Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center

Discussion moved from main page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-opening this debate. Two and a half hours is insufficient. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, is that so you can get at least one, your own, oppose in? :-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 08:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I oppose or not is irrelevant. Two and a half hours is a joke. I have been at dinner the whole time that this MfD has been open. Let's not even talk about those from other time zones who've been asleep the whole while, and won't even be waking up for another few hours. This was not a candidate for a speedy close; by no means. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets assume good faith here please. I'm talking it over with jb right now. :) — _Maggot^Syn 08:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I am assuming good faith, Jb could very well vote to Keep. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realist2, I'm somewhat shocked at the tack you're taking: again, whether or not I oppose or support is irrelevant, and proves nothing about good faith; the point is that a two and a half hour discussion is no discussion, especially given that this is a global site. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make you aware of ongoing discussion is all (Realist2). — _Maggot^Syn 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not "taking any tack", like i said, you can decide either way, who am I to know how you feel on the issue. The original post was a light hearted joke with a smile, not some monsterious breach of AGF. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 08:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My poor watchlist just had an unwanted addition lol. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just had to remove a few pages off mine to fit this one in. — _Maggot^Syn 09:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to remove talk pages from your watchlist, just as a general thing for the future. I find it so annoying. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. It can be a bit annoying. But I don't think there's any way of avoiding it. I moved the discussion to the talk page for good and obvious reasons: let's have a proper debate on the main page, uncluttered and to the point. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the less drama the better. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to spoil the fun but I have to say too late. — _Maggot^Syn 09:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC) take that as a joke, or if not, I don't mind[reply]

Hmmm.— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this MfD was closed as keep, what are the specific challenges that provide a problem? -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll venture a guess. "All of them." Fundamentally flawed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the challenges seem fine to me, but are there any that can cause a problem. Why all of them, what problems come from certain challenges? -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its more than possible to make a new award center after this one is burned down, with more controlls in place. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)So far on this page editors have listed issues caused by challenges to improve articles to GA or FA, spam talk pages, adopt users, add infoboxes, and participate in AfD. Are there many other types of challenges left on that page? Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres also awards based on edit count, a serious concern to the wiki elite. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although no one has offered evidence that this challenge is a problem yet, I can certainly see how a race to see how many edits one has could degenerate into disruption. And there are no "wiki elite"s - we are all editors expected to follow the same policies. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(re to iMatthew) All of them have problems, because all of them have the same fundamental flaw. It's a design problem. It's a structural problem. Put another way, it's a foundational problem. If the foundation of a building is bad, it doesn't matter if you put really really nice windows on it, or add really really nice exterior siding and granite countertops and a jacuzzi tub and other amenities. Those things are all good things, sure. But if they are on a bad foundation, they are also, by default and design, flawed, and will crumble just the same. Fixing the exterior siding on a house that is falling over would be rather silly, eh? All of them. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) To Keeper, I don't really see anything ostentatiously damaging about an incentive for helping single articles reach FA status (even general improvements). I myself have listed a few that I'd like some help on. Anyway, I'm talking about seriously contributing/improving the article whilst collaborating with the main editors and then getting it ready for FAC. There's a tiny sliver of a possibility that it may be like the barrage of terrible GA reviews, but really, the only negative thing that happens is the article is immediately shot down at FAC. Those challenges appear to foster genuine contributions and article building. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have listed a few that I'd like some help on. That's what peer reviews are for, yes? Article building does not require payment for services. I would like to think that people helping me write successful articles are doing so because they want to, not because I'll reward them with a graphic. María (habla conmigo) 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they require incentive. However, if a barnstar were to motivate new users to the project to start contributing in a helpful encyclopedia building fashion, I'd be rather disinclined to object. Regardless, no that's not really what Peer Reviews are for. Usually Peer reviews result in a few suggests for improvement, not actual improvement. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{e.c.} I'm almost convinced to change my vote to delete, since I see a lot of valid points brought up. Would anybody be opposed to deleting the center, and once Sharkface returns, I'm sure between myself, Sharkface, and The Trashumanist, we could probably come up with a load of new challenges that would not cause any problems. One new challenges are thought up, we could possibly run it by the community for approval of re-opening, because at this point, I see no hope in getting the center kept. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) OK, I'll bite; Imatthew, your three challenges in particular are all inherently disruptive.

