Wikipedia talk:Four Award
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FOUR)
Latest comment: 3 days ago by TechnoSquirrel69 in topic Thought's on potential automation.
| Main | Discussion | Reviewing Instructions | Records | History | Templates |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Four Award page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
Frequently asked questions
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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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. |
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
My nominations
editI wanted to ask if anyone is processing my nominations at the page? I can create and share the syntax for updating the Records table if no one has gotten started on that.--NØ 16:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- FOUR awards often take a couple of weeks to get processed. Somebody'll get to yours eventually. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I find it unfair for someone else to have to do this much work for me to be awarded, so I am sharing the syntax below:
Syntax | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Pinging TechnoSquirrel69, who is the most recently active awarder.--NØ 04:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that, MaranoFan, I've gone ahead and handed those diamonds out to you. This actually reminds me of some changes I was thinking of for the {{Four Award Nomination}} template that would make things easier for reviewers. I'll probably sandbox that and propose it when I have a little more time on my hands. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging TechnoSquirrel69, who is the most recently active awarder.--NØ 04:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Why not use the draft symbol instead?
editWhat's the point of using the "neutral vote" image for "new article"? There's already a dedicated symbol for that. Is it possible to make a second version? I feel like it'd look better too. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- The reason the Draft symbol wasn't used is because the Four Award predates the creation of draft space
(not by much, if I remember correctly, but by about a year or so).That being said, I agree that this is a better symbol for "create an article" and would support its usage. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)- Struck the "not by much" comment; apparently Cas got an award in 2009 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Chris Woodrich,
I'd be willing to make this. I'll make a version and put it up for vote in a new post.– Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC) - Turns out everything is an SVG, and I don't know how to properly edit those. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neither do I. But before being WP:BOLD, I'd say it's definitely worth letting others provide feedback, given that the award design has stayed the same for sixteen years. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- The proposal seems fine to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neither do I. But before being WP:BOLD, I'd say it's definitely worth letting others provide feedback, given that the award design has stayed the same for sixteen years. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- What Hawkeye said. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Wikimedia's SVG rendering and Adobe Illustrator seem not to get along well, but I made File:Four Award with draft icon.svg Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Whoop! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Nice! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Responding to idea lab post: Seems a positive change, as the neutral symbol doesn't make any intuitive sense. I personally have used the
stub symbol for new articles (seems more applicable to that then it does for stubs really), but the draft symbol carries a similar message. CMD (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Responding to idea lab post: Seems a positive change, as the neutral symbol doesn't make any intuitive sense. I personally have used the
- Nice! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Whoop! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Wikimedia's SVG rendering and Adobe Illustrator seem not to get along well, but I made File:Four Award with draft icon.svg Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- What Hawkeye said. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Responding from the idea lab post too, really agree with the change! Even if new articles don't necessarily go through draft space, it is still more representative of article creation than a "neutral vote" image. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- I like the draft symbol much more than the equals sign. Let's do this. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- 2nd with enby here. A positive improvement to the look. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm also here from the idea lab, this is a solid improvement. That gray icon always bugged me a little. Toadspike [Talk] 13:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I very boldly made the change to the main page, the template and it's doc page and the wikipedia awards template which shows a very small icon of the four award. I still might've missed some, namely those ribbon templates Yelps ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ critique me 11:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Just looked at the main page and was confused as to why people thought the symbol was out of place, being a pen and all. Looking back at the old version it's much worse. Fully endorse this. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's been well over a week since your change and it still seems to be unanimously approved. I updated the userboxes, nomination template, and put in an edit request at Template talk:Icon to update
. I think that covers just about everything. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Excellent suggestion, and the new image is fantastic. Progress like this counterbalances the creeping cynicism I get from observing .... so ... many ... bad decisions in WP. Good work! Noleander (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Implicit GA in FA?
