I hope Wikipedia will make a Barnstar to honour people who have helped the Roblox community. The Barnstar shall be red and blue. The Roblox’s symbol shall be in the middle of the Barnstar.==WIKIGEEK4970== 03:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
If the Roblox symbol is not "free content" then you can't use it in a barnstar (the only exceptions I can think of are non-free art owned by the Wikimedia foundation which it allows to be used in Wikipedia). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Barnstars aren't something you earn, it's something that another editor gives you. Another Wikipedian says "hey, Svpnikhil did a good job with that edit or series of edits or idea on a talk thread" or whatever, and they award it to you. There is a similar (and also entirely different) award structure known as Service Awards which are self-given for time in service and number of edits. In fact, it looks like you already qualify for the Registered Editor Award, and are only a few constructive edits away from Novice Editor status. There's also the Rewards Board which, often times, offer Barnstars for specific edits made. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me directly. Achowat (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Chabad Series Barnstar
Hello! Please create a Barnstar for users who have who "greatly and positively contribute" to articles relating to articles from the series on Chabad (hasidic movement).
I would like to add a "GNU Barnstar", awarded to those who have helped to improve and significantly contribute to GNU Project and, more in general, to free software, contents and licenses. It has already been used in it.wiki. ;) Any doubt? --Lucas (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess my only concern is under what criteria the award would be given. Is it exclusively for work on that one article? Is 'free software' a big enough content topic to warrant a topic-specific award? Is there a WikiProject for which this would work as the WikiProject Award? Achowat (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Resilient Barnstar
So, I've been trying to clean-up WP:RIB and I noticed that we seem to have a ribbon for {{The Resilient Barnstar}}, though it's not listed at WP:*. Is there any reason that anyone can think of that this is the case? I can't find a WT:WPWPA discussion that led to its removal. Achowat (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Barnstars can be given by any user to any user for any reason. That's the current thinking, and I don't think this usage is particularly disruptive. Achowat (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Giving a Barnstar to somebody who has given you one
Hello! I think I remember reading a while ago that you are not allowed to give Barnstars to users who have given one to you. However, I can't actually find that anymore! Is this actually a policy, or is it ok, if it is obviously not just an exchange of Barnstars for the sake of exchanging Barnstars? Thank-you. DarkToonLink12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I mean, there are no rules, whatsoever, about who can and cannot give barnstars under what circumstances. Obviously, trading barnstars weakens the pleasure of waking up to see a new User Talk post saying that others think you're doing a good job. Their loose and fluid nature is the best thing about all of the awards. They only mean what you want them to. And I, for one, would feel no pride in receiving an award for anything other than my own actions. Achowat (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Giving anonymous barnstars
Just wondering if there is a way to give an anonymous barnstar on Wikipedia. There are some powerful people I would love to give a barnstar to, such wp:Signpost people, but don't want it to look as if I am after any favors. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to go with Banzband's solution, just make sure you read WP:SOCK to make sure your logged-out contributions are in keeping with current policies. Achowat (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
USRD barnstar
I would like to propose a barnstar for USRD because there isn't already one. Most Wikiprojects have barnstars - expect this one. I would like USRD to be like other projects by having its own barnstar. Philroc (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
These things need to be abolished. They encourage cliquishness, insta-reverting new users' contributions, condescending and counterproductive "helpfulness" and every other dysfunction that keeps new editors off of Wikipedia. Not part of the solution, not even part of the problem, but rather the entire problem in five-pointed form. Kill it. Kill it with fire. Bacchiad (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Trying to make a serious point using invective and not-quite-accurate Bible references. Barnstars are a visible sign and token of Wikipedia editors' insularity, circle-jerkery and other-repellent smugness. When you make one or award one, you are helping to slowly smother English Wikipedia on its own vomit. It seems like a fun and friendly thing to do but it is actually harmful. Bacchiad (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I would have responded in nearly as nice a way as Benzband to the suggestion that Wikipedia barnstars are a circle jerk. But good for them!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
What's a Good Way to Say "Thank You"?
Hi. A few days ago I did something stupid, because I didn't know proper procedure for something. An administrator was kind enough to put me right, and helped me do things properly. How can I say thank you for this? (It was probably a bit above and beyond the call of normal duty.) RomanSpa (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the "Firefighter's barnstar" for people who consistently put out fires on WP:ANI and WP:AN and generally reduce the heat and drama on those boards in creative and constructive ways.--v/r - TP08:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
... but ... but ... what will we give to the real firefighters who keep the building housing the servers from burning down when our servers overheat from processing all the drama? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer the barnstar for people who consistently put out fires on WP:ANI and WP:AN and generally reduce the heat and drama on those boards in creative and constructive ways be called the "Llama barnstar"... — {{U|Technical 13}}(t • e • c)22:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, I was just wondering what the difference is between the Graphic Designer Barnstar and the Graphic Designer's Barnstar?
It seems like a mistake to have made them both.
I read that to mean that the Graphic Designer's Barnstar may be awarded to "those who work tirelessly to provide Wikipedia with free graphic files, either original or a version of a known design (e.g. a country's flag)." where as the Graphic Designer Barnstar may be awarded to "users who have contributed many creative and wonderful works of graphic design to Wikipedia."
So Idealy the Graphic Designer's Barnstar is for people creating and submitting images they've made (for free use, which likely means Commons), and the Graphic Designer Barnstar is for people who contribute graphic design. If you made what you contribute, Graphic Designer's Barnstar; if you just contributed it (but didn't make it), Graphic Designer Barnstar. Makes sense, so that there's a difference between those who create and contribute, and those that just contribute. Though I could say it might stand for a better separation of name; it's not terribly clear at the moment being so similar.
Maybe call the Graphic Designer Barnstar the Graphic Contributer's Barnstar instead? Would make more sense in my honest opinion. Though this is just my interpretation, understanding, and thoughts on it -- these are opinions, and we all know what opinions are. k2trf (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Press Barnstar: For editors of articles about press or not?
Currently this barnstar's info reads:
"As the focus of this barnstar is off Wikipedia praise it should not be awarded to those who have contributed to internal news services like the Signpost or Wikiproject news letters, nor to those who actively edit articles concerning the press in general.
It may also be used for editors who have done good work in contributing to Journalism-related subjects"
It's a social construction, it's for whatever you want it to be. For instance, the {{The Writer's Barnstar}} is, in its description, given to both writers and for editing about writers. It wouldn't be unprecedented. Achowat (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Page Cleanup for Consideration
WP:* was recently massively cleaned up (and when I say massively, I mean completely), by User:Achowat. I was previously filling in the missing spots with Shadowed ribbons (and redoing the ones that weren't based off of File:Ribbon.xcf) on his Draft page.
For a while now, the page has been completely reorganized, and he had asked me a while back if I thought it a good idea to submit to the Talk for discussions/opinions before we just knocked out the current page in favor of it. Having come back to it a bit later on, he never submitted it (perhaps he was never notified of my response? That was why I didn't get back to him for a while.), so I'm doing it for him, as it's completely done from a cleaning standpoint, and my continued contributions of making the ribbons not yet made can continue once the page is live.
His sandbox that we were working with can be found here; please let me know what you think of it, as I've brought it up to speed with the recent changes since he last did so, so it'd be ready to go as is if nobody has any problems with it!
k2trf (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I can see a lot of sorting has been done on this sandbox version and some lost awards have been consolidated into this page. I'm curious to know why these changes were made to a user sandbox rather than to WP:RIBBON itself incrementally. Surely that page doesn't have too much activity to limit a reorganization. Also, while a copy-paste move would be easy, shall I assume you intend to have the existing page deleted so the sandbox can be moved with its edit history? Chris Troutman (talk)07:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Honestly you would have to ask Achowat (who I've not heard from in a while, hence why I'm sharing this for consideration in his stead); although at the time, it was very disorganized, and the changes it underwent to fix it up left it very broken more than one night. Plus it did not help that I (at first) and others were still editing the live page, so he was pulling in the changes (but I assume that was preferred to having people add things as he was trying to organize it all; that's the reason he first told me about it, so I could start making my additions where things didn't previously exist to his Draft and save him the work of copying it over, being that I was regularly updating it at that time).
As far as copy/paste versus move, move would likely be more prudent since all recent changes to WP:* have been included in the Draft (and I updated it with the two most recent inclusions before submitting it), so the chain of edits from the live page is technically included in the Draft, although they're minus the original people who did them, and are 90% Achowat and 10% myself on the "author" of the changes as time went on instead. Personally it was a user Sandbox Draft, so I think the intention all along was to simply copy & paste update the live page when it was complete and WT:WPWPA agreed that it was of sufficient quality for replacement, but I honestly can't speak for which Achowat originally intended and/or prefers. k2trf (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
And re-reading my prior comments here, I have no honest idea why I said WP:* When I meant WP:RIB... this is why I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia in the morning. >_< k2trf (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
If I've not heard anything people think could be improved over the next week, I'll do another comparison and inclusion for any recent changes (if pertinent) then request a merger. (Maybe a move of RibbonDraft to WP:Ribbons? Would be simpler honestly.)k2trf (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@K2trf: I think you're clear to boldly paste your re-write in. After thinking on it, it wouldn't make sense to lose the current page's history as your draft work is derivative of it. Chris Troutman (talk)04:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'm back kids. (Sorry, work and stuff). Yeah, I think a History Merge makes the most sense. Anyone know an admin that would like to do that for us? Achowat (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to create a "Wiki Warrior Barnstar" - awarded to those who fight to the death for (constructive) edits and are willing to go all the way to the end (within wiki policy of course) to see it through.
