Wikipedia talk:Bilorv's Challenges

Meta-challenge?

There could be a challenge for completing many challenges. For example, "Metadecadent" for users who have completed at least ten of the challenges (or "dodecadent" for twelve, but as I have completed exactly twelve, perhaps we should have something harder). I haven't checked everyone, but I think we have Kingsif leading with 17, Dumelow has 15, and there are a few people around the 11/12 mark including Bilorv, PMC and myself. Or just a leaderboard for how many challenges completed? —Kusma (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Another name: Challenger. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The meta challenge sounds like a good idea to me... though a leaderboard might make this more competitive than it needs to be? Probably harmless though. Aza24 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, and that there's been enough interest in the Challenges for this to be an idea. :) I don't want a running leaderboard as it could be too much of a headache to keep up-to-date, but I don't mind static ones like Kusma's rough count above (well done to Kingsif, and Dumelow's four bonuses have to count for something!). I've been doing Barnstars ad hoc for impressive entries (and missed out lots of cases where I should have given them), but maybe it could develop into Barnstars at milestone numbers of Challenges, with bonuses weighted extra. (Maybe given on request to reduce organisational work.) — Bilorv (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Potential for multiple bonuses

Some challenges seem naturally amenable to multiple kinds of bonus, even ones that currently have one. I was thinking about "Jack of all trades", which currently has nominating in each top-level category as its bonus, but considering how many different things tend to be picked up even naturally by GAN reviewers (and perhaps making an incentive to review more in the current backlog...), it seems that it could equally be "review in every subcategory, excluding reassessment categories". Is there any appetite for 'multiple possible bonuses'? Vaticidalprophet 10:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It could also be a separate challenge, "Jack of all trades, and we mean it" or something. The challenge certainly has helped me diversify my GA reviewing. —Kusma (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I also noticed looking back over that no one actually has the bonus for that one yet, so it could just be changed, though there are some others where I wonder if multiple-bonuses might be reasonable where that isn't the case. Vaticidalprophet 10:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Jack of all trades" is one I was a bit wary about as I don't want people going so far outside their comfort zone that the review is low-standard. There is advantage in reviewing as a non-specialist, like for 1(a)'s "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", but limitation too. Some categories like Mathematics are very technical. I thought top-level categories would be okay but every subcategory is where it maybe pushes it.

"Calendar" has two alternative bonus conditions, so you could get a double bonus there. I'd consider other double bonuses. I'm grateful for all ideas that are pitched, though I'm trying to increase selectiveness in proportion to the number of existing Challenges. — Bilorv (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Mathematics is as a top-level category with no subcategories traditionally a bit of a filter for the challenge as a whole (a disproportionate number of people with it if I count myself, given I just need to wrap up these reviews before I count have done mathematician bios). I think it's reasonable for the challenge to have fairly-tricky filters and the bonus to have stricter ones. There's not a huge difference in kind between "if you're not comfortable reviewing about mathematics, either you wait a long time for a mathematician bio or you don't get the challenge" and the same thing for something like chemistry or law or engineering, which are pretty much by chance under subcats rather than top-levels. Vaticidalprophet 10:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Archaeologist entry

• I have just noticed the Archaeologist section and so entered my relevant DYKs into it. As this more than doubled the total number of bonus articles in the section I suspect that I have done something wrong. Perhaps someone could run an eye over it for me? Thanks.

Assuming that my grip is on the right end of the stick can I suggest a super-bonus challenge? The longest gap between article creation and a DYK appearance. I mention this of course because I think 18 years and 365 days (Punic Wars) will be difficult to beat. But this challenge will become easier over time. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Er, I have already beaten it! With my last DYK, Battle of Zama, 20 years and 112 days after the article's creation. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: You get beat by Logic, which was created 2001-01-20 (G.W.B.'s inauguration day!) and aired at DYK on 2023-05-21 :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

And here I thought my DYK for Mars in fiction (created 2001-09-30, DYK 2023-01-01) would be hard to beat. Oh well. TompaDompa (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

My personal best seems to be Interstate 90, which hit the front page 19 years 3 months after creation. Excluding credits given to articles that had passed GA, it seems to be 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup at 15 years 10 months. SounderBruce 05:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations to you all! Perhaps this is the most common bonus but I think it's still an impressive achievement worthy of celebrating. The bonus also gets harder over time as the pool of pre-2005 non-DYK articles diminishes. I suppose the other thing would be getting a DYK credit for an article that you did create yourself, but over 10 or 15 years ago. I was very impressed with Guettarda's Four Award for National Union of Freedom Fighters with a creation date in 2005 and an FA date in 2021. — Bilorv (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv! I still can't figure out if that's impressive, or just a sign of how much of a slacker I am that I take 16 years to finish an article I started :D Guettarda (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Omnipresent

Any thoughts or interest in a Challenge like this:

• Omnipresent: create templates with a total transclusion count that exceeds the number of Wikipedia articles (currently 6,911,024). (A winner can't be removed later if the transclusions fall below the articles.)