editHowdy, recently I brought an article from creation to DYK to Featured List: List of Chaplain Corps Medal of Honor recipients. I skipped the GA process as it is so horridly backlogged, Featured List was the goal anyways, and the FL review process was very quick. There was a discussion a decade ago here about whether receiving an article becoming Featured receives Good Article en passant, or whether not literally receiving all four awards literally is disqualifying; the discussion didn't seem to reach consesnsus. I don't have a strong preference, but I wanted to bring it up again for discussion. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 14:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Featured Lists don't qualify for FOUR anyway as lists can't be GAs, so in your case it's a moot point. In general, I would argue that skipping GA is not in the spirit of the FOUR award - all three "overview" processes have different criteria and check different aspects of the article. GA these days mandates a spot check, for example, where FAC does not except for first-time noms. It's fine to skip GA given the backlog, but if you skipped it, you skipped that phase and don't qualify for FOUR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Question
editAn article was created and promoted to GA 10+ years ago, but without the DYK nomination. Now the article is improved toward FA. The promotion to FA status (as far as I understand) does not satisfy the newness criterion for DYK. Is there another way to get the DYK or something equivalent to satisfy the Four award or the particular article is doomed not to qualify for the award? Thank you in advance. A.Cython(talk) 00:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Only if the article can somehow be expanded 5 times (or I guess if it got demoted and then re-promoted at GAN). Otherwise, It can't get another DYK. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- That's what I thought when I looked at the rules. It is strange when the rules point to unintended conclusions it got demoted and then re-promoted at GAN. Oh well... thank you for your reply. I will be happy once (and if) I manage to get it to FA, that's enough of a reward. A.Cython(talk) 02:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Thought's on potential automation.
editA few months ago, @Premeditated Chaos asked for a automated 4 award script. I went ahead and created Alachuckthebuck/FourAwardHelper. The script works fairly well, but due to my limited JS skills, I decided to rewrite the tool as a python module for by bot framework Chuckbot. The code for the python module is at under the vendor subtree. I had difficulties with the JS script due to parsing struggles and trying to sort the table. Both are working, and I would like to ask what option people would prefer, an automated bot handling nominations, or the userscript? The bot has several different modes it can run in, and you can view the module at (auth required). All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for making these tools, Alachuckthebuck! The clunkiness of doing all this paperwork is what's been turning me off from clerking here recently, so this is a big help. It looks like Chris is testing out the script as I type this, so I daresay you'll get some feedback from him in a minute. I have a question about the bot implementation, though: has it been set up to process nominations automatically, or will it need to be invoked by an editor? That wasn't clear to me reading the documentation. I would oppose the former, since I don't want to remove the element of human connection and appreciation for the recipient — that's the whole point of the award to me. We only need tools to make the back-end wrangling a little easier. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Some suggestions after trying the script out myself:
- Is there a way of detecting the first revision when the article was in mainspace? The current logic is popping up dates when the articles were still in user- or draftspace.
- Please make the userspace logging and the posting of the actual award to the user's talk page optional, maybe with checkboxes in the dialog box. I sometimes like to leave personalized messages when awarding people, so I'd prefer it if that step were under my manual control.
- Use the awarding user's signature and not yours (diff). (:
- Don't link over the numbers when a recipient has multiple awards (
[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492 (42)]]→[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] (42)). (Chris has 42 of these?!) - It would be nice if the leaderboard was updated if applicable.
- (Highly optional) À la Twinkle, it would be nice to have a page in the dialog box showing all the actions the script is taking once you click "run".
- To discourage trigger-happiness on reviewers' parts, maybe include some kind of warning about how the script does not absolve the reviewer of responsibility for checking the nomination against the criteria.
- Bottom text. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't think we're too picky about the creation date, unlike DYK. I've certainly never gone to check the creation date vs the move to main date. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- That's fair, I'm probably a little more picky about that than most. But if it's not a difficult alteration to the logic, that's an incremental improvement in accuracy that'll have a multiplicative effect the more Fours are handled using the script. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- (ec) And I do feel like the "creation" date is more important for FOUR - the "moved to mainspace" editor isn't always the same, especially if an article went through the AFC process. Other than that, I agree on the points. I understand that Chuck is working on a couple of those already.
