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.
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
What do you all think about a barnstar of vigilance for those that reliably and consistently fight the good fight against vandalism? -- ClockworkSoul 17:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Purple Barnstar
I've been thinking about a Barnstar based on the Purple Heart. How about a Purple Barnstar rewarded to those who consistently get their user pages vandalised because of their efforts to fight vandalism on Wikipedia? I have three candidates:
"Here's a reward for being vandalized so much." Huh? How about people who get vandalized by one idiot on a vandal spree because they said something disagreeable? And people who are just lucky enough not to get vandalized despite fighting vandalism wouldn't "deserve" one, I suppose? Sounds like an odd concept to me. Of course, everyone's free to make up their own rewards; this one just isn't my cup of tea. (Then again, it would be a good replacement for the Purple Heart thingy, which really makes no sense.) A reward for fighting vandalism, sure... But a reward for being vandalized? JRM 20:54, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
Well, I'm just a newbie, so I don't know enough about Wikipedia and what barnstars mean to everyone. I think ClockworkSoul's Barnstar of Vigilance would be great recognition for fighting vandalism. I'm thinking that this Purple Barnstar would be a good recognition for the people who are always the target of vandals. It's not a reward that someone would award another person who got vandalised once (like the Purple Heart's "one medal per wound")—maybe that's what you were thinking when you first saw it. I think people would prefer to give this to recipients who have been the target of multiple (different) vandals. Some people have left Wikipedia because they're always being attacked by vandals (I haven't been here long, but I think Zoe was one of those people), while others see being vandalised as a badge of honour. Maybe it would even discourage vandals from vandalising a user page when it says "Hey, I've been vandalised, and I'm proud of it!". Then again, I've never been accused of being sensible. -- Deathphoenix 23:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure this needs a full-blown barnstar per se, but I still think the idea has merit. As Winston Churchill said, "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.". This view might be worth some kind of recognition. Of course, it is also worth keeping in mind that those with the most-often-vandalized user pages tend to be those that don't play as nicely with others as they probably should. -- ClockworkSoul 21:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I feels somewhat uncomfortable with this, I fear it could be perverted into encouraging polemics and confrontation. But people are probably nicer than this... Rama 21:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Newbie question: Would people be more confrontational with vandals in order to get a Barnstar? And would people award barnstars to those who are confrontational with vandals? -- Deathphoenix 00:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The short answer is: possibly. Wikipedia hosts an enormous diversity in its users and their views and attitudes. I have no doubt that some people would skew towards antagonistic behavior towards vandals if such behavior is awarded. Perhaps it would be best if we not travel down that particular road with such an award. -- ClockworkSoul 04:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm... good point. I certainly wouldn't want to enourage antagonistic behaviour. I was simply hoping that other people get some sort of recognition for being vandalised. However, I think such people are already recognised by other users performing reverts for them. I'll delete the purple barnstars later today. -- Deathphoenix 16:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Purple Heart
In my opinion, it is inappropriate to award a Purple Heart on Wikipedia. It is (slightly) disrespectful to the servicemen who are awarded genuine Purple Hearts. Before you say it: I know that the Wikipedia Purple Heart isn't the same as the military Purple Heart. So if it isn't the same, why not use a different name and a different picture? Axl 21:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You mean, get rid of it? :-) I wouldn't use it either, but for the simple reason that it's too American. Of course, others are free to hand it out, though I don't know what for (the description doesn't say). If it's anything like a "reward" for being vandalized, we already had a discussion on a "purple barnstar" to replace it. I still wouldn't hand out that, but it's arguably better than the Purple Heart. JRM 21:41, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that it isn't entirely appropriate here. Not only is it slightly disrespectful and poorly-defined in purpose, but this very American symbol is simply not a good fit for our multinational community. (I feel the same way about the Hero of Socialist Labor). One last observation: it is rarely used, and has only been given to 3 users: Mbecker, Theresa knott, and Raul654. It looks to me that it was abandoned with the introduction of the barnstar. In summary: I would not miss it if it were removed from the page. -- ClockworkSoul 08:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As one of the recipients, I've been asked to comment. I think Axl's point is a valid one - that it could potentially offend recipients; on the other hand, people are free to do as they please. I don't think we should advertise the purple heart or the hero of labor though; I suggest we remove that section entirely. →Raul654 16:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Mark. Actually, I asked you because you are noted as the person who imported the award, not because you are a recipient. :-) I'm going to remove the award from the page. If any latecomers wish to object, I will be happy to discuss further. Axl 17:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Doing the same for hero of labor. -- ClockworkSoul 19:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good. I'd not stumbled across this page before, but I've made a handful Hero awards since, oh, June 2004, I think, as a personal mark of appreciation (and not implying any kind of official recognition): I'm glad that it has been removed. -- ALoan(Talk) 15:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in here, because this rationale is one I see often, and it troubles me. If there is, out there somewhere, an *actual* recipient of an *actual* Purple Heart from the DoD who is *actually* offended (and I would throw in "and isn't a crank", but it would weaken my argument :-), then by all means, I would think this a topic for discussion. But let's not get into pre-emptively censoring ourselves, just because we *think* someone somewhere might get offended, 'k? --Baylink 23:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Baylink, I understand your point, but I disagree. In this situation, the potential for offence makes me feel uncomfortable awarding, or even seeing, the Heart on Wikipedia. Axl 11:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Music Barnstar
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
In recognition of commandable deeds of musical heroism on Wikiepedia
Here is a suggestion for a barnstar recognising commandable deeds of musical heroism on Wikipedia. Could be awarded to people who perform music interpretations and offer them to the Community Rama 11:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just a quick note, I am colour-blind. So if you find the colour terrible and don't dare to say it, well... go ahead ! :) Rama 10:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The purple brings unwanted associations with a proposed barnstar, but other than that, it's not important. However, I'd like it to have no background, like all other barnstars. Compare the "Random Acts of Kindness", "Defender of the Wiki" and the Photographer's Barnstar. Surely there must be some way of integrating the musical theme with the star picture. (This is weasel talk for "but I don't immediately see a good way of doing it" :-) JRM 11:21, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
"Commandable deeds"? A Freudian slip, perhaps? :-)
"Awarded to people who perform music interpretations"? Does this mean "awarded to people who write about music"? Axl 15:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't know :p What does "Commandable deeds" mean?
By "Awarded to people who perform music interpretations", I mean people who play music, record it and offer the records (like on Goldberg_variations for instance). Of course it's not restricted to this kind of peope, but I think that it is especially remarkable to record music.
