Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikihalo


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 No Conensus Keep —  xaosflux  Talk  03:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikihalo
Seemingly useless. Currently there are two people who have been awarded a Wikihalo, one being Jimbo, and the other Angela, a Board of Trustees member. Do we really need to create a new heirarchy of users. Just give a user a barnstar if they are doing exceptional work. Pepsidrinka 01:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional nominations: I have added Wikihalo nomination and Wikihalo administration since the user created seperate pages instead of using subpages. Pepsidrinka 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * DeleteI agree seems useless and another attempt to create two classes of people which is what we don't want. Barnstars highlight exceptional people but do not create a heirarchy. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 01:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Ugh. Instruction creep, and something else weird to "vote" on.  Who in hell would take the time to oppose one of these things?!?  Gee, I like user X ok, but he or she isn't halo-worthy?!?! Just ugh. Xoloz 01:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as instruction creep and redundant with the current barnstar system. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone can give barnstars. Only the community as a whole can give a Wikihalo. Not so redundant, eh? And the instructions are suppossed to just be for the good of the community to enable the project to follow the path that the community as a whole sees most fit. The N e okid talk 18:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and BorgHunter. FreplySpang (talk)
 * Additional comment - I don't believe the "community as a whole" will ever come together to follow this (arbitrary) process. The Wikihalo givers, although very well-meaning, are a small, unrepresentative group of fairly new users. I don't care for the air of "officialness" that the process and Wikipedia-space page gives this process. If a few people want to get together and collectively award WP:PUA's, great, but it shouldn't be presented as "official" or "coming from the entire community." FreplySpang (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This program is a very noble intention, but I'm afraid it may unnecessarily divide the community. The halo might also be offensive to some users because of its symbolic association with moral perfection. Of course, no Wikipedians (not even Jimbo and Angela) are perfect. I don't mean that humorous and well intentioned parodies are not acceptable, but I know that some users can be offended by secular applications of religious symbols. Anyway, truly deserving Wikipedians are rewarded with the unwritten respect of the community. -- Tantalum T  e  lluride  21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an award, and part of the Kindness Campaign. In fact, this is a completely inappropriate discussion, posted by someone who has had (no recent?) part of the Barnstars and Awards process. The award went through a vetting in the established process. the fact that it is a new award is why very few people have it. There can't be enough ways to say thanks to the people who volunteer a lot of time here. evrik 19:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Kindness campain and couldn't find out where it was part of it. As well where did it go through a vetting in the established process? Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 00:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The awards themselves are part of the kindness campaign, as for the archives... The archives aren't particularly organized. I hope that Neokid comes back online and has something to say about this. evrik 01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment to evrik: This has nothing to do with whether I have had any part in the "Barnstars and Awards process." This nomination was done in good faith as something I felt was not neccessary, and actually problemsome for the community. Nonetheless, this is a discussion of whether the page should be kept. So if the members of the community felt that this is a bad faith nomination, or that I overlooked something when I nominated it, it would have been speedy kept. Seeing how so far everyone who has given their 2 cents has expressed the deletion of this page (with the exception of yourself) proves that this is in fact an appropriate discussion. Pepsidrinka 00:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment to Pepsidrinka, "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. A person acting in good faith would have posted some comments on either some of the discussions page before going right to a nomination to delete. evrik 01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Retain "Wikihalo" as a PUA, but why this process of voting and all? Let A give it to B if A believes that B deserves it. End of story. Period. --Gurubrahma 09:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And btw, delete all other sub-pages and related pages. --Gurubrahma 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; per Gurubrahma → Aza Toth 22:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that the nomination was in good faith and all, but it's not our procedure to nominate awards for deletion. Problems with existing awards are handled within the appropriate forums.  Should the award be reformated? Maybe.  Should it be moved to PUA? Perhaps.  All of this can be handled in a discussion thread at the Proposals page.  And when we bring PUA into the picture, this becomes quite clear, I believe: we have recognized any user's right to instate an award on his/her own and list it there.  No user has had an award that (s)he listed at PUA deleted because others didn't like it (and there are some pretty weird awards over there) &mdash; different from the Barnstars on Wikipedia page, where the awards need to be approved by community consensus.  Anything that is wrong with this award can be solved with a discussion in the appropriate forum: consensus to keep it as a wiki award?  We can work on that there. Reformat the award?  That can be dealt with too.  If the consensus is that the award is not compatible with a wiki award, or if the creator doesn't wish to submit it to any changes, then we move it to PUA and that'll be the end of that.  If it's moved to PUA, there is just no reason to delete it, when the community has already acknowledged the right of every user to create Personal User Awards.  Anyone can create an award, as long as it is within the basic requirement of an award on Wikipedia: encourage a "wikivirtue".  I can see that most of the people that have participated here are not regulars at the Award Proposals forums, so I gather they wouldn't be acquainted with how it works over there. Hopefully, this has been of use.  