From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:BAP

Wikipedia Awards
Barnstars on Wikipedia Awards by WikiProjects Other related awards Personal user awards Order of the Day Service Awards Ribbons for Barnstars etc. Award templates Barnstar & award proposals Kindness Campaign WikiProject Awards

Barnstar and Award Proposals (BAP) is where Wikipedians offer and discuss ideas regarding the "standard" Barnstars, WikiProject awards, Other Related Awards and Personal User Awards, which may include, but are not limited to: creation of a new barnstar, altering or changing an existing barnstar or award, or delisting an award entirely.

Ideas and their discussions take the following guidelines into account. Please note that these guidelines are not strict rules, chiseled in stone. Rather, they are guidelines agreed upon by the community as a way to standardize our approach to barnstars and awards. If you have questions, WikiProject Awards is a group of volunteers who help guide these pages.

Contents 1 Guidelines 2 How to use this page 2.1 Creating awards 2.2 How to propose a new award 2.3 Modifications or deletion of existing awards 2.4 What to do if your award is accepted 3 Guidelines 3.1 General 3.2 Creation of an Award 3.3 Images 3.4 Templates 3.5 Guidelines for Barnstars only 3.6 Finalizing Proposals 4 Archives: Barnstar and award proposals 5 Changing existing awards proposals 5.1 Wikipedia:Wikihalo 5.1.1 Surreal sidebar on "criteria" 5.2 The Working Man's Barnstar: Gender and Class 5.3 Purple star should not include medal 5.4 CVG Star 5.5 Surreal Barnstar 6 New proposals 6.1 Category awards 6.2 Religion and Spirituality barnstar 6.3 Music Barnstar or WikiProject Award 6.4 2nd Go: The Congressional Barnstar of Honor (WikiProject U.S. Congress) 6.5 BarnStarman 6.6 Art Barnstar 6.7 The Imperium Barnstar 6.8 The Wizard Shazam Barnstar 6.9 WikiProject Professional Wrestling Barnstar 6.10 Intellectual Stub Expanders' Barnstar 6.11 WikiProject Oregon Barnstar 6.12 Creator Barnstar 6.13 New Article Barnstar 6.14 WikiProject CVG Star 7 Delisting an award

[edit] Guidelines

If you need any help or are confused, don't hesitate to ask at WikiProject Awards!

[edit] How to use this page [edit] Creating awards Any person or any group can have an award and add it to the Personal User Awards page straight away, as long as the award meets the guidelines in the opposite panel. In this state, your award can be used by others as they wish, but it is not an 'official' award, and should not be added to any other award pages. If your award is a Barnstar, an award for a WikiProject, or some other related award, then you must propose it to the Community by following the steps below. [edit] How to propose a new award Read the guidelines in the opposite panel to make sure your proposal agrees with them. At the bottom of the 'New Proposals' section, add a clear header seperating it from other proposals. Use ===Barnstar Name===. Specify the type of award you are proposing. Is it for a WikiProject, a new Barnstar, or some other award? Give some details about the award. Is it a general award, or is it for special circumstances? Is it a topic-related award? Post your proposed design for the award. If you don't have one, describe one and someone might make a mock-up for you. Describe the award, and give some reasons why it should be an award. Remember, there must be clear consensus during the discussion! Don't forget to sign your name with four tildes: ~~~~ [edit] Modifications or deletion of existing awards At the bottom of the 'Changing existing awards proposals' or 'Delisting an award' section, add a clear header seperating it from other proposals. Use ===Editing/Delisting Barnstar Name===. Give some clear reasons as to why you think the award should be changed. These must be proper reasons, not just because you don't like it! Remember to sign your name with four tildes: ~~~~ [edit] What to do if your award is accepted Make sure you add the Category:Wikipedia awards category to any images used in your award. Consider making a template for your award to make it easier to use. Look at some other templates to see what other award templates look like, and try to use the same style. Make sure to categorize the template with <noinclude>[[:Category:Award templates]]</noinclude>.

[edit] Guidelines [edit] General All awards must encourage WikiLove, WikiCivility, and the other constructive aspects of the Wikipedia community, and may not award or promote the destructive (trolling, flaming or flamebaiting, vandalism, etc.). They shouldn't just be for insulting others! Awards should not, in purpose or image, concern any nation, race or creed over any other. [edit] Creation of an Award For how to propose an award, read the How To panel opposite. General awards may be created and placed on the main award page by anybody as they see fit, so long as they do not violate the basic guidelines below. You should explicitly spell out in the description of the award what it is for. Barnstars are meant to be unique and exceptional. If you wish to propose a new Barnstar, it should be reviewed by the community, and be added to the Barnstars list only when the community reaches consensus on a page specifically designated for Barnstar and award discussion. [edit] Images If you want to use and image for your award it must not, obviously, violate any of the existing guidelines governing the use of images in Wikipedia. The "Barnstar" image should be generally reserved for Barnstars, and rarely (if ever) incorporated into other awards. Medals or commendations awarded by any nations or organizations, past or present, may not be used. If your new award uses an image, please categorize the image with Category:Wikipedia awards. [edit] Templates If your new award uses a template, please categorize the template with <noinclude>[[:Category:Award templates]]</noinclude> [edit] Guidelines for Barnstars only Barnstars should not be redundant, with the general guideline being "one barnstar, one WikiVirtue". Barnstars should be general and broad in their scope. [edit] Finalizing Proposals General consensus must be reached in order for a proposal to be accepted. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, the idea will be removed from this page and archived. If more than a week has passed, the idea has not gained a consensus, and the discussion has been inactive, the proposal is eligible to be rejected and archived. Proposals should be allowed to mature, so it is suggested that an idea be left in proposal format for at least two weeks for comment before being finalized.

[edit] Archives: Barnstar and award proposals

Archival Guidelines, Award Guidelines, Category barnstars, Barnstar Ribbons, Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14, Archive 15, Archive 16
Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page

[edit] Changing existing awards proposals

Note: Add new proposals to the bottom of Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes subpage.

