Can we please redefine the process by which this award is given out? --evrik ^(talk) 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it needs to be changed to simple one week approval voting. We should speedy all the "unsuccessful" candidacies and begin again, and delete all the other pages that add any extra bureaucracy. The whole point of the Wikihalo is that it is a community award, so it only seems fair that the community gets to express their opinion. As you have rightly pointed out though, it is embarassing for those who failed, and thus these pages should be eradicated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to leave the construction tag up for right now until we work this out. --evrik ^(talk) 19:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think creating separate pages for each nominee is a wise idea. Maybe one nomination page and then a set of archive pages? Thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. RfA methods are the best way to go IMO. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't we focus on the criteria for a moment ... Length of service ... number of edits? --evrik ^(talk) 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need any? Is a wikihalo a lifetime achivement award, or a "Hey, you're awesome! Thanks for that thing you did!" award? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Originally, there was a threshold of eligibility. It was meant for long-time contributors. Also, if this award is going to have a nomination procedure ... we should archive the nominations somewhere ... and have a minimal amount of votes required. --evrik ^(talk) 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominations are archived, under the name of the nominee. Shall we say five votes? Five votes and seven days. I've finished my revamp of the award, what do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say, 10,000 edits, more than a year editing on the en.wiki and they receive at least 15 votes. --evrik ^(talk) 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well that's nonsense, really, isn't it? There's only 1000 people on all of Wikipedia who have more than 10,000 edits, and the community both knows and ackowledges them in various ways. Also, about three people a month look at WP:HALO - we needs to set our voting threshold low enough until more people start voting there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well ... do you have an alternate standard? Something between the high bar I set and what it is now? Making it hard to get isn't the worst thing ... --evrik ^(talk) 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say use the RfA standards: at least a thousand edits and four months on the wiki. I agree it needs to be a tough award, but no-one has heard of the Wikihalo, much less voted on it. We need to set the bar low to get the nominations trickling in and then slowly raise it (to about 5000 edits). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me think about this overnight. --evrik ^(talk) 23:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once we've agreed, I'll announce it on the community portal and perhaps ask the signpost to cover it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• well, I think that the standard for rfa is too low ... and not all admins should be admins ... can we agree on 5000 edits and four months? --evrik ^(talk) 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on 5000 eventually, but until the project has been more popularised, there seems little point in raising it that far. Shall we say 2000 edits and raise it a thousand every two months or something? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm getting ready to go afk. I want to resist raising the bar every two months or so ... it really makes it seem arbitrary. We shoudl just agree on a standard. Any interest in a poll? --evrik ^(talk) 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to hold one. I just don't see where we can put it where anyone would actually care. It's just you and me discussing this, remember. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe we shold flip a quarter? We could always use http://www.random.org/nform.html --evrik ^(talk) 23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Um, why don't we just compromise? I want a thousand, you want 5000, I offered you 2, why go off on random generators? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I wanted 10,000 and a year. So, if you want to compromise we should split the difference ... that would be 5500 edits and 8 months. --evrik ^(talk) 16:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Are you seriously against this award so much you would raise the barrier so high no-one would get one? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of the award, you'll see that I defended it when it was up for deletion under and MFD - but I've always had problems with the way that it is administered. 1,000 is too low, 10,000 may be too high. I have less of a problem with the time element because it takes time to make all those edits. --evrik ^(talk) 16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one thousand may be too low. Will you be happy with 2500? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I like 10,000, but would be willing to compromise at 5,000. --evrik ^(talk) 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will go find some more people and take a straw poll on it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and? --evrik ^(talk) 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that something closer to thirty hundred would be best... I mean evrik, I really respect you as an editor and everything - but really setting the bar that high would be insane - especially since a lot of times the number of edits someone has made is not the best indication for the cumulative effect of their contribution. This award is meant to make people feel good about themselves - and it rewards quality contributions. If a person with 3000 great edits is nominated - I think they should seriously be considered for the award (and no one start bringing in the slippery slope here- thirty hundred edits is still a lot of edits).Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Instead of edits what about time? This should be an exclusive award. --South Philly 14:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with what evrik is trying to say, in that this award should be hard to get, to make it more prominent and exclusive. The point i think he is trying to make is that if you have an award that has to be voted on and nominations are required, it should be reserved for really excellent contributors, not just any old Joe Bloggs with 2,000 edits. I agree it should be something special, however maybe 10,000 is a tad high. Smomo 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 2000 mainspace edits? There aren't many "Joe Bloggs" with 2000 mainspace edits. Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 00:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at yourself. You must be approaching something around 2000 edits. Would you say you deserve this Wiki Halo award? Smomo 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm nowhere near 2000 - I'm not even at 500!! (wait, again, are you talking about mainspace edits or regular edits?)Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just looked at your contributions page, set it to 500, and saw how many pages that went up to. To be fair, I imagine that includes non-article space as well, so if edits counts as only article edits, yes, you're probably right. :) Smomo 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so now I asume we're talking about non-mainspace edits. In that case - how's 4000 (using certain wiki counters - we can subtract the userpage edits - thus the only things counted will be:

1. 1. 1. Article edits
      2. Article talk edits - that way we can reward users for their regular edits and contributions to the community (through talk pages))Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My two cents: I like the current nomination process, although if someone is thought of well enough that someone else wants to nominate for a Wikihalo, then it should be done, except for any really major disagreements - like wait a week for major objections - and if none, then support. What you're talking about changing it to sounds just like the criteria for Wikipedia:Service awards, and so this award would be nothing special at that point. Cricket02 04:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The wikihalo is for those who are THE Wikipedians, our Stakhanovs, our heroes. I think that every criteria that we choose will we inadequate. I also think that the recipient doesn't have to accept his nominations, and that we can nominate and award it even to the ones who have left Wikipedia. This is our highest "decoration", the Wikipedia's Medal of Honor, and there are more than one who should received one even if he/she left. I think that the quorum should be of 10 votes, since there aren't actually many peoples who check the page, with over 85% of supports. I know that only a few candidates can pass such a limit, but it's right, only a few wikipedians can receive this award. I think that we should "advertise" wikihalos, it should be a community process, not just a few's decision. In conclusion, I'm really looking forward to nominate some wikipedians who have left for the posthumously WikiHalo. But we should first reach a consensus on this. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 09:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's really our top award, it should be, say, 50 votes. I can't imagine an RFA passing with much less than that. A truly popular Wikipedian will easily get 50 votes if it's advertised somewhere. --kingboyk 11:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it should. But I haven't figured a way to get even twenty wikipedians to watch this page. If you have ideas, please say 'em ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 11:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the time that each nomination should last from one week to one month. I know it's a lot, but until we find a way to get more people to participate, I think it's needed. I also think that we should remove the acceptance of the nomination: nobody can refuse a wikihalo, in my opinion. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 12:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal sidebar on "criteria"

FWIW, I realized something tonight. I was just awarded a Wikihalo. No, you didn't miss it; I was never nominated. Someone just awarded it to me. So I checked out the image page. Seems LOTS of people have been just giving this out. I am very amused by the surreal and anarchistic spirit of Wikipedians in this instance. However, I still have to decide whether to display the one I was given. Perhaps I need a new section for "illegal awards" ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As I look at how long the list of actual recipients is, as opposed to the official recipients, and the low number of participants in this discussion, I'm thinking we already have a clear consensus here as to how this should be awarded, and by who. Then again, we could do a clever image switch and declare all the "illegal" recipients to be outlaws, and we could propose it be renamed The Outlaw Award ;-D - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC

P.P.S. !Recount. It seems the award image is also being used in an "I Assume Good Faith" userbox. It's hard to tell how many of the links on that page are from that use, but I would cautiously assume a good number, possibly most of them. However, the text here does not mention the award needing community approval of any sort. So unless someone clicks through on the link in the header, they can't be blamed for not knowing. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am firmly opposed to any "legality" and red tape attached to awards. An award is given by user A to user B. This reflects on both users A and B. That's it. Any effort invested in standardizing award procedures is effort that did not go into standardizing article assessment procedures, which would be something with actual bearing on the project of writing an encyclopedia. Plus, I reserve the right to present any editor I consider deserving with any award I bloody well please :) it will be up to the recipient to decide whether the award is something to keep on display or to remove as user page vandalism. dab (𒁳) 12:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this called "The Working Man's Barnstar? Surely a gender-neutral title would be a simple and less anachronistic choice. I would suggest that the name of this award would be far less shrill to non-patriarchal ears if it were updated to "The Worker's Barnstar" or "The Labourer's Barnstar" or something along those lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.152.165 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 6 July 2006

• I definitely agree with you on that. There are lots of women working on Wikipedia as well, and I do a lot of spelling/grammar corrections--hard work for the nit-picker, and I don't want to be called a working MAN, because I'm not a man!--Snowgrouse 18:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Good question. Take it up on Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals. --evrik 13:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• While this is at least 100 years old, Man doesn't always refer to males, it can refer to humanity in general. -- feb^talk 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is more of an expression. The working person doesnt sound very good does it. thuglas ^T|C 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How you think it sounds? That's hardly objective. Cheeser1 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Look in the Proposal Archives. this was discussed last year at great length. -_evrik ^(talk) 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working Wikipedians Barnstar? It has a ring to it.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion belongs here:Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes

--evrik ^(talk) 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support change - "Worker's Barnstar" or "Working Wikipedian's Barnstar" would be fine. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ --Jacklau96 09:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per previous discussion.--South Philly 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I read in the link provided by South Philly that this issue never reached consensus, and if women feel excluded (as it seems is the case), then a rename is in order. How about 'Hard Working Wikipedian'? Raystorm 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I am a woman, and I do not feel excluded in the least. Man here is clearly meant to be inclusive of all mankind. I see no problem in it's continuance. Working Wikipedian just sounds stupid. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Perhaps it could be called the Diligent Wikipedian barnstar? I hardly think that working on Wiki constitues "hard work", and its kind of ridiculous to compare a diligent wikipedia to someone who mops floors or digs ditches for a living. Asarelah 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that a day of harmonising hundreds of references, or writing an FA is equal to digging a ditch or mopping a floor. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on the grounds that a 'working man' is a common phrase referring to 'man: the race' rather than man the gender. Smomo 00:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I support the creation of the Working Woman's barnstar. There's nothing wrong with having 3 barnstars. USe whichever one you like. --Matt57 01:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it'll work out as more than that, we'll need a Working Man's Barnstar, Working Woman's Barnstar, Working Third gender's Barnstar, Working Womyn's Barnstar, Working Genderqueer's Barnstar, Working Genderfuck's Barnstar Working Transexual's Barnstar, Working Intersex individual's Barnstar, and Working Boi's Barnstar. Oh, and Working Person Who Does Not Have Their Gender Identity Plastered On Their Userpage's Barnstar. Really, when you start trying to divide Barnstars by personal identity, it's never gonna work. Stick with the all-inclusive Man, or create all ten Barnstars. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the sarcasm? If there are women that do not feel included by 'Man', use a gender neutral barnstar. How hard would that be, to change a line? At least 4 women have participated in this discussion as far as I can ascertain, and three have supported the change. That's something to think about. Maybe we should ask other women, get a more broad idea of what the women in wikipedia feel about the name. Raystorm 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being sarcastic. Working Man is gender neutral, Man refers to all mankind. If we start creating new barnstars on the basis on personality rather than edits, chaos will ensue, as I've pointed out above. As I said, I do not feel excluded by the barnstar, because I know the etymology of the word and am not offended by it. If we need to, link the Man in the title to ensure that everyone else knows it too. The whole point of the Barnstar seems to be that it's some kind of play on Working Man, or the working class. Changing it to Working Wikipedian for the sake of political correctness ruins the whole thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the point would be lost if we used, for example, the Working Wikipedia barnstar. If the play on words is so important, a link could always be included I guess. The point is all about being a hard working wikipedian, right? ;-) Then why not change a simple word to be (yes, I'm not afraid to say it) politically correct? As someone famous said once, 'It's not about mankind, it's about humankind'. I've posted a message at the VP and WP:GS to ask for their input. Cheers Raystorm 16:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dev920 is right, and the guidelines do explicitly say the following:

Having different Barnstar's is just finicky and annoying. Smomo 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dev920's rationale. - Anas ^talk? 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Maybe the "Hard Worker's Barnstar" or "WikiWorker's Barnstar" or, my favourite, "Stakahanovite Barnstar" ? - TheMightyQuill 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind: and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee". Donne included the chicks as well. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because:

A WORKIN' MAN, A WORKIN' MAN,

Hurray Hurray for a Workin' Man,

He'll navvy and sweat till he's nearly bet,

THE GIFT OF GOD IS A WORKIN' MAN!

No need to make fictional Irish poets cry.--Folantin 18:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Working Wikipedian or something like that covers it all, the slippery slope sarcasm is really unneeded (call it whatever you want) I never heard a female called a "Working man," or "hard working man" so the argument that this as a common phrase meant to include all is no good, IMO. Personally, doesn't bother me, but if it bothers some, it should probably be changed for civility's sake.

