Misplaced Pages

talk:Four Award: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:24, 30 August 2013 editCrisco 1492 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators137,506 edits →(Second Amended) First Alternate Proposal for Closure: re← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:49, 13 December 2024 edit undoPremeditated Chaos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators127,630 edits →"Former" awards: ReplyTag: Reply 
(424 intermediate revisions by 77 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:Four Award/Tabs}}
{{shortcut|WT:FOUR}} {{shortcut|WT:FOUR}}
{{talk header}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}} {{FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}}
{{oldmfd|date=15 August 2013|result=keep|votepage=Misplaced Pages:Four_Award}} {{oldmfd|date=15 August 2013|result=keep|votepage=Misplaced Pages:Four_Award}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{archive box|box-width=8em|<small>]<br>]<br>]<br>]</small>}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
== Enquiry ==
|counter = 6
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}}
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(91d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Four Award/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Intersection of ] and ] ==
Do articles that have been made from redirects count as new articles for the purpose of the Four Award? ] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


FYI, I was curious about how many articles are in this intersection. Click the Do it button to see the list. ] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 14:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
== "New article" symbol ==


== Updating instructions ==
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? <span style='font:1em"Avenir";background:#CCF;padding:2px 4px'>]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 02:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
:The founder of the project {{user|TomasBat}}, who is no longer involved, chose the symbol.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 06:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


Hello friends, it's occurred to me that we should update the instructions page to be more clear about our current practices here, which lean a little more charitably and less strictly than in the past. Specifically, I think we should be explicit that articles which were converted from redirects, split from other articles, or recreated after deletion, are all acceptable. We've had discussions on this page agreeing to this and I updated the FAQ in line with these ideas in 2022, so I don't anticipate any objections, but discretion + valor etc.
== Starting point of a page started in userspace ==


I'm also going to remove the note about the Morotai Mutiny because TonyTheTiger apparently gave Ian the 4A for that one in 2011, so it's stupid to have a note saying it's disqualified. &spades;]&spades; ] 05:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I have come across a ] 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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 {{user|Black Kite}} already did a history merge, by the way.) ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 22:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


== Copy editing ==
(Above Content copied from ] )
: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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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 {{user|Ian Rose}}--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Hmm... That's a very interesting case. I would say that ] ''is'' eligible, but it isn't clear which editor should receive credit for it. By your standard, {{user|Nick-D}} 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? ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 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 ] predates the user space page creation by Nick, which itself predates the main space creation by me. Cheers, ] (]) 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::It looks like we're going to run into the same start date issue once again with ] by {{user|Abraham, B.S.}}, by the way. ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 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?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 16:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::No. What is your recommendation? ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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, ] (]) 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 <nowiki>==External links==</nowiki>. The next person could type <nowiki>==Notes==</nowiki> and the next could type <nowiki>==Background==</nowiki>. The next could type <nowiki>]</nowiki> 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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 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. ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 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. ] (]) 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 ] and ] debate. I also spent time this morning addressing a ] rule related to redundant content. I don't know which rule it is, but I was up against it. ] has eligibility rules. Unfortunately, FOUR eligibility rules are not rules that one can fix a violation of. 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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, ] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 12:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{ec}} 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 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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, ] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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, ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 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, '']''. 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 22:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} ] 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. ] (]) 22:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


If I solicit the Guild of Copy Editors for an article I'm pursuing a 4A for, does that significantly affect eligibility? I wondered if there would be an argument that "someone else wrote this" if I did. I currently have ] listed there, and PMC personally knows I've been working on this one for a while. My plan was to get this copyedited, attempt FA again, and if successful nominate it here. If that's a problem, I'll withdraw it and fix complaints at FAC myself. ] <sup> ] </sup> 15:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Nick-D: My sentiments exactly.
: I have had the help of GOCE for my Four Award FA, so I certainly think it is fine. —] (]) 07:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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. ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 21:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
:: Considering the copyedit was already finished six hours prior to this comment receiving a reply, I'd certainly hoped so. Appreciate the nod of confidence, though. Now, all it needs to do is pass its FAC. ] <sup> ] </sup> 21:58, 11 December 2024 (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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 22:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Absolutely, a GOCE or any other contribution from another editor does not take away the 4A eligibility. FOUR does not require that no one else chip in, or evenn any specific level of authorship, just that you're the one who got the article through those stages. It's a fun award, we want to be easy with it, not drill sergeants :) &spades;]&spades; ] 05:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od2}}I was under the impression that Nick-D would receive the award, not . Nick-D created the first encyclopedic content (in userspace, which I thought we were counting). ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 02:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Hey, I've never done it before, and what I first saw when I familiarized myself with the article was prestige, just the slightest bit of glory. I looked at this and said, "I've always wanted to do that, and I know just the article to do it with." ] <sup> ] </sup> 05:28, 12 December 2024 (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, ] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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, ] (]) 05:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
*******I don't think a majority of MILHIST guys should be trying to run this project.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 12:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
******Hey Ian, you are correct. Also note that previous discussion on this same point is at ], in case you were interested. Good luck! ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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. ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 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! ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 06:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
{{od}} Given that my request for the award I was offered to be removed hasn't been honoured yet, I've just . Please do not add it with the meaningless tag. ] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 12:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}'''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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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. ] (]) 22:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
:*Fine, Tony, if you want to exhibit ] like this you can say goodbye to any and all articles I write which may or may not meet ] 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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 ] entry ;) ] (]) 11:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


==Crisco items==
== ] not showing up on article talk pages ==
I realize I swamped the page, so I'm just going to note that had received FOURs in the past. I believe the issues that resulted in me avoiding this page after 2013 have been resolved, so those ten should be easy enough to reintroduce. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 17:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
: I've restored the entries at ] and removed the nominations for the articles you've ostensibly already been awarded for. If I have some time over the weekend I might go over the rest in batches. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 04:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:*Thanks!&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 14:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


== "Former" awards ==
Should ] be showing up on article talk pages? Currently no category is showing on the talk pages.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 12:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


I noticed that 4A is the only user award where you can lose your award because your article got delisted. Honestly I think that sucks. You don't lose your ] if your article gets deleted or whatever. Why should your 4A be relegated to former in the same instance? You still did the work to get the award, even if it later got delisted or deleted. Does anyone have any objections if I declare a general amnesty and restore the ones that have been cast down into sadness? &spades;]&spades; ] 06:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:No; the category is a ] (because of the {{tlx|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). <b class="IPA">]</b>&nbsp;(]) 12:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
: I don't think "former awards" makes sense (we should not take away people's awards unless we can prove they cheated and never deserved them), but it is fine to note articles that are no longer FA. —] (]) 07:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

::Excellent. Love it. Starting to reintroduce them now. How do we feel about marking delisted FAs with a † symbol? &spades;]&spades; ] 07:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
== Removing name and articles from WP:FOUR ==
:::In a perfect world, I'd like to see a symbol like that plus a footnote explaining that and when the article was delisted/merged/whatever. —] (]) 12:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I made the dagger hoverable, with a little tooltip that says the article was delisted deleted or merged. I could go back and add delist dates, if you feel it's helpful. &spades;]&spades; ] 14:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
] has 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 ] as well) Thanks, ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 05:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::I think it would be nice to have a footnote with the delist date. Also, I am not a fan of hover, and neither is the ]. But all of this is nice optional extras, not a requirement. —] (]) 16:12, 12 December 2024 (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 ]. I'm sorry that you feel the need to do it, however. ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 05:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::I'm not terribly attached to the hover, was mostly copying what was there before. No contest from me if you want to change it to footnotes. &spades;]&spades; ] 01:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::Nothing against you personally, Little Mountain! I'm just disappointed that the collaboration issue hasn't been dealt with 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! ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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 ]. 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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&mdash;a feeling I think most people here could sympathize with. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 06:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::Do you ] 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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. ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 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 ] 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 06:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::No need to use that tone regarding Ian, Nick and the MILHIST project. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—]&nbsp;]</b> 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 07:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}} 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&mdash;one that doesn't have any explicit need to retain the articles if contributors change their mind. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 06:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::This is not something like ] 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 06:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::<s>It's not a full listing, or I'd have two more articles listed here</s>... ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 06:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::If any article is missing there are three possible oversights: 1.) ] 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.)--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 07:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, my mistake&mdash;I had forgotten that I purposely skipped GAN for several FAs of mine. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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. '''<font color="gold">★</font>★]★<font color="gold">★</font>''' 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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 ] was "created" as defined by Wikimedia servers (i.e. when it reached main space), it had already been developed over 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 09:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
**How many MILHIST guys are going to come here to tell me how to run this page?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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, ] (]) 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.".--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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 ].&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 13:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
* With the clear consensus here, I've articles I've written (along with one written by Nick-D, per ), from the records page. Thanks everyone, ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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 ] 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 ] Director, I am exercising my administrative responsibility/authority to "promote and monitor the collection of content" (quoting the original charter of the project).--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 23:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
****], 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. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 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 ]. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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. --]]] 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 ]s for a reason, and Tony went well over 3RR (diffs were provided at ANI). It was a good block under the current policy.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 07:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

