of the list not being complete?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, though I'm surprised that there are that many. It's possibly the DYK/FA category is incomplete; if you could show me a couple of examples of Four Award articles not picked up on the longer list... J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, it'll be a problem with the Four Award category, as there was nothing in the category that was not also on my longer list. J Milburn (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither Four award category is complete. I started the one in article space. When I got 75% through, I was told (see above) to go to talk space. I started moving things to talk space today. I will finish the move this week and get back to you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia four award articles is now complete. Can you revise your list?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Updated the second list so that the numbers are now about right. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Four Award Article contributors

How do these categories get there and can we create one for Wikipedia Four Award Article contributors so we don't have to manually update the count at the top of WP:FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The categories on your user page usually come from userboxes or other templates you're using. We could add a new category to the Four Award templates, but there's no guarantee every Four Award recipient will add one of them to their user page, so we wouldn't be able to rely on the category for author counts. :/ Little Mountain 5 16:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mostly from userboxes, though I personally add them manually. If you added <includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia Four Award article contributors]]</includeonly> to the bottom of the userbox (if there is one) then it will add anyone using the box to the category. Then you just need to create the category page. Of course, not everyone will use the box, and there's no way to force people to be part of categories they do not want to be, so it will never be an accurate count. J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

YellowMonkey IOUs

Just noting that I was unable to deliver YellowMonkey (talk · contribs)'s Four Awards for 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing and 1964 Brinks Hotel bombing because he has retired and his talk page is fully protected. Little Mountain 5 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to GA

I noticed that the lead now calculates the number and prevalence of FOUR articles dynamically. I was wondering why GAs are mentioned here. By their definition, FOUR articles are no longer GAs and aren't even counted among GAs. To get a more accurate picture you'd have to add FOURs to the GA count before dividing by the total number of FOURs, but that still wouldn't technically be true. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I do not know what I was thinking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Creation date

Note: the following was copied here from User talk:Little Mountain 5.

Based on a ruling that the article became encyclopedic with this edit, we have a new record for oldest article at WP:FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is the oldest article per se, but if you ruled that the article became encyclopedic with Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)'s edit, shouldn't the Four Award records reflect that? It needs to be one way or the other: either Imzadi1979 created the encyclopedic article on May 4, 2006 and qualifies for an award, or 66.227.188.38 (talk · contribs) created the article on June 20, 2005, making Imzadi1979 ineligible. Little Mountain 5 21:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just have a footnote that the table uses the date of the first edit for the page even when it took multiple edits to achieve encyclopedic content. Recall that at the WT:FOUR FAQ we allow for collaborations on the start. All productive (non-vandalism) edits between the first edit and the first encyclopedic edit make one eligible to be a collaborator.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we do use a footnote, I personally think it should be reversed, i.e we use May 4, 2006 with a note stating that the article was created prior to that date but it was not deemed encyclopedic until that date. After all, the Four Award records page lists awards by editor, so shouldn't the creation date reflect the creation by that editor? I don't know, it just seems odd to add a date that has nothing to do with the recipient. Thoughts? Sincerely, Little Mountain 5 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the user did bot create the article so he shouldn't get the award. GamerPro64 01:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion, such as it might be, is that the article isn't eligible. The article was created before my account was registered (for the record October 10, 2005) and it was created by a Charter Communications customer routed out of Kalamazoo, Michigan. (At that time, I lived outside of Marquette, Michigan, and we had AT&T DSL by then, routed out of Appleton, Wisconsin.) It doesn't matter to me because Capitol Loop is an article I created, it is eligible, and it would still be the oldest article (and the article with the longest interval between creation and ultimate FA promotion) on the list. However, if others want to state that my first expansion of M-35 (Michigan highway) makes the article eligible (since the content of the "article" before I found it wasn't even about the modern roadway), then I'll abide by that decision. Please note, I have not taken any steps to "claim" the award. It hasn't been added to my user page, nor did I nominate myself for it even though M-35 was my first FA nearly 3 years ago. Imzadi 1979 → 01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
We have FAQ #5 above which relates to this issue. Do people think that we should change our policy?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Not for me to decide exactly. I'm not accepting the award until others have determined it's applicability. I'm flattered that I'm being considered, but for the moment, it's not my decision to make. Imzadi 1979 → 05:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The article was encyclopedic for a while, though a stub, before Imzadi1979 expanded it beyond a stub. As a stub, it had accurate information, wikilinks and categories. It was encyclopedic. Imzadi1979 does not get credit as a collaborator, just a heartfelt "well done". Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Based on what was done to it before I arrived, it was probably CSD A1-eligible since the article didn't provide any context at all, but as I said above, I did not seek any credit for this article at this venue (I have a Triple Crown based off this article) nor have I done anything more than reply here on request of TonyTheTiger. Imzadi 1979 → 06:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet, can you comment on why you feel that the prior content would pass a WP:CSD#A1 review?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The stubby article said that M-35 once connected with M-28/US41, then with M-38. That's context. The bar at CSD #A1 is set low—it's basically saying that if the text is not stupid vandalism or random shit then it is encyclopedic. The stubby text was not random, it was okay for what it was: a stub. Binksternet (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You should note: the stubby text never established what M-35 was or where. Two days before my first edit, the article was still mis-titled "Michigan State Highway 35" yet that stub didn't bother to introduce a reader to the subject under its correct name. When M-6 (Michigan highway) went through WP:PR, I was told to reword a statement in the first sentence of the lead referring to "Ottawa and Kent counties". The comment was that the sentence confused the location of the road for a city in another country (Canada) even though the title clearly should establish the location as Michigan. These sorts of issues with the actual text in the M-35 at that time show the shortcomings with the text and why there is no context established for the subject being a highway that runs between Menominee and Negaunee, Michigan. If I were to find an article on a highway in another state or country that only stated where part of it was, not where it is, I'd A1-tag or PROD it as lacking context and notability, especially if the text never even used the word "highway". 11:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzadi1979 (talk • contribs)

