Talk:Barnstar

message: The article states that a barn star has "no structural purpose," but the caption beneath the photo read, "a barnstar with hole used as a building reinforcement device." Reinforcement sounds structural, not merely decorative. Which is correct? --Wordbuilder 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that said "fix" embraced this 4-edit session,  tho i have parsed neither it nor the section (whose 4 edit summaries are free of anything but vague mechanical description) nor this talk section offer any reassurance  that an adequate resolution of the fairly bleak "so far, no-one knows!" assessment just above has been resolved. If it has, the apparently justified concern expressed here deserves at least a known editor's "certification" here that the later talk section has already demonstrated such resolution. It clearly does not rise above a "Start" Class article. --Jerzy•t 13:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Structural or Decorative?

message: Someone else mentioned having pictures of barnstars and similar taken in New Orleans.  I live in Charleston, SC, and these (and non-star shaped examples) are very common structural aides in our historic, yet earthquake and hurricane prone city.  However, this article only mentions a few cities.  I don't think the article needs to mention every place in the world these occur, but I feel there should be some better rationale for what's included and what isn't than just author bias.  --Jhlynes 04:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regionalism?

message: In Britain, some older terraced houses are held together by steel rods or wires tied at the ends by a large metal S or X on the walls of the end houses. The function of these shapes is clearly identical to that of barnstars, but I don't know of a name for them. It would probably be useful to include them in the article if anyone has any more detailed info on them.Lee M 00:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also in the Britain older houses in towns and cities sometimes have on them fire insurance marks. These were to show who insured the property to make sure the wrong fire-brigade did not put the fire out. This was in the days when insurance companies maintained their own brigades. Maybe we ought to have some Wiki award signs based on these for eminent UK Wikipedians. Apwoolrich 17:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: These can also be plate-shaped.  An old house of mine had a couple which had been used to remove an outward bulge in the brickwork.  A tie rod with a thread at each end was run through through the house from outer wall to outer wall, the middle was heated so it expands and the tie-plates were loosely screwed on.  The rod contracted as it cools, pulled the walls together and removed the bulges.  Apparently. Daen 14:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnstars as architectural devices and similar

message: barnstars  meant to represent the mark of the builder.
:The mark of the builder? What's that? --Abdull 21:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Some contributers on this thread and others have been confusing Barnstars (functional) with Hex signs (decorative). Athaenara (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what? 

message: What stops a registered user from adding an award image to his user page?
: Probably wikipedians checking the history. It'd make them look less credible. -- Deltaspectre 00:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Same reason I don't wear the Congressional Medal of Honor on my suspenders.  It'd make me look like a dumbass.  There isn't any policy to prevent you from awarding yourself a barnstar. Try the one at the right if you feel the need. User:Pedant 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: They still can be seen on many buildings there. 
I lived in Richmond, Virginia for six years and constantly saw them. 
The explanation preceding this is accurate. I am sincerely impressed with Wilipedia! 
In Charlottesville, Virginia where I was born and raised -- until Vietnam -- you can find these stars in the ruins of the old Confederate Clothing Factory.
Traveling on the interstate you can still see the tall chimney still standing, made of bricks. I enjoyed roaming the places I have lived and traveled to learn of their history and culture.
--Maury 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: This looks like vandalism.
:Barnstars are seen not only on barns, but on many older buildings, often of brick. A long steel rod is passed entirely through the building; a star on either side is threaded onto the ends of the rod and they are tightened. This helps to keep the structure from collapsing. A heavily starred building should be examined for failure of the mortar, and may require tuckpointing or more drastic repairs.
Eric 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of barnstars, especially on masonry buildings, is that they anchor the threaded rods which hold walls true (vertical) to each other, or to tie a wall into framing or other structural members to hold it true.  An abundance of barnstars in a masonry structure is taken to indicate potential brickwork or foundation problems.  I'll look for some sources.  --Ssbohio 07:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavily starred buildings 

message: it should say 'in Germany and the United States.'
i just find it relevant that chronological and alphabetical order come before population or military power.. and yes i might be a bit wierd and harsh by saying this, flame me at your own desire.. --Tyriel 11:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany before USA 

message: I have some pictures of barnstars sighted in/near the French Quarter of New Orleans.  Is there some place where these can be uploaded?  Perhaps a space could be set aside for Wikipedians to upload images of their barnstar sightings.
Terry Yager 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bourbon Street Barnstars? 