== Removing one of Tony's awards ==

TonyTheTiger collaborated in starting the article ], so it should be removed from the list of awards. Here are the diffs:
# by TonyTheTiger, just a Chicago project template and a stray photograph with a caption. No encyclopedic content.
# by TonyTheTiger
# 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. ] (]) 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. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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 (COTW) at Chicago WikiProject, August 8, 2007. He knew from the start the article would be a collaboration. ] (]) 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 04:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

== Scribbled Thoughts ==

First thanks to {{user|Jclemens}} and {{user|Doncram}} for the encouragement on my talk page and {{user|Epeefleche}} 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. --] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

:The three issues below are the items that I intend to put before the ]. Please let me know if anyone thinks I have missed any other issues. I will wait at least 24 hours before going forward.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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 ]. 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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 ] or ], 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 (, ; 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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 ] or some other article incubator project. Why change this award? --] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 22:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::*&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::*I think Tony's point is that the ], 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. ] (]) 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 ] or ], 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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, ] (]) 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.

{{user|Binksternet}} 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 {{user|Doncram}} 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). ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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 ] would count? I made my first edit 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. ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Collaboration may be good for WP, but doesn't it belong at a project like ] 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 10:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Regarding ], 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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. ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 11:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::*A time frame is perfectly reasonable. Maybe 12 to 24 hours. Size... well, they could write offline first. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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. ] (] '''·''' ]) 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. ] (]) 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 ])&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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. ] (] '''·''' ]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] or ] or whomever). But this is getting a little off topic.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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 ], the actual tally and "who wins" is completely irrelevant but the outcome (for content) is good ] (] '''·''' ]) 07:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::*{{ec}} Also, not all collaborations aren't planned. {{sclass-|Amagi|battlecruiser|1}} was a planned collaboration between {{user|Parsecboy}} 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. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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 ] was a collaborative work between me and {{user|Marskell}} (he made the first edit and I did much of the rest...)? ] (] '''·''' ])
:::::::::*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)&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

===Directorship===
2.) {{user|The ed17}} 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 (], ] and ]) 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 {{user|Little Mountain 5}} and automation help from {{user|Rjanag}}. 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 00:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
:(1) This project is in no need of a director. That is why we have ]. (2) Being the most active contributor does not give you authority over others. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 02:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
:*Hear hear, Ed.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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? ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
:::*Historically those folks have mostly been me. I do about 90% of the stuff that happens here.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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. ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 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. ] (]) 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 ]). 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 12:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Where is this council? I don't see ] and ] is not them. Are they related to the ]?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 12:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
::::I am beginning to feel that there is not a ] and that I should seek council from the ]. 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 00:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::That's right--no such council exists, I'm just opining that maybe one should. ] (]) 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. ] (] '''·''' ]) 07:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

===Disassociation===
;To be clear was my compromise solution and reverting to this was why I was blocked.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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.

{{user|ErrantX}} 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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&mdash;its only purpose is to list those who have and still do accept the award. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 11:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
::There are precedents both ways. At ] there are people who are not recorded at all (i.e. no placeholders, nothing) while ] has placeholders. Only thing for it is to vote I guess.....] (] '''·''' ]) 06:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Has anyone requested that a promoted article not be listed at ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 11:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
::::I wonder if when people retire, they should request all their FAs and GAs be removed.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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. ] (] '''·''' ]) 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. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
:], ] and ] hope to reward and encourage, but they don't just give out ]s, ]s and ]s 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 ] delist their articles at ]? I am saying I will accept a compromise so that the records of the project remain in tact. Otherwise consider my comments above.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 16:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
::Let's be fair here&mdash;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. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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 ] and ]. Why do you assume everyone wants the promotion. If they wanted the promotion, they would probably appreciate WBFAN and TFA recognition.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 22:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
::::But this isn't featured articles, this is a random award. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 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?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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. ] (]) 06:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
:::*{{small|(Just for clarity: you were referring to Ed, right?)&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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... ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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 ] 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 ] (] '''·''' ]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]; (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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 15:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::*In general, I feel no ill will toward ]. 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).--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 00:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::*Alright, thank you for the clarification. I didn't pick up on the partial nature of some reverts.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.
#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.
#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 ] 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.
#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.
#None of the current ]s 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 03:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
##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 ] 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 03:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
**The award used "You must start/create a new article," while the version at time of writing is . 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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).--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 06:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
**"All of the current ] 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 ] is not a '''''current''''' FOUR.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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 "]" 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. ] (]) 03:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
::Agreed with Crisco and Binksternet on all points. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 03:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
:::You can agree on any new criteria, but no articles have been reviewed against them.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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. ] (]) 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.
#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.
#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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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?)&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 06:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

====One to multi====
#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 "]". 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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. ] (]) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
:::*That would be part and parcel with making the appearance in main space the start date.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 16:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

====Multi to one====
#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 {{tl|underconstruction}} template as well as the project's ] 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 ]s. 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 ], new ]s 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 ] in order to be a ]. 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 06:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
:::Upon further review, no articles will be affected by the rule change.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 15:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
*I think that's a reasonable addition.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 06:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
*:I agree, that sounds good. ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 07:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
*::Agreed as well. ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
*:::I do not agree. I think a GA-triggered DYK should count toward Four despite the chronology. ] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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. ''<b style="font-variant:small-caps;">]]]</b>'' 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. ] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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. ] (]) 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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 ] and await some detail on the statistics for the project.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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 ] for successful ]s. 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, ], just showed up at FOUR today. Over the next few weeks as talk page caches get updated, we may notice more eligible articles.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 13:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award ==

Please see ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 16:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
:This was closed with result of keep, or maybe it was expressed as no consensus. Over, anyhow. --]]] 16:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

== Move to table RFC ==
:''Note: This was about the first RFC proposed, currently located further below on this page, and not about other RFCs that have since been opened.''--]]] 16:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
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:

#] is ongoing and we should get that out of the way before discussing these issues.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
#The current rushed RFC is by a latecomer to the argument and does not address all the controversies of the lengthy debates.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
#] (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 ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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. -- ] (]) 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. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::*Essentially per Errant. That pseudo-RFC in your userspace indicates that you either a) did not read ] or b) decided to go on it.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 01:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

::::::*Once an RFC or an AFD or similar process gets started, you can't really stop it. There were good aspects of the RFC proposal that TT had drafted; there are inadequacies of this simplistic RFC. Also there were some problems of wording in the TT draft, so i think it is okay that this alternate RFC was started. I don't see a lot really being solved by this RFC though, given limitations of the questions and discussion. --]]] 01:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::::*These two questions in the mini-RFC are meant to deal with two of the more controversial issues: that of the "all-powerful director" and that of removing oneself from the list. The others are, in general, less pressing.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 03:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

