Since the barnstar awards have a standard look, I've created the meta template {{bsbox}} to simplify the creation and maintain of the awards. —Farix (t | c) 18:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a barnstar for users who've contributed tirelessly to Featured Sounds and the nomination process (expert/constructive criticism, noise reduction to otherwise superb files, other asesthetic edits). Thoughts? —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:11pm •11:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. I do like the graphic, even if not in tune with typical barnstar look. FS may not be a big area, but any featured content deserves recognition. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK17:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Support It's close enough to the standard barnstar, and incredibly well-designed. I love the way the clefs hook together at the center - it's the small touches like that that make a barnstar visually appealing and, in my opinion at least, quite worthy of inclusion. If you want to standardize it, I'd put it over a silver 2.0 background star - but be careful to keep the original design mostly intact. Icanhasaccounthas an account23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like it included in the list. Psychology is an area in which Wikipedia seems very deficient, and I'm keen to find any way to incentivise improvements. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Please include this particularly beautiful barnstar. I am confident that it will be an additional means to further high quality standards. Morton Shumway—talk21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC).
Support Should help to increase the profile of psychology on Wikipedia and let people know that their efforts are appreciated --Penbat (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion: I saw this and thought the shape of the star was a bit irregular, so I went ahead and created an accurate version in svg, and tried to make it as similar as possible to the triangle illusion. Here it is, the illusion should be more discernible now:
Would that mean making it a real star instead of an illusory one? It would be more in the spirit of psychology to keep it as an illusory contour, surely? MartinPoulter (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
For those editors who are good at archiving article talk pages, user talk pages, Wikipedia talks, and any other talk page you care to mention, I bestow the Archival Barnstar! It's Malpass 93! (drop me a ___) 22:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This really is for ClueBot and MiszaBot. Setting bot parameters, in my opinion, is not a task warranting a barnstar. But I'm not actually sure to what extend and how many editors do significant work in archiving. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK12:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
it would be simpler to have unisex barnstars. such as maybe the "avid worker" barnstar the "hardworker" barnstar or so on.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, i'm saying we should make barnstars not have a gender parameter. instead all barnstars are made automatically for both with just one. Plus i think my suggestions are far better than the current one, as it doesn't really make it clear that much on the title. so the person is a working man or woman. but doesn't really tell us how hard the worker is.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Why? overall, adding gender to a not-so-clear award seems pretty bad. It's best to just rename it into something more agreeable.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Still no support I guess it comes down to the sound of it. "The Working Man's Barnstar" has appeal, in fact, I'd go so far as to call it "poetic" or "classic". Simply put, it sounds like human speech. "The Hard Worker's Barnstar" doesn't have that. It sounds like a generic job posting on Monster or Careerbuilder: "We're looking for a hard worker who blah blah blah blah blah..." It's cold, impersonal, dime-a-dozen fuzz. Plus, until everyone became super-obsessed with political correctness, there would have been no problem with referring to someone as a "working man" or a "working woman". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanhasaccount (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
What a poor defense......seriously...it kills me to see this everyday in wikipedia (yes everyday). Political correctness? I could really care less now. i think we have enough consensus. btw...opposite of support is "oppose". And i personally don't consider it political correctness. But hey, if it is, whats the problem? when it comes down to it the main question that puts things in perspective is "appeal to whom?".Bread Ninja (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, no support, whatever In years past, there never would have been a problem with gender distinctions (yes, there is the option to say "working woman" in case you didn't know), and I don't see why there should be a problem now. In fact, there never was a problem as far as I know until you brought it up. In any case, "working man/woman" is a phrase people can relate to. "Hard worker" just makes me think of the Pointy-haired Boss, and it's completely pointless as the poeple you're trying not to offend were never offended in the first place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanhasaccount (talk • contribs) 07:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
1)Working Woman doesn't sound as appealing as Working man as the phrase was originally and most commonly used for the male version. 2)this makes barnstar awards that more difficult by adding a gender.
And yes we are looking for impersonal. the idea isn't to give a personalized award. There's a caption spot to tell the person why they deserved it so the ward can be personalized in a way, but not the actual tempalte of the award shouldn't. Unless you are female, i don't think you could understand and a do see signs of bias considering originally mentioned that working man sounds more appealing and might i add exaggerated. And for what? Lets see this through perspective. What if an editor wants to give this award to someone who the one giving it to doesn't know his/her gender and just puts in the male version. Or maybe the other way around. you see that? right there could already offend someone. And process to giving the award by asking the person his gender probably wouldn't be inclined to give that piece of info regardless.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Seriously? I'm sure you're aware that there is an option to say "the working WIKIPEDIAN'S barnstar, which still sounds better than "the hard worker's barnstar". If you're not sure what someone is, just use that.
Feh, I guess I'm OK with "the hard worker's barnstar" as long as it replaces only the gender-neutral version (working wikipedian) and continues to use "working man/woman for people who have a gender set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanhasaccount (talk • contribs) 04:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Still very strong opposition Sorry. Your proposal is fine if it replaces ONLY the existing gender-neutral barnstar. Any further is too far. Any further would amount to replacing a recognizable, time-honored phrase with politically correct manager-speak. So far I think H3llkn0wz has the most acceptable answer. Icanhasaccounthas an account01:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Than it's bias over working "man". working woman doesn't sound just as appealing and most definitely not Working "Wikipedian". We might as well make a universal one, than add unnecessary parameters to a simple award.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It's very simple. the current one would be edited so that no matter what parameter it is one (female/male/wikipedian), it would say "Hard Worker" including the title. But still be replaced with the old one On the list. that way it's like the old version didn't even exist. Either way, if we did just one, the working man's barnstar will still be the most appealing, over Working woman and working wikipedian. For example, hypothetically if there was a barnstar called: "This is a man's world" barnstar and because of "man" they included "woman" and "Wikipedian" just to attempt neutrality, the most accepted version would be the "man" over "woman" and "Wikipedian".