message: :The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it. 
I know we are supposed to avoid self-reference but should there not be some sort of link from this article to Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia? --Phil | Talk 17:35, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
:Yes, in the form of a http link. Added. Fredrik | talk 17:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly how? Fredrik | talk 13:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia link should be on the page. I couldn't remember the exact name of the Wikipedia Barnstar page, so I tried this page, expecting to find a link. Please let me put the link back in. It's only one line. Axl 07:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I have put the link in. Axl 09:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I just noticed the November at the top of the thread, and the November at the bottom are seperated by a few years! I still stand by my suggested solution though. :) --Quiddity 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's crazy! I just started watching this page today after this situation came up at Talk:Esperanza--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 23:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I've seen that discussion, I'm not so sure at all. Sounds like a Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) question to me (and be prepared for disappointment). I defer judgement on this one to the wikilawyers.. -Quiddity 00:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it. 
Does anyone think that their prevalence in Wikipedia culture is worth a mention? Sarge Baldy 19:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has a self-avoidance policy (Scroll up for links to it). Sharkface217 22:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Should there be a link to Wikipedia:Barnstar on Barnstar?
====Yes====
#Yes A straw poll at a userpage for someone against the question seems to be a tad biased to me. Personally, I see nothing wrong with informing the reader of more information on the topic.  In "fact," it's biased to withhold the information.  The only legitimate question, IMHO, is how to present it. Rfrisbietalk 13:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also the correct term isn't even "barnstar" - a tie bar would be more accurate, with a barnstar being a type of tie plate. I suggest merging this article with an article on tie bars, or maybe even on building structure etc. Hopefully people will learn that hijacking an article just because some people can't remember to prefix "WP:" before they go read up on wikipedia policies and practices isn't appropriate.▫Bad▫harlick♠ 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Biased is quite a bad way to put it, as there's no bias in not presenting irrelevant information that doesn't relate to the topic on Wikipedia.  And it's at my userpage because it spans more than one article.  That's why I posted it here- so that readers of this page would be able to express their opinion as well.  Ral315 (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe so.  Barnstars don't affect the readers, and that should be our first thought.  Only in cases like Vandalism, where it's an important process that readers might look for, should we not follow WP:ASR.  Ral315 (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Examples of Self-Refs (Look at THESE):
*RFA
*FAC
*RFA
*NPA
*EA (disambiguation)
*Civil
*NPOV
*I was just looking at Wikipedia:Esperanza and Esperanza to try and figure out what User:Zscout370 was referring to. It appears that Ral315 has started a similar discussion over here Talk:Esperanza. --evrik (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *I think that is a perfectly acceptable and even desirable solution.  --ElKevbo 06:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Heck yeah it is! Yay! I made a good suggestion! :) Spawn Man 06:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Works for me. – ClockworkSoul 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: **Works for me as well. I'm glad we have been able to reach a comp.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Works for me. Would probably be viable in some other selfref situations, as the talk page is the second place I look if I am trying to find a new term I haven't come across before in WP context. -- nae'blis 07:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I still think that this tag is a reasonable solution that meets everyone's needs. --evrik (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not thrilled by it, but I don't care enough or think it's big enough of a deal for me to invest energy in fighting it. If you put it on the page, I'll be content to just accept it. – ClockworkSoul 17:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A curious question. I respond with a counter-query: did you learn about barnstars by reading the barnstar article, or by some other means, such as visiting user pages? A followup query: why do you assume that some people's preference to keep Wikipedian cultural references out of articles that don't directly relate to us is a calculated attempt to keep newcomers in the dark? – ClockworkSoul 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)Through a userpage, however in looking for more information on them, i first came here. For me finding out more about wikipedia policies and culture involves a great deal of hoping an article in the Main namespace has a link to an article in the wikipedia namespace. 2) My suspicious nature. --Carterhawk 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: After coming up with this I added the idea to this discussion page where it belongs. --Carterhawk 08:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *No, it's not.  That template has nothing to do with the issue of if a self-reference should be made in the first place.  The template is purely a technical measure to allow mirrors, forks, and other versions/copies to supress or properly (however they define it) redirect the link(s).  --ElKevbo 20:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstars on Wikipedia 

message: :The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it. 
Does anyone think that their prevalence in Wikipedia culture is worth a mention? Sarge Baldy 19:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a self-avoidance policy (Scroll up for links to it). Sharkface217 22:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention Wikipedia? 