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikihalo

Can we please redefine the process by which this award is given out? --evrik ^(talk) 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it needs to be changed to simple one week approval voting. We should speedy all the "unsuccessful" candidacies and begin again, and delete all the other pages that add any extra bureaucracy. The whole point of the Wikihalo is that it is a community award, so it only seems fair that the community gets to express their opinion. As you have rightly pointed out though, it is embarassing for those who failed, and thus these pages should be eradicated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to leave the construction tag up for right now until we work this out. --evrik ^(talk) 19:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think creating separate pages for each nominee is a wise idea. Maybe one nomination page and then a set of archive pages? Thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. RfA methods are the best way to go IMO. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't we focus on the criteria for a moment ... Length of service ... number of edits? --evrik ^(talk) 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we need any? Is a wikihalo a lifetime achivement award, or a "Hey, you're awesome! Thanks for that thing you did!" award? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Originally, there was a threshold of eligibility. It was meant for long-time contributors. Also, if this award is going to have a nomination procedure ... we should archive the nominations somewhere ... and have a minimal amount of votes required. --evrik ^(talk) 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The nominations are archived, under the name of the nominee. Shall we say five votes? Five votes and seven days. I've finished my revamp of the award, what do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would say, 10,000 edits, more than a year editing on the en.wiki and they receive at least 15 votes. --evrik ^(talk) 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, well that's nonsense, really, isn't it? There's only 1000 people on all of Wikipedia who have more than 10,000 edits, and the community both knows and ackowledges them in various ways. Also, about three people a month look at WP:HALO - we needs to set our voting threshold low enough until more people start voting there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well ... do you have an alternate standard? Something between the high bar I set and what it is now? Making it hard to get isn't the worst thing ... --evrik ^(talk) 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I say use the RfA standards: at least a thousand edits and four months on the wiki. I agree it needs to be a tough award, but no-one has heard of the Wikihalo, much less voted on it. We need to set the bar low to get the nominations trickling in and then slowly raise it (to about 5000 edits). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Let me think about this overnight. --evrik ^(talk) 23:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, once we've agreed, I'll announce it on the community portal and perhaps ask the signpost to cover it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• well, I think that the standard for rfa is too low ... and not all admins should be admins ... can we agree on 5000 edits and four months? --evrik ^(talk) 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree on 5000 eventually, but until the project has been more popularised, there seems little point in raising it that far. Shall we say 2000 edits and raise it a thousand every two months or something? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm getting ready to go afk. I want to resist raising the bar every two months or so ... it really makes it seem arbitrary. We shoudl just agree on a standard. Any interest in a poll? --evrik ^(talk) 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to hold one. I just don't see where we can put it where anyone would actually care. It's just you and me discussing this, remember. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe we shold flip a quarter? We could always use http://www.random.org/nform.html --evrik ^(talk) 23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

...Um, why don't we just compromise? I want a thousand, you want 5000, I offered you 2, why go off on random generators? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I wanted 10,000 and a year. So, if you want to compromise we should split the difference ... that would be 5500 edits and 8 months. --evrik ^(talk) 16:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Are you seriously against this award so much you would raise the barrier so high no-one would get one? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the award, you'll see that I defended it when it was up for deletion under and MFD - but I've always had problems with the way that it is administered. 1,000 is too low, 10,000 may be too high. I have less of a problem with the time element because it takes time to make all those edits. --evrik ^(talk) 16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one thousand may be too low. Will you be happy with 2500? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I like 10,000, but would be willing to compromise at 5,000. --evrik ^(talk) 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I will go find some more people and take a straw poll on it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• ... and? --evrik ^(talk) 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think that something closer to thirty hundred would be best... I mean evrik, I really respect you as an editor and everything - but really setting the bar that high would be insane - especially since a lot of times the number of edits someone has made is not the best indication for the cumulative effect of their contribution. This award is meant to make people feel good about themselves - and it rewards quality contributions. If a person with 3000 great edits is nominated - I think they should seriously be considered for the award (and no one start bringing in the slippery slope here- thirty hundred edits is still a lot of edits).Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Instead of edits what about time? This should be an exclusive award. --South Philly 14:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with what evrik is trying to say, in that this award should be hard to get, to make it more prominent and exclusive. The point i think he is trying to make is that if you have an award that has to be voted on and nominations are required, it should be reserved for really excellent contributors, not just any old Joe Bloggs with 2,000 edits. I agree it should be something special, however maybe 10,000 is a tad high. Smomo 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• 2000 mainspace edits? There aren't many "Joe Bloggs" with 2000 mainspace edits. Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 00:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Look at yourself. You must be approaching something around 2000 edits. Would you say you deserve this Wiki Halo award? Smomo 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm nowhere near 2000 - I'm not even at 500!! (wait, again, are you talking about mainspace edits or regular edits?)Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I just looked at your contributions page, set it to 500, and saw how many pages that went up to. To be fair, I imagine that includes non-article space as well, so if edits counts as only article edits, yes, you're probably right. :) Smomo 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, so now I asume we're talking about non-mainspace edits. In that case - how's 4000 (using certain wiki counters - we can subtract the userpage edits - thus the only things counted will be:

1. 1. 1. Article edits
      2. Article talk edits - that way we can reward users for their regular edits and contributions to the community (through talk pages))Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• My two cents: I like the current nomination process, although if someone is thought of well enough that someone else wants to nominate for a Wikihalo, then it should be done, except for any really major disagreements - like wait a week for major objections - and if none, then support. What you're talking about changing it to sounds just like the criteria for Wikipedia:Service awards, and so this award would be nothing special at that point. Cricket02 04:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• The wikihalo is for those who are THE Wikipedians, our Stakhanovs, our heroes. I think that every criteria that we choose will we inadequate. I also think that the recipient doesn't have to accept his nominations, and that we can nominate and award it even to the ones who have left Wikipedia. This is our highest "decoration", the Wikipedia's Medal of Honor, and there are more than one who should received one even if he/she left. I think that the quorum should be of 10 votes, since there aren't actually many peoples who check the page, with over 85% of supports. I know that only a few candidates can pass such a limit, but it's right, only a few wikipedians can receive this award. I think that we should "advertise" wikihalos, it should be a community process, not just a few's decision. In conclusion, I'm really looking forward to nominate some wikipedians who have left for the posthumously WikiHalo. But we should first reach a consensus on this. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 09:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's really our top award, it should be, say, 50 votes. I can't imagine an RFA passing with much less than that. A truly popular Wikipedian will easily get 50 votes if it's advertised somewhere. --kingboyk 11:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should. But I haven't figured a way to get even twenty wikipedians to watch this page. If you have ideas, please say 'em ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 11:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the time that each nomination should last from one week to one month. I know it's a lot, but until we find a way to get more people to participate, I think it's needed. I also think that we should remove the acceptance of the nomination: nobody can refuse a wikihalo, in my opinion. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 12:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surreal sidebar on "criteria"