As for the suggestions of JRM, I might have an idea, I'll see wether I can implement it. Cheers ! Rama 15:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think a purple barnstar with perhaps the lines w/ a treble clef in white on top would be better, or perhaps some 16th notes tied together. But i definately agree the background has gotta go. ALKIVAR™ 22:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Alternative proposition
Alternative proposition Rama 23:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm hmm. Definitely needs at least a border, the star is now a "ghost". Bump map overlay, anyone, to make it look like a barnstar with "depth"? (How nice that I can hurl around terms like these without being capable of actual image editing, eh? :-) Sorry... JRM 00:47, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
Alkivar's alternative proposition
Here's my alternative, its darker and doesnt wash out. I can alter the star to any shade you want as well, just hit me back with an RGB#. ALKIVAR™ 01:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ooh, I like it a lot. The purpley-red shade is definitely off, though, it looks like its rusting through. :-) The full image also has some artifacts on the right edges, but these can easily be retouched. Maybe a lighter shade, something going towards a rich brown to contrast with the gold of the note? Slight hint of wood to suggest a "classical" theme? (No, wait, that's POV — ignore that. :-) JRM 01:14, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
I can make it wood grained if you want ;) I'll lighten it up a bit, and make it a more "woody" tone. ALKIVAR™ 01:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A type of barnstars typically represents a fairly broad category, such as "random acts of kindness", "diligence", or "minor edits"; usually the "Original Barnstar" is used to recognize especially well-done articles of any kind. My point is this: are "music articles" common enough to really deserve their very own full-fledged barnstar? Perhaps another type of non-barnstar award would be better? My concern here is that if we create a new barnstar for each and every little thing, in feature creep fashion, the entire idea of the barnstar will lose its value. – ClockworkSoul 01:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree, but that doesnt stop me from creating/suggesting variations ;) This one is lighter and has a hint of woodgrain for you JRM. Clockwork if you think it shouldnt be a star i can always rip the gold outlined treble clef out and use that instead. ALKIVAR™ 01:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Alkivar's second alternative
Oh, for the record, I also don't think we need a separate barnstar for just "editing music-related articles". Recording music or preparing sheet music examples for Wikipedia definitely deserves recognition, though, much like the Photographer's Barnstar. Perhaps "Musician's Barnstar" is a better idea. On a final note, I like Alkivars last suggestion, if only it would have a little more contrast... (I think we have enough versions now to directly update the images, though, instead of creating new ones. :-) JRM 02:35, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
Musician's Barnstar, Rama's proposal number 3 :)
Another idea, using bumpmap on my previous idea. Bumpmaping is easy : you just open two images in "The Gimp", select the one you want as a texture, and go to "Filters -> map -> bump"; it'll ask you which image to use as a bump mask; tweak around with the buttons and you're done ! :) (I say that because perhaps someone ould come with a better bumpmaping setting... all you've got to do is download Image:Original Barnstar.png and Image:Music_barstar3.png and play).
Again, I am colour-blind, so please don't be neither shy to complain about my colours, nor too impatient if I do things which look absurd to you. To give you a rough idea, I see chrominance much less than most people, but I'm more sensitive to intensity; the "its darker and doesnt wash out" comment is typical of what you get in this situation ! ^^;;
I think there is something about the proposition of Alkivar, but I find it a little bit "violent"... the yellow glow gives me a gloomy feeling... would it be possible to have a barnstar a little bit lighter and, say, a white glow ?
As for the "purpose" thing, yes, the idea is to reward special contributions related to music; when I said "performence and other things", I was just including a provision for things like music sheets (good point JRM ! I knew I had forgotten something ! :) ), but I didn't mean to suggest a secession of the music articles for the rest of Wikipedia, of course ! :) This clearly belongs to the regular barnstars (or variants of it). I think that "Musician's Barnstar" fits the idea very well.
Thanks and cheers ! Rama 08:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Alkivar's 3rd proposition
JRM, I understand your point. However I am not convinced that such a barnstar is required. Why not award one of the current barnstars (original, working man's, tireless contributor)? Axl 11:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sure, you can do that if you like. I suppose the photographer's barnstar isn't something you'd hand out either, then? If Rama thinks a new barnstar would be neat, then he is free to add it. This is just a page to gather barnstars, not the Barnstar Regulation Office. :-) I will voice my concerns over barnstars that encourage unhealthy behaviour (the earlier proposed "barnstar for being vandalized", for example), but other than that, it's a free wiki. Go crazy. Make a personal barnstar collection if you want. Hey, if push comes to shove, we can vote on which barnstars should be "public" and which you should keep as your private projects. (How often do people hand out the "Cool as a Cucumber" award, for example? :-) I don't think it's that serious, though. Let's face it. We could ditch this whole collection and just bring it down to one barnstar. It would do. But people like diversity, and I don't really see on what grounds to deny it to them. Why the current barnstars but not this one? Arguably, it serves a purpose not already explicitly covered. I personally think the "Defender of the Wiki" barnstar is overspecific and unlikely to be used in any significant number. But so what? If people feel there's a need for it, good for them. JRM 11:46, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
My comment is only my opinion. I see that everyone else is keen to implement the barnstar, so perhaps there is a genuine demand. Axl 18:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Added a 3rd lighter version with a white glowing edge on the clef rather than gold, I think this looks the best of all the entries so far. Any comments? ALKIVAR™ 04:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we should probably start archiving this soon, we're borderline spammers :-) Aside from that, I must say that if I had to choose now, I'd pick Alkivar's third version. Rama's third version is now a "real" barnstar, but now the musical theme is unreadable. There's still something not quite right with Alki's last proposition, but I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps it's the lack of contrast at the edges... But other than that, I think the rest is just tweaking. JRM 13:18, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Haven't commented on this one up till now, but I too would go for Alkivar's 3rd design. Stylish yet simple. Grutness|hello? 22:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think they're all really good so we could just start a section for music on the topical page and link it to a page with these and template and possibly add one or two of these to the project page. I would do it myself but I'm not the best with templates and I'm new to this whole discussion so I don't think I should be given the decision of which barnstars are good enough to post on the project page. This would be much appreciated, Thank you Patman2648 22:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Music
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I'm all for Alkivar's third design but I really don't think that there should be a shadow to it. --Michaelas10 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with Rama's second design, but Alkivar's third design should be fine. Removing the shadow might make the clef's black merge into the barnstar's brown too much...? Regards, David Kernow 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Rama's first design, but there are too many choices! South Philly 02:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Defender of the Wiki
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Love the idea - really really dislike the image used. PLEASE change it. Wikipedia is not part of the United States, and a lot of Wikipedians would not be happy about having the image of the American eagle on their user pages. See the discussion on "Purple Heart" above. Grutness|hello? 09:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Tough, I picked the LEAST visibly american of the medals awarded by the US... for christs sake it has more colors in common with nazi germany than the US, both of which used the Eagle as well! This medal merely says National Defense. Sorry but no I will not change it. I'm an American and i'll be damned if i'm gonna let someone tell me I cant chose what I want to. I dont see anyone complaining about "communist propaghanda" when they used the Hero of the Soviet Union medal. ALKIVAR™ 10:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why use an American medal at all? Why use a medal? This is a page for barnstars on Wikipedia. Use a barnstar. And yes, people have complained about Soviet Medals - again, see the comment about "Purple Hearts" above. "I'm an American and I can choose what I want to"? It's comments like yours (among other things) that make 90% of the world hate Americans. Act as though they own the world, and turn every slight bit of criticism about them into a major song and dance. Acting like a jerk does not become you. Grutness|hello?
