lively joker
Thank you, tireless warrior for sourced content, for quality articles on video games and films, such as Batman: Arkham City, Prometheus and The Expendables 2, for the mantra "Expanding article" and lively edit summaries, for pointing at "misusing rules to ban people for no reason" and "Brownie, better than eating a Xmas tree any day", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Take One great film from each year to FA Status. Note: I developed Prometheus to FA but it isn't classed as a great film because it's not. Luckily Dredd was also released in 2012.
I might make some substitutions, such as doing another 80s film in place of say a 2000s film because I never really got into Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, and there's so many bad sequels like Xmen 3 or Spider-Man 3, and just a lot of crap not worth my time. It's weird that you can go to any 80s year and find a bunch of classics and you get to the late 90s/2000s and just terrible.
For your contributions to bring Ghostbusters II (estimated annual readership: 330,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
Tireless Contributor - For your tireless maintenance of the Prometheus article. Good work! The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar - I have seen you reverting vandalism consistently for a quite long time now, and I believe that you are truly deserving of this. Namanbapna (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar - For fixing / cleaning the Saw IV plot summary and getting it to encyclopedic terms. You deserve the Original Barnstar for your work. Enjoy. -- Zerorules677 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar - Heres to Darkwarriorblake and his tireless work for Transformers: Dark of the Moon! Thanks for keeping the article in great shape, and overpowering the vandalism! Also to your tireless work on the plots for The Lord of the Rings film trilogy! Great stuff. Cheers! Fanaction2031 (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar - For your work on Tower Heist starting in October 2011 —MikeAllen 04:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar - For displaying the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job on The Dark Knight Rises. Despite the influx of edits and cosntant changes to the page, you have somehow managed to keep it coherent and concise without losing taking it too seriously. Sterling effort, mate. You deserve this.
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar - hanks for keeping an eye out on the Silent Hill: Revelation 3D wiki page. It seems it's quite a frequent target. Good work! QValintyne (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor - Hi, Darkwarriorblake. Just wanted to tell you I appreciate your oversight on things like Batman: Arkham City, and remember, not everyone's going to be a diligent in their work here -- we're all just volunteers. Some of your edit summaries make me think that you're burning out, and we can't have that, can we? -- JHunterJ
The Good Article Barnstar - For your significant contributions that helped promote The Expendables 2 to good article status. I was sorry to see you're semi-retired, but if there's one thing this movie would approve of, it's coming out of retirement for one last big job. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar - Dishonored is a very special game to me. Thank you for giving it a great article on Wikipedia! — ΛΧΣ21 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar - You deserve this - for ongoing work in and around the film project articles, among others! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar - Your hard work at Arkham City deserves this award. Enjoy the feeling of having a new featured article :) — ΛΧΣ21 15:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The Antiflame Barnstar - Here's my peace offering so we can make amends from that Man of Steel edit war. I've sent this to Rusted AutoParts as well. Hope this helps, mate. -- Matthew (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar - Here's to working together over the past months to get Batman: Arkham Origins ready for its release. We may have had a few disagreements here and there, but we worked them out to get a great article ready, for hopefully, a great game. Let's keep it up to get the article to GA status! Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar - Likewise for the excellent collaboration exhibited on your part that tremendously helped Batman: Arkham Origins to become a healthy article within the Wikipedia namespace. Let's continue this extravagant trend we have going. Cheers! - Mainstreammark (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The Featured Article Barnstar - For your tireless efforts to promote Dredd to featured article status! Congratulations!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The Featured Article Barnstar - For your tireless efforts to promote Dredd to featured article status! Congratulations! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The Joker appreciation award. - I award you for improving my page the way it's supposed to be by letting you live. May my legacy live on in this page. The Joker
The Original Barnstar - This is for successfully submitting and achieving the goal of the moving the three Star Wars articles to their common names. Something I attempted to argue a few years ago and was thwarted. Luckily the editor who pretty much led the opposition at that time hasn't been active for nearly two years. WTG!! JOJHutton 02:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar - For your tireless efforts to help raise the quality of Batman: Arkham Origins to GA status, and taking care of the nomination and comments for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar - For all the work you have been putting into expanding and improving South Park: The Stick of Truth. I sense a GA nom coming up! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar - Looks like somebody beat me to it in thanking you for all your work on South Park: The Stick of Truth! Many of your edits added substantial content to the article, and were well-sourced. You did an especially fine job of fleshing out the "Reception" section of the article, thank you! Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar - I was most delighted to see you stuck with Dishonored after we had passed it through the GA nomination to drive it to featured article status. Well done for all your work there! Sabre (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The Good Article Barnstar - Dang! I didn't even realize this review was happening! It was done so quickly! Well done sir, on making South Park: The Stick of Truth a Good Article so fast. I remember when it was announced and I was just trying to keep the vandals away. Very, very well deserved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar - For being a "bad enough dude" to work on Joker. All that hard work of over 400 edits should not go unappreciated. Thanks for your dedication to the topic. You deserve this! — Yash![talk] 05:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The Million Award - For your contributions to bring Joker (comics) (estimated annual readership: 1,501,160) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Bobnorwal (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The Friendship Barnstar - Even when we have conflicting perspectives and can get hot under the collar, we can still reach a amicable resolution that sees us collaborating and being friendly by the end of the day. After years of editing the same articles, with the sole intent being the improved quality of the project, I promise not to let you down with your good faith. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 04:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Featured article - From Ssven2 to DWB, for taking The Shawshank Redemption to FA. Hats off to bringing of the best films of the 1990s to this stage. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid 14:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar — For bringing some of the best movies of all time to FA status. Thank you for your patience and dedication. —3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Featured article - An award for a guy who gets shit done. You are the Kingmaker of FAs around here. — —3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
"(AND "best" OR "great" OR "iconic" OR "enduring" OR "popular")"
Response for size to save me repeating myself every timeedit
So I see you have raised WP:SIZERULE and/or referred to WP:SIZE. Let me take this opportunity to quote the section called "Size Guideline", found here which states, "Some useful rules of thumb for splitting, trimming or merging articles". First, we must answer what is "rule of thumb"? The term is said to have originated in the mid 1600s(1) and relates to the method of making rough measurements(2) although not strict. Returning to "Size Guideline", I refer you to each section, ranging from "< 150 words" to "> 15000 words", the latter of which uses the strongest and most condeming wording of "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed", most condemning in this circumstance being a little bit of humour on my part as this of course is not a command, just a suggestion. In this particular scenario I would like to remind you that the articles on which I work are generally in the range of 8000-10000 and this is because they are almost exclusively on the subject of a film which includes a plot summary, critical reception, and box office sections but also primarily a production section, something I believe to be the most important and truly the heart of the article since this describes how the movie was made and thus what was unique about it. Every film has a critical reception or box office section, but the production and design can vary wildly which for fans of the film, the people you would typically expect to be reading the article. I have made every effort to keep these segments trimmed despite WP:SIZE and/or WP:SIZERULE only being a guideline and not a hard rule even though it is often wielded as if it is one and used as an easy means of obstruction. As articles I work on, such as this one, are typically within this word range, the harshest language used is "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." As you can see, the guideline does not mandate cuts be made, as stated above, it's merely a suggestion and on a more in-depth topic such as this, focused on a singular and unique subject, it falls within the reasonable scope as outlined here: "though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Film articles rarely have the content to justify being split as the split content cannot often justify it's own article. Further quoting WP:SIZE and/or WP:SIZERULE, it reads "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage."
Rare examples would be something like Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame which, because of the shared production of both films, the production and special effects were split into a single joint article, or articles such as Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back, Special effects of Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and Special effects of Starship Troopers where there is a wealth of effects information available for films where practical visuals were prevalent, and are simply too vast to contain within the top level articles. I assure you that this is not the case with the subject we are discussing today. I admit I do find complaints about size, while assumedly well-intentioned, to be generally unfair as it often requires interest content be excised to meet an invisible and arbitrary barrier on something that has been extensively researched and copyedited by multiple people. We are meant to be an encylopedia and of course Criteria 1b and 1c of the Featured article criteria are that it is Comprehensive (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;) and well-researched (it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature). This is, of course, a paradox then since we are meant to remain neutral and yet we are playing wiki-God by deciding what facts readers deserve to know and which they don't, which is not our place in my humble opinion. While my main focus is content directly related to the film, part of the Featured Article criteria also demands a thematic analysis of subjects such as this, which of course requires more work of myself which is not expected of those who work on subjects less apropros to thematic analysis. Is this fair? Quite possibly not, yet it is demanded and this obviously increases the word count further though it is very unlikely that a reader would come to an article on a popular film to know a Film Studies students' thoughts on the subject. Regardless, this word count does contribute to the overall count and it is my firm belief that since it is required yet not essential to the main topic that such a word count should not be counted against the overall article since it is a mandated supplement and not the core for which the majority of readers will have come in search. All of this is to say that while I appreciate you have looked at this article and found it to be long from an abstract top-level perspective and readily quoted WP:SIZE and/or WP:SIZERULE, I fundamentally do not believe it is applied appopriately in this case and ask you to take that into consideration going forwards as while I will do my best to meet your requests I will not make an article subjectively worse to meet an arbitrary guideline that violates Featured Article Criterias 1b and 1c. Thank you :) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Joker (comics) – promoted to GA status (May 2015)