Barnstar for combating plagiarism and un-referenced material
Please help me identify the most suitable Barnstars for calling attention to those who help identify cribbed (plagiarized) material, and its close trust-me-its-true cousin, longstanding material without proper attribution. Such unheralded, and even combatively resisted editing effort is central to whatever hope we might have, for Wikipedia to become a reliable source of information for academic use. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I've come up with an idea for an award given to editors who expand an article 100-fold? This would be counted by readable prose (naturally) and nominations for the award could be posted somewhere like Wikipedia talk:100x Expansion Award. Smaller awards for 50x and 25x expansions could be also given. This also wouldn't could people expanding articles they created (because the creation of the article would expand it by ∞-fold anyway). It also wouldn't apply to redirects and disambiguation pages. What do you think? --Jakob (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
How frequently does this kind of expansion happen? I mean, 100x the readable prose seems almost impossible under any other circumstances. Achowat (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Great idea. But only to be awarded if expanding text is supported by necessary citations. We certainly do not need to motivate further large-scale cut and paste cribbings, to increase article volume. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Its something that gets done when necessary, and admins usually do it. so i find it highly unnecessary. PLus its so specific, it doesn't sound like a rewarding badge. Lucia Black (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Film barnstar
The film barnstar uses different syntax to all of the other barnstars. Why is this? Can it be changed to the dominant style? Axl¤[Talk]11:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The AntiBarnstar
I have an idea for a new barnstar, the AntiBarnstar! This could be awarded to people have done a lot of work on Wikipedia, but who don't recieve lots of barnstars or those who don't let their lack of barnstars affect them. It could also be awarded for people who have risen above the squabble for barnstars and really don't care as long as they can make Wikipedia better (hence the peace sign). Unless there is another really similar barnstar, I think this is a good idea! Thanks! Badger2424 (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The Anti Barnstar, a new possible barnstar!
A better name may be the "humble editor's barnstar." My guess is that most of the deserving recipients would be embarrassed (in a good way) if they received one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The idea of a "humble editor's barnstar" seems good to me. However, I'd suggest changing the design from that currently proposed. The current design includes a political symbol with connotations that some people would regard as unacceptable or insulting (the CND symbol). The idea is good, but I feel that a less provocative symbol (perhaps a dove? or, for the hard work, an ant or a bee?) would be a much better choice. Thank you.
(Speaking only for myself, I would be deeply offended to receive the award with its current design, and would feel unable to include it on my user page or talk page.)
That sounds fine to me. I was just making it to show people what it might look like. If people like this idea, I'll ask someone more experienced than me to redesign this barnstar, most likely with the dove . Thanks! Badger2424 (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This is practically the Invisible barnstar. for making great contributions but not looking for recognition. I think we're splitting hairs for barnstars now. Lucia Black (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Should we have a category for recipients of honorary degrees? (It was recently deleted)
I have seen a few instances where this would have been appropriate: a barnstar acknowledging someone for being the initial reason that a bigger, important thing happened— an editor whose perhaps hesitant initial move or suggestion on a talk page or in a deletion discussion or in a WP:Request for comment which then caused others to weigh in and discuss at some length, and on both sides, and maybe still more, until finally a consensus is eventually reached and in the end the thing the first editor suggested actually turned out to have lasting, significant, positive impact on some aspect of Wikipedia. I don't want to create a barnstar for troublemakers, I want to create one for people who have what turn out to be shown as really good ideas or whose identity as being "that person, the one who started it all, the one who by virtue of who they are or what they did helped make this larger, better, important thing happen" aught to be acknowledged with an award: a Barnstar of Incipience, for having the insight and the courage to start a ball rolling in what is shown to be the right direction. The seed planters. The shots heard 'round the world. (Okay, enough mixed metaphors— you get the idea, yes?). KDS4444Talk00:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I propose a general use barnstar for editors to give other editors that they have been in a conflict with. This barnstar would be a peace token and would represent and suggest to the receiving editor, that a "peace offering" is being sent to show that the sending editor wishes to move forward in good faith. This would be another part of the editor retention and dispute resolution effort to give editors the tools too prevent the loss of editors from the project over conflict. The award would be given to those that anyone is in any conflict with that the sending editor feels should be rewarded with a peaceful offering of dropping the stick or ending of the conflict due to any reasonable effort they might make.
The Peace Offering Barnstar
To show good faith and propose moving forward with a path towards collaboration
Also, whether this gains consensus or not...I am going to use it for the first time right now. I'll let you all know how that goes.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
There is already a peace offering. Although not a barnstar, it doesn't really need to be one as a barnstar is more of an awardor appreciation, and a peace offering is just that, a gift to promote peace. Also please make sure you get consensus before creating the template. Lucia Black (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No. I do not need a consensus to create a barnstar. I need a consensus to add it to the list of general use barnstars. The last general barnstar to be added with consensus was the editor retention barnstar for new editors that I created. I believe this would be a great addition and go a long way towards a better Wikipedia, but I could just as well add it to any of the projects I am involved with. Thanks though for your good faith input.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It is a reward for those that make the effort, even in a heated discussion. We have no general barnstar for such and I believe it is called for and needed. But, hey....that doesn't mean anyone else feels the same as I. But...as I said, I do not need a consensus to create barnstars. The "New Editor Barnstar" existed before it was suggested here.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
We have the civility barnstar, if someone brings peace in some way, then they are promoting civility. If you want a barnstar designed as a peace offering however, its more of an oxy moron as the one being rewarded is the one who didn't provide peace. Lucia Black (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The last part is not even speculative "as the one being rewarded is the one who didn't provide peace". That just jumps to conclusions. This is not a civility barnstar.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Clearly a snowball effect has taken place here and there is no chance this will pass. However, the intent was a good faith attempt to add a barnstar that could be rewarded to people in a conflict to give each other at the first (or any) sign of collaboration. The basic barnstar already exists elsewhere. Not the kindness campaign, but at the DRN where the reward is used. That in itself is not an issue. Let me be clear...existing at another project does not mean it cannot be used here for the general community. Many of the general use barnstars were originally made for the projects. That was the point I was making. The New Editor Barnstar started out at WP:WER. But...this is an unusual suggestion and clearly not acceptable and no consensus for inclusion. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose the point isn't to make a barnstar for every new situation, especially when people aren't even using them as much, and we already have around 5 different type of peace offerings. We already have options for peace offering. If you want to reward someone for providing peace, then the civility barnstar should suffice, whether you want to use it or not. Lucia Black (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
"[T]he point isn't to make a barnstar for every new situation.." Yes, I agree. This is only my second suggestion in 7 years. "If you want to reward someone for providing peace, then the civility barnstar should suffice, whether you want to use it or not." No. That is not how Wikipedia works. If there is something I feel improves the project I (and anyone) can simply, boldly create it, but that doesn't mean it will be useful here. Thanks for the discussion and taking the time to comment.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is this is more on the subjective side. And yes, that is how wikipedia works most of the time. Whether it works for personal awards, it may not, but for general use, yes. And this isn't much of an improvement but personal preference. Lucia Black (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The proposal for it may be in good faith originally, but after finding appropriate alternatives, it became personal preference as you chose to reject them. The civility barnstar provides the award for those who promote civility, and that encompasses providing peace offering. A barnstar for the sake of promoting peace is counter-intuitive. Personally, there are far too many barnstars here that all range around the same thing. Lucia Black (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope. That is still a no. You are interpreting and analyzing my reasoning to suit your own beliefs, but that is simply not accurate. It isn't a matter of rejection, but of stating the barnstar that is here is not the same thing and the others are not general use barnstars. "A barnstar for the sake of promoting peace is counter-intuitive" that statement is simply not logical and seems to have a good dose of POV. You don't assume good faith by stating it was only my original intent and by simply discussing what I believed suddenly you lost that AGF.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Let me clarify: "A barnstar that is not designed as an award for something to promote good editing, is counter-intuitive." All barnstars here are designed to appreciate the efforts editors do, they are not designed to be used as peace offerings. Which means if there is a barnstar out there that's not designed as an award for their efforts and more like to say, "to end the conflict, here's a barnstar." then thats already a serious problem. A barnstar is an award.