1. The "spam 100 talkpages with wikicookies" challenge causes WP:AWB-armed editors to spam users with pointless templates. Unless the editor is known to the poster, all anyone receiving these is going to think is "why are you spamming me?".
2. The "Create a newsletter" challenge is fundamentally ludicrous; were anyone to do this, all it would do is waste people's time setting up newsletters, arguing with other project members over the contents, getting shouted at by the project members for dumping this unwanted piece of spam on their talkpage, and going off in a huff (there's a perfect example of this here). There's a reason projects generally don't have newsletters; it's because every project already has a page for discussing developments affecting the project — it's called "the talk page".
3. The "add an infobox" brigade is one of my pet hates. Infoboxes are very useful for collating basic information about the subject of a lengthy article. When they're added to short articles and just duplicate the information in the lead, they're pointless. – iridescent 16:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points, so I've deleted the challenges. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, if this gets deleted today, I don't see why your going to want to go create a new "center" or "program". If you really want to create new challenges, we can't stop you, but approach editors individually about them. Any program will be hard to maintain, and new editors will inevitably have no knowledge of the concerns raised here or even understand that achievement-based editing might harm the project. I don't want to continue to have this MfD discussion every few months, and to be frank, I just don't see the point of a centralized award center in terms of being a "net positive". Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely understand. I was just brainstorming ideas, and presenting them. If this MfD is closed as delete, I promise I will not re-create it. I have not intention of going past the community's decision. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That iMatthew, is a refreshing answer. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad, now I believe this could easily be closed as delete right now, but I doubt this is a clear consensus. Sharkface is on a break, I believe, so expect him to have a negative reaction when he returns. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moved from main page:

I woudln't have found these editors to help me if it weren't for the AWC:

		The Bio-star
		is hereby awarded to Earthdirt for doing an outstanding job producing the List of basic cell biology topics, and for going far beyond expectations by including a definition for each presented topic. Thank you for creating such a useful resource for newcomers to this subject. It's fantastic! The Transhumanist 03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must profess to having no idea what relevance the above have to this discussion. giggy _(:O) 02:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh, do those really need to be here? I don't see the point. (The first one is a redirect from a deleted article, so I guess it helps make the point about quality editing?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've been renamed since creation. But no, these were created by those accepting challenges at the AWC. They're excellent pages in my opinion. The Transhumanist 04:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Society Barnstar
		is hereby awarded to Kanogul for creating the Political science portal, and doing a damn fine job of it. The Transhumanist 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Awards Center newsletter just happened to go out during this MfD, and The Transhumanist actually manually placed a phoney MfD tag inside the newsletter, making it appear in everyone's Talk page and actually placing their page in the Miscellany for Deletion category. I removed it. --Laser brain (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was rather surprised by the use of the newsletter in this way. Not good. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it provides a good example of the Myspace, social networking, unprofessional and disruptive aspect of this page, so I'm not so worried about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting "newsletter recipient" after people's comments, it's very unnecessary. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very useful to know who was canvassed via newsletter about this mfd, regardless of whether they opine for keeping or deleting this page (both sides have been affected as such). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 13:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not label editors in good standing, some of them having been around for quite a while, in the same manner as we do SPAs. Considering we have some newsletter recipients supporting deletion and some supporting keep, I'm not sure how this is supposed to help the closing admin. They heard about the MfD on the newsletter, that's about it. Give these people some credit. It would be nicer to just list the recipients on the talk page here, if people feel it really needs to be noted. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has been "labeled" (newsletter recipient doesn't attach any judgment), and adding this makes it clear to the closing admin that !votes even from recipients go both ways. The flagging is entirely neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm thinking too much about this, then. Whatever. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a separate matter, which speaks as much to how the page is run as it does to canvassing intent. From the recipients' point of view, they just received a routine newsletter, which led them to the MfD. It's interesting that some of them have also declared for deletion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Los_Angeles_Angels_of_Anaheim_Fan/Challenge_Center has been created because this page is likely to be deleted. Given that this might circumvent the will of the community expressed by this MfD, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Feel free to move this to the main discussion if necessary. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not good. Probably innocent, but definitely "circumventing" the community. If this MFD is closed as keep or delete, "reinventing" it is not a desirable outcome. The Challenge Center should be added to this MFD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious myself as to how the decision made for this MfD will apply to similar projects created after the fact. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c.) Absolutely should be added to this MfD. -- iMatthew _T.C.