*Oh, what's that Lassie? Timmy fell into a train-wreck of an RFC? And it's confusing the issue? And we should table the train wreck? How? By deleting it unilaterally? Wow Lassie, read ]... but its a good idea nonetheless.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 06:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
**What's that Lassie? Bencherlite saved Timmy? That'll do, doggie. That'll do.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 13:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' about RfC below. The "Some articles go from FOUR-awarded to rejected" section is confusing. If someone created an article that is not a stub, then someone else improved it and nominated it for DYK, sure the DYK would reward both editors (I've even seen one instance when the person who uploaded and added images to the article was rewarded). Also it doesn't discuss what authorities the director has (can he/she override consensus?) or how to select him/her (elected/appointed). Actually, question #2 asks whether we want Tony to stay as director, while the one below asks if we want a director at all. While it did not combine the questions about having a director and modifying the criteria, it is long, confusing and the background sections are biased a bit. Also, the wording in ] is far from neutral, meaning it risks being classified as ]. <b>]</b> ] 06:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
**That is the most disgusting notice I've ever seen.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 06:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
***I wouldn't go that far, but it's a clear violation of ]. Tony, at this rate the problem of your ownership (or lack thereof) over WP:FOUR is likely to be resolved by a topic ban, not an RfC. I urge you to try and assess the situation neutrally and avoid activities that could be taken as trying to unfairly sway the discussion. ] (]) 07:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

== Detailed RFC ==
{{archive top}}
* ] - I have closed this and the related MFD discussion after the widespread canvassing ensured that no valid consensus could be formed here. ]] 10:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

===Concerns over detailed RFC===
This "detailed" RFC is blind to the existing RFC and thus includes redundant material such as the issue of director. As well, this RFC is not formulated in a neutral fashion—instead it is written to maximize sympathy with the author's position. ] (]) 07:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
*Agree, and have posted as much at the RFC page and MFD.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 08:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

=== Canvassing by TonyTheTiger ===

I don't know the background on these issues, but I just received , which sounds extremely biased, from TonyTheTiger. It looks like a lot of other people got these as well. Seems very much like ]ing. <b class="IPA">]</b>&nbsp;(]) 07:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
*Already brought up at ANI ].&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 07:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
*I thought the same thing as soon as I saw those messages. Surely the canvassing prejudices this second RfC? – ] <sup>]</sup> 10:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

I realize this has already been resolved, but I wanted to add that I'm rather startled to wake up today and find that Tony has made accusations of bad faith against me on around 150(!) project and user pages. Tony, I asked you several times to make your own RfC brief and neutral or to ask another party of your choice to create one; when you refused, I opened a discussion of my own and invited you to still post your own questions and comments. It's poor form to accuse me of calculatedly suppressing discussion; I don't know how to make it clearer that this isn't my intent. -- ] (]) 14:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
*And others have painted you as a MilHist editor... for some reason. I can't think of a project further from what you stand for.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 14:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

*'''This was not ]ing''' My statement was neutral saying there are two sides to the issue. The audience was of people who have an interest in ] because they have previously done work that was recognized for the award. I.e., the audience and the message were both neutral.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 14:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
**I literally choked while reading that. Please don't shock me like that.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 14:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
**Tony, your canvassing statement was a punch in the face to Khazar2. You wrote that Khazar2's RFC was written "to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions." What a horrible message to send to 100+ people. ] (]) 14:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
***This is getting to ] territory, to be quite honest. But yes, agree wholeheartedly with your post Binksternet.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 14:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
****Tony, you and I have never had any direct interaction, and I have literally almost no bias towards anyone involved in this discussion (including yourself), but when you , my first, second, and third thoughts were "Well, I'm being canvassed." I had an opinion about this subject before-hand, and that solidified it further. I appreciate the work you've put into FOUR, and I might not have pushed as hard to get my first FA article done had it not been for the extra motivation FOUR provided, but at the same time, I think FOUR is all grown up now, and needs to be set free. ] (]) 16:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
**Tony, that most certainly '''was''' canvassing. Hell, your message was even more blatantly biased than your RFC is. ]] 16:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

***Well, I was glad someone told me this mess was starting. I didn't see it as a "canvass" (other than Tony had an opinion, which is fine with me, I am perfectly capable of forming my own) but I do see this as some sort of unneeded drama - of course someone who creates an award and maintains it in obscurity for years will CARE about it and want to exercise some quality control. Sheesh. We are having a big drama over what? The AfD or something else? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}And if there is a "real" RFC, where is it, anyway...? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:It's hard to miss. Here you go: ]. <b>]</b> ] 19:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
::I was wondering the same thing, as the one left above after this one was closed is unclear and POV. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 11:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
:::<s>Sorry you found my phrasing non-neutral, Greg, but it was my best effort, and I'm getting weary of your attacks about this. I understand that you're here because Tony directly canvassed you for support, so you're going to come in with a certain attitude. But you've posted about this subject forty or fifty times in the past two days; were those not enough to get your point across? -- ] (]) 12:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)</s>
::::Eh, disregard my comment above. Sorry, this is an odd situation for me. I'm used to seeing editors ], but this is the first time I've been ]. I'm going to just take all this off my watchlist for a while and get back to article work. Before I go, though, let me urge a last time not only to Greg, but everyone whose comments on this controversy are well into double digits: it's just a barnstar--it's not worth it! Here's hoping we can all get back down to street level soon. -- ] (]) 13:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

== RfC: Eligibility and opting out ==

{{rfc|proj|rfcid=48610E9}}

This RfC seeks to resolve two issues that have recently been controversial. -- ] (]) 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'''
#Having an election process and electing a director would be fine. It's how ] operates, successfully. I don't personally care, but want to state the obvious, that this would be a fine way to go. Advantage is it gives good endorsement/appreciation of someone who has done, and will do, a ton of good work. --]]] 00:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#The criteria are straightforward - new, DYK, GA, FA. There should be no confusion over those. Thus, all that is necessary is a director (or if you wish a small team) to verify and document the people who satisfy those criteria. Remember, ] is decided by a director, if I remember right. ~] <sup>]</sup> 03:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

'''Community consensus'''
#I see no persuasive reason to have an individual overruling consensus here. -- ] (]) 15:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
#Consensus should always determine the direction of a wiki project. ] (]) 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
#:This has been determined not to be a WikiProject.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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).&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 06:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
#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. ] (]) 23:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
#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. ] (]) 01:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
#I don't even know why this would ever come under doubt. ] is the name of the game.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 01:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
#]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 03:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
#As per Khazar2 – ] <sup>]</sup> 04:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
# ]&#124;]&#124;] 07:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
# ] Misplaced Pages operates on consensus, this should be no different. -- ] (]) 11:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
#Per Khazar. <b>]</b> ] 12:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
#I can't see any reason this project would require a director. ] (]) 10:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
#There are no issues of quality to be determined by a designated director. The Featured Article processes have a designated group of people selected to make specific decisions related to criteria that are both ''objective'' and ''subjective'', not something that applies here. The better comparison is ], the Triple Crown, which is done through consensus and volunteers that handle the awards. Anyone should be able to verify that a nominated article/editor combination meets the four requirements and hand out the award. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 06:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#Per Khazar <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—]&nbsp;]</b> 07:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#Per Imzadi - the best comparison is the Triple Crown. ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#This award has as much need of a director as it has for an official charter and bylaws. What a daft idea. Go do something productive. Doing stuff with this award possibly is. Electing a director for this award isn't. ] (]) 13:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#The award is black and white to begin with. Either the article hits all four parts or it doesn't. ] 14:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#This should work. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 15:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#Agree with Khazar2. ] (]) 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#''It's a '''barnstar'''''. There is no need for a director. There is no need for formal reviews or centralized control or any of this nonsense. Anyone should feel free to reward someone with this ''barnstar'' if they feel that person's contributions meet the spirit of the award. ]] 17:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
# The position of a self appointed director is laughable at best --] &#124; ] 04:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
#- Dank (]) 19:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
# I don't see why there needs to be a director. ] (]) 03:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