And in light of all of this, here's what I propose: halt this MfD and start the proper discussion I mentioned, at the end of which the "worst" that can happen is the Wikihalo award gets moved to the PUA page.  Regards, Redux 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Redux, and I have withdrawn my vote for deletion. -- Tantalum T  e  lluride  02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked very much at the past history on this award, but I like the idea of having some sort of more official award than simply barnstars. I can see issues with voting, but not enough to delete. However, I just strikes me as wrong to delete an award like this while there is an award-in-progress, it seems to me that would indicate it is still active. Here is the nomination. I would urge a strong keep for that, even if for no other reason. --Mathwizard1232 04:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Well the nomination you mentioned actually was supposed to end several hours ago, yet it looks like it is still active, despite the time-stamp at the top of the page. Pepsidrinka 04:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's funny you say that because Neokid as been away from wikipedia for several days and I don't want to step on his toes. evrik 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you found that humorous. I wasn't implying anything, I was merely mentioning to Mathwizard1232 that the nomination in fact was over, as far as the timestamp indicated. You have since changed it, and that is fine. But as far as I knew at that time, the nomination had ended. Pepsidrinka 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I really don't know why it exists but... it does and it seems to me like it's a communal barnstar...  If it had "official policy" slapped onto it I'd call it instruction creep but now it's like one of the many little groups.  If you don't like the idea you can ignore it... that's what I plan on doing. I realllyyyy hope this doesn't lose me a chance at winning it though... ~_~ gren グレン 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP What is the problem with the community coming together to show their appreciation of our greatest users? By the way Pepsidrinka, CatherineMunro is currently going through the nomination process and I personally still have ideas for many more to come. The N e okid talk 16:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that the nomination process is in fact active NOW. That is because a user corrected the timestamp recently so I was under the impression that it had ended. Pepsidrinka 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW I noticed the error last night, it was probably a simple math mistake. evrik 18:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I actually see no problem with allowing this deletion debate to run its course. I see nothing in our policies which forbids the listing of award pages for deletion. Any corrections to that view would of course, be welcome. Hiding  talk 17:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, in some form: For what it's worth, I agree with some of the arguments above, especially the "who would vote against it?" and the "uses religious symbols" points.  On the other hand, no matter how much meaning it really has or doesn't have compared to "the unwritten respect of the community" or individual barnstars, being nominated for it was a huge boost in my personal wiki-morale, which brought me back to Wikipedia more often than I had been checking in otherwise.  Seeing kind comments accumulate from acquaintances and strangers really made me feel good -- the impact of a pageful of multiple comments, compared to the individual thank-yous I've gotten over the past three years, was pretty amazing. I think it could have a valuable place alongside other awards.  Like Evrik, I believe "There can't be enough ways to say thanks to the people who volunteer a lot of time here."  I vote to keep this idea in some incarnation, perhaps as a collectively-awarded PUA, per Freply.  I don't think it needs to be structured as a "vote" with potential opposition, though.  Anyway, my two cents as a very surprised participant in the process.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 20:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW Neokid, the creator of the award, just left wikipedia. evrik 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep On a scale of one to ten of lame things on the site it's a -1. People can always ignore it. Dethomas 21:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The same could be said of the userboxes as well, right? We are an encyclopedia. --Gurubrahma 08:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I knew about this page for a while, and while at first I thought it was redundant, I decided to give Neokid some time to work on it. However, nothing has really changed, and so I vote delete. &#126;MDD4696 21:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per MDD --Khoikhoi 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no particular point in deleting; there's room in Wikipedia for any award anyone wants to make up. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent. I'm inclined to keep it, at least for the time being. If nothing more comes of this in another six months or so, I might reconsider. But at worst it seems harmless and at best might be a nice addition to the community of editors. older ≠ wiser 03:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm changing my opinion back to delete since there is no serious effort taking place to reform the award procedure and to address the problems raised here. -- Tantalum T  e  lluride  19:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's been only a fews days. GIve it some time. evrik 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - A community barnstar sounds a good idea. I got to know about Catherine through the page. May be the voting process is not needed. Just nominate, if no objections, award the user in 10 days time. -  Ganeshk  ( talk ) 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Seemingly useless. But we don't delete things just because we don't like them or they are dumb.  If the votings bothers someone, tell them sofixit.  If it's silly on its own, merge.  Or just ignore it. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  12:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Set the whole thing up as a Proposal. Let people chew over it a few weeks or whatever, and let it it be decided by the community, An MfD is not the proper forum for this, MfD's don't last long enough and attract only a small subset of users. Herostratus 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete or move it to the User Space of whoever wishes to keep it up. This has no place in the WP namespace.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 04:34, 18 March 2006 (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.