Wikipedia talk:Triple Crown/Archive 1

Valiant return award

About the "Valiant return triple crown winners" - I'm not sure whether this encourages vandals to reform, or encourages good editors to become vandals in an attempt to (eventually) get what is obviously the nicest of these awards! LOL! Carcharoth 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

While we're on this topic, could blocks be added to the list for the qualifications of the Valiant return award? If so, I can get it :D xihix(talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Protocol

At the risk of sounding really pedantic, I prefer the previous crowns. Because the current coronets signify real honours in current use, I don't think we ought to use them lightly.

The thing that is enjoyable about barnstars is that they have been lifted from their vernacular and given new purpose. But no one is entitled to use those three feathers and the motto ich dien except Charles Prince of Wales.

Can we go back to our old crowns, please? Amandajm (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means. No disrespect intended. I'll seek other alternatives. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaced that with one that's almost certainly historical. Try hitting refresh. I hope this is better. Durova^Charge! 21:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we nominate people for awards?

I am surprised not to see User:WillowW among your award winners. And I think User:Orangemarlin might be a good candidate for an award too, although I dont know about his DYK.--Filll (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly nominate other people. That's very thoughtful of you. :) Durova^Charge! 04:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

More on the valiant return and the new levels

Do you think the bar is being set too high for the valiant return one? I recently noticed this, and I was wondering if you can be persuaded to include "former vandals" in the conditions for User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle#Valiant return triple crown winners? :-) I like the new levels, with Napoleonic and now Alexander the Great. Who is closest to rising to the level of Iskander? And what on Earth can come next? Ghengis Khan, a Roman emperor, Queen Victoria? Will the theme always be military, or does it only have to be regal? Maybe it could go Russian. Who was the greatest of the Tsars? Anyway, it should be a while before people get to 15, let alone beyond that! Carcharoth (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The valiant return award was actually the original inspiration for the triple crown; an editor who had gotten topic banned at arbitration started an article that got into DYK and I gave him a resilient barnstar. Followed that up with an offer of a second barnstar if he contributed to a GA, then decided - what the heck - I'll set up this thing. He hasn't gotten that triple crown yet, but he's a pretty good editor now and the offer helped his morale. Since then I've given out several more resilient barnstars to other people in similar positions. If I lowered the bar it wouldn't mean the same thing to them and it might have an undesirable side effect of encouraging vandalism.

Let's wait until someone earns the Alexander the Great award before we start to discuss what comes next. Another interesting prospect came up a few hours ago: one of the WikiProject Australia triple crown winners is active at another WikiProject that's pretty close to meriting its own special edition award. Durova^Charge! 09:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see there is (or will be soon) a debut winner of the Valiant Return award! Good to see that happening. Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"In order to qualify for credit, each editor must create at least 10 line citations to the page"?

What does the above line mean, when referring to FAs? Is including cites the only criteria that has to be fulfulled here? 203.56.182.50 (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed this sooner. 10 citations is a baseline to tell the difference between minor and significant contribution. Durova^Charge! 21:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey crazy

Good evening Durova,

I was wondering if two DYKs, 1 GA (which then turned into an FA), 7 FAs (one which used to be the aforementioned GA) and 7 FLs would qualify for your lowest ranking triple crown? Just curious. All the best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, sure would. :) Durova^Charge! 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ooh. Now I'm nervous... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I fill in a form? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I ain't blowin' no trumpet but I got these lovely tokens to exchange for a favour... GA 1, FLC last, FLC last bar one, FLC last bar two, FLC last bar three, FLC last bar four, FLC last bar five, FLC last bar six and last FA, last FA bar one, last FA bar two, last FA bar three, last FA bar four, last FA bar five, last FA bar six, DYK 1, DYK 2. Just so you know m'lady... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I trade that up for something nice? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, another FA arrived on my doorstep yesterday... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The steeplechase

Do you think the requirement is too high? Even though you only need 5 out of 6, feature sound is WAY too hard to do, so that leaves us 5 out of 5 for the rest of them. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it counts if you find a historic public domain recording, convert to .ogg file, and upload. I'll even count if you spot a neglected file at the Commons archive, place it at an article, and transcribe/research enough information to pass featured sound candidacy. Durova^Charge! 03:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Upgrading?