'''Discussion'''
* Does this award fall under ]? And if it does, can they provide supervisory editors? And if it does not, why wouldn't it? -- ] (]) 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 12:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
* What on earth does an award like this need a director for? ] (]) 11:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
**Damened if I know.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 11:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
* The most similar other project seems to be ], which is opt-in and has a "main contact person" (functionally a director but semantically different) but otherwise operates by consensus. Is there a reason why the CROWN model could not or should not be adopted here? ] (]) 13:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:*I think something like that would be doable, assuming the "main contact person" actually listens to consensus.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 14:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:*You have conflated two issues. It is possible to support community consensus on the criteria and having a director.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 14:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
::*Perhaps I should ask this question in a different manner. How do operations at ] differ from those at ], if at all? If there is a substantive difference, can whatever problems FOUR seems to be experiencing be ameliorated by adopting the system in place at CROWN? I know, for example, that CROWN is opt-in rather than automatic -- a system I see little drawback in supporting if it would reduce drama for whatever reason. ] (]) 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:::*The system at CROWN is basically the same as has been used here. One guy (SJMasters at CROWN, Tony here) basically runs the show, while others occasionally stop by and help out. When that guy is not around, like what is happening at CROWN right now, nothing happens. No one evaluates the awards, verifies the articles, etc. Nothing has been done at CROWN for at least 7 months. So now, if the group from MilHist succeed in removing Tony, we can look forward to the same thing here. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
::::*"if the group from MilHist succeed in removing Tony" - Again with the ABF. Khazar is nowhere near MilHist, I haven't had a project-space edit in several months, and a lot of the people !voting here are not milhist members. As for CROWN: perhaps ] would be willing to point out any similarities or differences.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::*(ec) Where did I say that Khazar had anything to do with MilHist? I'm speaking of the group from MilHist (for lack of a better term) that is trying to get Tony topic banned. The fact that the comment is on the RfC created by Khazar has nothing to do with the other. As a matter of fact, Khazar is opposed to the topic ban, which clearly excludes him from my comment. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 00:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
::::*Well, not quite, Greg. Leaving aside the "MilHist Mob" crack, what happens here is that there are two regular editors, Tony and LittleMountain, and Tony is far quicker to make the awards, which is great but no slight on LittleMountain's capabilities or enthusiasm. In the past I always reviewed and actioned at least one outstanding nomination when I nominated an article myself, as others generally did. More recently Tony's pro-activism has tended to make redundant others' potential contributions in that area, but I don't think you can say the whole process would grind to a halt without Tony. Personally I would like him to stay, but simply step back a little and listen to the thoughts of others. Cheers, ] (]) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::*I never said mob. Nor did I say anything derogatory. I said "MilHist group", which is the only way I know to describe it. It is a group of editors from MilHist. That's all. How would you prefer I describe it? <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 00:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::*No, that's true, you didn't specifically say "mob", but when you talk about a group of MilHist editors seeking to run Tony out of here, it suggests mob behaviour, and I find that both derogatory and inaccurate. Cheers, ] (]) 00:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
{{unindent}}It wasn't intended to be either a description of mob behavior, nor derogatory or inaccurate. I'm open to another was to describe it, but the only thing I could come up with was the "group from MilHist." That's my lack of verbosity, not an indication of ill will. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 01:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
:Okay, Greg, I accept you mean no ill, but stand by my contention that it's inaccurate to say MilHist is out to 'get' Tony (one might just as well say Tony has it in for MilHist, but I continue to AGF on that point too). Cheers, ] (])
*I can see having a Clerk to maintain records (since it seems like recordkeeping is involved) or maybe an Organizing Team. But if Director means "person who decides who is given an award", then I think having a Director would be a bad idea. I think there has to be an acknowledgement that some individuals have to take responsibility for managing these awards since "consensus" is a form of decision-making, not delegating tasks. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="Purple">'''''L'''''iz</font> <sup>]</sup> 16:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
*I agree that a director is not the best idea, but I'm rather disgusted by what I'm perceiving as the trivializing and dismissing of TTT's opinions here. Honestly, what I'm seeing is that one person put a ton of work into a project and now other people are trying to come in and change his project and are brushing him aside in the process. I may be mistaken, but that is how it appears to me. ]'']'' <small>(])</small> 22:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

=== Allowing opt-out ===

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

'''Yes'''
#No reason to force an award on unwilling users, and the list of qualifying articles has no informational value beyond award purposes. -- ] (]) 15:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
#The award should be voluntary. ] (]) 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
#Nothing on Misplaced Pages that is not a policy (or, in some cases, a guideline) should be compulsory across the board.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 01:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
#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. ] (]) 02:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
#]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 03:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
# This proposal is not harmful – especially if the purpose of the FOUR is to encourage quality contributions. – ] <sup>]</sup> 04:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
# ]&#124;]&#124;] 07:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
# 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? -- ] (]) 11:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
# As above. ] (]) 10:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
#Yes, much as the model followed at at ]; editors and their articles should be nominated, not automatically awarded. ] states: "Note that some users may not be listed below per their request." Why can't FOUR carry such a disclaimer and omit those who do not wish to be associated with it? <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 06:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
# <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—]&nbsp;]</b> 07:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#The compromise has always been that awards are allowed to exist, but editors who want nothing to do with them don't are free to disassociate themselves from the awards. The reality is the awards are a distraction from actually editing Misplaced Pages, all the more so when they create pointless controversy like this. The make some editors feel good, and so if we tolerate them, but they really are not part of the mission of Misplaced Pages. To force people to be listing is outside the bounds of that compromise that allows them to exist in the first place. Its the same reason editors can opt out of ] or remove Barnstars. ] (]) (]) 13:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
# There is a difference between taking an action worthy of recognition and receiving an acclamation given for that action. This is not, and has never been, a bare factual listing of contributions. It is an award, and it is presented as such. Awards, from ] to ] to the ] to Misplaced Pages's vanities, can be declined. ] (]) 13:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
# There are other ways of capturing this. Someone who doesn't want a listing here can request deletion. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 15:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
# I've never heard of not being able to decline an award, or not being able to ask not to be listed with honorees. It's common sense that for many reasons one should be able to ask not to be listed as an award winner. HOWEVER, this should be a two-step analysis. If someone is eligible, they should be asked to accept or decline. If they decline, they aren't listed. If they accept and then later decline, I'm not so sure they should be removed, but perhaps should have an "asterisk" or something showing they later returned the award or whatever. As a history person, I see this as helpful just for record-keeping purposes. (Also I will disclose that I commented after being canvassed by Tony, but clearly I'm disagreeing with him, and I've followed this argument since last week, just hadn't had a chance to weigh in). ] (]) 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#Per Imzadi 1979 explanation below. <b>]</b> ] 17:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#in the same way that an excellent article might not be listed as a GA or FA, it should be entirely optional if a user chooses whether or not to nominate for the award. Having the award there might incentivise one to achieve each of the milestones but a user might not edit an article for that type of recognition. its upto individual users whether they actively seek recognition for their work. '''] <small><font color="#1CA9C9">- { ] } -</font></small>''' 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
#*Actively seeking recognition means they come seek the award. But if the award is just bestowed upon them by a volunteer who compiles and checks the data, they aren't seeking recognition. GA and FA are opt-in things, and involve '''very''' extensive reviews. This is a simple "hey, you created this article, took it through three further stages" list that would be opt-outtable. ~] <sup>]</sup> 21:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
#As currently structured, this is an award to an editor. People can turn down awards. My favorite example of this phenomenon was the telegram ] is supposed to have sent to the ] people when notified that he was being given a "Lifetime Achievement Award". He told them he declined to accept the award because "I'm not done yet." They didn't force the award on him; eventually he was persuaded to accept it. But there was never any question of awarding it over his objection.<br>There is no reason to list someone as having been given an award they have chosen not to accept. To insist on foisting an award on someone, over his/her objection, is rude. Our community has quite enough rudeness, thank you. ] (]) 22:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
# I was torn on this one as I can see arguments for the "no" side, but ultimately if someone would really want not to be recorded, then I'd be happy to respect their wishes. ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

