Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 20 August 2013

• WT:FOUR

faq page Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: What does WP:FOUR recognize and why? A1: FOUR recognizes the development of an article through four major editorial stages: 1.) A new creation, 2.) a developing article with at least one interesting encyclopedic fact (WP:DYK), 3.) a fairly thorough and high quality article (WP:WIAGA), 4.) complete article passing all quality standards (WP:WIAFA). Taking one brand-new article through all three of Misplaced Pages's major content milestones is a major achievement, and this award exists to recognize that effort and encourage others to do the same. Q2: What counts as a new article for the purpose of WP:FOUR? A2: Any article that would have been a redlink before you created it, or any article that was a redirect with no content history before you wrote it. Articles that are redlinks because they were deleted count so long as you created your version from scratch. If a redirect has content history that you did not create, it does not count. Q3: Are articles split from other articles eligible? A3: Generally yes, as long as you made significant editorial contributions in the process of shepherding it through the relevant DYK/GA/FA nominations. Q4: What about expansions from existing stubs? A4: Regardless of the quality of the stub, expanding an article does not count as creating a new article. You are improving an article that already exists – an achievement not to be downplayed, but not the purpose of the Four Award. Q5: If an article was featured as a bold link on WP:ITN or WP:OTD, rendering it ineligible for WP:DYK, can it still qualify for WP:FOUR? A5: No. ITN and OTD have different criteria and quality standards for their selections than DYK, so those processes are not considered substitutes for DYK the purpose of the Four Award. Q6: Are articles nominated for DYK after becoming GAs eligible? A6: Yes. The timing of the DYK does not matter. Q7: Why doesn't this award include articles that went through three of the four stages? A7: Because it's the Four Award. Its purpose is to recognize the effort involved for one person to bring one article from brand-new through all three of Misplaced Pages's major content milestones. Allowing only three stages to be recognized would be counter to the point. The WP:TRIPLECROWN recognizes when an editor has achieved several milestones on different articles, and may be of interest to users whose articles do not meet the FOUR criteria. Q8: Why don't we have a five award for WP:FAs that make the main page through WP:TFA, or become part of a WP:FT? A8: The Four Award recognizes advances in editorial quality. Being selected for TFA is one way an article is recognized for achieving FA status. Being included in a WP:FT is another. Neither TFA nor FT represents an advance in editorial quality past FA, so they are not considered as part of the Four Award process. Q9: Is it possible for collaborators to all receive WP:FOUR recognition? A9: Yes. In order for multiple editors to be awarded WP:FOUR recognition, there needs to evidence of collaboration throughout all of the processes. As WP:DYK, WP:GAN, and WP:FAC all allow co-nominations, the most challenging aspect is during the article creation stage. Evidence of collaboration can be provided for the creation stage in a number of ways. A common way would be multiple editors providing substantial content to a draft, which would then be moved into the article mainspace. The responsibility is on the nominators to provide the reviewer evidence of the collaboration throughout the entire article development process (evidence above and beyond just being a co-nominator would need to be provided). Q10: Are articles nominated for featured lists status eligible? A10: No. The featured list editorial process is different from the featured article process. FOUR is meant to recognize the article-development process, not the list-development process.

Archives

2009 Archive 2010 Archive 2011 Archive 2012 Archive

Enquiry

Do articles that have been made from redirects count as new articles for the purpose of the Four Award? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes and all (usually two) editors involved in its progression from a redlink to an encyclopedic article are eligible. (See the FAQs at the top of this page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"New article" symbol

Didn't see this answered in the archives: so why is the gray "neutral" icon used to symbolize a newly created article? How was it chosen? czar · · 02:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The founder of the project TomasBat (talk · contribs), who is no longer involved, chose the symbol.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Starting point of a page started in userspace

I have come across a WP:FOUR article where the bulk of the creation was in userspace. What is the start date of the article in your opinion? I was thinking that we should do a history merge and use the very start of the development. However, a case could be made for the move date to article space.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally would use the date that the article was moved to mainspace (February 12), because that's what made it eligible for a DYK. It was just a userspace draft prior to then. (It looks like Black Kite (talk · contribs) already did a history merge, by the way.) LittleMountain5 22:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(Above Content copied from User talk:Little Mountain 5 edits)

If we do that then the start date is not the date the article had sufficient content to be encyclopedic, which is the point of conception of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That interpretation is going to open the door for a whole bunch of articles that were not FOUR-eligible to backdoor into FOUR by creating in user space. See the latest nomination from Ian Rose (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... That's a very interesting case. I would say that the article is eligible, but it isn't clear which editor should receive credit for it. By your standard, Nick-D (talk · contribs) would receive credit, because he created the first encyclopedic content on April 6 (), albeit in his userspace. However, by my standard, Ian Rose would receive credit, because he moved it to mainspace on April 13. So, in my opinion, I would credit them both. It was a collaboration through and through. Also, it would still only count as one article in the FOUR article count, and since both editors have previous Four Awards, it wouldn't affect the FOUR editor count either. Thoughts? LittleMountain5 16:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks LittleMountain. Yes, in case it wasn't clear, I think this is a situation where both editors deserve credit for the one article. Obviously only one editor can physically start an article in either user or main space, but in this case two editors said "let's create this article in collaboration" and then did it. Note that the very first discussion of this article by Nick and myself in the Summary section here predates the user space page creation by Nick, which itself predates the main space creation by me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we're going to run into the same start date issue once again with Alan McNicoll by Abraham, B.S. (talk · contribs), by the way. LittleMountain5 16:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we just change this to the THREE award, where if you do the final three as a collaboration, however the article is created doesn't matter?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No. What is your recommendation? LittleMountain5 16:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is that when possible, we attempt to compile complete histories of the article (do history merges for aritcles moved from user space). Then we assess when the first edit was that resulted in the article being an encyclopdic topic. Then credit that editor and all non-vandal editors with earlier edits to that page with the creation stage. Then, evaluate the eligibility of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either Nick or I would ever seek to water down or subvert the Four Award. If collaborations, even ones as clear (IMO of course!) as this are beyond Four's scope because only one person can physically create an article at a time, so be it, but I've given my reasons why I think this instance is a valid case for credit to two editors on the one article for its all-though development -- as with everything else in WP, I'm happy to abide by consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not actually true that only one person can create an article. Historically, I have tried to define the creation stage as the transition from a redlink to an article with encyclopedic content. The most obvious multiple stage transition would be creation of a redirect and then normal article creation. Above, in the FAQs, I attempted to show a much rarer case where the article is started with content that does not meet the threshold of being encyclopedic. I have not seen your history merge, so I don't know at what point your article became encyclopedic. Once an article has encyclopedic content all further edits are part of the DYK, GA and FA stages. Suppose a group of people decided they wanted to collaborate. The first person might want to go to the page and type ==External links==. The next person could type ==Notes== and the next could type ==Background==. The next could type ] The article would then be between the redlink and encyclopedic stage. Then once someone adds any encyclopedic content the creation stage is over. That is how I have attempted to define the creation stage. What is suddenly happening at FOUR is a few people have tried to blur the line on when an article is created so that a whole bunch of editorial contributions are melded into the creation. In truth, for each article, there is one edit in which the first encyclopedic content is added. Usually this is either the first edit or the first after a redirect. Let me see your history merge. P.S. we should only consider positive contributions toward encyclopedic content. A vandal who drops by and adds "BITE MY @$$" to an article would not be considered a contributor to the encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree that userspace drafts should be counted as part of articles' histories, but I'll concede. On the other hand, your definition of creation collaboration seems reasonable. As for this specific case, the article and the draft haven't been history merged yet, but here's the full history of the draft. I guess the question is whether or not Nick-D's initial four edits qualify as reaching the encyclopedic stage. If so, only Nick-D can receive credit. If not, both Nick-D and Ian Rose can receive credit. LittleMountain5 03:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ian and I jointly drafted the article in my user space, and Ian then moved it into main space - it was a shared effort. From memory, Ian contributed at least 60% of the initial version of the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't contest your joint effort for the article. WP has a bunch of rules. I spent an hour this morning on issues related to WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c debate. I also spent time this morning addressing a WP:DYK rule related to redundant content. I don't know which rule it is, but I was up against it. WP:FOUR has eligibility rules. Unfortunately, FOUR eligibility rules are not rules that one can fix a violation of. this version of the article seems to have encyclopedic content. It even has a cited encyclopedic fact. Subsequent edits can not be deemed to be part of the creation stage.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think y'all may as well state in black and white that there's no such thing as a joint effort as far as Four goes, because physically only one person can create the first encyclopedic content for an article in either user or main space, and it doesn't matter that in this case you've been presented with written evidence of the two editors involved planning an article before any content was created, and continuing to collaborate all the way to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be an even stricter rule that only the single first encyclopedic edit counts toward creation. However, that would be in conflict with all other stages. Generally, each edit is assigned to a stage. All edits prior to and including that which makes the article encyclopedic belong to the creation stage under the definition that is now in place.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what advantage is being gained from imposing that definition here and in equivalent cases. That edit of mine was a placeholder to record a factoid I'd come across in an obscure reference while googling the topic as part of a discussion on the potential of creating the article with Ian, and Ian made the first substantive contribution to the article's developed several days later in this edit. We then jointly edited the article in my user space before it was copied and pasted into article space when we both judged it ready - the article was jointly created and developed. From reading Misplaced Pages:Four Award#Collaborations it seems that the only way to have a joint article acknowledged within the scope of this award is for the editors to game the article creation process in a rather artificial way (which would actually make the article a candidate for speedy deletion in its first steps), which seems a pretty odd thing to encourage. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The advantage is having a clearly defined rule. As stated above "All edits prior to and including that which makes the article encyclopedic belong to the creation stage under the definition that is now in place." That is a clearly defined rule. I have never examined gaming the system, but admit planned unnatural editorial behavior would be the only way to get a collaborative credit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(od) You know, it really does seem to me that this can be resolved, and honest, ethical and logical collaborations between editors recognised here, by taking something from what both Tony and LittleMountain have said. LM, I understand, believes that articles start when they enter main space. This is logical to me -- how can an article be said to really 'be' in WP until this is so? Tony seems to be saying that the edits and editors before each milestone are what counts. If we take this as read, then in this case you have two editors working on an article in user space, and never mind who made the first edit in user space because that's not what counts. Another editor then moves the result of that collaboration into main space, and it doesn't matter who that editor was because what he moved in was a collaborative effort from user space. So why is it so hard to give two editors credit for the article creation, as well as the DYK, GA and FA? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• If you open the creation stage up to all editorial activity before page moves to article space, you open up the process to all kinds of piling on activity for creation. It should not be any easier to "create" an article in user space than it is in article space. By evaluating the merge history, we avoid making collaborating easier in userspace or sandboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, I do believe that articles start when they enter the mainspace, and I agree with Ian's proposal. Userspace drafts are drafts for a reason—their editors don't feel that they're ready to be presented to the general public yet. But as I said, if Tony wants to count them as part of articles' histories, then so be it. The problem with collaborations is that we're going to need a hard and fast rule concerning eligibility, but since collaborations come in so many shapes and sizes, it's hard to come up with one that isn't extremely strict.

