Wikipedia talk:Bilorv's Challenges: Difference between revisions

Department of Fun Project‑class Bottom‑importance

This page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Bottom This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

Do people prefer ^[1] or ^[2] (so the second one is similar to the formatting for the Alphabet challenge).

15 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@15: the second one, I think, is quite nice. — Bilorv (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilorv! I know WIkipedia doesn't really provide health advice and that these are completely optional and just for fun, but the challenge "Rock around the clock" worries me as it implies you need to edit 24/7 for 1 week. This seems like a bad idea due to sleep deprivation. Is there some part of it that I'm not understanding that would mean it doesn't lead to sleep deprivation? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Pinging you just in case you don't get notified of this. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It just means you need a hit on your timecard for every given hour at some point in your editing career. It doesn't have to be concurrently. I work nights, so my schedule is all over the joint - hence my timecard looking like the broad side of a barn after target practice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze The Wolf: you do not have to complete the challenge in a week, nor would I think it healthy or advisable to do so. If you make an edit at, say, Monday 12 p.m. on one day then that hour is crossed off forever. You only have to make one edit in each hour and day combination across your time here (in my case, it took me over seven years to complete it). PMC works night shifts; other people may travel internationally regularly (so are in different timezones) or for many other reasons have completely healthy sleeping patterns and still complete the challenge. Many people will not be in a living situation that suits this challenge (or many of the others), and they should not attempt it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv and Premeditated Chaos: Ah ok. Thanks for your clarification. Would it be alright if I added that clarification to the description of the challenge just so it's a bit more clear. And I agree that doing it in 1 week is not healthy or advisable. I was a bit concerned when I read that you need to make an edit for the 256 hours of a week which to me makes me think that you have to be editing 24/7 for 1 week. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze The Wolf: I see you've gone ahead and added a footnote, not a problem but I've reworded it a little bit. P.S. there are 168 hours in a week (256 is 2⁸, an important number in lots of areas of maths). — Bilorv (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oop you're right. Whenever I think of a large 3 digit number 256 immediately comes to mind lol. Thanks for rewording it! ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do quickfails count as reviews for the purpose of this challenge? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: good question! Yep, they're still reviews. I've added this and a couple of other clarifications to the note. — Bilorv (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, thank you for this PREGOT one, it's going to drive me batshit insane. I found a fantastic candidate for the Oscars one and it turned out someone made a one-sentence stub last week and I considered speedying it out of spite. This is wonderful and hilarious and deeply painful, thank you. (To be clear, this is a compliment. I don't know how to quit things and I don't see why to try.) Vaticidalprophet 11:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vaticidalprophet. I think I'm 0/4 on this one. It's a deceptively difficult one—for some there might be notable historical redlinks out there, but in some cases you might have to be pre-emptively creating bios on people you think will win the award... — Bilorv (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already put the Tony in mainspace, and I have drafts for the Oscar, Pulitzer, and Razzie. I maybe have a couple possibilities for the Emmy, but I'm not sure on either. I have no clue at all for the Grammy or Peabody. Vaticidalprophet 23:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very good start—I'm excited to see what you can cook up. — Bilorv (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking an interest in the challenges, Pamzeis, but I've removed you from Minimalist for now as I think you've misunderstood. The requirement is not that you make fewer than 50 edits to an article before it reaches GA, but that everyone has cumulatively made fewer than 50 edits. Take a look at the winners' entries (and the "xth edit" in the footnotes refer to the edit in the page history total, not just that editor's tally).

Your best bet for a Challenge based on your userpage might be Switch—see which ones you're missing (if any) and keep track with future DYKs when you fill those in. (If you need a first slot, that's an image one; last slot is generally a hook that's a bit quirky.) — Bilorv (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could be fun for people to write articles which incorporate foreign language text or sources, say 15 different languages, or write the first article with text/sources from a given language. I have one of the few entries in Category:CS1 Kalaallisut-language sources (kl), which made me think of it. All of the languages currently supported can be seen here for sources and here for text. :) Urve (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea, very fully-formed. I'd like to stick to references only, for simplicity. My only concern is that per WP:NONENG, it's best to use non-English sources only when no reliable English-language source has the same information. On the other hand, when creating these challenges I've generally trusted that anyone interested knows policy fairly well and will not do anything untoward (like telling people they shouldn't edit a particular article so as to win Minimalist); I've now added a sentence on that subject in the intro. How about this as a challenge text?

Introduce sources in 15 foreign languages to articles. Each source should contain information not found in any reliable English-language source (to ensure WP:NONENG compliance).

