Wikipedia talk:Four Award/Archive 1

Winners' list?
I've already knocked them into alphabetical order, would anyone be opposed if I was to put them into a sortable table? The date that they were awarded could also be included? J Milburn (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be great if they were sortable by article, editor, date of Four award, and maybe the four relevant promotion dates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO, good idea. ♠  TomasBat   22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the information to a sortable table, but I have not added any dates. I will leave that to anyone else who believes it would be useful. J Milburn (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is useful, but I like the dates I have added. When there are some articles with interesting date histories this will become a more interesting feature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the dates are useful – it's potentially interesting to see how long the entire process takes from start to finish. (I have a feeling Tunnel Railway – 55 days from creation to FA, with DYK and GA along the way, may have set the record for shortest time to rack up all 4.) No, Indigenous people of the Everglades region beats it with 48 days – iride  scent  '' 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What about Creatures of Impulse in 33 days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That must be the record; given how slowly GAC and FAC work now, I can't see it ever being broken. –  iride scent  17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would guess the record is closer to 20 days. I have seen an article reach GA on its second day (Scott Smith (mayor)) and get DYKed later.  It would be interesting to see how many of these achieved GA before DYK.  If something can get a GA in a day, it can get an FA in a week or so.  Thus, the record is probably less than three weeks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thought
Would this make more sense if it used the same "From redlink or 5X expansion" definition of "New article" used at DYK, rather than the strict "started from a redlink"? Thanks to the bots and Blofeld, there are literally thousands of one-line substubs; if one were to take this version of Beltoft through to FA, for example, they'd have effectively created it from new, but technically wouldn't meet the "started a new article" aspect. –  iride scent  17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea. Cirt (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would this not turn it into the "three award"? DYK, GA and FA? J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, good point by . Cirt (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because it would still have to be the subject who did the initial creation/expansion – so the people (not naming names, like) who lurk on Special:Newpages kill stealing bringing newly created articles to wider attention using the 'New Article by someone else' option at DYK wouldn't qualify. It just seems unfair that a hypothetical user who decided to make an FA out of Southborough, Bromley (current article – in full – "Southborough is a place in the London Borough of Bromley.") would be technically excluded. – iride  scent   23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty much almost exactly like WP:TRIPLE. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I more or less supposed so... Then again, this award focuses specifically on one single article; the point of the "Four Award" (perhaps quite exaggerated) is that of building a bond between editor and article. Perhaps a way of reinforcing the implications of the "Four Award" would be by extending its scope a bit: TonyTheTiger had suggested an additional criteria: When the article becomes TFA. Whether this precise extension of the award is relevant or not, I think the idea of widening the scope could make the award more unique.
 * Just throwing ideas, we could start with the basic model of the "Four Award" (New article?, DYK, FA, GA) and the award could have extensions such as...
 * (The article is featured as Today's featured article?)
 * The article contains a Featured picture which you either added?, successfully nominated, are the author of, or uploaded.
 * The article contains a Featured sound ehich you either added?, successfully nominated, are the author of, uploaded, or recorded.
 * The article is part of a Featured topic.