My proposal is this: We should enforce a strict rule like Tony's for articles started in the mainspace. It does encourage gaming the system, but there's really no other way to go about it other than banning collaborations completely. But for userspace drafts, I think we should be a tad more permissive (if not quite as permissive as Ian's proposal). They aren't technically articles yet, after all. Maybe we could give creation credit to any major contributors within 24 hours of the draft's initial creation. Tony, it's ultimately up to you, but I think that this is the most practical way to go about it, because again, I think both Nick-D and Ian Rose deserve the award in this case. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 17:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why up to first encyclopedic edit in the main space and up to 24 hours in the user/sandbox environs. Why not propose 24 hours in both cases? What we have is a case of two hard working contributors who did not meet the joint eligibility standard that we have traditionally upheld, with the loophole that they performed their contribution in a space which may need special rules. I just don't see why user/sandbox space needs special rules. Once the first encyclopedic element has been added to the article it has been created. The only thing that is arguable is what is an encyclopedic element, but we believe we know it when we see it. We can have that discussion. I would love to be FOUR eligible for my first GA and first FA, Campbell's Soup Cans. It was a great article and in many respects one of my proudest accomplishments on WP. However, I did not figure out what a DYK was for a couple of months after starting the article. By the time I got my first DYK Campbell's was a GA and FGAN already. I often look back and wish I could have that for a FOUR. The only way is for me to make it 5 times as large as it is now (not going to happen). I just can't have a FOUR for that article. I digress. The sklnny is that, while WP appreciates the contribution, it does not meet FOUR eligibility as a collaboration, IMO. I don't really have a future issue in mind to avoid regarding the 24 hour rule, but feel there will be some perversions to the process that I don't forsee. I still feel that any rule other than the first encyclopedic element makes user/sandbox space articles easier to achieve collaboration with. In the four year period ending June 30, 2013, that current FOUR articles account for 1 in 5.38 FAs promoted during that time. Almost 20% of all FAs promoted in the last 4 years are FOURs. We don't need to make eligibility any easier.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:DYK uses the time articles drafted in user space are moved/posted into article space as the time such articles was formally "created". Given that a successful DYK nomination is one of the criterion for this award, it seems logical to also use the same convention in regards to the timing of article creation. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D: My sentiments exactly.

Tony: I was just trying to come up with a rule that's at least somewhat practical. This article is the epitome of a collaboration—we're not going to get anything better than it! If it doesn't qualify, then darn near nothing will. And if that's what you're going for, then I won't stand in your way any longer, but I think it's a shame. LittleMountain5 21:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I would bet that we have disqualified by our own evaluation or discouraged application by many collaborations of this sort. I don't think it is equitable to suddenly say that this is a collaboration. All FOURs are based on editorial activity on that article and its discussion pages. I don't think we should expand to a new type of eligibility that we have probably excluded others for in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(←) I was under the impression that Nick-D would receive the award, not Ian Rose. Nick-D created the first encyclopedic content (in userspace, which I thought we were counting). LittleMountain5 02:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I've rejected the award, however well meant, in any case since I think it should be joint -- and if there's a chance Four has rejected collaborative noms in the past that meet the same standard, I'd be happy to go through the books and review them. Retrospective re-evaluation has taken place here before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for following along. The FOUR page nom and the current version of the article belie the page creator. I should have noticed this from glancing at the talk page of origin, but did not. I'll clean this up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I've just rejected the award. Ian's contribution to the article's creation and development to FA level are at least equal to mine, and probably greater, and I'm not interested in recieving an award which implies that I played a more significant role and does not recognise Ian's huge contributions. I'd appreciate it if you could ammend WP:FOUR accordingly to remove this award. I'd strongly encourage you to revise the eligibility criteria here given that they're non-compliant with one of the steps of the award (DYK), and there's no sensible reason to not acknowledge collaborations. Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Seconded Nick above. There are many reasons I don't participate here. This is a big one of them. Ed  03:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Tony, you seem to be in a minority of one at the moment. Despite acquiescing to your viewpoint, LittleMountain seems to believe -- as Nick and I do (and Ed now, by the look of it) – that this article is clearly a joint effort and that article creation is in main space, not user space (this is only logical – an article isn't eligible for DYK until it's in main space). I think you're missing a really simple and obvious way to standardise joint awards by recognising article space as the beginning of the article and any other editors before that point – in user space – as co-creators, as is the case here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
          • • I don't think a majority of MILHIST guys should be trying to run this project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Hey Ian, you are correct. Also note that previous discussion on this same point is at Misplaced Pages talk:Four Award/Archive 2#Collaborations, in case you were interested. Good luck! Ed  06:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Ed: I had forgotton about that conversation—my stance on the issue has changed since then. We'll let you know if we make any headway.

Ian: Yes. I fear that I have muddled my opinion, so let me make it clear: I support crediting multiple users for articles that are obviously results of collaborations. I think that the only reason userspace drafts should even be considered here at FOUR is to determine whether or not a creation collaboration has taken place. Unfortunately, I don't know how we would handle articles that weren't started in userspace, like Ed's example, other than imposing a time rule like I suggested above. Let me know if you have any suggestions. I really hope that we can eventually work this out. LittleMountain5 06:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries, LM. At this point, I'll just be happy to have the articles I've written off, but I do thank you for your edits here! Ed  06:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that my request for the award I was offered to be removed hasn't been honoured yet, I've just done it myself. Please do not add it with the meaningless tag. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I woke up and was responding to many watchlisted issues. I saw your other edit before I saw this one. I added a placeholder tag as I will to all qualifying articles that editors wish not to be associated with for the purpose of FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

MY DECISION IS FINAL in the sense that I am no longer commenting on this thread. I am not opening up FOUR to a special MILHIST style collaboration. I don't want to wake up and see all of the battleships, Airplane models, famous battles, and notable military leaders known to man listed here because I allowed MILHIST to dictate what a collaboration is. You are free to pervert the rule as I have posted it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If Tony is going to prevent close collaboration between two or three editors then the rules should say so in a very simple manner: the Four Award is not about collaboration. I think this decision of Tony's is harmful to the wiki, in that collaboration should be held as exemplary behavior, not banned from receiving plaudits. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fine, Tony, if you want to exhibit OWN like this you can say goodbye to any and all articles I write which may or may not meet FOUR standards. Misplaced Pages is built on consensus, and I think consensus here is quite clear: collaborations should be allowed. Until such time WP:FOUR accepts that, I will have no part. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Given that there seems to be consensus on this page that it's OK to remove unwanted awards, I've just re-removed the C-130 in Australian service article of which I was the 'placeholder'. I don't intend to re-re-remove it if anyone undoes this change, as I don't want to also end up in the inevitable WP:LAME entry ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages four award articles not showing up on article talk pages