The main reason you want this is to keep "working man's barnstar" not "working woman" nor "working wikipedian". I say, make the Barnstar TRULY neutral and not subjectively neutral by replacing any sign of gender. Because we both know it's not really neutral. Also, it's not about "political correct" (WP:DEMOCRACY if you knew anything about the rules) I Also could careless, if the phrase is time honored. The "Hard workers" is just as much a phrase then "working man" and would be much more accepted as it gives a more complimenting title.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The barnstar needs to be edited to default to "The Hard Worker's Barnstar" and to still alow "The Working Man's Barnstar" or "The Working Man's Barnstar" with |g= set to "m" and "w" respetively. The barnstar should also be moved to {{The Hard Worker's Barnstar}}. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose "The Working Man's Barnstar" and "The Working Woman's Barnstar" seem clearly superior to "The Hard Worker's Barnstar". "Hard Worker" conjures up this idea in my head of vague mediocrity: "He's not very bright, but at least he's a hard worker." "Working Man" and "Working Woman" sound mature and positive to me. "Working Wikipedian" is fine as a gender-neutral variant. In short: No change is warranted, and I find the proposed change to be inferior to the current wording. —Bill Price (nyb) 04:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, what a half-bake reason that is....no one thinks of that implication. You're all taking it to a personal level. Where whatever you fel inside (whether it's rational) will oppose. Maybe some more females should join in.....Bread Ninja (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Your response confuses me. If I understand correctly, your impetus for starting this discussion was something that you "fel[t] inside" on "a personal level": you said that the barnstar "seems a lil sexist". You offered no rational reason for wanting to make the change other than the fact that to you, the use of the phrase "Working Man" is sexist. To me, the use of the phrase "Hard Worker" is ill-fitting and conjures up a different concept from "Working Man" or "Working Woman". If you accept that both of our opinions are based on our gut feelings surrounding the use of language, it's disingenuous for you to say that your view is justified while mine is simply "half-bake" [sic]. In addition, it's hypocritical for you to stand on the podium of gender equality if your very first response to me is to imply that I, as a man, lack a valid opinion on this topic. Gender equality is a two-way street. —Bill Price (nyb) 18:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Not really. you're is a lil more subjective than mine. I meani HIGHLY doubt that's what your think. As a female, i suggest we do not add "Genders" to awards especially if the default is "MAN". especially for the sake of ensuring a "time honored phrase". And it really isn't hypocrisy if you look at your reasoning based off mine. Mine isn't bias. Yours is.
I'm a woman, and as a woman i find it offensive to use a phrase meant to be aimed towards males but added genders just so "working man" can be accepted. Not only that but maybe we have young contributors out there (which we all know there are) that aren't exactly a "woman" or a "man".
You on the other hand, say that "Hard Worker" somehow gives an implication (specifically to you) that conjured up some random belief that Hard Worker means you're not very bright. I mean seriously. this is meant only to mend YOU! But i'm trying to mend everyone who uses this. You're not trying to be reasonable here at all. For the sake of discussion, can we please find more females to put there input.....i mean seriously? I think this is a lil too one-sided, if a female says "yes" to add no gender to this award, while all males say yes for their unreasonable points. (yes i said unreasonable).Bread Ninja (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I mean seriously, my proposal is completely fair to every one. everyone gets the same award. no one gets nothing personalized by gender, or age.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
If you believe a priori that any view contrary to yours is "unreasonable"—to the point that you emphasize this belief by saying "yes i said unreasonable" [sic]—then you are not discussing the issue in good faith. In addition, the fact that you believe that your proposal is "completely fair to every one" [sic] and thus reject the possibility that it is a flawed proposal indicates that you are not interested in negotiation or consensus-building. Accordingly, I choose to withdraw from the discussion rather than waste my time. —Bill Price (nyb) 04:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
yep. that's right. it's highly unreasonable and we both know that. We both know that, just because you felt that way, does not mean it will happen for everyone in fact highly unethical to base your belief on such a highly subjective idea. And how is my proposal flawed? Because somehow you got "not very bright" with "hard worker"? I mean, are you actually trying to be reasonable here? Tell me exactly why it's flawed and not fair to all people? Please enlighten me (not with you're own personal beliefs, but conjure up hypothetical situations) but it you won't return, then that just proves my point even further. You've already wasted your time the moment you posted such an unreasonable point for opposition.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Still Oppose I'm posting this quickly, but I still strongly oppose your idea. My life is becoming very hectic and I probably won't be back to argue for a few days. Until then, everything I've said so far applies. Icanhasaccounthas an account07:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The default is already "The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar". It only changes to "Man" or "Woman" if the user has their gender set or if the award giver forces a gender. This is all documented here. What Bread Ninja wants to do is to strip all gender from the barnstar and restrict the user from selecting a gender. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
then why is the template named "working man"? And whats wrong with stripping all gender from this barnstar or maybe all barnstars? I wouldn't exactly call it "restricting". We could choose a better name. But you only seem against it because Hard Worker gives off "not very bright" but we both know thats not how everyone feels about it , nor was your interpretation of that was strong enough to keep it that way. Basically it wasn't neutral. Still....i ask for more female views.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Deryck C. 23:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose "hard worker". Also, redirects are cheap. We can always have separate template names for the male and female versions, each in turn transcluding an instance of the unified barnstar with gender tagged on... --Deryck C.23:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Kayau (talk·contribs) pointed out that the barnstar already has gender-specific wordings which are selected automatically based on a user's preferences.
H3llkn0wz (talk·contribs): Only change wording of the default; preserve gender where that information is available Actually, I don't care really; but I'm willing to go for whatever causes less contention 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Very well, then instead of "Hard Worker" we just leave it "Worker". And i also find less is more, which is what i'm trying to apply here.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I prefer "The Worker's" to the other gender-neutral options, but I still support the existence of the gender-specific option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Then how about setting this as a non official Barnstar? IdK...previously WP:SPOILER was attempted to be used, but why should we keep it, if the gender parameters aren't all equal?Bread Ninja (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks nice. i would support this, but not so sure if theres a plant wikiproject. if there is, yes. if not, than idk.i prefer the bottom one though.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the 'vegetation' around/on the star works unless you view the image at full size, which isn't the point of barnstars. What about either a larger plain green star or a few much larger leaves? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The fact that it is made of individual leaves visible in the high res version is only because it needed to be in high res to match with Wikipedia:Barnstars 2.0. The point is to give it an 'overgrown' look (the ornamental value of vines stems from this, not on their particular characteristics close up). It keeps the barnstar part of the entire thing rather than looking out of place, at least imo.
Hm... a single palmate leaf might also do. But finding a pic of one attractive enough, facing the camera at the correct angle, and at a quality ideal for cropping might be a bit difficult.--Obsidi♠nSoul17:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong – your second version is much better than the older ones. I also like the idea of an "over-grown look". But when I first saw the image at the barnstar size, not having looked at the larger version, I just saw 'bits of green dripping off the star'. Now I see leaves because I know that's what they are. What might work is a more obvious vine twining around the star, but finding the picture is another matter... Peter coxhead (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I get what you mean. I might still be able to make larger vines (or larger leaves for the vines at least, it's actually 3d, procedurally generated), but worried that that in turn will smother the shape of the star (see last star with the 'grapevine' in the older versions for comparison). Adding larger leaves on top of the smaller indistinct ones (and in the center of the star where it doesn't destroy the silhouette) might do the trick though. I'll see what I can do when I get the time.--Obsidi♠nSoul18:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that I'd start with the bare green star + the nicely contrasting five-pointed flower and then try to add some fairly simple 'thin' vine, because I agree with you that it doesn't look good to destroy the silhouette. The only other idea I had was some kind of stylized laurel wreath (several associations here!), perhaps something like the image to the right. No rush – I'm only too aware of how much of my time I've spent in the past on such tasks! – but it would be good to have a nice plants/botany barnstar. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
i think the second one looks good enough for me. you can still see som eo fit to tell its a barnstar, and some of the others aren't even made from the original barnstar either.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Nah, the laurel has too many cultural implications to be of much use signifying plants. :P I'll go with making leaves larger and or remove it altogether for the next versions. We'll see. And yeah, like Bread Ninja pointed out, I would like to actually use the barn star instead of replacing it with something more stylized/vaguely star-like (the zoo barnstar already does that, I think), helps keep things a bit more consistent. In the meantime, made another one for insects this time, heh.--Obsidi♠nSoul18:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I really like your second one, and I don't find the vegetation 'dripping' off the star to be a problem. In fact, I really like the overgrown look. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Could some botanical feature with fivefold symmetry replace, rather than overlay, the actual barnstar? I have in mind something like this but surely there are more usable images, somewhere, of a five-petalled flower... bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposal: The Entomology Barnstar
Another one for Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects:
Version 1 (lowres source, so aliasing when viewed at full-res, looks okay enough at lowres though):
Yep, hence my trying to change the color of the stars LOL. I can't get the proper contrast. I kinda liked the first one's colors more, but it's of lesser quality than the one using the higher res bug image source. Can you suggest color combinations? I can still change them to anything really (only thing I can't change is the colors of the bugs themselves). But... knackered for now, heh, will come back later when there's more feedback.--Obsidi♠nSoul19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Version 3 looks the best to me, great job! Maybe try with a standard barnstar if you're looking to improve contrast? — Bility (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I was just thinking about the somewhat messy barnstar situation right now and thought it might be a good idea to go through the list, star by star, and re-sort them. A barnstar would be either a) general or b) project-specific, and if it can't fit either of those (personal user awards, for instance), it would be disposed of or repurposed to fit that criteria.