 * So, for instance, if the article fulfills the basic "Four Award" criteria and 1 of the optional extension criteria, it would go as, say, a "Pentaward" (as 5 criteria are fulfilled in total). If it fulfills 2, it would go as, say, "Hexaward". If 3, "Heptaward". If 4, "Octaward". And so on. ♠  TomasBat   03:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really like that idea, personally. Firstly, main page featured articles aren't really an achievement, they're a prize. Compare- we don't congratulate someone for managing to hold up a trophy, we congratulate them for winning it. As for adding a featured picture, featured sound or whatever- not every article is going to have a suitable featured n, and it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the award to turn this from an article award into a more general "look at all these shiny things" award. J Milburn (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you've reminded me of Durova's very interesting project to combine recordings with scores and portraits- see User:Durova/Recording score portrait. J Milburn (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with - it takes quite a bit of work to get an article to WP:FA status, but zero additional work to get it to WP:TFA... Cirt (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I liked the original featured topic idea. It implies that you put significant work into at least two other similar articles, and that the article in question was a part of a greater work rather than an end in itself. Full admission: this is self-serving, as I didn't create Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, but expanded it to get it through DYK, went through GAN and FAC, and then had it as the lead article of a featured topic. I was going to suggest something concerning lists (as lists are excluded from GAN), but can't think of anything. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * At first, I was interested in adding wrinkles to the Award for TFA or FT, but now I think that this award is what it is and other awards should be created for other combinations of contributions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

NT
Watch for me :P Res Mar 19:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Redundant request
Re, my mistake, no worries. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect policy
I need a clarification on pages created from redirects. I assume that since there was no encyclopedic content it counts as creating a page for these purposes. Am I correct?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would assume so, seems sensible. I think common sense applies, of course- if someone was splitting large amounts of content from a featured article over a redirect, they could hardly be called the "creator", but generally, I would imagine it's fine. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are sort of saying in general yes, but it is really a case by case situation. I have three prospective awardees at User:TonyTheTiger/4awardeligiblelist.  I think all three of these would be eligible.  I don't think I forked content on any of the three.  I gather what you are saying is that a forked content page creation over a redirect is questionable.  I think there are probably many redlink page creations that we would consider eligible that are forked content.  However, I think you are correct in a case by case ruling.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As previously said, I think there ought to be some kind of "from a redirect or essentially meaningless article" proviso as well – thanks to bot aided stub creation runs like this there are literally thousands of essentially content-free placeholder articles like Southborough, Bromley (full text at present "Southborough is a place in Bromley"). How about a broader definition of "new article", along the lines of "the article at the time you began working on it was a redlink, redirect, or contained less than 20 words of prose"? –  iride scent  17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your examples of meaningless articles are examples of ineligible Four Award articles those are articles that exist as stubs. Your article has encyclopedic content that provides information to the reader.  I have a ton of articles like Kasim Reed and such that I have taken from extremely stubby status to GA, which I do not think should be eligible. Thus, this should not count as the first edit of his page because it already existed as a stub, while this should count, IMO.  Let's not go down the slippery slope of defining a stubby or meaningless article.  Before you know it we would be declaring every DYK a page creation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this award is for recognizing that the project has no encyclopedic content on a particular topic and shepherding an article on the topic to a high level rather than improving something that already has encyclopedic content regardless of how stubby it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Former featured ineligible
I just want to make sure that this article rewards editors for keeping their articles at featured class. I do not believe that formerly featured articles that have gone through all four stages are eligible, but I would like to hear what consensus is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that current featured articles are eligible, and they should probably be removed from the list if demoted. Articles that were once featured would not be eligible. J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We should design an article talk page tag that says this article is listed at the WP:FOUR Awards with a credit for author. If you the article is listed at WP:FAR please notify this editor and if it has become a WP:FFA please remove it at WP:FOUR as well.  Maybe a wrinkle should be added to ArticleHistory.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Brabham BT19
Nice idea chaps - good to see people rewarded for persistence. Sadly, I don't think I'm eligible for Brabham BT19, since as far as I remember, I didn't nominate it for DYK. I'm not quite sure how to check this though. Is there any easier way than trawling through my edit history? 4u1e (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit history is not that hard to use if you know what date you are looking for. It was DYKed on 4/5/07. Go to your user contribution history. Click on older.  The URL should now contain a YYYYMMDDHHMMSS format time for the newest contribution on that page. Change the date to a proper date to look for the DYK info.  Then search for "Did You" or something like that.  You are correct.  You were not involved in the DYK for this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * However, DYK credits often are given to page creators without their involvement. I have to think about the best way to check this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess for this award you should be involved in the DYK discussion even if you did not nominate it. Thus, you would be ineligible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's correct, as I can't see anything on DYK in my contribution history between the date of creation of the article and the date it appeared in DYK. Ah, well - thanks for the thought anyway! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the confusion. Please nominate any other work that may qualify in the future.  Also, if you know of any current FAs that should be included please nominate them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Four award
Thank you very much. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Skipping the GA nomination phase
Plasticup wrote: "I created the article Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon (1994), suggested it for DYK, and carried it all the way through FAC. At one point I had nominated it for Good Article status, but the backlog was enormous and other editors suggested that I send it straight to Featured Article Candidacy. I was the primary editor at every stage of its life. Would I still qualify for your award, even though the article skipped GA status?"

