![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Do articles that have been made from redirects count as new articles for the purpose of the Four Award? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 13:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Didn't see this answered in the archives: so why is the gray "neutral" icon used to symbolize a newly created article? How was it chosen? czar · · 02:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I have come across a WP:FOUR article where the bulk of the creation was in userspace. What is the start date of the article in your opinion? I was thinking that we should do a history merge and use the very start of the development. However, a case could be made for the move date to article space.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
(Above Content copied from User talk:Little Mountain 5 edits)
(od) You know, it really does seem to me that this can be resolved, and honest, ethical and logical collaborations between editors recognised here, by taking something from what both Tony and LittleMountain have said. LM, I understand, believes that articles start when they enter main space. This is logical to me -- how can an article be said to really 'be' in WP until this is so? Tony seems to be saying that the edits and editors before each milestone are what counts. If we take this as read, then in this case you have two editors working on an article in user space, and never mind who made the first edit in user space because that's not what counts. Another editor then moves the result of that collaboration into main space, and it doesn't matter who that editor was because what he moved in was a collaborative effort from user space. So why is it so hard to give two editors credit for the article creation, as well as the DYK, GA and FA? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
( ←) I was under the impression that Nick-D would receive the award, not Ian Rose. Nick-D created the first encyclopedic content (in userspace, which I thought we were counting). Little Mountain 5 02:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Given that my request for the award I was offered to be removed hasn't been honoured yet, I've just done it myself. Please do not add it with the meaningless [placeholder] tag. Nick-D ( talk) 07:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
MY DECISION IS FINAL in the sense that I am no longer commenting on this thread. I am not opening up FOUR to a special MILHIST style collaboration. I don't want to wake up and see all of the battleships, Airplane models, famous battles, and notable military leaders known to man listed here because I allowed MILHIST to dictate what a collaboration is. You are free to pervert the rule as I have posted it.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Should Category:Wikipedia four award articles be showing up on article talk pages? Currently no category is showing on the talk pages.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 12:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
tracking category}}
template in it), which means it doesn't show up on the pages it's in. At least, that's the current behavior; if someone thinks it should be difficult they're welcome to propose it. As far as I know, the purpose of the category is not to put an indication on the article talkpage, but just to keep a count of how many articles there are (and in that case it's not necessary for anything to appear on the talkpage).
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
12:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)User:TonyTheTiger has twice reverted my attempt to remove my name and articles I have written from the WP:FOUR records page, which seems rather silly to me. Can we find a consensus here so that I can disassociate myself from this project? (pinging regular user here User:Little Mountain 5 as well) Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger collaborated in starting the article South Side, Chicago, so it should be removed from the list of awards. Here are the diffs:
According to TonyTheTiger's own methods for determining who gets an award, it looks like Speciate was the person who started this collaborative effort. Such a beginning would stop the article from qualifying. Binksternet ( talk) 01:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
First thanks to Jclemens ( talk · contribs) and Doncram ( talk · contribs) for the encouragement on my talk page and Epeefleche ( talk · contribs) for his email. Doncram, especially made it worth the time for me to spend the last 2 hours to write my thoughts below. There are three controversies at issue here: 1.) what are the merits of various forms of collaborations in terms of FOUR, 2.) by what authority is my directorship supported and 3.) what rights do users have to remove their editorial contributions from the records of the project. -- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
1.) I intended to recognize those people who were actually involved in the article editorially before it was an encyclopedic topic as creators (full stop). This was regardless of if it was created in article space, user space, offline or a sandbox. There are three types of collaborative efforts that this would make possible by recognizing those involved in the transition from a redlink to an encyclopedic article. The most common would be the person who identifies a topic by creating a redlink who then collaborates with the person who expands his redlink to an encyclopedic article. The other common and natural type of collaboration would be a page creator whose article was unencyclopedic enough to have been deleted and who collaborates with another person who recreated the article at an encyclopedic level. Once the original page creation edits are restored it could be regarded as a controversy as to whether the creator or the re-creator of the page merits recognition as the creator. I have yet to see a formerly deleted article become a featured article and feel that this type will always be rare. The third type of collaboration that I intended to recognize was people who are involved in a series of edits that lead to the first encyclopedic content for a given topic. All of these are people who took positive steps toward getting an article to the point where it had its first encyclopedic content. They were involved before the encyclopedic merits of the topic were put forth satisfactorily on WP.