I would also be interested in seeing a more standardized look for barnstars. See the Star Trek barnstar to see why.
A standardized ribbon set, covering all barnstars with a consistent size and "feel", would probably be something good to pursue after that's finished. Icanhasaccounthas an account23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I mean that I don't think it has to be a bad thing for barnstars to look or feel different from each other. It can add whimsy or personality. Cloveapple (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to change them - barnstars aren't, and should never be a bureaucracy! Even if we "reject" something as a barnstar, we always make sure to tell other editors that they're still allowed to award them as they see fit. Making them look similar sounds like a good idea, although I don't think that many of them are so dissimilar from one another. Deryck C.09:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Barnstars are designed for special examples of innovation, hard-work, and contribution, but I think we're missing a key one. Many editors who makes it through the learning process, and complete say, 100 edits after a month of being here deserves special recognition for navigating the often confusing and unfriendly waters of help page documentation, markup, communication protocol, policy, and the rest. What about a barnstar geared towards such outstanding (figuratively and literally, still standing) editors Although this overlaps with the earlier service awards, those are self-awarded. Many editors do not know what barnstars and this would be one voluntary way to let them learn about them while gaining some recognition for joining the community. It still would be given out voluntarily and selectively, but there'd be a clear target. What do you think? Ocaasic23:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The Helping Hand Barnstar for Arabic/Persian language
I need a barnstar exactly like {{The Helping Hand Barnstar}} but the letters a, b, c be replaced by Arabic alphabet: الف، ب، ج and the board be transferred to the right side of star.
Note that (،) is not part of a letter and is equal to comma (,) in English script.
Could you please help me by creating that? Razghandi (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
For increasing the contrast of random images for no apparent reason :P... well the creator of that star hasn't edited anywhere since 2009, so there is no chance of contacting them. Should we take it to TfD? --The Σtalkcontribs03:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been working on some improvements to Template:Barnstar VG, implementing some changes that rather deviate significantly from the norm (see my sandbox). Basically, improvements would include getting rid of the tabular format and implementing more wikicode and basic div and span tags. I don't know if others would be interested in implementing future barnstar templates (or even current ones) in this fashion, but I figured I throw it out there. –MuZemike00:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I think converting to div format is a better alternative to tables. Do note that the rounded borders and shadow won't work in many browsers. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK09:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Right, but that is only an added benefit if you are using compatible browsers; otherwise, it would look the same as before. –MuZemike17:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's what I came up with for a meteorology barnstar. I tried to add some sort of lightning graphic but wasn't able to come up with anything that looked good. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I am a major fan of the original old'n'rusty barnstar and its derivatives. But time goes on, screens become bigger, and 100px becomes eye-squintingly small for some. Unfortunately the image is stuck at 111px slightly blurrily downscaled to 100px for most derivatives/usages. And there are no higher resolution copies available (that I know of).
So I took the fortunately available original file and tried to mimic and polish it (original at 111px left; new at 200px right):
In the spirit of things, it is in PD (CC0). I am not an artist and would stab myself in the eye with a brush if I tried anything outside Photoshop, so feedback is welcome. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK18:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
seems like the old'n'rusty look seems to only give nostalgia factor...but i really hate it. it makes all the other banstars look bad too. they don't look like awards. they look like trash given to people.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I had wondered why the texture was removed from the newer barnstars. Personally I love the rusty texture, so it had never occurred to me that it might look bad to others. To me many of the new less textured ones looked vaguely plastic. Different people, different tastes I guess. Cloveapple (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
well you jsut have to be more open about it. i think people only like the rusty appearance over nostalgia though so thats why they're running most of this. metallic and plastic aren't that different. but it's not about removing the texture...just removing the "rust".Bread Ninja (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
"Barnstar" metaphorically symbolizes barn raising, an old community-based tradition, much in the spirit of Wikipedia. It was a rough job in 18th, 19th centuries, when plastic did not exist for such purposes. The actual decorative barnstars were wooden or metal, not plastic. I am perfectly aware there are two camps for which design to adopt, as shown by the most recent discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards/Archive 16#Barnstars 2.0. No one is forced to use either choice; I made the above star for those who do prefer the "rusty" look and I do not object or interfere with Barnstars 2.0. And while I prefer constructive criticism, dismissing the look on the basis of different tastes is not constructive, if both options are available regardless and neither is being deprecated. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK10:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I made two new hi-res barnstars for the Reviewer's and Industrial barnstars, and updated the templates to the new alt images. I also made a new BoNM-USA barnstar with a horizontal flag and incorporated it as an alt as well. Feel free to peruse, replace, or comment. VIWStalk14:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
In a different version with the White Stork shown smaller, which I made first, it's hard to see detail, so I enlarged it. I think the addition of a manned craft would be cool, the Soyuz is the only one that goes to the station at the moment, other robot spacecraft include the European ATV as well as commercial craft, the Cygnus and Dragon are under development, but have flown demonstration flights. Overall I thought extra craft would clutter the image, and the Japanese craft would attract the least distaste.
The Space Shuttle has retired, so I was thinking it might make the image look out-of-date, and I wanted to keep it fresh. Soon enough there should be commercial manned spacecraft that can be considered, so there could be a Soyuz and a commercial one, though I think the Soyuz will always win the tally of most flights.
Also, some furniture could be added, I was thinking of Grapple fixtures added on each axis of the star, about 75% of the distance from center to tip, away from the center, however I can't find a decent image of the type I would have liked to include (the search goes on) the one I am still looking for looks a great deal shinier and better than this one.
I wanted to go with a transparent image background rather than space or darkness, for flexibility on different pages colors and backgrounds.