If you want me to believe this is in good faith, you should humbly accept there are alternatives to giving awards for others efforts and peace offerings for those who want to promote peace, (whether you want to use them or not, because no one is forcing anyone to use them). I personally believe some of these barnstars here shouldn't even be general use, and that some of these are repetitious. Lucia Black (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You lost me at: "If you want me to believe this is in good faith...". I don't want or need you to "believe" in the good faith of others. It is simply one of our core principles to "assume" good faith and frankly...a discussion about a barnstar is not a place I would have ever guessed that the assumption of good faith was set aside because of a personal opinion or point of view. look, the discussion shows clearly no consensus to add the barnstar, but no, humbly accepting what you mentioned is not even a part of good faith. One need not accept that there are other alternatives, one just needs to admit that the proposal being made is not supported. If you want to make demands of others for an assumption of good faith by holding their feet over the "coals" and tell editors what to accept or how to feel or think, your probably better off just ignoring that guideline and just assume what you wish, but frankly I think you went a tad farther than needed in the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to cut up a sentence and turn it to whatever you believe just to vent, so be it. But there are alternatives that serve the purpose you want. you want a specific barnstar to meet the exact purpose of what you had in mind, and although it came in good faith, you really pushed it forward by denying the alternatives. even though there are others that offer the same award. There's no consensus, and for good reason. You dont have to agree, but you should "recognize" the reason why. Lucia Black (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Our personal styles may well be very different. But assuming good faith is an important aspect and you are just making bad faith and unfounded accusations based on the fact that I don't agree with your opinion. I didn't push anything and that is one of the types of statements from you where you are not assuming good faith and are too aggressive over an opinion based proposal. As I said, there are many different types of barnstars. By the way...you may wish to better understand the difference between a "reward" and an "award". Giving an award is many different reasons but giving a reward is a prize. Barnstars are not prizes, they are awarded for various reasons. Yes, there is no consensus, but I don't necessarily agree that it was for good reason or I wouldn't have continued to discuss and discussion is not pushing. It is just a discussion. I do recognize the reasons, I just don't agree with them, but that is not important. What is important is that there is no consensus. By the way, perhaps you are right and we have too many awards here, did you wish to begin a discussion on which ones to remove?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I made a discussion along time ago on which to merge to make more general and finite amount of barnstars. I'll look for the link to share later. Lucia Black (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Horror barnstar?
I'm interested in creating a horror barnstar, partially to help gain more attention to WP:HORROR (which is semi-active) but mostly because there are a lot of people who contribute a lot horror-wise and there's really not a good horror-specific barnstar out there, if I remember correctly. I've created a prototype for the image, (you can see it here) but it needs a LOT of work. This is where my skills are limited since I completely suck at photoshopping and anything beyond MS Paint basics. Anyone interested in helping with this? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)10:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I been too busy to work on a barnstar. if anyone else could make one, that would be great.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Black (talk • contribs)
That is very creative but...I wonder if it might be too busy and if the main character being shown is not "Horror" enough? Man...that sounded nic picky even to me! ;-) But I like that you made such an effort.Mark Miller (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I dont think its not horror enough, i believe its not really a good representation of horror. Perhaps just a black barnstar with either a ghost, frankenstein, or just the words "Horror" written in a specific font. Lucia Black (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
"Frankenstein" is horror enough, but a fish-eyed creature from a black lagoon of some kind isn't? Okay, I am offering what I made, (sorry it doesn't contain a ghost), and it is what it is. Maybe there's someone out there willing to try again for you. KDS4444Talk10:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm simply talking about the nature of horror, not that it actually is horror. Frankenstein is iconic as a horror-classic and one of the origins to Horror, creature of the black lagoon is also iconic, but you're using a more modern interpretation. The way its presented doesnt appear from The Creature from the Black lagoon especially with fire around it, derails any themes of horror and mroe of "rock". A ghost is just to show off again "classic" horror. Lucia Black (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a free font called "Double feature" that is made from the dripping blood letters similar to that from The Rocky Horror Picture Show. No copyright or trademark issues as long as you don't recreate their trade mark from 20th Century Fox. But then there are other dripping blood fonts. Of course as User:Amadscientist...I am partial to a mad scientist creating a monster.;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to buy photoshop all over again, but a black/grey scale barn star with the words horror on it would suffice. its simple and it illustrates horror just fine. Lucia Black (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Really? That is a pretty price to pay for twice. The suggestion you make sounds interesting but lets not say what suffices. Something better may be created. I agree the Fishhead image seems to say "terror" but not really "Horror". But I like the black and white idea, especialy if we added a few celluloid scratches to emulate old blk and wht film.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to propose the "RPG Barnstar" for recognizing assistance with articles about role-playing games and other tabletop games. This major genre of games frequently use polyhedral dice and it seems logical to used the pentagon-faced 12-sided die as the foundation for a Barnstar. The reason I am suggesting this now is because WotC is about to release the Dungeons and Dragons5th edition -- the first major version upgrade to this game in seven years. This should result in the need for a significant amount of article editing in this area in the very near future and going forward.
While I am (ahem) inclined towards my own design, I do like the multiple dice concept too. I would say however that you want to use a different color combination than purple with dark blue. It is too hard to see the dice at lower sizes (as shown on the left), and goes slightly against the Wikipedia:Barnstars_2.0/Guidelines (see #2). Also, the square (cube) dice in the circle in the star feels wrong. If in the end the community favors the multi-dice design then I suggest editing the image and swapping the D6 with the D12 and also reorienting the D12 so the pentagon face aligns with the pentagon center of the star (flat side on top). Oddly my own design seems to suffer from a similar problem ... take a look at the image in the full 1600 resolution and you will see the "psychedelic" detail that is lost at 220px. Aguy2014 (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Support the idea of a barnstar for significant contributions in the RPG area. I leave the design to the experts... I'm surprised we don't have one already! RomanSpa (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Support as someone who was just unofficially given one of these, I love the idea. I too am surprised there wasn't one earlier. Zell Faze (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC) I like the purple design better for it as well personally. I do agree though that D12 and not a D6 should be in the center. Zell Faze (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment I'm trying out Gimp, so i'll try using another form. I just wanted to try it out. I dont think a D12 dice in the middle will be easier to distinguish. So i'll look for another set of dice to put on the barnstar and use it as a third alternate proposal. Lucia Black (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
WikiFauna barnstars
If they don't already exist, would there be any problems with a separate barnstar for each kind of wikipedia:WikiFauna? I think one specifically for WikiAngels returning to active editing even if only recently or for a short time might be particularly useful. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Barnstars are designed to award editors their contributions. What could a barnstar be used for the usage of such terms? It seems to be completely optional. Lucia Black (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I rather like this idea, but I'm not sure that barnstars are the way to go. I'll think about this and see other people's comments before I come to a conclusion. RomanSpa (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Anyone can make any barnstar. the problem is whether it gets accepted for "personal-use" or "general-use" this doesn't look like its even designed to award anyone in general, it looks like its an excuse to make a design. WikiFauna is an optional choice to use nicknames based on. It doesn't hinder nor makes wikipedia better in anyway. Lucia Black (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Too many similar Barnstars (3.0), ultimatum
As I've stated in the past, too many general-use Barnstars, and i doubt many people use every single one. We should minimize the amount of Barnstars with ones with broader scope rather than having specific uses. I will provide which ones show
{{The Surreal Barnstar}} is about adding flavor and acting as a wild card to the community. {{The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar}} is about being a kind editor when its not being asked.{{The Barnstar of Good Humor}} humor to the community. {{The Barnstar of Integrity}} despite having an image of a scale to imply neutrality, it really is about the editor who has integrity, not only that but just really goes further into implying this is about general good character by stating "Or, more simply, a stand-up guy/gal". Both the Good Humor and The Random Acts of Kindness are Barnstars that have a smiley face which i believe shows a good sign for character in an editor. All four of them involve "Character" of the editor more than contributions to articles. I suggest merging all three that encompasses humor, unique flavor, honor/integrity, and overall kindness as the scope and calling it the The Good Character Barnstar.
{{The Editor's Barnstar}} is about general edits. Something that really doesn't need to be given a specific award. {{The Original Barnstar}} is a barnstar awarded for "anything", so why should general edits be an award? I suggest merging it with the Original Barnstar.
{{The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar}} is rewarded to those who work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks. The {{The Tireless Contributor Barnstar}} to especially tireless Wikipedians who contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality. Note they both are about general edits although highlight the efforts with the word "tireless". The tireless Barnstar puts a nudge further by expanding on it, but not by much. I believe the Working Wikipedian should be merged with Tireless Contributor. The difference will be very minor.
{{The Eraser Barnstar}} is a barnstar for those who remove unnecessary details. The {{The Typo Team Barnstar}} is about fixing typos. Both of these involve Copy-editing and there's already a Barnstar dedicated to copy-editing {{The Copyeditor's Barnstar}} so i believe it should redirect to those.
Here's only a fraction of what could be done that can easily work. We keep one or the other.