Hiya, Durova! At the suggestion of a few wikipedians who can't help but notice I have picked up another DYK and GA nom I have arrived to fill out the paperwork for an upgrade, but I have to questions to ask before I do:

• Do I need to present the old DYK, GA, and FA for the update process?
• A point of clarification: according to DYK rules an existing article that has been expanded fivefold is eligable for DYK consideration; do these DYK noms count towards a triple crown? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly helpful tool

Per this discussion I've developed a bit of software, not sure of whether it would be of help to you guys. The basic description is:

• Examine all user edits, counting the user edits to the most recent 5,000 mainspace articles, and retrieve the article status and importance rating from the talk page categories. Summarize these for all articles where the user has made more than 20 edits.

The results for a few samples are available at this page. I've listed Cirt there for fun. It's very much a work in progress, I need to fix a few things as it is, and I'm also thinking of extending it to count links added to pages. This seems pretty close to what you do at TC, so I thought I'd make it known. I can run the tool on request. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Triple crown stats report: 22 December 2007

• Current regular awardees: 37
  • Total DYKs/GA/FC sets: 37
• Current imperial crown jewel awardees: 30 (4 promoted from regular triple crown).
  • Total DYK/GA/FC sets: 75
• Current Napoleonic awardees: 7 (5 promoted from imperial triple crown jewels).
  • Total DYK/GA/FC sets: 52
• Current Alexander the Great awardees: 0
• Current valiant return awardees:0
• Current WikiProject special edition awards: 2
  • Number of Wikipedians who hold special edition awards: 17
  • Unique DYK/GA/FC sets honored through special edition awards: 14

Total DYK/GA/FC sets honored through this program: 181

Total Wikipedians who hold triple crowns: 88 Durova^Charge! 06:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A table with these stats would work nice on the list page. Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Care to design it? (preferably on its own subpage) Cirt (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomination - Raime, SRX

I nominate User:Raime for all of the triple crowns he qualifies for. He deserves this award for all his hard work on the skyscrapers pages. Remember (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also nominate User:SRX, who just qualified for a triple crown. Remember (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. So do they get this award automatically or do I have to give it to them? Remember (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See Nomination instructions on this talk page's associated page. Cirt (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks. Don't know how I missed that. Remember (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Just to make sure I'm clear on the qualifications, a DYK only counts if you start the article from scratch, and not if you take it from a stub to a DYK or the like? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that would count as well. Cirt (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cool! ~goes to amend nom~ -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown Question(s)

Hi Durova. I hope you don't mind me pestering you, but I have a question or two in relation to the Triple Crown awards and was hoping you would be able to provide me with some answers? First off, for one to become eligible for the Wikiproject Australia Triple Crown would one have to just get one each of DYK, GA, and FC on a topic related to Australia? And, if so, would one be eligible for both the Wikiproject Australia Triple Crown and the Standard Triple Crown, or would two different credits of each be required? My main motivation for asking is that I hold a Standard Triple Crown and each of the articles it is for are Australian topics—Australian Victoria Cross recipients to be exact. Also, do each of the DYK, GA and FC need to be different? As in, if an article had been up at DYK and had passed as GA, would it count one for each or just one or the other? Same with GA to FA? Thank you very much for taking your precious time up to read this, and hopefully reply. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I originally posted this comment on Durova's talk page, and am adding it here now thinking it is a more appropiate posting due to the nature of the questions in relation to the Triple Crown. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, you would be eligible for both.
2. No, they do not have to be different.

Cirt (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested

I'd assume - but I may be wrong - that an article that once qualified for GA or FA but was later delisted (due to standards evolving and article not keeping track with them) would still count? I'd assume yes, because crowns are not dynamically updated or revoked after articles are delisted anyway...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to say about this, you may want to ask Durova (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

If you started an article that got nominated for DYK, but you didn't actually start it because it used to be a redirect page, but you made it an article, would that still count. If you have no idea what I'm on about, don't worry about it. I dont really care that much. --Spongefrog (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would. Cirt (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about being so late, I forgot to watchlist the page --Spongefrog (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Is rescuing an article during FAR also qualifying for a FA point?--Stone (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

wondering

1. 1) I nominated myself a while ago and never got a reply back, yet now I am listed in the winners circle. Should I have gotten a notice on my talkpage or something, or I should just assume I got it? Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
2. 2) this is also an old post about "Special Edition WikiProject Triple Crowns": the I believe WP:ELEM qualifies for such a crown since user:Mav, user:Cryptic C62, user:Itub, user:Stone and me have all have had an FA and a GA within the scope of the project and each of us have had at least one DYK. Nergaal (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

I just want to ask a quick question. In order to qualify for a triple crown, do you have to get a DYK, GA and Feature for the same article, or can each be from a different article? ISD (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Golden W Award

The Golden W, awarded for having content featured in every area of the main page.