I'd like to go ahead and give out this one soonish, as I've already promised it twice(!), and polish it up later if needs be. Penyulap talk08:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The International Space Station Barnstar
Suggestion showing Crew member, White Stork spacecraft, and Pirs Hatch in the centre.
The International Space Station Barnstar
With the White Stork shown a little smaller, it looks better proportioned, but less detail..
.
Self-awarded barnstars
I just stumbled across this. Doing this sort of thing might not do any real harm, but it still doesn't seem appropriate to me. I'm raising this here because there doesn't seem to be anywhere to sound out this sort of thing. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC).
May be he just tested the WikiLove feature? In any case, there have been users with a whole page of fake barnstars. I would only be concerned if someone was to fake my signature. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK12:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we turn this official?
Its intended for discussion closers in long or hard discussions that manage to close with a balanced, respectful, yet humorous and useful closing comment. Comes from this closing, in which the closer made a comment about "considerable cowbell", which was both entirely appropiate in the context, and FUCKING HILARIOUS.
People who have never seen the American TV skit would be puzzled. I find it personally funny and I expect it would be used, but I wouldn't reserve it only for closes. Cloveapple (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
International Criminal Court Barnstar of National Merit
The Pointless Barnstar - may be awarded for pointless achievements, or any other action that is far below the standards for earning a barnstar with points. Use of this barnstar is appropriate only if it will be appreciated by the recipient, so use good judgment when awarding this barnstar.
Introduced by Chzz, as a private barnstar, and with Chzz's permission created into a public template by Pine, on August 17, 2011
I like the pun, but the graphic is pretty bad. The idea itself is strange – barnstars are for doing highly useful things for the encyclopaedia, and a barnstar for "not quite deserving a barnstar" does not merit the barnstar. I don't mind this being (remaining) WP:PUA. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK11:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I like it but the star needs to be better shopped. I think it does have usefulness other than PUA, for example to congratulate a sense of irony or humor or when a seemingly "pointless" situation is made good. Ironically, my "considerable cowbell" upstairs was directed at Chzz!--Cerejota (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
this is just as good as the original barnstar, as it has no specific yet has made enough effort. I'm against this barnstar.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, keeping in mind everyone's comments, I'll add this to WP:PUA with reference to comments above, but I won't add it to the main barnstar page. Pinetalk22:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
If an editor gives a barnstar to another editor and the giver gets banned from Wikipedia, should the recipient keep the barnstar? If he can keep the barnstar from the discredited editor, does that not undermine the credibility of barnstars? NelsonSudan (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Barnstars are part of people's user pages where editors have more latitude over what they put up, keep, or toss. So I'd be really leary of telling an editor that they should do anything with their barnstars. Sure, some barnstars might get awarded pretty frivolously. At least once somebody went as far as awarding themself barnstars! I can't say I respect that. Still, I'm sure many still get given for major work or accomplishments. It's all honor system and personal choice as far as I can see. Also I don't see that the current status of the giver necessarily means the barnstar wasn't earned for real true hard work or brilliance on the part of the recipient.Cloveapple (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't have a barnstar before. But I want it today because I am a good editor. In order to award me, look at my contributions and reply me and award me. Thank you--Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Now that you're actively asking for a barnstar, no. Wait for someone to notice you. In any case, they don't matter much... it's not like having a lot of barnstars will help you get adminship. --Σtalkcontribs17:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately barnstars are like compliments, asking for one spoils the effect. Still, I'm glad you have faith in your contributions. Sooner or late someone will notice something wonderful you've done, and then it will be much sweeter as a surprise. Cloveapple (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a barnstar for editors that develop stubs into at least a semi-respectable article. I'm not an artist myself, so I'd like to request a barnstar with a plant and a watering can on it.
If a similar one exists, please point me in that direction.
Is there such a thing as a "Wikipedia barnstar of National Merit" (for improving the coverage of Wikipedia on Wikipedia) ? - Benzband (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have perused the barnstars as carefully as possible and I don't see one I think will work well. Please correct me if I am in error.
I propose the creation of a barnstar for editors who tweak and clarify the workings and rules at Wikipedia - someone who strives to edit the rules themselves. Someone who points out a rule that is not so good.
I propose that it be called the Quasar barnstar and that it show an image of a galaxy inside it. Naturally I am open to improvements for the name of the award, but not especially open to changes in my idea for the star itself. Thank you. Djathinkimacowboy11:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
How about a Quasar barnstar for editors who tweak/clarify the workings and rules of Wikipedia, and strive to improve coverage of Wikipedia on itself as well as improving the Wikipedia: namespace. - Benzband (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is a community project, where we discuss things by consensus. The barnstars on the main page are added once editors agree on them. You can add any personal awards at WP:PUA. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK19:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I ought to have been more clear: it seems to me that it is a matter of total indifference what quasar or galaxy image one uses, I think. Djathinkimacowboy20:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree somewhat with the first comment from Benzband, but I think it needs a clearer name than the Quasar Barnstar even if the image of a quasar is used. We already have the Working Wikipedian's barnstar though, so could we simply add these possibilities to the scope of that barnstar? Pinetalk19:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It does not seem to me to be so confusing a name. I had given some thought to what a quasar might be perceived to do in its natural state and just thought the star and the name made a good marriage. Djathinkimacowboy20:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Djathinkimacowboy i agree with you that the quasar to be portrayed does not really matter. I was just linking to the first picture i found (on the quasar article) in case anybody didn't know what it was… (i had no idea until i hit the "search" button :) - Benzband (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, good. Yes, that seems good. It looks like it may be cooking in a few brains, however, because of its name and perhaps even its usefulness. Let me suggest once more that there really is nothing like it among the stars, and my personal slant on this was an award for editors who improve rules, assist with them, etc. I was put in mind of this idea when I saw the work being done, the discussion being entertained, to possibly change the wording about verifiability. Have any of you seen that? I think people who do that deserve a special new star. Djathinkimacowboy18:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Benzband says: "How about a Quasar barnstar for editors who tweak/clarify the workings and rules of Wikipedia, and strive to improve coverage of Wikipedia on itself ..." - and I agree totally with this, totally. And as long as the star is royal blue and has sprinkles of quasars, galaxies, what have you, I'm all for it because that is how I envisioned all this. Sorry if I stumped anyone. Djathinkimacowboy05:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I completely forgot another which I think is sorely needed: a gold or platinum star for the finest of Wikipedia's articles. Not only would such a star add lustre, it might also discourage vandals! Djathinkimacowboy11:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
We already have {{Featured article}} and {{Good article}}. I don't think there is any need for additional undue attention. Where would such star be placed, I'm pretty sure this would be mostly opposed if proposed on the article itself. The talk page already has a big FA/GA notice. And this would not discourage any vandals, in fact the opposite. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK12:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I had been thinking it could be placed discreetly at the top of the article, where editors presently are able to add articles to their watchlist. Thanking you for the attention, I bow to your judgment. Djathinkimacowboy19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
To place it as an icon that's horizontal to the Watchlist icon would require a technical change similar to Wikilove. I wouldn't mind having an icon there that indicates the article's quality rating, but this wouldn't be a barnstar. You could propose this at WP:Village Pump. Pinetalk19:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
That sounds very similiar to the featured article star that already decorates featured articles. See the star at the top right of George Koval for an example of this. You can tell yourself that your ideas are so good that people do them before you ask! Cloveapple (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there something further than this? Will anyone come back here and make a statement of some sort, or what? I'm new at this - all I can do is go check the barnstars page.Djathinkimacowboy02:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I have never been involved in barnstar creation before. Maybe the idea could be implemented as a non-official barnstar, and then proposed (again) once you've got something to actually show. Then there could be discussion on how to improve it… Do you want to upload a picture? This could be done from a barnstar and a quasar (or wahtever)… If you like i could try stuff out to and upload it (to commons) to see what you think… (but i can't garantee anything :) - Benzband (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
B, you are very kind. Somewhat like you, I have never done any of this before. Plus, I had no idea the editor was expected to show the barnstar here. Many people would just be making up barnstars and awarding them if it were that easy!
