This page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
There are several editors which signed up to the contest but haven't made a submission in the 3+ months of the contest. I'm going to remove them from the scoreboard, but if they want to be put back in, just drop me a line.
The "In the news" item has yet to be used, and I think with the limited scope of this contest it may not be usefull, so I'm going to remove it. If anyone has suggestions for other scoring issues, please bring it up at the contest talk page.
Sorry about how late this round-up is, but I got a little burnt out this month. I could use some help in scoring if anyone want to volunteer, and I'm thinking of implementing self scoring, with me just reviewing for scoring errors. (This wouldn't be in the current round, and probably not the next, but soon.)
Again, congratulations to all competitors! Our most successful round yet, let's try to build on it!- TrevorMacInniscontribs 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion
It appears that the contest, though a fantastic idea, ended up being too much work for one person to sustain. Should we stick a fork in it and declare it done, or can we rustle up a posse of editors who will back each other up and cover the contest's many tasks? Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I like the contest. I'll volunteer to help out, although I might have some trouble with complicated wiki stuff. But I can tabulate and verify with the best of them. Maybe have someone else promise to verify/count my submissions so as to avoid any sense of impropriety. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I can handle a lot of the general assessment and tabulation stuff with the scoring, etc., if someone else will assess my own stuff, but I'm a bit unsure exactly how to move the monthly pages, etc. So if someone could handle that part I'd be perfectly happy to maintain the scoring table and come through and tabulate progress once a week or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what's become of Trevor, but I'm prepared to continue the contest, purely out of self-interest, mind you. I think the best thing to do is to end this next round on 28 February since everybody's been unsure about its fate and may not have been working on aviation articles in the meantime. I've updated the December scores and archived them. I've prepared a draft of the December newsletter and will post it and award the appropriate gongs after I take a break. I'd be obliged if those who are still interested would archive their December submissions page as Trevor did and create a blank submissions page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I liked the contest in November when I had time and inclination to compete, but I jump around to different subjects more often than just sticking with aviation. I can't see me getting into contest administration, an activity that will take away from content creation, my favorite part of WP. I am cutting myself loose, guys, so good luck with it and have fun! Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry guys, I missed this on the 11th. I'm a bit surprised at Trev's absence without notice but I think we can carry on. If between us we check each others' scores and award the points I think we should be fine. To be honest I'm inclined to just complete this round end Jan as originally planned - I'm sure it won't make any difference to who comes first anyway... ;-) I'd be sorry to see you go, Binksternet. No real need for you to do much admin, if Storm and I and Sidewinder do combine in Trev's absence, that'd be plenty. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Actually I've done very little with aviation at all this month as most of my efforts have been devoted to Russian BB's to take advantage of a book from Interlibrary Loan that I've got until the end of the month. I can access my aviation books just by sliding the chair over and grabbing them off the shelf. So I really would prefer to extend it until the end of next month. Otherwise I might actually break my perfect record and we wouldn't want that now, would we? I agree that we can each tally up each other's points for articles and such; I really don't want people to self-assess or report without somebody else validating things. It's just a bad precedent. I think that we can all step in and handle the admin stuff; it's only the end of month stuff that's really a PITA. And once I let my ADD work itself out I can finish the newsletter and award the gongs. Actually the newsletter has been updated except for the ending comments which one of y'all can finish if you have time. It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Newsletter/December 2009, otherwise I'll do it tomorrow after I get some sleep.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think I'd prefer to end this round in January as planned. (Plus, the banner at the top of this page has us ending in 9 days anyway! I think we should notify all the people entered into the contest that, yes, it's still alive, and they should update their entries for January. From there we can keep up with it on our own. (With each other checking the others scores, we don't need to check our own. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Note: I just realized that the scores haven't been updated for December. I haven't submitted and of my January work yet, but I still have a bunch of December work unaccounted for. I therefore suggest that we combine December and January into one score, and then restart the monthly tally in February. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
(outdent) I updated the December scores already, but I do seem to have missed your stuff. Is there anything else missing? I'll fix that once you've updated your submissions page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've got stuff to add for January, but that should be all for December!-SidewinderX (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
For the December contest newsletter, you might want to add the three most-viewed DYK entries, just for color:
Thanks, Binksternet. I hadn't even noticed the link to the summary page with the view count in the newsletter. I've updated the scoring with SidewinderX's missing stuff. I'm still inclined to run this next round as Jan-Feb, not Dec-Jan, mainly because I think contestants would prefer a newsletter/update sooner rather than later. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for updating my scores! I personally don't care if we do the Jan-Feb round or not. It might be a good idea to do that, so as to give us plenty of time to figure out how to handle everything. I think once the December update is published, we should leave a note on everyone's talk page to remind them about the contest. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sturmvogel, whenever you've decided what you want to do with the month split (remember, I don't care one way or another, so I think you're the deciding vote), let's roll the submission pages over to the next month (or months in the jan-feb case). -SidewinderX (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm cool with a combined Jan-Feb round now, partly because although I've been doing the work in January, I haven't found time to update my scoreboard... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for the lateness of this newsletter, but with Trevor missing in action I delayed to allow him time to get back into things. That hasn't happened yet, but I will, with the assistance of several volunteers, continue this in his absence. Purely out of my own self-interest, you understand.
Given all the uncertainty of the contest this month I think that the thing to do is to combine January and February's submissions as many people may not have decided to work on aviation articles this month. I know that I haven't.
If you would like to assist in keeping this contest alive please drop a line on the talk page.
Congratulations to all competitors! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Question that both pertains to me personally, and would be good to know so as to help administer the contest going forward... where do we archive past submission pages? I would like to update my submission page with my January/current stuff, but my December stuff hasn't been archived yet. How do I archive that page and still maintain the proper linking? (I.e., if I want to look at the November round, for example, now, I can see my submission from there) Does that make sense? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Took some experimenting for me to figure it out, but move your current submissions page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions/User name/December 2009 and then edit the redirect page with copied version of the blank submissions page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Is there a virgin submission page, or should I just delete the entries that are there? And should I go through users and archive their pages? -SidewinderX (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty sure that there's a blank page that Trevor built that has some code that he liked to use. If you can't find it you should be able to copy one of the unused submissions pages as there's no sense in moving stuff that still clean. And if you could go through those few that did actually submit something and move them that would be nice. One caveat is that the archived December scoreboard will need to have its submission page link changed to match the new page names. It's not high priority, but it should be done at some point to keep everything tidy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Another note: The December archive page still linked to everyone's active submission change. I'm in the process of updating that to the December archives. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ok, done. All the December submissions have been archived, and the users notified. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
The current score table, here, does not have the most updated scores in it. The December archive page seems to have the most up to date scores in it... we need to make sure this gets transposed over to the main page... is there any automatic linking between any of the score tables, or is everything manual? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's all manual. The December archive and the current page should have the same grant total as I simply zeroed out the former for the monthly totals. Nobody's updated the current page with whatever they have in progress.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it's just my total that wasn't correctly added :/ -SidewinderX (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry about that, but it's well known that I try and screw everyone who tries to help me so don't think that I was picking on you specifically ;-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm confused. How many points do you get for creating a article and bringing it to B? AirplaneProRadioChecklist 01:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've had a couple thoughts after looking at the scoring...
First, I propose that DYK and ITN entries be reduced to 1 or 2 points. I know it's nice getting promotion on the front page for those sorts of things, but it seems silly to me to get more points for a DYK than for creating an article from scratch, or improving one up to B-class.
Second, I suggest that we make completing a peer-review, a-class review, GA review, or FA review (reviewing an article, not just submitting an article for review) be worth 1 or 2 points. It is often hard to get reviews for these articles, and a point incentive might help.
I argued that the DYKs should be reduced earlier, but Trevor seemed pretty set on the current value. Let's leave all of the values alone for this round in case he resurfaces and we can decide what values to use for next month if he doesn't. I do think that points for reviews is a damn good idea and is probably helping generate some reviews in the WWI contest. It's 2 points each over there, which seems fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