The Golden W, with Laurels, awarded for having content thrice featured in every area of the main page.

The Golden W Award goes to editors who succeed in having content featured in every area of the main page: Featured Article, Did You Know, In the News, On This Day, and Featured Picture. It is currently proposed as a WikiProject. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Golden W Award if you are interested in making this WikiProject a reality. Time commitment is minimal, less than an hour a month at this point. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Delisting

What happens to Triple Crowns when content is delisted/demoted from it's featured/good status? I still have loads of featured and DYK content, but after the GA sweeps (and a new GA promotion) I have only 2 GAs, but have a 3x Triple Crown (as I used to have 3). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Q

I imagine that they remain. You don't lose them. However, it just makes it harder to reach the next Triple Crown level. Gary King (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

I know what is required but what about Valued pictures? Do they count for anything for a triple crown? Spongie555 (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Double crown holder?

I just noticed that I was never de-listed from the regular triple crown when I got the imperial triple crown jewels. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be listed on both, so I left a note on this talk page. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I'm in the same boat as you are. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(beleatedly) it's all fun, so bing listed in a few different cats is no problem. I've certainly never removed anyone from a smaller crown when they've qualified for a bigger one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Line citations?

Asked this over at Durova's page, but no answer yet, so will try here. Specifically the line "For purposes of these awards a major contributor would generally be someone who contributed at least ten line citations to an article." Does that mean in-line citations? If not, what does it mean? Ten sources? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, ten inline citations. We're moving to totally inline anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That means you could add a single source, and have ten different ref tags in ten different places, and you'd be considered a major contributor? Do I understand that correctly? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point, although if it is a meaty reference like a Review Article or something then I guess it is significant improvement. I agree it'd be better if it were more sources though. 11:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to convert all of the nominations to a four "line" format. At the higher levels, one entry per item of content takes up much more vertical space than one line per type (DYK, GA, FC) of triple-crown content. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

sounds good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Project special editions

I'm just curious if these are still being awarded. I requested one for WP:USRD a few years back, and it's yet to be done. Here is a discussion related to the design from October 2008. Just curious since it's been so long, and the page has one for the Food & Drink project listed as waiting to be claimed. Imzadi 1979 → 02:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Question re A-class

Hey all. Due to the backlog at WP:GAN#WAR (I didn't want to add to it), I have been submitting all of my articles to Milhist's A-class review. These are more thorough than a GAN (example). Would it be possible to IAR and use these for GANs so I can get an "Alexander the Great edition triple laurel crown"? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see why not, but there's no reason an A class and GA review couldn't be done simultaneously, is there? Which other wikiprojects besides Milhist have a good, solid A-class review process which meets or exceeds GA? Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

USRD has a ACR process that is essentially FA lite. --AdmrBoltz 22:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason that an article that's been through an ACR can't go through GAN (which it should pass easily) as a second, brief step, before any FAC. However, ACR != GAN. Durova, in creating this award, specifically rejected ACR as a substitute for one of the steps, since it's not a community process, but rather only a WikiProject process. I don't really support a change in the rules, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 02:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no pressing reason except there has been a constant backlog of roughly 50 articles at WP:GAN#WAR, and I saw no need to add to reviewers' burdens when I had a perfectly good non-backlogged process available to me. If I really truly cared about this award, I'd have submitted them anyway... I just want to be able to display an award like this on my userpage, but if the rules are really so rigid that formal reviews of a quality greater than GA can't be accepted, so be it.

