This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I was planing to nominate User:WxGopher, for his work on the article Climate of Minnesota. However, after reading the criterion for the four award, I am somewhat confused as to whether he is eligible. WxGopher created the article Climate of Minnesota in 2006 and continued to edit it until it's GA win in 2008. He then continued to work on it until it became a Featured article 3 days ago. Does that qualify him for this award? -- Ashershow1 talk• contribs 22:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
A shot in the dark here, but when I wrote Evolutionary history of lemurs, it earned one of these awards, but the article has recently been split. The taxonomy information has been moved into its own article ( Taxonomy of lemurs), and I will (eventually) gain credit for creation, GA, and FA. Depending on how you look at it, you could say that it shares its DYK credit with the original article, especially since split articles cannot be nominated for DYK. Basically, if I had been smart when I wrote the article, I would have created 2 articles, not one. What's the official verdict on this? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
What if you expanded an article from a redirect, and managed to reach every other requirement (i.e. DYK, GA, and FA)? Does that still count? Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
.. in the section at Wikipedia:FOUR#History. I don't know of any other page on Wiki written to advance individual editors' contributions in the history of a venue. Quite un-wikilike, even beyond the usual for the reward culture. Could someone rewrite it to remove the glorification of individual editors ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The Good article item says, "You must significantly help in improving that same article... with you being credited, to Good Article status.
The GA process doesn't provide "credit" to anyone. The nominator is not a special position, and the nom need not have done anything except notice that the article probably meets the criteria and suggest that someone review it. It might be possible to require the person to "participate in the review", but if the article clearly meets the criteria, then it's possible that only the reviewer will "participate", i.e., by posting a note to say that it meets the criteria and will be listed. It would be undesirable to encourage editors to engage in needless make-work "participation" solely for the purpose of technically complying with the Four Award.
On balance, I think that the simplest solution is to drop the "with you being credited" statement. What really matters is the significant improvement in the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Calling User:Little Mountain 5. Before this award had really charted its course, a bunch of awards were recognized. I am not so sure that I earned all four stages of Chicago Board of Trade Building. Specifically, I think maybe it should be withdrawn for my unimpressive contributions at the time this earned its DYK credit.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I created Category:Four Award articles and started tagging articles manually. At, User_talk:Rjanag#Category:Four_Award_articles, I have been debating with Rjanag ( talk · contribs) about whether this is a talk space or article space category. Note that there exist Category:Good articles and Category:Featured articles as an article space category and Category:Wikipedia featured articles & Category:Wikipedia good articles as a talk space category. From what I can tell the official GA count comes from the article space category, making it the official one AFAIK. However, he seems to more in favor of this being a talk space category. Calling for opinions, even though I have already tagged about 75% of our articles.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
good article}}
and {{
featured article}}
at the top of the page, so they don't clutter the category list. This category, on the other hand, has been
added manually into the category list at the end of the article and is mixed in with actual content categories. Therefore, even though it is hidden and thus doesn't show up in the article itself, from in the edit window it still clutters up the list. This problem is completely avoidable because, as I noted at
User_talk:Rjanag#Category:Four_Award_articles, there are numerous ways to work this category into the talk page instead (such as addint it into the {{ArticleHistory}} template).As for Tony's claim that "the official GA count comes from the article space category, making it the official one", this is just plain wrong. The count in {{
GA number}}
comes from an entirely different category, which is a talkpage category and is populated by the {{
ArticleHistory}}
template (see
[1]). I'm not sure why Tony thinks the article-space category added by the icon is official, since
another editor already told him it isn't.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
02:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've added this category into {{
ArticleHistory}}
. Now all that needs to be done is remove [[Category:Four Award articles]]
from all the articles in
Category:Four Award articles (should be easy to do with AWB). Then, for each of these articles, adding the following line into the {{ArticleHistory
template should place the article into
Category:Wikipedia four award articles.
|four=yes
(It may take a couple days for the category to show up if you don't purge or null-edit the page.) After this is done, I can delete Category:Four Award articles. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 15:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Note discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hamlet chicken processing plant fire/archive1. If anyone would like to take over the article, it needs some cleanup.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles and wondered if there is a way to request a subset of that list of articles that are former good articles. If this list is say less than 500 or so, we might be able to go through it to figure out a complete set of current WP:FOUR articles.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
When I look at the bottom of my talk page, I see the following: Categories (++): Wikipedia featured article contributors | Wikipedia featured list contributors | Wikipedia featured picture contributors | Wikipedia featured sound contributors | Wikipedia featured portal contributors | Wikipedia Good Article contributors | Wikipedia Good Article reviewers | Wikipedia featured topic contributors | Wikipedia Good Topic contributors | Wikipedia Did you know contributors | Wikipedians who contribute to ITN | Wikipedia rollbackers | Wikipedia reviewers
<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia Four Award article contributors]]</includeonly>
to the bottom of the userbox (if there is one) then it will add anyone using the box to the category. Then you just need to create the category page. Of course, not everyone will use the box, and there's no way to force people to be part of categories they do not want to be, so it will never be an accurate count.