Personally, I believe it would be against the spirit of the four award to retain it if GA nomination was skipped and the user carried it straight to FA status, as it's practically the same. Thought/input needed so that we can establish consensus on this (not sure if this was discussed before/ if consensus regarding this matter has already been reached). ♠  TomasBat   23:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be ineligible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would nominate it for GA status retroactively, if that queue wasn't so backlogged. But alas, my personal edification isn't worth troubling the already-harried GA reviewers. Thanks for considering the case all the same.  Plasticup  T / C  01:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A weird idea came up on my 15 year-old mind...how about make a "Three award"? This is because of what was mentioned above, and for the fact that more featured articles went straight up to the FAC nominations, while skipping the GA. A "Two award" IMO would be a little bit too much, but could be considered... --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  05:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the WP:FOUR award. As a wikipedian, you are able to create your own awards. This one is for doing work toward all four of the stages of an article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of that, but I was wondering if you guys wanted to contribute, and have this affiliated with this one. I can't do everything myself! --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No one commented in almost two weeks...anyone interested in helping me...? --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I would be against such an award. I think it would be like discussing almost making a tennis or golf grand slam as if it was almost as good as making a grand slam.  I think if it is created, it should be completely separate like WP:GA and WP:FA or WP:VPICS and WP:FP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As a recent recipient of this award, I was coming here to make exactly this point. There is no need to require that users go through the good article process if they can proceed directly to the featured article process. I do not wish to criticize the GA process, but it is after all the opinion of one Wikipedian rather than a consensus of reviewers and its criteria are a subset of the FA criteria. I don't really see why this should be a separate award, I think that FA status should be viewed as including GA status en passant. Savidan 16:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing GA diff
Below is the start of an attempted nomination that I am unaable to find a GAN diff for. The article was promoted, but I can not find a formal nomination either on the article's talk page or at WP:GAC. Unless one can be found, This will not qualify.

Article: The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)
 * Symbol neutral vote.svg New article: DIFF
 * Symbol question.svg DYK: and nomination [ DIFF]
 * Symbol support vote.svg GA: nomination [ DIFF]
 * Symbol star FA gold.svg FA: Featured article candidates/The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * DYK appearance, GA nomination, GA promotion. – iride  scent  16:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, but it appears that the GA work was by a different person and this article is not eligible for WP:FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, (unless the GA nominator was just nominating it on someone else's behalf, but it doesn't seem very likely). – iride  scent  20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fifth level
Just wanted to suggest that a fifth level, or Five Award, might go for navigating the article past the waters of Featured Article of the Day to be shown on the main page.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would surely be a different award. The thing is that I am not sure that there is any additional editorial work necessary to go from WP:FA to WP:TFA in general.  I have had numerous WP:TFAs and have never had to do any extra editorial work to achieve TFA.  This is really an award for excellence in editing and raising the quality level of articles.  Thus, TFA recognition is not really appropriate as a part of this award.  This award is for taking an article from nothing to something, to something good, to something excellent.  It is not an award for convincing people that an article is an excellent article worth sharing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I guess I viewed these steps somewhat as hurdles or milestones in the life of an article, where TFA might make sense as a final step.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 13:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
It's really appreciated to receive some recognition for an article that was a labor of love. Thank you very much! Hotstreets (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Rescue vs. creation?
