Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikihalo2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikihalo

More instruction creepy process for process sake. You want to give someone a reward, then do it.--Doc^g 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is a disturbing example of instruction creep... but, Radiant! does deserve a halo! :) Xoloz 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibye maybe? NikoSilver 14:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that you have to be NOMINATED for this award makes me nervous. Sean William 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this and all subpages should be deleted (not archived) per nomination. A bad idea that hasn't got the community behind it. --kingboyk 14:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c aargh)[reply]

Where is it written that userpages' content should get the community behind it? Which WP policy forbids "instruction creep"? Stammer 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my previous remark is based on a misunderstanding. Still, I do not see why this should be deleted. It seems a good way to encourage partecipation in the awarding process. Stammer 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find a user whose work you admire or who helped you develop as a Wikipedian. Give them a barnstar. Hey, you just participated! :) --kingboyk 15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just expressed a personal preference. Wikipedia is a collective endeavour. See the difference? Stammer 15:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. However, for community awards to work the community must be behind it. That's what this MfD is about, and so far the community seems to most certainly not be behind it. --kingboyk 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby give notice under rule 113, section b, subsection iii, footnote j of my intent to strike out Stammer's comment, because he clearly hasn't read the rules of Wikipedia debate participation before commenting and holds no valid permit to comment on Miscellant for deletion. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby oppose Tony Sidaway's proposal to strike the comment, under rule 113, as I believe catch 22 applies, per the Irving Forbush convention. If the comment is stricken, I propose to nominate it for "Comment deletion review", and if that does not succeed, will sue in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the third edition of the Oxford Rules of Comment Striking, I hereby invoke a 4th Degree Billy Swan delayed action. Mornington Crescent! Ral315 » 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xoloz (including awarding a Halo to Radiant) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, instruction creepy. Not that the people who have received it thus far haven't deserved it. – Riana _ऋ 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm all in favour of praising people, but this is totally unnecessary bureaucracy. It also has, by its own admission, "no particular requirements" which makes the fact that it is a vote rather than a discussion quite bizarre to me. Finally, participation on the page is very limited so it certainly isn't an opportunity for the "entire community to praise a user" as it claims to be. Will (aka Wimt) 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your last point isn't quite right. Radiant and Raul's nominations were advertised on the village pump; you're correct though that hardly anybody turned up to comment. Let's say, then, that the opportunity was there but the community weren't interested. --kingboyk 15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK agreed - an attempt was made for the entire community to participate, but clearly they didn't. Raul hasn't even officially accepted his nomination (though why you need to accept a nomination to get praised is beyond me). Will (aka Wimt) 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and given User:Kelly Martin one. I'm sure the community would want to praise her.--Doc^g 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I haven't seen her try the innocent look in ages. A halo might help though. O:-) --Kim Bruning 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lordy, lordy, lordy. If you want to give someone a Wikipedia:Barnstar, give them one. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on delete as completely unnecessary. YechielMan 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frankly, I agree with most of the statements here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the...actually, I thought about trying to kill this a while back and never got around to it. Why do some people get halos but not others? Why is there this halo-making process? Why is the whole concept of a wikihalo not so much New Age moonshine? Why, in a word, does this exist? Some process is necessary on-wiki but not when it comes to award-giving. Delete/shut down/Esperanzify. Moreschi ^Talk 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Debete. RfA is stressful enough as it is; why the heck do we need something so similar for an award? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pages, though I think the award should be kept (without the whole nomination process). Just add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards somewhere. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please get rid of this nonsense. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Award itself is good - keep that. As for the page and its nomination process? Kill with fire. ♠P M C♠ 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To begin with, the image is a copyright violation. And secondly, it's nonessential bureaurcracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Corvus cornix 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... You might be right there. Unfortunately it's on Commons, which I don't know much about, otherwise I would IFD'd it. Can somebody with knowledge of Commons determine if the image is properly licenced or not, and if not nominate it for deletion? --kingboyk 13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was under the impression that derivative images of Wikimedia copyrights were allowed on Commons as long as all rights are transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation. This category would suggest that such images are quite widespread. I am no expert either though so I may be incorrect. Will (aka Wimt) 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yaaaawn... --Infrangible 00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we don't need awards that would not be appropriate for Muslims, atheists, etc. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:DIG et al. // Pilot guy radar contact 02:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your rationale, though I wonder if that story could be turned towards this discussion, as well? - jc37 12:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absurd. — MichaelLinnear 03:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The award is fine, the nomination process is not. --Core desat 03:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Historify This is like Espranza such as beareaucracy, friendliness etc.--Preston H^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 05:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to... um, some user award page or something. Awards are good; giant bureaucracies to implement them is not. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill the vote - gawd, RfA is torrid enough, who on earth would want to go through something like it again for fun ?!?! Award is sorta pretty though.....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HaLoGuY007 13:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The construction of bureaucracy is only fun for those creating it. Splash - tk 14:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Send in the elephants.--cj | talk 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Mostly harmless but also useless since it's clear from this MfD that it doesn't have community acceptance. I can sort of understand the motivation, though. In practice RFA is the way we 'reward' good contributors for their service and it could possibly be helpful to have some sort of 'offical' reward for good contributors which doesn't have anything to do with admin tools. Apparently this isn't it. Haukur 15:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If RFA is the way we 'reward' good contributors, then what about people in Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators, like me? Not that I support Wikihalo. Every time I see it, I have to fight the urge to boldly ignore all rules and unilaterally award it to someone I find worthy, just to see what the consequences might be. So I think we should delete this, just to save me from myself. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xtifr (talk • contribs) 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This looks too much like Wikipedia:Requests for barnstar. Too few incoming links to really justify a redirect. Gimmetrow 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, excessive and unnecessary bureaucracy. WikiProject Awards is more than enough. —ptk✰fgs 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has the same idea as WP:BARN, and this award is equally special as all the other barnstars. The Hippie 03:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly bureaucracy. Sandstein 08:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, unnecessary, bureaucratic popularity contest in the extreme. Shut down quickly and historify with a vengeance and a prejudice. --Iamunknown 09:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good diea in theory, but for goodness sake, it's the award version of an RFA. If someone's doing a great job, tell them so, you don't need votes and a picture for it- apologies for the bluntness. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 09:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reading so many of the above comments saying there is "too much bureaucracy". But "too much bureaucracy" for what? Receiving community recognition? How is receiving community recognition a bad thing? You don't like the process? You think it's too much of a popularity contest? You don't think we "need" the award? There are similar awards? You wouldn't give one? You don't think you would receive one? What do any of these comments have to do with a group of Wikipedians giving awards to other Wikipedians, as they see fit? If they see fit to give these awards following "x" process, why the heck should any of us care? Have any other Wikipedians been abused or attacked through this process? Does the process involve something inflammatory? Would this reflect poorly upon the project? You know, I've said before that I hesitate to quote WP:ILIKEIT, since it's so often misapplied. But really, so much of the above is just: "I don't like it". - jc37 12:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice: You're kidding right. Well, first Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, which is what this is, plain and simple, bureaucratic, there isn't another way to describe it. I like awards, I think they are great motivators but this type of thing is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy, on two fronts, no less. I would also point you toward something else that Wikipedia is not, that is, it is not a democracy. The entire Wikihalo process is nothing more than voting on the candidate, hell, it even says "votes" at the top of every nomination. Give me a break, delete, burn, stab twice and delete again. IvoShandor 12:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I might point you to WP:RFA, among several other examples of "voting". And by your definition, of bureaucracy, we could inlcude this very page as bureaucratic. After all, can't we trust our admins to delete only that which is appropriate? And yes, I think such an analogy is very apt. - jc37 13:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that people treat the bureaucracy as God. I recently saw a user going around leaving notes for users who had the award "illegally", as he called it, by not going through the process. I have absolutely no objection to the award, but the bureaucracy behind it leads to many issues. Ral315 » 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I am sure you do. But it's not, there isn't any necessity for such petty bureaucracy on Wikipedia as is happening at Wikihalo. These people should just run for U.S. Senate and get it over with. As has been said, of course we have necessary bureaucracy, but this stuff is nothing more than bureaucracy for the sake of itself. If Wikipedia had an Assistant Undersecretary to the Assistant Secretary of bureaucracy, this page, coupled with BAP would be it. IvoShandor 13:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a rare (and instructive) instance of absolute evil. Stammer 14:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I like the feeling of satisfaction that someone may get when he or she receives this reward, since there has to be consensus on it, but the whole process is bureaucratic, like the RFA on enwiki. For these reasons, I am not going to vote to stab this article in the head, bury it under 12 tons of molten steel, and then spit on it, rather I am going to vote to Redirect it. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would the redirect point to? Sean William 01:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's delete it, though Stammer's idea isn't bad :) Ral315 » 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joe I 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... Wikipedia is not entirely a bureaucracy ... yet. Although I'm sure the nominees are all excellent editors, telling someone "thanks" should not require a nomination or any other kind of process at all. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also delete the 21 pages (including 11 redirects) listed here and here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nom lacks strong enough argument. SakotGrimshine 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.