Should Category:Misplaced Pages four award articles be showing up on article talk pages? Currently no category is showing on the talk pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No; the category is a hidden category (because of the {{tracking category}} template in it), which means it doesn't show up on the pages it's in. At least, that's the current behavior; if someone thinks it should be difficult they're welcome to propose it. As far as I know, the purpose of the category is not to put an indication on the article talkpage, but just to keep a count of how many articles there are (and in that case it's not necessary for anything to appear on the talkpage). rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing name and articles from WP:FOUR

User:TonyTheTiger has twice reverted my attempt to remove my name and articles I have written from the WP:FOUR records page, which seems rather silly to me. Can we find a consensus here so that I can disassociate myself from this project? (pinging regular user here User:Little Mountain 5 as well) Thanks, Ed  05:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to remove your own name from our records, so long as we also remove the articles from the Four Award category. I'm sorry that you feel the need to do it, however. LittleMountain5 05:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing against you personally, Little Mountain! I'm just disappointed that the collaboration issue hasn't been dealt with years after I first raised it, and while I expressed this before through not nominating any of my other articles, I think it's time to remove the earlier ones. Thanks for the comment! Ed  05:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if you noticed the second revert went to the placeholder omission used at places like Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000. Yes you can disassociate your name from our list, but you do not own the articles that have the unique quality of FOUR-awarded articles. Like that list, the place on the list is important to the list even if you do not want to be listed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I certainly noticed and appreciated the efforts at compromise, but I do not wish for my name or the articles I've written to remain here—a feeling I think most people here could sympathize with. Ed  06:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you WP:OWN the articles? You are free to request that your name be withheld. But a large part of the significance/interest of the listing is the sortable table which provides comparisons. If people willy nilly yank articles out of the list the comparisons become useless. That is why I used the standard placeholder method.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's records for an award, Tony, not a comprehensive list of every article that ever qualified for FOUR (although it seems to be filling that role as well). If Ed wants to decline his awards, then let him do so. The removal of four articles certainly won't make a list of 400 useless. LittleMountain5 06:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It actually is a list of every article ever qualified for a FOUR. What do you think I was doing when I went through every Featured article listed in 2011? It is a comprehensive list of all articles that have been through all 4 stages by a single editor. Once Ian Rose and Nick-D and every WP:MILHIST drinking buddy of theirs pulls their article then the list will be useless. It is currently comprehensive. It even includes editors who were never active in the period in which the award has been given. Look at the leaderboard. The number one person on the list has clearly never even nominated an article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to use that tone regarding Ian, Nick and the MILHIST project. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Should I apologize? Is drinking buddy a derogatory term? The point is that MILHIST does not have to be allowed to run every project on WP. I don't need to get a message everytime one of you feels slighted by all the other bigwigs in the project. I don't think your guys should be making these kinds of messages here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you for (accurately) denigrating me as a "MILHIST drinking buddy"! I count many Milhisters as good wiki-friends of mine, despite my limited participation at the project in recent times. Still, I wouldn't be on this page if I didn't feel strongly about the topic, and I can assure you that there is no monolithic, single-minded Milhist editor-base being mobilized to disrupt the FOUR award. Ed  06:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad you understand I mean the term drinking buddy in the perverbial sense. If you truly feel denigrated over the use of the term, I do apologize.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not surprised that you've brought up the frequently overused OWN policy; that's why I expressed my preference that "articles I've written" (not "my articles") be removed, and have brought it here for consensus, which I hope I'll find.

Also, Tony. This isn't an opt-out statistical list of Wikipedians by number of edits. This is an award page—one that doesn't have any explicit need to retain the articles if contributors change their mind. Ed  06:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not something like WP:FA where an editor goes out and nominates his work for recognition. The vast majority (probably 80% if not 90% of these) were listed without any nomination. In a sense it is a statistical archive of every article meeting the qualities of FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, only when the bot is updating FAC slowly does a nomination occur. In general, I promote FOURs within hours of the bot updating. So this is just a statistical archive with the bonus of a Barnstarish recognition at the time of archiving.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a full listing, or I'd have two more articles listed here... Ed  06:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If any article is missing there are three possible oversights: 1.) T:AH has not been updated to reflect all three of the DYK, GA and FA stages, in which case I might never be alerted to review it; 2.) I erred on review when I looked at the article and rejected something that I shouldn't have; 3.) I promoted something (by updating its talk page), but got distracted from listing it here. Did I tag the talk pages with four=no on the two that you think should be here. That would be type 2.). If I tagged it with four=yes and it is not listed here, it is type 3.). If its talk page is not tagged either way then it is type 1.)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No, my mistake—I had forgotten that I purposely skipped GAN for several FAs of mine. Ed  07:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

All this moaning about WP:OWN from Tony, while he carries on like he owns four awards and everything associated with them. ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 08:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, but I do not know how to address the 1st Lord Baron Misplaced Pages, Grand Archduke of the Realm KG AK GCB GBE CMG OM GCSI GCIE GCVO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Erm, how about just giving a 4 Award to both Nick and Ian, and (hopefully) restoring Ed's faith in WP:FOUR and negating this issue. The current rules simply say "You must start/create a new article.", not "You must make the first edit in a new article" or "you must be the one to move an article from user space to main space" (this second one would be terrible, because any creation done individually could be claimed by another). When the article Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service was "created" as defined by Wikimedia servers (i.e. when it reached main space), it had already been developed over 38 edits by Nick and Ian; thus, this creation was completed by two people (though really Ian, a hist-merge would have been nice), though the one who moved the new content to main space was not both of them. Both Nick and Ian remained diligent contributors over the next several weeks, seeing the article through DYK, GA, and FA together. They acted, essentially, as one throughout the project and should both get equal recognition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • How many MILHIST guys are going to come here to tell me how to run this page?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Crisco doesn't have a particularly close association with the MilHist project, in fact I'd be surprised if he's had as many articles up for MilHist review lately as you have, Tony. Nor of course is LittleMountain a MilHister. Rather than casting aspersions on a particular project, or the motives of other editors, why not just stay focussed on the question at hand? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Re Crisco, I don't know what you mean by close association, but he has "The Content Review Medal of Merit - By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the second quarter of 2012, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)" on his user page in addition to a user box that says "This user is a member of WikiProject Military History.".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Wow Tony, that's a striking display of ABF. If you are that worried that I am a non-neutral party in this matter (and you can see from the FOUR list just how far from a military-history focus I have... that's what, one general vs. six films, two authors, and a poem, none of the latter in any way related to MILHIST?) so be it, but I can honestly say that MilHist has always been secondary to Indonesia for me, and that I have not been involved in any project-level discussions for most of this year (including reviewing at A-class). With this many editors saying you are doing something wrong, including one removing his name from the list here out of disgust, you may want to reconsider your position. I see your OWN (and recognise Errant's valid point below) and raise you a CONSENSUS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Tony; for someone that raised the OWN policy above you might need to re-read it in the context of comments such as How many MILHIST guys are going to come here to tell me how to run this page?. I think you worry too much about trivialities such as these awards. The important thing is good content :) Having awards to help recognise contributions is awesome, but when it starts generating unpleasantness is defeats its purpose and perhaps has served its time. --Errant 13:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• With the clear consensus here, I've removed articles I've written (along with one written by Nick-D, per his wishes), from the records page. Thanks everyone, Ed  22:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • At an awards ceremony you are free to not accept an award, but you are not free to change the history of the award by saying "remove this non-accepted award from your records". The recordkeepers of the award still list you as the winner even if you never accept the awards. For example the Golden Raspberry Award winners don't get to say, I am not accepting this award so remove me from the recorded history of the award. This is an archive of articles that meet our criteria. Go back to MILHIST and manage your own awards. As WP:FOUR Director, I am exercising my administrative responsibility/authority to "promote and monitor the collection of content" (quoting the original charter of the project).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Since when have you been the "director", and since when does such a position get the power to overrule clear community consensus? If consensus isn't recognized, there's little more to discuss. As I said below, I've brought this to ANI for community input. Should you want to continue going against the consensus, I wish you luck. In the meantime, please stop plastering vandalism templates on my talk page. Ed  23:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Tony, a number of people have declined British knighthoods. They are not listed as knights of the realm. We could trade examples all day - bottom line is you've lost sight of the point of little things like this, in favour of having some sort of fiefdom (?) Speaking in my role as a sysop; I came across this issue via your AN post and it is becoming clear your actions are verging on the disruptive. Please stop. --Errant 00:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I've brought this to ANI to ask an uninvolved administrator to assess consensus in this discussion. Please see WP:ANI#WP:FOUR_dispute. Ed  23:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Which was a poor choice, IMHO. The ANI discussion was more sniping and more awful than this one here, IMHO. It seems absurd to me that anyone is fighting to have their name removed from this Four Award wikipedia page. Is the point to denigrate the wikipedia award? If so, just ignore it, and don't display the award on your own Userpage. TonyTheTiger is 100% right that you cannot remove your name from the record of what you have done in wikipedia. Unless the facts/evaluation of facts is wrong, there is no point for anyone, and it undermines the award, to remove records of achievements here. I am going to revert one change to the page here, pending further discussion and return of TonyTheTiger from what seems to me like a really bad block. I am ashamed to see this happen. --doncram 19:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Taking anything to ANI is a poor choice, but anyone who came here was slammed as having an agenda. Re: "what seems to me like a really bad block." : We have bright-line rules for a reason, and Tony went well over 3RR (diffs were provided at ANI). It was a good block under the current policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing one of Tony's awards

TonyTheTiger collaborated in starting the article South Side, Chicago, so it should be removed from the list of awards. Here are the diffs:

1. new article space by TonyTheTiger, just a Chicago project template and a stray photograph with a caption. No encyclopedic content.
2. Removal of stray photograph by TonyTheTiger
3. First encyclopedic content added by Speciate.