{{The Barnstar of Recovery}} and {{The Rescue Barnstar}} are both about rescuing articles from deletion. In fact both of them are severely close in the table, which makes me wonder what editors were thinking when they included a second one.
Anyways this is what i can find, if no one is keen on merging barnstars, then my last proposal is moving some of these specific Barnstars down to personal use section once more "general" barnstars are available for "general use". However i personally believe it would benefit more if they were merged. Lucia Black (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to look closer at the first one and the last one but agree with the ones in between so I support the merging of these barnstars to a single one. Also, I think we should notify the Village pump for broader community input but want your opinion on that before I make a post.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that it attempts to address the issue of redundant barnstars that are almost exactly the same. I would not call this a problem needing to be solved but simply editorial decisions being proposed.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason to reduce the number of barnstars, and no benefit to a lengthy discussion about it. Why can't we have 1000 barnstars if people are motivated to design them? And what's up with the word "ultimatum"? Cullen328Let's discuss it02:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I kinda agree in a way, but also agree with the OP that there are redundant barnstars that cover the same thing. The reason we cannot have any barnstar that anyone creates is because, to include them we need a consensus. I can create any barnstar I wish, but getting it on the list here requires a consensus of editors. The only thing I disagree with fully is that there is always a benefit to a lengthy discussion even if only to come out with no consensus. You are asking the wrong editor about the header title. I was as confused as you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue is best addressed, IMO, by merging all barnstars into badges and implementing a system that allows for manual and automatic awarding. Barnstars should operate as badges and existing badges should have the same weight as barnstars. Finally, a new tab should be created that simply says "Badges" that will automatically update itself, so no need for editors to maintain subpages about awards. DYK, FA, GA, and other types of recognition and awards should be rolled into this system as well, providing an overview similar to the display in the supercount/user analysis tool. I realize that certain members of the community have been fighting this obvious transition for years, but it's time to do the right thing and automate the process for awarding, distributing, and viewing badges, barnstars, and other achievements. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Not a fan of this idea. From what I've seen, badges are given out for meeting a concrete goal. Barnstars seem to be a more elaborate way of saying thank you. --NeilNtalk to me04:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I have a badge from the teahouse just for being a volunteer there. I really like what Viriditas is suggesting and agree it is time to start advancing the project.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Which is a concrete action (I'm trying to find the right terminology here). You get a badge for performing a specific action. --NeilNtalk to me04:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I really think that is splitting hairs to be honest. I am not on the volunteer page list now, but I am not giving the badge back. LOL! But seriously, no, just being on a list is not a concrete action. not in the slightest. Basically all one has to do is be a part of a group and there is a lot that can be said about how little...or nothing, editors on these sort of lists really do. So...no, not concrete at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The benefit from lowering the large amount of Barnstars will be for the purpose of making them easier to use when others want to reward an editor and can't find that specific barnstar (because the barnstars available aren't broad enough). If people want a more specific usage, then they should be made for personal-use. But with that said, i dont think wikkipedia should promote them here in general use. i also highly disagree with the idea of allowing general-use barnstars just because people are willing to create them. Unfortunately, this list can be a little unwieldy with some of these designed with more specific tastes. Rather than becoming a general-use.
The problem with the wanting to create more and more barnstars is that it can be counter-intuitive, they are after all, designed to being used. And we should design the best barnstars to be used for the entire community and not get lost. I will discuss badges in the other section. but you get the point. Lucia Black (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose: Besides the offensive use of the word "ultimatum" which is 1000% in conflict with consensus building, it is amazing to me that this discussion is happening here on the very Talk page for the WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. Apparently some people have forgotten what it says right at the top of the project page:
GOALS:
Keep all awards in a tidy, easy-to-navigate directory.
Help users who are keen to make new awards.
Maintain all awards and templates related to them.
Promote the use of Barnstars and other awards throughout Wikipedia.
Make sure that all awards are used in the proper manner.
This proposal does nothing to further ANY of those goals. Goals built by a community consensus, not some ultimatum. It certainly does not "Help users who are keen to make new awards.". The term "easy to navigate" does not mean small or minimal. "Maintain" does not mean eliminate. And as far as "Make sure that all awards are used in the proper manner." consider the following:
People want to be recognized for the work they did, not for some over-generalized vague concept of the work they did. I saw a discussion on a proposed Barnstar for Chess and the argument against it was essentially "Just use the Barnstar for toys and games". To some people Chess is serious business and intellectual work. Giving an editor's contributions to improving Chess articles a "Thank-you for helping with toys & games" would offend the crap out of many of them. Hardly a "proper" award.
Certainly eliminating duplicates and redundant Barnstars (by merging them via consensus, not deleting them) is a good idea but trying to limit Barnstars to only broad-scopes is a horrible idea. The fact is that this Project is charged with "helping people develop the creation and use of Barnstars and other awards". To those that say we need to reduce the number of Barnstars in order to make them more usable I say that is an effort to lower the river instead of raise the bridge. If you don't like the answer the solution is not to change the question, it is to look for a better answer.
Not being one to address a problem without trying to provide a solution here is a suggestion to simplify navigation and usage of Barnstars. Ask each Project team to choose or develop a Barnstar appropriate for their community. While anyone can participate in the discussion who better to develop consensus on a "proper" award than the focused editors of that community? After selecting a Barnstar have the WikiProject template for that Project modified to include something like (using Chess as an example):
If you feel an editor has made an outstanding contribution to this article please recognize them with a Chess Barnstar. Simply add {{subst:Chess Barnstar|1=Put your message here. ~~~~}} to the talk page of the user you wish to award it to. If you feel their contributions goes beyond just the Chess WikiProject then visit [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards]] and select a more appropriate form of recognition.
Now every time a user goes to a particular talk page they will see the "best choice" for Barnstar and be routed here as well. As far as I can tell my counter-proposal/suggestion does support all five goals of this project and promotes this Project too!Aguy2014 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Barnstars do absolutely no harm to our encyclopedic content, and provide a nice way to reward people when they've done a good job. The wide variety allows us to recognise particular contributions, but this proposal would remove that ability. For example, under this proposal {{The Surreal Barnstar}}, {{The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar}}, {{The Barnstar of Good Humor}} and {{The Barnstar of Integrity}} would be merged into a single "Good Character Barnstar". It seems to me that being surreal, being kind, being of good humour and having integrity are all different things, and I'd prefer to be able to recognise these separately. Similar reasoning applies in the other proposed cases. If you think there are too many barnstars, the obvious thing to do is not to award them. For example, I tend to feel that it is better to abstain from hot drinks, so I'm more likely to give people some yummy brownies than a beer, though I'm not dogmatic about this. The nice thing about having a wide range of awards is that it adds flexibility. RomanSpa (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Mixed Support I should open by saying that Ultimatum was maybe a poor choice of wording. I think it would be wise to amend the title to remove that, as a number of folks are likely to take issue with anything titled Ultimatum, just on the principle of the matter. That said, I do think this proposal has merit. I would generally support the merging of some of the redundant barnstars. Of those listed I would specifically support: The Editor's Barnstar → The Original Barnstar, The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar → The Tireless Contributor Barnstar, Red Link Removal Barnstar → The Wikilink Barnstar, The Graphic Designer Barnstar → The Graphic Designer's Barnstar (though this one appears to have already been merged), The Barnstar of Recovery → The Rescue Barnstar. I think that the The Surreal Barnstar, The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, The Barnstar of Good Humor, and the The Barnstar of Integrity are valuable and different from each other. Likewise I think the The Redirect Barnstar servers a different purpose than the Red Link Removal Barnstar and The Wikilink Barnstar do. The Anti-Flame Barnstar and The Civility Barnstar are likewise different. I would support Aguy2014's proposal along with Viriditas general badge system idea. Zell Faze (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@Aguy2014: You're trying to make it look like the main argument is "less" barnstars equals helping the people use them better, but its not about quantity, its about "quality". If we have a large amount of insignificant barnstars, then people will follow the trend of continuously wanting to make more for more heavily specific and heavily similar barnstars simply because they see the large range of them, rather than a well-meaningful barnstar that can cover more than one specific thing. Besides my main point was to merge the ones that are too similar in meaning to serve like a great reward, not remove them. If you strongly oppose then rather than fighting the principle behind the proposal (which again, you twisted the point), fight the specifics like most people have said. For example:
Why should we have three different barnstars for such specific things when a more general barnstar will have more meaning? And before you disagree, i'll provide an example: If an editor recognized me fixing typos, and gave me the barnstar specifically for typos, although i would appreciate it, i would also feel disappointed that was the only thing they noticed, and the barnstar shows how minuscule it seems to be. And even if i did focused only on typos in my editing, a barnstar that recognizes that i am not just fixing Typos, i am "copy-editing" articles, shows greater value for my contribution.
