Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive1

The Hollywood Walk of Fame Barnstar
I would like to move that we remove this from the page. Its purpose is vague at best: individuals whose fame and/or excellent work on the Wikipedia should be given a Hollywood Walk of Fame star (those whose deserves a Hollywood Star because they're famous, get a Hollywood Star). The "excellent work" portion is redundant with other barnstars. I don't see any reason to keep it around. – ClockworkSoul 01:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'Poll: Should we remove the The Hollywood Walk of Fame Barnstar''? (1/0/0)''' – Poll opened March 2, and will close March 9 (1 week should do it?)

Yes
 * 1) Yes, for the reasons I stated above. – ClockworkSoul 01:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes -- BRIAN 0918   01:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, as per ClockworkSoul.  Redux 03:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes.  Though the concept is nice, I think we should look at this more.  So I wish for this to be gone, just for a short while. Zscout370 12:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes.  Replace it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I am inclinced to agree BrokenSegue 00:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No


 * 1) NO! Keep, but use a different description for awarding the barnstar (see my comments below). gK &iquest;? 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments
 * I'm not sure I'd go so far as to remove it completely, at least not yet. Maybe its purpose can be clarified instead?  Also, it might be a good idea to actually incorporate the barnstar into the image, probably by replacing the actual star with a barnstar that looks like it. -- BRIAN 0918   01:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This looks to me like just an excuse to use the "Hollywood walk of fame" image. Honestly, I'm not sure what we can even do with the idea. I don't think we need to try and salvage every bad idea that is unilaterally added to the listing. – ClockworkSoul 01:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with ClockworkSoul. This award is redundant at best.  I see no reason whatsoever to try and salvage it.  Regards, Redux 03:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that this award is redundant in its current form. There's nothing here that isn't covered in the other barnstars (such as the original Barnstar). However, this is a Hollywood star, and I think there's no reason why we shouldn't use it for entertainment articles. This barnstar could, for example, be used for the "Society" category below. --Deathphoenix 14:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur with Deathphoenix. I feel that maybe this type of award be given to those articles that exemplify the best articles that deal with Hollywood (i.e. actors, actresses, directors, etc). Wouldn't that make more sense? -- Riffsyphon1024 08:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes: I also agree. That's why I suggested we use it for the "Culture" category barnstar, below. – ClockworkSoul 14:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Since I awarded the first Hollywood WoF barnstar, I would like to give my two-cents worth. The reason for giving the barnstar should be changed, but the barnstar itself should be kept. Here is my idea for the barnstar: If you look at the stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, you will see that there are the various names, and above each name is an icon for a field of endeavor (such as the recording industry). A few people have two stars (usually Movies and TV), but very few have more. Bob Hope has four stars, but only Gene Autry has stars in all of the categories. The people who work on the wikipedia are somewhat similar in that although they may dabble in multiple areas, they usually only shine in one. The Hollywood Walk of Fame Barnstar should be for someone who has done very good work in multiple areas on the Wikipedia (but not necessarily barnstar-worthy work in any single area), or who has done outstanding work in at least two areas. The barnstar that I awarded User:AllyUnion is an example of the first instance. Someone who has shepherded several articles through the featured article process, as well as done a great job of playing whack-a-mole with vandalism, would be an example of the second instance. [BTW: I think that there should be a Featured Article Barnstar that is given to anyone who has been responsible for at least three featured articles.] [PS: I don't know the reason, but User:AllyUnion put "I quit. Good bye." on their User page today.] [PS#2: Since this is one of the more obscure areas of the Wikipedia, you might allow for another week since any decision made here has no major time constraints.] gK &iquest;? 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Standardization of Barnstars: Category stars
(Credit for the original idea goes wholly to brian0918) Rather than be faced with a periodic addition of random topic barnstars, I propose that we preemptivey create a series of Category Barnstars, based primarily on the categories listed on the main page, used to reward brilliant work in articles in one of the following categories:


 * Culture – Art, literature, music, philosophy, religion
 * Geography – Geography, "nation" articles
 * History – Archaeology, history
 * Daily Life – Education, food & drink, language, sports & games
 * Science and Mathematics – The "hard" sciences: Biology, geology, medicine, mathematics, medicine, minerology, physics
 * Society – Economics, government & politics, law, media, royalty & nobility, war
 * Technology – Technology, transportation
 * Oddball – The types of articles listed in Unusual articles

Implementing this system would, in the end, keep the number of barnstars at a manageable level by providing a number of very categories, thus preventing a "Barnstar Creep" that could eventually result in dozens of "niche" stars. This would also allow us to implement a stylistic standardization to these articles, giving these barnstars a common theme and/or "look and feel". – ClockworkSoul 06:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In preparation for a ginormous discussion, I've moved each header up one size, and added sections for each. Please keep discussion in these sections so that nobody's comments are missed and each can be easily archived. Add any image proposals to the appropriate section's gallery along with a number and your name (see example in Technology section). -- BRIAN 0918  15:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Before we go and choose images, let's decide whether these are really the categories that we want. Anybody have any opinions? I for one, now think that we should roll Mathematics into Science. Also, for convenience and clarification, I took the categories from the scheme used in Featured articles, and mapped it to an appropriate category. – ClockworkSoul 15:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mathematics (merged with science below)
''This topic has been merged with Science. See below''


 * I just can't think of anything for this, but I still think it should be kept separate from science, as it is category-wise. -- BRIAN 0918  15:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I know that this is a Main Page category, but it really can't be awarded for too many things. It's not like "life" or "culture" that have literally tens of thousands of articles for each. I think that we should keep these categories as broad as possible, and roll math into science. If we decide not to, I would like to consider "economics" to be math, at the least. – ClockworkSoul 15:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm fine with merging them together into a "science and mathematics" group. -- BRIAN 0918  15:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ranking
Discussion Moved to: WikiProject Rankings

This project is for the idea of having a ranking system in Wikipedia. Please discuss in talk and make suggestions here (if any)