FWIW, I realized something tonight. I was just awarded a Wikihalo. No, you didn't miss it; I was never nominated. Someone just awarded it to me. So I checked out the image page. Seems LOTS of people have been just giving this out. I am very amused by the surreal and anarchistic spirit of Wikipedians in this instance. However, I still have to decide whether to display the one I was given. Perhaps I need a new section for "illegal awards" ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As I look at how long the list of actual recipients is, as opposed to the official recipients, and the low number of participants in this discussion, I'm thinking we already have a clear consensus here as to how this should be awarded, and by who. Then again, we could do a clever image switch and declare all the "illegal" recipients to be outlaws, and we could propose it be renamed The Outlaw Award ;-D - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC

P.P.S. !Recount. It seems the award image is also being used in an "I Assume Good Faith" userbox. It's hard to tell how many of the links on that page are from that use, but I would cautiously assume a good number, possibly most of them. However, the text here does not mention the award needing community approval of any sort. So unless someone clicks through on the link in the header, they can't be blamed for not knowing. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Working Man's Barnstar: Gender and Class

Why is this called "The Working Man's Barnstar? Surely a gender-neutral title would be a simple and less anachronistic choice. I would suggest that the name of this award would be far less shrill to non-patriarchal ears if it were updated to "The Worker's Barnstar" or "The Labourer's Barnstar" or something along those lines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.25.152.165 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 6 July 2006.

• I definitely agree with you on that. There are lots of women working on Wikipedia as well, and I do a lot of spelling/grammar corrections--hard work for the nit-picker, and I don't want to be called a working MAN, because I'm not a man!--Snowgrouse 18:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Good question. Take it up on Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals. --evrik 13:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• While this is at least 100 years old, Man doesn't always refer to males, it can refer to humanity in general. -- feb^talk 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it is more of an expression. The working person doesnt sound very good does it. thuglas ^T|C 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • How you think it sounds? That's hardly objective. Cheeser1 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Look in the Proposal Archives. this was discussed last year at great length. -_evrik ^(talk) 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Working Wikipedians Barnstar? It has a ring to it.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion belongs here:Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes

--evrik ^(talk) 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support change - "Worker's Barnstar" or "Working Wikipedian's Barnstar" would be fine. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ --Jacklau96 09:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous discussion.--South Philly 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I read in the link provided by South Philly that this issue never reached consensus, and if women feel excluded (as it seems is the case), then a rename is in order. How about 'Hard Working Wikipedian'? Raystorm 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I am a woman, and I do not feel excluded in the least. Man here is clearly meant to be inclusive of all mankind. I see no problem in it's continuance. Working Wikipedian just sounds stupid. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Perhaps it could be called the Diligent Wikipedian barnstar? I hardly think that working on Wiki constitues "hard work", and its kind of ridiculous to compare a diligent wikipedia to someone who mops floors or digs ditches for a living. Asarelah 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that a day of harmonising hundreds of references, or writing an FA is equal to digging a ditch or mopping a floor. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that a 'working man' is a common phrase referring to 'man: the race' rather than man the gender. Smomo 00:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support: I support the creation of the Working Woman's barnstar. There's nothing wrong with having 3 barnstars. USe whichever one you like. --Matt57 01:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it'll work out as more than that, we'll need a Working Man's Barnstar, Working Woman's Barnstar, Working Third gender's Barnstar, Working Womyn's Barnstar, Working Genderqueer's Barnstar, Working Genderfuck's Barnstar Working Transexual's Barnstar, Working Intersex individual's Barnstar, and Working Boi's Barnstar. Oh, and Working Person Who Does Not Have Their Gender Identity Plastered On Their Userpage's Barnstar. Really, when you start trying to divide Barnstars by personal identity, it's never gonna work. Stick with the all-inclusive Man, or create all ten Barnstars. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the sarcasm? If there are women that do not feel included by 'Man', use a gender neutral barnstar. How hard would that be, to change a line? At least 4 women have participated in this discussion as far as I can ascertain, and three have supported the change. That's something to think about. Maybe we should ask other women, get a more broad idea of what the women in wikipedia feel about the name. Raystorm 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic. Working Man is gender neutral, Man refers to all mankind. If we start creating new barnstars on the basis on personality rather than edits, chaos will ensue, as I've pointed out above. As I said, I do not feel excluded by the barnstar, because I know the etymology of the word and am not offended by it. If we need to, link the Man in the title to ensure that everyone else knows it too. The whole point of the Barnstar seems to be that it's some kind of play on Working Man, or the working class. Changing it to Working Wikipedian for the sake of political correctness ruins the whole thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the point would be lost if we used, for example, the Working Wikipedia barnstar. If the play on words is so important, a link could always be included I guess. The point is all about being a hard working wikipedian, right? ;-) Then why not change a simple word to be (yes, I'm not afraid to say it) politically correct? As someone famous said once, 'It's not about mankind, it's about humankind'. I've posted a message at the VP and WP:GS to ask for their input. Cheers Raystorm 16:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 is right, and the guidelines do explicitly say the following:

“

Barnstars should be general and broad in their scope.

”

Having different Barnstar's is just finicky and annoying. Smomo 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dev920's rationale. - Anas ^talk? 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Maybe the "Hard Worker's Barnstar" or "WikiWorker's Barnstar" or, my favourite, "Stakahanovite Barnstar" ? - TheMightyQuill 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind: and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee". Donne included the chicks as well. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose because:

A WORKIN' MAN, A WORKIN' MAN,

Hurray Hurray for a Workin' Man,

He'll navvy and sweat till he's nearly bet,

THE GIFT OF GOD IS A WORKIN' MAN!

No need to make fictional Irish poets cry.--Folantin 18:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Support: Working Wikipedian or something like that covers it all, the slippery slope sarcasm is really unneeded (call it whatever you want) I never heard a female called a "Working man," or "hard working man" so the argument that this as a common phrase meant to include all is no good, IMO. Personally, doesn't bother me, but if it bothers some, it should probably be changed for civility's sake.