Recently, there has been controversy surrounding widening the window for a fourth type of collaborative creation that I believe opens the door far too wide for piling in to the collaborative creation standing. There has been commotion involving whether a group of people involved in the very early stages of the development of an article count as creators. In the special case at issue these persons actually planned to collaborate, but the discussion has come down to a proposed 24-hour rule allowing editors to get co-creation credit for edits within the first 24-hours. Many articles are highly developed in the first 24 hours. Sometimes, articles are tens of thousands of characters long within the first 24 hours. Getting involved in an obviously interesting article that is already thousands of characters long and highly encyclopedic is not co-creation in my mind, but rather assistance toward DYK and GA. What I fear with the expanded rule is for it to become common to pile into new quality creations for the sake of a FOUR. This would bastardize the process in my mind.
Binksternet ( talk · contribs) has taken action to disallow collaborations. I would prefer that no collaborations be allowed than that a 24-hour rule be enacted. This seems to be a sort of compromise that may mollify protestors who have led to controversy #3. These edits were reversed by Doncram ( talk · contribs) until discussion is held.
2.) The ed17 ( talk · contribs) and others question my claim to be the director of the project. All three things that I claim to be the director of on WP are by self-appointment ( WP:FOUR, WP:CHICAGO and WP:WAWARD) as the only party interested enough to do all the things to keep them running. At FOUR, the creator of the project left it to me to formalize the project and to apply at the WP Council for official projecthood. After doing so, I have built the project up over the last 4 years with some assistance from Little Mountain 5 ( talk · contribs) and automation help from Rjanag ( talk · contribs). It is I who have gone through the pool of all preexisting Featured articles to identify the set of FOURs. I have also promoted the majority of current articles. If you want another director, the only other person eligible based on experience is Little Mountain although now that the project is a bit of a success, others may want the role despite our disagreements. I don’t know if my directorship is under assault or not, but he is the only person I would endorse if deposed. Although he has historically been far less active in the project than I have been, I would be comfortable if he were given the directorship. At this point, my directorial authority is subject to community approval.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
3.) I have noted that the list of articles is a recorded history of the project. FOUR has a long history of recording all eligible articles in a tabular manner. It also has a long history of enumerating all historical events of the project. Furthermore, the project maintains records of all Former FOUR articles. The vast majority of FOUR-listed articles were never applied for or nominated. They were just listed for having met the project’s criteria by me. In conjunction with listing articles, I have placed merit badges on user talk pages.
ErrantX ( talk · contribs) has claimed people have even declined knighthoods and thus can decline to be listed among knights. I don’t believe that anyone has been awarded knighthood and then later asked to be removed from the annals of knighthood, although maybe international conflicts have brought about such requests.
People who have expressed disinterest in being listed are now at issue with the project as to how disassociation should be administered. They have not only removed their names from the recorded project history, but also their articles. I am attempting to maintain the credibility of the records by using placeholders If they don’t want to see their articles listed at FOUR, do they want to be on a list of persons who wish to decline FOUR awards or would they rather receive FOUR awards and then repeatedly decline them as they are listed by people promoting them.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Tony. Perhaps it's worth explaining what your intent for this award is. I mean, is it supposed to be a way of rewarding and encouraging people for the work they do. Or is it a record for a certain set of criteria you have come up with. If the latter I don't think it's especially important, and serves only as your (and perhaps a couple others) interest - so probably something you should maintain in user space. If the former I think you're losing sight of that fact in favour of imposing strict criteria. Remember we always talk about the spirit, rather than the letter, of rules. The same applies here. If people collaborate closely on an article perhaps they do deserve FOUR recognition. And if people specifically do not want to appear on the page then there's no reason I can see to refuse (or, rather, it would be the polite to acquiesce to their request). Ultimately, I think you're worrying too much about something that should be lightweight and informal. -- Errant ( chat!) 14:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the instructions have been out of step with the project FAQs for several years to the point of confusion.
