Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Four Award/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

DYK question

Since it's part of the article improvement process, does a DYK that comes subsequent to the GA promotion count? The way the Four page reads, it sounds like any DYK will do...until you get to the talk page FAQ, it precludes DYKs that come from expansions (which I think is rather counterintuitive if this is an award that recognizes improve at stages). Someone should clarify this issue and make each page consistent with the other.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It must be nominated for DYK before it is promoted to GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Tony, if that's the case, the page ought to explicitly state that (since I'm smarter than most and it wasn't obvious or apparent to me)--and the FAQ up above needs to be consistent with that. What are the reasons for the pre-GA DYKs only? Since post-GA DYKs are a recent thing, I haven't seen the issue come up before. It's always best to define things precisely to avoid the questions. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, the order is one thing, but the origin is the more important part--entirely understandable if a GA-based DYK is out, but occasionally (given the fickle nature of GAN) some DYKs appear on the main page after the article was promoted to GA, although the DYK was based on the article's new creation (I have several articles in the pipeline where I put in my DYK hook and started my GAN on the same day, but it took me 2 weeks to get my new-article DYK hook approved and a few more day to get it in the queue, but the article was reviewed at GAN and promoted a few days after creation while the DYK was still waiting). While we're at it, some explicitness on expansion-DYKs would probably be called for as well, and whether credit is officially given for articles created from redirects (which I remember seeing an comment saying that you permitted such situations for eligibility, but nothing is stated on the main FOUR page's rules). Not to be a bother, just wanted to see that clarified to avoid confusion. Given the laws of virology, if I asked, there's probably 70 people who passed through wondering but never took the time to ask.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand completely, although I wouldn't immediately dismiss them as an "afterthought" since I consider the GA-based DYK to be a DYK at a stage of improvement just as important as a DYK connected to article creation, or at expansion. I just had a few articles in mind that would have been eligible after FAC had GA-based DYKs been acceptable. Would a few of the multiple FOUR awardees agree with your assessment of some DYKs as an afterthought?--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential COI editing

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Major_Contributions is old but suggests that potential-COI editors have been encouraged to submit DYK like anyone else, to qualify for the award among other things. Yet Wikipedia:Did you know#Aims and objectives has been interpreted as discouraging them from DYK submission (discussion). Should the project, which I am taking a more active role in, continue to encourage submission by potential-COI editors for this award? Or should the DYK process be amended, e.g., to recommend that potential-COI editors should find other editors who are willing to review and make nominations on their behalf? Any clarifications on how this process should accommodate the new Terms of Use about disclosed paid editing would be helpful. (I also suggested such editors might try for GA-based DYK, which would admit them to that process but apparently not to this one.) Thoughts? See my disclosure: Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK should in my opinion absolutely reject any article submitted by an editor with a coi in the article subject, especially a paid editor. That's from the side of the project. As far as the editor is concerned, I would regard the action as an attempt to get as=dded publicity. The purely promotional nature of such attempts is obvious. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is this discussion being held here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Some editors think potential-COI editors should not submit DYK on new articles, which would make them ineligible for this award; but that was not the position of the WikiProject in the past. Should these editors be ineligible? Frieda Beamy (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This project makes no judgement on the editors. If the article has met the requirements it is promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. My first DYK was approved (I wasn't trying to be under the radar), my second one is on hold. User:CorporateM has a policy of shepherding articles toward GA as a general rule (but I don't know if he's spoken about DYK). The link also shows one FA expanded by a conflicted editor. I'd be interested in trying for the award and the link indicates it should be possible. I think it's a good question based on the new WP:TOU. But you see that meeting the requirements is a lot different if there's a disclosure and there's also an idea that a disclosed editor is automatically ineligible for DYK for a new article; then it wouldn't matter about project judgments because another project has made a class of editors automatically ineligible. Maybe it should go to an RFC? (Of course undisclosed paid editors probably get DYKs all the time and are eligible and may have already gotten this award!) Frieda Beamy (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a very strong argument for any COI editor like myself to seek a GA review. A good GA reviewer will ring-out some of the subtle bias that may come from a COI. The GA offers some degree of re-assurance to other editors that the page has been done properly. It offers a kind of "guarantee" to the community that even if your first draft isn't perfect the first go-around, you'll keep working on it until it's GA. Whether a COI editor is ethical depends almost completely on the content. Therefore getting the content checked through a GA is really an ethics check.
In contrast, I see no valid reasons for COI noms to DYK. Unlike barnstars, there are a limited number of DYK spots, which should be reserved for volunteers. Not only does it offer no ethics check, but it raises concerns about their motives (exposure on Main Page). The only reason to do it would be if there was something genuinely that interesting.
I have seen some covert COIs do GA nominations that were obvious quick-fails, but it's unlikely any kind of COI discussion is relevant to the Four Award page. There are only a couple COI-created FA pages that I know of and I don't think either nominated for Four Award. CorporateM (Talk) 14:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems that there is clear consensus for not having disclosed editors nominate DYK (I could see someone else nominating such an article, and this should be tested). My reading of the alternative view seems misguided. For this page there would be no further discussion, because an editor could not qualify without disclosing under the TOU, and a disclosed editor would not nom DYK under the current understanding there. If someone else nominated DYK, then the award might still arise, but would in that case have broader reasons for support. Having an independent DYK nom would be a good early test, just as getting a GA is a good later test. If there was a DYK after GA, that would clearly be a "separate award" (so maybe we should start one). (But honestly, Corp, there is no real limitation on DYK for awhile as only about half the potential slots are getting filled due to declines in submissions.) Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Why no DYK after a GA?