IvoShandor 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Working Man != Working Male. I see no reason why a woman can't be a Working Man. People can subst it into a sandbox and edit the text if they feel the need when awarding it to a woman. WjBscribe 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever's agreed on, whether it be "The Hard-Working Wikipedian Award" or the like, suggest that any reference to gender or collective nouns is simply avoided. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion Perhaps the template could be changed to introduce a simple fix to allow a user to change the template to Working Woman's or Wikipedian's, while the official name still being Working Man's? Smomo 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That might work I guess. Could that be done? Raystorm 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, so, could it be done? Raystorm 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I have now introduced the fix myself. You can see the updated information on Template:The Working Man's Barnstar and at WP:BS. The gender option on the end allows the award to be called Woman's and Wikipedian's, in addition to Man's. I propose we leave the official title on WP:BS as Man's, so as not to confuse anyone and for legacy purposes. Smomo 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! Raystorm 12:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Well, I think that wraps up this discussion then. Shall we archive in a few days? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purple star should not include medal

An anonymous user left me a message today [1] with a good point about the purple barnstar. Which I quote here:

Your web site graphic of the purple heart "barnstar" is inappropriate and offensive to members of the United States Armed Services who suffered injuries to be awarded the medal. Reducing the purple heart to something awarded to wikipedians involved in anti-vandalism efforts seems disingenuous and is in bad taste. Please consider what message you are trying to send by posting this item on your user page, and whether it reflects poorly on the wikipedia community.

I agree with their opinion so perhaps the image should be changed so that it does not include an actual image of the medal, but instead is just purple. I don't have the graphic talent to makes the change, so I will leave it up to others to change should we agree to make the change. -- Gogo Dodo 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Image:Purple Star.png is technically a WP:PUA, and not a barnstar. There is a discussion here Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive10#Purple Star Award. We could solve this by having an admin retsure the first image uploaded (look at the edit history). --evrik ^(talk) 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. I am the one who changed the graphic (I did propose the change here first) and I didn't think that it could be offensive, but now I realize that it might be. Being the person who uploaded the changed graphic, I took the liberty of immediately reverting to the old version (no medal), hoping that this is not a violation of WP:OWN. Herostratus 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support change. Perhaps we could consider a different symbol for the centre of this barnstar? One that would be less controversial? Though it looks quite good just as a purple barnstar... WjBscribe 18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I agree with what our friend in the armed forces is saying, and I support this change. Smomo 13:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support change - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support--Dr who1975 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Oppose: Oh brother. IvoShandor 05:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I understand the main argument here for restoring the version without the medal, I think that we need not be so politically correct. Frankly, I think that nobody would really care with the usage of this medal on the purple barnstar, that's just nitpicking. The barnstar looked really nice with it, and if this medal has to go, I hope that at least a visually attractive and politically correct substitute can be added. --Húsönd 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, perhaps I should remind that Wikipedia is not censored. The fact that someone finds something on Wikipedia tasteless and inappropriate reflects nothing but a point of view.--Húsönd 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Something involving a band-aid would probably be better anyway. Herostratus 01:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the anonymous user. You can't draw a parallel between having your leg blown off and having your user page vandalized. Asarelah 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: There is no way a Wikipedia Barnstar could be confused with an award or have parallels drawn to it by simply having an image of a medal, that assertion doesn't make sense. Have we all lost our minds to blind militarism. Anyway, no offense meant, changing my opinion from neutral to oppose above. IvoShandor 19:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also why is the medal missing from the image whilst the discussion is still open? IvoShandor 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CVG Star

The CVG star is currently a personal user award while it is mentioned on the main page of the CVG project - should this not be a WikiProject award? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's up to the WikiProject, really. The rule is that people can use PUAs for anything they like, as long as they follow the guidelines. If you or anyone else feels that it should be a more 'official' award, feel free to propose it at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals. Smomo 17:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surreal Barnstar

Does anyone know what "special flavor" means? This criteria seems odd and I don't know when to give it out. If someone makes a surreal comment? IvoShandor 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume that is meant to be given out to people who could be considered 'eccentric', but that's just my view. Smomo 20:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got one. Check out my userpage to see why. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New proposals

Note: Add new proposals to the bottom of Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals subpage.

[edit] Category awards

Recently, I updated the category portion of the WP:BS page. It was overdue as it had not been in a while and there has been a realignment of the main categories. One thing that I noted as I was doing this is that the following categories have no barnstar:

• Health and fitness – Health, Health sciences and Self-care
• Philosophy and thinking – Philosophy and Thought
• Reference – Research and Library and information science
• Religion and belief systems – Religion and Belief
• Science, Natural sciences, and Nature - Science, Natural sciences and nature

I propose that we have a contest to design five new awards. We will post it on the Signpost and open it up to the community. Before you respond, please read this and this. Thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 19:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Interesting idea. It should be fun to watch people compete for the honors. --South Philly 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment isn't science covered by E=mc² star? Nevertheless, the other ideas sound interesting. I'll see if I can come up with anything. Laïka 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and Spirituality barnstar

Broadening the scope of the proposed star slightly to also incorporate spirituality, I've created this possible star, based on the fact that clouds are often used to represent the afterlife, which virtually all religions believe in in one way or another, as well as just the general role clouds play in meditation and prayer. Alternatively, I could create an image based on the candle, since most religions use candles at some point in their ceremonies. Laïka 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I like the image. I say we put this in a hgolding queue until we decide what we are going to do, but it is a nice image. --evrik ^(talk) 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very nice image thuglas^T|C 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Fair enough; I'll withdraw the image for now. Laïka 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion - add some sunlight, probably coming through the clouds, possibly from the barnstar itself. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I like this idea. Perhaps as if the sun is shining behind the star and clouds, and shafts of light coming out, as happens when the sun breaks through the clouds. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Could it be used in connection with meteorology in some way?A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 06:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Support Looks real good. Dark Ermac 12:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support and second A mcmurray's suggestion on using this one for meteorology contributions as well.--Húsönd 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Support We need one of these. I'll back it to the end -- Sam 1123 21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• This Barnstar needs to gain more support before it can be accepted, otherwise it will be archived under no consensus. Smomo 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music Barnstar or WikiProject Award