— Bilorv (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good considerations :). Urve (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, added. — Bilorv (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and, we have our first winner: ezlev! — Bilorv (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Trying my best and I'm still somewhere around 7 :) Urve (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• create five hooks that make the WP:DYKSTATS page in a single month (e.g. achieving more than 416+2⁄3 views per hour on their DYK date) (i was thinking of calling this one "hooker" ... but it'll probably need a different name)
  • DYKnom credits don't count for this one, only DYKmake credits.
  • You may choose to count multi-hooks by the individual number of views for each article or by the total, but you can't do both! Example: a hook that gets 200, 450, and 500 views per hour for each of its articles would count as two hooks, one for each article that made it—a hook with two articles that each get 250 only counts as one, since you take the combined total of 500.
• interstate commercialist: create ten articles that pertain to two or more U.S. states (they all have to be different states)
  • Alternatively, diplomat: create ten articles that pertain to two or more countries or the subject of international relations (as with round the world, these would need to fall under the wikiprojects for those countries or states, and they'd all have to be different countries)
• punchy: create seven DYK hooks that make the WP:DYKSTATS page while being under 100 characters in length

open to hearing suggestions, and also open to hearing that all of these ideas don't work. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 21:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Bilorv but the first one seems like a fun challenge. Other two are decent too, but I think "punchy" might be a bit much work/repetitive? Elli (talk | contribs) 21:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i was thinking about that too with punchy—I think the DYKSTATS requirement on that one might be a bit much. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 21:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Also, do longer hooks statistically get more attention? If not it's not a particularly useful cross-categorization. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, and the amount of effort it would take me to get together a statistically significant sample would be ridiculous, so I'm gonna say "idk" and leave it there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 21:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a fun thing to put together some statics on, now I'm interested... would need a good way of scraping DYK data though. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: the average hook that made the DYKSTATS page in November 2021 was 124.7 characters long—the average hook for the month overall was 121.5 characters long. I also couldn't find any correlation between hook length and views per hour for the hooks that made it to the stats page (searching for a correlation overall would be a pain and a half). So, I'm going to say no, no immediate correlation. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 21:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ideas. I like the first one. I'd want to count multi-hooks as 1 credit for simplicity (and to stop someone getting it from just one nomination—we already have Wikipedia:Did you know/Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame). I'm not sure I actually understand the DYKnom/DYKmake distinction—can you tell me why sometimes you have one credit and sometimes the other? To be honest, I find "Hooker" a funny name, so I'd be willing to run with it unless anyone has anything better. It also gives me an idea for another:

Everywhere you look (working title): have content featured at three different sections of the main page simultaneously (TFA, ITN, DYK, OTD, TFP/TFL).

I just wonder whether three actually ever happens, or if two would be rare enough. (Two for the Challenge, three as a bonus?) Whoever got the credit for COVID-19 pandemic might have managed three at once...

On Interstate commercialist, I'm loathe to make a U.S.-specific challenge, but Diplomat is more promising, so I might meditate on that one. There's something I feel the other challenges mostly have in terms of "being a complete set" of something that "10 articles that meet this condition" doesn't quite fit, so I'm wondering if maybe there's some challenge relating to each continent on the planet that fits here.

As for Punchy, the more I think about it, the more I feel that being under 100 characters is not the right type of material for a challenge, because it has some sort of relation to quality. A good-quality hook is generally concise, but sometimes it needs to be longer than 100 characters and cramming it in a shorter limit would decrease quality. The aim with many of these General challenges is to rely on factors that are arbitrary and independent of quality—the random day of the month that a hook makes it to the main page (Calendar); the random letter a topic starts with (Alphabet) etc. — Bilorv (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: I'll answer the rest momentarily, but a DYKmake credit is given to anyone who helped create, expand, or otherwise improve the article to make it eligible for DYK. If the person who nominates the article wasn't involved with creation/expansion, they get a DYKnom credit instead. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 00:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to count multi-hooks as just one :) I hear your criticisms of Diplomat and Punchy, I agree that they're not the best—maybe there's a way to improve Diplomat. Possibly:

For the five populated continents of Eurasia, North America, South America, Africa, and Oceania, create ten articles such that each one pertains to two countries on two different continents, so that each pairing of continents is covered.

Eh, too complicated. As for Everywhere you look, I believe that articles that appear on ITN or OTD are ineligible to appear at DYK, unfortunately :l. Also, the timing it would take for an article to make it through DYK's queues at the same day it appears on TFA would be impeccable.

Secretly, I did like the name hooker when I suggested it. I'd be more than happy to run with that :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 01:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "Everywhere you look" thing needs rewording if that's your interpretation—I meant that you would have three different pieces of content in three different sections of the main page simultaneously. So you might have the day's TFA, a DYK hook in one of the slots for that day, and something "Ongoing" in ITN. You only need all three to appear at once for a split second (maybe something new is promoted to ITN and that bumps your credited article off). It would still have to be very fortunate timing outside of your control (with one way round that I can think of)—but that's the point.

I do like that new Diplomat—I'd want each of the fifteen combinations of pairs of the six populated continents (Europe and Asia separately), and I can list the combinations in a note. I don't think it's too complex (but that might be my maths brain talking). I'd drop the unique country requirement in this case.