Any help you could offer is so deeply appreciated - have you ever seen one of those sharply-pointed diamond shapes? Four-point star, I guess it's called. That is often used to represent a quasar. That on top of the dark blue star, speckled with white dots to represent galaxies, etc. That is all I was thinking. Anything would be fine. I am grateful Djathinkimacowboy19:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Example: barnstar test 1. Well, here's something… even if it's not great, maybe it's a start? :-) It's got a quasar in the background and i just deleted the middle. The four points make it impossible to fit in the five-pointed Original. - Benzband (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It's lovely! Just what I pictured and I love the golden border round about the star itself. My idea involving that abstract diamon shape would have fit because I saw it as superimposed on top of the barnstarr. However, yours is 100% perfect! I love it - now I guess th next step will be what to call it and for what reasons it should be awarded, though I stand by my original proposal. Djathinkimacowboy23:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you like the design :-) Maybe we could go ahead make a template (a bit like this) for the star. That is, if no-one here finds an objection? - Benzband (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a wonder, a thrill and I love it. May all editors here remember that we sometimes write about over-use of the stars, but no one ever talks about under-use! Let's use 'em while we got 'em! THANK YOU BENZBAND. Not possible without your work. Djathinkimacowboy20:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The Pagan Barnstar may be awarded to an editor who contributes or posts helpful information about the religion of Paganism or of Neopaganism.
There are many religious barnstars but none about (neo)paganism. IMHO it's not necessary to separate awards for these topics. They are very closely related, divided only by time. I am not sure which picture is the best so... The left-one contains in the middle pentagram, general pagan (and also Wiccan) symbol, around are symbols of several pagan ways; Egyptian, Celtic, Slavic, German/Norse and Hellenic (and also Roman). The right-one has in the middle bust of emperor Iulianus who tried to restore the original religions of the Roman Empire instead of growing christianity. The text on the top says re-establishment of the happy times.
I don't object to having a topic barnstar for engineering, but the design is too similar to the Original Barnstar. How about having a barnstar with gears or a steam engine? Pinetalk09:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This is not a design. The barnstar is the actual picture of a cast-iron real-life barnstar and it is very detailed. It is the only real-life barnstar picture of its kind presently. Cast-iron is also present in other Engineering disciplines not only Mechanical engineering as the gears and steam engine would imply. Iron played an important and historical part in ancient and modern Engineering. For example bridges for civil Engineering, casting of parts, machines, buildings etc. and the Industrial Revolution. See also the Engineer's Ring and Iron Ring for the symbolism of iron in Engineering. Dr.K.λogosπraxis14:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
My comment was about the appearance of the barnstar. It should be more distinct from the Original Barnstar. My suggestions of gears or a steam engine were meant as ways to distinguish an engineering barnstar from the Original Barnstar. As for iron itself, iron is not very pivotal in disciplines like software engineering and genetic engineering, and that ring seems to be used only in Canada. My main objection to the design as it's presented is that the appearance is too similar to the Original Barnstar's appearance. If you can make the barnstar more distinctive then I might support it. Pinetalk06:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The Engineer's Ring is made of stainless steel and is used by US Engineers. As far as making the barnstar more distinctive I'll have to think about it and see if I can come with something, even though I prefer to keep it simple and unadorned. Dr.K.λogosπraxis19:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed the colour and gave it a silver hue. I actually like it better now and I think it looks different from the original barnstar. Thank you for your idea. Please let me know what you think about it. Dr.K.λogosπraxis20:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Looking good! This now has my support. I'd say wait a week to see if anyone else has comments about the new design. If no one else comments, I think you can go ahead with adding this to the awards page. Pinetalk09:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are a whole bunch of medals and stars that exist without all three styles of ribbon. Is there a series of templates out there for Photoshopping/GIMPing those up, because I'd be happy to take a stab at such things. -Achowat (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Black Belt Barnstar
Hi All, I've created a new Barnstar for use with WikiProject Martial arts that looks something like this:
Seems fine to me, could be added under the 'Awards by WikiProject'. Also i have fixed the template's documentation using the {{documentation}} template that should be used, as well as adding some practical information on how to place and substitute the award. Best! :-) benzband (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I like the design. I'd say to let this sit here a week and if there is a consensus, go ahead with adding it to "Awards by WikiProject." Pinetalk23:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to suggest renaming "The Creator of the Barnstar" as "The Barnstar Creator's Barnstar," and to expand the description for the "Defender of the Wiki" barnstar to say, "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar may be awarded to those who have prevented Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes, or who have defended Wikipedia against threats not covered by other barnstars. The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar was created after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, when a fraudulent charity tried to take advantage of the widespread media coverage of the article." Would anyone like to comment? Pinetalk23:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I award you this Outreach Barnstar for excellence in supporting Wikipedia in offline outreach activities
{{{S}}}
I wanted to award a barnstar for excellence in offline outreach activities. A lot of Wikipedians put in their effort to pull of great outreach events such as meetups, photowalks, workshops, academies, conferences etc and the only barnstar I could find in existence that is slightly related is the mind the gap one for outreach in Gender Gap. Hence Iv created the above template and propose to add it under the general barnstars category. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते15:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it, pending discussion. I, personally, am opposed to Barnstars being awarded for offline (and therefore unverifiable) actions. Wikipedia is about building an encylcopedia, and I fail to see how this star helps that goal. Achowat (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that offline activities fail to help build Wikipedia. A lot of the MW hackathons have been important to enWP's development and Wikimania has many advantages in my opinion. Without the offline activities, things like fundraising, photo archive expansion, software development and regional collaboration wouldn't be as successful for WP as it is. I'm not sure how you could build the encyclopedia without the offline work. I suspect folks involved with regional chapters may tend to agree, but that's not my arena. --Varnent (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess my question is in when this would be applied, especially in reference to the already extant. Upon seeing someone participate in organizing a hackathon or WikiMania, I'd give out the Real Life Barnstar. Someone taking pictures? The Photographer's Barnstar. Software programming? The da Vinci Barnstar. I can't really see when someone would be given an 'Outreach' Barnstar, and given ATG's recent edit history, it appears to have been given out to editors who were instrumental in Wiki Conference India. I fail to see how this Barnstar is an improvement over the Real Life Barnstar, and it seems to me to be a solution in desperate seek of a problem. -Achowat (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