Sorry but YOU started it by "politely" demanding I change it. By the rest of your argument we should get rid of half of the page then, but your not arguing against those. Perhaps you should just wake up to the fact that your biased in the ANTI-American slant. I have never once declared nor implied that wiki is part of the US, and sorry but I very strongly disagree with your assumption that many wikipedians would complain about an award they are most likely to never receive. As for it being an american eagle... care to point out to me how you know its an american eagle? To quote from Eagle:
All I did was point out that the image was too Americocentric, and pointed to previous argument on other similar subjects. I did not argue against the previous medals simply because everyone else was already doing so. How did I know that it was an American eagle? Well, the fact that I did should be enough. As it happens, the line across the neck, angle and feathering of wings, and stance all clearly gave it away. The fact that America is just about the only country in the world to spell the word defence as "defense" is another clue. Grutness|hello?
The eagle has been used by many nations as a national symbol, depicting power, beauty and independence. The Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt used it as their seal, while the Romans used it on the standards of their armies. It is also part of the coat of arms of Romania and the coat of arms and flag of Moldova. It is the emblem of "Shqipëria" or Land of the Eagles, which is known in English as Albania.
Perhaps its an Australian Wedge-tailed Eagle, or a Sulawesi Hawk-eagle or a Madagascar Fish eagle, The medal doesnt give specifics. Methinks thou dost protest too much. ALKIVAR™ 11:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And I would have argued just as vigorously ifg any of them had been used. Wikipedia is not an Albanian project, neither is it Moldovan, Mexican, Egyptian, Iraqi, Saudi Arabian or any other country's that has an eagle on its arms. It does not belong to any one country at all. It is worldwide, and as such should not use a political symbol from any one country. Neither should it demean a medal that has been hard fought for by people facing real danger. Grutness|hello?
Please, please, please let's not turn this into a ridiculous politically-based discussion: this has nothing to do with "eagles" or "Nazi colors" or "propaganda". In the above "Purple Heart" discussion, the basis for not using existing medals had nothing to do with nationalism or any opinion of the nations holding a medal: it was a matter of respect. To use the image of a real-life citation that somebody (of any nation) had to earn is disrespectful, and denigrates all those that suffered for that recognition. Also, Alkivar, we Americans already have enough people that think we're a nation of arrogant jingoists: please try to comprimise a little. Personally, I think this idea would make a pretty good full-blown barnstar, and would like to see it promoted to such. – ClockworkSoul 15:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Clockwork, its not a socalled "honor" as such by the US military, ANYONE who has served during wartime qualifies for it, it is not "earned". In fact, I as a reservist do. If it were considered a special honor awarded for above the call of duty heroism, like say a Congressional Medal of Honor, Silver Star, etc... I would not have used it. ALKIVAR™ 18:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Alkivar: It certainly is an honor, though admittedly not of the significance of a Silver Star: I have not personally served, and you have (and are), and deserve recognition for that. I do see your point: that the current medal used is not an especially difficult medal to earn, but I think that a special award, specific to Wikipedia, would be even better. I would very much like your input on the design of a new barnstar: what kind of new image do you think we could use for that? – ClockworkSoul 18:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well if we must, since its a derivative of the title Defender of the Faith perhaps it should be a barnstar with a closed knights helm or gauntleted fist over top of it. Its title is from the Middle Ages of Europe, so something that represents its Mediæval British origins would be good. However it most definately should not lose its aggressive appearance, as its for aggressive defense of the wikipedia. ALKIVAR™ 19:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the helm idea is excellent, and I think the rationale behind it is also good. My artistic talents are, frankly, piss-poor, but I can try to come up with something for now. Does anybody know somebody that can whip up a pretty version of the "wiki star with knight's helm" image? – ClockworkSoul 00:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rama, it looks like like you and I had pretty much the same idea. :D I moved the previous entry up into the barnstar section, and replaced the medal image. I was torn about which image to use, so I flipped a coin (honest!). If anybody doesn't like my weird creation, I won't be insulted if it's replaced. – ClockworkSoul 03:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I like the knight's helm, I was thinking of a sword and shield, but the helm is even better because of the "visually defensive" aspects of the helm. I like the helm in ClockworkSoul's version because it looks a little more "aggressive" than the helm in Rama's version, but I think it might be better to use the "original" colour that Rama has. ClockworkSoul's version is the same colour as the Editor's barnstar, and I think the Defender of the Faith should be a little more general than editing. --Deathphoenix 03:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If I might drop a thougt here, I think that the eagle give a pretty aggressive connotation to the award. In addition, the colour of the ribbon is also a quite aggressive ("it has more colors in common with nazi germany than the US", in your own words), and the eagle is quite distinctly the USA eagle, which indeed gives it a confusing connotation of being USA-specific (by contrast, the Soviet medals, though they might be disturbing to some, are medals from an authority which does no longer exist, and are thusly less cnfusing). To finish, given the present international context, the medal might be seen as offensive to some, as if they were an endorsement of the policies of the present US administration. I think it might be wise to design something else. Rama 12:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Alternative idea : For a suggestion, what would you people think of trying to emphasise the "search for truth" and minimise the aggressiveness of the award by using this picture ? This might make it more a "detective award for exposing truth" connotation, or this sort of idea. Just a thought... Rama 13:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(for some technical reason, the image might not been displayed. If this is the case, having a look at Sherlock_Holmes#Holmesian_.28or_Sherlockian.29_deduction might help (or not :p). Sorry for any inconvenience)
I made one of a different color scheme (black on gold). I like ClockworkSoul's design too, but blue on blue is kinda difficult for the eyes. Therefore here's the black on gold version of it. What do you guys think? --Godric 03:52, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Godric, the helm is definitely much clearer on this image than in the two others (especially my blue one), although the yellow color is somewhat too "boldly primary" for me. Overall, your image is clearly the nicest so far, and I would happily put on a pair of shades and accept it. ;) I move that we accept Godric's image as the image. – ClockworkSoul 04:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, ClockworkSoul & Grutness. Now we can wait for the original award-introducer user:Alkivar to comment too. --Godric 04:39, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Being partial to Orange, I like the 3rd option the best. I dont find it too bright, at least no more so than say the Random Acts of Kindness star. So i'll go with that. ALKIVAR™ 05:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia "for fraudulent purposes"? The mind boggles. I prefer the orange one, simply because it's a different colour to all of the current barnstars. Axl 11:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's not orange, it's gold people! :-) I like