Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Golden W Award

Description
This Wikiproject is identical in organizational format to WP:FOUR. However, the award differs. The Golden W Award goes to editors who succeed in having content featured in every area of the main page: Featured Article, Did You Know, In the News, On This Day, and Featured Picture. There is a Golden W with Laurels for editors who manage to have content featured in every area of the main page three or more times. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 11:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Templates/Images for the Golden W Award
ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 11:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Support
Please specify whether or not you would join the project.
 * 1)  ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 11:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I support this project. If it does not get approved immediately, I hope to see it start in user space.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) No less necessary than WP:TRIPLE and WP:FOUR, and it wouldn't hurt anyone. But whether it's done in project or user space seems immaterial. (FWIW, I wouldn't personally join the project, but I support its existence.) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Unnecessary to say the least. Physchim62 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) This proposal is confused. Awards normally begin in the user space and are organized by an individual user before being expanded to multiple reviewers.  For example, User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle and Four Award (the original location of Four Award before the founding editor retired).  WikiProjects don't normally concern themselves with something so particular as giving out one award.  Just userfy this page and do as you will.  If it catches on, then it might be worth moving into the project space as an 'official' award. - BanyanTree 10:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with BanyanTree. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Request for clarification When you say it is similar to WP:FOUR, FOUR requires the same article be inlcuded in various processes. Are you saying that this would require that the same article be in each of the processes or that the same user achieve each of these processes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The award and its criteria are completely different. Only the organization format is the same as WP:FOUR. Specifically, I envision a project page that looks almost identical, with nominations made, awards given, and records kept, just like at WP:FOUR. To answer your question specifically, a user would need to achieve each of the processes, but not with the same article. To get the Golden W with Laurels, the user would need three articles in each of the main page areas. ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 21:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But that sounds more dificult to get the Golden W with Laurels since instead of achieve each of the processes, but not with the same article, you have to make three articles go through those tasks. Can't you have getting the Golden W by having an article achieve each of the processes instead of having multiple article go in those areas to get the award. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is more difficult to get the Golden W with Laurels. That's why it comes with laurels. Awarding a medal with clusters or laurels is a military tradition when someone earns the same medal multiple times. It isn't possible to have a single article go through all the processes, because one of the content areas is Featured Picture, and a Featured Picture can't also be a Featured Article. It would be MUCH harder to get a single article through the other main page sections as well. First, you can only get an article into WP:DYK if it is new. Then it also has to become newsworthy to hit WP:ITN. Then something historical regarding it has to exist for it to make On This Day. Very few things are going to exist that can possibly be both on In the News and On This Day. Further, the point of the award is to encourage editors to improve lots of content to featured status. A motivated editor could get five different articles and a picture onto the main page (meaning superb quality and/ or usefulness). If they were spending their time just trying to get one article into all the different main page areas, they'd be focused on just one article instead of improving many articles. And really, after the one article was perfected, they'd just be spending lots of time trying to move it through the various processes. Simply put, having the Golden W awarded for advancing up to 5 articles and a picture to the main page promotes article improvement on a much broader scale.  ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved comment- getting this proposed award with the same article is not just difficult- it is impossible. Current DYK rules exclude from DYK any article that In The News has put on the main page.  (I know that's not the proposal, but since it was misunderstood, I thought clarification was in order.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought of that, but then I thought it would be possible to get something on ITN and then later DYK. But that occurrence would be so rare it wouldn't be worth issuing an award for. ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 07:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary to say the least, but that's not the worst. This award (like those which have gone before it) simply debase the encyclopedia. They have nothing to do with our readers, only our editors: yet for fifty thousand editors, most of them irregular, we have five million hits each day on the Main Page. Wikipedia is not about rewarding its editors and the Main Page should not be held up to such schemes. Any new editor awards should go to those people who, as volunteers, have benefited the readers in whatever sense: a reward which is not connected with the readers has no sense at all. Physchim62 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I think you're right and you're wrong. You're right that this award, like others, has nothing to do with our readers, only our editors. You're also wrong that this award has nothing to do with our readers, only our editors. What I mean is that it is a way of rewarding editors for improving the encyclopedia, which motivates them, which means more articles and/or quality articles for Wikipedia. So it indirectly has everything to do with our readers.
 * 2) While your comments are welcomed, I don't know that an "oppose" section belongs above (although comments opposing creation of a WikiProject certainly do have a place in the discussion section). It is my understanding that once there are enough people signed on to a wikiproject, the project opens. The people coming here and signing up under "Support" aren't voting to start a WikiProject, they're signing up to be its first members. The guidelines say that once we get 5 to 10, we can start the project. I haven't checked other proposals, though, so I could be wrong. Could someone more familiar with the process enlighten me? ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. I would like to help in this project, but we are voting to have this in wikispace, just like right here. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * mmmkay. I think they should make that clearer on the instruction pages. ɳoɍɑfʈ  Talk! 05:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is so much that goes into "improving the encyclopedia" that is not covered by these awards: for example, improving an article without a five-fold improvement in length or "good article" nomination. And the simple fact that these awards exist creates an indication that these are the "preferred" ways of improving the encyclopedia, when actually there are much more pressing needs! Physchim62 (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It does not give the impression that there are "preferred" ways of improving the encyclopedia. It gives people who prefer certain ways of improving it recognition. 2) There are preferred ways of improving the encyclopedia, BTW. If I recall, Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying that Wikipedia could use 10,000 more Featured Articles more than 1,000,000 new ones. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 12:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)