Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Service awards (2nd nomination)


 * 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 discussion was snowball keep. –xenotalk 05:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Service awards
Inappropriate for an encyclopediaDrew Smith What I've done 05:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Per all the "Keep" rationales of the last MFD. Dr.K. logos 05:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep, it is not an article. Bubba73 (talk), 06:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We have Barnstars, Userboxes, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm just a few days away from getting my "Master Editor" award. Then you can delete it.    Will Beback    talk    10:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Exactly. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not get medals.Drew Smith What I've done 23:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep ...although maybe we mark it as "humour" seeing as quality and not quantity really matter. We don't want people thinking the goal is lots of edits. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.. most essays in the project space aren't "appropriate for an encyclopedia" either, should we delete them too? GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the same reasons we have barnstars. It's encouraging to be rewarded for your hard work. Nom is, by his own admission, going through a "massive, and disorienting upheaval" of his life and could use some support to help him through this difficult period, but I sincerely hope that had nothing to do with this nomination. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coment, Thanks for the support, but this had nothing to do with the nom<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">D</b>rew <b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">S</b>mith <i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i> 23:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Many people like these awards and far from harming the project, they encourage people who are into awards to help the project by editing it. I think it should be kept.  fr33k man  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">-simpleWP-   22:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, A young, similar project was recently shot down in flames. Its goal was to give out similar awards, but on a different basis. The reason for deletion was "not appropriate for an encyclopedia". Why should it go and this, barnstars, and userboxes stay?<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">D</b>rew <b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">S</b>mith <i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i> 23:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the basis of the awards in that young project? And who proposed it? Bubba73 (talk), 00:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving out awards for the number of vandalism reversions. But that's not the point. Apparently awards in general are inappropriate for an encyclopedia.<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">D</b>rew <b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">S</b>mith <i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i> 06:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are already barnstars for vandalism reverts, but not for a specific number. Can you point me to the discussion about it?  Bubba73 (talk), 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * here<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">D</b>rew <b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">S</b>mith <i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i> 21:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The original page is gone, but I read all of those comments. It sounds like it was quite different from this.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. But reduce the plutonium edit count to 30k to maintain proportion.  Can't understand why we go up in steady stages of 4000 and then take a huge leap of 16000.  --Jack | talk page 15:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - These awards are the only things that keep me motivated! But I agree with BlackJack about the Plutonium Barnstar
 * Keep - This is no different than userboxes or barnstars, and those pages have lasted for years. Nothing has suddenly changed in the policies and made this page unacceptable here. If we get rid of this, we might as well delete navigation templates or user pages or all of the other things the average encyclopedia doesn't have. -- Commdor    { Talk }  20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep They do nothing to detract from the encyclopedia. BigDunc  21:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Why would you ever want to nominate this for deletion!? -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Awards and such encourage achievement and ambition, which does more good than harm. But the service awards attempt to rank editors by edit count, which magnifies the worst habit an experienced editor can develop-- I have more edits than you, so I'm right.   I'm glad that the service classifications haven't caught on as reason for allowing or denying anything.   No one ever says things like "only Journeyman editors or higher should be able to serve on the Arbitration Committee".  It's always X edits.  But it could happen, and that would make the problem worse.


 * Besides, wouldn't you look silly walking around at the next meetup with a service award medal cutout taped to your chest?  Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: May I inquire upon what policy grounds the Delete proponents advocate their stance? I see nothing in deletion policy citing edit counts as a violation of Wikipedia policy, nor has nom proffered any explanation of why he feels this is "inappropriate" beyond a WP:WAX argument.    RGTraynor  06:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: These service awards are fun, and besides, when I looked into them, I learned more about creating and editing templates. Like the kid says in the "Cat In the Hat" movie, "Go have NO FUN somewhere else." --Cbdorsett (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is nonsense. These awards are completely harmless, and help give editors a sense of accomplishment.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Comparable to barnstars; although I would like to see more emphasis in the lead to the statement "Please remember that time spent with and number of edits to Wikipedia are not indicative of the quality of an editor's contributions or of their diplomatic ability. "Veteran" editors have no more authority than "novice" editors." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, suggest a speedy close to this MfD as it appears to be pointy in nature. These awards were nominated following the close of MfD for "Vandalism Patrol".  Shortly after that, the nominator here began blanking barnstars and service awards from other editor's user pages .  Immediately after blanking those pages, he then added the MfD tag to the Service awards page, then posted to the author of the earlier deleted "Vandalism Patrol" content that "I've made a few edits on behalf of the vandalism patrol and the rights of editors in general. They are sure to be reverted fairly quickly, but its just to make a point." . --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand to include awards for number of "keep" votes in MfD discussions. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Useful in building community. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hrm. Aren't we in snowball Keep country now?    RGTraynor  22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The snowball has become superheated steam by now. Dr.K. logos 22:21, 13 July 2009 (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.