Examples below assume the more common New-DYK-GA-FA sequence, unless otherwise stated.
In general any article that was started in userspace/sandbox would have a new starting point versus the one I evaluated "The first encyclopedic edit". Clearly all rejected FAs started in userspace/sandboxes need to be reevaluated for the following types.
All current FOURs need to by reevaluated for the following type.
With the likely approval of Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC, new WP:GAs that have never been DYKs will be eligible for the DYK process. To keep the spirit of the four stages (1. An article defining an encyclopedic topic, 2. An article with at least one encyclopedic fact, 3. A complete treatment of the encyclopedic topic, 4. One of the best treatments of the topic possible), I am likely to change the rules so that an article must be nominated for DYK before passing WP:GAC in order to be a WP:FOUR. Although we have 75 articles with DYK calendar dates later than their GA dates, only 2 of these will be affected by the rule change.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 06:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope this won't effect the articles which, through dint of being strong new articles, are promoted to GA status before they appear on DYK, though they were nominated as at DYK for being new. J Milburn ( talk) 10:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
For all concerned parties expect an upcoming RFC in the next few days. I am drafting it at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC and await some detail on the statistics for the project.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 13:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
We have discovered a flaw in the prior code used to identify FOUR candidates. Some editors use promoted instead of listed in T:AH for successful WP:GACs. We had previously only identified articles with DYK, GA and FA in their T:AH if the GA had been coded with listed. E.g., the 2008 FA, Double Seven Day scuffle, just showed up at FOUR today. Over the next few weeks as talk page caches get updated, we may notice more eligible articles.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If I undo the RFC, I will likely be sanction for some policy reason. However, I would like to move to table the RFC for three reasons:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This "detailed" RFC is blind to the existing RFC and thus includes redundant material such as the issue of director. As well, this RFC is not formulated in a neutral fashion—instead it is written to maximize sympathy with the author's position. Binksternet ( talk) 07:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the background on these issues, but I just received this message, which sounds extremely biased, from TonyTheTiger. It looks like a lot of other people got these as well. Seems very much like WP:canvassing. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 07:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I realize this has already been resolved, but I wanted to add that I'm rather startled to wake up today and find that Tony has made accusations of bad faith against me on around 150(!) project and user pages. Tony, I asked you several times to make your own RfC brief and neutral or to ask another party of your choice to create one; when you refused, I opened a discussion of my own and invited you to still post your own questions and comments. It's poor form to accuse me of calculatedly suppressing discussion; I don't know how to make it clearer that this isn't my intent. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
And if there is a "real" RFC, where is it, anyway...? Montanabw (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
As the RfC's creator, I'm voluntarily withdrawing it. Frankly, this is a fairly trivial issue, and the "principle of the thing" is no longer worth putting up with a single editor's obsessive posting about me, which I now see on half the user and project talk pages I open. I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while in hopes that things can cool off and I can return to my normal work. Thanks to all who participated here. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Determination of eligibilityShould this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director? Elected project director
Community consensus
Discussion
It wasn't intended to be either a description of mob behavior, nor derogatory or inaccurate. I'm open to another was to describe it, but the only thing I could come up with was the "group from MilHist." That's my lack of verbosity, not an indication of ill will.
GregJackP
Boomer!
01:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Allowing opt-outShould this project allow users to opt out of having qualifying articles awarded and listed? Yes
No
Discussion I don't think I understand this question. If I want to make a list of pages that meet a given set of criteria, e.g., pages that were both started and taken to FA by the same person, are you really saying that I should not be permitted to list the page if the person who created it objects to me taking notice of the fact that it meets the requirements for my list? This is such an extreme form of WP:OWNership that I must be missing something here. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
If something is an award, an editor should have an opportunity to decline receiving it. But if something is a list, then since we are all creating public domain text here, we don't OWN the right to have something (including our user names) not placed on a list any more than we have the right to own an article. I suggest Tony (and others, if they wish) maintain a FOUR list, which editors cannot prevent themselves being included on, while anyone who wants the award can ask for it at the list / project / talk / whatever page, and receive it if eligible (and decline it too - you know, like the Beatles and those OBEs!). hamiltonstone ( talk) 12:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK how is not allowing opt-out not the same as creating a social network for no actual use? With the "No" comments, it seems increasingly that this is a scoreboard for collecting points. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
General discussion on RfCIt's been about two weeks since Tony said an RfC would appear in the next few days; that process itself has proved to be controversial, so I'm attempting to get the ball rolling with some simple questions. More discussion may need to follow the above, depending on the results, but this should at least give us a start. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) TonyTheTiger is highly involved, in a good way, in developing/doing the Four award over many years. This included going in and examining history of many FA articles. Whether he stated it perfectly or not about "originating", whether he mis-remembered who did what when or whether he misstated something or whether he is perfectly right and some quick review by others is incorrect, or not, there is no doubt that he developed and operated the running of this good award program for a long time. Drop the stick, people. Go away, perhaps? --
do
ncr
am
00:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Where did I say that you were not a good editor? I don't recall having any interactions with you before, and I don't know you or your editing. Please do not put words in my mouth. If I thought you were a poor editor, I would have said so--I'm not known for either tact nor subtlety, and I don't know your editing. I know theirs - I participated in a couple of reviews of Eds articles, and have had similar interactions with Nick and Ian in the past. I don't think what they did here was appropriate, and I'm opposed in a general sense to watering down, or lessening the standards that are required for the award. I don't think it was appropriate what they did. And I'm semi-retired because I have real world commitments that take me away from actively editing Wiki for long periods of time.
GregJackP
Boomer!
23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Four Award discussionDoesn't this award have the danger of promoting WP:OWN? (ie. if this award is promoted, won't some editors determine that they need to take ownership of articles in an attempt to win this award? ) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 11:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Proposal for closureThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Recommendations following result of RfC:
(Second Amended) First Alternate Proposal for ClosureHopefully this proposal would reflect consensus more accurately, and would inspire less vitriol (full disclosure, I'm a Four Award recipient):
I think I've covered all the highlights of consensus, but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong. Cdtew ( talk) 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Second Alternate Proposal for Closure
Administrator comment: with RFCs, particularly contentious RFCs it is very often preferable that an uninvolved administrator determine consensus and close the discussion. My view is that this is a contentious RFC and that discussing and voting on proposals for closure is simply extending the dispute in a most unhelpful way. I would strongly suggest that these "proposed closure" sections be closed and a request placed for an administrator closure per the instructions here WP:AN/RFC. In fact, assuming there is no objection in the next short while, I will close these discussions myself. -- Slp1 ( talk) 13:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
We have a decision to make: Do we select an interim director during Tony's block or do we just not have a director at all?