This seems to be an arbitrary amendment that was added without much consensus. Articles still go through all four development stages regardless, the nomination for DYK just happens at a different date. Given that the standard for DYK is now essentially a GA-worthy article, I feel this should be changed. DYK didn't exist when I created one of my articles that would otherwise soon be eligible. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Just playing devil's advocate here, but GA is a significant mark of quality and FA, while also one, isn't reachable for lots of newly created articles because of lack of coverage - perhaps they only wanted to include either GA or FA as an appropriate event. Plus this is kind of an unusual case; not only can articles that are already FAs not get DYK as is, they also can't progress any higher, unlike a large number of GAs. Technically, you can do either by calling out problems and getting the article delisted then repromoting it, I guess. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of FOUR is to reward editors for sticking with an article as it passes through the sequential stages of development. DYK, GA and FA represent the development path when their sequence is approximately followed. Otherwise, they do not represent the sequential stages of development and thus not the spirit of FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
But that's just begging the question. Why does DYK have to come before FA (and, at the latest, a few days after GA) at all? It seems kinda arbitrary. Tezero (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, in the spirit of it Tony, I created an article (Ontario Highway 407) before DYK existed. I have now nurtured it and have submitted it to GAN. When it passes, I will nominate it for DYK, that it "was the world's first electronic toll highway", and then I will subsequently polish and fine tune it for A-class and FAC. Surely the 10 years of nurturing I have given that article fit that spirit, no? (and yes, I am being upfront about my bias, but I feel it merits consideration) I'm not sure there is any place but here that considers DYK and GA to be a sequential order now that the rules for both have become more or less equal... DYK is just a front page nomination, as is TFA. It seems the "spirit" of this may be just your feelings towards the matter; that it perhaps lowers the standards. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Double checking, I just delisted Sonic: After the Sequel and Development of Grand Theft Auto V. They were incorrectly promoted to FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, but Ontario Highway 407 will not be eligible. Many articles have been nurtured that achieve FA status, but not in the manner that this award recognizes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
We discussed this last year at Wikipedia talk:Four Award#Impending rule change and I was the sole voice saying that the DYK nomination date should be flexible, that it should be possible for a post-GA DYK nomination to reach FOUR. Tony is incorrect about the "development path" of an article: the required steps to getting an article to FA are 1) starting the article, 2) getting it approved for GA level, and finally 3) getting it approved for FA level. The DYK nomination is not part of this sequence – it is not necessary for it to happen in a certain order or at all. For that reason, I agree with Tezero that the DYK stage should not be limited by date of nomination, by what order it comes, for the FOUR award. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
For the record, Binksternet, I misunderstood the discussion - I thought it was an objection to DYK in general not being allowed for FAs; I didn't realize it was within the context of the Four Award. Having said that, I also question the worth of getting these four steps in the specific order, so I agree with you. I think if anything it should be worth more to score a DYK when your article is already a GA, because then you're putting something high-quality on the main page - but really, it should be acceptable either way. Tezero (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Second DYK recognizes four stages: 1. creation - is the recognition of a notable topic with encyclopedic merit; 2. DYK - the development of a notable topic to meet certain quality standards and include at least one intriguing fact worth making note of; 3. GA - the development of the article to meet a higher standard of quality while covering the article fairly completely and touching upon most relevant facts; 4. FA - the development of the article to the highest standard of quality with comprehensive breadth and depth of coverage. Doing the GA first makes DYK an afterthought. I seriously doubt that any articles that have been promoted to GA are going to be rejected at DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would allow a DYK for a new GA. Another thought is that if a new article goes through ITN instead of DYK, it's still going through a similar level of scrutiny to appear on the Main Page. However, if the new article gets onto the MP through ITN, it can't get there through DYK. It could still get onto the MP later through a DYK-after-GA. An article that goes Creation → ITN → GA → DYK → FA by the same editor should still be considered to fulfill the same spirit as Creation → DYK → GA → FA, and honestly, so should Creation → GA → DYK → FA. That's my 2¢. Imzadi 1979 → 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If you notice, each person that comments in favor of a change is saying my article which doesn't fit the current criteria is slightly different, but not that much different. I know ITN exposure is similar to DYK exposure and the GA/DYK order is not that big a difference. With awards you have to draw the line. There are all kinds of chronologies not significantly different from the one this award recognizes. Please create your own award for whatever else you want to recognize.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
And if you notice, I'm not one of those. I've never had an article make ITN, and I haven't had an article that I've created hit GA then DYK then FAC. The community owns this award, so if the community wants to revise it to account for new circumstances (the ability to take an article to DYK after GA), then the community gets the final say. This is not "TonyTheTiger's FOUR Award", and you have the same status here as every other member of the community participating in the discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 21:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposals for a new award

Alright, I'm calling TonyTheTiger's bluff, assuming this discussion passes as he intends. This section will be for ideas for a new, Four-like award without this criterion. (I think it'd be best if we created a single one to maximize its use and recognizability, but I could be convinced otherwise. At the least, there shouldn't be lots of them that differ only in small ways.) The obvious choice would be something exactly like the Four Award but with the ordering requirement waived, but another idea might be the Four Award without DYK (I do think DYK is a little unfair of a requirement, as it's time-dependent), for example. Tezero (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you need to have a discussion about another award on this page?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It could be split and only linked to from this page, but for now this is only about planning what kind of award it would be. Besides, having some discussion of it here is a way to get people disgruntled at this new enforcement in the know. Tezero (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why the GA requirement is necessary. If the same guy creates the article, takes it to DYK and then directly to FA, I don't see how that is any less working on it from beginning to end. The present rules seem to me to be against the spirit of the award. I'd certainly support a new award based more around actually working on an article from beginning to end rather than jumping through some arbitrary hoops in a set order at certain times. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with that; I tend to forget that GA-less FAs happen. (I do it so that, if FAC keeps on failing, I at least have some marker of my work.) In addition, since some GAs are considered to "not have enough coverage for FA", perhaps there could be a "junior" version of this award for such pages that only make it to GA, provided there is documentation of a consensus for the impossibility of FA. Don't feel strongly about that one, though. Tezero (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Cliftonian, you're right, I forgot that GA is not needed to get to FA.
My interpretation of the spirit of FOUR is that a person is rewarded for hitting four points of participation. I don't think the four points need to be in order, but if GA is removed then it's not a FOUR award, it's something else. Binksternet (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If that were the case it'd still be everyone who creates an article and gets it to FA, which is almost as much work. That being said, if you want this taken elsewhere, Cliftonian, Binksternet, and I can do that. Tezero (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Tony, the "my way or the highway" attitude is what got you blocked last time. It's not going to kill you to see a discussion here about a possible related award, and in any case the discussion is still going on about whether DYK and GA can be swapped in the timing of FOUR. That question's answer is foundational to whether a new award will be started. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Not really the reason, but you can rewrite history as you see fit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
(Would it be appropriate or too pointy to call a swapped-DYK-order award the FUOR Award? heh heh ...) Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait why are we even discussing this? TonyTheTiger knows well enough that this is a consensus process; after all he was blocked for a period a year ago over issues stemming from this. We don't need to create a new award, we can simply vote to change the criterion of this award. However, that said, the ongoing ownership issues by TTT may make it worthwhile to create a new award. How about WP:FIVE? I'd propose the following concept:
  1. For the most part, adapt the existing FOUR rules
  2. Amend that DYKs can be obtained anywhere in the process; an ITN entry should possibly also qualify
  3. Allow collaboration, as that is the spirit of Wikipedia, and that should be reflected in the awards
  4. Add TFA as a fifth requirement
Or, as I said, we could just draw up a consensus to change the rules of FOUR, as TonyTheTiger is but one vote, and his stonewalling holds no weight here. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

For proper consensus, remember that Tony, Crisco 1492, Little Mountain 5 and Casliber all spoke in favor of no flexibility with regard to the timing of DYK. So we do not yet have consensus to change. What's needed is a very simple RfC regarding just the DYK issue. Other issues such as ITN and TFA can be addressed later. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That was only if a new award was in the question, but I agree that an RfC is the best way to go. Should the collaboration question be posed in addition to the GA/DYK issue? - Floydian τ ¢ 23:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Four Award include post-GA DYK?