it. The gold barnstar behind the shining helm emphasises the knightly aspects of this award. This award would cover all aspects of "fraudulent purposes", so I can see it being widely used. --Deathphoenix 13:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hi. I've decided to follow Grutness's suggestion on the Village Pump and put up for discussion an idea I had for a new award. The first concern of mine regards its scope, since it may be a little too limited: it would be intended for people who devote time and effort to expand/improve or create Brazil-related articles (either significant efforts made in one or a few articles or an ensemble work). First, I realize that it would not be a very popular award, since not too many users contribute (or at least contribute significantly) to articles pertaining to Brazil or Brazilians. Second, I also realize that this could establish a "complicated" precedent, since people could start creating awards for each and every country, which would multiply enormously the number of awards (don't know if this would be a bad thing). Third, if the idea gets passed the two previous points, I'm somewhat concerned that the image I would use (it's not uploaded yet) was not created by me; it's rather a picture of a real Brazilian award, the highest honor of the Brazilian State, that I would use to embody the award, the Order of the South Cross. I already knew this could pose a problem, since this award could itself be the object of an article (although it is not as of yet) and this image could be used to illustrate it, instead of symbolizing a wiki award, and the controversy above concerning the use of the Purple Heart as a wiki award (or an image that resembled it, I'm not sure) sort of confirmed my fears (although the Order of the South Cross is not a military award, and in fact can be handed to anyone who may have done something deemed remarkable by the Brazilian government). I know I may be overthinking this, and this preemptive discussion may just turn out to be overkill. Despite the potential objections that I've raised myself, I still think that the award would be viable, and it could even stimulate the development/improvement of articles pertaining to that country (especially since so many of the existing ones are in desperate need of improvement). Can I get some feedback on this? Regards, Redux 02:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No your not overthinking this... but based on your reasoning this will never fly. 1) its Brazil centric and if i were to create an American award I would get blasted to hell, not doing the same to a Brazil centric award would be hypocritical. 2) we dont use real medals, PERIOD. The point to barnstars is to give people encouragement for their efforts not to start potential flames, I suggest you instead offer them a standard barnstar thanking them for their efforts on brazilian related articles. ALKIVAR™ 03:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A thought that might be a compromise and which might fly... how about a special barnstar for work above and beyond the call of duty on articles relating to any one particular country? Make it generic, so that it could be awarded for Brazil-related articles, or US-related, or Liechtenstein-related or wherever. A lot of countries have many articles that need work (A quick glance at some of the articles in Category:India geography stubs would make any Wikipedian shudder!). There might even be a way of making the image such that the specific country could be named in each case (to use the medal analogy, much as medals are often accompanied by a bar indicating which theatre of war the medal is awarded for). I agree that real medals are right out, though (Alkivar and I have some history on that one :) Grutness|hello? 04:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from Alkivar. But concerning your points: 1) You're right that this new award would be Brazil-centric, and you're certainly right that if you were to do something similar for efforts in US-related articles some people would never let you hear the end of it. But I think that this attitude (from these hypothetical other people) is the hypocritical one. Why couldn't there be an award for efforts made to improve the quality of information in articles concerning the USA? The real reason behind any protest would be an anti-US (but really anti-Bush) feeling that has spread more recently. But the question I'd ask would be: what's it to anyone? If someone doesn't care about US-related articles (or Brazil-related), they don't get the award, and since they don't care, they won't be handing them out either. And if someone does get it, it's a compliment, and who gets offended when paid a compliment? The only possible argument for there not being a US-centric award would be that it really doesn't need it, since a large number of users are from that country and most articles about the US (relevant topics, at least) are already well developed, and since there's so many people already involved with them, the award might be banalized (since half the Wikipedians would get it). We, as the ones responsible for Wikipedia, shouldn't yeld to unfounded reasoning, and we cannot be intimidated by pseudodemocrats (I mean of course those who would protest against this hypothetical US award), so if anyone wants to create an award for efforts in US-related articles, I say go right ahead, you have my support. Note that the award would not be limited to citizens of the specific country concerned (this specification is impossible to make for the regular Wikipedian), but rather to anyone that works in articles pertaining to this country. 2) I don't know if I misunderstood what you said or if it was you who misunderstood me. I didn't mean that I'd be creating the "Order of the South Cross for Wikipedians", I only meant that the image I'd upload to embody this award (which would have another name) would be that of a medal of that real award. It would be just a symbol, for a different award (and since nowhere in the medal does it say "Order of the South Cross", it could even be completely dissociated from the real award, if anything because most people don't know that it exists – even Brazilians!) While I was writing this rather long comment (I admit it), Grutness added his input, and I must say I really liked his suggestion about generalizing the award, and maybe even making it so that it could include the name of the country for whose articles the award is being given. Creating this image is beyond my scarce encoding abilities though, but if this is possible to make, I'm all for it. The first (and longest) part of my original comment should be disregarded if we are to create this general award with an adaptable image, since the award wouldn't really be Brazil, or US, or anywhere-centric, and I've addressed the point that "my" award would not be a real one while writing in answer to Alkivar's comment. If it turns out to be impossible to create an adaptable image, I would volunteer this image I was going to use in the "Brazil award" to the generic award, since it doesn't say "Brazil" or "Order of the South Cross" (there's only a sentence in Latin: Benemeritum Premium, which could be translated as "Award for the merit"). If necessary, I can upload the image and post it here, just so others can take a look and see if it's suitable. Regards, Redux 05:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To answer your points (1) and (2), if you look through some of the previous arguments on this page, you'll see that the image of actual medals is definitely frowned upon. Part of the reason for this is it is seen as a denigration of the actual medals, in the sense that the people who won the real medals did a lot more to get them that edit a website, and that to use them for this purpose is to downgrade their efforts. Also, you are wrong that a US-centric award would be disliked simply for reasons related to the US or its politics. Wikipedia is a worldwide organisation, and any country-centric award is likely to be taken badly, simply because it at least appears to reduce the international community spirit of the site. Grutness|hello? 05:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I offer in suggestion since your rather set in your country article award idea, would be to make a geography in general award. Perhaps a barnstar with a globe shaped political map superimposed? The syntax to use the template to add to a user page would be really simple something like {{geostar|name=Your Username|country=Country in Question}} this would add a star with the caption like "I, Your Username, present you "En Benemeritum Premium" with this GeoStar for your work on articles related to Country in Question". This would keep your latin phrase that you like so much, and not be country specific. If this is agreeable i could have this whipped up in an hour. ALKIVAR™ 06:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