Tony is now unblocked. The oppression will continue PantherLeapord| My talk page| My CSD log 21:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Triple Crown's
2013 Steeplechase Event is here! Get your horses ready and participate the race of the year All featured content nominated from October 1, and all content promoted from November 1, is eligible. |
![]() |
— ΛΧΣ 21 07:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this award need a director? Imzadi 1979 → 10:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Please keep this about the question at hand. We aren't discussing any people involved, rather the question is about whether or not such a role is needed. Imzadi 1979 → 11:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
We danced around this issue for far too long: Can anyone tell me what the role of a Four Award Director is? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 12:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not usually interested in awards, but I am in wikiprojects. I happened to see a mention of this in Wikipedia:GA which was recently featured on the wikiproject report on the Signpost. I am wondering if there is a wikiproject concerned with various awards at wikipedia? Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
There is now a icon. Type {{icon|FOUR}} to use it. I am working with another editor on creating a topicon for user pages.--
ColonelHenry (
talk)
04:59, 24 October 2013 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Do articles that have been made from redirects count as new articles for the purpose of the Four Award? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 13:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Didn't see this answered in the archives: so why is the gray "neutral" icon used to symbolize a newly created article? How was it chosen? czar · · 02:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I have come across a WP:FOUR article where the bulk of the creation was in userspace. What is the start date of the article in your opinion? I was thinking that we should do a history merge and use the very start of the development. However, a case could be made for the move date to article space.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
(Above Content copied from User talk:Little Mountain 5 edits)
(od) You know, it really does seem to me that this can be resolved, and honest, ethical and logical collaborations between editors recognised here, by taking something from what both Tony and LittleMountain have said. LM, I understand, believes that articles start when they enter main space. This is logical to me -- how can an article be said to really 'be' in WP until this is so? Tony seems to be saying that the edits and editors before each milestone are what counts. If we take this as read, then in this case you have two editors working on an article in user space, and never mind who made the first edit in user space because that's not what counts. Another editor then moves the result of that collaboration into main space, and it doesn't matter who that editor was because what he moved in was a collaborative effort from user space. So why is it so hard to give two editors credit for the article creation, as well as the DYK, GA and FA? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
( ←) I was under the impression that Nick-D would receive the award, not Ian Rose. Nick-D created the first encyclopedic content (in userspace, which I thought we were counting). Little Mountain 5 02:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Given that my request for the award I was offered to be removed hasn't been honoured yet, I've just done it myself. Please do not add it with the meaningless [placeholder] tag. Nick-D ( talk) 07:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
MY DECISION IS FINAL in the sense that I am no longer commenting on this thread. I am not opening up FOUR to a special MILHIST style collaboration. I don't want to wake up and see all of the battleships, Airplane models, famous battles, and notable military leaders known to man listed here because I allowed MILHIST to dictate what a collaboration is. You are free to pervert the rule as I have posted it.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Should Category:Wikipedia four award articles be showing up on article talk pages? Currently no category is showing on the talk pages.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 12:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
tracking category}}
template in it), which means it doesn't show up on the pages it's in. At least, that's the current behavior; if someone thinks it should be difficult they're welcome to propose it. As far as I know, the purpose of the category is not to put an indication on the article talkpage, but just to keep a count of how many articles there are (and in that case it's not necessary for anything to appear on the talkpage).
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
12:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)User:TonyTheTiger has twice reverted my attempt to remove my name and articles I have written from the WP:FOUR records page, which seems rather silly to me. Can we find a consensus here so that I can disassociate myself from this project? (pinging regular user here User:Little Mountain 5 as well) Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger collaborated in starting the article South Side, Chicago, so it should be removed from the list of awards. Here are the diffs:
According to TonyTheTiger's own methods for determining who gets an award, it looks like Speciate was the person who started this collaborative effort. Such a beginning would stop the article from qualifying. Binksternet ( talk) 01:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
First thanks to Jclemens ( talk · contribs) and Doncram ( talk · contribs) for the encouragement on my talk page and Epeefleche ( talk · contribs) for his email. Doncram, especially made it worth the time for me to spend the last 2 hours to write my thoughts below. There are three controversies at issue here: 1.) what are the merits of various forms of collaborations in terms of FOUR, 2.) by what authority is my directorship supported and 3.) what rights do users have to remove their editorial contributions from the records of the project. -- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
1.) I intended to recognize those people who were actually involved in the article editorially before it was an encyclopedic topic as creators (full stop). This was regardless of if it was created in article space, user space, offline or a sandbox. There are three types of collaborative efforts that this would make possible by recognizing those involved in the transition from a redlink to an encyclopedic article. The most common would be the person who identifies a topic by creating a redlink who then collaborates with the person who expands his redlink to an encyclopedic article. The other common and natural type of collaboration would be a page creator whose article was unencyclopedic enough to have been deleted and who collaborates with another person who recreated the article at an encyclopedic level. Once the original page creation edits are restored it could be regarded as a controversy as to whether the creator or the re-creator of the page merits recognition as the creator. I have yet to see a formerly deleted article become a featured article and feel that this type will always be rare. The third type of collaboration that I intended to recognize was people who are involved in a series of edits that lead to the first encyclopedic content for a given topic. All of these are people who took positive steps toward getting an article to the point where it had its first encyclopedic content. They were involved before the encyclopedic merits of the topic were put forth satisfactorily on WP.
