Forum:"of the month" award
Once again we seem to have a few nominees for an award who have not being active within the award category (or even on the site in one case) for some time. I appreciate that awards on the site aren't the be all and end of all of what we do here, but they are, or rather should, be something to award excellence as well as to push people to work a little harder to win them.
At the moment I feel as though anyone even vaguely active will be up for an "of the month" at some point. I realise that "past work" will feature strongly, but we have excellent new contibutors that don't seem to get a look in until they "become established". It is very rare that someone like Braydie gets WOTM within their first month, but I can think of three people who have joined the site within the last two months who should at least have a nomination.
Should we make sure that nominees for an "of the month" award are restricted to recent works within the field? Thoughts anyone? -- Sir Mhaille 
(talk to me)
Renoms
On a seperate issue, althought I feel it is related to the main issue, is there any specific reason why people can't be nommed for an award that they have already won? Again I personally feel that this is an issue towards awarding excellence, and not just "people who haven't won it yet". It can easily be argued that STM deserved to be up for WOTM last month, given his cruel snatching back of the top slot in the Hall of Shame, or Ljlego with his 67 articles on VFH in one month. As previous winners they aren't even in with a shout, despite their hard work. Any thoughts? -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
- For what Mhaille said on both points. I thought you HAD to be active during that period of time to be eligable for the award anyway. Obviously not
(Bonner) 
(Talk) Oct 6, 19:49
- Actually, STM never lost his top slot (I visit the Shame Hall every day), and Ljlego's only article on VFH is floundering with 4 fors and 3 againsts, although there was a time when he dominated. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- F☭R restrictions on recent activity & for renominatin' previous winners for recent work. We should keep the joke nominations to Useless Gobshite. I think we can do this with fairness.
- Conditional For. I agree about your points in regards to WotM, it's just a total farce what's going on right now, but I disagree with your motion for "no restrictions on awards whatsoever". You imply that So So, ZB's competition, has been doing nothing really in the world of writing as of late, but he has in fact been quite active. You just need to keep in mind that not everyone is like yourself or Ljlego, Mhaille. Some people need time to work on masterpieces, and So So is one of those people. Past creations should definitely factor in to some extent, but in the end it all comes down to activity or inactivity. Zombiebaron and So So both have past works under their belt, but only So SO is still technically active. Zombiebaron winning would make as much sense as Slackerboy winning. --
TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 
01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't implying anything about either So So (who will probably get my vote) or Zombiebaron. Both are still active on the site, and although you may argue about what they have achieved of significance over the previous month, they do have a decent back catalogue of work too. Of course both contribute to articles not of their making (which should be an important part too, not just having a large collection of FAs under your belt. Ironically, the current writer who I feel is "in the zone" right now is actually you, and I'd be very disappointed not to see TKF on WOTM next month.
- But go and have a look at POTM, where, despite one of the nominees having produced one of my favourite images on the whole site, hasn't edited in over a month, and has only produced three images this year, whilst the other nominee hasn't even edited on the site since March. The first nominee may be overlooked as they had a recent featured image but the second nominee hasn't edited for six months. I'm sure we can find more current nominees from the wealth of contributors we attract. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
My thoughts on both things you said
That's fine in theory. But in reality their large body of work before will be taken into account and the same people will win every time. (BTW, I haven't won any "of the months" yet.) -- tacky Ape (stink) (Riot Porn) 19:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
He has a good point. How about having won it before counts slightly against their nom. I.e every vote is half a vote instead of a full one?...But i'm inclined to disagree because he's whoring himself. I mean I haven't won any "of the months" yet but you don't hear me crowing about it :P (Bonner) (Talk) Oct 6, 20:06
I think its fair to say that many people will at least think to themselves "I'll vote for the other guy as he's not won it", but there should be no restriction on nomming the people who are working hardest, regardless of them winning before or not. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
- There's a reason a president only serves two terms...I think a similar argument can be made for this. And sorry for whoring. -- tacky Ape (stink) (Riot Porn) 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- On one hand I agree that it's usually lame to nominate people for awards when they haven't been active. It would be like nomming me for WotM when I've written one article in... I don't even know how long. Many months. But on the other hand, I think if there are legitimate new candidates for an award, preference should be given to them. I sort of feel like if you've won an award already there's no reason to win it again. But if people are really adamant about allowing renoms for major awards, there should at least be a time threshold - for example, a candidate can't have won the same award in the last eighteen months. Or summat. —rc (t) 22:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Your second point's already here!
Looks like you got it! --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel I should keep
VERY QUIET
at this point. (Oops.) -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Day "of the month"?
I nominate Pedro Dias of desciclopedia.pt for the "Day of the month" award. --66.102.80.239 00:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to stop you there, before we get another one of these... • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:21, 07 Oct 2007
- Hey, that Spang of the Month idea seemed pretty good. Of course, I am quite mad. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your mom of the month
It goes to users who upload shock images, and write {{NSFW}} articles. October's award goes to Slavemaster2--Sir Manforman 
21:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Does this mean
That I'm out of the running for Uncyclopedian of the Month? Damn. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- As long as a quick glance at your sig makes it look like your name is "ENeMA", yes. It's one of those unwritten rules. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, with friends like that, who needs enemas?
Easy solution
Give me all the awards. -- 
22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- -Nom and for Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