Analogous to the Photographer's Barnstar, this would be a 'General' barnstar for excellence in musical recordings. Something similar was proposed earlier, but never adopted for some reason, though a number of images were created, including the one by Alkivar I have up now. WikiProject Music has been using this image (another of the alternates in the original proposal) as an award, apparently outside of the barnstar system, and mostly for topical contributions to music, except that given to User:Dysprosia, which was for musical recordings. I'm not sure how to deal with this, particularly the pre-existing effort, so I'll leave it up to the regulars here.--Pharos 08:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• As you noted, this has been discussed two times before. Check out the comments:

The discussion about a topical music award

What was lacking was a clear consensus about an image for a barnstar. If you're proposing an WPA, then the threshold is much lower. --evrik ^(talk) 14:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I like the image. thuglas^T|C 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see a lot of support for listing this as an award. Actually, I thought it would make a great topical barnstar, but there was never enough support. --evrik ^(talk) 18:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support as topical barnstar. I'm not too keen on the images, though Alkivar's first design looks good. Either that, or the current unofficial one (pink star on yellow-brown stave). Laïka 17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Support as topical - i prefer the first image. Not really a barnstar but kinda reminds me of hard-wood. Second one is not as nice it is unoriginal. thuglas^T|C 20:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Im thinking about making one based on piano keys... If anyone has a comment let me knowthuglas^T|C 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support as an award, no strong feelings about classification of said award. Aleta 23:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support: As topical barnstar. Wouldn't mind seeing a better image but skills are lackluster right now. Anyone?A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 09:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as a topical barnstar, but would like to see some other image ideas. Maybe notes around the star? A scroll with music on it? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding the image WikiProject:Music has been using. I like the purple. I see the in the previous discussion some did not like the detailed background (I sort of like it). I'm thinking of maybe trying this star with the treble clef, (or, just for variation, a bass clef ;-)). ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support per Kathryn NicDhana. I think the purple is good. Acalamari 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There needs to be a decision about which image is used or this Barnstar cannot be passed. Please leave your signature below to vote:

FIRST IMAGE:

AKAVIR: Smomo 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

PURPLE ONE:

[edit] 2nd Go: The Congressional Barnstar of Honor (WikiProject U.S. Congress)

		The Congressional Barnstar of Honor
		For substantal, notable, or significant work on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress, or work of substantial interest to members of that WikiProject.--Dr who1975 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a proposal for the Barnstar award for Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. The title is a play on words of "The Congressional Medal of Honor", in this case, the word "Congressional" means dealing with Congress and not that it is actually awarded by Congress. The Award shall be given by members of the associated wikiproject. I'm open to alternate images if anyone wants to propose one.--Dr who1975 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Ok. Here's my next iteration. It now looks nothing like existing medals. I have further ideas but I really like this concept I think it's a very creative award idea. I think a creative, eye catching, intriguing concept like this promotes WikiLove and the Kindness Campaign by making contributors feel apreciated and it'll show what a great community we have here at wikipedia to those people visiting the pages of recipients who display it. I hope people agree.--Dr who1975 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Alas, DrWho1975, I don't agree. Your points are all valid, but I don't agree in general with the principle of specialization/categorization among Barnstars. Either you earn a Barnstar or not. All this despite my being a active participant in Wikiproject U.S. Congress. Specialized stars diminish the importance and value of barnstars. I disagree with the part of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign that suggests use of "chronically underused barnstars". If I were to earn a barnstar, I would prefer it to be the Barnstar.—Markles 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The nature of my Barnstar submission is not a new concept. Please go look at the main page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and you'll see that there are literally dozens of specialized Barnstars. In the case of my submission: this is meant to be an award for the U.S. Congressional Wikipedia Project. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject awards you'll see that many other Wikipedia Projects (such as the Military History Project, the California related wiki projects, and The Doctor Who projects) have there own awards. The basis for your objection is not valid. As to your statement that "Barnstars have to be earned" ... of course they do.... this Barnstar would have to be earned like any other.--Dr who1975 00:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I reread your comments and see that you pobably knew most of this infornation. In any event, I'll leave me response there for those who didn't know that.--Dr who1975 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Markles, obviously I understand the point your are trying to make with reference to policy on Barnstars, but this it not the time or the place to assert your view on this policy. The question we are debating here, whether you agree with the general principal or not, is does this WikiProject deserve a Barnstar. Seeing as many other WikiProjects also have their own Barnstars, you must decide if this one should have one as well not on your own opinion on the policy, but your own opinion on the WikiProject and the proposal. Smomo 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Fair enough comments. I think that the proliferation of barnstar categories a problem. I would be so much more proud to get a Barnstar than to get a Project Barnstar. It's like the Oscar for "Best Picture" is better than "Best Foreign Language Film." That's my only reluctance regarding your otherwise sufficient proposal. Let me be clear: if Project Barnstars must proliferate, then your proposal for one involving Project Congress is fine with me. Therefore I agree that, despite my objection to the concept of the proliferation of categorical barnstars, this proposition is nonetheless worthy of categorical barnstarification. Bon chance!—Markles 01:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. I still think the image is far too similar to the real Congressional Medal of Honor, even with the changing of the ribbon color from blue stars to green. An upside down star is the central part of the medalion in the Medal of Honor. I'm afraid that it is still too close that it might raise objections among military recipients of the Medal of Honor. Having said that, I will not oppose the creation of the barnstar -- with the caveat that it the image be open to future changes in case any major objections are raised against it.Dcmacnut 21:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - There is a ton of work to be done relative to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress and those that do should be recognized. Smee 20:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
• Commment Ugh, that 'Of Honor' stuck on the end still makes my stomach turn. It still seems too much like the original award. In my opinion, perhaps just a simple renaming is in order? Smomo 21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I may as well redesign the entire award if you take the "Of Honor" off.--Dr who1975 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: The image does look a bit similar, but the green ribbon and the barnstar dangling from the ribbon do set it apart enough for me. Besides, the spirit of the award is completely different. I don't think anyone is going think it is a military award. Just my two cents. IvoShandor 22:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain What about us wikipedians who don't live in the US? Can we have a Union Flag in the backgound instead? -- Sam 1123 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest against that; as this is a specific award for WikiProject U.S. Congress, the award should be US themed. Smomo 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sam1123, you should look into creating wikiproject awards for Wikipedia:WikiProject British Government, Wikipedia:WikiProject England, Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales. Also look here for other British wikiprojects you may want to suggest awards for.--Dr who1975 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Because of the image. Howard Cleeves 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The name is terrible also, any mention of the Medal of Honor should be left. Let's not trivialize that honor. Howard Cleeves 11:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the use of the Medal of Honor comparison. First, it isn't the "Congressional Medal of Honor". It is the "Medal of Honor". I must agree with Howard Cleeves on this. I also don't think that this WikiProject needs a barnstar. There are few users who contribute enough within the project to warrant one. Markles would end being the only person to get it. --Daysleeper47 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's ironic because I was going to give you one. Just because you think only Markles deserves one doesn't mean others will agree with you. People are supposed to be BOLD with their Barnstar awards. If somebody wrote an excellent article on something that I thought was great. That alone would be enough for me to award one. Considering that none of us are paid to do this I think people should be bold with these awards.--Dr who1975 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You ignored the central point both of us brought up Dr. I'm going to assume I don't have to point it out to you. Howard Cleeves 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought my earlier arguments stood on their own. I was actually tying to let the debate run it's natural course with regards to those points because I'm actually interested in seeing what other users think without letting this turn too much into a point by point argument. However... since you asked... I do not agree that the image looks like an existing medal. We have several similar images already in use. As for the wording; I view this as a colorful play on words that pays homage to the term Congressional Medal of Honor... since the Congressional Medal of Honor is not the official name of the Medal of Honor, then surely there can be no offense. It's clear that the name doesn't readily bring about musch opposition... after all it took you an entire day before you realized you did not like the name after you had already viewed the award once. Your initial complaint was just regarding the image.--Dr who1975 14:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleeves... I haven't heard back from you. What do you think?--Dr who1975 16:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, just take away the 'Of Honor' and everything will be fine. Smomo 15:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleeves doesn't like the image either. Besides... as I said before... if the concept isn't approved I'm starting from scratch completely. It's almost been a month. Who decides the outcomes of these debates? I doubt it'll get approved at this point anyway (despite several comments in support). Smomo, we'll get this sorted out soon enough. I just hope that if the award is approved that you will accept the decision just as I will if it is not approved.--Dr who1975 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Like most things on Wikipedia, the discussion is left to mature until some sort of consensus is reached, or the discussion just dies, and at that point the Barnstar is either accepted or rejected by one person who is bold enough to make the decision that it should stay or go. This person normally has quite a bit of experience in these sorts of matters, but obviously, it can be anybody and, like anything else, it can be contested or reverted. I don't think that a consensus has been reached yet, so this debate isn't over, as far as I see. Now, a few people are opposed to the name or the image, but a few are also in support. Is there anyway parties from either side would be willing to compromise? Smomo 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have ideas. Let's wait a bit and see if there are more votes.--Dr who1975 00:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't like the image or the name. Any refeence to the medal of honor in any way is inappropriate for me. Now others may disagree, but I have very strong views on this. My adoration for soldiers in general, and World War II veterans in particular, is boundless. I don't really need to get into details I hope. Howard Cleeves 11:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I support both the image and the name. While I understand Howard's concerns I think this is being overly sensitive for no real good reason. IvoShandor 08:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BarnStarman

I think that the extra life Starman from Mario should be awarded to high contributers to computer and video game articles. Comments, please.--Averross (u♠t♠c) 12:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great concept for a wikiproject award for WikiProject Nintendo or WikiProject Video games. You should post something to those project's discussion boards as well.--Dr who1975 17:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Though they may stone you if you call Starman an "extra life." ; ) IvoShandor 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I designed this Barnstarman:

Pengwiin 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is already a CVG project Barnstar at WP:PUA. Smomo 17:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice, but maybe you should consider a different design. (e.g. a yellow barnstar with two black lines and a happy expression since that's what newer starmans look like) RyGuy 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this concept could replace the Nintendo star personal user award. Currently, it uses the same image as the CVG Star and doesn't do much to diffrentiate itself. Although... considering the suggestor appears to have a made a "hit and run" appearance; there doesn't seem to be much support for this star. Maybe I'll be bold and replace the Nintendo Star with this. I also agree with RyGuy's comment about th image.--Dr who1975 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art Barnstar

Image:ArtBarnstar.png This is a proposal for a new barnstar. It should be awarded to editors who have made good contributions to art related articles.Pengwiin 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion Maybe a good award for WikiProject Arts. You could call it "Tha Artstar".--Dr who1975 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible. Though the image needs improvement (or maybe it's just an issue of impressionism vs realism ;-)). - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this?It was designed to look like it was painted.Pengwiin 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support It's a nice, constructive star. Acalamari 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Though I do mean the second image. I like that one. Acalamari 16:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I like designing barnstars. that was my first good comment towards a design.Pengwiin 19:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Barnstar of High Culture already covers this. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Don't like the images presented. IvoShandor 08:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Imperium Barnstar

		The Imperium Barnstar
		Message goes here.  ~Steptrip Make me fall 23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to sign your post on this award, it does it automatically (it does all user's sigs not just mine, so don't worry).  ~Steptrip _{Make me fall} 23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

...And what is it for? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Its a nice design, but whats it forPengwiin 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's for any user who enforces policy or ruling of the ArbCom/Jimbo Wales, although it does not have to be awarded to only admins, it can be awarded to users who report users who seriously violate a big policy to admins; report users who evade rulings of the ArbCom/Jimbo Wales to admins, etc ...  ~Steptrip _{Make me fall} 00:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need a barnstar for that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

At least in my opinion we do. WP:BARN doesn't have any barnstars this specific purpose. See this diff for further information.  ~Steptrip _{Make me fall} 01:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I dislike the idea of giving a user an award at the expense of another user; which is what I see in this award. Anyway, the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar is good enough for that sort of thing anyway. Acalamari 16:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose plus I Call Shenanigans Wikipedia at worst is a benevolent dicatorship and not an imperium (and yes... I would also oppose a benevolent dictatorship Barnstar too). Steprip, for what I'm about to say I'm going to assume this is your way of making a complaint or some sort of commentary on wikipedia (I'd have to be an idiot to take it any other way)... first.. some sarcasm... Maybe you could call it the "passive agressive barnstar" or the "read between the lines you a-hole" barnstar. Surely you're not serious that this actually be an award. This has got to be a joke on all of us here. Please do not waste our time with this stuff. It is childish and unwelcome.--Dr who1975 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know. Steprip has left a message on my page to inform me that he is indeed serious. I still oppose the Barnstar though.--Dr who1975 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I can see where you are coming from with this idea, but if you particularly want to reward someone for doing this I suggest you just use a regular Barnstar. This idea is too specific. Of course, you could always make it a Personal User Award as they do not need community consensus... Smomo 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wizard Shazam Barnstar

		The Wizard Shazam Barnstar
		For accomplishments as a mentor to a new Wikipedian.