According to TonyTheTiger's own methods for determining who gets an award, it looks like Speciate was the person who started this collaborative effort. Such a beginning would stop the article from qualifying. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, alright, let's not get vindictive here. Such issues can be also be discussed when Tony's block is over. It does appear that this would not qualify by Tony's overly strict definition, but I think that consensus on this page will soon change that rule. Ed  01:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, consensus will determine the future direction of this award. If not, we can discuss this case when Tony's block is lifted.

Note that Tony specifically offered the South Side Chicago namespace as a collaborative effort prior to the Speciate addition: See Collaboration of the Week (COTW) at Chicago WikiProject, August 8, 2007. He knew from the start the article would be a collaboration. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Ed here. Let's wait until after Tony is unblocked to make sure that we're all wearing the same shoes on the same feet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Scribbled Thoughts

First thanks to Jclemens (talk · contribs) and Doncram (talk · contribs) for the encouragement on my talk page and Epeefleche (talk · contribs) for his email. Doncram, especially made it worth the time for me to spend the last 2 hours to write my thoughts below. There are three controversies at issue here: 1.) what are the merits of various forms of collaborations in terms of FOUR, 2.) by what authority is my directorship supported and 3.) what rights do users have to remove their editorial contributions from the records of the project. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The three issues below are the items that I intend to put before the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council. Please let me know if anyone thinks I have missed any other issues. I will wait at least 24 hours before going forward.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I have cobbled together thoughts on issue 1. It is obviously written from my perspective, but tell me if any of this is inaccurate: I am the lone Brave standing against a cavalry stampede demanding a change in the FOUR award, an award I am responsible for having nurtured fairly successfully. The problem with this project is that there are only two "regs" and thus any herd that passes through can muster the votes for what appears to be a WP:CONSENSUS. The award currently only recognizes people who have actually made a difference in featured articles in each of the four possible stages of development of an article that are recognized by the project. This award is currently defined to allow a window for collaborators who were involved in each stage. There is very loud clamoring that collaborators who did not make a difference at every stage, but who have diffs proving that they were interested in making a difference at each stage should be recognized for this award as long as they got involved in the article soon enough after missing out on making a difference in some stages. To be fair the current complaint is only that people who did not make a difference in the first stage of the article (as evidenced by online diffs) want credit if they can show that they were able to make a difference soon enough in later stages and diffs that show that they were interest in the subject in advance of the first stage although they made no difference in the article during this stage.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Tell me if any of this is inaccurate: I am the lone Brave standing against a cavalry stampede..." Erm... wow, can you get any more POV (note the capital B in brave, suggestive of one with no name but with a unique identity, just like The Virginian or The Huntsman, as opposed to the nameless and identityless hoards of "the cavalry")? And here we continue with a "herd" (cattle, or sheep following a leader; great way to paint anyone even remotely related to MILHIST with the same brush) assumed to create a false consensus by sheer force and imitation rather than any true consensus (to that point, look at the ANI thread; a lot of editors expressing concern were in no way related to MilHist; Cas is likewise nowhere near active with them). Then we have (and here's where it veers close to NPA territory, as these unnamed individuals are clearly identifiable anyways) "loud clamoring that collaborators who did not make a difference at every stage, but who have diffs proving that they were interested in making a difference at each stage should be recognized for this award as long as they got involved in the article soon enough after missing out on making a difference in some stages", which not only misrepresents the views of all of the editors pushing for the recognition of coordinated projects (I don't think anyone was pushing for, say, an editor taking a GA article to FA with its creator's help to get recognition), but also misrepresents what Nick D and Ian did for the controversial article (example of one of Nick's edits, example of one of Ian's edits; note that these are both before the article was in mainspace ). "To be fair the current complaint is only that people who did not make a difference in the first stage of the article (as evidenced by online diffs) want credit if they can show that they were able to make a difference soon enough in later stages and diffs that show that they were interest in the subject in advance of the first stage although they made no difference in the article during this stage." - Ridiculous, see above diffs.

Tony, you've done fantastic work with FOUR, but it seems you don't realise that your interpretation of the rules (which, coincidentally, excludes one of your FOUR awards) is against general consensus. Start an RFC if you want, if you really think MilHist are "herds" of cattle and want a wider community consensus, but don't delude yourself in thinking that your reading of the situation is in any way accurate or appropriate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Which of my current FOURs is excluded? The rules have never stated that creation was defined by when a page entered mainspace. They have always stated that creation is judged by the first addition of encyclopedic content to an article. Shouldn't you go create your own award rather than change this one. Maybe you could work with WP:AFC or some other article incubator project. Why change this award? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• See above — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think Tony's point is that the South Side, Chicago, article is not one of his current Four Awards because it was delisted at FARC. On the Four Award page, it is listed in the table of "Former Four Award recipients". I propose that it be removed from that list if the Four Award collaboration rules are not rewritten to include the recent Nick-D and Ian Rose work. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Past procedure with former FOUR awards has been to list them explaining why they are no longer listed. Just like WP:FFA or WP:FFL, if an article is judged not to meet the criteria any longer a formerly recognized article is listed as a formerly recognized article rather than erased.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Past procedure with former FOUR awards has been to list them explaining why they are no longer listed." - The question is not whether it is now holds a FOUR award, but whether it should have ever had a FOUR award. If you're not including Ian as he was not worth a FOUR Award, rather than listing him and Nick together, then you should not list yourself (even in the former FOUR awards category) if you fail the same criteria you applied to Ian; an award which should never have been should not be held for the world to see, particularly by an editor with a conflict of interest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't express my response any better, Crisco, and that includes the part about Tony having done a great job with Four (but unfortunately being out of step with the thoughts of pretty well all editors who have commented on the collaborative nom that started all this). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Collaborations

1.) I intended to recognize those people who were actually involved in the article editorially before it was an encyclopedic topic as creators (full stop). This was regardless of if it was created in article space, user space, offline or a sandbox. There are three types of collaborative efforts that this would make possible by recognizing those involved in the transition from a redlink to an encyclopedic article. The most common would be the person who identifies a topic by creating a redlink who then collaborates with the person who expands his redlink to an encyclopedic article. The other common and natural type of collaboration would be a page creator whose article was unencyclopedic enough to have been deleted and who collaborates with another person who recreated the article at an encyclopedic level. Once the original page creation edits are restored it could be regarded as a controversy as to whether the creator or the re-creator of the page merits recognition as the creator. I have yet to see a formerly deleted article become a featured article and feel that this type will always be rare. The third type of collaboration that I intended to recognize was people who are involved in a series of edits that lead to the first encyclopedic content for a given topic. All of these are people who took positive steps toward getting an article to the point where it had its first encyclopedic content. They were involved before the encyclopedic merits of the topic were put forth satisfactorily on WP.

Recently, there has been controversy surrounding widening the window for a fourth type of collaborative creation that I believe opens the door far too wide for piling in to the collaborative creation standing. There has been commotion involving whether a group of people involved in the very early stages of the development of an article count as creators. In the special case at issue these persons actually planned to collaborate, but the discussion has come down to a proposed 24-hour rule allowing editors to get co-creation credit for edits within the first 24-hours. Many articles are highly developed in the first 24 hours. Sometimes, articles are tens of thousands of characters long within the first 24 hours. Getting involved in an obviously interesting article that is already thousands of characters long and highly encyclopedic is not co-creation in my mind, but rather assistance toward DYK and GA. What I fear with the expanded rule is for it to become common to pile into new quality creations for the sake of a FOUR. This would bastardize the process in my mind.

