Wikipedia talk:Tyop Contest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Errors to correct[edit]

Many errors are listed at
Wavelength (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the list! Here's s'more: 1 2.
Have you considered joining the contest? Newyorkadam (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Yes, I have, but I prefer to avoid competition.
Wavelength (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for the link, I'll edit it in later! :) Newyorkadam (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Scoreboard format[edit]

I typically make 5000 edits a month; the simple spelling fixes take 15 seconds or so with AWB. The suggested scoreboard format is "#+amount [[PageName]] [LinkToDiff] (incorrect spelling->correct spelling)". If I took this contest seriously I might be spending 80% of my time filling in the scoreboard! -- John of Reading (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, what would you suggest to make it easier? Newyorkadam (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Something like "#Score - Description", so an editor could log the results of an editing session in a couple of lines. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
What if I want to verify that they actually made the edits? I would at least need a link to the diff. Newyorkadam (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Here's what I've come up with: "#+amount [linktodiff]" That removes the page name and the spelling change. Is that ok? I'll make the other parameters optional. Newyorkadam (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam
I don't think you've quite understood what John of Reading was saying, when someone uses AWB to fix typos their contributions look like this notice how many are being fixed in such a short space of time, to provide a diff for each of these edits would take more time than actually doing the edits! If you want to 'verify' that people have done the edits you would have to check their contributions from before they added them to the scoreboard. AWB uses a standard edit summary so this should be easy enough to count up typo fixes if you really wanted to. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... Is there a tool to search the edit summaries of users? I know you can check user contributions, but how can I filter out everything other than summaries that say 'typo'? Newyorkadam (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Found one! Unfortunately it doesn't count the number of edits, but I'm sure there's ways around that. Newyorkadam (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam
So all we'll have to do is enter "typo" in the edit summary box? Roberticus (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep! :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam


Please discuss any questions or comments relating to the scoring in this section :) Newyorkadam (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

What about who/whom? -- Ross HillTalkNeed Help? • 17:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... Good point (literally ;). How much do you think that should be worth? Newyorkadam (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Bulk scoring using Notepad++[edit]

@Newyorkadam: As I mentioned above, posting one line of scoring for each edit seems impractical. I've worked out how to use Notepad++ to do the scoring for me, based on my edit summaries. Please have a look at the current revision of User:John of Reading/Sandbox (permanent link), where I derive a score from my first 500 edits in December 2013. Would this method be acceptable? -- John of Reading (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi John, I'm really sorry for not posting this earlier-- you have to do absolutely no work at all with adding your typo fixes. I'm sorry that you spent time to create this system, but the way I'm doing it is by using User:Σ's Edit Summary Tool. I've talked to Σ on IRC and he agreed to add a special parameter for me that will automatically list everything in the following format (this is an example from your most recent typo correction:
# [[Lady Isle]] (Typo/[[WP:AWB/GF|general]] fixing, replaced: A 1896 → An 1896 using [[Project:AWB|AWB]]) 17:38, 14 January 2014, [ diff]
So, pretty much, you don't have to do anything submitting-wise :D -Newyorkadam (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Will that score one point per edit? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
No, what'll happen is I'll copy and paste that to your personal section on the Entries page, and I'll go through them manually and score them according to the amount of points you deserve. No points will be finalized until it's verified by me or another judge. -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Hmm, have fun with that, then. If you manage to review one edit every 10 seconds then 5000 edits will take you over 13 hours. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to be reviewing while the contest is going on, and I'll have help (from other judges). -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
OK... -- John of Reading (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you planning on joining? You can sign up here! :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
If signing up means someone has to spend hours reviewing my contributions, then probably not. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I really don't mind... I enjoy doing it anyway :) With each one I check, I know that Wikipedia was helped. -Newyorkadam (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
@Newyorkadam: Could you please help me understand your comment above? Will you be using the tool to record everyone's results, or just John of Reading's results? I also found out pretty quickly that it takes more time to record the results than to fix the errors, which makes the contest somewhat counterproductive. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Hi there Batty! I'm actually using a system that will take no effort on your part submitting diffs. All you'll need to do is write something similar like 'fix typo' or 'correct spelling' or something in your edit summaries. The way I'm going to find your fixes is by using Σ's Edit summary search tool. I will then manually confirm each fix :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
@Newyorkadam: That's great news - thanks! You might want to make this explicit on the contest page. If the diffs I've added to my section of the scoring page mess you up, please feel free to delete them. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I just added an information box at the top of the Entries page about submitting corrections- thanks for suggesting that. And yes, when I get to your corrections, I will delete the way you've submitted them and add the way that everyone else has their corrections submitted, just to stay consistent. Thanks! -Newyorkadam (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Thanks for the note. I removed my own contributions and added the note about my edit summaries. Hope I've done it correctly now. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