We are talking of Wikipedians here, so a virtual barnstar would be the "Wikipedian way" so to say, not a physical barnstar. Yes, as I mentioned I wanted to award a barnstar to a few editors who helped immensely in the 6 month run upto and during WCI 2011, which fyi was bigger than any Wikimania to date and took a lot of effort to pull off, which needed to be recognised. I can award a photography award to a photographer who has contributed fab images. However, there may be someone else who has spent a week or more coordinating a Wiki Photowalk that resulted in hundreds of images being added to commons - and Iv seen people organise these things on a regular basis. Dont such Wikipedians deserve recognition? I dont see where you removed this from, because Iv not added it anywhere. I wanted to award it to a few people, Iv done so. I proposed that it be added to the general list so that others wanting to award barnstars for similar reasons can use it. If its useful add it, if its not let this end here - Iv awarded it on a personal basis to whom I wanted to anyways! Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते06:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
ATG, I'd check out The Real Life Barnstar and propose that that is the proper award to give out in these situations. Not actually handing someone a barnstar, but rather using that template, that particular "virtual barnstar" to thank people who give that kind of effort. -Achowat (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a beauty of an idea (for the worth of my opinion, anyway). Personally I'd like to see a fancier star, but at the moment I'm waiting for an idea. Nothing's coming. But I love the whole idea. I know! What about a star with a musical notation on it? Like a triplet of notes. Djathinkimacowboy21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Well yes, but not with the possibility to award more. The button on this userbox is what makes its interesting concept. Maybe we could add it to The Barnstar Barnstar's page as an optional item for display on receivers userpages? benzband (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
How would this award be removed from the page of a formerly active editor who displayed this award before becoming inactive? Some people get upset if another editor removes something from their user page. Pinetalk06:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, i agree with that too. So here's my prop. :
Keep this a non-official award that users can display on their page, as this doesn't really seem that useful ;
Make a whole set of them (duplicating all of the service awards into animated ones) and tweak the templates so you only have to make a minor adjustment to switch between active and inactive. Say, you could have : {{Journeyman Editor}} for not-so active journeyman editors and {{Journeyman Editor|active}} (or alt or whatever…) for the more active ones. I can help do the templates if someone makes the gifs.
They or a cohort recognizes that they have not made an edit in a year or more
I agree that someone might get upset if they were made inactive without consent. I would hope that this gets them editing again (starting with their User page).
I stumble upon a lot of used-to-be heavy editors that have purposely moved onto other projects. A simple acknowledgment, in the form of a badge on their User page, would help me realize this. I assume the inactive one would be non-animating rusty and/or fallen off the chain with a cobweb or two.
The problem that will arise is that there are editors (like myself) who think that the spinning-star idea makes the whole thing look too flashy and showy. If I had to use the template (currently I use a ribbon and UBX) I would use the "inactive" one simply because it looks better and then your idea of "inactive users are easier to distinguish" is thrown out the window. Achowat (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
As a part of two new WikiProjects at MediaWiki.org, two new barnstars have been created to recognize contributions in MediaWiki extensions and supporting the broader wiki community. Many of the MW.org users making these contributions maintain an active presence on WP and use their user page here as their primary user page. Hence why making these available on both wikis seemed logical to do. Enjoy! --Varnent (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. I'd say wait a week to let people comment, and if the consensus is favorable then add these to the main barnstar page. Pinetalk04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
These are very specific (how many editor qualify) and I don't think they are broad enough for the main page. I think they are more suitable for WP:PUA. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK12:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Ebe123, thank you but it looks like someone has already added it as an alternative to the DaVinci barnstar, which I think is OK. Pinetalk19:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
How about a Wikimedia Ambassador Barnstar. We have the Commons Ambassador Barnstar but why not for outreach, incubator, strategy, meta, wiktionary, wikispecies and more. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs • 10:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar Barnstar and the Barnstar Creator's Barnstar serve the same purpose. Should week keep both or eliminate one? Pinetalk02:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I've always understood that the BCB was for people that got the inspiration and made up a Barnstar whereas the Barnstar Barnstar served as the de facto WikiProjet Award for this WikiProject. -Achowat (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
How about coming up with a revised explanation for the Barnstar Barnstar that reflects what Achowat said? Then the barnstars wouldn't be repetitive. Pinetalk07:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, if there is no objection, I will change the Barnstar Barnstar description to say, "The Barnstar Barnstar was created to recognize Wikipedians who have contributed to Wikipedia by creating and awarding barnstars. As of January 2012, this barnstar is made more specific to be the project barnstar for WikiProject Wikipedia Awards." Pinetalk08:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, the name is confusing, as is the image. The idea might be good enough for an award, but not with that name. -Achowat (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Those PUA award names, as I have studied them, do not look like they are better or more enlightening than "Quasar". The Oak Leaf and Acorn hex is an example; they look like jokes or good-natured ribbing, not formal stars like the Quasar. If the name is changed, will we lose its potency? A Quasar, since no one else seesm to know what one is, radiates tremendous light, energy and heat. Can a better justification be presented for the objection to "Quasar"? Another name for a formal star is a helpful idea. I'm sorry, but I'm very tired and I think you may know a better way to configure a new name.Djathinkimacowboy(yell)04:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, i agree on the PUAs (nice jokes, but not for this). Achowat was making a point further down the page where he actually wanted to retrieve certain PUAs that were better suited elsewhere. benzband (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
PUAs are not necessarily jokes. (I think Sue Gardener would be startled at the idea that The Executive Director's Barnstar is somehow a joke just because it is a personal award.) The big difference between PUAs and barnstars is that one has much more leeway in making a PUA than in making a barnstar. PUAs only require a consensus of one.
As for the name "quasar", I'm quite aware of what a quasar is. It's just not obvious in its symbolism. A quasar is not a clear and obvious metaphor. When I see and hear "Quasar barnstar" my first thoughts are of astronomy and then by extension possibly science fiction. So I also find the concept unclear or confusing. Cloveapple (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
If the metaphor could be succinctly stated on WP:*, I think it could work. Surreal, da Vinci, Socratic, and Home Made Barnstars are all not-Topical awards whose names don't really reflect what their star means, unless you read the comments (Except for the Home Made Barnstar; I still don't get that one). So perhaps Benzband or Cowboy could explain the metaphor and we can look for a way to phrase it. Achowat (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Radio-signal emissions were detected early in our space exploration history. It was found they emanated from "quasi-stellar radio sources", or "quasars" for short. Today it is thought a quasar may be the centre of a galaxy, perhaps even representing massive black holes deeper inside. The image of the quasar as a possible- if not "THE"- creation force is popular. Whatever they are, they are massive, extremely far away, powerful and intriguing. They hold the forces of creation and destruction. You see the analogy with Wikipedia work?Djathinkimacowboy(yell)11:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I'm just not getting it. What specific types of positive actions do you see metaphorically expressed by a quasar? The two descriptions you've given seem both negative and positive with a touch of the mysterious. For example "radiates tremendous light, energy and heat" made me think of somebody who contributes a lot in a positive manner (radiates light and energy) but also gets in trouble for incivility (that heat). Likewise being a force of both "creation" and "destruction" seems a mixed blessing.
