Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Awards: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:46, 2 January 2023

Tutorial

Discussion

New page feed

Reviewers

Curation tool
Suggestions

Coordination

Backlog drives

NPP backlog

Articles: 11920 ↑86
Oldest article: 5 years old
Redirects: 34588
Oldest redirect: 16 years old
Article reviews: 1434
Redirect reviews: 2771

There is a very large articles backlog
The articles backlog is growing rapidly (↑603 since last week)
There is a very large redirects backlog

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Hall of Fame

While looking at this, I thought it would be fun/interesting to have a "Hall of Fame" also. Just a table listing everyone who has received a top-level award (silver and higher, and Redirect Ninja), with all their top-level awards from all years. I'm guessing it would have about 20 lines. Totally up to you. MB 06:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's revisit the Hall of Fame after i'm done with the 2018 awards. I've added it to my todo queue. If some wikiproject has this already, please send me a link, so that i don't have to think up a format from scratch. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't seen this anywhere else. But a simple table would do: MB 17:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Hall of Fame
Editor	Awards
User1	(2035), (2028)
User2	(2020, 2019, 2017)

This looks doable; lets see till what tier we can add winners before it becomes too unwieldy. This will be after the 2018 awards though, which will be in a week or so. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK does have a table listing all the awards for an individual at Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_DYKs, but its not quite the same as that shows a check for each level reached in a progression based on number of DYKs. MB 17:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB, I've created a hall of fame for folk who have gold or higher (included Redirect Master in that). Skipped silver, otherwise there would be about 40 rows. My problem with it is that it has information that is repeated in other parts of the Awards page. Alternatively, the hall of fame can be for reviewers who have done 20,000 article reviews all-time (please check this query). This can be kept updated annually, and my guess is that 0-2 reviewers enter the hall of fame annually. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. We could reduce the size of the icon to make the table smaller. You really can't make it out at this size anyway and have to hover to see which award it is. In looking at it, it should probably only include people that have two or more awards. That would cut out the bottom six. What would happen then if we added silver back in, but with the above change? Only include two silvers, silver and gold, etc. MB 02:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16 rows with silver. Added it to the same page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is good. It's not too big, and as you said, probably won't grow much (0-2/year) The only other suggestion I have is on the order. I can't tell what the order is now. Probably should be alphabetical, or by total number of awards (highest first). Thanks for doing this. MB 03:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you think about my alternate proposal "hall of fame can be for reviewers who have done 20,000 article reviews all-time" too? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of overlap. Everyone who has 20,000 lifetime articles reviews is already listed, except for two. When you say alternate proposal, do you mean use this instead of or in addition to the multi-award table? If you mean in addition, that is fine. There could be another table after the H-O-F awards table with the leaders-by-lifetime-counts. We could just call the entire thing the H-O-F. It could be those with more than 20k, or it could be fixed at the top 20 highest. That is another way of looking at the top reviewers. MB 04:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave the lifetime table then. I've removed the table with the larger images and added a new table where i think the order (olympic medal table) is more intuitive. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like your new table, that is another way of displaying the info. I made a few formatting changes to the tables. Since we have no space constraints, We could still add top reviewers by total review count as a third table - wouldn't that recognize a few people that have not qualified for the HOF because their work was spread out over more years? MB 15:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we are just planning to link this page from the main Awards page, and not transclude it (3 tables is too much otherwise). I've added the third table (leaderboard). Yes, it includes folk whose work has been more spread out. I'm making this a top-10 leaderboard, instead of 20K+ reviews. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be on the awards page. That page isn't too long. Or it could be collapsed by default like the yearly winners sections. MB 15:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing works for me. I've added it just above the Previous winners section. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick suggestion: may want to add the criteria to get into the hall of fame to the /Awards#Hall of Fame page or the /Awards/Hall of Fame page. Nice job with it, I like the idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One is a top-10 and the other two have attached footnotes. Not enough? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap I completely missed the footnotes. My suggestion would be to promote the footnotes to prose that is placed right before the corresponding table. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 awards

@MB and Novem Linguae: Could you take a look at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards/Previous winners/2022 to see if there are any issues. Thanks. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Nice to see that the usual power users stuck around and continued with their great work, one power user that had quit returned, and that some folks I have barely heard of are towards the top of the list, working quietly on the important work of keeping the backlog under control. Great job to everyone. A real team effort all around. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me too. MB 15:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the last NPP award is to I dream of horses for 151. Did you stop the query at 150? Surely there must be reviewers in the 100-149 range; the NPP standard barnstar is for 100+, right? MB 21:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Awards/Archives/1#Barnstar for all top 100 reviewers, we had decided to only award to the top 100 reviewers (who also get over 100 reviews). I applied this rule for the previous year's awards as well. I realise this isn't mentioned on the main awards page, which i can fix.

I'll start posting the rest of the awards anyway, since both of you have ok'ed them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't remember that. Also, Onel's name is not on the image for the cup. Didn't you add Johnb last year? MB 02:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 :::According to [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Awards/Archives/1#Barnstar for all top 100 reviewers]], we had decided to only award to the top 100 reviewers (who also get over 100 reviews). I applied this rule for the previous year's awards as well. I realise this isn't mentioned on the main awards page, which i can fix.
 :::I'll start posting the rest of the awards anyway, since both of you have ok'ed them. -[[User:MPGuy2824|MPGuy2824]] ([[User talk:MPGuy2824|talk]]) 02:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
+::::OK, I didn't remember that. Also, Onel's name is not on the image for the cup. Didn't you add Johnb last year? [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 02:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)