message: Your input is requested below. Ral315 (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should there be a link to Wikipedia:Barnstar on Barnstar?
====Yes====
#Yes A straw poll at a userpage for someone against the question seems to be a tad biased to me. Personally, I see nothing wrong with informing the reader of more information on the topic.  In "fact," it's biased to withhold the information.  The only legitimate question, IMHO, is how to present it. Rfrisbietalk 13:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also the correct term isn't even "barnstar" - a tie bar would be more accurate, with a barnstar being a type of tie plate. I suggest merging this article with an article on tie bars, or maybe even on building structure etc. Hopefully people will learn that hijacking an article just because some people can't remember to prefix "WP:" before they go read up on wikipedia policies and practices isn't appropriate.▫Bad▫harlick♠ 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll (18/16/01)

message: #Yes A straw poll at a userpage for someone against the question seems to be a tad biased to me. Personally, I see nothing wrong with informing the reader of more information on the topic.  In "fact," it's biased to withhold the information.  The only legitimate question, IMHO, is how to present it. Rfrisbietalk 13:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: # No; Barnstars are not an essential Wikipedia process, and don't deserve to receive an exemption to the avoid self-references guideline.  Ral315 (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the correct term isn't even "barnstar" - a tie bar would be more accurate, with a barnstar being a type of tie plate. I suggest merging this article with an article on tie bars, or maybe even on building structure etc. Hopefully people will learn that hijacking an article just because some people can't remember to prefix "WP:" before they go read up on wikipedia policies and practices isn't appropriate.▫Bad▫harlick♠ 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: #Perhaps. By nature all barnstars have always meant to be unofficial. They can by nature never be an essential part of wikipedia. In the light of that, I do not see the harm in putting Wikipedia:Barnstar on Barnstar given the widespread usage of barnstars on wikipedia... After all it is quite noable being the first hit on a google image search and the second hit on a regular google search. --Cat out 15:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe or Neutral

message: :: Biased is quite a bad way to put it, as there's no bias in not presenting irrelevant information that doesn't relate to the topic on Wikipedia.  And it's at my userpage because it spans more than one article.  That's why I posted it here- so that readers of this page would be able to express their opinion as well.  Ral315 (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe so.  Barnstars don't affect the readers, and that should be our first thought.  Only in cases like Vandalism, where it's an important process that readers might look for, should we not follow WP:ASR.  Ral315 (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Examples of Self-Refs (Look at THESE):
*RFA
*FAC
*RFA
*NPA
*EA (disambiguation)
*Civil
*NPOV
*I was just looking at Wikipedia:Esperanza and Esperanza to try and figure out what User:Zscout370 was referring to. It appears that Ral315 has started a similar discussion over here Talk:Esperanza. --evrik (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *I think that is a perfectly acceptable and even desirable solution.  --ElKevbo 06:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Heck yeah it is! Yay! I made a good suggestion! :) Spawn Man 06:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Works for me. – ClockworkSoul 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: **Works for me as well. I'm glad we have been able to reach a comp.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Works for me. Would probably be viable in some other selfref situations, as the talk page is the second place I look if I am trying to find a new term I haven't come across before in WP context. -- nae'blis 07:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I still think that this tag is a reasonable solution that meets everyone's needs. --evrik (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not thrilled by it, but I don't care enough or think it's big enough of a deal for me to invest energy in fighting it. If you put it on the page, I'll be content to just accept it. – ClockworkSoul 17:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A curious question. I respond with a counter-query: did you learn about barnstars by reading the barnstar article, or by some other means, such as visiting user pages? A followup query: why do you assume that some people's preference to keep Wikipedian cultural references out of articles that don't directly relate to us is a calculated attempt to keep newcomers in the dark? – ClockworkSoul 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)Through a userpage, however in looking for more information on them, i first came here. For me finding out more about wikipedia policies and culture involves a great deal of hoping an article in the Main namespace has a link to an article in the wikipedia namespace. 2) My suspicious nature. --Carterhawk 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: After coming up with this I added the idea to this discussion page where it belongs. --Carterhawk 08:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *No, it's not.  That template has nothing to do with the issue of if a self-reference should be made in the first place.  The template is purely a technical measure to allow mirrors, forks, and other versions/copies to supress or properly (however they define it) redirect the link(s).  --ElKevbo 20:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: *In the first paragraph, is not the proper English language usage "five-point"?
**And so the alternative, without the hyphen would be "five points"?
***Wikipedia at least effectively teaches and standardizes English. So should we not always make sure that our WP sentence are grammatically and spellingwisecorrec?
:::::As long as it is spellingwisecorrec  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.4.245 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours,etc. Ludvikus 19:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "five points" star vs. "five-point" star