I'm not asking for a permanent change to the rules, as A-class can be awarded by other means that are not so difficult or formal (I think 1.0 calls for a quorum of three/four supports on a talk page?), just a single exception to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in the future if needed. @Imzadi, I don't see what the difference is between a community process and a WikiProject process when both are giving thorough and unbiased reviews of articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Only a handful of projects award A-Class. Unlike GAN though, it doesn't have a checklist of criteria to assign. Any two additional editors could, at the appropriate talk page, arbitrarily agree to the the assessment. But that is no guarantee that the prose is well written, appropriately referenced using reliable sources, that article is broad in coverage, neutral, stable or that the images in the article have valid licenses or fair-use rationales. Now, of course, a bad GA reviewer could say that a bad article had all of these things, but unlike an individual talk page, WP:GAN is watched by many people, and that transparency helps keep things on the up and up. That's why the GA symbol finally got added to the articles' pages, but yet no A-Class symbols are added, even though some projects do run a stringent ACR process. Imzadi 1979 → 09:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, please see WP:MH/A for our criteria. Obviously not all A-class assessments are ideal, but I'm showing you that the ones I have received are and hence the desire for an exception. If the rules are really so rigid that a single exception to them – even for formal reviews of a quality greater than GAN – can't be accepted, I'll go on my merry way and continue writing, but perhaps everyone needs to think about what the spirit of this award is. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you then proposing that MILHIST get an exception to the rules that others don't? Sorry, I can't support that either even if the process criteria exceed GA criteria. I think you'd find a lot of other editors would be upset that one project gets a different set of rules, even if that rule is extended to others, it wouldn't be extended to all. Imzadi 1979 → 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I am proposing a single-time IAR with no lasting effect on the rules. I would hope that the rules are bendable enough to allow that, as I would assume that is in the spirit of the triple crown, if not the letter. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

On an alternate proposal, can we instead say that anything that has become an FA would automagically count as a GA, even if it never went through the GAC process? At the very least, WIAFA exceeds WIAGA in every respect, and the scrutiny and oversight are certainly a good bit stricter than GAN. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It also wouldn't penalize people who don't put articles through GAN just to get a silly award... but it also takes the 'triple' out of 'triple crown'. How about you have to go through GAN for your first crown, but subsequent versions only need FACs? (first-time nominators going straight to FAC is normally a bad idea anyway...) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree with Ed on this, that obliterates the Triple. Plus, there's no such consideration for those who get the FC level with a FL, FP. FPort, FT or FS. There's no counterpart to GA for lists, yet a FLC can be just as difficult as a FAC. No, the existing criteria are fine as they are. If you want to earn the award, meet the established criteria instead of asking for exceptions. Those changes can alter the perception of what a TC means for those who have it through the long-established methods. P.S. The solution to a backlog in a review forum isn't to skip the forum, but to offer reviews. Imzadi 1979 → 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think any FLC is as difficult as an FA, actually. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And I agree with Jclemens here. I have never seen an FLC that is as difficult as FAC. PS I have little enough time to write articles, much less offer reviews, so I do what I can to alleviate the backlog. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Any additional comments on this? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see why if an article is A-Class, it should not be put through the proper GA process. Hey, your article gets a nice little green plus button at the top. Having said that, I am aware that MILHIST runs a tight ship when it comes to A-Classes, but once again, it brings me back to my point of taking it to the next step. Unless there is clear consensus that this can be accepted for the TC award, I am reluctant to accept any A-Class articles, as it is clearly stated in the rules that they must be GAs. By allowing this, we will open the gates and cause TC to have to assess every A-Class article individually, which is not the point of the TC. Our job here is not to access, but to check that the other assessment methods have been fulfilled. As the initial concern was that GAN was already busy, and one did not want to burden them further, I can tell you that they are running a backlog elimination drive next month. I suggest that this opportunity be taken to submit any potential GAs now. I know that many MILHIST members participated in this drive last time round, and the entire backlog was cleared. But this is my personal opinion. If there is enough consensus, we can change the rules, but it must apply to everyone, not just one or two WikiProjects. – SMasters (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong listing

I am listed in the "Imperial Napoleonic triple crown winners", but I have held the "Alexander the Great edition triple laurel crown" since 2009 (link, see my userpage for list of the articles). I don't want to correct this myself, so I hope somebody could review this and fix my placement? Thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll fix this for you over the next week or so. --SMasters (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Good topic

Can contributing a good topic to Wikipedia count towards obtaining a triple crown? Good articles obviously can, as can featured topics, but good topics seem to be the only area where editors are not rewarded for their efforts. V_oBEDD 15:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Many good topics seem to include at least one featured list, so they count in that manner. As much as good topics represent quite a lot of work, I'm not sure if it is appropriate to say "featured content and good topics", but certainly think a GT represents something along the same level of effort as some sorts of featured content. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured Sound

Since featured sound is now dormant for close to 9 months (with no hopes of reviving), it seems reasonable to drop this from the steeplechase and golden steeplechase requirement because it's impossible to achieve golden steeplechase anymore. People who have featured sound and use it for steeplechase or Triple Crown can continue to do so (aka grandfathering the featured sound process). How does this sound? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Triple Crown Ribbons

Hi... I've started to develop some ribbons for the various triple crown levels. I am posting them here for comment.