J Milburn (
talk)
16:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Just noting that I was unable to deliver YellowMonkey ( talk · contribs)'s Four Awards for 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing and 1964 Brinks Hotel bombing because he has retired and his talk page is fully protected. Little Mountain 5 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the lead now calculates the number and prevalence of FOUR articles dynamically. I was wondering why GAs are mentioned here. By their definition, FOUR articles are no longer GAs and aren't even counted among GAs. To get a more accurate picture you'd have to add FOURs to the GA count before dividing by the total number of FOURs, but that still wouldn't technically be true. -- Gyrobo ( talk) 15:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: the following was copied here from User talk:Little Mountain 5.
Based on a ruling that the article became encyclopedic with this edit, we have a new record for oldest article at WP:FOUR.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
With respect to the DYK requirement, what does "with you being credited" mean? I have never seen anyone credited on the mainpage and rarely discussion of who did the work on the DYK nomination page.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I was recently reminded that the people who receive DYK credit for a nomination are those who participate in the expansion, as measured from the time expansion starts until the nomination is made. Although we are evolving, I think we evaluate all the edits in the 4 stages: 1. Those up to the point of an encyclopedic topic; 2. Subsequent edits to the point of DYK recognition; 3. subsequent edits to the point of GA recognition; and 4. subsequent edits to the point of FA recognition. Thus if most of the work taking an article from one stage to the next is done by one editor who may even be absent in the final polishing to achieve that next quality level, we may still recognize him. We recently granted a FOUR to someone who was not really involved in a GAC discussion although his work was the primary reason an article advanced from DYK to GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The project needs a ribbon, medal or barnstar for 25 FOURs.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I was planing to nominate User:WxGopher, for his work on the article Climate of Minnesota. However, after reading the criterion for the four award, I am somewhat confused as to whether he is eligible. WxGopher created the article Climate of Minnesota in 2006 and continued to edit it until it's GA win in 2008. He then continued to work on it until it became a Featured article 3 days ago. Does that qualify him for this award? -- Ashershow1 talk• contribs 22:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
A shot in the dark here, but when I wrote Evolutionary history of lemurs, it earned one of these awards, but the article has recently been split. The taxonomy information has been moved into its own article ( Taxonomy of lemurs), and I will (eventually) gain credit for creation, GA, and FA. Depending on how you look at it, you could say that it shares its DYK credit with the original article, especially since split articles cannot be nominated for DYK. Basically, if I had been smart when I wrote the article, I would have created 2 articles, not one. What's the official verdict on this? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
What if you expanded an article from a redirect, and managed to reach every other requirement (i.e. DYK, GA, and FA)? Does that still count? Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
.. in the section at Wikipedia:FOUR#History. I don't know of any other page on Wiki written to advance individual editors' contributions in the history of a venue. Quite un-wikilike, even beyond the usual for the reward culture. Could someone rewrite it to remove the glorification of individual editors ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The Good article item says, "You must significantly help in improving that same article... with you being credited, to Good Article status.
The GA process doesn't provide "credit" to anyone. The nominator is not a special position, and the nom need not have done anything except notice that the article probably meets the criteria and suggest that someone review it. It might be possible to require the person to "participate in the review", but if the article clearly meets the criteria, then it's possible that only the reviewer will "participate", i.e., by posting a note to say that it meets the criteria and will be listed. It would be undesirable to encourage editors to engage in needless make-work "participation" solely for the purpose of technically complying with the Four Award.