The alternate proposal you provided is already available, the first option is to make a directory, which really we already have through WP:AWARD and we have this page as well. The problem with the table isn't that its too long, its that it contains several Barnstars for similar things, like i said before. So scrolling through, members will incline to look for more specific barnstars as they find specific barnstars (because the general barnstars aren't made available or just downgraded by the other specific ones). Helping users are keen to making barnstars isn't an issue at all. the third option is not so different from the first. the fourth is available with the new WWikiLove tab when you go to a talkpage. The fifth isn't related to the issue at hand. Unless you want someone to moderate all the awards being used and if their used appropriately, this really means more extra work than necessary. my proposal is about having less work by offering more broader barnstars rather than over specific barnstars (at least in this talkpage for general use, my alternate proposal is still about moving these specific ones in personal-use section, while creating more "general-use" barnstars for "general-use" section. It really comes down to common sense.
@RomanSpa: I believe too many barnstars in the general-use section are hindering the usage, having constant proposals for more general use, and some people are starting to propose the exact same thing, people who are not up to date might support it if their not knowing. Right now its not whether this is a good idea (because it is a good idea), this is whether you like it or not, which many members have admitted that this is a matter of liking/not liking it and feel that is reason enough because its not a space that affects articles, it affects the community. But really, this proposal will provide more results. And if you say "don't use them" what you're really saying is " i want people to note use these barnstars, i want barnstars to just be an art project rather than a real award" and if you're not saying that then give me an objective reason why the proposed barnstars shouldn't be merged individually. Some members enjoy giving brownies, beers, or tea. Everyone is welcomed to do so, but notice they are under personal-usage. My Alternate proposal is still moving the specific barnstars into personal-use when more broader barnstars are made.
@Zellfaze: The Ultimatum is there for a reason, its either this passes or an alternative. And i have an alternative ready to be shared. But i'm still giving barnstars a chance. I proposed an alternative, more general award. Some members actually opposed it for the reason that they will catch on better than barnstars. Lucia Black (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
"Ultimatum" is a completely counterproductive word to use here, and I encourage you to withdraw it, Lucia Black, since you have no power to enforce any such ultimatum. There is a very old phrase that says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There is nothing wrong with our current array of barnstars, and the comment about a chess barnstar is very apt. Topic specific barnstars can be very motivating, and giving a generic "toys and games" barnstar to a chess editor is a bad idea. And so on. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The system is definitely broken and i have provided reasons why. the Barnstars have becoming closer and closer to the personal-use awards, meaning there's no distinction and i'm only here to make the distinction stronger. Toys aren't Games. But chess is a game. A barnstar for games is not offensive for someone who has been working on Chess-related articles. In fact, it shows broader scope, that the editor is recognized to being able to fix more articles not-related to just chess. So similar with my more realistic situation about typo/copy-editing Barnstar, it shows greater value even if the contribution was smaller. Still like i said my alternate proposal is moving these too specific/too similar barnstars to personal usage when more broader barnstars are made.
With that said, i will NOT remove "ultimatum", even if members don't like it. and they are currently being tested by it. My ultimatum is this. Make appropriate changes so that we get less tedious request for too similar barnstars and too specific or an alternative reward-system will be implemented by me that offers this. If you don't like my alternative, you dont have to use it the same way i dont have to use barnstar, but i've seen "fear" in this proposal before because it actually looks like a viable alternative that can overshadow barnstars. Lucia Black (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@Lucia Black: What you meant to say in earlier comment, of course, is not "because it is a good idea", but "because I think it is a good idea". As for the possibility that having too many barnstars hinders their use, you're quite entitled to believe this, but I prefer to believe things only once there's some evidence to support them. What evidence do you have to support this claim? There's also a fault in your reasoning where you say "if you say 'don't use them' what you're really saying is 'i want people to not[e] use these barnstars'", which I think arises from a mis-reading of my comment above; for clarity I'll repeat the comment here, but with an additional phrase which should make my point clearer: If you think there are too many barnstars, the obvious thing to do is for you personally not to award themthe ones you don't like or think are surplus to requirements. I'm quite happy to support the idea of more general barnstars, should you wish to create them, but I see no need to remove the existing ones, which allow for nuance where this is wanted. I'm also not in favour of anything that retrospectively "downgrades" existing awards. If somebody has received (say) the "Random Acts of Kindness" barnstar, to subsequently move this barnstar from the "general-use" section to the "personal-use" section seems to me like a devaluation. I, and I suspect (from observing their actions) many other people, tend to use "general" awards more sparingly than "personal" ones, and your proposal would have the effect of retrospectively reclassifying people's awards. This sort of thing tends to be unpopular in the real world, and I can understand that the same might be true in Wikipedia. Historically, the best approach to pruning an awards system has usually been to let the less-used awards just fade away over time.
Finally, the "objective reason" why the proposed barnstars shouldn't be merged is simply this: I believe it is better to award for specifics, rather than generalities. I have two reasons for this: first, because I intuitively feel that praise is more valued if it is specific, because the recipient knows that this means I've been paying attention; second, because there is good evidence that the more specific we can be, the better. Your claim that a more general barnstar will have more meaning seems to be objectively false. If you really want to make people feel rewarded and motivated, specificity is the way to go. RomanSpa (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I "know" its a good idea. its "practical" and has "common sense" behind it and if you look into the proposal "in detail". And this isn't about whether i use them, but finding a way to promote the usage of more barnstars. And if you don't agree, i would like you to argue with reason for each specific part of my proposal why each one is bad. I know you haven't looked into the proposal in detail because there are two barnstars are about saving articles from deletion. Different name but the act is still the same: saving an article from deletion. I feel people aren't looking at it objectively by actively comparing each point i provided. this is an argument behind your own personal principles over the actual benefits. Those who supported only had mixed support because the majority is more beneficial while some were controversial. For general-use barnstars, it would benefit more to making them more "general" barnstars. Members will recognize the difference between a general use and a personal use and request far less to be used as general. And honestly, if you want results, give it a chance.
i believe overly-specific barnstars have a place, just not in general-use. Some of these Barnstars really do lean toward personal-use. With that said, the study you showed was more based towards children and how to use topical compliments to help the child progress. So they are not the same thing as Barnstars (showing appreciation). And even then, the comparison of over-generalizing: "you're a smart girl" over the more clear and distinct: "You did a good job at reading" isn't a counter argument for having more general barnstars. I believe these barnstars are even more similar such as they are saying "You did a good job at reading words" "You did a Good Job at reading numbers" My proposal isn't about over-generalizing, otherwise we would only need just one Barnstar, the Original Barnstar. But its not about over specifying either.
My proposal has another benefit. My proposal not only makes it easier to navigate and find the one you need, but it also makes them less like "gift-card" and really truly upgrades them to being real "awards" for members to give (whether their contribution was big or small). How you may ask? Lets put in a hypothetical, realistic, situation. You have been working great with number-related problems at your job (even though you have contributed to other), what would be better from your boss? A personalized thank you via e-mail for every specific situation? Or a real plaque that honors all the number-related accounts. Granted plaques often aren't always that specific, but topical enough to know they been truly appreciated. Now, there's one thing you're forgetting barnstars have. They offer additional commentary alongside it. So even if Cullen328 example of Games barnstar would offend a Chess-oriented user (it wont), even if the study you showed was acceptable to every degree, this doesn't stop members from adding commentary to specify these things. Which shows Barnstars were designed to being a little more broader. Would you complain for receiving a "Copy-editing Award" over a "Typo" award even though its the same act of copy-editing? ones more broad. What about the "Eraser Barnstar" that only action is reducing space? Would you be offended by receiving the "Barnstar of Recovery" when you wanted the "Rescue Barnstar" even though both are about saving articles?
These awards get specific to the point of feeling arbitrary, and members continue to Propose even more arbitrary awards time and time again. Personally I've been awarded by the random acts of kindness, it doesn't mean anything to me if it either gets merged to a hypothetical "Good Character" award or if it gets moved to the personal-use. Honestly, merging some for a broader usage would benefit people. The barnstars given to others will still exist only change in name and image. Objectively it wont be bad.
