Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Award Center 2


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Closed discussion.  MfD is for deleting a page, not forcing discussion to a larger audience for the purpose of exposure. If you don't intend to have the page deleted entirely, please work through the community ways of cleaning up a page. An additional note that this is not a certification of keep or delete or no consensus. Keegan talk 05:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Sharkface217/Award Center
While this is a good idea, I feel it sorely needs restructuring, and certain "challenges" need to be deleted. I mentioned my concerns here, and my concerns still stand. While the "challenges" that involve actual work, such as improving articles to GA status, is a good idea, challenges such as Recent Changes Patrol, this whole section, this, and this, to name a few, are serious issues that need addressing, and I think, these ones specifically, need deletion. Steve Crossin  (talk)   (review)  20:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete just nuke the whole thing - it's ridiculously over the top. We're an encyclopedia, not an award ceremony.  Al Tally  (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * some sections are actually useful, but others ought to be nuked --Enric Naval (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is the correct venue - you don't really want the page deleted, just sections removing. That's not what MfD is for. My comment is therefore keep the page and be bold to remove the stated sections and reorganise the page. If there's dispute about it, use the dispute resolution channels such as RfC.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Neutral - Steve, although it needs cleaning up, I don't think Diligent Terrier meant you to take that seriously. Basketball110  My story/Tell me yours 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about what I told or spoke to them. I've seen this as an issue for quite some time, I decided to take it to MFD today. Nothing to do with what they said. Steve Crossin   (talk)   (review)  20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I may not be PC, but those are my thoughts.--Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like its unnecessary and redundant to WP:REWARD Alexfusco5 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Why are we trying to delete this page? While some users don't like the "award ceremony" part, there are many challenges that require fixing Wikipedia articles. I just finished up partly expanding an article. Without the award center, I wouldn't have even known of the page. The whole idea of "nuking it" is ridiculious. Why would we destroy something that helps Wikipedia so greatly? I think a vote would show an overwhelming amount of users who value the award center and would like the page to stay.