I'm not suggesting you are trying to create a negative barnstar. Clearly quasars are a wholly positive metaphor for you or you wouldn't be suggesting the barnstar. Cloveapple (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
All right, bear with me on this. (1) This is beginning to turn my attention to the idea mentioned before, that it might be associated mentally with sci-fi. (2) To clarify my mental connexion: the quasar radiates great light, like the light of an editor who guides us through rules. It is deep, it is central, like the rules and their guidance also. It pulses, sends signals, I could go on. Better idea. Anyone mind reading this[3]? Good for clarification.Djathinkimacowboy(yell)14:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I took your comments and the earlier discussion and came up with this draft: "The Quasar barnstar is awarded to editors who tweak or clarify the workings and rules of Wikipedia, and strive to improve coverage of Wikipedia on itself as well as improving the Wikipedia namespace. Quasars give off immense light and energy from deep within the galaxies they reside in. Like quasars the editors who earn this award bring light and energy to the deep internal spaces of Wikipedia." Cloveapple (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: I do have one correction. "Quasars give off immense light and energy from deep within the galaxies they reside in." ought to read thusly: "Quasars give off immense light and energy from deep within their galaxies."Djathinkimacowboy(yell)04:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I suggest removing "tweak or clarify the workings and rules of Wikipedia" because we don't want just any one person tweaking rules. Rule tweaks are to be done by consensus, not by one person. As for rule clarifications, the proposed Instructor's Barnstar is likely to cover that. If we are going to have a quasar barnstar, I would say, "The Quasar barnstar is awarded to editors who strive to improve coverage of Wikipedia on itself. Quasars give off immense light and energy from deep within the galaxies they reside in. Like quasars the editors who earn this award bring light and energy to the deep internal spaces of Wikipedia." Pinetalk09:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Pine, you worded the star this way: "The Quasar barnstar is awarded to editors who strive to improve coverage of Wikipedia on itself. Quasars give off immense light and energy from deep within the galaxies they reside in. Like quasars the editors who earn this award bring light and energy to the deep internal spaces of Wikipedia." [Emphasis mine.]
1. Your grammar is faulty; unimportant at this stage....
2. I cannot accept only your definition. Find a way to fit in the clarification of Wikipedia rules and good consensus participation in any changes of them; otherwise I will oppose this as it stands.
It was those two latter points (abovementioned) that this star was designed to truly award- they inspired the star. Benzband threw in the self-aggrandisement about making Wikipedia sound better.
Yes, if you look at the original discussion (here), you will see that i only integrated the "WP coverage of itself" part because my proposition for a Wikipedia Barnstar of National Merit (here) was turned down. Therefore, if you turned down my proposal of a medal awarded to those who improve WP's coverage of itself, it seems somewhat confusing to turn the Quasar solely towards this (of course, this may mean you have changed your minds on the WP Barnstar of National Merit…). I think that Cloveapple's description fits perfectly the original intention, and explains clearly the meaning of this award. Cheers, benzband (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
How about, "The Quasar barnstar is awarded to editors who strive to improve coverage of Wikipedia on itself, or are excellent contributors to discussions about proposed changes to Wikipedia policies. Quasars give off immense light and energy from deep within their galaxies. Like quasars, the editors who earn this award bring light and energy to the deep internal spaces of Wikipedia." Pinetalk09:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Pine, for all it is worth, I like that well enough if no one else disagrees, but... Achowat, it seems to me that it is different enough that we don't need to worry about the proximity to the Red. The Quasar isn't only generically about changing how Wikipedia works.Djathinkimacowboyvandals' playground05:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait, wait.... Pine, this section of yours: "The Quasar barnstar is awarded to editors who strive to improve coverage of Wikipedia on itself, or are excellent contributors to discussions about proposed changes to Wikipedia policies...." I prefer a wording like this: "The Quasar barnstar is awarded to editors who help others navigate Wikipedia rules, help propose useful changes to Wikipedia policies or improve coverage of Wikipedia of itself...." With the rest of yours, I concur. See, it's that insistence that the star is mainly for Wikipedia's coverage of itself. I will state frankly that I don't care about that and don't think it is right for a star to be awarded solely or mainly for just that.Djathinkimacowboyvandals' playground05:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, how did I know you were going to go that route, Pine? Mine was a minor rewording, and now you say you oppose. Let's wait to hear from Benzband first, and I wouldn't mind Cloveapple putting an oar in this one.--Djathinkimacowboyvandals' playground10:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
To me the minor rewordings do not really matter; as long as the original purpose is kept. This said, i shall support whichever wording fits best to everyone and to Wikipedia in general. Cheers, benzband (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Of note, we currently have two 'General' Barnstars that are awarded for similiarly dual purposes: The Red Link Removal Barnstar and, most fittingly, the Writer's Barnstar (which can be awarded either for exemplary writing or for work on the Topic of Writers). So there is a precedent for this sort of action. Achowat (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm still opposing this barnstar as overlapping with existing one and as being unspecific. We first recognize a field in which a barnstar could be used, then create it, not the other way around. Unfortunately, recently, this standard has somewhat fallen. This discussion seems to be trying to find a topic to which to add an existing barnstar for the sake of creating one, not for the sake of recognizing some editors work in a particular area. The graphic isn't impressive either and is basically two images overlaid and the award is at best suitable for PUA. That standard also seems to have fallen a lot. I may sound too critical, but I'm going to oppose such methods, because I don't want to cheapen a long-standing measure of what is supposed to be a recognized award. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK17:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that this Award (in the criteria " are excellent contributors to discussions about proposed changes to Wikipedia policies") is exactly the same standard as The Red Barnstar uses. However, having a "Topical Barnstar" for work chronicalling Wikipedia on Wikipedia does seem to have some merit. Could I ask that you discuss the merits of awarding a Topical Barnstar for Wikipedia instead of a blanket oppose based on the process by which the discussion came about? Achowat (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The barnstar does not currently have any wording and the graphic is basic at best. What else do you want me to evaluate? I already gave my arguments. I don't know what "Topical Barnstar for Wikipedia" is, as this is the first mention of that in this thread. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK18:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
But that's a completely different barnstar proposal. Are you saying "Topical Barnstar for Wikipedia" is the same as "Wikipedia barnstar of National Merit"? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK19:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Not the currently accepted "Barnstar of National Merit" but the idea of having a barnstar for coverage of Wikipedia on Wikipedia seems to be consistant throughout these discussions. Achowat (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, as I said before, that is a very narrow subject area and I don't think it warrants a separate barnstar. As I also said, quasar has nothing to do with this unless you take broad liberties with its interpretation. As I further clarified following the discussion, trying to find a topic to fit a barnstar that otherwise doesn't fit yet isn't an ideal process. And I further clarified the exact details why I don't think this barnstar meets quality criteria (vague description, simple graphic, overlap with existing one). Nowhere have I given a "blanket oppose" which you claim I have. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK19:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I'm inclined to agree with you. Could one of the proponents show an example of when this award would be so-awarded. Currently it's been 'awarded' to 4 individuals, one of them twice. Two of the recipients (myself included) have been given it for work trying to legitimize the star; one for vandal fighting; one for work on something referred to as the "Cohen Cruse Ruse"; one for coaching and helping; and one for 'showing how things are done'. None of them seem to have been awarded for anything we've discussed here, so I move that this 'star' be placed in PUA. Achowat (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Quoting HELLKNOWZ: "I'm still opposing this barnstar as overlapping with existing one and as being unspecific. We first recognize a field in which a barnstar could be used, then create it, not the other way around." Then further down you say a quasar has nothing to do with this. Do you understand it, or don't you, HELLKNOWZ? I don't see it your way, and frankly am surprised you think the process was "the other way around". A great deal of thought went into this.