On balance, I think that the simplest solution is to drop the "with you being credited" statement. What really matters is the significant improvement in the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Calling User:Little Mountain 5. Before this award had really charted its course, a bunch of awards were recognized. I am not so sure that I earned all four stages of Chicago Board of Trade Building. Specifically, I think maybe it should be withdrawn for my unimpressive contributions at the time this earned its DYK credit.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I created Category:Four Award articles and started tagging articles manually. At, User_talk:Rjanag#Category:Four_Award_articles, I have been debating with Rjanag ( talk · contribs) about whether this is a talk space or article space category. Note that there exist Category:Good articles and Category:Featured articles as an article space category and Category:Wikipedia featured articles & Category:Wikipedia good articles as a talk space category. From what I can tell the official GA count comes from the article space category, making it the official one AFAIK. However, he seems to more in favor of this being a talk space category. Calling for opinions, even though I have already tagged about 75% of our articles.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
good article}}
and {{
featured article}}
at the top of the page, so they don't clutter the category list. This category, on the other hand, has been
added manually into the category list at the end of the article and is mixed in with actual content categories. Therefore, even though it is hidden and thus doesn't show up in the article itself, from in the edit window it still clutters up the list. This problem is completely avoidable because, as I noted at
User_talk:Rjanag#Category:Four_Award_articles, there are numerous ways to work this category into the talk page instead (such as addint it into the {{ArticleHistory}} template).As for Tony's claim that "the official GA count comes from the article space category, making it the official one", this is just plain wrong. The count in {{
GA number}}
comes from an entirely different category, which is a talkpage category and is populated by the {{
ArticleHistory}}
template (see
[1]). I'm not sure why Tony thinks the article-space category added by the icon is official, since
another editor already told him it isn't.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
02:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've added this category into {{
ArticleHistory}}
. Now all that needs to be done is remove [[Category:Four Award articles]]
from all the articles in
Category:Four Award articles (should be easy to do with AWB). Then, for each of these articles, adding the following line into the {{ArticleHistory
template should place the article into
Category:Wikipedia four award articles.
|four=yes
(It may take a couple days for the category to show up if you don't purge or null-edit the page.) After this is done, I can delete Category:Four Award articles. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 15:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Note discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hamlet chicken processing plant fire/archive1. If anyone would like to take over the article, it needs some cleanup.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles and wondered if there is a way to request a subset of that list of articles that are former good articles. If this list is say less than 500 or so, we might be able to go through it to figure out a complete set of current WP:FOUR articles.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
When I look at the bottom of my talk page, I see the following: Categories (++): Wikipedia featured article contributors | Wikipedia featured list contributors | Wikipedia featured picture contributors | Wikipedia featured sound contributors | Wikipedia featured portal contributors | Wikipedia Good Article contributors | Wikipedia Good Article reviewers | Wikipedia featured topic contributors | Wikipedia Good Topic contributors | Wikipedia Did you know contributors | Wikipedians who contribute to ITN | Wikipedia rollbackers | Wikipedia reviewers
<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia Four Award article contributors]]</includeonly>
to the bottom of the userbox (if there is one) then it will add anyone using the box to the category. Then you just need to create the category page. Of course, not everyone will use the box, and there's no way to force people to be part of categories they do not want to be, so it will never be an accurate count.
J Milburn (
talk)
16:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Just noting that I was unable to deliver YellowMonkey ( talk · contribs)'s Four Awards for 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing and 1964 Brinks Hotel bombing because he has retired and his talk page is fully protected. Little Mountain 5 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the lead now calculates the number and prevalence of FOUR articles dynamically. I was wondering why GAs are mentioned here. By their definition, FOUR articles are no longer GAs and aren't even counted among GAs. To get a more accurate picture you'd have to add FOURs to the GA count before dividing by the total number of FOURs, but that still wouldn't technically be true. -- Gyrobo ( talk) 15:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: the following was copied here from User talk:Little Mountain 5.
Based on a ruling that the article became encyclopedic with this edit, we have a new record for oldest article at WP:FOUR.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
With respect to the DYK requirement, what does "with you being credited" mean? I have never seen anyone credited on the mainpage and rarely discussion of who did the work on the DYK nomination page.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I was recently reminded that the people who receive DYK credit for a nomination are those who participate in the expansion, as measured from the time expansion starts until the nomination is made. Although we are evolving, I think we evaluate all the edits in the 4 stages: 1. Those up to the point of an encyclopedic topic; 2. Subsequent edits to the point of DYK recognition; 3. subsequent edits to the point of GA recognition; and 4. subsequent edits to the point of FA recognition. Thus if most of the work taking an article from one stage to the next is done by one editor who may even be absent in the final polishing to achieve that next quality level, we may still recognize him. We recently granted a FOUR to someone who was not really involved in a GAC discussion although his work was the primary reason an article advanced from DYK to GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The project needs a ribbon, medal or barnstar for 25 FOURs.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)