Binksternet (talk · contribs) has taken action to disallow collaborations. I would prefer that no collaborations be allowed than that a 24-hour rule be enacted. This seems to be a sort of compromise that may mollify protestors who have led to controversy #3. These edits were reversed by Doncram (talk · contribs) until discussion is held.

Well Tony, this is a start at least. Without collaborations being recognized, this award will lose legitimacy and go against the core spirit of Misplaced Pages (IMHO). Ed  02:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that anything which promotes collaboration is a Good Thing. I am a bit lost as to the preceding argument above. Does this mean that something like Red-capped Robin would count? I made my first edit twelve hours and four minutes after its creation and buffed it for DYK, GA and FA? Loads of bird articles were autocreated by bot. But what if it had 2 sentences? 5? Where do we draw the line? At the same time I do like the idea of a person building something from zero to FA. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration may be good for WP, but doesn't it belong at a project like WP:TAFI more than it does here. Maybe you should seek TAFI recognition. There you could nominate something and with three likeminded people get it approved for collaborative recognition.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Red-capped Robin, its first edit included encyclopedic content in the form of a definitive statement of the subject. From the first edit it is clear that the subject is a species (in the loose sense of the word). No one would nominate that for deletion, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The 24-hour rule was just a suggestion—a possible solution. (And a weak one at that.) I would love to hear alternative suggestions. LittleMountain5 06:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't want people claiming creation credit for articles that they joined with thousands or tens of thousands of characters of preexisting content. Those people are contributing to the expansion toward DYK or GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• A time frame is perfectly reasonable. Maybe 12 to 24 hours. Size... well, they could write offline first.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would prefer no collaborations at all than post-expansion creation credits if done in a timely manner. I will not be a part of a project that recognized such content. So if you are looking to shut down the project or take it over, that is how to do it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, huh? 12 to 24 hours after an article's first edit (or collaborating in user space before going to main). If a stub's been around for like 3 years, no there's no four award going on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe the easiest is to just leave as is - i.e. has to be first edit ever or creation from a redirect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see the point of the original rule: the first milepost of a Four Award was the most difficult--the meta-milepost of finding a topic that both did not yet exist and yet had FA potential. If we want to keep that, then disallow collaboration, because only the article creator can be the one who made that identification, even if others agreed with it later. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with your conclusion, but I must beg to differ on finding a topic that does not exist yet and has FA potential being the most difficult. If you are active in certain areas (Indonesia, for me), you can find such topics without very much thinking or head scratching (three of my recent FOURs were simply from filling in redlinks at List of films of the Dutch East Indies) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with both - I think it is a testament to the unfinished nature of the 'pedia that folks can find redlinks still now and develop them into featured content - this is the single biggest reason that I like this FOUR idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec with above, again) Heh. That's what you get working in an area that's not already over-covered due to systemic bias. I hadn't thought of four award recognition as a reward for working in underrepresented areas before, but it certainly seems to fit, and not inappropriately so. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Cas seems to have gotten a couple with plants (and I think it's safe to say Banksia is not quite underrepresented). You may have a point when it comes to say, mainstream American film. But even then there are still aspects which may be developed (and I must admit that lots of films from before the 1980s don't have articles yet; check out the filmographies of Anna May Wong or Frank Sinatra or whomever). But this is getting a little off topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• The reward aspect is irrelevant (fun but irrelevant) and its importance pales into comparison with indicating the development of the 'pedia. A bit like Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, the actual tally and "who wins" is completely irrelevant but the outcome (for content) is good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Also, not all collaborations aren't planned. Template:Sclass- was a planned collaboration between Parsecboy (talk · contribs) and I.
• @Casliber, that's why I'm arguing for collaborations to be recognized. It's an extra incentive that doesn't cost us or the award anything. Ed  07:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, collaborations should be recognised, assuming both partners are there for the whole thing. Otherwise this should be called the "Mustang Award" or something else denoting individualism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, thinking about the FAC example, I am beginning to think this idea has some merit, just not sure how to figure the criteria. For instance I could then say that Red-capped Robin was a collaborative work between me and Marskell (talk · contribs) (he made the first edit and I did much of the rest...)? Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

• I'd go with "assuming both partners are there for the whole thing" (i.e. if Marskell abandoned it after he started it, it wasn't a collaboration) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. Any collaborators who stay in active contact with the article during the four relevant steps should get the award. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Directorship

2.) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and others question my claim to be the director of the project. All three things that I claim to be the director of on WP are by self-appointment (WP:FOUR, WP:CHICAGO and WP:WAWARD) as the only party interested enough to do all the things to keep them running. At FOUR, the creator of the project left it to me to formalize the project and to apply at the WP Council for official projecthood. After doing so, I have built the project up over the last 4 years with some assistance from Little Mountain 5 (talk · contribs) and automation help from Rjanag (talk · contribs). It is I who have gone through the pool of all preexisting Featured articles to identify the set of FOURs. I have also promoted the majority of current articles. If you want another director, the only other person eligible based on experience is Little Mountain although now that the project is a bit of a success, others may want the role despite our disagreements. I don’t know if my directorship is under assault or not, but he is the only person I would endorse if deposed. Although he has historically been far less active in the project than I have been, I would be comfortable if he were given the directorship. At this point, my directorial authority is subject to community approval.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) This project is in no need of a director. That is why we have consensus. (2) Being the most active contributor does not give you authority over others. Ed  02:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hear hear, Ed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah I was thinking that there are some folks coordinating and I am happy with that as long as we all keep discussing things and coming to consensus. That shouldn't be too hard, should it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Historically those folks have mostly been me. I do about 90% of the stuff that happens here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with your self-proclaimed title of "director", which I think you certainly have a right to, being by far the most active and most involved editor at FOUR. And as the director, I think you should have a lot of sway in discussions such as this. However, it rubs people the wrong way when you turn your directorship into a dictatorship and don't yield to consensus—that's the issue. LittleMountain5 06:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have watched Tony's interest in this award and his stewardship of it over several years. I think unseating him would be inappropriate, absent someone with a real track record in running such a project being willing to take over. Also, while consensus is important, it is also important that a local consensus, made up of whomever gets riled up over something at a point in time and can muster raw numbers, doesn't disproportionally affect the people left behind when the interest wanes and people move on to something different. What might be more appropriate is a Misplaced Pages Awards council--not another layer of bureaucracy, but a recognition that there are a variety of awards and they exist to fill different niches, and the best critics and/or defenders of new or changed awards or criteria would be those involved in existing motivational efforts. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens, your point is extremely inciteful. This project is essentially me and Little Mountain 5 on a day-to-day basis (with some backend assistance from User:Rjanag). Thus, any three editors can come by and raise up a storm and claim to have come to a fair consensus (as is happening now). That is what is happening here. The Misplaced Pages Awards council is likely a fair place to go to resolve a dispute like this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is this council? I don't see Misplaced Pages Awards Council and WP:WAC is not them. Are they related to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to feel that there is not a Misplaced Pages Awards Council and that I should seek council from the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council. I do not know if they have any processes for Project turmoil, but unless someone advises differently or has an objection, I will be seeking council from the WP Council within a day or so. We are but a small project in terms of number of regs to rely on. I feel that any herd that is passing through can outvote the regs who are here and don't really think that is right. Thus, not sure how relevant consensus is. Still mulling things, cooling down and trying to keep a level head.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That's right--no such council exists, I'm just opining that maybe one should. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think wherever possible we work with folks coordinating only - adding director-generals etc. is somewhat antithetical to egalitarian and collaborative editing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Disassociation

To be clear this was my compromise solution and reverting to this was why I was blocked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18

42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

3.) I have noted that the list of articles is a recorded history of the project. FOUR has a long history of recording all eligible articles in a tabular manner. It also has a long history of enumerating all historical events of the project. Furthermore, the project maintains records of all Former FOUR articles. The vast majority of FOUR-listed articles were never applied for or nominated. They were just listed for having met the project’s criteria by me. In conjunction with listing articles, I have placed merit badges on user talk pages.

ErrantX (talk · contribs) has claimed people have even declined knighthoods and thus can decline to be listed among knights. I don’t believe that anyone has been awarded knighthood and then later asked to be removed from the annals of knighthood, although maybe international conflicts have brought about such requests.