message: I just did a revert to remove this text:
Barnstars (aka earthquake washers) were employed in the early 19th century. Earthquake bolts (accompanied with decorative washers mostly in star form) are often associated with repairs made to buildings following great earthquakes. Iron bolts and decorative washers (stars) often used with them were attached to rods inserted laterally through buildings to straighten walls and provide additional structural support. The star washers were found both internally adjacent to major wood structural beams and as “end cap washers” of the long rods on the building exterior. Many of these are still visible on older multiple story brick buildings in major cities.
The ends of floor joists in older brick buildings sit in tiny pockets within the masonry wall. These small pockets are usuall not more than a few inches wide. The walls would not have to move much for the joist to slip out and fall (as would easily happen in an earthquake). To prevent this, a hole was drilled through the brick wall and run an iron rod into a floor (or ceiling) spanning the room or all the way through to the brick wall on the other side. An iron metal star or “washer” was affixed at the ends of the rod with a nut screwed on the end. Because the bricks and mortar weakened over time and are soft in nature, a large washer was used to disperse the stress of keeping the walls plumb over a wider area. Large stars were used as they are far more decorative than round or square washers, especially on older more historical buildings which were to be preserved. These tie-rods and/or "star bolts" devices are occasionally referred to as earthquake or hurricane bolts because such disasters often warrant their use.
The only part of this I dispute is that these anchors should not be called barn stars, so I'll try to encorporate this text into the Tie rod article. Pjbflynn 16:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: As Pjbflynn astutely pointed out, "this has the potential to really upset some people"—but it needs correcting nonetheless. I added "Confounding with similarly shaped structural tie plates" to the article. — Lumbercutter 17:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added "Confounding with similarly shaped structural tie plates"

message: When I first saw the use of barnstars in Wikipedia I was reminded of research on collective goods.  I can't recall the titles of the books but my memory is that in some communities people would organize local fire departments on a contributor basis.  People who had paid to support the fire department would have a marker placed on their property as a signal of their  contribution.  Does anyone else have info on these markers and how they might relate to barnstars?  thanks --Ted 15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted, what you are talking about here are called fire marks these were in Benjamin Franklin's era and can still be seen on Philadelphia buildings as well as those of other older American cities. Fire insurance subscribers would pay in advance for protection and in return receive a fire mark (usually a metalic logo) to attach to their building. Only the fire brigade employed by the fire insurance agency that provided the marks would put out a particular building if it was to catch alight. See Fire insurance marks --Rfsjim (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Barn Stars, Protection from Fires, and Contribution to Collective Goods

message: The article lede claims that barnstars are "originally and most commonly seen in German [and German-American] farming communities." I am a German, although admittedly I don't spend much time in farming communities, and I don't think I have ever seen such a thing. On Wikipedia, yes. (This is why I came to this article.) In an American movie, maybe. But never live. I always thought this star was used as a US national symbol, as a part of the US flag. I have no idea what the German word for this thing would be. These images don't seem to be used much on the German language Wikipedia, and where they are, people use the English word. Note that I am talking about the ornamental thing here, not the common practice to cramp parts of a building together with two pieces of metal in an X shape. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I pared it down to just "German-American" because I suspect that there may not be many of them in Germany today even if there were in centuries past. I suspect a bit of the cultural-evolution equivalent of founder effect with this. Some emigrants from Germany to the U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries may have brought this tradition with them and it propagated strongly in states such as Pennsylvania. This would not necessarily mean, however, that there were tons of barn stars in Germany then, or that there are many left today. This founder effect of sorts could easily lead to a situation where there are more barn stars in the U.S. than there ever were in Germany. Please note that if present-day rural residents of Germany know specifically otherwise, you can revert my edit. But I think it's more sensible to bring the claim back with specific verifying knowledge rather than leave it in as a dubious, unproven idea (i.e. the idea that there are plenty of barn stars in present-day Germany). — ¾-10 16:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do they really exist in Germany? 