— Ribbon for the regular Triple Crown (File:Triple Crown Ribbon.png)

— Ribbon for the Imperial Triple Crown (File:Imperial Triple Crown Ribbon.png)

— Ribbon for the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown (File:Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown Ribbon.png)

— Ribbon for the Alexander the Great Triple Laurel Crown (File:Alexander the Great Triple Laurel Crown Ribbon.png)

— Ribbon for the Valiant Return Triple Crown (File:Valiant Return Triple Crown Ribbon.png)

EdChem (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is some objection, I will add these to the main WP:TRIPLE page in a couple of days. EdChem (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... they don't look quite realistic to me. Also, would be nice to have some sort of consistency so that at one glace, one will know that it is a TC ribbon. Perhaps reduce the use of too many colors? – SMasters (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how watched this page is, but I agree that A. The Ribbons should look more like real ribbons and B. There should be some sort of internal consistency. Now, I don't propose removing or depricating or de-listing the ribbons already used, but rather, proposing a set of alternates. I propose (and will be mocking these up later) a simple Blue-Gold-Green ribbon (Blue for DYK, Gold for Featured content, and Green for GA). Then simply adding a series of "charges" (like going from File:Veteran Editor Ribbon.png to File:Veteran Editor Ribbon 2.png when "Imperial" is achieved. The "charge" could be a crown, like File:CrownForShield.svg to maintain the consistency of the "Crown" moniker. Achowat (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Something like perhaps. Any comments? Achowat (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Something that's always bothered me

Jumping from 5 to 15 triple crown requirements always seemed very jarring. It's too late to change now, but I would probably have done 5 to 10, and then to 20. Oh well. No one watches this page anyway, but I felt like saying it. ResMar 01:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I could support a proposal to introduce an intermediate step between those two; it wouldn't really involve a lot of work really. GRAPPLE X 01:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto the jump from 15 to 40. Maybe we could use "tennis" scoring there with another (15, 30, 40) level at 10? How about one named for Leif Ericson for 10, and what about Ferdinand Magellan for 30? (If we wanted a level between 40 and 100, how about Julius Caesar?) Imzadi 1979 → 03:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Steeplechase

I know noone watches this page, but I have to ask. Where do I nominate myself for the steeplechase award? SMasters is pretty much inactive. I have

• FA: Chrisye
• FL: List of songs recorded by Chrisye
• FP: File:Semar Kris (alt) 3.jpg
• FT: Overview of Chrisye
• FPo: Indonesia

Thanks — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations and welcome to the club(!) Award presented and added to the list. Bencherlite^Talk 11:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Major contributor and FPs

Does acting as a nominator (only) count as being a "major contributor" to an FP? At least one editor has received triple crown credit for acting as a nominator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The instructions over the page say "For featured pictures a nominator may qualify who is not the original uploader if the nominator did other significant work that was important to passing WP:FPC such as image cleanup or description research." Does that help? Bencherlite^Talk 13:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, that's why I've limited my FPs to those I edited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer/s needed

Due to an accident a while ago, I have not had enough time to go through the nominations. Any help to verify and award nominations is welcomed. Please contact me if you wish to assist. Thank you. – SMasters (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this. Sorry to hear. Will get back into it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Valiant return triple crown nomination

GregJackP (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

I was blocked on 11 Oct 2010 (here), with ArbCom review required, and then topic banned (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#GregJackP topic-banned) on 14 Nov 2010. The block was lifted on 19 Mar 2012, with restrictions on not being involved in the Climate Change or New Religious Movement areas. Although not relevant to the return, those restrictions were lifted on 24 Sept 2012 by ArbCom.

DYK since return was achieved here by Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter on 26 Dec 2012.

GA since return was achieved here by Bryan v. Itasca County on 16 Dec 2012.

FA since return was achieved here by Ex Parte Crow Dog on 11 Sept 2012.

User	DYK	GA	FC
GregJackP	Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter	Bryan v. Itasca County	Ex Parte Crow Dog

Please let me know if you need any further information. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I initially posted this at SMasters page, but apparently he is inactive right now. GregJackP Boomer! 14:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen this. Yes, SMasters seem to be inactive. I will try to take care of this. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Redesign

If nobody opposes, I will redesign the Triple Crown page to make it more manageable. As it currently stands, it is quite a mess. Some of the changes I will do are:

• Move the winners tables to subpages
• Reorganize each crown to make them more easy to see and find
• Move the Special crown together
• Make the page look pretty :)