'''No'''
#The proposal is nonsense. It is a matter of public record that people made the contributions they did. Of course they cannot rewrite history and deny that they did. The only reason they would want not to be covered is out of malicious will to drag down this fine award. Sorry, you can't deny the reality of your contributions to wikipedia, and you can't prevent a good program like this from recognizing you. You can choose to display an award or not, at your own userpage, of course, but don't be silly, of course someone else can list you as having done what you did. --]]] 00:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#It is also now ''verbotten'' for me to make a list of people I've given WikiLove to. Removing the award from their user (talk) page? Yes. Removing themselves from a list of people who created and saw an article through? Nonsense. ~] <sup>]</sup>
#This is insane. Some one person created the article - look at the history. One person sent it to DYK, one person sent it to GA, and to FA. Sure others may have collaborated, but only one person can do it at a time. The edit history clear shows this. If you don't want to display it on your user page, fine, but don't F things up by making it overly bureaucratic. If ] members don't want to accept the award, fine, but it is not their article and not their place to say that the article can't be listed here. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 06:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#:Can you please build a table explaining how the other users in the conversation are involved in MILHIST? All of them, if possible. ] (]) 18:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
#::No thanks. Feel free to do so yourself, if you really want one. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 05:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
#Weird. If you don't like the award, remove it from your talk and/or don't add it to your userpage. Everything else is matter of public record, per Doncram. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 13:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
#You have conflated two issues. Opting out does not require removing the article's entire history from the award. One could support opting out by merely allowing a user to replace his/her name with . The way you have proposed this requires the most severe form of opting out.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 14:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

'''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 ]ership that I must be missing something here. ] (]) 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 06:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

*Doncram: I don't think anyone right now is denying they did something, but rather protesting against the way in which they were treated or the way in which the award is run. The concept of the award may be "fine", but the way in which it has been applied has been regrettably out of touch with the way the community expects it to be run. Personally, if FOUR gets its act together I won't mind reinserting the awards/boxes.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 03:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

*The protest was to take his ball and go home? <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 07:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If something is an award, an editor should have an opportunity to decline receiving it. But if something is a list, then since we are all creating public domain text here, we don't ] the right to have something (including our user names) not placed on a list any more than we have the right to own an article. I suggest Tony (and others, if they wish) maintain a FOUR list, which editors cannot prevent themselves being included on, while anyone who wants the ''award'' can ask for it at the list / project / talk / whatever page, and receive it if eligible (and decline it too - you know, like the Beatles and those OBEs!). ] (]) 12:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:Actually, there is a factual error in your comments. Our text is not public domain. In fact every submission made to Misplaced Pages is done under the CC-BY-CA3.0 license and the GFDL. That means each editor still retains his/her copyright over the submission, and the Wikimedia Foundation is granted an irrevocable license to use it. Under the concepts of ], every editor in good standing has the right to disassociate him/herself from the prior association with Misplaced Pages. Other items like the list of ] and ] allow an opt out, so why can't an award be denied, and why can't the recipient opt out of the award scheme's listing? <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 17:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

*It seems to me that there is an error in the basic assumption behind some of the oppose comments. They seem to assume that FOUR is given to articles, when it clearly states "". If the award is given to editors, and cannot exist without editors, then by definition if editors decide they do not want it, the articles should not be listed (as the award was never given to the editors, and FOUR is not defined as a list of all articles which meet a criteria).&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

] how is not allowing opt-out not the same as creating a social network for no actual use? With the "No" comments, it seems increasingly that this is a scoreboard for collecting points. -- ] (]) 05:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

*Why would someone want to opt–out anyway? ]'']'' <small>(])</small> 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
**Why not? Seriously though, it can be done as a form of protest (as was done here), or because individuals do not want the extend of their editing to be easily accessible to anyone with Google, or because they don't believe in Barnstars and the like (there are a few editors who won't take Barnstars, at all).&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
***A Jew, like myself for instance, might view his contributions to wikipedia as a form of charitable giving. In that case ] might explain a reluctance to receive an award for his or her contributions. ] (]) 00:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
****Other use cases could be "Not feeling your contributions to the article justify the award" and "wanting to disassociate yourself from the article due to subsequent disputes there that you don't want to be drawn back into". I've certainly experienced both. ] (]) 00:42, 22 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. -- ] (]) 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 ] 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 ] 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?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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)?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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 is just ... wow. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 03:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
***Agree. Wow. Just... ].&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 03:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
****That . I came up with WP:FOUR and in a sense.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 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. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 06:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
*********I honestly don't really know what to say here. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 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 it 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.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 00:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

{{unindent}}(ec) TonyTheTiger is highly involved, in a good way, in developing/doing the Four award over many years. This included going in and examining history of many FA articles. Whether he stated it perfectly or not about "originating", whether he mis-remembered who did what when or whether he misstated something or whether he is perfectly right and some quick review by others is incorrect, or not, there is no doubt that he developed and operated the running of this good award program for a long time. Drop the stick, people. Go away, perhaps? --]]] 00:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

:I concur. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 07:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

::Agreed. The award is useful and now we somehow want a mob with pitchforks to run off its creator? That's just nuts. And yes, there are so many threads now that I don't even know what the issue is or where to comment. What a mess. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
::*Mob with pitchforks? Suggest reading from the beginning of this page. The "mob" you speak of started quite amicable, but things were driven into the gutter very quickly by baiting and IDIDNTHEARTHAT-ism (admittedly some from both sides). When half of the support votes at the MfD say there is a problem with Tony's attitude, he may want to listen.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:::*Perhaps so, but the same goes for the MilHist group (for lack of a better term). What I see is someone who has dedicated a lot of time to running this, and by using criteria that had been established for years without question, being attacked for wanting to keep the award meaningful. While his behavior hasn't been perfect, neither has the MilHist group. Now y'all are trying to get him topic banned, for what looks like his disagreeing with you. Shame on you. It's wrong. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
::::*"Now y'all are trying to get him topic banned," - Actually, ] doesn't seem to be anywhere near a milhist regular, and a lot of those !voting to topic ban Tony are not either. Notice how I said "admittedly some from both sides"? Please read comments before replying to them with "nu'uh, you guys did it too". "What I see is someone who has dedicated a lot of time to running this, and by using criteria that had been established for years without question, being attacked for wanting to keep the award meaningful." - Now are you ''sure'' that you want to imply that Tony can rightfully ignore any consensus? That would suggest you may have a grudge against Milhist, which I've been getting hints of but AGFing away.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 00:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::*I certainly don't have anything like a grudge against MilHist, there are a lot of good people over there. I've participated in a number of FA & GA reviews there, assessment, etc. I don't do it much because I don't really like how it is set up, preferring ] and ], which are run in a more loose fashion. More freedom, I guess. I actually like a number of the MilHist editors involved - I've had good interactions (at least on my side) with Nick, Ian, and Ed in the past. They're good editors, but I think they (and you) are wrong here. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 00:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::*Ignoring the implication that I'm not a good editor, for the sake of discussion, thank you for clarifying that point. It appears perfectly apparent to me that there is little chance of convincing you that your "ball" metaphor is mistaken, and that Tony has overstepped his bounds (your post still implies he was in his right to edit war etc.). As such, I bid you happy editing or semi-retirement, whichever mode you are currently in.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 12:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
{{unindent}}Where did I say that you were not a good editor? I don't recall having any interactions with you before, and I don't know you or your editing. Please do not put words in my mouth. If I thought you were a poor editor, I would have said so--I'm not known for either tact nor subtlety, and I don't know your editing. I know theirs - I participated in a couple of reviews of Eds articles, and have had similar interactions with Nick and Ian in the past. I don't think what they did here was appropriate, and I'm opposed in a general sense to watering down, or lessening the standards that are required for the award. I don't think it was appropriate what they did. And I'm semi-retired because I have real world commitments that take me away from actively editing Wiki for long periods of time. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
**], as opposed to statement. As in "They're good editors," (implying that myself are not). I did not question your need to be semi-retired. I simply said goodbye. Will do it again: goodbye.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
====Four Award discussion====
Doesn't this award have the danger of promoting ]? (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? ) -- ] (]) 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 12:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
**It's just recognizing contributions that added up in a good way. --]]] 01:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