File:Globestar.pngwell you wanted to see my concept, this is a rough. ALKIVAR™ 07:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. And that syntax would create the "personalized" award (with the country in question named in it), right? Pardon my complete ignorance in matters of HTML code (but I've quite improved since starting to contribute to Wikipedia). As for what I had written earlier (and Grutness post in regards to it): ok, so we won't use the image of The Order of the South Cross (it would be just if we couldn't come up with an adaptable image, which would be so much more interesting anyway). I've not participated in the discussions that led to this policy, but if I may say so myself, I don't see what's the big problem in using the image of a real award. It diminishes them and their real recipients just because we use the image for a wiki award? I really don't mean to offend anyone, but this sounds a bit silly, especially if we don't use the real award's name or quonotation, it's just an image to embody something else... I mean, I could maybe see it if it's a military award, where recipients were sent to war (and some maybe didn't even return, in the case of postumous awards), but otherwise... But I won't reopen this forum, forget the image I had suggested. I would also add that the rejection to country-specific awards on the basis that it reduces the "international spirit" sounds more like a sutile way of saying "if one (your) country has one, others (especially mine) should have one too, since they don't, it's better if nobody has one". I find it unconvincing entirely. But still, we should focus on creating that general award, Alkivar's suggestion seems good, maybe he could create a "prototype" and post it here, so we could see it work (I'd do it myself, but I'm all thumbs when it comes to codes...)? Regards, Redux 06:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, too. As to the medal policy, I had assumed it was some kind of military medal, but even so it's probably better to have awards that are clearly "ours" rather than copied from any real awards. And the "international spirit"? Not at all. I come from a relatively insignificant country and do work on articles on lots of different countries (I'm currently working on articles about Antarctica and sorting geo-stubs, for instance). But there have been claims in the past that Wikipedia is biased towards one or two countries (notably the US, yes), and I can definitely see that if one country got an award they'd all want awards. And I'm not sure we're geared up for a sudden influx of 200 new barnstars! :) Grutness|hello? 06:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, not do we encourage a nationalist uprising, do we ? :p Rama 08:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The prototype looks good, but if I may suggest: if we call it the "geostar", it may not entirely reflect the intention of granting it for efforts in any-given-country-related articles, but rather for efforts in geography-related articles – and when working in country-related articles, it could be concerning political institutions of that country, or even some relevant citizens of that nationality. In light of that, first, maybe we could call it something else, like the "UN star" (not the best name, just off the top of my head, surely we can come up with something better); second, perhaps, in lieu of a globe in the center of the star, we could come up with an image with the world's countries flags in it (like a globe-shaped collection of the world's country flags). I believe this would make the award more general in terms of the work that could be acknowledged by it. How about it? Regards, Redux 13:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"World Citizen Award" ? :) For the image of the globe, we could use something similar to the globe which is featured on the UN flag -- it is a globe, yet shows all the inhabited continents Rama 13:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good suggestion for the name. For the center image, I would like to suggest that we use the badge of the Organization of American States – we'd remove the outter ring, keeping just the image of the flags. The only catch is that the only flags depicted in there are those from American countries, but I suppose it would be representative enough(?). Regards, Redux 15:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Found an image online. I can't upload it, for it is copyrighted, but maybe our oncall artists could devise something similar? It looks to me that something in that line would be perfect. Regards, Redux 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but something similar, then, not the same... the first image is all... pointy, and the second gives my the creeps, with the flame and the gothic writing... :p Rama 15:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A good thing about that image is that (with the exception of the US flag) none of the flags are of real geopolitical entities. Grutness|hello?
Naturally, only similar. We wouldn't need a torch in front of our image, and the gothic writing was the slogan for the institution that created that image, ours wouldn't have anything like that, just the globe and the flags. Or maybe we could use something similar to this. Regards, Redux 15:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Trying to fit all the flags will probably just get us into political problems. I would suggest using a few single coloured flags, say white, red, yellow, blue, and black, behind a UN-ish globe. And maybe with at least one inner corner of the star showing, which I think would make it more barnstar-like. Aliter 00:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
a barnstar flag?Here's a thought - rather than have a barnstar, why not a flag with the barnstar on it? Like the image to the right? (Please excuse my lousy drawing!). It's distinctly a barnstar, it has a flag to represent a (generic, non specific) country, in UN blue (or a very similar shade), and gets round the problem of trying to clutter up an image with loads of flags.
It is a good idea. But what if we got rid of the pole? We could keep just the flag itself, maybe make it look like it's waving from the wind? Or maybe we could make it a banner, rather than a flag. Can someone come up with those (or some of) designs? Regards, Redux 03:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Here you go Redux. Zscout370 21:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. This could be it. Other opinions? Although as a suggestion (which I lack the expertise to create myself), we could sort of put the barnstar at the tip of a collar, making it look like an award (that a country might give away). I tried "photoshopping" the barnstar and the collar of some existing medals, but needless to say that the result was less than perfect (or I'd post it here). But maybe someone with betters "skills" (or a better software) could do it. It's worth mentioning that, although Zscout370's image may look blurry here, it's only because it was overenlarged by the default thumb size. I'm posting it again, so we can see how it looks in a more appropriate size. Regards, Redux 22:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit, Rexdux. I moved the image to make it more eaiser on Wikipedia, a bit. Also, I think this flows well. Page looks aside, I think a banner would also do better. Zscout370 22:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Now I must thank you twice. I was actually writing my thank you note (which I had forgotten to include in my comment) for the banner image, but when I tried to save it, I got an edit conflict. So thank you (a little late) for your trouble. And now, thank you also for taking care of the accidental mess we had made here, with images from one discussion "invading" the following topic. Looks much better now. Regards, Redux 22:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looks good from here - and the new image should stop any vexation (at least I know that Zscout370 will get the pun ;) Grutness|hello?