CLOSED
There is consensus to allow Four Awards for articles that become GAs before becoming DYKs. --Pine✉ 07:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the Four Award include DYKs which are initiated after the article advances to GA? Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Yes. From the beginning, the Four Award required four steps of participation: start the article, help with DYK for the article, help with GA for the article, and help with FA for the article. The steps were required to be in the order Start–DYK–GA–FA because that was by far the most common mode. Last year, a rule change at the DYK project allowed DYKs to be nominated as a result of newly attained GA level. The Four Award did not flex at that time to include this new rule, but to me the spirit of the award is inclusive, not tied to an arbitrary and artificial sequence. I see no good reason why the order cannot be Start–GA–DYK–FA to reward any motivated user who completes this particular sequence. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. As I mention above, the requirements of DYK have become far more stringent in recent years, and as such a GA-ready article is almost a requirement for a DYK entry. I feel the spirit of this award is seeing an article through all four steps, and as such it should flex with the times. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes—per the above reasoned commentaries on the situation. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No This is clearly an award where every so often a group of people comes by and tries to demand that their type of article be awarded a FOUR. People want ITNs included post GA DYKs, collaboration rule changes, I have tried to hold the line to maintain the integrity of the award which is already declaring one in every 5 or 6 new FAs to be a FOUR. By the time everyone that wants their type of article awarded, we will be awarding FOURs to half of the FAs. The award simply isn't meaningful if everyone who didn't meet the requirements can just demand the award. I won't be a part of any award in which everyone who wants it can demand to be given it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
As stated above the award is for the following steps in the following order:
  1. creation - recognition of a notable topic with encyclopedic merit
  2. DYK - the development of a notable topic to meet certain quality standards and include at least one intriguing fact worth making note of
  3. GA - the development of the article to meet a higher standard of quality while covering the article fairly completely and touching upon most relevant facts
  4. FA - the development of the article to the highest standard of quality with comprehensive breadth and depth of coverage.
Anything else is another award.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how the integrity of the award is affected by discussing and altering a change made only a year ago. In your list, the only part affected is "in the following order". No standards are being lowered. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The standards are lower if you no longer require step-by-step accomplishment. If you allow the DYK to be an afterthought you are essentially allowing everyone to skip a step and wait until the DYK is an automatic (as if that step doesn't matter).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you list the times when a Four Award nomination seemed to you to have DYK as "an afterthought"? I want to get a sense of scale. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if that's a fair demand; TTT theorizes that this is the case for a large number of GAs. Having said that, I don't see why it being an "afterthought" on the part of the editor matters; the benefit of the editor's actions to the readership is the same or, as I've argued, better if DYK is done after GA. Tezero (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Yes per, strangely, the opposite of part of Floydian's reasoning. Since I think non-GA DYK articles aren't necessarily near GA standard (they generally are in sourcing, but not comprehensiveness, largely because of the few-day deadline), it'd actually be preferable to have a DYK that's already a GA - that way you know it's already a high-quality page for readers to see. I do think both should be acceptable, though, as both options encompass arguably the four most major accomplishments an article can experience here. Tezero (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. This change should have happened since last year. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes The ordering seems an arbitrary requirement to me. Even before the change at GA, I would frequently work on an article in my user space until I thought it was pretty solid, then move it to the mainspace and nominate it for DYK and GA simultaneously. I realize now that, if the GA review had happened before the DYK review, this arbitrary ordering requirement would have disqualified me for FOUR. Thank goodness for the huge backlog at GAC, I guess, because if this had jumped up to bite me before now, I think I'd be mucho unhappy. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes - Limiting the order to DYK then GA is purely arbitrary and does not reflect the reality of workflows on Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So what's happening? It's been a few days now since the last stirrings of activity. Tezero (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by proposer per consensus --Pine✉ 08:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Due to the months-long backlog of good article candidates, and the standards for featured articles being higher than for good articles, I propose that:

  • If an editor(s) started an article
  • If the same article is successfully nominated by anyone for DYK and same editor(s) made significant contributions to the article at this stage
  • If the same article is nominated by anyone as good article candidate, the same editor(s) made significant contributions to the article at this stage, and a good article candidate review was not completed within 45 days
  • If the same article is nominated by anyone as a featured article candidate, and the same editor(s) made significant contributions to the article at this stage, and the nomination is successful
  • Then the editor(s) will receive a Four Award as if the article successfully completed all four steps of Four Award process.

Should this change be made to the Four Award process?

  • Support change. --Pine✉ 22:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I find this proposal to be tedious. Especially since technically, you would be going through three steps instead of four. Why make this part of the Four Award when it wouldn't meet the criteria in doing so? GamerPro64 22:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Although I didn't need to weigh in on the RFC, I was happy to see the recent change to allow GA 'out of order', to reflect the new rule at DYK. This however does seem to go against the point and spirit of Four, which requires you to actually jump through four hoops, not three. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose; it's true that GAN can be a tedious, unnecessary process for users who are reliably good enough at writing to go straight to FA (of which I can only think of one), but "Four" is in the title. I wouldn't object to a hypothetical "create-DYK-FA" award with GA not specified, or even changing the Four Award to that, but until then... Tezero (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; the name is only symptomatic of the implied achievement and should not dictate it. I think Four Award recipients can be just as shallow as anyone else on Wikipedia, so the GA requirement seems insignificant in all but allegiance to the name. Tezero (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and SNOW Close—it wouldn't be the FOUR award with only three stages. Imzadi 1979 → 23:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and snow close per Imzadi. We should not be changing the FOUR criteria because GAN can't keep up. We should be trying to review GAs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To be fair, it's not necessarily that the GAN process is too slow; some users may just not feel like taking the intermediate step of GAN. It's kinda like how students don't usually appreciate getting points off for not showing their work if they get the answer right, but without the caveat that the work isn't likely to be as good (in fact, some of our best FAs never went through GAN). I don't really see any valuable objections other than that 3 < 4. Tezero (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The rationale provided by Pine above appears to be based in an assumption that the GAN slowdown is a negative impact on editing, and should can be bypassed if waiting too long. Otherwise, why would he include "a good article candidate review was not completed within 45 days"? There's clear dissatisfaction with the backlog at GAN, and its spreading here.
I agree, there are some people who prefer going straight to FAC... I know several who are very good at it. However, these people do not come to WP:FOUR and then say "I created this, DYKed it, and FAed it. Give me a prize". They edit articles for the sake of editing articles, for the sake of creating quality content. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be a criticism more of the Four Award as it is than of the proposed change. Personally, I find that the idea of getting an article all the way to a recognized status like GA or FA motivates me to edit - there's no fun in "Hey, I got this from a stub to B-class!", and a Four Award could be an enhanced version of that. Tezero (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Except there are already other baubles and trinkets to display by editors who have taken an article to GA or FA status. Those are not FOUR though, which recognizes "start to finish" work through four distinct stages, hence the name. Imzadi 1979 → 02:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand that there are other ways for such effort to be recognized. I just don't see why Four Award winners are necessarily more interested in "edit[ing] articles for the sake of editing articles, for the sake of creating quality content" than users who simply skip the GA step. They both sound like a lot of work to me. Tezero (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "They edit articles for the sake of editing articles, for the sake of creating quality content." - Notice how the subject was not Four Award recipients. It was "people who prefer going straight to FAC". Now, for Four Award recipients: There are people who come to WP:FOUR and insist on a bauble. There are some (like me) who go through all four steps because it allows for more reviews (and thus more input on our writing) and couldn't care less whether or not they got a Four Award. There are some who are not aware of the Four Award, as well. There are all types.
Allowing people to skip GA would, in my opinion, cater only to the baubles crowd. If you want a GA review so you can hurry up and get a four award, you can wait - or, even better, review other articles and cut back on the backlog. Changing to rules for more baubles doesn't help anyone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Activity on the Award

Is this awards page still active? Feels like it rarely gets used these days. GamerPro64 03:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's active as of a few minutes ago! :) But I do agree that activity here has slowed a bit. I don't know if there is a lack of interest because fewer articles are being nominated, fewer editors are reviewing, or a combination of both. The main reason I completed a review just now was to provide a QPQ as, pending success at FAC, I hope to nominate 2006 UAW-Ford 500 for this award. So yes, the award is a rarer sight these days, but I would say that it is at least "semi-active" at the moment (another review was completed earlier this month). --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess checking up here after a month or so will show whether activity will increase or not. And I will say your activity earlier did have me make this thread, just to see how active it is in general. GamerPro64 04:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Would Wrestle Kingdom 9 be eligible as a potential candidate?