It's not my area so I don't know if this is too easy or has never been achieved. I guess it's mainly in the number chosen: I wonder whether it could even be changed from "articles" to "pages" (about a tenfold increase). The title isn't intended to match up literally (it doesn't require that, for every page, some template transcluded on it was created by you). I want to know if the Challenge is well-formed in that you could evidence the transclusion counts and that it would be straightforward to assess total transclusions (no issues caused by nested templates). — Bilorv (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I would rate the challenge as near impossible – if you've created a seminal template like {{Infobox}}, {{Ambox}}, or {{Navbox}}, you have a fighting chance, but you'd probably need more than one to your name. I would wager that you could create every maintenance tag template and {{citation needed}} and still not have it. Assessing total transclusions is pretty easy with linkcount, but yeah – very very difficult to achieve. Really interesting idea, though! I wonder what my score is... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Around ~1500 – i haven't created any that end up being used in other templates, they're mostly for narrow use. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

{{Redirect template}} comes fairly close with over 6 million transclusions. Would Module:Yesno count, with 28 million+ uses? —Kusma (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(Note that neither of those is mine). Going forward, I assume the challenge can be won with new modules that become widely used in templates, but is extremely hard with new templates. —Kusma (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Yes, Kusma, those would definitely count. But I might leave it for now. I guess I'd want it to be achievable going forwards, not just if you were around when Lua was first adopted or something. I could decrease the number massively but then it feels kind of arbitrary. Maybe if inspiration strikes or a template editor makes a suggestion I can revisit it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting idea. Yeah, I think very hard to achieve if you didn't create Module:Arguments, Module:Yesno, Module:String or a couple other modules or seminal templates. I've created Module:Plain text (1.5M), Module:Settlement short description (700K), Module:Hatnote/styles.css (1.8M), and a few others that still only total to ~4.2M transclusions. I think it's achievable going forward if you create a styles page for a some widely used template or rewrite some widely used templates in Lua, although the number of widely-used templates left that need either of those is not that many. Galobtter (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Phoenix confusion

Somewhat confused about the challenge's definition, I feel like either I or SounderBruce has misunderstood it. Thoughts Bilorv? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, not sure how I missed this at the time. The criteria are "and"s, so we need three separate conditions to be met (likely across three different articles). @SounderBruce: Interstate 82 meets only one condition, bringing a delisted GA back to GA. You also need to get an FFA to FA and (if you haven't already) recreate a deleted article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, I totally misinterpreted it as well. I'll report back once I have restored a former FA (a high hurdle, but worthy of a challenge). SounderBruce 23:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Name Game

I have a suggestion for the Challenge. Name Game: Create two or more biographies with the same first and last name. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: this is one way to achieve Ambiguation. There's a fair few Challenges based around bios already, I think. — Bilorv (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think it's redundant, no worries! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Calendar (2)

In the "Calendar" challenge, why is it restricted to just those three categories? It seems discriminate against editors who have articles at TFA or POTD. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, TFA is the bonus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't read to the end of the sentence! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Most Challenges are targeted at a specific category of article, but in this case it seemed like DYK/OTD/ITN would be similar difficulties and separate Challenges would be repetitive.