I hope no-one minds if I take the liberty of doing this soon. I will also introduce the use of a diff, so that there is more easier to find when a recipient received the award. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Great idea - go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The redesign is  Done :) I will take care of the organization of the subpages soon. Now, I got this idea of doing an annual Steeplechase tournament. What do you think? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice/I like it and a definite improvement. I did think maybe a coloured background might zhuzh it up a bit....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I made one clarification: TC doesn't require the editor to start the article nominated at DYK, just to nominate it. You're thinking of the FOUR award that requires an editor to start the article nominated through DYK (and GAN and FAC). We've always accepted DYKs based on article expansions here. Imzadi 1979 → 07:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Now, what do you think of having an annual, one-month event like the special TC race of 2008? That would be nice :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Steeplechase 2013

I have this idea of doing an annual Triple Crown even, and since we already had one in 2008 with the name Steeplechase, I thought that we could use that name again for this new annual event. I will be more than glad to coordinate it and make sure everything is set and done. I'd like to know what do you think :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead with it :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Steeplechase 2013

The Triple Crown's 2013 Steeplechase Event is here! Get your horses ready and participate the race of the year All featured content nominated from October 1, and all content promoted from November 1, is eligible.

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Just nominated"

I've noticed that a crown was given to Hahc21 for such FC nominations as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Space Shuttle Enterprise, in which hahc did not upload the photograph nor take it, but simply nominated it. Others, such as TTT's piles of FSes, were uploaded and nominated but not recorded by the person claiming credit. Exactly how much is the minimum amount of work involved before we can claim something? I've always only claimed credit if I did (at the very least) a restoration/written in collaboration, but if a simple nomination is enough... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In the very earliest days of FAC, nominations were supposed to be by people other than the ones working on them too. And the situation still exists in Featured Pictures and did at DYK too. One can look at it two ways - depending on the importance one puts on cataloguing and prioritising quality content. So either we leave as is or tighten to narrow it down to work significantly made or created (i.e. eliminate nominations that do not involve the nominator making the item) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, based on my count, if the consensus is to allow "just nominated", then I'm only 22 GAs away from the second-highest Crown (a lot closer than I thought!). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• To Crisco: You are right, and I was thinking of replacing those with some FLs and FAs I got after I placed my nomination there, which would put me in the Crown range anyway. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 10:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Hahc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Universal Triple Crown

How much involvement is the claimant required to have in the translations / nominations of images before he/she can claim this award? Say, File:The Mummy 1932 film poster.jpg, if I restored it and nominated it on Commons and EnWiki, would I also have to nominate it on the Turkish Wikipedia to claim credit (someone else did that already)? Or 1740 Batavia massacre, which is FA in Indonesian (my translation) and Vietnamese (not my translation or nomination). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a common theme here - look, I think it is best if we try and get a low-key structured RfC to determine consensus on the best way to proceed - the two options are (1) carry on as is, or (2) restrict to being a significant contributor - and we tally up who prefers what. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Cas, there is no "as is" for the Universal Triple Crown. It's never been given. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • When I designed this Triple Crown, I was thinking about giving it only to significant contributors. So, if you worked, restored and uploaded an image that somebody else nominated, I think that you can take the liberty to take the promotion as yours, because it's thanks to your work that it became featured, regardless of who nominated. This would only be for featured pictures though. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 11:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Hahc: Alright, in that case I'd like to nominate File:The Mummy 1932 film poster.jpg for the Universal Triple Crown (English, Commons, and Turkish) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: for organizational purposes, could you file your nomination at the nominations page? :] — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • WP:CROWN says "For all other nominations, including the Valiant Return Triple Crown, and the Special edition WikiProject Triple Crowns: Please inquire with Hahc21 in a new subsection at his talk page. Alternatively, if SMasters is currently inactive, leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Triple Crown." Universal is not in the category "Standard". But will do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I know. And I am trying to find a better way to handle that, mostly to keep everything on the same place. Having requests spread across my talk page, this talk page, S Masters' talk page and WP:CROWN/NOM is not a good way to keep stuff organised. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Right. I've fixed part of the instructions (you had changed one instance of S Masters' name to your own, but missed the one under it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I saw. Thank you :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Having just discovered the "Universal" (and timeless where I've put in a nomination) I note that no-one has yet got a universal for an article, just featured pictures. I noticed that a couple of articles which I "significantly contributed to" and nominated for FA on the English wikipedia are FA on other wikipedias (Bath, Somerset appears to be FA on English, Hebrew & Swedish & Somerset appears to be FA on English, Spanish and Polish) - however I didn't have anything to do with translating them (I don't have the language skills) and I don't know if they qualify as "Wikipedias with an established featured content process". Presumably as I didn't contribute in other languages they do not qualify - does anyone imagine anyone achieving this for an article?— Rod ^talk 21:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WillC