- As a point of clarification, it does seem intended to be exclusively for use upon invocation, rather than a bot-driven task. Still space for human interactions! And yeah, 42... the vast majority of the FAs I've written were on quite obscure subjects. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- @TechnoSquirrel69, I've actually gone out of my way to have the tool itself verify as much as it can. I think I've done an OK job of it in JS, and the Python version does a really good job. I'll work on making the Messaging and logging configurable.
- @Crisco 1492 re bot task, there are 2 versions of the tool, the one you and I have been debuging in JS and another in python on toolforge that's been in a dry test for about a week. I'm planning on keeping it testing for a few months to see how my parser and test harnesses are holding up, even if it isn't approved as a bot. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- That's fair, I'm probably a little more picky about that than most. But if it's not a difficult alteration to the logic, that's an incremental improvement in accuracy that'll have a multiplicative effect the more Fours are handled using the script. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, and another thing I forgot to mention: I don't think the script needs to try to rewrite the existing entries on the records page. In many cases, it's removing intentional formatting (like italics or quotation marks) or footnotes (diff). —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't think we're too picky about the creation date, unlike DYK. I've certainly never gone to check the creation date vs the move to main date. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- @TechnoSquirrel69 about that rewrite, the reason I had wanted to use the python implementation is because of table insertion issues with the script. I had intended the python script to run as a cron job every day, but I did add the ability to run it manually, so that is an option. I'm currently working on making the table parser better at handling the formatting. Once It stops mangling table entries, it will still technically replace the whole table every time, but only lines after the new section should show as changed in diff view. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, it seems to have stopped mangling the table entries. This run (ignore Krugers - he isn't featured yet) only has some housekeeping changes (standardize |n| to |0n|, date sort with the priority 4A promotion -> FA promotion, some alphabetizing). I've left everything but Krugers in place, and the next run will only insert a line for the new item (sorry Lianying). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- @TechnoSquirrel69, would you rather have a text box for custom messages or a checkbox to not notify the uploader? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- I would personally like an opt-out checkbox, but I'm not sure that way I hand out Fours is necessarily typical. Unless it would be too much trouble to implement, maybe it would be best to have both? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- @TechnoSquirrel69, Alright, I think it should be all working. Let me know if anything is broken. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 15:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oops, I seem to have missed this ping somehow, my apologies. The new options look good to me! I think I mentioned the bugs above that Staraction was facing today. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- @TechnoSquirrel69, Alright, I think it should be all working. Let me know if anything is broken. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 15:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- I would personally like an opt-out checkbox, but I'm not sure that way I hand out Fours is necessarily typical. Unless it would be too much trouble to implement, maybe it would be best to have both? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- Some suggestions after trying the script out myself:
- Hi Alachuckthebuck. I see that Staraction just employed the script in a non-testing environment. Seems like things went well, aside from the known signature issue. Star, did everything seem to deploy correctly? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was about to comment here myself. I fixed the signature issue manually. Is there a way the script can automatically edit the leaderboard and the nomination removal as well? Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 16:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Alachuckthebuck: I used the script today to help hand out George Krugers. It's working much better, but I encountered a couple of issues. The screenshot below shows the script's output when run on the nomination; the GA date (second to last) should be 2012-08-28. I assume the script is simply using the date from the last edit to the /GA1 page, so I might instead suggest either checking the talk page for the date the {{GA}} template (or {{Article history}} with
|status=ga) was placed, or checking the article itself. 
- Thanks again for creating this script! This is going to be a huge help with processing future awards. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, and one easy quality-of-life improvement might be to label all of those text boxes, which makes it easier in case users need to make manual adjustments. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