ClaudeReigns 19:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How does the barnstar's title correlate to its purpose.  ~Steptrip _{You raise me up} 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it does because in the comics, the Wizard Shazam serves as a mentor for Billy Batson or Captain Marvel. Am I right?Pengwiin 22:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You got it!! ClaudeReigns 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I am also not so fond of the name. Pengwiin's explanation though clears up some of the purpose, I think this is better suited as a PUA as opposed to a barnstar.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: Support the idea, oppose the implementation. Relies too much on an obscure reference. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Too obscure a reference, very few would actually use it. It's like me proposing an Aunt May Barnstar or Alfred the Butler Barnstar for someone who helps to raise a wikipedia super hero. Half the people who see it are going to think it's some sort of Gomer Pyle award (SHAZAM SARGE!!) Criteria too vaugue to be worth it's own award... a regular Barstar could suffice. Neat concept and image though.--Dr who1975 20:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose

I agree with dr who1975. I only knew that cause I'm obsessed with old comics. It is a pretty wierd name.  Pengwiin  /  talk 

I hear what everyone is saying. Yes, it's an incredibly obscure comic reference. I still stand behind the function of the award, that there should be praise for good mentoring, as an opposite corollary for WP:BITE. ClaudeReigns 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Excellent idea. However I was caught out by the reference (although now I understand it makes perfect sense). I know Dr who1975 is opposing but I really like the idea of "raising a Wikipedia super hero", it's tongue-in-cheek but a genuine recognition of good mentors ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This is far too much of an obscure reference to be used as a name. The idea is a good one; someone else suggested it at the WikiProject Awards talk page, but not in its current format. Smomo 13:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Professional Wrestling Barnstar

I'm proposing an award for those who are diligent in editing articles in the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling. The award is just like a normal barnstar in design, if someone in the project wants to give it to anyone else, they can just go ahead and do so. I believe this can help the overall quality of articles in the scope of the project because people will work towards getting the barnstar by posting exemplary edits and creations. Thank you. ----- GIGGAS2 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what is going on in the image a bit please? Smomo 15:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the barnstar is standing in a ring, and it has a championship belt around the "waist" of the barnstar. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 18:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A barnstar in a wrestling ring wearing a title belt, that is pretty damn funky! Nice one! Suriel1981 19:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured it would capture the spirit of wrestling while still being a barnstar. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support As an editor of WP:PW, I like it. good work Giggas, our project is long overdue for a barnstar of it's own. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 19:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Whole-heartedly. Well designed, humourous, topical barnstar for a project as yet lacking them. (sorry, forgot I had to 'vote') ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 20:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. that's just nifty.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - it's about time we give some kind of award to the most hard-working editors. If so, can I suggest that we could have a type of vote every month where we could all decide who's worked the hardest in the past month, and (obviously) the person with the most votes wins the award for the month. That way (may sound very stupid), but we all have a very good reason to edit articles: to get the award!! Davnel03 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Idea is nice but there's too much going on in the barnstar. IMHO the text "WP:PW" atleast shouldn't be there. What about just a barnstar with a belt? ↪Lakes (Talk) 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion on the right:

Something like this maybe? ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

↪Lakes (Talk) 20:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you could get a few more people from the project to come over here and support this award then it can be passed soon. Smomo 17:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support for the idea, though I think the actual barnstar could do with a little tweaking. I'll fix up a design based on this tomorrow. -- Oakster  Talk  20:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I've just seen Lakes' design and it's more or less what I would have done (with the belt better). Though I wouldn't mind it looking like slight modification on the left, with the arms looking more like a wrestler pose. -- Oakster  Talk  21:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Lakes' design. The one on the left wouldn't make me cry though. Peace, -- The Hybrid 00:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual Stub Expanders' Barnstar

I thought this was a good idea becuase there aren't any barnstars like this around. Its purpose is to thank Wikipedians who put much time and effort into expanding stubs.

Thekittybomb 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of this barnstar. Crested Penguin 06:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of stubs floating about I'd support a recognition of people who repeatedly put effort into expanding them Suriel1981 19:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to cross criteria slightly with the new article proposal below, perhaps they should be merged. IvoShandor 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Oregon Barnstar

