The following discussion is a concluded WikiProject debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was that this project should become an official wikiproject with consensus not to use an article talk page template for this project. This results of this discussion far exceeded the support from 5-10 active Wikipedians suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Description

A project to continue the effort to promote and monitor the collection of content at WP:FOUR. The projects goal is to motivate the creation of new encyclopedic content at the highest quality level on wikipedia TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Support

Please specify whether or not you would join the project.

1. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Support moving it to project-space, but don't support a mention of it in mainspace articles' talk pages. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Seems like a good idea as it has developed a momentum. Any trinket-y thing which promotes article writing is a good one. Intriguing process this one as it illustrates how much there is still to cover quite well. Agree with Cirt that there is no need for any mention on article talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Support I doubt I'd join - I invest most of my time on Wikinews now - but I'd sure as hell like to see this. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Support, same as Cirt and Casliber. Moving it out of user space will improve its visibility (I for one found out about it only after another editor mentioned it to me). If more people know about the award, it might motivate them to work towards getting it, and more DYKs, GAs, and FAs are never bad things. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Very excellent content motivation program. MBisanz ^talk 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Support any program that encourages editors to create high-quality content is good in my book. Sasata (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Support per Cirt, Casliber, etc. This is useful as an award for users, but is not really an article award. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - great idea. Geraldk (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Support; I definitely think this award should be "official", and I commend those responsible for establishing and maintaining the project. A small note in the article history template probably wouldn't be a bad thing, but I can't say I support massive "FOUR AWARD" banners on article talk pages. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Support per all above -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - no downside. Agree with no mention on article talk pages. Steve Smith (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Support - why not—Chris!_c/t 00:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Support: Making this into a legitimate project could be very encouraging for editors to "go the distance", as it were; however, I don't believe it warrants a message on article talk pages. I see no upside to that particular aspect. María (habla conmigo) 13:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Support: I've got two of them on my mantel, seems a worthwhile thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
16. I'd join as well, good idea. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Support in project space. Not necessary on article talk pages. Awadewit (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• By moving this to wikispace, it would become more official and either a talk page template or linked phrase in {{ArticleHistory}} would become appropriate. This would help us monitor pages in our collection that have been nominated at WP:FAR. Some editors might become interested in helping to contribute to FAR efforts as a result.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is a concluded nomination debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.