THE FIELD is the editor who clarifies, explains and assists with Wikipedia rules and their implementation. Only secondary to the award is the editor who makes great contributions to changes in rules/policy. The tertiary reason to award is the editor who makes Wikipedia look better than it really is. Also, what's this complaining about the graphic? Can that not be worked on later? I see no worse in the Quasar than in most other stars- make it revolve or spin, if you want.
Putting this in barnstar in PUA seems OK to me. We could have a separate discussion about creating a barnstar for Wikipedia coverage of Wikipedia itself. Pinetalk07:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with PUA then… However, i have two comments to make on what has been said here :
On the purpose : the field was proposed (see here) before the graphics; and the picture was only intended as a temporary (note the 1 and my comment in the archived discussion).
On the WP coverage of itself, as i stated earlier and considering the objected past discussion (see here); plus the fact that this was thrown in after as a supplement to the Quasar because it had been objected to as being "not a topic broad enough to warrant a separate barnstar".
If you believe copy and pasting while omitting important words and without the need for context and then tying that to a completely different argument is not misquoting; and then telling to "leave it" is justified then I indeed have no further responses to such uncivil behavior. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK12:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose something like a Wikipedia Barnstar of National Merit, for those who improve coverage of Wikipedia on itself. Moreover, (partly for those who think that isn't a "broad enough" topic), i propose something like a Wikimedia Barnstar of National Merit, for those who improve the coverage of Wikimedia and it's projects (including but not limited to WP) on Wikipedia. benzband (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I support the idea of a barnstar for contributing content about Wikimedia projects. A Wiki-in-general barnstar would be more appropriate for a project's award if the project covered wikis in general. Pinetalk08:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
So, I would propose changing the artwork to incorporate the red, green, and aqua of the Wikimedia logo, though I'm a little opposed towards having two awards for Wikis. I think someone who does Barnstar-worthy work on the subject of Wiki technology or Wikia would be proud to have the as-of-yet-unnamed Wiki Barnstar. Achowat (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Artwork? I think I missed it. Which discussion was it in? I thought I'd looked through them all, but I think I must have missed something. As for the proposal, I could support a barnstar for improving coverage of Wikimedia projects. Obviously the barnstar wouldn't include Signpost articles since we already have one for that. So it would be awarded for article work, correct? Could it also be awarded for external article work about Wikimedia subjects? For example, there are Wikipedia editors who have written research papers about Wikipedia. (My support is not contingent on that last question. Just wondering.) Cloveapple (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, artwork was created for 'The Quasar Barnstar' that I think was the only ink-to-paper over this idea. I imagine that this would serve as the Topical Barnstar for Wikis. That means Article space improvements. I'd be weary of the official explanation including off-encyclopedia work, but people are going to give the star when and where they see fit regardless of what we write. Achowat (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I had no specific artwork in mind. In my view anything that fits the purpose will do. BTW, i was proposing an entirely new barnstar, not the Quasar barnstar (isn't that a PUA?). benzband (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, as it stands anything given by one user to another counts as a 'PUA', so yeah, I guess TQB is a PUA. I guess we could sit here and talk about a design for the Wiki Barnstar, but I think we'd end up with a Camel (a horse built by committee). What I think would be a better use of our time would be to come up with a Name for the award, and solicit designs based on that. Achowat (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds perfectly reasonable. I had originally thought of a National Merit barnstar but having widened the topic maybe this no longer fits. benzband (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem with saying "The Wikipedia Barnstar" or "The Wikipedia Award of National Merit" is that all barnstars are Wikipedia Barnstars and all of our Awards of National Merit are Wikipedia Awards. I just don't want people confusing this new award with the established Original Barnstar or The Barnstar of National Merit. I have no ideas for what would be a good name, but both of those are confusing, at best. Achowat (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I see what you mean. But i thought we'd agreed on it being a Wiki-in-general one and a Wikimedia one (including WP). benzband (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
These barnstars may be of interest to the following WikiProjects :
Brainstorming names: Wikimedia Coverage Barnstar? Coverage of Wikimedia Barnstar? Wikimedia Topics Barnstar? The About Wikimedia Barnstar? The Covering Ourselves Barnstar? Wikipedia Covers Wikimedia Barnstar? Wikipedia Covers the Wikimedia Projects Barnstar? Wikimedia Looks Inward, Looking Inward Barnstar .... (Have any more titles to toss in?) Cloveapple (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Inflection Barnstar. Mirrored Barnstar (probable the easiest visual representation). That's all I've got for right now. Achowat (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Djathinkimacowboy, does this mean that you are not in favor of a seperate barnstar for article space coverage of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects? Or am I misreading a comment of general frustration with the earlier discussions? If it's just a comment that the names I tossed out suck, I can live with that. I'm not claiming any great brilliance as a name smith. :-) I was just trying to brainstorm and see what ideas others had. Cloveapple (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
* May as well move: can we somehow consolidate the complete discussion as it is thus far? Though the Quasar may seem somewhat dead, I think this entire discussion ought to be in one thread, perhaps with one subheading for the newer discussion.--Djathinkimacowboychase me thru the cemetery13:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it would be nice to have everything in one place. Unfortunately I don't see a workable way to consolidate all 4 threads that overlap. Two threads are already archived and only two are still "live". I think benzband's set of links at the top of this thread is about the best we can do at the moment. Cloveapple (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Any name that feels right to everyone and fits in line with the award is fine with me. As for the thread i agree with Cloveapple, and there is already a note in the other "live" discussion that directs down the page. Cheers, benzband (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I prefer to see this as a separate discussion from the Quasar Barnstar. I think this idea will get more support. Personally I think this award is a good idea. Pinetalk08:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
.png)
Nice job! I'm sure you'll be able to find people to award this to ;-) benzband (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Done with this edit. benzband (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Idea: to allow users to discriminate themselves between an active and inactive editor. Schalice (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
).