===Proposal for closure===
Recommendations following result of RfC:
# Make use of the ] nominations area and NOT hand the award to articles arbitrarily thus bypassing the nominations section entirely.
# Allow the community to form a consensus on the nominations for a minimum of seven and a maximum of thirty days. If consensus is not formed during this time then the award is not given.
# Ensure that the director does not actively nominate articles for the award but merely reads the consensus and decides if the award should be given or not based on the consensus.
# Enable easy opt-out of the award by the person that the award will be given to at any point in the process. If the award is in discussion before awarding all they have to do is state that they do not wish to accept the award and it will not be awarded. If the award is already given the person may post on the talk page at any time requesting removal and it will be done as soon as possible. To prevent abuse only the listed director may act on these requests.{{unsigned|PantherLeapord|11:26, 26 August 2013‎ }}
**Who wrote this?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 12:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
***I don't know, but this is not what the discussion above formed a consensus to do. The above consensus is that the community determine the criteria and that editors be allowed to opt out (seemingly of the current procedure).--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 12:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
****Wrong! 19:5 in favour of opt-out and 21:2 for letting consensus decide the award makes what I suggest above rather obvious. I can cut out the director entirely but I am sure that you would rather not be separated from "your" ''precious'' award! ]&#124;]&#124;] 21:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
*****I know what the counts were but you are piling on your own personal definition of what opt-out means and all other things.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 21:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
******And I am willing to guess that yours involves nothing changing. Correct? ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
********The way {{u|Khazar2}} conflated the issues the questions have not been raised that would lead to real change. Saying we support having a community consensus does not define what that consensus is. Look at the question. All that was posed in this RFC is whether we want to have a community consensus. O.K. So now that we want to have one, what should change. Similarly, the fact that we have confirmed that we want to allow for opt out has conflated the issues regarding the two forms of opting out that we were arguing about. All along, I have said that {{u|Khazar2}} either did not understand the issues or purposely conflated them so that they were not really posed to the audience. It will still take another RFC to say what consensus we want to have and what form of opting out we want to have. Neither of these questions has yet been posed and they are what the real controversy was about.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 02:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
**********Wow, Tony, do you kiss your mother with that mouth? What a load of ABF. You seem to be in a minority, thinking the discussion is not clear. Two questions: should we have a director, and should people be allowed to opt out. It's not rocket science, nor is it designing a 2-ton metal bean.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 02:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
***********(ec)In case you don't understand the term conflate (which is a word one can use in front of one's mother, possibly to impress her), the posed question "Should this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director?" Is about two questions combined (and PantherLeopard wants it to mean a third). It asks should we determine the criteria by community consensus? and should we have a director? After wiping out my RFC which addressed this issue much more cleanly by allowing people to express opinions on what the criteria should be separately from should we have a director, the respondents were left with an either or. Many of the respondents respond to one of these questions as if responding to one is a response to the other (as the conflated question implies). The whole RFC resulted in a mess. However, ]'s decision to close my RFC has left the proper questions unasked.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 04:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
***********Tony, I think at this point half of Misplaced Pages, and certainly all the editors at this page, are aware of your allegations that I'm deliberately distorting the issues. (Actually, your word above was "masterfully", which I admit is flattering in its way.) You're now approaching 200 posts on the subject on an enormous range of pages; I'm not sure why you had to repeat this once more, much less ping me twice about it after I've voluntarily withdrawn from discussion. Why not follow my lead and take a break from this madness? Just ask a third party you trust to keep an eye on the RfC; it's not going anywhere, and your 201st post about my supposed malice is unlikely to persuade anyone that the previous 200 did not. And as I've suggested elsewhere, let's take a break from each other for a bit, too. After all this drama, I'd appreciate not getting any notifications from you for a while. -- ] (]) 03:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
************I was staying away from this until {{u|PantherLeapord}} suggested a ridiculously inappropriate close and then started badgering me.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 04:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
*************Just like a ] you always shift the blame to others and refuse to admit that you might be part of the problem! ]&#124;]&#124;] 04:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
**************I share some of the blame for this whole mess, but the bottom line is that the questions never got presented to the audience that would lead to any change. Saying there is consensus for community-determined consensus without director involvement does not really lead to change. It is like saying we have decided to hold a referendum. Saying we want to hold a referendum does not lead to change. You then have to hold the referendum.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 06:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
***************Which is what was done. You just ]. Furthermore your biased canvassing is the ONLY reason why your RFC was shut down! The community decided that things are to be done through the open RfC and if you continue to ignore the results reached here then you will find yourself either seperated from the project or even blocked! ]&#124;]&#124;] 06:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
****************Tony, if you think I was implying that "conflate" is a bad word, you really need to practice your reading skills. If I spewed out half the amount of hot air you have on this talk page, I'd keep my mouth away from my mother; wouldn't want her to die of heat exhaustion and/or respiratory failure. But, then again, you changed as much as Richard Kimball was guilty.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 13:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
*******PantherLeapord, although I'm not on Tony's side in this discussion, I think your tone and commentary here were absolutely uncalled for. Your mocking and caustic "humor" are doing nothing to defuse this situation. On top of that, Tony's actually right that your reading of consensus adds a few things that I don't think are a part of the actual consensus that's out there. ] (]) 00:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
********I agree with this as well. I don't think the proposed close matches the original RfC questions at all. The first question was: "Should this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director?" The consensus seems to be to have the community decide what the criteria should be and whether a nominated article meets those criteria. It says nothing about what those criteria are or how consensus on eligibility is determined (although I would imagine most folks envision something like ]). The second question was "Should this project allow users to opt out of having qualifying articles awarded and listed?", and the consensus seems to be "yes", but the method for opting out and exactly what it means to "opt out" still seem ill-defined to me. I think the proposed close goes well beyond what community consensus dictates in this RfC. I don't relish going through another RfC, but I think that is the necessary next step to hash out the unresolved issues fairly. ] <sup><span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ])</span></sup> 13:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
**From the history, it was easy enough to figure out.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 12:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
***I'm aware that is easy to do. It was more of an indirect prod to the poster to sign.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 15:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