Thanks for the DYKmake/DYKnom explanation—I've added a note requiring DYKmake for the existing Challenges as that was my intention (hopefully that doesn't change the status of the people already listed as winners). — Bilorv (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I like "Everywhere you look" now! That would still be super difficult, but all of these challenges are, really. As for Diplomat, happy to extend it to six (although it does irk me that they're clearly the same continent), and listing them all in a note would probably clear it up, yeah. I also appreciate that you can simplify my word-spaghetti into more concise challenge statements, too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 18:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Bilorv, if you wanted to make a "fifty states" challenge not specific to the U.S., you could extend it to all of the provinces of any country—bonus for picking one of the other 192+ countries we seem to ignore :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 23:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we could extend it to "all the divisions of a country", but then it's a bit unbalanced in difficulty: 50 U.S. states is a bit hard than 9 South Korean provinces. I've added "Diplomat" and "Everywhere you look" (renamed "Wall-to-wall coverage" for now). — Bilorv (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough :) cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like, getting a DYK/GA/FA for one each of the winners of the Big Four (Grammy Awards), Big Five Oscars, or Big Six Tonys? (I'd say "create" but those basically all already have articles anyway so improving to DYK/GA/FA seems more achievable). Bonus if you do it for of the entries of the same year. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I didn't know the major awards were formalised as such. Probably because the Emmys are the awards I know best and there's not such a clear set of "big" categories. I think, to be honest, two different Challenges about show business awards would be a bit too niche. I'm looking for even the "Topic-specific" challenges to be quite broad and diverse, and EGOT already stands out as the most constrained (the rest are about bios, books, and geographic-themed subjects—very wide-ranging). — Bilorv (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're not really formalized, but those are generally the big deal ones that people tune in for (ask your average person which Oscars they can name and they'll probably be the Big Four first). Fair cop on over-coverage though!

Now that I'm here, rather than create a new section, I'll just tweak the section header and carry on. What about...creating an outfit? An article each on a type of hat, top, bottoms, and footwear, either in general like jeans or individual garments like Thriller jacket. A dress or robe or something like that would arguably be a top, or I suppose could be claimed as either top or bottom. Fictional garments or garments from religion/mythology/pop culture like the coat of many colors would count. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, now an "Outfit" challenge is a really creative idea. I wonder how to make it rigorous/objective without being (Western) culture-specific or too narrow. I'm wondering if there's something here about improving articles with specific substrings in the title e.g. for "hat", you could have Top hat or Manhattan. Maybe that's a separate challenge, as it would start to exclude a lot of garment-related articles (e.g. fascinator). — Bilorv (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we want to prompt article creation and reduce systemic bias, the way to go is fairly loose. As long as it's considered a garment it can be counted for any part of the body that it normally covers, nominator picks one if it's more than one. So, a notable type of hooded cloak could be claimed as a hat or a top, a dress could be top or bottoms, and footed stockings could be bottoms or footwear. That way we don't get bogged down in precise definitions of what's what - we can just say "yup it would cover that area on a paper doll, check". It doesn't have to be a nice-looking outfit, after all :P Bonus for making an accessory article too, maybe. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, an article can count for any part of the body it covers, but only one (can't check off all of hat, top and bottoms for burqa)? And we're asking for "hat" (head), "top" (torso), "bottoms" (legs) and "footwear" (feet), and that's a complete list? — Bilorv (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately you're the decider since it's your challenge page, but yeah, I think that's good. Limiting it to four broad categories and letting the nominator pick what counts for where keeps it simple and reduces the potential for quibbling. You could also allow for a bonus for having them all be from the same culture/continent/some other theme, or perhaps a bonus for creating an article about an accessory. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've gone for this as "Well-dressed". And while we're here I've repurposed my "contains the letters 'hat'" into a different Challenge, "Elementary". — Bilorv (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a silly idea, but I feel like it would be cool to have a "bonus" to the challenge for getting an edit in all 24 currently-editable namespaces. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit annoyed I couldn't reasonably pick a round number larger than 20: I wanted 25. If I were to add a bonus, it would be for 25, as I'm allowing transwiki and now-deprecated namespaces. (If someone showed me they'd contributed to backend code behind a Special/File page then I'd allow that too.) But crossing off MediaWiki requires admin+ rights, so I think it's all just a little bit too unreasonable. — Bilorv (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can get an edit in the MediaWiki namespace without +sysop provided you edit a page later moved there. But I guess it is a bit much to ask of people. Come to think of it, I certainly edited something in the Book namespace, though I don't have an easy way to prove it, so I guess I've edited in 25 namespaces? Elli (talk | contribs) 21:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very true on the MediaWiki point. I think I'd also have a Book namespace edit—presumably admins could see somehow by checking deleted subpages of Wikipedia:Books/archive. It might not really be feasible to tell unless you could name a book you edited. If someone can say for sure they've edited in the namespace, that'd definitely count for one here. I think I'll leave the bonus for now, as it's getting quite complicated. — Bilorv (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that @Elli has two deleted edits that used to be in the Book namespace. (Easy to check using the "Wikipedia" namespace filter in deleted contributions). —Kusma (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]