You'll get no argument from me that you GREATLY improved the article, and you deserve to be thanked. However, I believe the article would have survived AfD. It needed improvement, not deletion. The very slim context it had was context enough for CSD #A1. Binksternet (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In terms of context, the previously existing article did not say whether the subject was a road, parade, river, mountain range or any other subject that could continue westward for a long range. It does not explain what co-signing was. I don't know if it would pass CSD inspection, but if you hit random page and landed there, you would be confused on what the subject was based on the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that the stubby article did not declare itself in an obvious manner. However, it held a wikilink to Michigan State Highway 38, now redirected to M-38 (Michigan highway), and it was classified as a Michigan State Highway stub in the category of Michigan state highways. It had an external link to http://www.state-ends.com/michigan/m35/ which helped explain the subject. Any one of those would have provided enough context to figure out that you randomly landed on a highway article. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong then. If Little Mountain 5 agrees with you, I will concede the point. If he agrees with me then I think the ruling will stand. We need to get this one right because it is the first FAQ5 ruling that I have tried to make.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I am going to request some opinions at WP:NPP and WP:CSD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet that the article would not have qualified for CSD A1, but I don't think it would have survived AfD. (If no improvements were made.) The award itself is borderline... When I see the word "collaboration" I think of multiple editors actively working together on an article, not an edit here and there and then an expansion by one editor. In the end, I'd say the article isn't eligible, but I'm open to other opinions. Little Mountain 5 16:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

O.K. Unless there is some contrary expert opinion from WP:NPP or WP:CSD where I asked for input. I will reverse the award. I don't think the standard should include articles that would fail AFD. Somewhat developed topics could pass CSD, but not pass AFD. The point really is whether it is considered encyclopedic. If you landed there from random page, would it tell you anything about the subject. Although I don't think a reader should have to rely on categories and stub templates for encyclopedic evaluation, the case can be made that the reader could learn something about the subject from the page that existed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reversed the promotion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the request at CSD, this would not have been eligible for Speedy A1 deletion. The article had context. It appears clear to me that it's a reference to a highway thus it has context. In assessing the article under this CSD criterion, I considered the wikilinks as relevant to the context as well as the fact that most US Americans would recognize "US" followed by a number to represent a highway; especially when combined with terms that suggest traveling or directions. The fact that non-US persons would probably not know what the article was about without clicking on the links makes it a somewhat borderline case, but I believe it falls squarely on the "decline speedy" side of the fence.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 2 - DYK - what constitutes credit

With respect to the DYK requirement, what does "with you being credited" mean? I have never seen anyone credited on the mainpage and rarely discussion of who did the work on the DYK nomination page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Each editor involved in the DYK article's creation/expansion/nomination receives a notice on their talk page when the article hits the main page. (I believe it's here.) See my latest archive for several examples. Little Mountain 5 15:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I ask because I created an article and was actively working on it in July 2008, when another editor (a now banned, prolific DYKer) began adding to get it over 1500 words and nominated it. He then posted the DYK template to my page, not anyone from DYK. Would that qualify? It isn't to GA status yet, so the question is hypothetical.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If the editor (you) participated in discussions at T:TDYK regarding the article, or if you're named as a creator using the DYKmake parameter, or a nominator using the DYKnom parameter, then you're solidly building toward FOUR. If the nominator did not name you as a creator, and you did not take part in discussion, then it's a borderline question.What article? Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's nowhere near GA, I haven't worked on it actively in a couple years, so again, purely hypothetical: Dair Mar Elia. It was DYK'd on July 7, 2008, here was the TT closure: [2] and here was the article state on the day the article was nominated: [3]. I responded to the question about CSD in the above section and it was the first time I had ever heard of this award, so I was just curious.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We have recently revised the standards with less emphasis on whether you were involved in the nomination and more consideration given to the editrial involvment that led the article to be eligible for that stage of the FOUR process. What matters is were you a key editorial contributor to the article's development that resulted in a DYK. Clearly if you were acknowledged with an official or unofficial DYK notification, that suggest that this is the case.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ecoleetage did the heavy lifting to get the article to DYK but you were not absent. You helped with minor shaping of the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was recently reminded that the people who receive DYK credit for a nomination are those who participate in the expansion, as measured from the time expansion starts until the nomination is made. Although we are evolving, I think we evaluate all the edits in the 4 stages: 1. Those up to the point of an encyclopedic topic; 2. Subsequent edits to the point of DYK recognition; 3. subsequent edits to the point of GA recognition; and 4. subsequent edits to the point of FA recognition. Thus if most of the work taking an article from one stage to the next is done by one editor who may even be absent in the final polishing to achieve that next quality level, we may still recognize him. We recently granted a FOUR to someone who was not really involved in a GAC discussion although his work was the primary reason an article advanced from DYK to GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that at the DYK level, unless you are dealing with a new article, the expander is the one who produces over 80% of the content for a 5x expansion so if you are not involved in a DYK expansion period you may not be eligible for a FOUR because your involvement may be deemed as unimportant, relatively.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

25 FOUR recognition

The project needs a ribbon, medal or barnstar for 25 FOURs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)