Recently, there has been controversy surrounding widening the window for a fourth type of collaborative creation that I believe opens the door far too wide for piling in to the collaborative creation standing. There has been commotion involving whether a group of people involved in the very early stages of the development of an article count as creators. In the special case at issue these persons actually planned to collaborate, but the discussion has come down to a proposed 24-hour rule allowing editors to get co-creation credit for edits within the first 24-hours. Many articles are highly developed in the first 24 hours. Sometimes, articles are tens of thousands of characters long within the first 24 hours. Getting involved in an obviously interesting article that is already thousands of characters long and highly encyclopedic is not co-creation in my mind, but rather assistance toward DYK and GA. What I fear with the expanded rule is for it to become common to pile into new quality creations for the sake of a FOUR. This would bastardize the process in my mind.
Binksternet ( talk · contribs) has taken action to disallow collaborations. I would prefer that no collaborations be allowed than that a 24-hour rule be enacted. This seems to be a sort of compromise that may mollify protestors who have led to controversy #3. These edits were reversed by Doncram ( talk · contribs) until discussion is held.
2.) The ed17 ( talk · contribs) and others question my claim to be the director of the project. All three things that I claim to be the director of on WP are by self-appointment ( WP:FOUR, WP:CHICAGO and WP:WAWARD) as the only party interested enough to do all the things to keep them running. At FOUR, the creator of the project left it to me to formalize the project and to apply at the WP Council for official projecthood. After doing so, I have built the project up over the last 4 years with some assistance from Little Mountain 5 ( talk · contribs) and automation help from Rjanag ( talk · contribs). It is I who have gone through the pool of all preexisting Featured articles to identify the set of FOURs. I have also promoted the majority of current articles. If you want another director, the only other person eligible based on experience is Little Mountain although now that the project is a bit of a success, others may want the role despite our disagreements. I don’t know if my directorship is under assault or not, but he is the only person I would endorse if deposed. Although he has historically been far less active in the project than I have been, I would be comfortable if he were given the directorship. At this point, my directorial authority is subject to community approval.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
3.) I have noted that the list of articles is a recorded history of the project. FOUR has a long history of recording all eligible articles in a tabular manner. It also has a long history of enumerating all historical events of the project. Furthermore, the project maintains records of all Former FOUR articles. The vast majority of FOUR-listed articles were never applied for or nominated. They were just listed for having met the project’s criteria by me. In conjunction with listing articles, I have placed merit badges on user talk pages.
ErrantX ( talk · contribs) has claimed people have even declined knighthoods and thus can decline to be listed among knights. I don’t believe that anyone has been awarded knighthood and then later asked to be removed from the annals of knighthood, although maybe international conflicts have brought about such requests.
People who have expressed disinterest in being listed are now at issue with the project as to how disassociation should be administered. They have not only removed their names from the recorded project history, but also their articles. I am attempting to maintain the credibility of the records by using placeholders If they don’t want to see their articles listed at FOUR, do they want to be on a list of persons who wish to decline FOUR awards or would they rather receive FOUR awards and then repeatedly decline them as they are listed by people promoting them.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Tony. Perhaps it's worth explaining what your intent for this award is. I mean, is it supposed to be a way of rewarding and encouraging people for the work they do. Or is it a record for a certain set of criteria you have come up with. If the latter I don't think it's especially important, and serves only as your (and perhaps a couple others) interest - so probably something you should maintain in user space. If the former I think you're losing sight of that fact in favour of imposing strict criteria. Remember we always talk about the spirit, rather than the letter, of rules. The same applies here. If people collaborate closely on an article perhaps they do deserve FOUR recognition. And if people specifically do not want to appear on the page then there's no reason I can see to refuse (or, rather, it would be the polite to acquiesce to their request). Ultimately, I think you're worrying too much about something that should be lightweight and informal. -- Errant ( chat!) 14:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the instructions have been out of step with the project FAQs for several years to the point of confusion.