File:Barnstar Medal.pngMedal of Honor MotifMedal idea twoTo quote Redux, he wanted a medal like design. I want to ask him what type of medal design was he looking for to draw. If it is something like the US Medal of Honor, then I have a drawing already. If Redux wants something like other medals, I can draw them too. Zscout370 01:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Now that's a coincidence! The Medal of Honor article is exactly where I got the image I tried to photoshop with the barnstar (and failed miserably). This drawing you already have may just be what I was thinking about. Maybe we could see it? But if you have other ideas, I'm sure we all would like to hear them. Thanks in advance for the work. Regards, Redux 02:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
...and this is where we came in. If you look further up this thread, you'll see that the flag-like designs were so as to avoid using medals for designs. Any individual country's medal is too country-centric, and medal awarded for valour is a poor choice since our use of it may detract from the worth of that medal (in the sense that we don't deserve to be awarding ourselves things that are analogous to the medals depicted). Grutness|hello?
Ok, the first idea I mentioned was the Medal of Honor motif. Just the ribbon color is similar, then you have the barnstar underneath. To elude what Grutness was saying, it might be a little cheap to use medal designs for Wiki awards, but most medals have a similar design. However, I see few medals with the MoH design. The second idea I have is similar to the Victoria Cross and third is your generic ribbon and medal design. Zscout370 03:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Generic ribbon with a barnstar hanging from it might just be a reasonable compromise - but we'd have to make sure the ribbon colours weren't recognisably from any well-known medal! Grutness|hello? 03:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Though I found two United Nations medals with this ribbon, most ribbon designs are shared throughout the world. See [1]. Zscout370 03:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The second design appears to be good. It's generic enough that it doesn't evoke any particular medal given out by any countries, and the color of the ribbon, "UN blue", does make it "international" enough that no one should feel that any national color from any country had special treatment. As Zscout370 pointed out, all medals bear a certain generic resemblance, so theoretically we could always find some remote likeness to some existing award, but I suppose that would be overthinking it. If it is the case of being totally on the safe side though, we could embed the UN symbol in the ribbon, unless that would be a copyright violation. But even without the UN symbol (the one in the UN flag), the second model has my vote to become the final image for this award. And by the way, Rama had suggested it be named "The Citizen of the World Award". Any other suggestions for the name? I could also think of "The Barnstar of the National Merit", since it would be intended for outstanding efforts to improve articles on themes pertaining to any given country (geography, notable people, political institutions, etc.). The word "national" could be seen as adaptable to any particular country for efforts in whose articles the Barnstar is being given. Regards, Redux 05:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I must admit that UN blue was the thinking behind the flag I designed as well. "Barnstar of national merit" certainly sounds a little nearer to the aim ("Citizen of the world" makes it sound like it's for someone who's taken part in work on all countries). Grutness|hello? 07:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar of National Merit is a good name, since I also think it is multinational. In the citation section, we can say what nation they worked on. I think we can award this many times, but not add any stars to the ribbon, just have two or more of these on a user page. Just leave the ribbon color alone, since I also know that one Soviet medal uses this ribbon From the Greatful Afghani People.Zscout370 13:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Great. Do we agree then? In this case, as of now I'll wait a period of 48 hours (to give any others time to post any comments) after which I'll move the image to reflect the name "Barnstar of National Merit" and add the new award to the template board. Unless someone protests, in which case we'll have to resolve it here before the award is officialized. Regards, Redux 15:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Also, if anyone wants to remove the image of the Barnstar in the shape of the Medal of Honor can go right ahead once this award is adopted. Zscout370 19:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, since no one oposed, I went to move the image to reflect the name "Barnstar of National Merit" and then add it the template board. For some reason, however, the system returned that "the action could not be performed for this page". At first I thought I'd just save the image in my computer and reload it with the correct name. This would however produce a page that would show me as the original uploader of the image, instead of Zscout370, who actually came up with the design. Although I could edit the page giving him full credit, I thought it still wouldn't be fair. In light of that, I ask that someone else try to move the page (since I couldn't), and if that's not possible, I would ask Zscout370 to load the image again with the correct name. Incidentally, since I couldn't move the image now, I was in doubt as to which would be the exact name: "Barnstar of National Merit" or "Barnstar of the National Merit". Regards, Redux 20:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dear Redux, I moved it. Check the front page now. Zscout370 01:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fantastic. Thanks again to Zscout370 for getting us through yet another obstacle here. The award is now official. I've already done some work on the award's home page, now we just have to hope that it will be interesting enough that the community will come to use it (by awarding it to those who deserve it). I believe now all that is left for us to do here is list the discarded images for deletion? I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who were involved in making this project come true. Zscout370, for all the work you've put into this (without you, we probably wouldn't have the award any time soon). Also Grutness, for his interest and for believing in the original idea. And everybody else, you know who you are. Thanks to all. Regards, Redux 03:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I must admit to slight bias - having completely reorganised the New Zealand geography articles (and written about 150 new ones), I'm half hoping for a BoNM myself ;) Grutness|hello? 09:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Now, you got one! Any comments? Zscout370 19:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey! I wasn't fishing for a barnstar! It looks very nice though, I must say. I'm moving it to my users page... Grutness|hello? 22:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Just wondering - what's the purpose of this award? What WikiVirtue is it trying to encourage? How often do we really have pranks, and do we realy want to reward them? I'm not sure how comfortable I am with this award, especially as a "full barnstar". – ClockworkSoul 05:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I suppose they meant it for jokes in talk pages, not in articles. Still, I agree that the purpose of this award is somewhat obscure, although it may be an award for good humor, and for keeping it light around here. Regards, Redux 16:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think the main intent of the award is to honor those who are very humorous (as long as they are in good taste) and livens up the talk pages with humor. Zscout370 19:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An award for those that promote humor outside the main article space is a great idea, but the current description emphasizes the "practical joke". Perhaps we can clarify this award a bit, and rename it? – ClockworkSoul 03:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps removing the expression "practical joke" from the award's description would indeed be a good idea. I don't see how it would be necessary to rename the award (although I do think that we could have come up with something better than "prankstar"). As a matter of fact, what I really don't like about that award is that it's represented by Christopher Walken's head in front of a barnstar. They gave a reason for that, but still... I don't believe it would be the case of attempting to alter the award's image or general scope though, since [I assume] all of this was put through a discussion and a consensus was reached by the those who were involved. In any case, it would be nice to bring AngryParsley into this discussion, since he is credited as being the introducer of that award. Regards, Redux 05:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Walken's disembodied head to be pretty creepy myself. At any rate, it looks as though this is a case of a unilateral addition of a barnstar. I move that open discussion for the replacement of some or all of the PrankStar's characteristics with something more acceptable to the community. – ClockworkSoul 06:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I also dropped AngryParsley a note on his talk page, in case this page isn't on his watchlist. – ClockworkSoul 06:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You guys can do what you want. I just made the barnstar when I was drunk (along with ), and later a few people in #wikipedia found it humorous and said I should add it to the list of barnstars. I guess it's kind of for people who are funny or often do practical jokes on others. I honestly don't care if you delete the whole thing or change it. Oh, and thank's for the heads-up ClockworkSoul. AngryParsley 15:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely love it. Love it. Maybe shouldn't be listed prodominantly on the main list. But how can you not love a floating walken head on a barnstar? :D BesigedB(talk) 15:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's too, how should I put it, Sleepy Hollow...ish :). There's no discussion either here or in the archive page regarding the creation of this award, and it's own creator, AngryParsley has forsaken it (too melodramatic?). Apparently there's no obstacle to reviewing this award and ultimately changing it, except for the fact (I believe) that it establishes a complicated prescedent: reviewing and altering awards past the time of it's creation. On the other hand, there is the very relevant extenuating circumstance: there was no discussion on this forum in order to create it (the discussion, if any, was carried out in the talk pages of AngryParsley and those other users that thought the image was funny), which prevented others from giving their opinions and voting on the award itself and its image – had such a discussion taken place here, I'd say we simpy couldn't touch the award, but as it stands, there was no consensus per se. Still, out of respect for any people who might have been awarded the prankstar, we should check who they are (if any) and also let them know that there's a discussion aimed at the award that they have been given. Once this is out of the way, I'd say we are free to hack at it. Regards, Redux 16:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)\