I'd like to (in a self-serving way) propose an alternative criterion to article creation: rescuing an article from CSD, PROD, or AfD. If an article had been deleted, the rescuer could just as easily have recreated it later, meeting the current first criterion. In many cases, the early life of such articles may involve quite a bit more focused work to fend off an AfD than the non-controversial creation of an article. Any sympathy here? Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly a rescue is a noble effort. I think it should get its own barnstar and such.  I have yet to see an article go from AFD through DYK, GA and FA. You can see on my user page, that I am responsible for many GA restorations and saves, but no FAs. Do you know of such articles?  I think such cases should be grouped in with their own type of accomplishment under a different award.  Your contribution is valued and you should be commended.  I think that the type of recognition for a save is different from a creation.  This is a very specific award.  If we make gradual changes, it will possibly lose its meaning.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got two that I've taken from AfD to DYK to GA so far: Murder of Robert Eric Wone and Yellow Star (book). The former is an unsolved crime with salcious overtones, while the second may never have enough information published about it to merit an FA. I have been tossing around the idea of a "trash-to-treasure" award, for saving something at AfD, getting a DYK (obviously, more likely by 5x expansion than initial creation), and getting it to GA.  The odds of someone getting something from AfD to FA are pretty long, I would expect. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina went from AfD --> GA --> FA. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a trash to treasure award is overdue. I don't think a stop at DYK would even be required. You could have silver and gold awards for AFD to GA and FA.  You may also want to include recreations, but recreations are touch since sometimes things are rightly deleted and then recreated at a later time when notability is more clear.  Maybe just AFD.  YOu will have to think about it. I support it and have two GA noms for the award if GA level is recognized. I don't expect either of mine to make FA, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. a better name might be the Midas touch award where you make something golden out of something that wasn't so hot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Midas Bronze = kept and DYK, Silver = kept, DYK, and GA, Gold = kept, DYK, GA, and FA? I like it.  a Midas Gold would be pretty nigh impossible. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You just need some graphics people to make your award some logos.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly not impossible- Connie Talbot is now a FA after several AfDs and a period as a GA. Sadly, it never went to DYK, so isn't eligible for the Four Award. Would there be a place for this in the proposed award? J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We are official
As per WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award this project is now official.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hadn't got round to supporting the move but well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great to see. +sj +  08:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work! I've got a few ideas for articles in the pipeline, so hopefully one day I can pick up one or two of these. WFCforLife (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In the News
I created an article that I foolishly put up for ITN (which it passed) rather than DYK (which it would have passed), and I think I could get it past GA and FA if only I had the carrot of my first, and probably only, FOUR, dangled infront of my greedy eyes.

So, I can has FOUR? MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are saying, but if you are asking whether ITN substitutes for DYK with regards to FOUR qualification, it doesn't.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that was an answer. Errr, thanks? MickMacNee (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Four Award is for a very specific achievement- if this was allowed, we would also have to allow articles that could have been DYKs, but weren't, or could have passed GA, but didn't. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This award doesn't recognise achievement, it's just a pedantic box-ticking exercise. To suggest that people with a DYK worthy article shouldn't go for ITN, just so they can qualify for a FOUR later, is frankly ludicrous. MickMacNee (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does ITN preclude DYK now? I took Rod Blagojevich corruption charges and Inauguration of Barack Obama to both ITN and DYK. Both are still FOUR-eligible. You should still be able to do both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dyk - Articles that have appeared on the main page's In the News section are not eligible. I selected ITN over DYK, for obvious reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess in the future, you should put it on DYK first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the time it worked its way throught the DYK queue, it would be rejected by ITN as stale, and they also probably have a similar rule about not listing items that have recently been on the main page as a DYK. MickMacNee (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Like I said, it is possible to do both by starting the article well before it is a critical news item as with the examples above from my own experience. As for breaking news that can not wait for the DYK queue, editors will have to make a choice.  This is a specific award. Talk to the ITN folks about starting their own award. You are free to open a straw poll on this issue if you like.  You could probably open one and contact all the people who have one this award for opinions.  Your concern is the closest to changing the rule as I have been.  