message: I'm an Englishmen, so this word looks fine to me. However, but per WP:ENGVAR, shouldn't this be esthetic?  I don't know the intricacies of American spelling, but I know you chaps are fond of removing nominally superfluous vowels, and I know you remove the middle 'a' from its opposite. PRB (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While those of us on this side of the Atlantic do generally prefer our words with a minimum of vowels, we decided to keep the extra 'a' in the case of "aestheic". I don't know why that word is an exception to the unwritten rule of American English, but I suspect it may have been for reasons of aestheics, interestingly enough. – ClockworkSoul 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aesthetic? 

message: While on tour of Charleston SC, the tour guide pointed out the anchor plates on some buildings, explaining that following the earthquake in the late 19th century, tie rods with anchor plates were used to reinforce damaged buildings; shortly after that, some new buildings were built with purely decorative plates (no tie rods). The presence of the plates was not necessarily evidence of tie rods, nor even that the building had been there before the earthquake. This is a thirty year old memory. It would be nice to have a verifiable (orginal) source on the history of architecture. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: A barnstar is just like a wikipedia barnstar. Very interesting. hmm?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RNelson5577 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, because Wikipedia barnstars were derived from these barnstars...  fetchcomms☛ 22:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Just like a Wikibarnstar!

message: The article mentions barnstars occasionally having a "wagon wheel" style rather than a five-pointed stars, but the article has several images of stars but not one illustrating this "wagon wheel" style. It'd be nice to see what these actually look like, if someone could replace one of the images with one in this style? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wagon wheel-like barnstars

message: Este artículo esta siendo traducido y transferido a wikipedia en español por Daimond (en este caso un ip) 190.72.35.226 (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traduccion a wikipedia español 

message: Any one know where the talk page is for the "Wikipedia Barnstars"...you know, the kind that get put on people's user page if they are good etc. Thanks. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, check out the project page at "Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards" and its talk page at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards". Regards, — ¾-10 16:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Barnstars 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Barnstar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061126014408/http://www.the-artistic-garden.com:80/barn-star.html to http://www.the-artistic-garden.com/barn-star.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://the-artistic-garden.com/barn-star.html
*Added  tag to http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2005/10/11/news/tuesday/news03.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061111081145/http://www.the-artistic-garden.com/hex-signs.html to http://www.the-artistic-garden.com/hex-signs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article reads: "and many rural homes in Canada"
Are rural homes decorated with barnstars? Really? Not barns in rural farms? Any sources? 85.193.219.160 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rural homes or barns in rural farms? 

message: , I didn't want to do this as I personally think that it's quite a tasteless barnstar, but... I've added the "Hot Sex Barnstar" here as it's a controversial one that was discussed in a reliable source. If you wish you can file an undeletion request at the Wikimedia Commons (I would advise against using your sysop powers to undelete it again), it could theoretically be used here, but I don't think that it would be a visual treat to the readers. In fact I didn't really want to add that section here, but it's relevant and it means that the image itself now has educational value for another Wikimedia website as it seemed to constantly fall on deaf ears there. Do with this information as you wish. --Donald Trung (talk)  18:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It could theoretically be linked to like this as is done in the source article itself. --Donald Trung (talk)  19:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Was it really necessary to choose this particular one as the article's example?  While I appreciate that Wikipedia isn't censored, this seems rather gratuitous. --Vometia (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot sex barnstar 

message: Hello , I undid your removal of that section, mostly because it's about a specific internet barnstar that became infamous because of its distasteful nature. Perhaps it could be made shorter and explained in less detail, but I don't think that it should be entirely removed. 
Or perhaps this information would better fit at the article about the Wikimedia Commons, in a section discussing its controversies? But even then it could have a passing mention here as it's one of the few internet barnstars actually described in detail by independent sources. -- — Donald Trung (talk)  21:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial barnstar