Scenario: Let's say a list of episodes is less than 7 days old, has 1,500+ characters in the lede, is nominated/accepted for DYK, and is nominated/accepted as a Featured List (not Featured Article as stated in the criteria). From my understanding, a list cannot be nominated for Good Article status (because it's a list). Therefore, the list could only meet 2 of 4 criteria needed.
Is this accurate? Could a "list" article even receive a Four Award? CYAce01 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding, which could be faulty, is that a list can never qualify for a Four Award. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct. Per this page's FAQ:
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. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does an article have to be created from a redlink? What about a redirect, or just newly made in general? Panini🥪 16:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Newly made definitely counts, since that's functionally the exact same as a redlink (e.g. moving an article into the mainspace from a sandbox). I've never really liked the language "redlink" for that reason and if there's no objection, I'm going to tweak the wording on the criteria to reflect that. As for redirects, I also see no reason why that wouldn't count. Ergo Sum 17:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason the "redlink" language is included is to clarify the last part: "very first encyclopedic content". Redirects almost always point to an article that includes some encyclopedic content about the redirect. If you see the discussion above about John Oliver, there are definitely examples of redirects qualifying, but you need to show that the target article doesn't include any encyclopedic content about the article that is being redirected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonzo fan2007, In the context of the article Paper Mario, would this qualify for redirect material? Its only encyclopedic content was from a list only having a paragraph dedicated in prose. Panini🥪 11:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Panini!, I don't see why not. I would just clarify that when you nominate the article. You can use the
| comments = field in the nomination template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it looks like the list of four awards may need to be gone through and some moved to the former section. The two I noticed were Rhodes blood libel, which was delisted as an FA in April, and Tropical Depression Ten (2005), which has been merged and is no longer a separate article. There may be a few others. Hog Farm Talk 02:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: if I were making the rules, I'd probably say the article doesn't have to still be FA for an editor to retain their award. The point is that they took the article through the four stages at some point. If I die, and all my FAs get delisted, I'd still like to have my posthumous Four award! I guess the letter of the requirements does say "to Featured Article status, which it still retains though, so I guess you're right that those ones have to be delisted here too. — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, these do have to be delisted and I've done so. I'm not quite clear on whether I need to be decrementing the number of Four Award authors tally (for Beit Or) and now I check, I notice that {{Four Award number}} seems to be overestimating by about a dozen, going by the number of
|- (new line) symbols in the records table (and then subtract the ones at the top of the table and the delisted section). Anyway, delistings will likely continue as WP:URFA/2020 does, which is necessary work if a bit sad. — Bilorv (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bilorv: - Another sad update: History of Baltimore City College (Golem88991), Chicago Board of Trade Building (LurkingInChicago, delisted in 2020), and McDonald's Cycle Center (TonyTheTiger) are all gone as well. It's been a bleak last 12 months for older FAS. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, and as I stated above, there is really no need for all this. Unlike FA and GA, which apply to articles, the FOUR is an editor award, and it doesn't confer any extra status on the article that isn't already implicit in its FA status. The article isn't magically better, just because one person happened to create and DYK it. There's therefore little reason to strip people of these awards when they lapse. It represents dedication put in at a point in time, to take a brand new topic to the highest echelons, and that's not something that lapses IMHO. I'm tempted to make this a formal proposal, and reinstate previous FOUR awards removed on this basis, but perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree. — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with that, the awards were given, and I don't think it really matters what happened to the articles later in this context. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think quite strongly that the award should not be revoked because an article falls from FA. The award recognizes past work to bring an article to FA, not ongoing work to keep it there. It only makes sense that once an article reaches FA, the award is permanent. Ergo Sum 16:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with other editors stating their opposition. The rewards should not be revoked because of an article's current state, and trying to get them stripped from editors comes across (at least to me) as a bit petty. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I entirely agree with Ergo Sum's position, and with others who argue against the removal of a Four Award once awarded. And no need to criticise anyone raising what they consider a reasonable concern. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess all of the entries on Wikipedia:Four_Award/Records#Former awards (which dates back over 10 years it looks like) should be moved back into the main table, then? Hog Farm Talk 23:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to say yes. Ergo Sum 00:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe so. I think the cut and thrust is that the editor who earned the award doesn't lose it, but article which no longer meets featured criteria should no longer be listed. I suppose it's a bit like WP:WBFAN showing those hollowed stars for successful nominations, we denote that the effort was successful but not sustained. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 00:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the analogy. However, Four recognizes individuals, not articles per se. To indicate that the award is still "good" even for former FAs, maybe we can combine the lists but just make the row a darker color for former FAs and put an asterisk or key or something indicating that means an article is no longer FA. I think the point should be to keep the continuity of Username (1)...Username (2)... etc. in one list rather than two. Ergo Sum 00:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What GrappleX was suggesting was what I was trying to indicate, although I don't think I communicated it very well. Hog Farm Talk 00:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support any system where the listing is still present somewhere in the records table (segregated or not), but there is some marker to show that it is not a current FA. We can't do it with just a darker colour for accessibility reasons (but you could have a darker colour and a tick/cross column for "Still an FA?"). — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have thoughts about whether a formerly deleted article can qualify for a Four Award if it was created by one user; deleted; and then recreated and taken through the DYK/GA/FAC process by another user(s)? The question is about the article on Martin Rundkvist. It was created by Alunsalt in 2008, then quickly taken to AfD and deleted. In 2020, I requested that the article be restored; it was placed in draft space, where I worked on it and moved it to main space. Days later it was brought back to AfD, where it again lost. It was placed back in draft space, where it sat for a year. A few months ago, Chiswick Chap and I thoroughly reworked the article, and brought it back live. It passed its good-article review, appeared at DYK, and, today, became a featured article. It seems to me that while encyclopedic content once existed before Chiswick Chap and I got involved, by at least the time of the second deletion, this content effectively ceased to exist; the recreations were restarts, and, I think, meet the standard for creating a new article. But I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. If the article qualifies, by the way, then it should likely be considered a collaborative effort. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a gorgeous piece of work, but unfortunately I think it probably does not qualify for 4A. Even though the original content no longer exists in the article, it did once. If someone had created Stub X with 200 words of terrible prose, and you came in and overwrote it with a 2000-word revamp that completely removed the existing prose, it wouldn't qualify either, because you didn't create the original. By analogy, same thing here. (Although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise!) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't looked at this particular article, but I'd think it would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The logic of FOUR is to recognize persistence in improving a specific article, rather than the mere accidents of AfD/AfC, etc. The logic would hold whether an article is totally new or pre-existed a deletion. I think the main factor would depend on whether the re-created article is truly new or whether it was just a revival of the deleted article. That's my first-blush instinct. Ergo Sum 01:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, here's the article as it existed right before its 2008 deletion (link); right after its 2020 recreation (link); and right after its 2021 recreation (link). The 2020 version has a few holdovers from the 2008 version, although the 2021 version is completely different. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award recognizes that achievement. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this award is very appealing and can encourage editors to improve articles. However it comes with a specific roadblock, articles need to be created by the person who improved it to GA/FA and submits a DYK. It can be discouraging to see that an editor improved an article to the point that it was promoted to GA, FA, and receive a DYK but not be fully recognized because they simply didn't create the article. Even worst, if the information you input is 100% replaced with new content and still not recognized.
For those instances, I was wondering if there can be a Tri-Award specifically for those that make it impossible to create the article? It's still a feat to accomplish. Improving an article to GA, FA, and submitting a DYK. I'm probably not the first to request this, but i thought i try anyways.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Blue Pumpkin Pie, just checking that you are aware of Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of it. I personally just saw this at someone's talk page and was interested in attempting to achieve the feat. I also had a belief that the awards were more "standardize" in both naming conventions and in themes. The Four award looks more appealing thematically than the Triple Crown. The Triple Crown looks too outdated something from the early days of the internet.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (The whole site looks like it's from the early days of the internet. :P) If we were to add such an award, my main concern would be volunteers willing to award it. For the last 18 months, I've been doing most of the awarding and updating and it's as much as I can handle. The award is quite difficult to achieve, as you say, while three would be (I'd imagine) a lot more common. As such, Q1 of the FAQ on this talk page still applies. If you want to set up a new award and handle the work associated with that, or even to redesign Triple Crown icons, go ahead. — Bilorv (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if someone would be willing to write a script that does all the fiddly update work? Saves some energy, maybe encourages some more people to pitch in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there can be a bot. Maybe someone would have to review the nomination, but once approved, a bot can send the award out.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking the nomination takes about half of the time for me. Writing a bot (and testing and BRFA'ing) would, I would guess, take more time than it would take to do five year's worth of approvals/rejections, and is a bad use of highly specialised skills. We just need a couple more people to do a couple every so often (like now, three there and I'm leaving them another couple of days to see if anyone—hopefully not someone who's done one before—will do it). — Bilorv (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't imagine working too differently from Legobot for GA nominations. And you could always commission the bot instead of writing it yourself, can you? I understand checking the nominations takes "half" the time, but that's still 50% of the time. And considering the number of current nominations, I don't imagine it's all that time-consuming.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 34,776 GAs vs 669 Four Awards. I'm a perfectly competent programmer (albeit I am yet to write a Wikipedia bot), and I'm telling you that it's not worth the time. A hobbyist who enjoys the task might choose to, but it's not time efficient. If you're not offering help at the current award, with this bot programming, or in creation of a new Tri-Award, then I don't think anything here is actionable.