TFA is the bonus as it's significantly harder, and POTD is focused on a different type of content (pictures, not articles). — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for a new challenge

Take an article created at least 20 years ago to GA. A lot of very old articles would well repay a bit of TLC. Possible name: "Palaeontologist". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This is fairly close to "Archaeologist", especially since GA qualifies an article for DYK. —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

have given 2,541 articles and counting a bit of TLC :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Idea (2)

A bonus for Centenarian: one from each century since 1 AD? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's already a risk going back to the 1000s (and even for Decadent) but I think birthdates are less common and less well-founded the further back in time we go. It's not my area so I couldn't estimate how many 300s AD notable figures there are yet to be created (or how many more there will be with discovery of new historical records). — Bilorv (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

In theory, there are a lot of Norse 'gods' (who were in fact real people with some legends attributed) from that era for whom articles could be created. Not sure how many people would want to put in the effort. Kingsif (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting! I'm sure there's other cultures where we could definitively state 1-1000 AD birth centuries too. I might leave the Challenge as is though. — Bilorv (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the people I claim for Centenarian were born in the right centuries, but I don't have absolute proof for some of them. Generally, it is much easier to find people who were alive in each century than born in each century, as the sources often do not care about birthdays all that much. For people born between 400 and 900 I would probably look outside of Europe, where our coverage is still more spotty. —Kusma (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Two ideas:

1) What if the Bonus for Centenarian was getting a Good Article for a figure born in each century? We definitely need more high quality articles about older figures.

2) What if the Decadent challenge could be extended to previous centuries? I'm already a decent chunk of the way through for fulfilling it in regards to the 1800s, and I think it could reasonably be done for the 1700s or 1600s. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: thanks for the suggestions! I've added the Centenarian Bonus as it's good to encourage broad articles on historical figures, not permastubs. I'm unsure whether the extension to Decadent has a place here, as two Challenges with bonuses is already a fair bit (plus EGOT is bio-specific). I also like the accident of having "Centenarian" and "Decadent" consecutively and I've ran out of time period–based puns. It could have been a bonus to Decadent but I like the current Women in Red bonus and I'm not keen on multiple bonuses in different directions. — Bilorv (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Centenarian bonus challenge accepted Not sure I can get my current entries to GA status though, might need to write new articles. —Kusma (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I Am Woman

I Am Woman

Be responsible for successfully bringing three articles on women to DYK. The "hear me roar" bonus is bringing three articles on women to GA, or FA.

• Winners: evrik (x3)<ref name="evrik"/>

Painting the town blue bonus

• Bonus if each article falls under the scope of WikiProject Women in Red.
• Winners: evrik (x2)<ref name="evrik"/>

How about a category for authoring three articles on women, or featured by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and getting them to DYK, GA, or FA? --evrik ^(talk) 22:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Three articles is a fairly easy challenge. What does "featured by Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red" mean? —Kusma (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Not every challenge need be hard ... Have any ideas? When I say featured, I mean listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. --evrik ^(talk) 16:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • "Bilorv's challenges are a series of off-beat and difficult editing challenges. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Hard, difficult, you're splitting hairs. ;-) "Animal, vegetable, mineral" and "well-dressed" use the same standard. What do your propose? Women is a large topic area - we should include it. --evrik ^(talk) 18:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Bonus for decadent. —Kusma (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• While I like the title, "Decadent" already has a WiR bonus and it's a more complete, natural condition (see my comment below about "Alphabet"). Why three and not four or five or thirty? We could say "one in each Redlist index" but that could be too changeable or cumbersome given some of the subcategories (so many U.S. universities have their own subpage, but geographic diversity is desirable). I'm open to more in this topic area but waiting for a eureka moment. — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I modified the bonusI like the topic area. How would you spiff up the requirements? --evrik ^(talk) 03:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure. I want to find something that would make a 'complete set'. How about something Events-related? Maybe a piece of content included in a monthly WiR initiative for each month of the year? (Mixing and matching years e.g. an 'N' woman in Jan 24, Black woman in Feb 21, ..., ending with a Southeast Asian woman in Dec 22.) — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe something like bringing an article on a woman deleted at AfD to DYK, an article created as part of Women in Red to GA, and an article improved as part of Women in Green to FA? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Let's not overthink this. Animal Vegetable Mineral has a pretty low bar. I say make it three articles to DYK or GA. We can go crazy with the bonuses. --evrik ^(talk) 20:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  You're missing the point evrik, Bilorv has said here and below that he wants the challenges to feel "naturally complete". Animal Vegetable Mineral has three articles because it is a famous phrase. Diplomat asks for articles that connect two continents, but not three or five or ten articles, because that would not be "naturally complete". Like Bilorv's suggestion with WiR events, I'm trying to find something that feels "complete" and not just an arbitrary number of articles on an arbitrary topic to an arbitrary goal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not missing the point. I just think we're overthinking it. Also, it would be nice to see better representation of women's issues. --evrik ^(talk) 21:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

userbox

This user has achieved 1 entry on Bilorv's Challenges.

Thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 22:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit odd to say "is recognized" as it's a self-certified challenge; probably best as "has achieved". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Change made. Now ... where to create the template? What about hre: Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Awards#DYK_Hall_of_Fame. Call it {{User DYK Challenges}}? --evrik ^(talk) 16:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just create it in your userspace. —Kusma (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:CREATEUBX, and why "User DYK Challenges"? That's pretty misleading. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not tied to the name. Just throwing something out to see what sticks. --evrik ^(talk) 18:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Love this! Maybe "Bilorv's Challenges" should be linked to User:Bilorv/Challenges. Also, the icons for each Challenge look great. I had considered whether we could have icon logos before but I don't have the best eye for choosing visuals. — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

{{Bilorv's Challenges}} Can someone help me create this? --evrik ^(talk) 22:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Evrik: what part do you need help with? — Bilorv (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The mechanics of making a userbox. --evrik ^(talk) 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Switch

Noting that the standard number of DYK hooks has recently been changed to nine, so the "Switch" challenge may need to be clarified (e.g. does a quirky hook from 2021 count as the eighth or ninth hook?) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• I say we "exempt" those people who have already completed the challenge.
  {{efn|name=DYKslot|Note that the first slot is the image slot. Also, the number of slots changed on [Insert date here]. Those who earned the challenge before that date are exempted from having to re-earn it.}} --evrik ^(talk) 16:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A possibility would be to pass the challenge with eight different slots and get a bonus for nine. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a strange one. When I wrote "Switch" I considered that the number varies, per WP:DYKSETLENGTH. I'm inclined to keep it at eight because if the number changes in the future then it could be unattainable to achieve a ninth slot. (That is, you need first to eighth, and subsequent slots are ignored. A "quirky" hook is still numbered forwards from one, rather than always being eighth.) I also don't want to delist people who have already completed the Challenge. Then again, I suppose you could make the same arguments for six. When did the number change recently and what's the history of it? — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It changed around a month ago Bilorv, because people analysed the number of hooks submitted per year and came to the conclusion that nine-hook sets would prevent the need for occasionally going to two sets/day, which really pressurises the entire system. So far, it seems to be working well, with the number of approved hooks generally stable at between 80 and 100, so it could be a long-term solution. Since the challenge has no bonus, maybe Kusma's solution would be best (if you wanted to make it really difficult, make it a number of nine-hook sets)? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, there could be some wording that allows for changes ("all available slots at the time of completion") or maybe it could be changed to nine with a note saying "If all hooks are before April 2024 then the requirement is eight". Kusma's suggestion is clever but the conceit of the Challenge is that you have a "full set", as if your hooks collectively make up a full slate on DYK from the image slot to the quirky slot. If you have eight out of nine then that's not a full set anymore. — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay I've just gone with "first to ninth". The original wording was "every slot" and "first to eighth" was a parenthetical clarification of what that meant at the time. I've added a note indicating when this was changed. — Bilorv (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Page move

What say we move this to: Wikipedia:Did you know/Challenges? --evrik ^(talk) 16:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the challenges have nothing to do with Did you Know. Also, it is kind of neat that this is a fairly hidden page (only a handful links from Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk space point here). As a userspace page, it is super unofficial. Which is good. —Kusma (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Still, it may be good to think about a forever home. --evrik ^(talk) 16:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no risk that userspace isn't a forever home. If Bilorv wants to move the page, I'm sure they're able to decide that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If it was in mainspace I wouldn't put it under DYK and I'd wonder if I can finally find a more creative/specific name for what this all is. The reason I've kept it in my userspace, perhaps selfishly, is that it gives me the ability to curate. There's a quirky style I'm going for and I want the page to have one voice. My favourites have most of these features: unrewarded elsewhere on the site; can be described in a few words, with a witty title; all the conditions are natural without arbitrary numbers. For instance, "all the letters of the alphabet" is a natural condition, but "five articles that satisfy X" is not (why not 10?). When you read "Alphabet" (perhaps the one that made me create the page) you should go "I can't believe no-one has made this before!" I'll admit some of my own creations don't follow these principles, in hindsight, and there are a couple I'd consider removing.