This isn't abut making them too broad, this is about merging the incredibly similar. IF you're not happy about that, the other option is moving them to personal-use. and i know thats a worse option because it doesn't steamline the broader ones. What would benefit the barnstars is truly putting "value" to them. if you feel random acts of kindness being placed in personal use is devalue, it shows a side to you. Put things in perspective. Lucia Black (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou for conceding that there are two options, merging and userfying. But please be aware that there are other options including no change, and trying to set the debate as between two options that some see as retrograde is not a good way to convince people that your proposals are worth spending time on let alone worth supporting. ϢereSpielChequers07:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - As long as they're "free" and "optional", this is just creating problems and arguments where there's no real burden. As someone above said, let there be 1,000 general ones, if that's what people want. There's no detriment. Sergecross73msg me02:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment that's not what people get, even when they want it. Many have proposed several different yet overly similar Barnstars....i'm here to optimize the usage, regardless of what people want because in the end, if this passes, they WILL bite the bullet. And right now, Barnstars are the only option to giving any official award to members (for now). Lucia Black (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose A solution in search of a problem. For goodness sake, go and edit some articles. John (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose What John said. Way too much seriousness for a function that's supposed to be informal and engender good feelings. --NeilNtalk to me14:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment i moved your comments to a place where the specifics "aren't" currently being discussed. if you want to vote on the bottom, you'll have to vote every individual aspect of why its wrong (in detail). The bottom section is to discuss why the proposal is bad not as a whole, but individual pieces of it. I don't want any editor to derail the discussion for the sake of coming off as "we're consensus, nuff said". And if you claim you're not, the easy way out is looking at each individual. Lucia Black (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - No need to inhibit the variety of barnstars; this variety allows users to pick and choose based upon specificity, rather than having their choices unnecessarily limited. NorthAmerica100000:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand the issue
Or maybe, i should say "don't turn it into something else". The issue is definitely about having "too similar" barnstars, I will not discuss about having less, or more barnstars because it is not about quantity, its the quality of the barnstars by adding more value to some by "merging" them together or removing the exact copies. This isn't about the creativity of others, everyone is free to create their own personal, barnstar as random, as ambiguous, and as arbitrary as they like but not all of them have the merit of being for general-use. I'm also not going to listen to "if you don't like them, don't use them" because this isn't about whether i want to use them or not, its whether they are even usable in the first place. And to be honest, i'm having a hard time using them, some are too specific, i would need 3 barnstars just to cover that one action that editor does. From here on out, lets talk about the specifics about the proposal. Lets treat them individually.
First and foremost, the Editors Barnstar seems to be a Barnstar for general editing, which honestly, seems like that's all we do regardless if beneficial or not. Why would we need a Barnstar for doing such a ambiguous thing? This barnstar is too broad, it can cover as much as the Original Barnstar. Which is why i proposed to be merged to it.
The proposal of having a "Good Character" barnstar by merging 3 that are good-character-related puts emphasis on the person that they have a good character by having any of the traits of the merged barnstars. Even if one specifies the specific quality they wanted to highlight in the commentary, the award shows more meaning. If not all of them should be merged, then we should work on making some the others more distinct and not based entirely on a good character. I realize good humor, and random acts of kindness are two different traits but lean toward the same impression of having good character. Honestly "random acts of kindness" isn't that great of an idea. I believe many members have done numerous amounts of good edits, its a matter of what another editor classifies as a personal kindness to them and as "random". Which really is too specific for general-use. It really does seem like personal use. The one of humor seems to fit in closer to WP:Department of Fun, also not much general usage (at least i believe general usage should be streamlined to be more on trying to improve wikipedia in some fashion) The Surreal Barnstar is very ambiguous, either give it meaning or drop it completely. And again, not about whether i like it or not, its whether it has a usage at all that editors can award when appropriate.
The Eraser, and the Typo barnstar are encompassed by the Copy-editing Barnstar, a barnstar with great value and should be used more often for small and big contributions. Do we need a typo Barnstar? Do we need an eraser barnstar? How much value do they have individually? If the question is about desire than necessity, then lets put it in perspective: Will it matter in the end? No. but it will streamline the barnstar by a margin, noticeable or not.
Here is the Red Link Barnstar and Wikilink Barnstar, wouldn't it benefit more if those were merged together to involve any link cleaning up? It puts more "value" into the barnstar as it covers a general topic. What personal benefit will anyone have to specifically target for removing red links and adding wikilinks when appropriate individually? A Barnstar that covers both shows greater importance to both sides. Individually they are incredibly minuscule.
For the most part The Rescue Barnstar and The Barnstar of Recovery are exactly the same thing. They are both meant for those who save Barnstars from deletion. Its best to keep one, otherwise editors will believe they can request a Barnstar for the same thing only with a different name and different design.
The Anti-Flame War is a specific usage for saying they were civil by not flaming others. The Civility Barnstar awards for general civility which in turn cannot be awarded if someone is "flaming" as "not flaming" and being "civil" go hand in hand. Although both sound mildly different as one is more broader and the other is more specific, if you think about it both is awarding for something they are doing and not doing. Different names for the same thing if you really think about it.
New The Da Vinci Barnstar is the exact same thing as the Technical Barnstar, i'm not sure why there are alternatives for the same thing. The Technical Barnstar seems more accurate and clear,not only that but its used in the WikiLove options, so the oddball is really the Da Vinci Barnstar. It should be merged to the Technical one. Once again, its these type of situations that make other editors believe its ok to have the same award, different name for the sake of showing off their photoshop skills.
New The {{Barnstar Barnstar}} and {{The Barnstar Creator's Barnstar}} are both barnstars for those who create Barnstars. For the same reasons as Da Vinci/Technical and Rescue/Recovery we should really keep just one or the other and merge one with the other.
This is really about steamlining the general use. I would like to know why individually what is wrong with each idea. I feel too many people try to fight the principle behind it. But really, the individual issues speak for themselves more than the main goal. Lucia Black (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes some barnstars are similar, but do the costs of that such as a few electrons outweigh the advantages? There are several advantages to the current approach, firstly people can give and receive a wider range of barnstars rather than continually receive the same ones. Secondly there are likely to be more barnstars awarded if we have more designs because awarders won't feel constrained not to award a barnstar that someone already has. Thirdly some people like to create specific barnstars, if we move to some organised top down system that deprecates particular barnstars we reject their work. Lastly ultimatums are bad, but bureaucracies are even worse. ϢereSpielChequers07:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about how much barnstars take up space in wikipedia. so i will not be touching that. if you're continuously receiving the same ones its probably because you're getting rewarded for the same little things. So with that said if you're constantly getting reward for bigger things, it wont feel as bad for getting rewarded for smaller things. Its not an issue of getting rewards its how many rewards you get for the level of each contribution. some feel more like a hassle than an award. giving barnstars mroe meaning will also affect that positively. Again this is designed to optimize the usage, not downgrade it. And awarders feeling constraint isn't really my problem or yours. I'm not here to please the masses who want to do what they want regardless if that's what they need. If you want to have WP:ILIKEIT into this, i'm not going to bother. If we have barnstars with broader coverage, their not going to be "restrained" at all, all it is is less barnstars but all the topics are still there, only less specific. Some are too small too feel like awards (and if its really about the thought that counts, then no one should mind if these too specific ones get moved to personal-use). basically, they will have all the barnstars they need to reward a user. Lastly, if you know what the ultimatum is, you will know why i will not change it. So i will not reply again unless you have a specific problem with a specific issue i provided. Lucia Black (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It is very difficult for me to not see much of the last comment above as indicating the person making it has somehow determined that their own views are somehow binding on others. That really isn't the way we operate here. I said some time ago on my user page I don't want any more myself, but I can see how for some editors getting different looking awards, even if they are all for the same sort of activity, might provide an additional, possibly small, incentive that repeated reception of the identical template they have already received might not give them, and anything that helps keep editors here is a net plus. In fact, I came to this page to propose a whole new group of awards, one for each species of Wikipedia:WikiFauna. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, not talking about this. This will be the last time i talk about subjective principle over objective issues. Wikifauna is more of a side=project rather than trying to contribute to better wikipedia. so thats not necessary. and as you can see these are the type of barnstars we will be getting each time we promote some obscure or arbitrary award in the general-use. If we streamline the barnstars, it will be "obvious" to first-time editors who want to use barnstars which is general-use and which is personal-use. Lucia Black (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I am curious: what purpose would such a barnstar serve on Wikipedia? For what behavior/ act would it be awarded? KDS4444Talk00:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It could be used to award editors who make significant improvements to boxing-related articles, spend a considerable amount of time maintaining stated articles, etc. NorthAmerica100000:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
What's the typical protocol for the creation of a new WikiProject barnstar? Proposal within a project first and then getting someone to create it? Is there a list of users who would be willing to design barnstars? Upjav (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Whoever wants one to be designed, will be willing ot. there is no straight-out protocal. you could however ask a member who made one in the past to make one for you. Lucia Black (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question, perhaps a bit belatedly, WikiProjects are governed by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Simply put, WPWPA exists simply to help WikiProjects connect to graphic artists (It seems Lucia is willing to help, but for posterity I've always found The Graphics Lab be be a good resource) and listing WikiProject Awards as they are created. Achowat (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
New Barnstar
This is a barnstar I created for the admins who do a lot of work in deleted non-encyclopedic pages.
The deletion barnstar
Nice job in the field of deleting non-encyclopedic pages.
If an admin is doing good admin-only work, I'd much rather see them be given The Admin's Barnstar. Just hitting the delete button isn't really something that seems worthy of recognition; but sifting through deletion discussions or understanding WP:CSD or WP:PROD enough to know to hit the right button, that's much more about being a good Admin than just deletion. Achowat (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Guestbook Barnstar
How about a barnstar for signing guestbooks. It could be an standard barnstar with all the info in it such as; This user signed "Example"'s guestbook! Be the next to sign" and we could use the guestbook logo. MirrorFreak15:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
This is what it could look like.