I think it is a close call, but believe ITNs should be ineligible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) I'm with MickMacNee on this one. ITNs are much harder to get than DYKs. An article that makes ITN should not be excluded from the Four Award because of a DYK rule that prevented an otherwise eligible article getting a DYK. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is not degree of difficulty. The point is that this award is for article development through various stages that each award is eligible for.  Most articles are not eligible for ITN, but all are eligible for DYK.  If an editor makes an article ineligible it is not much different from waiting to long to nominate an article for DYK and realizing it is ineligible.  If you think about logical stages of development an article is created, it becomes substantive in size with at least one interesting encyclopedic fact, it becomes a fairly thorough and high quality article (WP:WIAGA), then it becomes complete article passing all quality standards (WP:WIAFA).  There is no stage at which an article must become newsworthy so ITN does not represent one of the stages of development of an article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You've missed the point entirely. The complaint is not about why FOUR doesn't recognise ITN credits at all, it is the fact it forces people who have a DYK credit-worthy article, not to go for the more prestigeous ITN listing. You cannot get both, whichever way you list them, and ITN is indisputably the more prestigeous credit of the two. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Further, this is not the same as people not simply knowing about DYK and hence not qualifying (and lord knows I have a million ineligable creations because I didn't know about DYK for a long time, and then stupidly initialy took the view that it was not the done thing to self-nom), it is the fact that FOUR actively distorts the process for those that do know about DYK/ITN, and makes them work toward the selfish goal of a FOUR rather than the more magnanimous goal of an ITN. Infact, it's a rather self-absorbed award all round really, somebody recently put one of my creation-DYKs up for GAR even though I would have eventually, and I now am not sure whether that has immediately ruined my chance of getting a FOUR for it, or whether I am supposed to fight it out with the nominator to act on the reviewers comments before he does, to qualify. It has totally distored for me what should be a good feeling. MickMacNee (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said above both of my ITNs were also DYKs. I have been shown that you can not do both if you do ITN first, but I think you can get both if you do DYK first.  Nobody creates an article with a FOUR in mind.  I never have.  I don't think about FOUR until after something is already a GA. WP works on consensus.  I would be more than willing to poll all past recipients of the award on whether ITNs should be allowed to substitute.  I personally oppose the change, but would go with the majority.  If you want to open a poll, contact all past recipients of the award and create an RFC to submit to WP:POST, we could get a broad view.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue of whether a DYK-ITN path is technically possible is separate to the moral issue of whether going the DYK worthy ITN route instead of just DYK represents any less of an achievement for the purposes of this FOUR award, which says it represents recognition of life-cycle dedication. And I think DYK-ITN is much harder to achieve than just DYK, and rests as much on luck and circumstance as it does on just dedication, and arguably deserves more than a FOUR, perhaps a FOUR*, to recognise this fact. MickMacNee (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If we are to allow DYK-eligible articles that were instead ITN'd, why not allow any article that was at one stage DYK eligible? J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For all the reasons already given. You aren't comparing similar scenarios in the slightest. One is a built in flaw of this award, which cannot be overcome even when you know about DYK/FOUR, the other isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the criteria couldn't be expanded to be creation, DYK or ITN, GA, FA. That's still four, but DYK and ITN seem to now be mutually exclusive, and the assertion is that ITN is a higher hurdle. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm talking about DYK eligible ITN listings. It is hard, but not impossible, to get one line stubs onto ITN, if you just sit watching the news channels. MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so what is the relevant difference between DYK-eligible articles that happen to have been on DYK and DYK-eligible articles that happen not to have been on ITN? J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The first have been recognized by a community process for new articles, the second have not. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As has any article which has been marked as patrolled. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine: "The first have been recognized by a community process that features new articles on the main page, the second have not." Better? Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a difference, yes, but why is it a relevant one? The argument revolves around the fact that these could have been DYKs but were not, not that they have been featured on the main page. If that was the argument, then we would also have to include anything that appeared in OTD. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is OTD mutually exclusive with, and more difficult to achieve than, DYK? If so, that might be a relevant comment. I really don't have a problem seeing where MickMacNee is coming from in his suggestion--do you seriously not see what he's really proposing? Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what he's proposing, and I do think it may have some merit. I just think his argument is rather weak, as it applies equally to articles that could have been DYK, but weren't. And, in answer to your first questions, no (see Tony's counterexamples) and no (see what Mick explained with regards to one line stubs). J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I have made clear my position against the proposed change, but I have also outlined an acceptable method proponents of the change could pursue it if they are interested. I have nothing more to say on the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, let's have a poll then. I've kicked one off in a section below. I'll notify ITN, you can notify past receipients if you want. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also notified DY talk. MickMacNee (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't like polls. Why can't we just discuss this? J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