People who have expressed disinterest in being listed are now at issue with the project as to how disassociation should be administered. They have not only removed their names from the recorded project history, but also their articles. I am attempting to maintain the credibility of the records by using placeholders If they don’t want to see their articles listed at FOUR, do they want to be on a list of persons who wish to decline FOUR awards or would they rather receive FOUR awards and then repeatedly decline them as they are listed by people promoting them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't want my name or articles I've written to be listed here, full stop. There is absolutely no need for the records page to be a full history of everyone/thing that has done it—its only purpose is to list those who have and still do accept the award. Ed  02:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to be listed somewhere as someone who does not want to receive future recognitions or do you want to receive them and then reject them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There are precedents both ways. At Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations there are people who are not recorded at all (i.e. no placeholders, nothing) while Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of edits has placeholders. Only thing for it is to vote I guess.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone requested that a promoted article not be listed at WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if when people retire, they should request all their FAs and GAs be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No. The classification is on article status, that is all. It is irrelevant who buffed it to that point in that case. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony. Perhaps it's worth explaining what your intent for this award is. I mean, is it supposed to be a way of rewarding and encouraging people for the work they do. Or is it a record for a certain set of criteria you have come up with. If the latter I don't think it's especially important, and serves only as your (and perhaps a couple others) interest - so probably something you should maintain in user space. If the former I think you're losing sight of that fact in favour of imposing strict criteria. Remember we always talk about the spirit, rather than the letter, of rules. The same applies here. If people collaborate closely on an article perhaps they do deserve FOUR recognition. And if people specifically do not want to appear on the page then there's no reason I can see to refuse (or, rather, it would be the polite to acquiesce to their request). Ultimately, I think you're worrying too much about something that should be lightweight and informal. --Errant 14:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:GAC, WP:FLC and WP:FAC hope to reward and encourage, but they don't just give out WP:GAs, WP:FLs and WP:FAs to people from important wikiprojects. They each have serious standards and people who want the awards don't come around with their friends threatening to tear down the fabric of the project unless they get an award. The original charter of this project was to "promote and monitor the collection of content". The collection still remained a bit undefined. I have no problem removing editor names. It remains my belief that other projects do not have any history of removing articles from their historical records by request. Do people who want to be delisted at WP:WBFAN delist their articles at WP:FA? I am saying I will accept a compromise so that the records of the project remain in tact. Otherwise consider my comments above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's be fair here—the people who nominate their own articles at GAN/FLC/FAC want the designation. Your warped version of the FOUR award forces anyone who happens to meet the criteria to accept the award. Ed  21:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Who knows why they nominate the articles. It may just be to get them copyedited and peer reviewed. There is no reason to assume people actually want them promoted since we know people decline both WP:WBFAN and WP:TFA. Why do you assume everyone wants the promotion. If they wanted the promotion, they would probably appreciate WBFAN and TFA recognition.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

But this isn't featured articles, this is a random award. Ed  22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I said below, I am trying to cool down before I go forward. Personal attacks on me as being warped or the project as being random are really not going to help. I'll let you know when I am ready to move forward. Probably, tomorrow or Monday.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, Ed was not saying the selection criteria are random (which they are not; three of the four are fairly well defined). He was saying that it was one of many awards, which may or may not have any significance for the recipient, and which recipients may or may not have heard of before then, in which case it's true: what, really, makes FOUR different than Steeple or Golden Wiki, aside from the criteria and trophy? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going on here. The Four award has criteria. Some articles meet them, some don't. Since the award necessarily identifies both author and article, there's no really good way to NOT list an author in the process of listing an award. I don't understand The ed17's objection at all--I AGF that they're legitimate, but in reading the above summation, I just don't get why anyone would object to being so recognized. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple people objecting to being listed here because Tony is refusing to recognize articles written in collaboration with another person. A secondary concern is that Tony refuses to allow people to remove themselves and the articles they have written from the list. Ed  06:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Precisely. I tried to give Tony an out, well within the rules as defined at the time, and he not only didn't take it, but claimed my support for collaborative efforts was owing to whatever relations I had with MilHist. When he chose to edit war rather than listen to what people had to say, I decided enough was enough and removed all ten of my FOUR awards (they're gone from my user page too) Personally, I think Tony has an issue with Milhist which may be clouding his judgement... possibly related to the paintings he's had some conflicts with the project over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec with above) So, if I can be blunt, the first one comes across as petty ("I don't like the criteria, so I don't want the award"), and the second one seems quite circular. I'll grant Tony has been pretty opinionated about things, but I certainly hope there's a resolution out there somewhere for this. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Just for clarity: you were referring to Ed, right?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• @Jclemens, sure, if you want to take the bad faith angle at it. It seems obvious that (a) collaborations should be recognized and (b) one editor and self-appointed "director" is going against a clear consensus here to recognize them. If you would read the full discussions above, you might see what I'm getting at... Ed  07:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed what the original kerfuffle was about - to me it looks like a wall of text at first glance and needs some srtucture and quantifying to get an idea of consensus. TTT I appreciate all the hard work you've done here but I can't believe how this has all gotten so acrimonious. I think we need to have a discussion on collaboration. Something similar happened at WP:FAC where originally only one nominator was recognised. Somewhere along the way it became ok for collaborative co-nominations - this has been a Good Thing as anything which promotes collabration, especially on larger articles, was/is sorely needed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not calling "bad faith" on anyone, and pettiness can go both ways. I think the original dispute (and I echo Cas' above comment about not really following it at all until it blew up) should be something that EVERYONE can work through together, as long as everyone is willing to say "I may not like the outcome, but my dedication to Misplaced Pages exceeds my need to get my own way even when consensus favors a compromise". By pettiness, I mean specifically a dispute where the actions, responses, and repercussions grow much larger than the original scope of the dispute. Misplaced Pages can be prone to such escalations if we forget that we're all here together for the same thing--in this case, recognizing articles that have gone through all important life stages under the primary guidance of one editor. The Four award is intentionally the most exclusive award on Misplaced Pages, because it's made up not of volume, like the Golden W or the Triple Crown awards, but by a creation-to-FA level of sustained effort. I see what Tony's getting at in terms of not diluting that exclusivity, but I also see the point of allowing collaborations to count (that being the Misplaced Pages way and all), BUT I don't see why or how the dispute should have escalated to the point of ANI and blocking. THAT is what I mean by petty. Jclemens (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone involved here could give a neutral explanation, satisfying to all parties, how this dispute ended up as big as it did. Enumerate factors, sure... but not explain it. I only know: Nick and Ian start an article in Nick's user space; Ian brings it to main space; Ian and Nick collaborate to bring a new article through DYK, GAN, and FAC; article passes all with flying colours (all as it should be so far); Tony gives the FOUR award only to Ian, as the first recorded contributor in the article; Ian does not want it unless Nick is also recognised; Tony does not recognise both; numerous editors try to convince him otherwise; Ed17 removes himself from the list in protest; Tony reverts citing WP:OWN; (Ed reverts; Tony reverts?); discussion gets more heated as Ed feels he should have the right to remove himself; more discussion, neither side budges (my involvement starts around here); Ed brings Tony to ANI for OWN issues; fed up with the process, I remove myself from the awardees list; Tony reverts; I revert; Tony is blocked for 5RR (somewhere in there Nick removed one of the articles he was credited for, and was reverted by Tony); more discussion follows, both during and after Tony's block. As for causes, I suspect bad blood between Tony and MilHist, but am not sure of that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• In general, I feel no ill will toward WP:MILHIST. Ed17 and I have some bad blood. You may want to note that the majority of those reverts were partial reverts to (to maintain the historical integrity of the project, in my mind).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, thank you for the clarification. I didn't pick up on the partial nature of some reverts. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• If it helps, the reason I removed the Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service article from the list was that it was inaccurate to only award it to me, and keeping it with the recipient being identified as "" wasn't any better as only I was the only editor being obscured by the placeholder - this carried the obvious implication that I could claim the award at any time and Ian couldn't, which simply doesn't recognise how the article was actually created and developed. I hope that's helpful. Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. In this light the 'placeholder' was inappropriate, as it conveyed to the reader the incorrect information that one unnamed person could claim the award but chose not to be visible. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration

It has come to my attention that the instructions have been out of step with the project FAQs for several years to the point of confusion.