"Examples" Guestbook Barnstar
This user signed "Example's guestbook! Be the next to sign!
Agree that this seems more like a PUA. I do think that ways of encouraging more friendly communication between editors are good for Wikipedia (we're more likely to resolve conflicts efficiently if we're already friends with the person we're arguing with), but it is precisely the personal nature of such relationships that makes them better suited for the personal user space. RomanSpa (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I just saw the thing saying that there needs to be discussion here before barnstars are added. I'll create a list of barnstars that I think are worth adding in my sandbox and come back and propose them here. Asarelah (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Question about WikiProject Barnstars
Do I have to be a member of a specific Wikiproject to award the barnstar to someone I feel is deserving of it? I wanted to check first. Asarelah (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you. How I do I get consensus on adding a new barnstar to the page, as per the Anthropod barnstar? Also, shouldn't they be sorted by subject or something to make locating them easier? Asarelah (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Topical Barnstar - For improving botany and plant related articles
Extended content
I would like to make a Blazing Star Barnstar for contributions to plant related articles from this image of a flower called "Blazing Star" (Mentzelia laevicaulis). But I do not know how to format it like a barnstar award. Can anyone help? FloraWilde (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Please wait until you have an actual consensus. One editor is not a consensus. It looks good to me as well and I will support it, but give this more time please.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the list entry, but I do not think the link in the barnstar title is a good idea. That's what caused the problems with the entry. Huon (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The reason for the link is an inside WP:PLANT joke, since the common name "blazing star" applies to several species, but the link goes to giant blazing star, an added compliment to the awardee. FloraWilde (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not part of any consensus to create this barnstar. In fact, in its current state I'd rather tend to oppose it. The image is among the least barnstar-like compared to the others, the "star barnstar" wording is awkward, and in general the title should give a good indication of what type of edit the barnstar is awarded for, without the need of an explanation, much less a link. Huon (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I support the idea of having a barnstar for contributions to plant related articles, but I have to agree with some of Huon's objections. The name and image, while both creative, should be changed. According to Wikipedia:Barnstars 2.0/Guidelines, the design should be based on a pre-existing template and use stylized clipart, rather than photographs of actual objects. I don't find the wording of the title awkward, and in fact, I think that it's kind of fun. But it's a little too vague and I don't think that it should be named for any one plant - something more general would be better. --Jpcase (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Another Barnstar
So I had an idea for a barnstar for people who adopts another user (probably given out by people who monitor the page). I was thinking about having a custom picture for it, but because I think it'll be shot down immediately, I left the original in place.
The Adopter's Barnstar
This Barnstar is awarded to (Insert name here) for taking a new member under their wing.
So yeah, I'm new to this and I am ready for anything you are willing to say.
Correction needed for missing star image in the "The Tireless Contributor Barnstar"
The "The Tireless Contributor Barnstar" is missing a star image. I propose immediately putting in the basic barnstar image to correct the deficiency, and discussing possible changes if needed after the deficiency is corrected. AGF that this is an accidental ommission, I would do it myself, but I don't know how. FloraWilde (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you just seeing a blank box next to that barnstar? There actually is an image for it - it's an animated one and looks like the Original Barnstar spinning around. Perhaps the device your using can't display animations. Do you think that might be the problem? --Jpcase (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Barnstar to add to this article
I have found a barnstar template that would be good to add to this list:
My initial thought is that it seems too limited in scope, especially given that there is a biology-themed barnstar. Have you given any thought to approaching WP:ARTH and seeing if they'd like to make this their WikiProject Award? Achowat (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Barnstar
I'm thinking it would be cool to have a barnstar for people who write articles on women's history, especially since Wikipedia has a gender gap. So how about the Women's History Barnstar, for people who create or make significant contributions to articles about women's history? Here is my suggested image, featuring a painting of Clio, the muse of history, by Artemsia Gentileschi:
Here is a variation of the Gentileschi image [5] anyone is welcome to use for whatever. (Sorry I don't know how to upload.) —Neotarf (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Animation Barnstar
I believe that an Animation Barnstar should be added. The Film Barnstar is too narrow, since animation can be found on television as well. It would also be nice to recognize work on articles about related topics, such as video games based on animated works and music that was written for or has become associated with animated works. Eight other editors (Pedro thy master, Khanassassin, Nirinsanity, ElectroPro, Fortdj33, Paper Luigi, Ogram, and Wrk3) have voiced support for this idea. We had a design ready, but unfortunately, it seems to have disappeared (I intended to open this discussion much earlier, but have had too many distractions lately). I'll try to find it again, but if it's no longer available, then I'm open to new suggestions. --Jpcase (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, six of the eight supporting editors are members of the Animation WikiProject (the other two have been heavily involved with related articles, but haven't technically joined the WikiProject). Is there a difference between a Barnstar and a WikiProject Award? --Jpcase (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Wider consensus than we already have? What exactly would be considered a "wide enough" consensus? And are you saying that we need to create the award and start giving it out to people, before it can be listed here? --Jpcase (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
No, not at all. What I'm saying is that if WikiProject Animation wanted this to be their WikiProject Award, then it'd be listed on that page without hesitation. The process for a Topic-specific barnstar is, for better or for worse, a little more complicated. Achowat (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
So, basically, I just have to illustrate that WikiProject Animation wants this award? How would I go about doing that? --Jpcase (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I actually opened a discussion there, but I never received any replies. Perhaps the talk pages for other WikiProjects are more active. I then personally approached all of the members of WikiProject Animation, and the above-mentioned editors supported my proposal. The others simply didn't reply. I don't know how many editors would be expected to participate in a discussion at WT:TOON, but I assume that if eight had joined the discussion, then that would have been enough - am I right? So do you think that eight supporting editors (nine including myself) marks a strong enough consensus? --Jpcase (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to abandon it, because I really think that this would be a good idea, and others seems to like it as well. If nine people doesn't count as a consensus, then how many people do I need? --Jpcase (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure when the editor behind the original design might get back to me. Is there anyone who might be willing to help out with this? I wouldn't know how to go about it myself. And Achowat - what are your thoughts? Are nine editors a strong enough consensus? --Jpcase (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for going over this with me. But I wasn't intending on creating a WikiProject Award; I was intending on creating a new barnstar. So the goal is to have this listed at WP:*, not WP:WPPA. Are there any additional steps that I have to take? --Jpcase (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Simply put, I think that Animation is perhaps a bit too narrow of a field for WP:*, especially given that Film, more broadly, is given a place there. Achowat (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
But as I explained, animation can be found on television as well, and I would like to be able to honor work on articles about related topics, such as video games based on animated works and and music that was written for or has become associated with animated works. Animation might not be the broadest topic ever, but it certainly wouldn't be the most narrow topic to receive a barnstar either. E.g. there's already an Anime and Manga Barnstar, and anime is just a sub-topic of animation. Or how about the Mixed Drinks Barnstar and the Wine Barnstar, both of which exist, despite there also being a broader Food and Drink Barnstar. I feel that really niche topics shouldn't have their own barnstars (I wouldn't support a CGI barnstar or a Disney Barnstar), but certain sub-topics seem to be notable enough for inclusion here. If any subtopic of film is notable enough, I believe that it would be animation, especially since the Film Barnstar isn't even broad enough to cover all animation-related topics. --Jpcase (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic! I'm glad to have your support. Should I go ahead and add the barnstar to WP:* now? It doesn't seem likely that any further editors will weigh in on the discussion, and we certainly have a strong consensus now. The exact process for adding a new barnstar is a little vague though, and I want to make sure that I've dotted my i's and crossed my t's. --Jpcase (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The Roadway Barnstar would be awarded to anyone who makes significant contributions to any roadway related articles/portals. I feel like this should be added because creating roadway articles is a long and tedious task, and sometimes actually requires you to actually go to the road. Here is an example of a nicely created roadway article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Interstate_20_in_South_Carolina
It would look similar to this (feel free to create a new image, I made this in like 3 minutes):
So I love the design for the LGBT Barnstar, but I don't think LGBT is inclusive enough, since there's great work on Wikipedia about asexuality, object sexuality, etc. So I'm thinking maybe I could change the name to the Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities Barnstar, and the description could be: "The Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities Barnstar is awarded to those who make significant contributions about topics related to gender, sexual, and romantic minorities, including topics related to such minorities' life and culture, people, events, and movements, societal issues, and population statistics."