- The problem is not that this individual task takes up a large amount of time, but that I'm managing several other things like this and it adds up to a lot of repetitive labour, none of which I enjoy (and none of which is simple and frequent enough for scripts/bots). You could spend 10 minutes concretely wiping off one of those current nominations rather than conceiving of hypothetical streamlining processes that generate discussion but no action. Unlike some of the other tasks I manage, we have a very thorough instructions page: Wikipedia:Four Award/Instructions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Worth adding that PMC has done approvals and it's been noticed and much appreciated, by me at the least. — Bilorv (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to hear it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What fiddly update work are we talking about? It would be simple to have the FACBot automatically nominate articles for Four Awards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with a bot is that the nominations need to be manually checked to confirm that the same person is the creator, primary author, and guiding hand through GA/FA. If you created an article and took it to DYK, but skipped out on the GA process only to return to bring it to FA, it wouldn't count. I'm not sure if a bot can really parse all that. That's why I suggested a script to do the fiddly work of adding the article and all the dates and links etc to the 4A table. Or actually now that I'm thinking about it, maybe FACBot could do all that once a human has checked a nomination and confirmed it qualifies? That could save a few minutes, I think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The FACBot is triggered by the FA process. The process would then run this way:
- The Bot already knows who the FAC nominator is
- The Bot finds the GA nomination via the history of the talk page; that tells it who nominated it for GA
- The Bot finds the DYK nomination in the article history, then looks at the history of the DYK nomination page, which tells it who created that
- The Bot looks at the article history; that tells it who created it.
- The Bot now has all the information it needs to create a Four Award nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're talking about two different stages. You're suggesting that the bot produce the nomination, which seems reasonable, but I think each nomination will still need manual checking because of the possibility of inconsistencies (creating from redirect being one common exception). But I was suggesting that a bot take care of the second stage, where the editor who accepts the nomination a) adds the article to Wikipedia:Four Award/Records, b) updates the article's talk page, and c) puts the notice on the creator's talk page. That part is tedious and it would be great if a bot could take care of it, especially with updating the table. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those three steps could be done. The uncertain part is how the Bot would be tiggered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, well, I'm not sure how bots work, but perhaps some kind of field in the nomination template like "checked = " and then once it's checked, you put in "yes" or whatever, and that signals the bot when it checks the page? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for reference, the problem is a bit more complicated than PMC outlines, as the bot would also need to update the leaderboard for >10 Four Award holders and the number of people with Four Awards for first-timers; the information it needs for the Records is also not always in the article history talk page template, and the creation date is not something a bot can parse (it should be the first edit made to the page that leaves it in a non-redirect state, but I can think we'd have edge cases). I think there's just too many moving parts (you'll find the bot soon breaks when someone rewords the Four Award intro or something). — Bilorv (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why we would have a person verify the nomination before the bot goes ahead with the update to all the stats and stuff. So the process would be 1) Bot (or a human) makes the nomination and leaves it. 2) Human comes along and goes "yes that's all very good" and leaves a checkmark for the bot. 3) Bot comes back and does the updates. If we need to tweak how the stats are listed, that seems like a cheap price to pay for some automation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to cause a debate. I thought I was being considerate and make the process easier for Bilorv but based on the tone of the discussion, it looks like I hit a nerve. I especially wanted a bot because if a Tri-award was to be created (I'm cooking something up on GIMP as we speak for both Four and Tri), it could make the process easier.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think Tri award would be redundant to both Trip Crown and 4A. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want the conversation to continue anymore. It was a minor idea, and I really don't want to be blamed for any precious time wasted. I'm practicing some design as a hobby, so maybe in the future, i can throw in some redesign ideas. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|