ITN FOUR eligibility straw poll
I'm not even convinced the no side even gets the question, and Cirt's vote takes that apparent misunderstanding to a whole new level, but I certainly don't want to be accused of badgering by trying to clarify it any more than I already have, so I consider this poll closed neither as yes or no, but rather, wtf?. MickMacNee (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just wow. The discussion doesn't go your way, you ignore it and start a poll. The poll doesn't go your way and so you close it yourself with a nonsensical statement. I advise you drop the issue, now; this idea may have had merit, but you've killed it yourself. If this continues, it's going to bring this fledgling project into disrepute. J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its pretty obvious why a poll was started, see above, your permission isn't needed in the slightest. As for your comment on bringing this into disrepute, that is the most hypocrytical statement I have heard in a long time. Me withdrawing this poll is entirely down to you, and your nonsensical accusation of badgering for doing something so heinous as trying to ensure people actual answer the question actually asked, rather than what they think was asked. If you want it to go down that way and then amazingly pretend it's just a discussion that didn't go my way, then fine, you can have that outcome. It isn't what happened, but whatever. The fact you are appear to be so vested in this award to poll is frankly enough for me to never want to have anything to do with it ever again, whether its operation makes sense or not, or whether the organisers can even conceive why somone would take a DYK to ITN instead or not. MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I was on the fence. If you'd just discussed this, I could well have been convinced. You didn't. I accept that my "permission" isn't needed, but, equally, you have no right to keep restarting the discussion until it goes your way... J Milburn (talk)

Pursuant to the above discussion, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following question.

Poll question

 * Should edits that would qualify for a DYK listing, but are instead listed and accepted for ITN, count as the DYK requirement for a FOUR award?
 * Note: Quick clarification after the first few votes - per the underscored part, this proposal is not about recognising any ITN listing (i.e. five lines and three refs, even though it is not that simple either). It is about recognising ITN listings that would have got a DYK at the time, and not forcing people to have to go for DYK instead of ITN just to get a FOUR. And of course, this verification of DYK eligibiliity at the time of the ITN listing can and should be part of the proposed new FOUR format. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why someone with a clearly strong opinion is allowed to add these "notes"? Should I also be adding "notes" pointing out the irrationality of your position? If you want a poll, let us have a poll. If you want a discussion, stick with the discussion we already had. This has effectively become a new discussion because you weren't happy with the way the old one was going. J Milburn (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If your notes are clarifications of the question based on other's misunderstandings of it, then by all means add away. If its just opinion on the question, then obvioulsy not. MickMacNee (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is clear, and hardly worded neutrally anyways. Keep your notes to yourself. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How on Earth is it not neutral? And it obviously wasn't clear given the replies below. MickMacNee (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem there's any great misunderstanding. This amounts to badgering those opposing you. Note that I was originally not particularly opposed to this idea; in being so confrontational, you've practically forced my hand and placed me in a position of opposition. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) Yes as poll initiator. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, but only if... Unfortunately, DYK has also the rule that something that was in ITN cannot be DYK, even if it otherwise would pass the requirements (per criterion #1). As such, new articles that appeared in ITN and would otherwise been eligible for DYK should count just the same as if the article had appeared in DYK. Yes, ITN has less strict requirements but we can easily require the article to have been eligible for DYK rather than requiring that it has appeared in it to count towards WP:FOUR. The choice to submit a DYK-eligible article for ITN instead should not be punished when it comes to this project. Regards  So Why  16:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, why not? This is likely to be an uncommon situation, anyway (the unnamed article in question isn't even a GA yet, apparently). As SoWhy says, there's no need for this award to "punish" a choice to go for ITN rather than DYK, given that the proposed amendment makes it clear that the article would have to have been DYK-eligible (i.e. new with 1,500 characters of text or 5x expansion of an existing article). A good new or expanded article in ITN on an item of topical interest will be read by as many, or more, visitors than a short-lived hook on DYK.  There is a danger of this award taking itself too seriously, y'know - it's a recognition of an editor's involvement at three key stages of an article's life (creation, GA, FA) with something else thrown in to distinguish it from a Triple Crown. I don't see having an ITN placement as corrupting the founding principles behind the award beyond recognition. If we're asserting, as per the FAQ above, that DYK is an "[advance] in editorial quality" (huh?), then ITN is as much of an advance too. BencherliteTalk 17:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No