Designed and introduced by Aboutmovies to spread the wikilove around our active project, encourage our members and help the project grow. It's got the gold guy from the top of our capitol, it's original, it's shiny, it looks good, and it should be made official. Katr67 06:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Wikiproject big enough to warrant its own barnstar, and it looks good. VegaDark 07:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - The Oregon wikiproject is large-ish, well organized, and is comming along well. Though I live in Oregon (source of bias), I think that the work that has been done is really good and dedicated editors should have at least a small .jpg / .png to show what they have done. My only suggestion would be that on the picture of the barnstar itself have something more blantantly "Oregon" on it. TommyMoullet 20:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Can't see a problem with the WikiProject having an award, but it would be better if the image were smaller and more obvious as to what the award is for. Smomo 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Kinda Support - I love the idea of WProj:Oregon having a barnstar. It's a large project that certainly warrants it. However, I have to agree that the proposed image is a little obscure. I know it's something that is featured on the capital building, but I think something that screams "Oregon" a little better would be more appropriate. -- user|TALK 02:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional comment Possible image suggestions could be a beaver, specifically the beaver from the back of the flag (nearly everyone knows Oregon as the beaver state). Symbols of the Oregon Trail are also good for incorporating those unfamiliar with the state but familiar with US history and the state's origins (an aerial view of the star in a circle of wagons, for instance). I agree that landmarks should be avoided (with the possible exception of Crater Lake which gives the state planetary notoriety and appeared to represent the state on US currency) because they are divisive and generally unrecognizable to those outside specific geographic areas. One last possible image is to use the state seal, an image in the public domain. -- user|TALK 14:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose the image. Support the barnstar. There's something odd with the image... the way the star is juxtaposed with the statue (something strangely yonic about it... i.e. the opposite of phallic... i.e. YOU GAVE THE GOLD PIONEER A VAGINA!!!!... hope I didn't offend... I'm not trying to be mean in saying that). The statue itself is also somewhat obscure. The height relative to width of the image is far too long. Couldn't somebody come up with a more artful image?--Dr who1975 03:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment-Since I made it I will refrain from voting, but a few comments: 1) I don't think proportions should be a legitimate concern as I doubt there is any sort of guideline judging from the vast array of shapes and sizes for barnstars and other awards (plus the size is easily adjusted). 2) What image better represents Oregon? I’m not saying the Oregon Pioneer is the best image to go with and we at WPOR are happy to go with another, but give a suggestion of what is a better image. However, please keep in mind that whatever image is chosen will not make everyone happy as the state can be very divided over things. For instance using Mt. Hood will tick off most people outside of Portland, few people would recognize Haystack Rock, and putting the star over a map of the state wouldn’t help judging by the repeated reports of a lack of geographical knowledge by the American public. Crater Lake might work, but again not sure if everyone would know what it is. There is not going to be a perfect image to represent any state, heck at WPOR we can’t even agree on if we want to collaborate on Portland or Oregon for an FA push. 3) What the award is for becomes obvious when text is written into the caption.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aboutmovies (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Support: I have created several Oregon related articles and ran into several project members along they way, there are some dedicated Wikipedians working there, they deserve an award. Oppose: Image. Suggest maybe something to do with the state's heritage, perhaps logging or forests, maybe a barnstar with a typical Oregon forest superimposed over it. I swear, about half the state is National Forest land ; ) And for the record, I also know what Crater Lake is. And it has a Wizard Island if not mistaken. : ) IvoShandor 05:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I should think that if you're worthy of being awarded the barnstar, you will know what the image is. Not to be insular and isolationist, but does the image need to please anybody outside the project? Like AM said, any added text will show what the award is for. The gold guy is a pioneer, he's holding an axe (symbolic of logging), schoolchildren save their pennies to get him regilded every so often (how symbolic of the wiki and how everyone pitching in a little creates a great thing--cheesy, but true), and I think that's about a good compromise solution as a symbol of the state as any (the pioneer heritage meme is quite prevalent here), except for the fact it leaves out the Native American people, but that's a whole other can of worms. I think it also makes sense because it's in our capital, and that is where everything comes together here, at least in terms of legislation that affects the whole state. An image of a forest would leave out much of the eastern half of the state. As my pals at WPOR know, I'm a stickler for consistency, but I don't know why our image has to conform to everyone else's idea of what an image should be. That seems pretty boring. We're known for being mavericks around here. Also, I'm female and I don't see anything remotely yonic about the position of the star... Katr67 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The award can be given to anyone by anyone if they felt the other party made a substantial contribution to Oregon related articles in general. Membership by either party should not be necessary. In any event, I understand your point. My opposition to the image is not so much opposition to the statue, I think it's mildly obscure but that was not my main point at all. My big point is that somebody should make a more artful image (this image looks like a simple cut and paste job). For instance, a stylized rendition of the statue inside the star (maybe standing on top of the dome) would look better. Also (lets call this a medium point of contention) I feel the image is just a bit too long relatvie to it's width (which is why I suggest the statue by inside and the same size as the star). Lastly (and this is another minor point... as was the obscurity of the statue), the way the star is lined up with the statue is a bit odd.--Dr who1975 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment "We're known for being mavericks around here." Haha, mavericks you may be but if you don't follow community consensus then you won't get anywhere here, and the community consensus seems to be, at the moment, to try a different image or make modifications to it. Smomo 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you can tell that I meant that statement to be (mostly) tongue-in-cheek. I don't think any of us have any intention of bucking community consensus. Though I don't think there's been enough input to say that there truly is a consensus yet. Katr67 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you're probably right, but the consensus so far is that the image must go. Try and get more people from your project to comment. Smomo 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Altenratively to that, see if you can get somebody to put forth another image. There are a lot of members of this group who art computer artists and would probably like to help you out.--Dr who1975 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Idea for the picture of the barnstar, could be a barnstar with an Oregon state quarter in the center. I think that would be obvious and I imagine it would look alright. And also it would be more 'square-y' to go along with the shape of other barnstars. TommyMoullet 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zytron's last comment but can't stand Zytron's signature. IvoShandor 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creator Barnstar

A barnstar for anyone thanking a person for their clever barnstar design.WikiLove is given for the hard-working people making barnstars.It should be created because you can't be properly thanked for your barnstar with an award.

Any thoughts? The WikiWhippet (deeds) 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I can't comment on the award concept either way. However, I am having difficulty with these images for awrds that look like simple cut and paste jobs. Surely we can come up with something better.--Dr who1975 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Oppose because perhaps people might be able to do something without receiving an award every five minutes. Sure, I've even made a few awards in my time, but I don't think that for every one I should deserve an award of my own for it. No, I don't like this idea, but good work coming up with an idea anyway. Smomo 19:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Article Barnstar

A barnstar for those who work to create new articles, because creating new articles is just as important as fixing old ones. I think a good image for this would be a crossed out red star with a non crossed out blue star next to it to show that we lose a red link and gain a blue link. I hope you like the idea --David Cat 18:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you do a rough image in Paint to make it a bit clearer? Smomo 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont know how to put images on wikipedia --David Cat 19:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, wait found out how. here is the vert rough example image

of course the finished image will be much nicer than this, but i can't make it (i suck at art) --David Cat 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject CVG Star

WikiProject Video games has been recognizing this as their barnstar for some time. I just looked into it and this is not an official WikiProject Award. So I propose that it is listed. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Smomo (talk • contribs) Yep, I would support this move, as long as you have the blessing of the WikiProject. If you don't, just tell them to head over here and see what they think. Smomo 17:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support This has been used in practice for a while and should be canonized. -- user|TALK 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delisting an award

Note: Add new proposals to the bottom of Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed removals subpage.

No listings. Smomo 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)