Contents

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Awards

Weather: Tropical Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This page is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Awards Subpages[edit]

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Awards/Hurricanehink
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Awards/Hurricane Noah
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Awards/ChocolateTrain
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Awards/KN2731
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Awards/Yellow Evan
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Awards/Destroyeraa
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Awards/CodingCyclone

@Hurricanehink: Here is rough draft of point accumulation and leveled awards. Noah^Talk 13:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good Noah! Hopefully we can get the system implemented by the next newsletter (which I figured should come out on June 1st, the start of Hurricane season in the Atlantic). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Im working on user boxes here. Noah^Talk 02:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for doing/arranging this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Moved this to a project page as it is nearing the end stages. I added a subpage for myself as an example. Noah^Talk 03:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are these lifetime edits? Or do points only count from when the award scheme was created? I'm also slightly dreading figuring out my own point total, somewhere in the 5-6 digit club. My 76 FAs total 15,200 points, add another 10,000 from ~300 GA's. When I'm bored someday I'll figure it out. Good work though getting this together. Could you write up something about it for the newsletter and for the project talk page? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Clarified that it is lifetime edits. FYI, I could technically add more levels beyond this (with much more difficulty) if need be. Noah^Talk 19:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I'm working on revising the whole system to make it more editor friendly and fun to earn levels. All the awards will get a major redesign so they look more professional. This will also encompass all of weather as well. Noah^Talk 22:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Points are now set for all levels. Points for nominations were doubled and special awards revised. I have also introduced titles for 24 of the 40 levels. The first set it based around starting one's WP adventure and I used various adventurer ranks. The second set is based on military orders (cloud names in this case for the orders); supposed to be a regional level. The third set is based around Zeus's temple (Weather God) in Athens and guarding the weather scrolls (and possibly getting access to their knowledge and arcane abilities). People were appointed by the Caelus's (weather in Latin) sovereign to those positions. The fourth set will be based around the Sovereign's court, with the highest title in the set being the King/Queen/Sovereign. The last set will be based on various weather deities, ranking from least powerful to most powerful. Titles may be dynamic in nature and having multiple options to choose from. Noah^Talk 02:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: First of all, great work on everything you've done here so far! You've clearly been putting in a heap of effort. I have a suggestion for an amendment to the TC Edits criterion. At present, very small edits such as adjusting the punctuation in a sentence, or updating the infobox of a current cyclone, or adding words here and there, etc., are weighted the same as edits which take a significant amount of time and effort to do. This results in a disproportionately high number of points for people who have many small edits compared to those who often contribute with large edits. For example, I often make edits with more than one hundred bytes, and it is not uncommon for me to make edits with more than 1000 bytes of information. I think an excellent amendment to the system to take this into account would be to include a multiplicative scaling value to the total number of points achieved through TC edits. For example, the average edit size of a user could be divided by some number (this number would represent a 'standard' edit size), and then the quotient could be multiplied by the old number of points that they would have got just through edit quantity alone. Possible 'standard' edit sizes could perhaps be 20, 25 or 30 bytes, or something like that. The final result would then be rounded down to the nearest integer. The formula for points from TC edits would be as follows:

${\displaystyle P=\left\lfloor {\frac {NS_{User}}{10S_{Standard}}}\right\rfloor ,}$

where

• ${\displaystyle P}$ is the number of TC Edit Points
• ${\displaystyle N}$ is the total number of TC article edits
• ${\displaystyle S_{User}}$ is the user's average edit size in bytes
• ${\displaystyle S_{Standard}}$ is an agreed-upon 'standard' edit size in bytes (e.g. 20, 25, 30, etc.)

Note that the user's average edits size, ${\displaystyle S_{User}}$, would have to take into account all edits across all articles and name spaces, even those not related to WP:WPTC. This is because it would be effectively impossible to find the average edit size for only TC articles. Also, the constant, ${\displaystyle 10}$, in the formula refers to the number of TC article edits per point awarded that you originally specified in the criteria. This can of course be changed, with a higher number resulting in fewer points, and vice versa.

Thanks again for all the work you've put into this. I think it is a wonderful initiative. ChocolateTrain (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChocolateTrain: I will include this... The average shall be 200 bytes in order to limit the number of points for people with greater edit sizes. With my average of 225, I would get 1500+ points with only 30 as the average. Two hundred would be much better as it will increase the difficulty for those with higher averages while keeping it okay for those with lower averages. Noah^Talk 22:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: That sounds good. I think 200 bytes is a good choice—I agree that 1500 points is a huge amount for edits! ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChocolateTrain and Hurricane Noah: a user's average edit size for each TC article can actually be found using XTools at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/username/0/article_name (replace username and article_name with your own and the article in question). ~ KN2731 {t · c} 11:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KN2731: Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the tip! Although, it is probably more practical just to use the overall average edit size, because checking this for every single article individually might be a pain. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]