It's currently a redirect to a list article where one paragraph and one table is written on it. If I started a stand-alone page, would it count as a newly created article? Thank you. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

list question

Pardon me if this has been asked and answered already. I see discussion about articles that skip GA and go straight to FA, that one is pretty clear. But what about those that cannot do that? There is a Featured List, but no Good List level. Reading this page those would never qualify?  MPJ-US  19:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Featured Lists will never work for the Four Award. GamerPro64 20:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

An award ?

This recognition seems to be perfectly designed to encourage self-perceived WP:OWNership of articles by editors. How is this anything but a bad idea? tahc chat 05:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It encourages the creation and development of articles, which is our primary pillar. Per WP:OWN: Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
If I was unclear (and I now see I may have been) I do not think the purpose of Four was to encourage self-perceived WP:OWNership of articles-- my concern is the effect it may be having. It seems as if it were "perfectly designed" to do that. I never accused, nor mean to accuse, an editor of actually creating or designing Four for such a purpose. tahc chat 15:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from on this, but I don't think that the four award encourages this any more than the existence of the cursus honorum already does—there's already the encouragement to take an article for increasingly higher levels of review based on the prestige associated with them anyway, being able to "claim" an extra trinket at the end of that process is probably a much smaller motivator than the achievement in and of itself already was. GRAPPLE X 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it encourages the worst in Wikipedia. I have created some articles which were crap. Other people have improved them. Should I be horrified? No, I thought this was a collaborative project. But, no, I was wrong. It is all about the "rewarding of self", the collection of "trinkets" in some pseudo-academic arcade game. I thought this was an encyclopedia, but, no, it is the Invisible Empire of the Knights Templar. And I have failed to qualify. Well, that is an accolade that I am glad to accept.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Splitting the record page

The record page has reached a rather large size (105kb) and editing it was rather slow on my computer. It might be worth contemplating a split so that it is easier to access and edit. Has anyone else had this problem? Any thoughts on whether or how to split the page? Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing instructions

What is the difference between 4. update the author count at the top of this page if the user has not received a Four Award before. (Article count is updated automatically via the Four Award category.) and 6. if this is a nominator's first FOUR credit, update the unique editor count in the first paragraph. in the Reviewing, Instructions? Are they the same? starship.paint ~ KO 01:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Does an article have to be created from a redlink or can it be created from scratch where no redlink already existed? Chetsford (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It's okay to create an article from scratch. No redlink is necessary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

I don't have any candidates as of yet, but I might in the future, so I was just wondering whether creating an article from a redirect counts as a "new" article. And what if it was redirected when recreated by me but had previously been a barebones article that was redirected due to notability concerns? For example, if you look in the history of the GA "Not Pictured" (the second season finale of Veronica Mars, which I got to GA status and a DYK and might go to FAC at a certain point) you will see that it was redirected when I created it but was previously an unsourced, WP:ALLPLOT article as illustrated by this diff: [1]. It had a notability tag and was eventually redirected. When I recreated it, expanding it to an article on the order of 27,500 bytes, it bore little to no resemblance to the former article. Just wondering and obviously no big deal if it wouldn't be eligible if promoted to FA in the future. Johanna(talk to me!) 21:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I'd allow that, though this page operates by consensus and there is no overall ubervote or ubervoter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The answer for Q3 in the FAQ at the top seems to indicate that this is accepted. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm still not entirely sure, does it count to create articles from terms that were made redirects by others? I can't see this stated clearly anywhere (or discouraged). For example, the fossil bird genus Mancalla was redirected to the clade Mancallinae way back in 2006, and has never been a separate article. But all valid genera warrant articles, so redirecting it was improper. But if I want to make it into an article, would it be legible for this award? If not, many potential Four Award projects could be sabotaged by just making a lot of improper redirects... FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Three questions

Theoretical questions here.

  1. Suppose that Editor A had split the content from another article as part of the "article creation" stage. But Editor A had worked extensively on the other article as well, to the point that ~98% or so of the content that had been split is from Editor A. Would that be eligible for FOUR status?
  2. Also suppose that Editor B had created the article from a redirect and nominated it for FA, GA, or DYK, or two of these three statuses. Other editors nominated the article for the other stage(s), but Editor B was also listed as a co-nominator in these nominations. Would that also be eligible for FOUR status?
  3. Also suppose that Editor C had created the article redirect, but Editor D created the few sentences of actual content, and Editor C contributes more content shortly afterward. Editor C and Editor D are listed as co-nominators in the DYK, GA, and FA nominations. Would that also be eligible for FOUR status?

Just wondering, in case there are FOUR articles where these issues come up. Thanks in advance. epicgenius (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about some of these, but it seems the page has become almost dead? FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Epicgenius & FunkMonk, not dead, just not the easiest award to get. Honestly though, its just an award. The rules aren't strict; common sense usually prevails. If you think that you are eligible, than go ahead and nominate the article on the main page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It may be worth promoting it a little. Likewise the Triple Crown. I could ask for a mention to go in the MilHist newsletter, and maybe if a mention could be added to the standard FAC closing comments. On the surface there seem to be several new MilHist FAs so far this year eligible for one or both awards. I could, perhaps, also leave a message on the talk pages of successful FA nominees who have not yet claimed either award. Thoughts on this approach would be welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Gog, I think your proposals are reasonable. Any promotion of the award surely can't hurt. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Definitive rulings for redirects.

There are 5,870,000 or so Wikipedia article, also known as a lot. There are many opportunities to develop full articles from redirects. I wanted to inquire about how this award would apply if an FA was grown from a redirect with no article history, or a redirect with minimal, unused article history. This question was asked previously, and the answer was a "sometimes". As somebody who was hoping to develop a redirect, this response is pretty unsatisfactory. So, I wanted to be very specific with my question:

If I were to develop a redirect with no edit history besides the creation, is it still eligible to receive the Four Award?