On being fairly hidden, I'd be happy for it to be advertised more widely, but maybe this does add to the appeal and help keep the page lightweight. I don't want a whole bureaucracy around requesting awards and needing people to scrutinise them, or a cumbersome navigation or subpage system (you can choose to reference inline or to create your own subpage). — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Question for Minimalist

The bot's addition of the Good Article icon on Dariacore (album) was the article's 51st edit [1]. Does it count? Skyshiftertalk 17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• I say no ... --evrik ^(talk) 17:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Ah, bad luck. The text says: fewer than 50 edits in its page history at the time the bot adds the good article icon. To be really precise, "fewer than 50" means "49, 48, 47, ... or 1". Even if the bot edit is then included, it would have to be the 50th or earlier. So I think you're off by one edit! — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's unlucky. Thanks for the response! Skyshiftertalk 19:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Challenge suggestion

Just found out about this page; looks fun! Here's a topic-specific suggestion:

Triple taxon triumph

Create and/or improve three articles to good article status that are successive taxonomic ranks of each other. For instance:

• species Amanita muscaria, genus Amanita, family Amanitaceae or
• subspecies Ninox novaeseelandiae undulata, species Morepork, genus Ninox

would be examples. Bonus 1: Quartet Taxon Trek (4 in a row) and Taxonomic Pentapath (5 in a row). Esculenta (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I like it. --evrik ^(talk) 20:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• @Esculenta: interesting! I wonder if there's a pithy one-word name, a noun like "Artist", "Diplomat" or "Explorer". I'd like to see GA status as the bar because I think these articles have a reputation for being possible to create en masse in a very methodical way. (Also I've no idea how many families or higher are yet to be created, or being newly characterised in the literature each year.) Is "successive taxonomic ranks" a clear enough technical description? As I understand it the requirement is that (e.g.) the species must be part of that genus and the genus must be part of that family. — Bilorv (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  The one-word name could be simply "Taxonomist". I agree the article should be GA'd (sorry, the "and/or" wasn't clear in my post, but I meant create if it hasn't been already and then GA). I think "successive taxonomic ranks" is clear (but I'm probably not one to ask). The only possible source of disagreement I can think of is if someone, for example, makes a species/genus/family set, and someone else complains that there's a subgenus (or subfamily, or sub-whatever) that should have been in the sequence. But since this is just for fun, I can't imagine anyone would complain about that(?) You are correct in that the suggested requirement is that the taxa all be related to each other in taxonomic sequence. Esculenta (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's about five minutes work to copy/paste one taxonomy article and tweak it to become another; I've done it myself tons to de-orphan lower taxa, so creation alone is definitely too low a bar. If you don't want to mandate GA for all of them (which could be difficult for many taxa), you could maybe say DYK or GA them. The 1500 character DYK requirement presents a little bit more investment versus just creating them.

  As for subtaxa, perhaps we could put a note like "minor ranks are accepted but not required" or "minor taxonomic ranks may be skipped, but major ones may not". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I've added it, but I'm still thinking about a bonus—I think it would be most interesting to state a minimum rank. For instance, if they all had to be order or above then that (I think) necessitates a phylum or above. There seem to be about 50 phyla, of which plenty aren't at GA (and I imagine it would be a great success if we could one day say "there's no more left to improve"). Any objections?

  We also need an icon for it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Chef

How about a challenge along the lines of "zoo", where the title has to have the name of a food in it? Since 3-course and 4-course meals are pretty typical, it could require 3 (or 4) articles with the name of a food be either created (probably too easy) or improved to DYK/GA standard (whichever you think would be appropriate). The title could be either the actual food or something completely unrelated that contains a food word; e.g. my three could be potato leafhopper, baklava and corn husk doll. MeegsC (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

And maybe the bonus could be if all three titles had the same "food": e.g. potato chip, potato leafhopper, Mr. Potato Head. MeegsC (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of "Well-dressed", where it was pretty hard to write rules for what a "complete outfit" was. Here the most natural challenge to me is getting a "complete meal" of DYK/GA/creations, but it'd have to be very watered down to get to objective criteria. Another option would be food groups, where it's again not a universal standard. Since we have a large number of challenges already and we could run into the hundreds with identical challenges about 'animals', 'foods' etc., I'm a bit sceptical about this one. It's a good personal challenge but not necessarily one for this increasingly formalised list.

A more experimental idea in case it catches anyone's imagination: create at least four articles containing food words and then make a meal (and upload a photo to Commons) using only those foods. If you create Mr. Bean then you could use baked beans or black beans or any other (one) type of bean in the recipe. — Bilorv (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't thinking of a "complete meal" at all! Only that some food word should be included in three (or four) article titles. But maybe thats too random? MeegsC (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)