Wikipedia talk:Triple Crown

Universal Triple Crown scope

Two quick questions about the scope of the Universal Triple Crown:

1. Are editors eligible for articles passing another project's featured review process, where the article in question is a direct translation of their work on the English Wikipedia, but where they did not personally perform the translation?
2. Are articles that reach featured status on a non-Wikipedia Wikimedia project (other than Commons) eligible? Say, if Melbourne reached FA, and voy:Melbourne became a star article, would it be eligible for a triple crown with one additional article?

If #2 isn't the case, I'd be interested in proposing it. Vaticidalprophet 16:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding (which could be wrong) would have neither eligible. That there has been only one recorded Universal Triple Crown for an article could indicate that the criteria are too restrictive—but maybe the near-unique award is deserved for such a high achievement. I would support #2, but not #1. I think any sort of featured content process similar enough to ours (usually less stringent, as we are the largest project) is good enough, but directly making the edits you're claiming responsibility for and the action of going through the FC process are needed. Not to say that having a translation featured at another Wikipedia isn't something you can personally take credit for (I'm proud that an article based on my writing at de:San Junipero is German-featured). — Bilorv (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Good questions Vaticidalprophet. Nobody has ever inquired about either, so up until now there hasn't really been an answer to this.

As much as I'd like translated articles to make one eligible (several of my FAs have been translated and become featured elsewhere), I think that would devalue the existing Universal Triple Crown. I am, however, somewhat open to the idea of a separate new Triple Crown for articles that gets translated and promoted on other Wikipedia's. What do you think about that Bilorv?

Up until you posted that message I had no idea WikiVoyage even existed haha. Anyway, as for No. 2, I'm undecided just now as it opens up too many variables. I assume some projects have less stringent criteria than others. And do some have equivalents of GA and DYK as well, or would they only be trying to compare their status to FA? I'm more inclined to create a separate award for this as well. Something akin to our WikiProject Triple Crowns. The Wikimedia Triple Crown, perhaps? Again let me know your thoughts. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a Translation Triple Crown to avoid devaluing the Universal. I do think cross-project FAs fit within the Universal context. I can only speak for Wikivoyage, because it's the only non-pedia I'm active on, but the star process there is quite vigorous for our size and I'd call our star articles consistently high-quality (voy:Singapore is one I'd point to). I wouldn't consider it any less respectable than an FA on a similarly-sized project, which would be about the size of the Greek or Thai Wikipedias. (There are also, of course, non-Wikipedia projects in other languages themselves.) I don't know what projects outside of Wikipedia and Wikivoyage the Universal Triple Crown would be able to apply to, as there are only so many projects that host articles per se, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone active somewhere else could describe an article that would be in scope in multiple places. Vaticidalprophet 13:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support a Translation Crown... if someone else wants to design the images and we feel there's enough of a use case for it to be worth the effort. I'm agreed that inter-project FC processes could be added to Universal as their standards are not particularly less rigorous than smaller language edition Wikipedias. — Bilorv (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I have neither the time nor the graphic design skills to put together the images unfortunately. Anyway, I'm guessing if we let non-FC processes in from other projects we'll just have to judge the merits of each project/process on a case-by-case basis? Damien Linnane (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

How do you want to create three different articles in different languages about the same thing differently? If I already finish the article, then I want to "transfer it" to the other language in the best way, so translation is the only way. How I would write it in different way? Eurohunter (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Can Wikiproject Triple Crowns have levels?

All of the Wikiproject Triple Crowns so far seem to have been awarded for one set; if someone qualifies for more than one set, should the Wikiproject triple Crown be awarded with levels? AryKun (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi AryKun. Considering the relatively low popularity of the WikiProject Triple crown, it's not something I've ever really considered. Only about 80 crowns have been awarded in total, and I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of them were awarded over a decade ago closer to when they first came out. It just never really took off. I think I've seen entire years go by where no-one applies for one at all, and I don't think I've seen more than a few given out in a year. I've even gone out of my way to remind Project Food and Drink the award exists as no-one has ever claimed that one, but received no response. As upgrades will no doubt be used significantly more infrequently, I'm inclined not to bother (not to mention potentially making upgrade images for each and every project). I'm more than happy to hear what others think though. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Universal Triple Crown

Is GA enough? 15% makes user a significant contributor? If the original editor makes it a featured article, but later you start editing this article and became a significant contributor, does it count, or you have to be the original nominator? Eurohunter (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: No, GA is not enough for the Universal Triple Crown unfortunately. As per the rules, it is for an item that reaches featured status on three Wikipedias. Also as per the general rules, a significant contributor is 25%, unless no contributor has 25%, in which case the contributor with the highest percentage is eligible.

Whether or not you're the original nominator is neither here nor there, but you have to have either contributed to the article prior to its nomination, or done significant work to specifically save the article from losing its status. For example, if the article was nominated for good or featured article review. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: So I would have to start work on article after formal featured article removal candidate? I will ask yet about FL. Are they enough? Eurohunter (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: Yes, for example starting work after formal featured article removal would count. And yes, featured lists count, as do featured pictures. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Changing instructions to reduce burden on reviewers

To minimise the burden on reviewers, I've boldly changed the instructions and example nomination, here, here and here. This is particularly crucial for the awards beyond Standard, where entries can easily include dozens of articles that each need to be checked. My ideas:

• To minimise the changes needed in formatting, entries should be given as links separated by commas so this can be copied and pasted into the winners table. Evidence should be at the end of the list.
• To minimise the DYK checking, this tool should be used or diffs of credit can be given where the tool is not accurate.
• To match existing practice, 25% authorship is not required for GA/FC, but the nominator should be the one to argue why an exception applies. This should be on the basis of substantially writing, referencing or overhauling an article (not nominating through GAN et al. or copyediting/formatting changes).
• To minimise the GA and FC checking, the authorship % should be given where it is at least 25%. Otherwise evidence or comments must show major contributions.

I have minimised the verbiage in the instructions and the redundancy between "Nomination layout" and the example nomination in the hopes that more nominators will thoroughly read the instructions. I have removed the separate instructions on WikiProject-specific Triple Crowns as these are rarely used and I don't see a reason for them to follow a different format to other nominations.

This is spun off the discussion here between Damien Linnane, one of the only active reviewers, and Lee Vilenski. However, it's been overdue for a while. We might also do well with some concise instructions for reviewers, like the Successful/Unsuccessful instructions for Four Awards. Further thoughts or changes are welcome. I hope this won't be reverted out of hand as I've spent quite a while thinking about it. — Bilorv (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Overhauling this was overdue, so thanks for taking the effort to be bold. I only have one concern here. In about eight years of processing these awards, Lee is the first person with under 10% authorship to insist they were a major contributor. Now I should clarify I actually agree with them after reviewing their edits. However, I'm a little worried that saying 'Otherwise evidence or comments must show major contributions' is going to open the floodgates to nominations that are progressively less and less major. I know this isn't anyone else's problem, but I have less time for editing these days than I used to; I've actually been giving serious thought to removing this project from my watch-list entirely, and may still do this at some point in the future. But in the meantime, I'm personally going to avoid nominations where there isn't a firm line in the sand. I know that isn't ideal, but like all of us I'm a volunteer and I only have so many spoons for editing, and this project is already taking up too many of them.

If you or anyone else are happy to process nominations with diffs only for authorship this isn't going to be a problem. But considering that with the old rules we only had one person in eight years try to do this, my preference is to remove that new text and re-add the old text that said 'If no editor had achieved 25% authorship, the person with the highest authorship percentage will be eligible'. (That text was added after a nominator expressed frustration that no person had achieved 25% authorship at an article, and due to the high traffic at that article, it was likely nobody ever would.) I understand the old text likely discouraged other people with under 25% authorship from applying in the first place, but considering nominations were sitting for several months waiting for reviews before I 'adopted' this page, I would very much consider that to be the lesser of two evils. Anyway just to clarify I'm not going to insist the new line of text be removed, but if it isn't I'm unlikely to be reviewing new nominations which were submitted using that rule only.

I'm very open to instructions like those at the Four Awards. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

(Apologies for not seeing this sooner—not sure how I missed it.) I like leaving it open because (25% or highest %) doesn't always measure what we are actually trying to: major contributor. With Lee Vilenski as the example I think we both agree. I think most volunteers only claim genuinely significant contributions on their userpages and they hold themselves to at least the same standard when nominating. If you don't want to process exceptions then don't push yourself to. But I think these rules give us a more robust basis to decline nominations: "your authorship is less than 25% and you have not argued for an exception".

I've tightened the wording somewhat while leaving the smallest gap for rare exceptions. Perhaps the wording can still be improved to get across what I'm intending. — Bilorv (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: I've just noticed this edit, but the commas were intentional. As I said above: To minimise the changes needed in formatting, entries should be given as links separated by commas so this can be copied and pasted into the winners table. Evidence should be at the end of the list.

For instance, with the 25-set I've just processed, this requires me to replace 75 or so instances of numbering with commas, as well as removing 50 authorship links. It is much quicker with commas and authorship at the end (i.e. to count to 25 three times and cut off a single authorship link list).

I can actually replace numbering with commas quite quickly in Python (x = """[string here]"""; x = x.replace("\n#", ", ")), and with a bit of research I'm sure I could strip out the authorship links too, but we can't really expect programming from everyone who processes nominations. — Bilorv (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries Bilorv. Thanks for explaining. Feel free to change it back to the way you prefer. And thanks for processing the latest nominations as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed the Example to match this. — Bilorv (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)