New example needed[edit]

"The dogs' bone" is fine if two dogs share one bone. A different example of a typo is needed for this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I changed it! Newyorkadam (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam


The contest is to begin in February, right? Wikipedia:Tyop Contest/Entries shows User:TheOriginalSoni already logging entries. Chris857 (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Is it? I must have missed that. I assumed since we were being welcomed, the contest must have begun/might have been close. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yep, February! I'm going to make a banner on the entries page about how it hasn't started yet. Newyorkadam (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam


Do you get points for every correction made, even if making bulk-corrections within a page? For example, for the WikiProject Lepidoptera, I am correcting the names of entomologists that are frequently misspelled (Herrich-Schäffer tends to get misspelled as Herrich-Schaffer, Oberthür as Oberthur, Hübner as Hubner, etc.) and this often leads to massive sums of corrections on a single page. (Think "enough that search-and-replace crashes five times before I'm finished correcting one of these names within an article" massive sums). An example would be this one, which has around 900 or so such corrections. Would that edit count as 900 (or however many correction it is, I -think- 917) points on its own? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question-- The answer is yes. If you were to correct the tyop 'somtimes' to 'sometimes' 1,000 times in an article you'd get 1,000 points. I guess you're in luck :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
I suppose so. Lots of work, though, so if someone wants to "steal my kill" as to say, and grab a bunch of them, they're most certainly welcome to help. I can dump a list of entomologists that need correction on people's talkpages if they want me to. Going to be nasty to check, too. Because search-and-replace keeps crashing, it doesn't give me the numbers corrected, so that leaves me the options of manually counting or dumping the article pre-correction in a word-document and use that one's "search" to figure it out. Unfortunately, pasting an article the size of most Lists of Lepidoptera of [...]" into Word results in crash, and even if I get it in, searching it as a whole results in crash. I had to split it into four pieces to figure out the exact amount of typos for this one. Results were 909 total (Alpheraky -> Alphéraky: 1; Denis & Schiffermuller -> Denis & Schiffermüller: 400; Herrich-Schaffer -> Herrich-Schäffer: 135; Hubner -> Hübner: 372; Oberthur -> Oberthür: 1), but if I know I'm going to count beforehand, I can do it slightly easier when correcting. Costs me about a minute more to correct and about five minutes less to count, so that seems worth it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I can see how this could cause a problem, because you could get hundreds of points in a matter of minutes, maybe even seconds. I'm thinking of making a maximum of 10 points per correction of the same word on the same page (for example, if someone spells 'because' as 'becuase' 15 times and you correct them all, you'd only get 10 points. Thoughts? -Newyorkadam (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
That's an option. Another option would be a maximum of a certain amount of points for the same correction on the same page plus 1 per larger amount. I mean something along the lines of "only the first 10 count as a point each and then one further point per, say, 50 further corrections". That would lead to a total of 1 (Alphéraky) + 10+7 (Denis & Schiffermüller) + 10+2 (Herrich-Schäffer) + 10+7 (Hübner) + 1 (Oberthür) = 48 points for said edit I mentioned above, which seems reasonable for the amount of time it takes. One such edit tends to take between three and seven minutes (average: five) simply due to the difficulty wikipedia or word-processors have processing such an amount of search-and-replaces. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really following you... So if I fix 'somtimes' to 'sometimes' 100 times in one article, I'd get 12 points? 10 points from the first ten fixes, then two from the 90 left? -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