IvoShandor 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Working Man != Working Male. I see no reason why a woman can't be a Working Man. People can subst it into a sandbox and edit the text if they feel the need when awarding it to a woman. WjBscribe 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever's agreed on, whether it be "The Hard-Working Wikipedian Award" or the like, suggest that any reference to gender or collective nouns is simply avoided. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Perhaps the template could be changed to introduce a simple fix to allow a user to change the template to Working Woman's or Wikipedian's, while the official name still being Working Man's? Smomo 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might work I guess. Could that be done? Raystorm 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so, could it be done? Raystorm 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I have now introduced the fix myself. You can see the updated information on Template:The Working Man's Barnstar and at WP:BS. The gender option on the end allows the award to be called Woman's and Wikipedian's, in addition to Man's. I propose we leave the official title on WP:BS as Man's, so as not to confuse anyone and for legacy purposes. Smomo 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks! Raystorm 12:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Well, I think that wraps up this discussion then. Shall we archive in a few days? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition here, seems the silence indicates happiness. IvoShandor 04:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I may attack the official name in the future (Legacy purposes? Please...), but the issue is okay for now. ;-) Cheers Raystorm 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I agree with the m/f/n parameter, although I suggest that, if a Working X?'s Barnstar is created, the default value should be X? (where X? stands for "Wikipedian", or other variant). Rjgodoy 06:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am not a man, and I do not accept that the words "man" or "mankind" somehow include me. I also don't see what's wrong with "Working editor's barnstar" or a non-gender-exclusive variant thereof. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. I'm not a man, and political correctness irritates me. The m/f/n parameter is enough. The other alternatives sound silly. They don't evoke a common turn of phrase, and absolutely reek of political correctness. "Working Individual's Barnstar?" Come on. What next? "Production-Oriented Individual's Barn Circle"? ♠PMC♠ 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are are however people who feel exactly the opposite way to you - and here we have come up with a solution that encompasses both of your opinons. If you don't like the political correctness, fine, don't use the optional parameter. Smomo 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the sake of legacy. It has been working man and I don't see the need to change it or get rid of this. The barn star system is not something strict... it's a form of congratulations... if you disagree then change the name when you give it... if enough people do that the voila. I tend to take man as gender neutral in this context anyways. gren グレン 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user left me a message today [1] with a good point about the purple barnstar. Which I quote here:

Your web site graphic of the purple heart "barnstar" is inappropriate and offensive to members of the United States Armed Services who suffered injuries to be awarded the medal. Reducing the purple heart to something awarded to wikipedians involved in anti-vandalism efforts seems disingenuous and is in bad taste. Please consider what message you are trying to send by posting this item on your user page, and whether it reflects poorly on the wikipedia community.

I agree with their opinion so perhaps the image should be changed so that it does not include an actual image of the medal, but instead is just purple. I don't have the graphic talent to makes the change, so I will leave it up to others to change should we agree to make the change. -- Gogo Dodo 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Image:Purple Star.png is technically a WP:PUA, and not a barnstar. There is a discussion here Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Archive10#Purple Star Award. We could solve this by having an admin retsure the first image uploaded (look at the edit history). --evrik ^(talk) 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I am the one who changed the graphic (I did propose the change here first) and I didn't think that it could be offensive, but now I realize that it might be. Being the person who uploaded the changed graphic, I took the liberty of immediately reverting to the old version (no medal), hoping that this is not a violation of WP:OWN. Herostratus 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support change. Perhaps we could consider a different symbol for the centre of this barnstar? One that would be less controversial? Though it looks quite good just as a purple barnstar... WjBscribe 18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with what our friend in the armed forces is saying, and I support this change. Smomo 13:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support change - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Dr who1975 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Oppose: Oh brother. IvoShandor 05:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Although I understand the main argument here for restoring the version without the medal, I think that we need not be so politically correct. Frankly, I think that nobody would really care with the usage of this medal on the purple barnstar, that's just nitpicking. The barnstar looked really nice with it, and if this medal has to go, I hope that at least a visually attractive and politically correct substitute can be added. --Húsönd 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, perhaps I should remind that Wikipedia is not censored. The fact that someone finds something on Wikipedia tasteless and inappropriate reflects nothing but a point of view.--Húsönd 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Something involving a band-aid would probably be better anyway. Herostratus 01:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with the anonymous user. You can't draw a parallel between having your leg blown off and having your user page vandalized. Asarelah 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is no way a Wikipedia Barnstar could be confused with an award or have parallels drawn to it by simply having an image of a medal, that assertion doesn't make sense. Have we all lost our minds to blind militarism. Anyway, no offense meant, changing my opinion from neutral to oppose above. IvoShandor 19:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also why is the medal missing from the image whilst the discussion is still open? IvoShandor 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been offered this barnstar more than once and have always politely declined. With respect for the spirit intended, if there were one barnstar I could outright delete this would be it. My grandfather earned a real purple heart; I know what he went through to get it. I am also a war veteran. Think of how often the genuine medal gets awarded posthumously; it just isn't the direction we ought to have ever gone to conflate that with anything that occurs at a website. Durova^Charge! 00:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CVG star is currently a personal user award while it is mentioned on the main page of the CVG project - should this not be a WikiProject award? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the WikiProject, really. The rule is that people can use PUAs for anything they like, as long as they follow the guidelines. If you or anyone else feels that it should be a more 'official' award, feel free to propose it at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals. Smomo 17:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what "special flavor" means? This criteria seems odd and I don't know when to give it out. If someone makes a surreal comment? IvoShandor 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that is meant to be given out to people who could be considered 'eccentric', but that's just my view. Smomo 20:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got one. Check out my userpage to see why. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we (you) create a Barnstar to recognize editors for the work in topics relating to conspiracy theories?

And a Barnstar to recognize editors for their work in topics relating to the future?

And a Barnstar to recognize users contributing to articles relating to current events? Rolyatleahcim (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]