Wikipedia talk:Four Award

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Four Award page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 3 months

faq page

Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: What does WP:FOUR recognize and why?

A1: FOUR recognizes the development of an article through four major editorial stages: 1.) A new creation, 2.) a developing article with at least one interesting encyclopedic fact (WP:DYK), 3.) a fairly thorough and high quality article (WP:WIAGA), 4.) complete article passing all quality standards (WP:WIAFA). Taking one brand-new article through all three of Wikipedia's major content milestones is a major achievement, and this award exists to recognize that effort and encourage others to do the same.

Q2: What counts as a new article for the purpose of WP:FOUR?

A2: Any article that would have been a redlink before you created it, or any article that was a redirect with no content history before you wrote it. Articles that are redlinks because they were deleted count so long as you created your version from scratch. If a redirect has content history that you did not create, it does not count.

Q3: Are articles split from other articles eligible?

A3: Generally yes, as long as you made significant editorial contributions in the process of shepherding it through the relevant DYK/GA/FA nominations.

Q4: What about expansions from existing stubs?

A4: Regardless of the quality of the stub, expanding an article does not count as creating a new article. You are improving an article that already exists – an achievement not to be downplayed, but not the purpose of the Four Award.

Q5: If an article was featured as a bold link on WP:ITN or WP:OTD, rendering it ineligible for WP:DYK, can it still qualify for WP:FOUR?

A5: No. ITN and OTD have different criteria and quality standards for their selections than DYK, so those processes are not considered substitutes for DYK the purpose of the Four Award.

Q6: Are articles nominated for DYK after becoming GAs eligible?

A6: Yes. The timing of the DYK does not matter.

Q7: Why doesn't this award include articles that went through three of the four stages?

A7: Because it's the Four Award. Its purpose is to recognize the effort involved for one person to bring one article from brand-new through all three of Wikipedia's major content milestones. Allowing only three stages to be recognized would be counter to the point. The WP:TRIPLECROWN recognizes when an editor has achieved several milestones on different articles, and may be of interest to users whose articles do not meet the FOUR criteria.

Q8: Why don't we have a five award for WP:FAs that make the main page through WP:TFA, or become part of a WP:FT?

A8: The Four Award recognizes advances in editorial quality. Being selected for TFA is one way an article is recognized for achieving FA status. Being included in a WP:FT is another. Neither TFA nor FT represents an advance in editorial quality past FA, so they are not considered as part of the Four Award process.

Q9: Is it possible for collaborators to all receive WP:FOUR recognition?

A9: Yes. In order for multiple editors to be awarded WP:FOUR recognition, there needs to evidence of collaboration throughout all of the processes. As WP:DYK, WP:GAN, and WP:FAC all allow co-nominations, the most challenging aspect is during the article creation stage. Evidence of collaboration can be provided for the creation stage in a number of ways. A common way would be multiple editors providing substantial content to a draft, which would then be moved into the article mainspace. The responsibility is on the nominators to provide the reviewer evidence of the collaboration throughout the entire article development process (evidence above and beyond just being a co-nominator would need to be provided).

Q10: Are articles nominated for featured lists status eligible?

A10: No. The featured list editorial process is different from the featured article process. FOUR is meant to recognize the article-development process, not the list-development process.

This page was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Intersection of WP:FOUR and WP:VA

FYI, I was curious about how many articles are in this intersection. Click the Do it button here to see the list. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating instructions

Hello friends, it's occurred to me that we should update the instructions page to be more clear about our current practices here, which lean a little more charitably and less strictly than in the past. Specifically, I think we should be explicit that articles which were converted from redirects, split from other articles, or recreated after deletion, are all acceptable. We've had discussions on this page agreeing to this and I updated the FAQ in line with these ideas in 2022, so I don't anticipate any objections, but discretion + valor etc.

I'm also going to remove the note about the Morotai Mutiny because TonyTheTiger apparently gave Ian the 4A for that one in 2011, so it's stupid to have a note saying it's disqualified. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

If I solicit the Guild of Copy Editors for an article I'm pursuing a 4A for, does that significantly affect eligibility? I wondered if there would be an argument that "someone else wrote this" if I did. I currently have Eternal Blue (album) listed there, and PMC personally knows I've been working on this one for a while. My plan was to get this copyedited, attempt FA again, and if successful nominate it here. If that's a problem, I'll withdraw it and fix complaints at FAC myself. mftp dan ^oops 15:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the help of GOCE for my Four Award FA, so I certainly think it is fine. —Kusma (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the copyedit was already finished six hours prior to this comment receiving a reply, I'd certainly hoped so. Appreciate the nod of confidence, though. Now, all it needs to do is pass its FAC. mftp dan ^oops 21:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, a GOCE or any other contribution from another editor does not take away the 4A eligibility. FOUR does not require that no one else chip in, or evenn any specific level of authorship, just that you're the one who got the article through those stages. It's a fun award, we want to be easy with it, not drill sergeants :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've never done it before, and what I first saw when I familiarized myself with the article was prestige, just the slightest bit of glory. I looked at this and said, "I've always wanted to do that, and I know just the article to do it with." mftp dan ^oops 05:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco items

I realize I swamped the page, so I'm just going to note that ten of the items had received FOURs in the past. I believe the issues that resulted in me avoiding this page after 2013 have been resolved, so those ten should be easy enough to reintroduce. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the entries at the records page and removed the nominations for the articles you've ostensibly already been awarded for. If I have some time over the weekend I might go over the rest in batches. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Former" awards

I noticed that 4A is the only user award where you can lose your award because your article got delisted. Honestly I think that sucks. You don't lose your Wikipedia:Triple Crown if your article gets deleted or whatever. Why should your 4A be relegated to former in the same instance? You still did the work to get the award, even if it later got delisted or deleted. Does anyone have any objections if I declare a general amnesty and restore the ones that have been cast down into sadness? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "former awards" makes sense (we should not take away people's awards unless we can prove they cheated and never deserved them), but it is fine to note articles that are no longer FA. —Kusma (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Love it. Starting to reintroduce them now. How do we feel about marking delisted FAs with a † symbol? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world, I'd like to see a symbol like that plus a footnote explaining that and when the article was delisted/merged/whatever. —Kusma (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the dagger hoverable, with a little tooltip that says the article was delisted deleted or merged. I could go back and add delist dates, if you feel it's helpful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice to have a footnote with the delist date. Also, I am not a fan of hover, and neither is the MoS. But all of this is nice optional extras, not a requirement. —Kusma (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly attached to the hover, was mostly copying what was there before. No contest from me if you want to change it to footnotes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]