1. At some point the instructions' first step in evaluating eligibility was "Did the editor make the very first encyclopedic content edit for the article?" meaning only a single editor was eligible for the award. This means that no collaborations were allowed.
2. At some point, people inquired whether collaborations were allowed and I posted a FAQ explaining that eligibility for the creation stage was based on whether you contributed to the article's transition from a redlink to an encyclopedic topic, meaning collaborations were possible as long as the first edit did not make the article an encyclopedic topic.
   • All of the current WP:FOUR recognized articles have been evaluated based on the second definition, but no article has been promoted where anyone other than the person who made the first encyclopedic addition to the article was awarded recognition.
3. At no point has there been any mention of when the article was moved into article space as being relevant to a determination of eligibility. I.E., the confusion has been between whether only the person making the first encyclopedic edit or all persons making contributions to the article up to the point where the first encyclopedic edit was made are eligible.
4. None of the current WP:FAs have been evaluated against a criteria that evaluates when the article appears in mainspace. I.E., there are no current FOUR articles that have been approved against such a criteria based on when an article first appeared in mainspace. Agreeing to award Nick-D and Ian Rose would in effect erase all 436 current FOUR articles because none were evaluated against that criteria. In addition, none of the 3540 FAs that are not currently FOURs were evaluated against a standard based on when the article first moved into mainspace. Thus, awarding Nick-D and Ian Rose with a FOUR would make all 3540 non-FOUR FAs eligible for re-evaluation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
   1. To be honest though, I esitmate that only about 1000-1500 articles would have to be reevaluated if Nick-D and Ian Rose are awarded because User:Rjanag has a tool identifies DYK- GA-path FAs. The total number of articles that would have to be re-reviewed would only be the 436 approved plus however many have four=no on their talk page. Rjanag can tell you that number. The rest did not go through both DYK and GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• • "It has come to my attention" - So during the entire discussion and edit warring you didn't realize that the criteria were not clear? Wow.
    • Sorry.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The award as originally created used "You must start/create a new article," while the version at time of writing is the same. Diffs, please, that there was such a wording and that you are not creating your own phrasing that you wish had been used.
    • Check the reviewing instructions for the phrase above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Possible, though in that case the instructions for reviewers and instructions for nominators were not the same, which automatically taints the process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
        • As I have said before, very few articles have been nominated although all have been reviewed. Whether nominated or not the review is the same. Faulty nomination instruction has no impact on the process. If the instructions either cause more or fewer nominations than proper instructions would does not matter if nominated or not all DYK/GA/FA articles are reviewed through the same process. The only problem would be if the review instructions changed at some point (like seems to be happening now).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
          • "very few articles have been nominated" ... "Faulty nomination instruction has no impact on the process." - So you are saying that nominations have no importance, or what? How do you justify having contradictory information on a page for who knows how long. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "All of the current WP:FOUR recognized articles have been evaluated based on the second definition, but no article has been promoted where anyone other than the person who made the first encyclopedic addition to the article was awarded recognition." Boloney. There's one that's been pointed out just a couple sections above, involving yourself.
    • It has been pointed out a few times that South Side, Chicago is not a current FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Your wording, and I quote, was "no article has been promoted", meaning there never has been an article promoted "where anyone other than the person who made the first encyclopedic addition to the article was awarded recognition". Try again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
        • The first part of the sentence is talks about current FOURs. When the second half says no article has been promoted, it means none of the current FOURS. Sorry if I was not clear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Then please remove Southside Chicago from the list, if you want to make your statement true for former "awardees" as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That you were misusing or misapplying the criteria should not be a reason to punish editors who worked in collaboration. You also fail to show how recognising a collaboration will "in effect erase all 436 current FOUR articles because none were evaluated against that criteria."
    • I'll explain the type of FOUR that could be ineligible and the type of non-FOUR that could become eligible pending review momentarily--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If you, Tony, continue to misrepresent the situation, I will open an RFC regarding the future of this "award", collaboration, and your "directorship" which has seemingly led you to OWN-ish behaviour. I am beginning to lose any faith that you can actually be convinced by anything less dramatic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony, the "second definition" is terribly artificial and contrived, and should never have been determined by you alone. To me, it looks like the rules were formed specifically so that you could get a Four Award for the "South Side, Chicago" collaboration, but nobody else could get a collaboration credit. The rules for collaboration should have been determined by consensus. It's simple, really: two people agree to collaborate before the article is written, and they both start the article. That's all we need for our definition. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Crisco and Binksternet on all points. Ed  03:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You can agree on any new criteria, but no articles have been reviewed against them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So if Tony is going through and re-evaluating his version of how things got to this point, it seems more productive to ask "where do we go from here?" than debating his recollections. I do know how things can look markedly different when one lived through things, vs. when one looks back on bare diffs as a newcomer to a topic. One doesn't have to AGF too much to see how recollections and impressions can differ. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Article types at issue under new criteria

Examples below assume the more common New-DYK-GA-FA sequence, unless otherwise stated.

Rejected to FOUR

In general any article that was started in userspace/sandbox would have a new starting point versus the one I evaluated "The first encyclopedic edit". Clearly all rejected FAs started in userspace/sandboxes need to be reevaluated for the following types.

1. Some people worked together outside of mainspace and moved the article and its article history into mainspace later. The very first edit was an encyclopedic edit and was by someone who was not involved in all stages that would result in a FOUR. Other editors who were part of this group were involved in all stages that would result in a FOUR.

FOUR to rejected

All current FOURs need to by reevaluated for the following type.

1. Suppose an article is created in user/sandbox space for 50 edits before the article and its article history are moved into mainspace. It achieves DYK with its 75th edit. Suppose that after moving the article to mainspace, the article was nominated by someone else who cleaned it up for DYK with the last 25 edits. Formerly, this article might have been a FOUR because edits 2-50 and 51-75 were the DYK phase. Now, Only edits 51-75 are the DYK phase. and the article would fail FOUR.

• Erm, except the phrasing is "You must have that same article that you started/created be displayed at the Did You Know... section of the Main Page. (You are not required to be someone who is credited for the DYK status, but you must be one of the people significantly responsible for the article meeting the DYK criteria.)", meaning there is room for interpretation here. If the bulk of the material was finished (say 8000 characters) by one individual, and edits 51 through 75 were bare tweaks (capitalization, commas, etc.) that should still be allowed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously each article would have to be reviewed individually. You can't just say, they each would still pass.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Furthermore, in the past an editor had to be involved editorially in each phase. If you want to change that requirement, then all articles would have to be re-reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "in the past an editor had to be involved editorially in each phase." - Had to be, or was generally? What about articles which pop into main space essentially in the same shape they are promoted to FA as (i.e. no major additions or subtractions, only copyediting from other editors?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• You are asking me about a new criteria upon which no articles have been evaluated. We have never evaluated articles from the point at which they pop into main space (unless no history merge occurs). However, in terms of FOUR, nothing can be nominated for DYK or GAC before it pops into main space. So it is unlikely that anything at FOUR popped into mainspace without any significant edits being made before a FA promotion because of the other nominations that had to occur.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

One to multi

1. Lets look at the Nick-D and Ian Rose article type that has so many panties in a bunch: People collaborated on the article while it was in user/sandbox space. The first encyclopedic content is added by one of them while the article is still not in the main space. The two continue to expand the article collaboratively. Then one of them moves it to article space. Then the two collaboratively put the article through DYK, GA and FA. Under the first encyclopedic content analysis of the article only one of them would be eligible for the award. If the userspace/sandbox article history is made known to the reviewer the person who started the article in userspace would be the awardee. If the article history is not made known to the reviewer, the person who moves the article into mainspace would be the awardee. Under the revised rules both would be awardees.

• To me it looks you just said that Nick-D and Ian Rose both should get a Four Award for their collaboration on "Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service". If that is what you are saying, why not say it plainly?

• What I am saying is that if we change the start date that reviewers use to evaluate a candidate from the first encyclopedic edit to the date that the article appears in main space, they would both be deserving, but that all articles need to be re-reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding sandbox collaboration, the much simpler rule would be that any encyclopedic additions made by users in draft space count toward a collaboration, no matter who moved the project to main space. All that is needed is to show collaboration in draft space. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• That would be part and parcel with making the appearance in main space the start date.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Multi to one

1. Editor 1 is the coordinator of a collaboration of the week for a WikiProject and starts the article in the project's sandbox by adding a {{underconstruction}} template as well as the project's WP:COTW template at the top. Then, editor 2 is a COTW participant who over the course of 100 edits adds 10 KB of readable prose with 50 WP:ICs. The first edit of those 100 was "Mrs. Foo is an XYZ award-winning Goo.", which clearly defines the article about Mrs. Foo as an encyclopedic topic assuming the XYZ award is sufficient to make someone notable among those who are in the Goo profession. Following the COTW, the main editor moves that article from the sandbox and nominates the article for the various FOUR stages. Formerly when judging the first encyclopedic content with the perspective that collaboration is allowed. The two individuals who made the first two edits would have been collaborators in the transition from a redlink to an encyclopedic topic. Under the mainspace date rule, the first editor made such trivial contributions that they would not be collaborators.