Actually, there have been other awards that underwent review after a couple were given out. When I originally cleaned up this page after its initial creation by Phil Boswell, I had to clarify some of the awards that already existed at the time (and even tweak some of redundant ones: The Working Man's Barnstar and the The Tireless Contributor Barnstar). At the time, The Surreal Barnstar had very little purpose at all, if I remember correctly. The Purple Heart and Hero of Socialist Labor were both removed from this listing entirely (but they weren't changed, necessarily). In the end, however, just as anybody has the right to add a barnstar, others have the right to remove it or modify it. Really, the only purpose of the community discussion is to reach a mutual agreement, which tends to make things "semi-official". (What I would really like, is a policy of community review on new barnstars, but not necessarily the "other awards", but that's a discussion for another day).
Anyway, that being said, let's have at it. I think that this star should be a good deal more general than just having good humor: after all, barnstars are all about recognizing one's contribution to the community. However, I don't want to see this star become a redundant "Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar" or "Surreal Barnstar". Just off the top of my head, perhaps we could morph this into a star recognizing a person's "consistent and reliable use of humor to lighten the mood, defuse conlicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be". Thoughts? – ClockworkSoul 21:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Humour (Deathphoenix).
How about a barnstar with a clown nose in the front, as shown on the right? My better half couldn't tell it was a clown nose, so I don't know if anyone else can either. Another possibility is to put a clown nose on the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. It would make it seem a little redundant with that barnstar, but it would be more obvious that it's a clown nose. Personally, I like the clown nose by itself. --Deathphoenix 04:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Humour with a clown face (Deathphoenix).
I didn't know that was a clown nose until you told me. It looked like an LED to me. It could also be interpreted as a HALstar or a Christmas light star. Even though I don't care what you guys do, I think the Humor Star isn't funny. Christopher Walken's disembodied head on a barnstar, now that's humor! (OK, maybe not) AngryParsley 06:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Instead of sticking a clown nose on the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, I thought of actually making a clown face—I put this on the left (I won't be editing for a little while. I'd better get to bed). --Deathphoenix 07:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do not think we should scrap this Barnstar at all. However, I do agree that sticking Walken's head on there is a bit odd. The second drawing by Deathphoenix is not bad at all, since I could tell it is a clown. Zscout370 12:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Do we have any other comments on this? Is a barnstar for humour an appropriate barnstar to use? If so, is the second one with the clown face a good one to use as the barnstar? Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks, Deathphoenix 04:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that using images associating good humor with clowns would be the best idea. Here's why: on Wikipedia, we communicate with each other throught BBS-like pages, and that's fertile territory for all kinds of misunderstandings. If someone gets, out of the blue, an award for being humorous that has a clown face on it, it could sound like "This award for being the class clown", which could end up offending people. Also, we must remember that, once the award is "officially" created, potentially every user can award (not just receive) it, and if we have a clown face, the award could end up being used to reward bad jokes or even mockery and plain disrespectful behavior (I know we'd have a description of the award's scope, but an image is always more powerful, and the temptation to misuse the award may turn out to be irresistible for some). Quite often, people make jokes in response to some sort of accusation or in the middle of a discussion with other users, so it looks like someone has a sense of humor, but he's actually mocking or "taking a swing" at some other user (example: nine out of ten times someone gets called a racist in a discussion, the accused comes back with a joke or humorous/witty comment that's really aimed at either mocking or discrediting the accuser). For that reason, it would be better (and safer) if the award's image alluded to a "higher" form of humor,leaving as little room as possible for it being seen as an award for what's really bad behavior under the guise of humor. I'm just pointing some misunderstandings that using the clown image could bring, and in the end, we might end up with a misused award, or one that might be misinterpreted by both givers and recipients. Since it's better to be safe than sorry, I suppose we could come up with some other symbol of humor, maybe something to do with a smile, or a laugh? Then again I might be overthinking this. Regards, Redux 04:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redux, you are not overthinking this. We need to explore every option, every possible complaint (as what you and I did before). I notice that more and more of yall do not wish for this barnstar to be here, if I am reading this right. I see yalls point, so if yall want to get rid of it, that is fine with me. One more thing, though we create this barnstar, then we have no control as to what happens to it. I can possibly seeing this barnstar awarded left and right, almost like a "gimmie" award. Zscout370 14:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's possible that people would award these barnstars all over the place. It's also possible that this is a niche barnstar that doesn't get awarded much at all. But if there's sufficient reason to worry about this barnstar (not only the potential use of this barnstar to say "You're a clown!", but also the original intent of a PrankStar), then we shouldn't use it. While this barnstar is probably sufficiently different from the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to warrant the use of a separate barnstar, it's also sifficiently similar that you could award the RAOK barnstar in cases where you would award a Barnstar of Humour. So in summary, I have no problems with leaving this barnstar unused and removed from the main barnstar page, though I might keep the clown image sans Barnstar for other uses. --Deathphoenix 15:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with the clown-faced-star; I don't see anybody getting insulted, because the purpose and meaning of the star would be posted right on the Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia page. Similarly, I think fears about it being given all over are unfounded: I've personally been trying to get people to award more barnstars since soon after they were first introduced, with only modest success. Finally, I also wouldn't complain if the whole idea was dropped, and the PrankStar removed: we do have both the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar and the The Original Barnstar (people sometimes forget about that last one). – ClockworkSoul 16:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I believe the idea that we are now discussing for the award is good. An award for being light-spirited is interesting, and it's not quite the scope of the Original Barnstar or the RAOK Barnstar. It's just that it's a slippery ground creating the image of this award, but it definitely should stay (except if you mean the Prankstar, that one should go). Here's a suggestion: what if we took the Original Barnstar and sort of warped its center, so that the central hole looks like a smile? Let me clarify that I don't even know if that's possible to do, and if it is, it remains to be seen if the end result will be good (maybe it'll look creepy). I feel sort of like those world leaders from the Cold War period, coming up to scientists and blasting: "yeah, I want this super satellite with a laser beam so precise that I can vaporize an ant in the middle of the rain forest if I want to. Make it happen." You guys tell me if I'm tripping with this idea or if it's actually feasible. Regards, Redux 20:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
doable but fugly. ALKIVAR™ 20:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wiffle Bat: We could rip the smile.
