Wikipedia talk:Barnstars 2.0/Guidelines

Purpose?

Can I ask what the purpose of having a 2.0 version of a barnstar is? I can think of some reasons, but I don't want to project. Why do we need 2.0 versions? What are the costs of not having a 2.0 version? How should a 2.0 version be used differently from a 1.0 version? Should all new banstars conform to the 2.0 guideline? What happens to barnstars that only have a 1.0 version? What if there is only a 2.0 version? This would be helpful stuff to have on the top of the project page, no? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What are the guidelines?

What are the guidelines exactly? There's a big image file linked but no text, and not even alt text for the image. Wikipedia:Barnstars 2.0 redirects to Wikipedia:Barnstars which doesn't say anything to explain what a 2.0 Barnstar actually is. (It seems generally bad form for a redirect to have sub-pages like this.) – Reidgreg (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! (but why is no one apparently listening to us??). Having looked over the current project page, I would like to propose adding some wording like this:

1.) Please use the file:Original Barnstar Hires.png file as the basis for your 2.0 barnstar— it is already in an appropriate format and is ready for editors to reuse. Please do not create a barnstar using some other image as the basis of your illustration.

2.) Please use high-quality stylized clip art (I cannot tell from the project page what this means— explanation?)

3.) Please use the PNG format with transparent background— please do not create a new barnstar with an opaque background (isn't SVG format at least as good as PNG here? Why is no mention made of SVG?)

4.) Please use and place your clip art appropriately: do not use clip art that obscures the recognizability of the barnstar, do not use clip art that is so small that the barnstar overwhelms it, do not use clip art behind the barnstar nor alter the size/ orientation of the star itself— place the star in the background of your clip art and adjust the size of your clip art accordingly.

--Or at least, this is how I am interpreting the 2.0 standard as meaning. Wish someone in the project would verify this and consider adding it to the page directly. KDS4444 ^(talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 10:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

For 2.), I'm guessing that the red/wrong apple is a photo while the green/right apple is a created illustration. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This whole page was not discussed and was created by one user and it only shows their idea of the time of what is right and wrong. You can absolutely use other base image for barnstars, even other barnstars. The lack of SVG is more because the original author didn't do SVG, even though it would be preferable. The layout recommendations are just that - recommendation for when the barnstar is just a basic base + image layout. It fails to capture nuance that many 1.0 barnstars have. The page itself is a single image, so nobody can really edit it, even if we discuss changes -- we're better off just rewriting it all. The wording, like "wrong" and "high-quality", is subjective. All barnstar images are used at wrong sizes, as we never scale them up like this. The major argument for 2.0 is that they "look better", but this was always presented in a biased manner -- with incorrect sizes and cherry-picked examples. The original barnstar at 111px looks crisp and fine -- the whole point is the rustic feel of it (that's what a barnstar is -- literally a metal star on a barn, not a "plastic" one). We could just as well take a high-res photo of a real barnstar and it would be objectively better quality. In short, there was never consensus to replace the old ones, just that 2.0 can also be an option alongside the "1.0". This page was never officially discussed, so we can always BRD and change the text as needed. The new wording doesn't have to match the old image. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)