Examples below assume the more common New-DYK-GA-FA sequence, unless otherwise stated.
In general any article that was started in userspace/sandbox would have a new starting point versus the one I evaluated "The first encyclopedic edit". Clearly all rejected FAs started in userspace/sandboxes need to be reevaluated for the following types.
All current FOURs need to by reevaluated for the following type.
With the likely approval of Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC, new WP:GAs that have never been DYKs will be eligible for the DYK process. To keep the spirit of the four stages (1. An article defining an encyclopedic topic, 2. An article with at least one encyclopedic fact, 3. A complete treatment of the encyclopedic topic, 4. One of the best treatments of the topic possible), I am likely to change the rules so that an article must be nominated for DYK before passing WP:GAC in order to be a WP:FOUR. Although we have 75 articles with DYK calendar dates later than their GA dates, only 2 of these will be affected by the rule change.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 06:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope this won't effect the articles which, through dint of being strong new articles, are promoted to GA status before they appear on DYK, though they were nominated as at DYK for being new. J Milburn ( talk) 10:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
For all concerned parties expect an upcoming RFC in the next few days. I am drafting it at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC and await some detail on the statistics for the project.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 13:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
We have discovered a flaw in the prior code used to identify FOUR candidates. Some editors use promoted instead of listed in T:AH for successful WP:GACs. We had previously only identified articles with DYK, GA and FA in their T:AH if the GA had been coded with listed. E.g., the 2008 FA, Double Seven Day scuffle, just showed up at FOUR today. Over the next few weeks as talk page caches get updated, we may notice more eligible articles.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If I undo the RFC, I will likely be sanction for some policy reason. However, I would like to move to table the RFC for three reasons:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This "detailed" RFC is blind to the existing RFC and thus includes redundant material such as the issue of director. As well, this RFC is not formulated in a neutral fashion—instead it is written to maximize sympathy with the author's position. Binksternet ( talk) 07:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the background on these issues, but I just received this message, which sounds extremely biased, from TonyTheTiger. It looks like a lot of other people got these as well. Seems very much like WP:canvassing. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 07:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I realize this has already been resolved, but I wanted to add that I'm rather startled to wake up today and find that Tony has made accusations of bad faith against me on around 150(!) project and user pages. Tony, I asked you several times to make your own RfC brief and neutral or to ask another party of your choice to create one; when you refused, I opened a discussion of my own and invited you to still post your own questions and comments. It's poor form to accuse me of calculatedly suppressing discussion; I don't know how to make it clearer that this isn't my intent. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
And if there is a "real" RFC, where is it, anyway...? Montanabw (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
As the RfC's creator, I'm voluntarily withdrawing it. Frankly, this is a fairly trivial issue, and the "principle of the thing" is no longer worth putting up with a single editor's obsessive posting about me, which I now see on half the user and project talk pages I open. I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while in hopes that things can cool off and I can return to my normal work. Thanks to all who participated here. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Determination of eligibilityShould this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director? Elected project director
Community consensus
Discussion
It wasn't intended to be either a description of mob behavior, nor derogatory or inaccurate. I'm open to another was to describe it, but the only thing I could come up with was the "group from MilHist." That's my lack of verbosity, not an indication of ill will.
GregJackP
Boomer!
01:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Allowing opt-outShould this project allow users to opt out of having qualifying articles awarded and listed? Yes
No
Discussion I don't think I understand this question. If I want to make a list of pages that meet a given set of criteria, e.g., pages that were both started and taken to FA by the same person, are you really saying that I should not be permitted to list the page if the person who created it objects to me taking notice of the fact that it meets the requirements for my list? This is such an extreme form of WP:OWNership that I must be missing something here. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
If something is an award, an editor should have an opportunity to decline receiving it. But if something is a list, then since we are all creating public domain text here, we don't OWN the right to have something (including our user names) not placed on a list any more than we have the right to own an article. I suggest Tony (and others, if they wish) maintain a FOUR list, which editors cannot prevent themselves being included on, while anyone who wants the award can ask for it at the list / project / talk / whatever page, and receive it if eligible (and decline it too - you know, like the Beatles and those OBEs!). hamiltonstone ( talk) 12:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK how is not allowing opt-out not the same as creating a social network for no actual use? With the "No" comments, it seems increasingly that this is a scoreboard for collecting points. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
General discussion on RfCIt's been about two weeks since Tony said an RfC would appear in the next few days; that process itself has proved to be controversial, so I'm attempting to get the ball rolling with some simple questions. More discussion may need to follow the above, depending on the results, but this should at least give us a start. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) TonyTheTiger is highly involved, in a good way, in developing/doing the Four award over many years. This included going in and examining history of many FA articles. Whether he stated it perfectly or not about "originating", whether he mis-remembered who did what when or whether he misstated something or whether he is perfectly right and some quick review by others is incorrect, or not, there is no doubt that he developed and operated the running of this good award program for a long time. Drop the stick, people. Go away, perhaps? --
do
ncr
am
00:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Where did I say that you were not a good editor? I don't recall having any interactions with you before, and I don't know you or your editing. Please do not put words in my mouth. If I thought you were a poor editor, I would have said so--I'm not known for either tact nor subtlety, and I don't know your editing. I know theirs - I participated in a couple of reviews of Eds articles, and have had similar interactions with Nick and Ian in the past. I don't think what they did here was appropriate, and I'm opposed in a general sense to watering down, or lessening the standards that are required for the award. I don't think it was appropriate what they did. And I'm semi-retired because I have real world commitments that take me away from actively editing Wiki for long periods of time.
GregJackP
Boomer!
23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Four Award discussionDoesn't this award have the danger of promoting WP:OWN? (ie. if this award is promoted, won't some editors determine that they need to take ownership of articles in an attempt to win this award? ) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 11:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Proposal for closureThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Recommendations following result of RfC:
(Second Amended) First Alternate Proposal for ClosureHopefully this proposal would reflect consensus more accurately, and would inspire less vitriol (full disclosure, I'm a Four Award recipient):
I think I've covered all the highlights of consensus, but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong. Cdtew ( talk) 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Second Alternate Proposal for Closure
Administrator comment: with RFCs, particularly contentious RFCs it is very often preferable that an uninvolved administrator determine consensus and close the discussion. My view is that this is a contentious RFC and that discussing and voting on proposals for closure is simply extending the dispute in a most unhelpful way. I would strongly suggest that these "proposed closure" sections be closed and a request placed for an administrator closure per the instructions here WP:AN/RFC. In fact, assuming there is no objection in the next short while, I will close these discussions myself. -- Slp1 ( talk) 13:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
We have a decision to make: Do we select an interim director during Tony's block or do we just not have a director at all?
Tony is now unblocked. The oppression will continue PantherLeapord| My talk page| My CSD log 21:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Triple Crown's
2013 Steeplechase Event is here! Get your horses ready and participate the race of the year All featured content nominated from October 1, and all content promoted from November 1, is eligible. |
![]() |
— ΛΧΣ 21 07:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this award need a director? Imzadi 1979 → 10:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Please keep this about the question at hand. We aren't discussing any people involved, rather the question is about whether or not such a role is needed. Imzadi 1979 → 11:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
We danced around this issue for far too long: Can anyone tell me what the role of a Four Award Director is? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 12:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not usually interested in awards, but I am in wikiprojects. I happened to see a mention of this in Wikipedia:GA which was recently featured on the wikiproject report on the Signpost. I am wondering if there is a wikiproject concerned with various awards at wikipedia? Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
There is now a icon. Type {{icon|FOUR}} to use it. I am working with another editor on creating a topicon for user pages.--
ColonelHenry (
talk)
04:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)