Well, if the "smiling barnstar" won't do, how about we "rip" another wiki award (or part of it, anyway): the "Wiffle Bat". We get rid of the bat and keep just that smile and thumb up – or, alternatively, we drop the thumb up and keep just the smile, which we then would composite somehow (superpose maybe) with the barnstar. The image should be free, and it would not be unprecedented to have one "object" appear on more than one wiki award. Regards, Redux 01:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think that that's a pretty good idea! – ClockworkSoul 04:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar of Humour 3 with the Wifflebat smiley (Deathphoenix).
Done. Maybe I'll make the face a little more yellow (I also moved the Wifflebat image up). --Deathphoenix 05:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi. First, Deathphoenix, I took the liberty (again) of repositioning the images. It's only because they need to be next to the message with which they were posted, otherwise the logical sequence of the comments is broken and it doesn't make much sense for the reader. I like the "Smiley Barnstar", but I thought that the "smiley" was too small in it. Maybe it would be the case of making it a little bigger, even if it encompasses a larger portion of the barnstar in the process. And another idea: the background for the smiley is now a white circle. What if we made this background star-shaped (maybe five ends, like the barnstar itself, but maybe even with more than five ends)? It's a wild idea, but it could be that it works... Regards, Redux 14:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not unhappy with this latest version of the Good Humor Barnstar. I move that we pull the PrankStar and replace it with Image:Barnstar of Humour3.png. Any objectors? – ClockworkSoul 05:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I say go for it! --Deathphoenix 05:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Okay - I replaced the PrankStar with Image:Barnstar of Humour3.png. I'm using the following text (as you can see, I had no idea who to attribute this too. Should we even attribute it to anybody?)
The Barnstar of Good Humor
The Barnstar of Good Humor may be awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians who, by their unshakably good humor, consistently and reliably lighten the mood, defuse conlicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be.
You should probably also mention Redux, since it was Redux's idea to use the Wifflebat smiley in the first place. --Deathphoenix 07:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, indeed! All done! Congrats everybody, it's our second community barnstar! – ClockworkSoul 20:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Two thumbs up for the communal effort! Congratulations to all, the award is looking good (and no more "Prankstar"). And thank you guys for the note about my humble contribution in the award's section of the project page. Regards, Redux 01:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Troll star???
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
As if the Prank barnstar wasn't a bad enough idea, we now have a troll barnstar, rewarding people for misleading people or sending them to dubious sites??? I'm all for haviong a bit of fun with wiki-ine, but let's not forget what the purpose of Wikipedia is - giving people good information. I don't want to appear to have no sense of humour, but unless the Troll Barnstar is itself a troll (ooo! A meta-troll!), then it's sending all the wrong signals. Grutness|hello? 05:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I find it hillarious, almost as funny as my PrankStar. At least it's better than those dumb looking cucumbers or that bat. AngryParsley 06:07, 24 Feb 2005
Pretty funny, yeah, but trolling isn't really the kind of thing we should encourage. I removed it - the image itself was rather evocative of the Goatse image we've come to know all so well. I'm going to move in a dedicated post the we accept some barnstar and award guidelines. — ClockworkSoul 13:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey yall, someone restored the TrollStar. Zscout370 22:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We need to make a decision about the TrollStar, since I keep on seeing it added. Plus, we have a Barnstar that is supposedly be used to honor those who defend Wikipedia from trolls, spammers, and other evil people. Zscout370 02:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see it as an easy way to identify spammers/trolls/miscreants that have been previously banned for such. They tend not to care about their user page, so, troll star them so that others watching rc can readily spot them. Of course the goatse'esqe image is a tad more extreeme than is needed for that task. -- Dbroadwell 03:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Then if that is the purpose of a troll star, then I see spammers putting this on pages to make it harder for them to be found. Also, I personally believe the admins are doing a fine job spotting these people without this mark. I see no point to this award. Zscout370 04:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dbroadwell, I prefer to spot them by their spamming/trolling/miscreanting. Primary sources and all. ;) – ClockworkSoul 04:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No worries. However for the rest of us non-admin staff, an identified list of the trolls and such ilk might be helpfull. Not that it merits a policy change or whatnot, awareness was raised, that is good.-- Dbroadwell 05:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Note: I know it is an archive, but to let yall know, this Barnstar idea was based on the Internet phenomemon Goatse.cx. Zscout370(talk) 23:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Ninja Barnstar
The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
What exactly is this for? Zscout370 19:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My bad, I've removed it from the pages and posted it at the top under requests.--brian0918™ 19:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
22:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
22:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rama's original design
Rama's second design
Rama's third design
Alkivar's alternative proposition
Alkivar's second proposition
Alkivar's third proposition
09:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
07:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
), and later a few people in #wikipedia found it humorous and said I should add it to the list of barnstars. I guess it's kind of for people who are funny or often do practical jokes on others. I honestly don't care if you delete the whole thing or change it. Oh, and thank's for the heads-up ClockworkSoul. AngryParsley 15:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