I'd like to nominate myself for the triple crown but not exactly sure which one I'd qualify for, so could someone help me out here? Though it is not completely up to date, it may help: User:Wrestlinglover/Awards and Accomplishments.--WillC 23:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wrestlinglover: You have to know exactly how many DYKs, GAs, and FAs you are credited with. Then choose the lowest number in any of the three category and that's the number you will qualify for. From your page, I see that your "limiting factor" is number of FAs. I counted about 20 or 21, which means you're eligible for Alexander the Great Edition Triple Laurel Crown. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: Thank you very much.--WillC 04:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Steeplechase Triple Crowns

Steeplechase Triple Crowns are given out for at least 5 out of 6 featured contents (article, topic, list, picture, portal and sound). Portal and sound's feature process are no longer there (featured portal process may be resurrected in the future, but sound won't be for foreseeable future). It is impossible for anyone who hasn't had a featured portal and sound already to complete Golden Steeplechase Triple Crown (6 out of 6). And since we are down to 4 featured contents, Steeplechase Triple Crown (5 out of 6) cannot be awarded anymore unless they already have a featured portal or sound. This award should either be retired, or a new category should be created to reflect on the changing landscape of featured contents. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see your point. I'm not opposed to retiring it. I'll wait a few days for further comments on the matter first though. Freikorp (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm retiring this award. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Valiant Return Triple Crown needs clarification

The Valiant Return Triple Crown's description really doesn't make any sense. It should surely be limited to someone who already has at least one Triple Crown, then has their "issues", then returns. Otherwise this would be open to all sorts of asshats who get let back in per WP:ROPE only to get indeffed again almost immediately for still being asshats.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't get it either. When my account was hacked and temporary desysop (+ indef block for a day) until I regained control of it back in 2015, that falls under ArbCom's level 1 procedure for removing sysop tool. That raises a really ironic question... would I be considered as "valiant return"? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I agree it doesn't make much sense as is. It doesn't appear to be very clear on what you have to do to get the award either, I.e is it just for coming back or coming back and submitting new content? Perhaps update to say you must have a triple crown first (or maybe at least a featured credit?) and users are eligible for the award after recieving a regular triple crown or upgrade. Perhaps add a caveat that hacked accounts don't count either? I'm open to more ideas on the matter, or possible even just retiring it. Freikorp (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've retired this award for the above reasons. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I know I'm coming to the conversation late, but I'm one of the five editors that have this award, and my understanding on it was fairly clear. 1) the editor had to be sanctioned by ArbCom. In my case, I was indef'ed, and had to appeal to come back. 2) what the editor did as to content before the sanction is not relevant to the award. 3) all content used for the VRTC had to be from after his or her return from the sanction. Out of all the awards and barnstars that I have received over the years, this one meant the most to me. It's not something that is going to be common, but I don't think it needs to be in a retired status. GregJackP Boomer! 16:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

My assumption, based on no evidence at all, was the same as GregJackP's. Like him, I think that it is a shame that the award was retired. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It's another Chesterton's fence. Removing the fence (@Damien Linnane:) took priority over finding out why it was there originally. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

So how do we reinstate the award? GregJackP Boomer! 22:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Seriously? That's how you want to set the tone for this conversation? OK, so be it.

I waited seven months for someone to provide any justification for why the award should be retained. Seven months. SEVEN MONTHS. I had two editors who expressed concerned over why the award existed, and I was equally confused. Nobody expressed any immediate reasons for why it should be retained, yet despite this I still chose to wait over half a year before retiring it, which, quite frankly, strikes me as a reasonable amount of time to wait for someone to express a differing opinion.