That's all I was looking for. Whatever the answer is, it would also be nice to include that in the talk page QnA. As this is one of the most prestigious and recognized awards on the website, I want to make sure that I'm going about this correctly, and I'm sure there are many others who wanted to strive for this award but don't believe they can because the link isn't red. That's all I am requesting, and thank you for your time! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I realize that Q3 touches on this, but it seems like a bit of a tangent rather than addressing Q3, which refers to expansions. A Q7 that asks about redirects is what I was hoping for, but because I'm not a reviewer here, I didn't want to differentiate it myself. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Replace GA stage

The purpose of the award is to recognize editors who bring an article through Wikipedia's primary article creation and review process. Although GA-class may not be helpful for some editors, for others it is an essential step to prepare an article for WP:FAC. GA review is also a fairly straightforward process, and since there is no statute of limitations for this award, if an editor truly desires WP:FOUR recognition for their article, they can list their article at WP:GAN and go through the process. Additional reviews are rarely detrimental to an article's development. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I had never heard of the Four Award, which is odd because I received one. However, I should point out that my recent FAs generally don't go to GA. Many GA lists are effectively useless, so I take my stuff up the chain as soon as possible - A-class on MILHIST is superb - or go right to FA. Is it unreasonable to suggest that one of these alternatives be a replacement for GA? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

GA functions often as a PR or mini PR. I try to make sure mine reviews are as detailed as possible, and appreciate it when someone is detailed with mine. I agree that an A-class review could function as an alternative but not replacement as there is only one wikiproject where they are used. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Even if it's only one project, A-class is far more detailed than any GA I've ever received. We should at least update to allow A-class as an alternative when it's available. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A-class reviews as an alternative to GA. Support straight to FA as an alternative to GA. As both are higher levels than GA. starship.paint ~ KO 08:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Support Straight to FA (i.e. no GA, but meets all other FOUR criteria), on the condition that IF a GA was done, it must have been done by the editor receiving the award. Ergo Sum 01:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose The point of the award is that your take an article through all four stages. Writing an FA is its own reward. Further, changing the criteria of the award now years later after so many have already been awarded under this rubric is only going to sow confusion. Earn the award or don't have it. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Not every project has a working A-class assessment and MILHIST is a bit too close to FA to be useful for this purpose. GA is a good mid-way stage to have and provides a second opportunity to nominate for DYK if that stage was missed when the article was created.--Ykraps (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Design

I was bold and added tabs to this page. I also removed the Records table and other stuff from the main WP:FOUR page because it was taking so long to load. Hopefully I caught all the links and everything still works fine. If everyone hates it, it is easily revertable, but I personally like the shorter, more relevant main page and the ease of navigation the tabs bring. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

FA list

Hi, I was wondering whether a FA list would qualify for the Four Award (creating, DYK and FA list). Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nehme1499, do you mean a Featured List? If so, then the answer is no, per the first line of the WP:FOUR page: The Four Award recognizes the persistence of Wikipedia editors who have taken care of an article from its humble beginnings through featured article status. WP:FLs have different editorial standards and processes. This award is focuses on recognizing "articles" and the "article-improvement process", not lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes sorry my mistake, I meant to say FLs. Thanks for your answer. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the nomination process too complex?

Hey. I came here to self-nom for Funerary art (I used to be Ling.Nut), but the nom process seems needlessly daunting. Can't a reviewer just look at all the cute little notices on the article's talk page? They have links to GA, DYK, FA. Thanks.. Oh wait I'm on Wikipedia:Four Award/Records as Ling.Nut2... but that question still stands, for others' future use... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lingzhi2: First, I see no evidence that you're Ling.Nut, Ling.Nut2, Ling.Nut3, or Lingzhi. Re-directing user pages only shows that the prior editor is gone. If you're not logging into any of those accounts, I don't think you need to claim their accomplishments. Consider yourself on a self-imposed CLEANSTART. Second, it's not too complex. No one else seems to have difficulty with it, so what's your excuse? Chris Troutman (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Nominating an article is pretty straightforward: copy and paste the template, replace the article name, and add two links. Not sure I would characterize that as daunting... Using the nomination templates makes it easier for the reviewer to have all the links they need. If you are unable to copy text and find two links, I don't know what to tell you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Lingzhi2, Funerary art was already awarded a WP:FOUR award in August 2011 to Ling.Nut2 (so why would you need to nominate it again???). See this diff. Without proof that you own the Ling.Nut2 account, you cannot edit the record table to change the attribution of the award. Thus, I reverted your edit to the record table. Not sure why you are making this such a confusing issue, or why it even matters. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus Stuff

Everyone hopefully has seen the changes I have made to the WP:FOUR page. I do have two items that I would like some consensus on before unilaterally making a change:

  1. Remove the idea of a "collaborative" nomination. Although it sounds like a good idea, it makes the award needlessly complicated. And since there has only been one article supposedly awarded as such, it doesn't seem super relevant.
  2. There are supposedly only six articles that have been delisted. I recommend they be moved into the Wikipedia:Four Award/Records table (as opposed to their current location in a separate table just for delisted articles). The article can be annotated in some way to indicate their current status. The WP:FOUR award recognizing going through the process, not necessarily maintaining it. Again, the addition of a delist process makes the award needlessly complicated.

Let me know what you think of either proposal. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirect Discussion

Wugapodes, I reverted your edit to the eligibility criteria on the WP:FOUR page. Although I agree with the spirit of your change, I think there are a few issues that make it difficult to implement:

  • The purpose of WP:FOUR is recognize an editor who created a new article and then took it through the editorial process to WP:FA. A redirect almost always means that content was already created in another article. Using the example of First Silesian War above, content was added to Silesian Wars and then a redirect was created to a specific section on the first war. The editor then took this content and forked it into a new article. I don't think this meets the spirit of the award.
  • WP:FOUR is 10 years old and has 618 awarded articles. I haven't seen a lot of support in fundamentally changing the criteria at this point, mostly because it would be somewhat unfair for those who came before us to suddenly open it up or make wholesale changes.
  • What I would support is adding a bullet under Wikipedia:Four Award#New nomination instructions that says creating an article from a redirect can qualify for the first step if the editor can show that the target of the redirect had no encyclopedic content within it. As an example, Edge rusher is a redirect to Defensive end and uses the template {{R to article without mention}}, meaning that the target of the redirect has no encyclopedia content about the redirect. If someone took this article through the process, I think it would be eligible for WP:FOUR.

Although I agree with your sentiment above that awards should be fun rather than an exercise in bureaucracy, an award also needs to have clear criteria and some exclusivity to make it relevant and to encourage people to go for it. Not receiving a WP:FOUR award also doesn't take away from the accomplishments of an editor taking an article to WP:FA, especially since WP:FOUR isn't a public-facing recognition (like FA is). Hopefully that made sense and obviously welcome any discussion or change in consensus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I've recently finished taking an article (First Silesian War) from creation to FA, but I didn't create it from a redlink, because someone had previously made a redirect at that title. My edit created the first article of that name by replacing the redirect; is it then eligible for this award, or does the fact that someone previously plopped down a 27-character redirect permanently render it impossible to ever earn a Four Award for a title? Thanks for clarifying! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0: As long as you provided "the very first encyclopedic content" for the topic, I think it's within the spirit of the award. I've updated the wording of the requirements to try and reflect that. If it redirected to a section that had some content that later got incorporated into the new article, that would probably be outside the scope of the award, but I also believe awards should be fun rather than an exercise in bureaucracy. I'd be interested in the thoughts of others though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I'll nominate it, then, and that will provide a place for objections. Thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Bryanrutherford0, unfortunately I had to decline your submission of First Silesian War. Your edit creating the article from the redirect was Creating article, with some text borrowed from or inspired by Seven Years' War (id=792908110); see that page's history for attribution, thus stating that you did not create the first content for this article. It is important to reiterate though that this doesn't take away from what you accomplished with this article! WP:FOUR was just created to recognize a pretty unique scenario, and unfortunately with millions of articles already created, a good number just don't meet the requirements. Wugapodes, I am going to start a new section below to discuss the broader topic of converting a redirect to an article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
A clarification: the page I borrowed starting text from for my sandbox draft was Silesian Wars, not Seven Years' War; I accidentally clicked on an edit summary from my creation of Third Silesian War a month or so earlier. As to the rules and purpose of this award, I wonder if you'd like to consider the amount of "encyclopedic content" that must already exist on a topic before it becomes ineligible for a Four Award. Is one sentence enough? One paragraph? As you've now defined it, that seems like a pretty difficult standard to satisfy! Good luck! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Bryanrutherford0, just to clarify, I didn't define anything. It has been like this since 2009 when it was created. This kind of topic (expanding the scope of the award) has been discussed numerous times on this page (see the archives and FAQ), and it just never seems to garner any support. Some people wanted to replace GA with A-Class, others wanted to be able to use WP:FL instead of FA, etc. The award just loses its purpose if we change the eligibility criteria at this point, especially with forcing reviewers to make subjective judgments about "the amount" of encyclopedic content for the creation step. And again, I have to stress that not getting a FOUR award doesn't take away from the very real accomplishment of getting an article to WP:FA. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hi all, I thought I might add myself as a reviewer. Wondering if anyone has any objections or thoughts. Ergo Sum 19:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Get in there. The more the merrier. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Go for it! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Questions