===(Second Amended) First Alternate Proposal for Closure===
Hopefully this proposal would reflect consensus more accurately, and would inspire less vitriol (full disclosure, I'm a Four Award recipient):
#Henceforth, WP:FOUR will not be administered by any one individual, and no individual will have any authority beyond that of a typical editor to alter or make additional rules and regs for the award;
#Immediately upon closure of this RfC, an RfC will be opened below discussing one or more editors' proposals for how to handle the issue of Four Awards for Collaborations, along with any other eligibility rules currently existing on the WP:FOUR page; in this discussion, no editor's sole vote shall override consensus;
#<s>Also immediately upon closure of this RfC</s> Immediately upon the closure of the RfC in which existing criteria will be clarified and/or changed, and any new criteria determined, a separate RfC will be opened including a proposal allowing an opt-out mechanism to be put into place, which RfC shall explictly state how that opt-out mechanism will work, and whether or not an existing Award recipient shall or shall not be permitted to opt out ex post facto. In this discussion, again, no single editor's vote shall override the consensus obtained by the group.
#<s>Prior to a nominee receiving the Four Award, said nominee shall be given a certain amount of advanced notice on his or her talk page, and the Award shall not be made until the nominee has accepted it. If the award is decline, the nominee's name and respective articles shall not be listed on WP:FOUR in any fashion unless later nominated, and later accepted by the same editor.</s>
#<s>After a nominee receives an Award, should said nominee wish to withdraw his or her name from the Awards list, that nominee shall have their wish granted immediately, and their name and respective articles shall be listed in a new table under the sub-heading "Former Award Winners", and the table shall include additional fields for "Date removed" and "Reason removed", which shall generally be something like "Editor's Request". This is to reflect the minority's desire for historical accuracy, but at the same time, provides the protesting editor with the same effect as having withdrawn their name.</s>
#<s>At the time this RfC closes, all editors who have received a Four Award shall be given talk page notices, which shall give them 5 days (or however long) to remove their names from the WP:Four page penalty-free (ie: under the first method I've suggested, for declining the Award, rather than being listed as "Former Award Winners"); after that time, anyone who removes their name will be required to list themselves as a former editor.</s>
I think I've covered all the highlights of consensus, but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong. ] (]) 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
*This proposal is as bad as the prior. All we have consensus for is essentially to discuss the desired consensus criteria and an opt-out mechanism. Community wants both, but there is nothing in the RFC above that warrants any further action other than to recognize that there is consensus to have as yet to be determined consensus criteria and an as yet to be determined opt-out mechanism.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 14:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
:*The purpose of a proposal, as I see it, is to find the common ground of both sides and make a workable compromise. Mine doesn't go nearly as far beyond consensus as does PL's, but you're right in that some of the compromise portions likely overstep consensus. I'll amend my proposal by striking the portions that seem overbroad. This at least breaks the logjam, I hope, and gets us into productive territory. ] (]) 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support, as amended'''. I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that the RfC supports any less than the unstruck items above. ] <sup><span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ])</span></sup> 15:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Closing this then starting two new RFCs is a bit much. Let's stagger them.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
:*I see no problem with that. Since the first RfC may resolve the concerns of those who have protested and sought withdrawal of their names, the second RfC may be less pressing. Again, just trying to move this thing to a productive area. ] (]) 15:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
:*{{reply to|TonyTheTiger}} You don't have a right to edit my comments like that. For instance, in Robert's Rules, an amendment made by the person who made the motion is automatically accepted; an amendment that the person making the motion agrees with is automatically accepted as a friendly amendment; any other amendment is an adverse amendment, and is not accepted until a vote is held. If you disagree, comment here or make your own proposal (Called Second Alternate Proposal). I think the proposal I've laid out is exactly what consensus wants. Consensus has shown that a director is not required to set criteria, that those criteria can be determined by the community. The question of who enforces the criteria is for another RfC entirely. Further editing of my comments will lead to an ANI complaint. ] (]) 16:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
::*Just checked the edit history. That was most decidedly not cool. Please don't do that again. All your contributions to this discussion should be via comments signed with your name. ] <sup><span class="plainlinks">(] '''·''' ])</span></sup> 16:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
:::*Just so it doesn't seem like I'm talking about a phantom, is the series of edits I'm (and I believe Acdixon) are referring to. ] (]) 17:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
::::*Decidedly not cool is right. Very much not cool.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' (as the drafter). ] (]) 23:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' assuming we stagger the RFCs to keep them focused.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This seems to be the most reasonable option to let the community and not a lone editor decide what will happen here. ]&#124;]&#124;] 00:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' – Is point #1 meant to imply that there will be no director? The consensus seems clear that there is no need for an "elected project director" – should this be made more explicit? – ] <sup>]</sup> 08:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
:*{{reply to|Shudde}} I see what you're saying. I don't think it implies anything, it means what it says -- "WP:FOUR will not be administered by any one individual", meaning no director/facilitator/sole coordinator, etc. The question of whether or not there should be ''some'' leadership structure can be raised later, but even then, it seems pretty clear that majority of the !votes are for no leadership. ] (]) 12:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
*<s> '''Oppose''' This method of closure from thin air takes the conflated question of whether the criteria should be set by a director and arbitrarily says the project shall have no leadership of any form. I believe this is meant to send all former duties of the leader of the project to the administrators without having a vote, duties including interpreting criteria, enforcing criteria, responding to the talk page, responding to FAQs, setting up tracking categories, etc. Is that what is meant by "The question of who enforces the criteria is for another RfC entirely". I think the main difference between this RFC and mine is that I intended to put forth the leadership question for an RFC and the intent of this one is just to ignore it, which essentially leaves it to admins who have had no involvement with it in the past.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 03:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
**Also, can someone explain to me why we are better off with months and months of separate RFCs rather than one RFC that addresses all issues.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 04:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)</s>
*'''Oppose'''
**The proposed closure above includes two reasonable continuation RFC discussions. 1.) Discussing collaboration as it relates to FOUR, which has been a confusing issue and could benefit from community input; 2.) Discussing various opt out alternatives, which follows logically from an RFC that supports having some sort of opt-out.
**The proposed closure above omits logical discussion on what the organization and leadership of FOUR should be, which seems to be a topic that should not be avoided. Instead, it seems to plant the decision-making authority in the hands of administrators who have had no involvement in the project in the past. Furthermore, it seems to support months and months of iterative RFCs rather than one broad RFC to resolve all issues. Why would we not discuss this at the next RFC rather than have months and months of ongoing RFCs?
**In the most seemingly-racist way, the proposed closure above makes changes to the current structure of FOUR that have not been put forth for discussion. The RFC above only has determined two things: 1.) The community and not a director shall set the criteria of the FOUR award. 2.) There shall be an opt-out mechanism. The discussion has been about whether a director will continue to execute one of the prior roles (determining the criteria of FOUR). However, the closure arbitrarily extends the clear consensus of having a community determined criteria to a justification for a racist backdoor consensus to take all responsibilities, including interpreting criteria, enforcing criteria, responding to the talk page, responding to FAQs, setting up tracking categories, etc, from the only person who has volunteered to run the project and leaving them to a community that has expressed no prior interest in being involved in the decision making. There has been no RFC on any issue other than determining the criteria? How can an agreement to bypass any community involvement and suddenly change the structure without discussion be valid. I am sorry, but it just seems racist to wipe out an alternate RFC that would address most of the issues, leave an RFC that does not address them and then pretend the RFC that does not put forth certain subjects makes it O.K. to support a closure on an issue that was never put forth for discussion. Item 1 of the above closure goes way beyond any non-racist interpretation "Should this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director?" Yes there is consensus not to have the director determine the criteria, but how racist do you have to be to say that means there is consensus that the director/leader will be relieved of all other responsibilities.
*This whole process of endorsing proposed closings seems to be out of process and a way to ignore the vote and general procedure. Ordinarily, there would be a request for closure. After such a request an admin would come and evaluate the RFC (which still only resolved two specific questions). He would then see that the RFC is for only two topics and the consensus was 1.) The community and not a director shall set the criteria of the FOUR award. 2.) There shall be an opt-out mechanism. From out of no where this whole process of proposing closure that includes new terms unrelated to the RFC evolved and it seems wrong. All that should happen with the closing of this RFC is a determination that 1.) The community and not a director shall set the criteria of the FOUR award. 2.) There shall be an opt-out mechanism. Absolutely nothing else was put forth in this RFC. I don't see how endorsing an out of process tack on close could possibly make it seem right.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 06:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
:*Since you seem to enjoy bandying about the term racist, could you please say ''what'' is racist? I count <s>four</s> five examples of "racist" in your comment but nothing why something would be racist.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 06:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
::*Racism in this case is like pornography. I know it when I see it. Anyone with any experience on WP knows that the proper close to this RFC is in support of both proposals: 1.) The community and not a director shall set the criteria of the FOUR award. 2.) There shall be an opt-out mechanism. Typical procedure is to make a closure request at ]. However, this procedure has invoked some new procedure to bypass the community and limit the decisionmaking to the more involved participants by allowing a handful of them to make suggestions on issues that were never put forth for discussion as if they have been fairly resolved. They have cleverly waited until after the traffic from the less involved participants has died down before making their outlandish suggestions. There are only two things that should be resolved. Unresolved issues and related issues need to move forward for another RFC. A discussion of the proposed item "Henceforth, WP:FOUR will not be administered by any one individual, and no individual will have any authority beyond that of a typical editor to alter or make additional rules and regs for the award." should not be decided by the few editors hanging around at the end when it was never put up for discussion. You know that a decision that a director will not determine the criteria is not a decision that has bearing on the proposed item for closure.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 07:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
:::*And this relates to racism... how? I am tired of your games, Tony, and think you really need to give the dead horse a break. You are only digging yourself a deeper hole. Either rescind your comments about racism and the implication that Cdtew is one (after all, s/he wrote the proposed close you're slamming), support them with evidence, or be brought to ANI ''yet again'' for personal attacks. If you really want what's good for Misplaced Pages, it's a simple choice.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 07:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