Impending rule change

With the likely approval of Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Good Article RfC‎, new WP:GAs that have never been DYKs will be eligible for the DYK process. To keep the spirit of the four stages (1. An article defining an encyclopedic topic, 2. An article with at least one encyclopedic fact, 3. A complete treatment of the encyclopedic topic, 4. One of the best treatments of the topic possible), I am likely to change the rules so that an article must be nominated for DYK before passing WP:GAC in order to be a WP:FOUR. Although we have 75 articles with DYK calendar dates later than their GA dates, only 2 of these will be affected by the rule change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Upon further review, no articles will be affected by the rule change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think that's a reasonable addition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  I agree, that sounds good. LittleMountain5 07:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  I do not agree. I think a GA-triggered DYK should count toward Four despite the chronology. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  I assume every GA has some fact that would make it eligible for DYK. Once an article is approved as a GA, it is well past stage 2. Recognizing it is almost the same as recognizing an article that never was a DYK. The DYK stage is a point at which an article is still new and seeking approval for a single new fact.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, DYK is an important step of the Four Award. If we start allowing articles that only received DYKs because of their GA status, the DYK step will be rendered irrelevant. LittleMountain5 21:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  I still think it is valid to award the Four no matter what order the DYK and GA happen. The "stage 2" concern is an artificial construct, not relevant to DYK/GA order. The assertion that a DYK article "is still new" is not always true. A DYK may be a 5x expansion, or a 2x expansion of an previously unreferenced BLP. Furthermore, the DYK Rfc gives a chance at FOUR for the article authors who for some reason or another were unable to get immediate DYK recognition. I think the FOUR should flex with the new rules and accept any DYK as valid. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• P.S. There are also 8 currently-denied FOURs none of which would be at issue WRT the rule change. Furthermore, I did not check articles with the same DYK and GA calendar dates, although it is possible that something passed GA early in the day and then was nominated for DYK, got approved and ran on the main page the same day. When I first made my list, I just tossed the same days as not possible, even though they are possibly affected by this new rule. If anyone wants to run through those feel free.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 13:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope this won't effect the articles which, through dint of being strong new articles, are promoted to GA status before they appear on DYK, though they were nominated as at DYK for being new. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no intention to change the rules to exclude those as long as they were nominated for DYK before being promoted to GA. By the way, we are talking about 20% of all FOURs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 13:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The direction of FOUR

For all concerned parties expect an upcoming RFC in the next few days. I am drafting it at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC and await some detail on the statistics for the project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 13:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Old FAs showing up at FOUR

We have discovered a flaw in the prior code used to identify FOUR candidates. Some editors use promoted instead of listed in T:AH for successful WP:GACs. We had previously only identified articles with DYK, GA and FA in their T:AH if the GA had been coded with listed. E.g., the 2008 FA, Double Seven Day scuffle, just showed up at FOUR today. Over the next few weeks as talk page caches get updated, we may notice more eligible articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award

Please see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Eligibility and opting out

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: WikiProjects and collaborations When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This RfC seeks to resolve two issues that have recently been controversial. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Determination of eligibility

Should this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director?

Elected project director

Community consensus

1. I see no persuasive reason to have an individual overruling consensus here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Consensus should always determine the direction of a wiki project. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

   This has been determined not to be a WikiProject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

   Note the lack of caps "wiki project" (a project on wiki) versus WikiProject (a project on Wiki that has formally been recognised by the community and a central authoritative body). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

3. There's no argument I can see for not having consensus. There are certainly other projects with directors, formally or informally, but that conclusion was reached after it was demonstrated that consensus was not a functioning process for decisions there. We start with consensus, and explore alternatives only if it fails. Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. The only Misplaced Pages processes which require a "director(s)" or "coordinator(s)" are those in which someone needs to regularly judge consensus or perform a high volume of boring administrative tasks. The notion of one person (or a small group) running a process is entirely out of keeping with how Misplaced Pages works: even ArbCom works as a committee, and always seeks community feedback on formal cases and motions. I don't think that this is one of the processes in which formally-designated office holders are needed. Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
5. I don't even know why this would ever come under doubt. WP:CONSENSUS is the name of the game. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Ed  03:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
7. As per Khazar2 – Shudde 04:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
8. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
9. WP:CONSENSUS Misplaced Pages operates on consensus, this should be no different. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
10. Per Khazar. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
11. I can't see any reason this project would require a director. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Does this award fall under WP: WikiProject Misplaced Pages Awards? And if it does, can they provide supervisory editors? And if it does not, why wouldn't it? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Interesting question. I had never even heard of that WikiProject. Now I'm curious. It should be under that project's scope. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Allowing opt-out

Should this project allow users to opt out of having qualifying articles awarded and listed?

Yes

1. No reason to force an award on unwilling users, and the list of qualifying articles has no informational value beyond award purposes. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. The award should be voluntary. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Nothing on Misplaced Pages that is not a policy (or, in some cases, a guideline) should be compulsory across the board. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
4. I agree with Crisco: this is only an award, and if editors choose to turn it down for whatever reason their view should be respected. Nick-D (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Ed  03:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
6. This proposal is not harmful – especially if the purpose of the FOUR is to encourage quality contributions. – Shudde 04:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
7. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
8. If you force things onto users, you may force them to quit Misplaced Pages, and if this is an award recognizing Wikipedias for their contributions, why would you want to make them feel unwelcome? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
9. As above. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No

Discussion I don't think I understand this question. If I want to make a list of pages that meet a given set of criteria, e.g., pages that were both started and taken to FA by the same person, are you really saying that I should not be permitted to list the page if the person who created it objects to me taking notice of the fact that it meets the requirements for my list? This is such an extreme form of WP:OWNership that I must be missing something here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• The issue is that this is presented as an award, and thus people receive "awards" for this. It's not just a random list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

General discussion on RfC

It's been about two weeks since Tony said an RfC would appear in the next few days; that process itself has proved to be controversial, so I'm attempting to get the ball rolling with some simple questions. More discussion may need to follow the above, depending on the results, but this should at least give us a start. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have moved to table this below. Obviously, if you change the award to a different set of criteria, all the articles will have to be rereviewed. I don't know who is going to do that, but I am attempting to identify the universe of articles that have been DYK, GA and FA to better understand which articles you will have to rereview for your new criteria. It would make more sense if you want to have new criteria to create a different award. You could rename it the WP:TWENTYFOUR award for all people involved in the first 24 hours of an article's creation or its mainspace start. You have 800 or so articles that have been reviewed by the existing criteria and no articles that have been reviewed by your new criteria. Why not create a new award?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you set up an essentially new award with new community consensus criteria, will you keep the WP:FOUR name I originated (in fond memory of me)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You didn't start the award or give it a name, Tony. To try to take credit for Tomasbat's idea is just ... wow. Ed  03:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree. Wow. Just... wow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That depends on how you slice it. I came up with WP:FOUR and popularized it in a sense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Per the rules you applied to articles, Thomas had the first content there, so under Four rules he would have been creator (and idea originator). Sorry Tony, but your OWN days should be over. Rewriting history is not going to help you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Really? I mean, really? You created the obvious shortcut redirect. That's not the same thing, no matter how it is sliced. Ed  04:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Well I was really wondering if you are going to keep my memory alive with the project by retaining the FOUR, if and when you change the criteria.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
              • Erm, there is no discussion anywhere here to get rid of the shortcut FOUR or change the name of this award. This is not out of deference to you, or to Tomas, but because there are people who believe that (however misguided it has been applied) FOUR actually means something to them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
                • I honestly don't really know what to say here. Ed  06:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• In case you are wondering why both of these RFC questions are getting unanimous support, you have masterfully conflated two issues with each one making impossible for anyone to give you anything but the meaningless answer you seek. In this one you have conflated two distinct questions from my RFC: Do you want to say what the criteria are? and Do you think there should be a director. Proper questions would allow someone to say I want to give you my opinion on the criteria and I want to have a director. By conflating the question, if they want to say what the criteria are, they can't say they want a director.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Four Award discussion

Doesn't this award have the danger of promoting WP:OWN? (ie. if this award is promoted, won't some editors determine that they need to take ownership of articles in an attempt to win this award? ) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• As I see it, this is not promoting OWN but rather an editor bringing an article through four "milestones" (for lack of a better term), and thus promoting the writing of well-developed articles over an extended period of time by a single editor. WP:OWN does not say, after all, that editors are limited to so many edits on a single page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Move to table RFC

If I undo the RFC, I will likely be sanction for some policy reason. However, I would like to move to table the RFC for three reasons:

1. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award‎ is ongoing and we should get that out of the way before discussing these issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. The current rushed RFC is by a latecomer to the argument and does not address all the controversies of the lengthy debates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. My RFC (Which all parties of the debates are aware of and which has been drafted since August 1) is awaiting a determination of the universe of articles. I would like all parties concerned to be able to tell if their own articles have been evaluated for the award. You can actually understand the issue of why I am waiting better by looking at my request for assistance Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests#Tally_T:AH.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but neither extensive data collection nor an 8-page RfC are needed to determine the simple issues I listed above. Once those are resolved, I suspect the rest will rapidly fall into place. You're still welcome to post your research in the comments section, though. And of course, you can post further questions to open additional sections for things you feel I've left out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Topny; you're RFC is not very useful, and I'm afraid you are the wrong person to raise it. I think it's very useful to answer the questions Khazar2 raises - RFC's should always be lightweight and ask clear questions - especially as he is very much uninvolved (your RFC, for example, is worded in a very pointed fashion). And if more questions need to be discussed following that then this is not a problem. --Errant 18:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Essentially per Errant. That pseudo-RFC in your userspace indicates that you either a) did not read WP:RFC or b) decided to go full honey badger on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment