Wikipedia talk:W Awards

The rules are too strict!

I doubt if users who contribute at WP:TFP will actually have time for WP:TFA. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Durova, is an example of one who is on the easy side (OTD is non-nom, and ITN is semi-easy). Buggie111 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It can be done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured Picture

"that you nominated" - so you don't have to be a creator of it, just a nominator? That seems somewhat like cheating (not that I mind, because I might have written over 20 FAs, but creating a FPicture for me is next to impossible :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I don't see it as cheating is because the point of the award is to recognize contributions to the Main Page. If you nominated a picture and it was selected, then it appeared because of your intervention. We're not giving credit for creating something, just for getting something in front of the eyes of millions of people. At least that's my take. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me, I was just curious if I was reading the rule right. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So what happens if somebody had, in fact, content in every area of the main page, but they did not personally actively nominate all of them themselves (somebody else did)? Do they still qualify? Or do they have to both create/improve and nominate all of them themselves? If it's the latter, it would be a little too strict IMO. If you want to "recognize contributions to the Main Page", the creator/article improver should also be recognized. For example, if you look at WP:ITN#Recognition and Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1#Credit templates, there are separate templates to recognize both the creator and the nominator. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A valid point. I'd think that creation should be valued at least as much as nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to nominate each thing. I have had content in each area, but since I did not nominate Millennium Park at WP:SA I have not applied for the award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I amend my statement to say that you must nominate each thing or be intimately involved in the nomination in the case of a co-nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

When you think there's consensus, feel free to modify the criteria. I'm a little busy these days, so I leave it to your capable hands. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 11:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am just noticing that the nominated set of accomplishments includes a WP:FP that the nominator did not create or edit. It seems to be consensus that nominating an FP does not make it your own encyclopedic content contribution. I have been through this at WP:CUP, where I was not given credit for numerous images including File:20070130 Cato June at Super Bowl XLI press conference edit2.jpg, which was a reedit of my crop and retouch work at File:20070130 Cato June at Super Bowl XLI press conference edit1.jpg from File:20070130_Cato_June_at_Super_Bowl_XLI_press_conference.jpg. In this case, I uploaded the original, did most of the retouching (elminating the Super Bowl logo), and most of the cropping taking it from the original through to the final version. Yet, multiple judges at the CUP were of the consensus opinion that this was not my own work.

See debates such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/7#FP_scoring. In fact, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/7#Images, claiming credit for must nominating an FP is considered "being a dick". See extensive debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/10#Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates.2FBuildings_along_Chicago_River, regarding Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buildings along Chicago River. In that case, I nominated the image, hunted down consent for the liscensing, and convinced the original editor to restich his own work and was not given credit. Reason being: it was not my own work. File:Eisenhower Expressway edit1.jpg, in which I removed all the visible license plate numbers was not considered my own work.

If you want more heated debates from user talk pages on the topic, I can send you there as well. These links are PG versions of much more extensive debates on what constitutes your own work as an encyclopedic content contribution by numerous judges and contestants at WP:CUP. This page is lightly traveled and since the CUP has a lot of eyes rendering opinions, I will view Consensus there as consensus that nominations of images and modest editorial contributions do not count as your own work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I assure you that I was in no way trying to be "a dick", as you say. I was simply trying to follow the rules as they were here at the time of my nomination, not – obviously – the rules for WP:CUP. I tried to involve the creator of the picture, and would gladly have let him nominate it himself, but he was no longer active on Wikipedia. I thought it was a good and important picture, and therefore I nominated it myself. I have never tried to claim credit for the photo, but since the rules said that nominating it was enough for a Golden W, I accepted that.

I apologize. I did not mean to call you a dick. Noraft (talk · contribs) emailed me and said he was a bit busy and that I could start reviewing noms. This is a newly created award. Given my experience in getting WP:FOUR started, I am aware that all aspirants will question tweaks to the rule that will make their work qualify. I am attempting to set a very clear standard. Yes, I am sort of defacto running this award based on the fact that Noraft has left it to me and I have experience getting WP:FOUR started. I have tweaked the rules based on my experience at WP, which includes participation in WP:FP, the former WP:VPICS and WP:CUP as well as the other areas of WP:GOLDENW that are not at issue in this discussion. I have based on rulings in other areas of WP, changed the rules from what was written. Specifically, I changed the WP:FP requirement to be the same as the WP:FA requirement and inline with award recognition at WP:FOUR and WP:CUP. Consensus could overrule my change, but it is based on extensive feedback on what constitutes a contribution to wikipedia at the CUP as well as involvement in FOUR, FP and VPICS. Based on the rules as they were written, but that were under debate, your nomination was valid and surely well-intended. I do not mean to make any intimation otherwise. However, I have set policy to make FP requirements parallel to FA requirements and in keeping with other awards at FOUR and CUP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to change the rules retrospectively to deny me the award, however, I guess I'm not really gonna bother putting up too much of a fight over that. Lampman (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I also apologize if my percieved intent is to deny you the award. I was actually looking forward to having company in the award list. I did not know that you were not involved in the FP. If Noraft had passed it, I would not have noticed. However, I could not pass it based on my understanding of perceived contribution based on extensive feedback at CUP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: what does the criterion even mean now? "You must have an article that you created/substantially updated and nominated a Featured Picture that you nominated displayed on the Main Page." That doesn't even make any sense to me. Lampman (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I will check the verbiage, but the intend is that each contribution in the five GOLDENW areas be recognition of your own work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Request

I've had material I've worked on be a part of the "On This Day" tab, but I have never nominated it because the nature of the material in question was such that it usually appears there regardless. For example, I'm the one who worked to get USS Missouri (BB-63) up to FA status; despite having never been nominated for an OTD appearance the battleship's been there by virtue of the fact that the Empire of Japan surrendered on her deck. Being that this is the case, I would like to know if I would meet the OTD requirements or if I would actually need to nominate and then wait for the material to appear. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When I created this award, the intent was that the nominator have done all the work to make each of the 5 parts happen. I.e., be a main editor and main nominator for each element of the award. However, since WP:FOUR has decided to place an emphasis on being the main editor for each stage and ignore the role in nominating works for each stage, I guess this award should go along with that philosophy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Golden to Platinum promotion

Crisco 1492, could you add a new line in the table that only has a date for the platinum main page date and add detail to the 2014 section as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 thanks for looking this over. Can you add a new line in the table that only has a date for the platinum main page date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Marking as historical

Neither the award page nor this talk page have seen substantive activity in a decade, and the award itself hasn't been given out since 2014. Due to this inactivity, I am marking it with {{historical}}. If anyone reverts, please ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)