 * WP:REWARD, while commonly a monetary reward can be offered, is also becoming common practice to offer other rewards, such as one person editing an article in exchange for the other user editing another article. Reward centre seems partially redundant to me. Steve Crossin   (talk)   (review)  21:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and remove the offending portions; they encourage sloppy mass reporting. Apart from that, it's fine.  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Steve, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sharkface217/Award_Center. The Award Center is a user page that encourages the development of Wikipedia. -- Sharkface T/C 21:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And Steve, it would be wise to just ask the sponsors of those challenges to take them down. -- Sharkface T/C 21:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've looked at that one. Seems the portions on the AWC are being blanked. Steve Crossin   (talk)   (review)  21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I went all bold and removed the sections I personally felt were encouraging sloppy, underpar editing or stances in deletion. Feel free to continue.   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked WBOSITG to revert his edits.... I'd rather we take action on the subject after more time is spent here discussing what to do. I'm fully willing to suspend the sections until further notice, similar to what I did here. -- Sharkface T/C 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have tried to address the situation on the talk page before !voting, to see if the offending sections can be deleted and the nom withdrawn, see User_talk:Sharkface217/Award_Center (ec with weburied and sharkface) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and use the award center's talk page to discuss the removal of individual challenges. I've learned a ton about Wikipedia policy from taking on these challenges, and I certainly do not feel that it has led to sloppy editing on my part. Even with a controversial challenge like tagging articles for speedy deletion, when I had any doubt about how to proceed with an article, I would ask for advice at the help desk or place the article on my watchlist to see how experienced authors dealt with it. The award center has led me to read policy pages that I hadn't seen before, and I'm a much better editor for having participated in these challenges. Should some be removed? Absolutely. Should the page be deleted? Of course not. It's a positive contribution to Wikipedia. I can't buy into arguments like "this is an encyclopedia" because if Wikipedia was exclusively an encyclopedia, barnstars wouldn't exist in the first place. I fail to see the problem of offering a virtual pat on the back in return for substantial positive contributions to Wikipedia's content. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, some of the challenges are very good, and it would be a big loss to delete the whole page. I'd be very happy with just blanking or striking the offending sections. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Eric, WBOSITG already did that and I asked him to revert his changes (which he graciously did). I'd rather this go on a bit longer, with more educated debate, before we come to a consensus. -- Sharkface T/C 21:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to the Wikipedia-space. I agree with Steve on this issue and, while this is not the correct venue, some reforming needs to be done. Unfortunately, he cannot be bold and remove such things without the possibility of Sharkface re-adding, since it is his userpage. Of course, this whole thing has spun way beyond a little project of Sharkface and now has its own newletter. I propose that the correct title should be along the lines of WikiProject Awards to avoid these loopholes. Also, who cares about such shiny things--they serve absolutely no purpose other than recognition of jobs well/not so well (in the case of some poined out by Steve). While I agree there are some value to some, this page needs a complete reform. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The move was attempted before and it nearly resulted in the scrapping of the entire page. It was moved back to my userspace so that it wouldn't be deleted. Interestingly, this entire saga took place without any real involvement on my part. -- Sharkface T/C
 * Keep, It has boosted the enthusiasm of my recently adopted user. I feel that it could encourage younger users to stay long-term and not slowly retire like so many others. - Dark  Zorro  22:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the award center itself but Delete the challenges that have nothing to do with helping the encylopedia such as Recent Changes Patrol, this whole section, this, and this. I may change my !vote to Move if necessary. -- RyRy5  ( talk  ♠  Review ) 22:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've given my extensive explanation on the removal of the certain challenges, they're here. Steve Crossin   (talk)   (review)  22:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore, defaults to keep. Seriously, it's in userspace, it's harmless, wth? dorftrottel (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The same could have been said about this. In userspace, still was an issue. Steve Crossin   (talk)   (review)  23:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this page encourages a combination of both good and bad editing. As I have said, if we move this to the projectspace we could establish a broad concensus upon which subprojects should continue. It already functions as one, except Sharkface has the last say because it is in the userspace. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Close this MfD, because it's not a page deletion proposal - this is the wrong forum. XfD is not for getting content deleted from pages - that's what talk pages are for. This MfD is a proposal to modify a page's design and operating procedures. It involves deletion of parts of a page, and therefore, normally it should be posted on that page's discussion page, and not here. But, this nomination is basically attempting to tell people what they can and can't award barnstars for, and neither this nor the Award Center is the proper forum for this discussion - such a proposal should be posted to Wikipedia talk:Barnstars! What's with you guys? Someone should close this discussion - I'd do it, but because I created the Award Center, it would be a conflict of interest. The Transhumanist 04:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you here. MFD, while largely the time, is for deletion discussion, this page needed to go to MFD. There are large issues with the Award Center, as discussed on my talk page, you may feel free to discuss this there. Additionally, as this has had delete votes, closing this prematurely wouldn't be an option, unless by an administrator. Steve Crossin   (talk)   (review)  04:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the Award centre talk page would get minimal exposure from the Wikipedia community. Steve Crossin   (talk)   (review)  04:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are disagreeing with established policy. According to Deletion policy:

"Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Likewise, disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user."


 * The Transhumanist 05:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for a response regarding the challenges I've brought up for discussion. Mind refutiating the concerns regarding them? Steve Crossin   (talk)   (review)  05:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The deletion policy also authorizes admins to close XfD discussions like this and refer them to the appropriate forums:


 * The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.


 * I'll be glad to discuss the uses of barnstars on Wikipedia talk:Barnstars. The Transhumanist  05:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel this isn't a discussion about the use of barnstars, it's about the existence of certain challenges that can lead to poor editing, for example, 50 AFD's, 10,000 edits, adopt 5 users, etc etc. Consensus needed to be established here, while you are the creator of this, options discussed are removing the mentioned sections and moving this to mainspace, so the Wikipedia community has more say in how the Award Centre works. Things like Article improvement is fine, but things that focus on the quantity of edits, rather than the quality, is an issue that needs to be addressed, and I felt the talk page would have had very limited exposure. I asked Sharkface about this before, and he posted it onto the AWC talk page, where it had no comments until this MFD was initiated, hence my reason for taking it to MFD. Steve Crossin   (talk)   (review)  05:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And, from Sharkface, I asked WBOSITG to revert his edits.... I'd rather we take action on the subject after more time is spent here discussing what to do. I'm fully willing to suspend the sections until further notice, similar to what I did here. --SharkfaceT/C 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC) . Discussion here. This needs Wikipedian input, not on a page where limited discussion would occur. Steve Crossin  (talk)   (review)  05:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Exists for the good of the project, encourages productive behaviour.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.