I have two questions about the Four Award before I nominate articles for this award.

Epicgenius, I am going to try to respond to each one of your questions, but these are just my opinions and not established consensus, per se.
  • I believe right now the criteria is just one person per award. This really has to do with the "creation" stage only really be applicable to one editor.
  • Based on the fact that the original redirect was generically targeted to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, I would say that your first edit the next day creating the first encyclopedic content would satisfy the FOUR criteria.
  • Thus, I would say you are eligible for the FOUR award.
  • Regarding Construction of Rockefeller Center, I think that is pretty clear. You created the article and satisfied the remaining criteria. I don't see any issues there.
Happy to hear from others though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Gonzo fan2007, thanks for the comment. I have nominated these two articles for Four Award now. epicgenius (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. I think I will defer to another reviewer to allow for a second opinion. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Would any of the regular four reviewers take a look at Epicgenius's articles on the nomination page? They have been up for over a week. I wanted a second reviewer based on the discussion above. Casliber (talk · contribs), Gog the Mild (talk · contribs), Krakatoa (talk · contribs)? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
On it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A more nuanced query on the ITN/DYK issue

There have been some prior discussions on the fact that ITN is mutually exclusive with a FOUR award, since you can't have both DYK and ITN, and ITN is not accepted as equivalent to a DYK within the award.

The previous discussions got blurred with lots of different thoughts pulled in, so I wanted to see if it could be narrowed.

It is not unreasonable for FOUR to state how they'd want it to be done. So ruling out cases where the creator themselves has sought out ITN rather than DYK etc is perfectly fine. But despite one comment in the previous discussion, creating an article can't just be timed for knowing no coverage is about to come.

As there was complete agreement that a post-GA DYK is perfectly fine, it's not just a week where you might be unlucky and end up with your creation in ITN when you might prefer otherwise.

So allow ITNs in cases where the creator did not propose (or support?) an ITN, so as to not penalise individuals. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, I am not sure much has changed since the previous discussions. Per the FAQs, After debating the issue on this page there is no agreement that ITN is a proper substitute as a stage to be recognized. An article not being eligible for a FOUR award is not a penalty and does not take away from the hard work that goes into article development. FOUR has always recognized a specific process of article development, not sure I see a reason to expand it now after 10 years and 600+ awards. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian

KN2731 and Hurricane Noah, about 8 months ago when I reorganized the WP:FOUR page, I proposed removing the collaboration eligibility for a FOUR award (Wikipedia talk:Four Award#Consensus Stuff), which was supported by a few reviewers. In the previous 10 years, only one article met the (somewhat) challenging criteria, especially related to the "Creation" criterion (i.e. who wrote the first encyclopedic content). Looking at the history of Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian, I would be inclined to award the FOUR award to KN2731, based on the lead text of the first edit, which appears to be encyclopedic in nature. That said, I recognize that the development of this article was truly a great collaboration, so I wanted to see what others' opinions were before I passed the nomination. Casliber, Cyclonebiskit, Doctree, Epicgenius, Ergo Sum, Gog the Mild, Hunter Kahn, and Krakatoa, any input you could provide would be appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the award should go to KN and KN only. NoahTalk 18:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
While I supported the proposed change at the time, in this case Hurricane Noah contributed to the article within 3 minutes of its creation and substantially so within 30. It seems to me needlessly petty to rule that this is not a genuine collaboration, regardless of the strict letter of the rules. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
On principle, I agree with you, Gog the Mild (regarding being petty, etc). My main purpose though for the proposed change last year was to make the reviewing part more cut and dry. I.e. if you didn't make the first edit, you aren't eligible. That way we don't have to sit there and parse out how much content was added, how encyclopedic was it, how quickly the collaborator edited the page, etc. And, similar to the discussion above, I think it just invites too much gray area on what satisfies the "Creation" criterion. To me, it's just easier to say "here is the criterion, if you satisfy it, then you are eligible". All this said, I don't want to take away anything from KN2731 and Hurricane Noah, who put together a great collaboration and should be recognized for it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, both KN and Hurricane Noah should be credited. Though Noah wasn't technically the first editor, they added significant info within 30 minutes of KN's first edit, as Gog pointed out above. And both editors were involved extensively in DYK, GA, and FA. I think it would be unnecessary to deny Noah the award on the grounds that they didn't get to put stuff in the redlink first. It seems pretty much to me like both editors were involved in all four stages. epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Epicgenius and Gog the Mild, just to be clear, I am not necessarily opposed to awarding a collaboration award. I am more concerned about how a change now affects future nominations and the nuance of what becomes eligible. I don't really view it as petty or bureaucratic to want to have clear eligibility criteria, and per my earlier proposal, the removal of the collaboration award just makes the Creation criterion more cut and dry. In this case, yeah it is pretty obvious that they collaborated on the creation of the article, with edits from both editors in 3 minutes. That said, what becomes the cut-off? One day? One week? Does there have to an agreement beforehand to collaborate? Again, I am posing these questions not necessarily looking for answers, but just to clarify what would need to be decided so that instructions can be added to the main page. 75% of this talk page seems to be people asking for clarification on the criteria or the process (one of the reasons I cleaned up the page and tightened stuff up).
As an aside, I would support a collaboration award requiring an agreement to collaborate (like a link to a talk page discussion) and substantial editing by both editors during the first day. That, or something like both editors significantly editing an article in the draft namespace and then moving the article to the mainspace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Gonzo fan2007, I would say that if there was a beforehand discussion, and/or if both editors contributed substantially within 12-24 hours, they could both be eligible for the creation stage. For articles that were moved from another namespace, as long as they both substantially edited the page in draft/sandbox, they should both be eligible regardless of time limit or first editor. epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Gonzo fan2007: the actual start of the process is the area where I feel most flexible. But I entirely take the point about the firmer we make the rules, the less nonsense we get. I am with Epicgenius: if there is evidence of substantial contributions to a draft, it shouldn't matter who actually makes the first transfer of this to main space; similarly if the second editor hasn't formally contributed to a draft but has made a substantial contribution within 48 hours of the article's creation. I feel that we don't need to be too tough here, as the other three stages should eliminate drive by and casual contributors. Does that give formal enough rules that we can point to? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild and Epicgenius, what do you think of this change, as a start: diff. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Gonzo fan2007, I am happy with it. If you feel that it is sufficiently tight, then we have a runner. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree as well. As long as all parties involved had a substantial role in creating the first encyclopedic content (as with adding to a draft/sandbox), I think the added text in these rules is fine. epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild and Epicgenius, thanks. I will make a related change to the main page shortly. Feel free to copyedit as needed. Regarding the Wikipedia:Four Award/Records page, it would appear the easiest solution would be to duplicate the article under the heading of each editor. Would you agree? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Gonzo fan2007, if you're referring to the row that credits Ribbon Salminen & Starship.paint for the same article, I agree that these should be split and duplicated. epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Epicgenius and Gog the Mild, here is what I did. Let me know if that looks good to you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Gonzo fan2007, That looks good to me. Were you going to insert a note to explain the "dagger" by the entry? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, since it is such a long table, I used the {{Abbr}} template to add a note. I am sure there are other ways this could be done, using {{Notetag}} or something similar. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah! Got it. That's fine. Sorry, I went straight to the new entry(/ies) without really looking at the diff. Yes, that works. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Four Award for a "list" article?

Scenario: Let's say a list of episodes is less than 7 days old, has 1,500+ characters in the lede, is nominated/accepted for DYK, and is nominated/accepted as a Featured List (not Featured Article as stated in the criteria). From my understanding, a list cannot be nominated for Good Article status (because it's a list). Therefore, the list could only meet 2 of 4 criteria needed.

Is this accurate? Could a "list" article even receive a Four Award? CYAce01 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

My understanding, which could be faulty, is that a list can never qualify for a Four Award. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
That is correct. Per this page's FAQ: No. The featured list editorial process is different from the featured article process. FOUR is meant to recognize the article-development process, not the list-development process. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Does an article have to be created from a redlink? What about a redirect, or just newly made in general? Panini🥪 16:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Newly made definitely counts, since that's functionally the exact same as a redlink (e.g. moving an article into the mainspace from a sandbox). I've never really liked the language "redlink" for that reason and if there's no objection, I'm going to tweak the wording on the criteria to reflect that. As for redirects, I also see no reason why that wouldn't count. Ergo Sum 17:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The reason the "redlink" language is included is to clarify the last part: "very first encyclopedic content". Redirects almost always point to an article that includes some encyclopedic content about the redirect. If you see the discussion above about John Oliver, there are definitely examples of redirects qualifying, but you need to show that the target article doesn't include any encyclopedic content about the article that is being redirected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Gonzo fan2007, In the context of the article Paper Mario, would this qualify for redirect material? Its only encyclopedic content was from a list only having a paragraph dedicated in prose. Panini🥪 11:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Panini!, I don't see why not. I would just clarify that when you nominate the article. You can use the | comments = field in the nomination template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Can there be a Tri-award?

I think this award is very appealing and can encourage editors to improve articles. However it comes with a specific roadblock, articles need to be created by the person who improved it to GA/FA and submits a DYK. It can be discouraging to see that an editor improved an article to the point that it was promoted to GA, FA, and receive a DYK but not be fully recognized because they simply didn't create the article. Even worst, if the information you input is 100% replaced with new content and still not recognized.

For those instances, I was wondering if there can be a Tri-Award specifically for those that make it impossible to create the article? It's still a feat to accomplish. Improving an article to GA, FA, and submitting a DYK. I'm probably not the first to request this, but i thought i try anyways.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blue Pumpkin Pie, just checking that you are aware of Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of it. I personally just saw this at someone's talk page and was interested in attempting to achieve the feat. I also had a belief that the awards were more "standardize" in both naming conventions and in themes. The Four award looks more appealing thematically than the Triple Crown. The Triple Crown looks too outdated something from the early days of the internet.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
(The whole site looks like it's from the early days of the internet. :P) If we were to add such an award, my main concern would be volunteers willing to award it. For the last 18 months, I've been doing most of the awarding and updating and it's as much as I can handle. The award is quite difficult to achieve, as you say, while three would be (I'd imagine) a lot more common. As such, Q1 of the FAQ on this talk page still applies. If you want to set up a new award and handle the work associated with that, or even to redesign Triple Crown icons, go ahead. — Bilorv (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if someone would be willing to write a script that does all the fiddly update work? Saves some energy, maybe encourages some more people to pitch in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure there can be a bot. Maybe someone would have to review the nomination, but once approved, a bot can send the award out.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Checking the nomination takes about half of the time for me. Writing a bot (and testing and BRFA'ing) would, I would guess, take more time than it would take to do five year's worth of approvals/rejections, and is a bad use of highly specialised skills. We just need a couple more people to do a couple every so often (like now, three there and I'm leaving them another couple of days to see if anyone—hopefully not someone who's done one before—will do it). — Bilorv (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't imagine working too differently from Legobot for GA nominations. And you could always commission the bot instead of writing it yourself, can you? I understand checking the nominations takes "half" the time, but that's still 50% of the time. And considering the number of current nominations, I don't imagine it's all that time-consuming.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
34,776 GAs vs 669 Four Awards. I'm a perfectly competent programmer (albeit I am yet to write a Wikipedia bot), and I'm telling you that it's not worth the time. A hobbyist who enjoys the task might choose to, but it's not time efficient. If you're not offering help at the current award, with this bot programming, or in creation of a new Tri-Award, then I don't think anything here is actionable.
The problem is not that this individual task takes up a large amount of time, but that I'm managing several other things like this and it adds up to a lot of repetitive labour, none of which I enjoy (and none of which is simple and frequent enough for scripts/bots). You could spend 10 minutes concretely wiping off one of those current nominations rather than conceiving of hypothetical streamlining processes that generate discussion but no action. Unlike some of the other tasks I manage, we have a very thorough instructions page: Wikipedia:Four Award/Instructions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Worth adding that PMC has done approvals and it's been noticed and much appreciated, by me at the least. — Bilorv (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Glad to hear it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
What fiddly update work are we talking about? It would be simple to have the FACBot automatically nominate articles for Four Awards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem with a bot is that the nominations need to be manually checked to confirm that the same person is the creator, primary author, and guiding hand through GA/FA. If you created an article and took it to DYK, but skipped out on the GA process only to return to bring it to FA, it wouldn't count. I'm not sure if a bot can really parse all that. That's why I suggested a script to do the fiddly work of adding the article and all the dates and links etc to the 4A table. Or actually now that I'm thinking about it, maybe FACBot could do all that once a human has checked a nomination and confirmed it qualifies? That could save a few minutes, I think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The FACBot is triggered by the FA process. The process would then run this way:
  1. The Bot already knows who the FAC nominator is
  2. The Bot finds the GA nomination via the history of the talk page; that tells it who nominated it for GA
  3. The Bot finds the DYK nomination in the article history, then looks at the history of the DYK nomination page, which tells it who created that
  4. The Bot looks at the article history; that tells it who created it.
The Bot now has all the information it needs to create a Four Award nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I think we're talking about two different stages. You're suggesting that the bot produce the nomination, which seems reasonable, but I think each nomination will still need manual checking because of the possibility of inconsistencies (creating from redirect being one common exception). But I was suggesting that a bot take care of the second stage, where the editor who accepts the nomination a) adds the article to Wikipedia:Four Award/Records, b) updates the article's talk page, and c) puts the notice on the creator's talk page. That part is tedious and it would be great if a bot could take care of it, especially with updating the table. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Those three steps could be done. The uncertain part is how the Bot would be tiggered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hm, well, I'm not sure how bots work, but perhaps some kind of field in the nomination template like "checked = " and then once it's checked, you put in "yes" or whatever, and that signals the bot when it checks the page? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Just for reference, the problem is a bit more complicated than PMC outlines, as the bot would also need to update the leaderboard for >10 Four Award holders and the number of people with Four Awards for first-timers; the information it needs for the Records is also not always in the article history talk page template, and the creation date is not something a bot can parse (it should be the first edit made to the page that leaves it in a non-redirect state, but I can think we'd have edge cases). I think there's just too many moving parts (you'll find the bot soon breaks when someone rewords the Four Award intro or something). — Bilorv (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
That's why we would have a person verify the nomination before the bot goes ahead with the update to all the stats and stuff. So the process would be 1) Bot (or a human) makes the nomination and leaves it. 2) Human comes along and goes "yes that's all very good" and leaves a checkmark for the bot. 3) Bot comes back and does the updates. If we need to tweak how the stats are listed, that seems like a cheap price to pay for some automation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to cause a debate. I thought I was being considerate and make the process easier for Bilorv but based on the tone of the discussion, it looks like I hit a nerve. I especially wanted a bot because if a Tri-award was to be created (I'm cooking something up on GIMP as we speak for both Four and Tri), it could make the process easier.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I really think Tri award would be redundant to both Trip Crown and 4A. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't want the conversation to continue anymore. It was a minor idea, and I really don't want to be blamed for any precious time wasted. I'm practicing some design as a hobby, so maybe in the future, i can throw in some redesign ideas. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't like bringing this up, but ...

it looks like the list of four awards may need to be gone through and some moved to the former section. The two I noticed were Rhodes blood libel, which was delisted as an FA in April, and Tropical Depression Ten (2005), which has been merged and is no longer a separate article. There may be a few others. Hog Farm Talk 02:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: if I were making the rules, I'd probably say the article doesn't have to still be FA for an editor to retain their award. The point is that they took the article through the four stages at some point. If I die, and all my FAs get delisted, I'd still like to have my posthumous Four award! I guess the letter of the requirements does say "to Featured Article status, which it still retains though, so I guess you're right that those ones have to be delisted here too.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, these do have to be delisted and I've done so. I'm not quite clear on whether I need to be decrementing the number of Four Award authors tally (for Beit Or) and now I check, I notice that {{Four Award number}} seems to be overestimating by about a dozen, going by the number of |- (new line) symbols in the records table (and then subtract the ones at the top of the table and the delisted section). Anyway, delistings will likely continue as WP:URFA/2020 does, which is necessary work if a bit sad. — Bilorv (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: - Another sad update: History of Baltimore City College (Golem88991), Chicago Board of Trade Building (LurkingInChicago, delisted in 2020), and McDonald's Cycle Center (TonyTheTiger) are all gone as well. It's been a bleak last 12 months for older FAS. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, and as I stated above, there is really no need for all this. Unlike FA and GA, which apply to articles, the FOUR is an editor award, and it doesn't confer any extra status on the article that isn't already implicit in its FA status. The article isn't magically better, just because one person happened to create and DYK it. There's therefore little reason to strip people of these awards when they lapse. It represents dedication put in at a point in time, to take a brand new topic to the highest echelons, and that's not something that lapses IMHO. I'm tempted to make this a formal proposal, and reinstate previous FOUR awards removed on this basis, but perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, the awards were given, and I don't think it really matters what happened to the articles later in this context. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I think quite strongly that the award should not be revoked because an article falls from FA. The award recognizes past work to bring an article to FA, not ongoing work to keep it there. It only makes sense that once an article reaches FA, the award is permanent. Ergo Sum 16:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree with other editors stating their opposition. The rewards should not be revoked because of an article's current state, and trying to get them stripped from editors comes across (at least to me) as a bit petty. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I entirely agree with Ergo Sum's position, and with others who argue against the removal of a Four Award once awarded. And no need to criticise anyone raising what they consider a reasonable concern. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

So I guess all of the entries on Wikipedia:Four_Award/Records#Former awards (which dates back over 10 years it looks like) should be moved back into the main table, then? Hog Farm Talk 23:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say yes. Ergo Sum 00:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe so. I think the cut and thrust is that the editor who earned the award doesn't lose it, but article which no longer meets featured criteria should no longer be listed. I suppose it's a bit like WP:WBFAN showing those hollowed stars for successful nominations, we denote that the effort was successful but not sustained. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 00:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I like the analogy. However, Four recognizes individuals, not articles per se. To indicate that the award is still "good" even for former FAs, maybe we can combine the lists but just make the row a darker color for former FAs and put an asterisk or key or something indicating that means an article is no longer FA. I think the point should be to keep the continuity of Username (1)...Username (2)... etc. in one list rather than two. Ergo Sum 00:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
What GrappleX was suggesting was what I was trying to indicate, although I don't think I communicated it very well. Hog Farm Talk 00:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd support any system where the listing is still present somewhere in the records table (segregated or not), but there is some marker to show that it is not a current FA. We can't do it with just a darker colour for accessibility reasons (but you could have a darker colour and a tick/cross column for "Still an FA?"). — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Can a formerly deleted article qualify for a Four Award?

Does anyone have thoughts about whether a formerly deleted article can qualify for a Four Award if it was created by one user; deleted; and then recreated and taken through the DYK/GA/FAC process by another user(s)? The question is about the article on Martin Rundkvist. It was created by Alunsalt in 2008, then quickly taken to AfD and deleted. In 2020, I requested that the article be restored; it was placed in draft space, where I worked on it and moved it to main space. Days later it was brought back to AfD, where it again lost. It was placed back in draft space, where it sat for a year. A few months ago, Chiswick Chap and I thoroughly reworked the article, and brought it back live. It passed its good-article review, appeared at DYK, and, today, became a featured article. It seems to me that while encyclopedic content once existed before Chiswick Chap and I got involved, by at least the time of the second deletion, this content effectively ceased to exist; the recreations were restarts, and, I think, meet the standard for creating a new article. But I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. If the article qualifies, by the way, then it should likely be considered a collaborative effort. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a gorgeous piece of work, but unfortunately I think it probably does not qualify for 4A. Even though the original content no longer exists in the article, it did once. If someone had created Stub X with 200 words of terrible prose, and you came in and overwrote it with a 2000-word revamp that completely removed the existing prose, it wouldn't qualify either, because you didn't create the original. By analogy, same thing here. (Although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise!) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this particular article, but I'd think it would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The logic of FOUR is to recognize persistence in improving a specific article, rather than the mere accidents of AfD/AfC, etc. The logic would hold whether an article is totally new or pre-existed a deletion. I think the main factor would depend on whether the re-created article is truly new or whether it was just a revival of the deleted article. That's my first-blush instinct. Ergo Sum 01:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
For reference, here's the article as it existed right before its 2008 deletion (link); right after its 2020 recreation (link); and right after its 2021 recreation (link). The 2020 version has a few holdovers from the 2008 version, although the 2021 version is completely different. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award recognizes that achievement. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Four_Award/Archive_6&oldid=1257191397"