While I find inclusion important, the WikiProject that handles this kind of work is WikiProject LGBT, found at WP:LGBT and the Portal for this kind of work is Portal:LGBT. I just doubt that the barnstar is the place to change how we refer to this community. Achowat (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I did the LGBT studies Barnstar instead, it is a specific WikiProject Award for the LGBT studies WikiProject, which we did not yet have. Maranjosie (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It was added pretty recently per WP:Silence, so opening up a discussion about removing it seems reasonable. I happen to support removing the LGBT Studies Barnstar, on the grounds of tremendously redundant (exactly the same reason I opposed adding it). Achowat (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've never given a barnstar before but I thinkStamboliyski has made some great contributions to Wikipedia articles related to the Politics of Burkina Faso over the past week and half. I think he should get a star for creating the half dozen or so pages that he has contributed to Wikipedia on Burkina Faso.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I think, as a general rule, all sovereign nations get to have a listed Barnstar of National Merit. If you're looking for help creating the image, maybe the blokes over at the Graphics Lab can help. Achowat (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
"Look nicer"...Do you mind giving us a few, even hypothetical, examples of the kind of edits that might warrant such an award? Achowat (talk)
Well I'm thinking of things like whitespace, pictures (and arrangement) largely formatting that makes the article more readable. More readable is a better way to put it. I just thought it'd be a neat (pun intended) thing to have. HalfHat16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat, but also sort of WikiFairy I don't think redundancy is too much of a problem, there is already a degree of overlap between awards, and multiple designs for awards. I just like the idea for some reason. HalfHat22:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
While we don't have a star for this as of yet, it's something that's been an issue from the beginning, and you kinda have to ask yourself why these kinds of edits have never been singled out for awardation. I think the simple answer is that there aren't enough people doing this specific thing to warrant an award. 235 people use the WikiFairy (while I understand this is exactly the opposite of scientific, it's nevertheless a number). Such minor edits could be awarded a Minor Barnstar. A huge number of high-quality ones, Tireless Contributor. Fixing broken templates, Template. It seems like there's not enough here that wouldn't be covered by other, longer established awards. Achowat (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Academia and Wikipedia
We have recently held an Edit-a-thon at my university and I wanted to award some of the academic participants a barnstar as a thank you for sharing their research specialisms (and weekend) with Wikipedia. Is there currently an Academic Wikipedian barnstar? If not, would their be any object to creating one? I think it would be a nice thank you and encouragement to academics to get involved. Mhbeals (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean an barnstar to be given to Academics? Because then just give them the barnstar that best suits their work. Remember, we want to recognize the edits, not the editors. If you mean a barnstar for editors who cover Academics, I only question if that topic is broad enough for a barnstar. I mean, there isn't even a dedicated WikiProject. Achowat (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I meant academics who engage in Wikipedia Education, such as integrating editing into classes or holding university events like edit-a-thons. There was, if I remember correctly several individuals at Wikimania 2014 pushing for greater involvement of Academics in improving Wikipedia and I think having something like this would help encourage regular participation via their institutions rather than just as private citizens Mhbeals (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to propose a new barnstar. The title will be "The Guardian Barnstar." This barnstar is spcifically for those users who devote their time and energy to helping certain users in a guardian angel type of way. I have a specific user in mind, but I think this would be a nice addition that anyone would be glad to award. I will design it in photoshop. I was thinking something simple; just the star with wings. Am I able to do this? And, could you walk me through the steps? Thank you!
Snaudrey (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea, but don't give my opinion too much weight, I'd give it a halo and sword though. HalfHat10:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC) editted at 11:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create a retirement barnstar for coordinators, admins, oversighters, etc who voluntarily step down or otherwise retire from their positions to pursue other interests? It would be a nice way to honor those contributors who step down from these positions to pursue other interests, and it couldn't hurt to have a departure themed barnstar for those who leave Wikipedia as a whole so as to honor them. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Meh. While I don't think the award would do them any harm, I'd much rather see them get an award for the work they were doing, or moved on to do, instead of merely for the act of stepping down. Achowat (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I can't find the one I made but I did find the one that inspired mine, but I didn't look closely when I was decided to use a different image.
Wikipedia Gold Watch of Retirement
!! Happy Retirement [[User:Name|Name]]!! - We're really sorry to see you leave Wikipedia, but are also really glad you joined in the first place. Thanks for all the contributions you’ve made to making Wikipedia the best factual based resource on the internet. Mark Miller (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I've had some problems with user:TMDrew, regarding vandalism (a few days ago, I had to issue him a final warning), anyway I'm pleased to say the vandalism seems to have stopped.
During this episode I noticed the user frequently cleans his talk page, after looking at the edits I realise I am not the first person he's had problems with.
It made me curious then how he could have been awarded a Barnstar by a user name 'Bobby', I was also curious why there was no hyperlink to this user, rather the name had not been typed with the usual 4 ~'s, but seemed like it had been literally written out.
After looking at his user page edit history, I saw that no else other than TMDrew had ever edited the page leading me to believe he had awarded himself a barnstar. I have no idea what happens next in regards to this, it seems to be a rare case, and I honestly had no idea where to report such activity other than here, but I just thought I'd let you know.
Heuh0, I have seen several instances where unproductive editors use sockpuppets or meat puppets to award barnstars to themselves. Such deceptions are usually transparent. Since barnstars are unofficial, casual awards, given for subjective reasons, I recommend ignoring bogus barnstars. Editors are judged by their positive contributions, or lack thereof. A fake barnstar is no protection at all. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
For the image, I've always been a "Show, don't tell" kind of person when it comes to Barnstar design. It's better to not just write on top of one what it is, I'd say. Maybe a design based on the puzzle-piece thing that, at least to an untrained 20-something in New England, screams 'Autism' more than any word could. (I understand the spectrum thing, but we frankly have too many rainbow barnstars to add another without it getting confusing). Achowat (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, how about this one lower down with the puzzle pieces? What does everyone think?
The Autism Barnstar was created to reward those who advance the goals of WikiProject Autism.
I love it. I know that there are some rules about using the puzzle ball. Does anyone know if this would be kosher by those rules? Achowat (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The author of the puzzle ball image said they don't want it copied to Wikimedia Commons (which I have not done) and gave it a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. So my use should be good. Maranjosie (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The Games Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who support the goal of WikiProject Games in advancing knowledge and understanding of all games.
I'm working to bring the Games WikiProject fully back online by the end of the month. Any thoughts about using Tic Tac Toe? It's a classic and doesn't favour any particular area of games. I'm open to suggestions if there are better options. My feeling is that it needs to be simple yet instantly recognisable. All feedback and ideas are more than welcome.
It seems to me that the people who would be best to define the visual identity of a WikiProject would be that WikiProject itself. It seems that they've taken Backgammon as their visual marker, per their Talk page tag, Userbox, and WikiProject logo. I'd say build a consensus over at WT:GAMES and then just let us know about it. Our job, especially for WikiProject Awards (per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) isn't to approve WPPA's, just to curate the list and help where we can. Achowat (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I see your point. It's just me in the project at the moment and I didn't want to step on any toes. Especially since there doesn't seem to have ever been a barnstar for the project. I'll set aside some time to create an svg version of the backgammon icon and put something together. Shortens the approval process, at least. Thanks again for the advice. - Mattwheatley (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. As the only member of WP:GAMES at the moment, this will be the project barnstar until I can rustle up some more members. Thanks again for the advice. Cheers. - Mattwheatley (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Are there any particular sources for clip art to use in creation of barnstars? Does it have to be clip art, or can it be text or other images (assuming you remove background and such)? I have an idea for one, but wasn't sure about image sources. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 04:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It's been about a day, so unless anyone has any issue with these, I'm going to throw them on the table. Good work, Komchi! Achowat (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Then the proper place to discuss whether this should be the official award of that group is there. I see you've started that discussion. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, once you build consensus there, feel free to add it at WP:WPPA. Achowat (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Done! Thanks graphics lab! Achowat (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by J73364 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Wiki Warrior Barnstar
Fossilized Barnstar for palaeontology related edits.![Dinosaur barnstar[1] for dinosaur related edits.](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/WPD_Barnstar.png)
Dinosaur barnstar[1] for dinosaur related edits.![Arabian barnstar[2] for Arab related edits.](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/ArabianBarnstar.gif)
Arabian barnstar[2] for Arab related edits.![Mauritius national merit barnstar.[3]](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/BoNM_-_Mauritius_Hires.png/58px-BoNM_-_Mauritius_Hires.png)
Mauritius national merit barnstar.[3]
![Dinosaur barnstar[1] for dinosaur related edits.](/wiki/File:WPD_Barnstar.png)
![Arabian barnstar[2] for Arab related edits.](/wiki/File:ArabianBarnstar.gif)
![Mauritius national merit barnstar.[3]](/wiki/File:BoNM_-_Mauritius_Hires.png)
could still be used for similar purposes. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
LGBT studies Barnstar instead, it is a specific WikiProject Award for the LGBT studies WikiProject, which we did not yet have. Maranjosie (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Wine Barnstar 2.0 version
Buddhism Barnstar 2.0 version
Comic Barnstar 2.0 version
Feminism Barnstar 2.0 version
Real Life Barnstar 2.0 version
![[5]](https://neotarf.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/barnstar-based-on-gentileschi_artemisia_-_clio_-_1632-by-neotarf-cc-by-sa.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Jpcase#mediaviewer/File:Animation_Barnstar_V3.png){kind=link}