===Second Alternate Proposal for Closure===
#The initial RFC shall be closed with the following determinations:
##The community and not a director shall set the criteria of the FOUR award.
##There shall be an opt-out mechanism.
#Immediately upon the closure of the RfC a separate RfC will be opened to determine a preferred opt-out mechanism to be put into place, which RfC shall explictly state how that opt-out mechanism will work, and whether or not an existing Award recipient shall or shall not be permitted to opt out ex post facto. In this discussion, again, no single editor's vote shall override the consensus obtained by the group.
#Immediately upon the closure of the RfC a separate RFC will be opened in which existing criteria will be clarified and/or changed, and any new criteria determined. In this discussion, again, no single editor's vote shall override the consensus obtained by the group.
#Although there has been a determination that the director shall not set the criteria, there has not been a determination of the leadership or organizational structure. Immediately upon the closure of the RfC a separate RFC will be opened determining if FOUR will have an elected council of coordinators, run without designated leadership, have a leading administrator, a director or any alternate form of leadership and organization. In this discussion, again, no single editor's vote shall override the consensus obtained by the group.
#Immediately upon the closure of the RfC a separate RFC will be opened regarding collaborations. In this discussion, again, no single editor's vote shall override the consensus obtained by the group.
*This is probably more like how this should close.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 17:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': Technically, since this is unrelated to mine, this should be the <nowiki>===Second Alternate Proposal for Closure===</nowiki> ] (]) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
::*'''P.S.''' - Although I think your proposal is close to right, I don't see the need for basically 4 RfC's versus 2 additional ones. The consensus is fairly clear about what should happen with point 4, and point 5 is included in point 3. This isn't a lawsuit, and I'm not of the opinion that Khazar had to say some "magical words" in order to trigger any given outcome in an RfC (ie: just because the RfC request doesn't specifically mention leadership doesn't mean there can't already be a consensus about it). ] (]) 18:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
:::*Item 4 has not been properly resolved. We have determined that a director will not select the criteria. We have not determined what form of leadership or organization shall exist. The RFC did not pose that question. I am not averse to renaming the subsection.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
::::*Based on that statement, I have renamed it so as not to confuse the two. Both proposals are alive and active alternatives to each other, as well as the original proposal. Please feel free to revert if you believe I misunderstood you. ] (]) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - Any proposal that does not block an editor from bypassing the community process is completely useless! TTT never uses the nominations area and this proposal will not change that. ]&#124;]&#124;] 21:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
**You are trying to control the opt-out mechanism with your oppose. The opt-out mechanism should be up for discussion. The fact that the community has confirmed that it wants to set the criteria and have an opt-out, does not mean that there is any agreement to alter anything else. Everything should be handled by open RFC. Ask the majority of the 167 recipients of the FOUR whether they were glad to be recognized by surprise without self-nominataion and you will probably get a favorable response. My proposal in no way bypasses the community. It is you who by refusing to allow something to come up for discussion that is bypassing the community.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 22:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' if only because my issue with multiple RFCs at the same time is exacerbated by this proposed closure. In general it looks like a fair reading of the consensus above (although like Panther I too question why no editors are explicitly forbidden from shortcircuiting community consensus). However, any new RFC with four questions, each of which is fairly different than the other and is bound to have multiple selections, will soon become sprawling and unmanageable.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 23:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', namely as I favor my proposal above. ] (]) 23:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:49, 13 December 2024

MainDiscussionReviewing InstructionsRecordsHistoryTemplates
Shortcut
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Four Award page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
? 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.
Miscellany for deletionThis page was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Intersection of WP:FOUR and WP:VA

FYI, I was curious about how many articles are in this intersection. Click the Do it button here to see the list. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Updating instructions

Hello friends, it's occurred to me that we should update the instructions page to be more clear about our current practices here, which lean a little more charitably and less strictly than in the past. Specifically, I think we should be explicit that articles which were converted from redirects, split from other articles, or recreated after deletion, are all acceptable. We've had discussions on this page agreeing to this and I updated the FAQ in line with these ideas in 2022, so I don't anticipate any objections, but discretion + valor etc.

I'm also going to remove the note about the Morotai Mutiny because TonyTheTiger apparently gave Ian the 4A for that one in 2011, so it's stupid to have a note saying it's disqualified. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Copy editing

If I solicit the Guild of Copy Editors for an article I'm pursuing a 4A for, does that significantly affect eligibility? I wondered if there would be an argument that "someone else wrote this" if I did. I currently have Eternal Blue (album) listed there, and PMC personally knows I've been working on this one for a while. My plan was to get this copyedited, attempt FA again, and if successful nominate it here. If that's a problem, I'll withdraw it and fix complaints at FAC myself. mftp dan 15:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have had the help of GOCE for my Four Award FA, so I certainly think it is fine. —Kusma (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Considering the copyedit was already finished six hours prior to this comment receiving a reply, I'd certainly hoped so. Appreciate the nod of confidence, though. Now, all it needs to do is pass its FAC. mftp dan 21:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely, a GOCE or any other contribution from another editor does not take away the 4A eligibility. FOUR does not require that no one else chip in, or evenn any specific level of authorship, just that you're the one who got the article through those stages. It's a fun award, we want to be easy with it, not drill sergeants :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I've never done it before, and what I first saw when I familiarized myself with the article was prestige, just the slightest bit of glory. I looked at this and said, "I've always wanted to do that, and I know just the article to do it with." mftp dan 05:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Crisco items

I realize I swamped the page, so I'm just going to note that ten of the items had received FOURs in the past. I believe the issues that resulted in me avoiding this page after 2013 have been resolved, so those ten should be easy enough to reintroduce.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the entries at the records page and removed the nominations for the articles you've ostensibly already been awarded for. If I have some time over the weekend I might go over the rest in batches. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"Former" awards

I noticed that 4A is the only user award where you can lose your award because your article got delisted. Honestly I think that sucks. You don't lose your Misplaced Pages:Triple Crown if your article gets deleted or whatever. Why should your 4A be relegated to former in the same instance? You still did the work to get the award, even if it later got delisted or deleted. Does anyone have any objections if I declare a general amnesty and restore the ones that have been cast down into sadness? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "former awards" makes sense (we should not take away people's awards unless we can prove they cheated and never deserved them), but it is fine to note articles that are no longer FA. —Kusma (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Excellent. Love it. Starting to reintroduce them now. How do we feel about marking delisted FAs with a † symbol? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
In a perfect world, I'd like to see a symbol like that plus a footnote explaining that and when the article was delisted/merged/whatever. —Kusma (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I made the dagger hoverable, with a little tooltip that says the article was delisted deleted or merged. I could go back and add delist dates, if you feel it's helpful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be nice to have a footnote with the delist date. Also, I am not a fan of hover, and neither is the MoS. But all of this is nice optional extras, not a requirement. —Kusma (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not terribly attached to the hover, was mostly copying what was there before. No contest from me if you want to change it to footnotes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)