If substantially the same by letter or spirit, I would do a BOLD WP:CSD#G4. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings were the same on this one, but as a bit of a newbie admin, I wanted to run it by you folks first. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, LAAFan is attempting to address some of the concerns presented here. I think it ought to be added to this MfD and let people clarify, if necessary, whether their delete !votes are related to the implementation or the base concept. Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling this was going to happen after reading a number of comments to the effect of, "Well, if this gets deleted we'll just created a new one." I think adding the new pages to this MfD would be inappropriate because everyone that has commented already would have to revisit their comment and make sure it applies to the other page(s) as well. --Laser brain (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, this page is convoluted enough as it is. One page at a time then. :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, transparent; what is the attraction to barnstars ?? I agree with one at a time, and the G4 route. The last two MfDs were circumvented with similar promises and techniques. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should go along with this discussion. -- iMatthew _T.C. 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As should the mother of them all... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, none of the concerns raised in this MfD have been heeded. IT may be time for an RfC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should LAAFan be notified of this discussion? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this edit, I think he/she is already aware of it. Hut 8.5 20:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a heads up anyway. --Laser brain (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just got around to looking at this. Thanks to LaserBrain for letting me know. I'm planning for it not to be like the Award Center, with no awards being promised. I am looking at the AWC MFD for reference, and am already working on one of the issues, getting three overseers. Sharkface217 and the Transhumanist turned it down, but I would be one. As for the triple crown page, I'm either going to entirely redo it or just nuke the idea. Any concerns I should know about? As I said, I'm looking to use the MFD as a reference. I will get on the Challenge Center know, but please, tell me if you have any concerns. I would be more than willing to fix them.--LAAFan 20:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've decided to get rid of the Challenge Center. Not because I think my idea is horrible, but I have found out the Challenge Center has recently taken my time from editing articles. I also believe I need more experience before I can create a project that large. As for the Triple Crown Tournament, it will be deleted, too. I believe the Challenge Center will be created, but not right now. --LAAFan 00:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this one: "I'll make an article of your choice a FA, plus an Automotive barnstar." These things further quid pro quo !voting at FAC and RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on interpretation. The writer might have meant "I'll try to edit an article of your choice until it meets the FA requirements" rather than "I'll vote the way you tell me at FAC". Since we don't know which motivation was intended, we should assume the good one. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage people to re-attempt this idea and try to address the previous concerns. This MfD is not a ban on the concept. -- Ned Scott 23:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess now that all is said and done, I should throw my thoughts in here. There should be a discussion as to whether or not the concept itself is inherently flawed. I (quite obviously) do not think so but respect the wishes of the community enough to not go ahead and re-create something like the AWC. Still, should pages of the same type exist? There will eventually be pages that are the spiritual successors to the AWC. If they are implemented in a "better" (and I use that term very loosely) manner, should they still be scrapped simply because, as some Wikipedians charge, the entire concept is flawed? I suggest that somebody be be bold and take the steps necessary to address the entire issue now, as it could avert an ugly fight down the road. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the suggestion of moving the page to Wikipedia space and marking it as "failed"? That would preserve some of the history and provide a place for further discussion. FTR, I oppose pretty much the whole concept, but there might be a few nuggets of value that emerge. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated near the later part of the discussion, the organization of tasks was never a point of contention. I think those who really didn't want to see your awards center go actually appreciated the community you developed. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with the organization of tasks, and carrying on the camaraderie of the editors involved in the projects. However, one aspect you may have to infuse in whatever future project you coordinate is that all participants must be cognizant of the quality of articles. That seems silly when the project itself is devised to improve articles. I think a huge bonus to any project would be inviting editors to, as I put it, "get on the crazy train" to pursue their interests. Only the freakishly obsessed can go through an FAC unscathed. As evidenced by the wayward lambs of the Awards Center, too many people are dependent on "what's in it for me?" when one of the most revolutionary ideas is taking pride and comfort in your own interests. Helping young editors realize what they can do with their own enthusiasm may open new and wonderful doors for them. That lesson took me way too many years and a master's degree to get. --Moni3 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]