 * 1) No see above section. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) No I agree with Tony and I really do not see how ITN is somehow more "prestigious" or more difficult than DYK when DYK has the far stronger criteria. ITN's only apparent criteria are a five sentence update, with a source, and being "current." --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is about DYK qualifying ITN edits, not any old ITN. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it DYK qualifying, then it should be DYK passing as well. Otherwise, it is just any old ITN. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And as above, it is not a simple exercise to say it can collect both - you need a special set of lucky circumstances to be able to get both, and that i.m.o. takes the recognition far beyond what this award is supposed to be about - recognising life cycle dedication. At the end of the day, an ITN credit gets placed at the top of the Main Page, and can last for days. A DYK gets four hours max buried down the bottom, and may or may not appear on the main page in a time-zone relevant to the news event, so it is clear to me that nobody with a DYK qualifying ITN should be forced to go for DYK not ITN just to fulfill the FOUR criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) No per not seeing any requirement that INT needs to have anything more than a section on an article talking about a current event, where DYK requires new content or 5x expansion. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is about DYK qualifying ITN listings, the proposal is not to recognise any old normal ITN. Any claim for a FOUR would have to verify that at the DYK/ITN stage, the ITN entry would have also been eligible for DYK at the time of listing at ITN. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) No. As I demonstrated above, there is no relevant difference between articles that were DYK eligible but appeared on ITN, and other articles that were DYK eligible. If we allow one, we must allow the other, and I don't think many would favout allowing any article that was once DYK eligible, for obvious reasons. I am open to persuasion, but, currently, I can see no convincing reason to allow this at all. J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) *What about requiring that they were DYK eligible at the time they appeared on ITN? The point of the proposal is to not punish someone for nominating an article for ITN instead of DYK, not to make it easier to circumvent the requirements DYK has. Regards  So Why  19:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) **So, again, why allow non-DYK articles that were eligible for DYK at the time they were on ITN, but not allow articles that were eligible for DYK at any other time? J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Because the only reason they were not on DYK was that DYK does not allow articles that are or were on ITN. Since you can only choose either DYK or ITN, choosing the latter should not disqualify you from the Four Award (the emphasis is on the "choosing" here, we are only talking about articles that you would have successfully nominated for DYK if you had not nominated it for ITN). Regards  So Why  20:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) ****"You are eligible for a Four Award if you sucessfully take an article you created through Did You Know, Good Article Nominations and finally Featured Article Candidates." -> "You are eligible for a Four Award if you sucessfully take an article you created through Did You Know (or, if it was eligible for both Did You Know and In The News at the same time, and you chose to take it though In The News instead, but not in any other case where it could have gone through Did You Know but did not or when it was eligible for Did You Know before or after appearing on In The News but did not appear on Did You Know), Good Article Nominations and Featured Article Candidates." Instruction creep, anyone? J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when were the Awards pages part of the essential instruction set for contributing to Wikipedia? Stop being so dramatic. MickMacNee (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What the Hell does that have to do with anything? KISS. Piles of instructions and exceptions are never going to be a good thing. Also, it's interesting that you choose to talk to me now that I am being facetious, but ignored me when I was actually trying to discuss the issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Creep is intended to keep Wikipedia's core workings accessible to the newcomer. It is not relevant in the slightest when you get to this stage. MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Instruction creep is bad whereever it occurs. J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Per above comments by and . Cirt (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup participation
Hi, this is just a note that if you want to sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, then you have until 23:59 UTC on December 31 to do so. This can be done here. The WikiCup is a fun competition aiming at improving Wikipedia's content, with points awarded for featured articles, good articles, featured lists, featured pictures, featured sounds, featured portals, featured topics, good topics, did you know?, in the news and valued pictures. Over 170 people are already involved, but there's still time to sign up. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact myself or one of the other judges on our talk pages or on IRC, or ask on one of the WikiCup talk pages. Hope to see some of you there. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)