php-deluxe.net - description Barnstar and award proposals Archive1

Barnstar and award proposals/Archive1

= The Hollywood Walk of Fame Barnstar =

I would like to move that we remove this from the page. Its purpose is vague at best: individuals whose fame and/or excellent work on the Wikipedia should be given a Hollywood Walk of Fame star (those whose deserves a Hollywood Star because they re famous, get a Hollywood Star). The excellent work portion is redundant with other barnstars. I don t see any reason to keep it around. – 01:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Should we remove the The Hollywood Walk of Fame Barnstar (1/0/0) – Poll opened March 2, and will close March 9 (1 week should do it)

Yes # Yes, for the reasons I stated above. – 01:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) # Yes -- 01:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) # Yes, as per 03:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) # Yes. Though the concept is nice, I think we should look at this more. So I wish for this to be gone, just for a short while. 12:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) # Yes. Replace it. -- 08:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) #I am inclinced to agree 00:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

#NO! Keep, but use a different description for awarding the barnstar (see my comments below). 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments *I m not sure I d go so far as to remove it completely, at least not yet. Maybe its purpose can be clarified instead Also, it might be a good idea to actually incorporate the barnstar into the image, probably by replacing the actual star with a barnstar that looks like it. -- 01:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This looks to me like just an excuse to use the Hollywood walk of fame image. Honestly, I m not sure what we can even do with the idea. I don t think we need to try and salvage every bad idea that is unilaterally added to the listing. – 01:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ClockworkSoul. This award is redundant at best. I see no reason whatsoever to try and salvage it. Regards, 03:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*I agree that this award is redundant in its current form. There s nothing here that isn t covered in the other barnstars (such as the original Barnstar). However, this is a Hollywood star, and I think there s no reason why we shouldn t use it for entertainment articles. This barnstar could, for example, be used for the Society category below. -- 14:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) **I concur with Deathphoenix. I feel that maybe this type of award be given to those articles that exemplify the best articles that deal with Hollywood (i.e. actors, actresses, directors, etc). Wouldn t that make more sense -- 08:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes: I also agree. That s why I suggested we use it for the Culture category barnstar, below. – 14:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Since I awarded the first Hollywood WoF barnstar, I would like to give my two-cents worth. The reason for giving the barnstar should be changed, but the barnstar itself should be kept. Here is my idea for the barnstar: If you look at the stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, you will see that there are the various names, and above each name is an icon for a field of endeavor (such as the recording industry). A few people have two stars (usually Movies and TV), but very few have more. 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=Standardization of Barnstars: Category stars=

(Credit for the original idea goes wholly to , used to reward brilliant work in articles in one of the following categories:

– Art, literature, music, philosophy, religion

– Geography, nation articles

– Archaeology, history

– Education, food & drink, language, sports & games

– The hard sciences: Biology, geology, medicine, mathematics, medicine, minerology, physics

– Economics, government & politics, law, media, royalty & nobility, war

– Technology, transportation

Implementing this system would, in the end, keep the number of barnstars at a manageable level by providing a number of very categories, thus preventing a Barnstar Creep that could eventually result in dozens of niche stars. This would also allow us to implement a stylistic standardization to these articles, giving these barnstars a common theme and/or look and feel . – 06:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In preparation for a ginormous discussion, I ve moved each header up one size, and added sections for each. Please keep discussion in these sections so that nobody s comments are missed and each can be easily archived. Add any image proposals to the appropriate section s gallery along with a number and your name (see example in Technology section). -- 15:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Before we go and choose images, let s decide whether these are really the categories that we want. Anybody have any opinions I for one, now think that we should roll Mathematics into Science . Also, for convenience and clarification, I took the categories from the scheme used in 15:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== (merged with science below)==

This topic has been merged with Science. See below

*I just can t think of anything for this, but I still think it should be kept separate from science, as it is category-wise. -- 15:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know that this is a Main Page category, but it really can t be awarded for too many things. It s not like life or culture that have literally tens of thousands of articles for each. I think that we should keep these categories as broad as possible, and roll math into science. If we decide not to, I would like to consider economics to be math, at the least. – 15:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

***Alright, I m fine with merging them together into a science and mathematics group. -- 15:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=Ranking=

Discussion Moved to:

This project is for the idea of having a ranking system in Wikipedia. Please discuss in and make suggestions here (if any)