Since 2014 I've been doing the overwhelming majority of the work here at Triple Crown. I took this upon myself as the award had stagnated; the backlog was exceptionally long and no-one was doing any maintenance on the page whatsoever. However since 5 years of volunteering to maintain this award myself seems completely unappreciated, and since I apparently act rashly in retiring an award without taking any steps to find out why it was there originally, do you want to take over maintaining this award? No that's not a rhetorical question. I don't want to keep volunteering my time here if people are going to talk to me like that. If you want it, you can have it. I'm actually quite serious. I don't feel strongly about running the show here one way or the other. I only took it over in the first place because nobody else cared. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane:, I didn't say anything about why you retired it, I understand that you waited a good amount of time before you did so. I even acknowledged that I came to the dance way, way, too late. All I want to do is see if we can reinstate it or un-retire it or whatever. It's not like it's going to be used on a regular basis, there are not that many of us who f'ed up and came back. Only five, and two of those have been gone for years, I'm not very active, and then the other two, who I believe are both active admins. I just said that it meant a lot to me, and I would like to see it back. GregJackP Boomer! 00:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi GregJackP. My previous post wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at Chris troutman and his obtuse and pretentious debut contribution to this talk page. I'll happily re-instate the award now. Your explanation makes sense. I would have reinstated it already except I was so triggered by Chris' lack of respect that I needed a several hour break from my computer after replying to him. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If someone else nominates it for DYK...

...does that still count? My name is mentioned in the credit, but Gerda Arendt nommed it, see Template:Did you know nominations/Bengal famine of 1943. It isn't FA yet, and may never be, but I'd like to know if I need to write and nominate a second DYK... Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's fine. As long as you did a significant amount of work on the article, it doesn't matter who nominates it for DYK (or GA or FA for that matter. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Good topics

@Damien Linnane: Hello! I have a question, do Good Topics count as Featured content? What if I have earned a Good topic that includes a Featured Article? Thank you and regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Paparazzzi. To be honest I've never actually had this request before. So am I correct in understanding that you want the Goot Topic to count as another piece of featured content, and while you did successfully nominate the Good Topic, you either did not actually work on the featured article included in the topic, or you've already counted said article separately in your featured content? Is that correct? If that is the case unfortunately I'm probably leaning towards no at this stage, but I'm happy to hear other opinions. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Surely, before we even consider the other issues, it needs to be a Featured Topic? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Damien Linnane:. I worked on every article included on the topic. However, as you said, the Featured Article included there is already counted separately in my Featured Content. My question could be, where can Good Topics be included? Thank you, --Paparazzzi (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Paparazzzi. Since it's a good topic rather than a featured one, and since the featured article is already counted, unfortunately I'm going to say no. I'd personally be happy to consider a featured topic an extra piece of featured content though, so if it gets upgraded do nominate it. Congratulations on getting a good topic though; that's something I've never done. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: I've got two Featured Topics. Does this mean that I can count them both towards my next Triple Crown? Over and above the Featured Articles which make them up? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Since there's a separate nomination process for featured topics themselves above the featured articles that make them up personally I don't see why they shouldn't be counted separately, but no one has ever asked before. Let me know your thoughts. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is a fairly rigorous process, so it would make sense to count them. On the other hand, it could be argued that this is double counting. I would be in favour of counting them separately, but I suppose I have a vested interest. That said, my next Triple Crown is rather a lot of FACs away. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I really thought I had a TC...

Hello. Gosh. In the dark chasm I refer to as my memory, I really thought I had won a TC for Funerary art years ago. I started it, then I and others working hard together took it through GA, FA and DYK. I even remember having the userbox. But... now I don't see my name anywhere (I was Ling.Nut back then). Do I need to reapply? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lingzhi2: I'm seeing your name mentioned at Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Standard Winners#Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown in Rlevse's nomination, but no actual award for yourself. Feel free to renominate yourself; it won't take very long for us to process that. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Should I update myself, or save it for someone else?

Currently listed at Imperial Napoleonic, but I think I qualify for the next round now - additional GA articles would be Martensdale, California, USS Indianola, USS Maria J. Carlton, CSS Pickens, Battle of Raymond, Fort Davidson, Battle of Fort Davidson, and 6th Delaware Infantry Regiment. Additional DYK would be Black Terror (ship), Battle of Hancock, Marmaduke-Walker duel, CSS Pickens, Henderson Hall Historic District, Alexander Bielaski, Martensdale, California, and David Ashley Parker from Powder Springs. Featured content would be Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment, Second Battle of Newtonia, Battle of Byram's Ford, 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate), Second Battle of Independence, Grant's Canal, Capture of Sedalia, and Battle of St. Charles. Hog Farm _Talk 16:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think awards that you award yourself are a bit cheesier. The whole point of this is peer recognition, so I would wait and let someone else do it for you so you can bask in the appreciation, rather than worry that you made a typo in there somewhere. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Just seen this, Hog Farm; sorry for the delay. I've given you this upgrade now—thanks for all your work! Future requests should go at Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations: I see that the main page said this was only for Standard requests (a bit ambiguous) so I've changed the text. — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)