11 (90 divided by 50 = less than 2), but yes, something along those lines. It's not that huge an amount, but in result, it's at least a bit more fair than "hm, let's see. I've fixed Denis & Schiffermüller 400 times in this article. That's 10 points. I've fixed Denis & Schiffermuller 11 times in that article... that's also 10 points". Of course, the 1 point per 50 further corrections is just a thought. It's also possible per 25 or 75 or whatever you'd prefer as rule. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine. What do you think? 25, 50, 75, or something else? -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
25 or 50, I think. (The 48 points aforementioned article would get based on 50 can be divided up in 32 "normal" points and 16 "per-50-further" points. In other words, 32 points for 32 corrections and 16 points for 877 corrections. With 25 it would be 66 points, 32 of them "normal" and 34 of them "per-25-further", which is 32 points for 32 corrections and 34 points for 877 corrections). Whichever seems most fair to you. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think I'll just do 10 points for 10 corrections and 1 point per the next 50 corrections. However, I'm going to round down (so if you get 11 corrections you get 11 points, and if you get 59 corrections you still get 11 points). -Newyorkadam (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
One point extra per full 50, then, which is what I would indeed suggest. Makes most sense and is easiest to check. Except that 11 edits would then be 10 points, I'd think. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that's much less confusing. -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Looks like it still needs to be added to the scoring rules on the project page. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks :) Added. -Newyorkadam (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
No problem. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
"Please note that if you correct something worth more than one point (for example, "then/than" for three points) ten times you'd get 30 points. However, if you were to correct it 60 times, you'd get 13 points (because you get three added points for the fifty corrections)" - shouldn't that be 33? 30 for the first 10 and 3 for the additional 50? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@AddWittyNameHere: Derp... fixed. -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam


If I come across a vandalistic edit that introduced a typo, does reverting the vandalism count for the contest? Chris857 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Chris857: That's a very good question... What do you think? -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Not Chris857, but I would personally say, yes if it's vandalism where a word already existing in the article got butchered and the revert caused it to be spelled correctly again, no if the whole word got rev'ed out. (Y'know, like the "i luve yu -name-" vandalism. Sure, it's misspelled, but it never belonged in the article anyway, whether spelled correctly or not). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding bonus prize[edit]

Does this only count in case of correcting the exact same typo repeatedly, or does, say, correcting mantains to maintains and mantained to maintained as the "same" typo? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: The latter (mantains and mantained). -Newyorkadam (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Ping didn't get through, probably because of re-edit to add it (and thus no "new" signing of the post to go along with it), but as I have this page on watchlist anyway, it's no big deal. Thank you, it was what I assumed to be the case, but as it had not been stated explicitly one way or another, I figured it might be best to ask. After all, we all know the expression regarding assuming things, I'd say. As I have to keep track of which typos I correct which number of times regarding the bonus, I'll be making a page in userspace for that and keep it updated once a day. If you prefer, I can dump the link here. Means you don't have to check through my whole contribs list to find out my correction-edits.
I've clarified the system for the bonus in the rules. And there's no need to put your list here, as I can already find all of your corrections by using Σ's edit summary search tool :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Thank you. I just wondered if you'd like the link because I'll have to keep track anyway what with the bonus. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I actually saw a link to the page from your contributions page, good luck ststioning yourself the bonus reward :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Of course, I'll need to do some proper "mantaining" of my track-keeping page for that "affort" to "suceed", though that is not much of a "suprise", is it? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That would certainly be quite an acheviment, however, I hope your mind does not become harrrassed with typo-fixings in the process! -Newyorkadam (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam


In the example on the contest page, would capitalizing "Oscar" be another point? GoingBatty (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, capitalization is one point :) Clarifying that now. I've seen quite a few capitalization fixes. -Newyorkadam (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Question about scoring[edit]

Just wondering why #29 in my entries has a little red x next to it. The diff shows several typo fixes. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Sorry about that! Fixed, +2 :) Great job so far! -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Points and contributions[edit]

How ofter are the contrubiotios added to this page? I signed up yesterday (a little late, I know...), and was wondering how ofter the entries pages was updated? (tJosve05a (c) 11:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Been a while, from what I can tell. I know there's still a good 150-200 edits (with a total of about 7000-something corrections, I think) of mine not yet there. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It appears that Wikipedia:Tyop Contest/Entries was last updated on 9 February, and the Wikipedia:Tyop Contest/Scoreboard was last updated on 11 February, but there are hundreds of entries that have not yet been verified and added to the scoreboard. That's a ton of work to do just for the first third of the month. Hope there's an automated way to do the work! GoingBatty (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe that they have a method to filter out the relevant edits, but they do seem to manually check each edit to see how many points it's worth, check for false positives, etc. Once listed with the number of points, I do believe they have (or had) a bot to update the scores. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
@Josve05a: @GoingBatty: @AddWittyNameHere: I'm taking a short break from judging, but we won't stop until every last entry is judged! We will send out a wrap-up message at the end of the contest and another at the end of judging (which could take some time). Thanks :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Submission process for bonus prize?[edit]

Could you please let us know the appropriate submission process for the bonus prize? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: You can either make a list of your corrections or just tell me of a large amount of typo corrections you made for one word.-Newyorkadam (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Note to both self and people following that first link: it's not exactly up-to-date. It currently misses roughly 7000 corrections of the same correction, amongst other things. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@AddWittyNameHere: Please try to get that list complete by the end of the contest (February 28) Face-smile.svg -Newyorkadam (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Will do. Already planned it for tomorrow or the day after anyway. However, if I somehow unexpectedly do not manage to get it complete by the 28th, I'll drop you a line to let you know it's not a 100% updated yet and when it'll be done. (Though I intend to update at the very least the Hubner->Hübner corrections ASAP. I doubt there'll be a different correction I'll make more often than that in the remaining few days anyway, so as long as that's up-to-date, we both should be fine, yes?) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Yah. -Newyorkadam (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

A cautionary tale[edit]

I fix typos in the Wikipedia namespace. I failed to add "Tyop Contest" to my regex of pages that the database scanner should skip. Result: when AWB reached that page, there was a five minute wait while it chewed through all the available RAM, then a memory exception, then another 15 minutes wait before I got my CPU back. Not recommended! -- John of Reading (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this! That's funny, you must've been worried when there were 7,000 more typos than usual ;) -Newyorkadam (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

When will scoring be completed?[edit]

Just curious as to when the scoring will be completed. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Just as I am about to go on a judging rampage, which has been about five times, something comes up in real life. I can guarantee that scoring will be completed, there's no need to worry. Thanks. -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
@Newyorkadam: Will the scoring be completed before this year's contest? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Unfortunately, I don't think there will be another contest this year, unless someone wants to take over judging. Regarding last year's contest, I am going to look over everyone's submissions and get a good idea of how many points everyone would've scored. I hugely underestimated how much time it would take to judge all of these; it would take a lot of time judging them, which frankly I don't think is a good use of anyone's time (that otherwise could be spent fixing typos/improving Wikipedia). I will personally give the rewards to the winners because I was supposed to finish the judging and let Wikimedia UK know who won months ago, and it doesn't feel right to tell them now. I apologize and I hope you understand. -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam