![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I was looking at the contestants for the Wikicup and I noticed that MisterWiki has been banned for 10 years. Can someone do something about that, like remove his panel or something? GamerPro64 ( talk) 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait, wait, hold off the angry mobs for now. This is just a small suggestion, which you are free to take or reject as you please. I am sure by now many of you have seen the big BLP dramarama. One thing that has already begun as a result of this is a dive into Category:Unreferenced BLPs to see what could be salvaged. While writing FAs, GAs, and DYKs is highly important, I would venture to say that cleaning up that category (along with Category:BLP articles lacking sources) is one of the highest priorities for The Community right now. If there was a way for WikiCup-ers to submit a sourcing of an article for points, I would say that it would certainly help out the giant backlog some. So, what do you guys think? NW ( Talk) 20:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, users here may be interested in this, which was pointed out to me by Piotrus. Only a brief mention, but it's an interesting one, for people keen on the "bigger picture" and such. J Milburn ( talk) 01:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I won't have the time to contribute enough to be competitive in early 2010, so it's best to bow out now.
This doesn't mean you won't see my contributions of course, they just won't be in this year's cup results.
Best of luck to everyone and hopefully I'll have enough time to compete again next year. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Since I'm extremely lazy and had a few seconds available, I whipped up the {{ cupnom}} template. It's used to add new submissions to your submissions page. It should make it easier to read the submissions code if you ever need to find a specific article in your submissions page. Also, instead of having to either copy and paste all that text from the submissions instructions or type it all out manually, you just type out the following to add a new submission:
# {{cupnom|OpenFeint|DYK|339496870}}
Generating:
This template is used for submissions to the WikiCup.
Code | Description |
---|---|
FAC | Featured article candidate |
FLC | Featured list candidate |
GAN | Good article nomination |
DYK | Did you know |
ITN | In the news |
FPOC | Featured portal candidate |
FPC | Featured picture candidate |
FSC | Featured sound candidate |
VPC | Valued picture candidate |
To use it:
# {{cupnom|Article|code|oldid|subpage number}}
Examples:
Process | Code | Result |
---|---|---|
FAC | # {{cupnom|Example|FAC}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Example/archive1 [3] |
FLC | # {{cupnom|Example|FLC|2}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Example/archive2 [4] |
GAN | # {{cupnom|Example|GAN|1234567890|3}} | 1. Example [5] Talk:Example/GA3 [6] |
DYK | # {{cupnom|Example|DYK|1234567890}} | 1. Example [7] [8] |
ITN | # {{cupnom|Example|ITN|1234567890}} | 1. Example [9] [10] |
FPOC | # {{cupnom|Example|FPOC}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Example [11] |
FPC | # {{cupnom|Example|FPC}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Example |
FSC | # {{cupnom|Example|FSC}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Example |
VPC | # {{cupnom|Example|VPC}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Example |
As an example, I'm using it on my own submissions page. The template won't actually benefit myself that much since I usually have few submissions, but it might be helpful to those who produce more content than me. Gary King ( talk) 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If the 64 editors progressing to the next level had to be chosen today, how would it be done? There are 45 users with 20 or more points, but 67 editors with 10 or more points. On Feb 26, unless the number of points happens to exactly break at editor 64, there will have to be some sort of tiebreaker. I suggest:
For those who don't know, there is Wikipedia:WikiBowl Silver so some people may voluntarily withdraw to compete there. JB50000 ( talk) 06:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Luckily FPs and FSes are each worth 35 points, so swapping the points doesn't disrupt things, but the bot continues to misfile my FP. I've now tried swapping the headers of the two sections (so I have my FP listed where FSes were and vice versa) to try and trick the bot into filing them correctly. Staxringold talk contribs 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
My points have not been credited yet for a GT (with 7 articles) that I've listed in my submissions page. Is there a problem with the bot? — Hun ter Ka hn 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I just learned over at the FAC page that the only FAs which count for the WikiCup this year as those which have been worked on during 2010. I'm a bit concerned about this rule. That basically excludes anyone who does research for a living and then writes Wikipedia articles about that research, or, in fact, anyone who has spent a lot of time reading about a specific topic (precisely the people you want writing FAs). To give a hypothetical example. Several years ago I did a bunch of research on Thomas Day. I haven't bothered to write up the article yet, but if I did so in 2010, it shouldn't count for the WikiCup because the bulk of the work (the researching) was done years ago. I understand why the rule was made, but it seems difficult and perhaps detrimental to enforce. Awadewit ( talk) 21:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a userspace draft that I intended to start working on again during this WikiCup, but the draft is over a year old (at least). Does that disqualify it, or does it depend on how much the article changes between now and when I submit it for GA and FA? One of the reasons I entered the WikiCup was to encourage myself to work on such drafts, so it would be a bit of a pain if drafts started before 2010 were disqualified. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
But at least from the next round, is it possible to give a bonus if the articles are from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded? Say doubling the points? A few obvious reasons: there is no DYK possibility; it is much harder to get them to FA; the community benefits more as they are of more encyclopedic value (and usually have more regular visitors). Also, to exclude abuses, the article must have been on the list say at the beginning of 2010? Nergaal ( talk) 10:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Has there ever been discussion of how bad timing of holidays and wikibreaks might affect things? Or are people just expected to manage their time and do more in the time they are here, if they happen to be away for two weeks in one of the two-month periods (presuming, of course, that one is still in the competition when the two-month period in question arrives!)? Carcharoth ( talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
When I signed up for the WikiCup, I thought that I was going to be able to get internet access on my computer before then (I'm on a relative's computer), but a month into the proceedings and I still do not have internet on my computer. As much as I hate doing this (I'll still edit Wikipedia, but I doubt I can do so on a timely basis like this since I'm sharing the computer), I must bow out and sign my withdrawal. I hope there's one in 2011 so I can come back at a better time. Hurricane Angel Saki ( talk) 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that for the flags poster of the Wikicup, you used the original CSA flag (aka the actual "Stars & Bars") twice. I have been using the 3rd CSA flag, which is why ACDixon was using the 1st one. Why the double use of the original CSA flag?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:FCDW/Reviewers and consider adding points for doing reviews at WP:FAC/ WP:FAR, WP:FLC/ WP:FLR, WP:GAN, and WP:PR next time. Reviewing content is part of building the encyclopedia too ;-) Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
(belatedly) - this has my strong support too. Reviewers are necessary for articles to be audited - I think the reward should be minor. My guess is 2 points per GA review, and 1 for FAC comments (?) - the idea is that the main points still come from writing but that one can get a few extra by reviewing - a bit like being a good goalkicker to convert tries or touchdowns in gridiron or rugby union/league :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I spoke with the winner of the 2009 wikicup, Durova about a reference contest, and she suggested that I ask you folks. I am interested in seeing Wikipedia starting a unreferenced living people (BLP) sourcing contest, to help alleviate the 44,000 unreferenced BLPs, there is definitely an interest. Since the "BLP_madness" which started Jan 21, in just three weeks, 7,000 articles have been removed from the list. Okip (formerly Ikip) 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, the amount of work and effort that has been put into this project, for example, User_talk:Nergaal#WikiCup_2010_January_newsletter is inspiring and also overwhelming. This project is definitely a guiding star and barometer test for all future contests. Okip (formerly Ikip) 23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is the stub section from the table Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Quality_scale:
Class | Criteria | Formal process | Example |
---|---|---|---|
Stub | The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. | May be assigned by any reviewer | Flank speed (as of January 2010) |
Wikipedia:Stub#Ideal_stub_article
Referencing BLPs is not even getting an article to start level.
The only way I could see a WikiCup-like contest being used in a BLP setting is if it was something as simple as "a point for every unreferenced BLP cleaned up". However, there would be real issues with subjectivity- what constitutes "cleaned up"? What about the short versus long issue?
All material referenced with a reliable source, everything else removed, with a brief note on talk that the material has been deleted.
Maybe a point for each reference added?
Okip (formerly Ikip) 08:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
If my count is correct 60 users currently have at least 20 points. If 4 more folks write a DYK or something, the 10 point problem will be solved (though we may run into the same thing at 20 points). Staxringold talk contribs 23:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Was a reward for the winner ever discussed for this contest? Similar to Wikipedia:Reward board, if so where is the conversation? Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, seing that the possibility of more than 64 editors has come up this year, I propose that next year, between each round, we allow all of those who did not drop out to enter into a tie breaker after every round. Here's how it goes, after every round there will be a 1 week tie breaker round where all the contestants that are tied for the last spot will compet for that position. Whoever scores the most by the end of the week will move on. If there is another tie, then whoever scored first will move on. Does that sound good?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I was musing on this currently as I am working on coffee as well as various plant/bird/fungus articles. The work on some big articles I have worked on would be easily double or triple those of more esoteric articles on individual species. The nightmare of various secondary sources disagreeing with each other and having to sift through large amounts of material and rate reliability etc. as well as chopping up articles once they reach gigantic proportions and move large chunks of text to daughter articles - this has happened several times. Also having daughter articles with text that disagrees with amin article etc. etc.
Despite all this, I have found working on these monster articles a great experience on the whole, and representative of a real collaborative spirit. Anyway we can promote the improvement of 'core' articles would be a big benefit.
My gut feeling calculation is that a triple point bonus for GA or FA would be a fair reward, but that might look a bit unbalancing, so double might be more prudent. The next question is what list(s) represent 'core' articles.
WP:Vital is an obvious anr (roughly) consensus-derived. I was musing on considering also, say, any Top Importance article as rated by any particular wikiproject, but would worry that could be gamed. Anyway, what do folks feel about this idea for next year?
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs)
00:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The Cup went through a similar discussion last year. It's not a good idea to change the rules while the competition is ongoing and the idea is gameable: anybody can reassess articles within a project and the distinction between importance categories is not clear cut. Version 1.0 or 1.2 core topics can be so broad as to be nearly unworkable. Clothing is that sort of core topic. The FA at cochineal fares better despite mid-importance to the textile arts because it covers a more focused scope. Durova 412 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I have been thinking about this and do see the issues with the vital and core articles, yet I do see the headaches over possible gaming and also funny broad topics like history etc.
How about the any/some/all of the following for next year:
A double point bonus/multiplier for articles in the following categories (which hopefully can't be gamed):
I'd figure the above cats are pretty unambiguous and core encyclopedic material - how do others feel? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
One possible multiplier (that would at least for FA and FL) is to give bonuses for articles within underrepresented topics (like it is done now for wp:TFAR). Nergaal ( talk) 05:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I was looking at the contestants for the Wikicup and I noticed that MisterWiki has been banned for 10 years. Can someone do something about that, like remove his panel or something? GamerPro64 ( talk) 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait, wait, hold off the angry mobs for now. This is just a small suggestion, which you are free to take or reject as you please. I am sure by now many of you have seen the big BLP dramarama. One thing that has already begun as a result of this is a dive into Category:Unreferenced BLPs to see what could be salvaged. While writing FAs, GAs, and DYKs is highly important, I would venture to say that cleaning up that category (along with Category:BLP articles lacking sources) is one of the highest priorities for The Community right now. If there was a way for WikiCup-ers to submit a sourcing of an article for points, I would say that it would certainly help out the giant backlog some. So, what do you guys think? NW ( Talk) 20:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, users here may be interested in this, which was pointed out to me by Piotrus. Only a brief mention, but it's an interesting one, for people keen on the "bigger picture" and such. J Milburn ( talk) 01:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I won't have the time to contribute enough to be competitive in early 2010, so it's best to bow out now.
This doesn't mean you won't see my contributions of course, they just won't be in this year's cup results.
Best of luck to everyone and hopefully I'll have enough time to compete again next year. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Since I'm extremely lazy and had a few seconds available, I whipped up the {{ cupnom}} template. It's used to add new submissions to your submissions page. It should make it easier to read the submissions code if you ever need to find a specific article in your submissions page. Also, instead of having to either copy and paste all that text from the submissions instructions or type it all out manually, you just type out the following to add a new submission:
# {{cupnom|OpenFeint|DYK|339496870}}
Generating:
This template is used for submissions to the WikiCup.
Code | Description |
---|---|
FAC | Featured article candidate |
FLC | Featured list candidate |
GAN | Good article nomination |
DYK | Did you know |
ITN | In the news |
FPOC | Featured portal candidate |
FPC | Featured picture candidate |
FSC | Featured sound candidate |
VPC | Valued picture candidate |
To use it:
# {{cupnom|Article|code|oldid|subpage number}}
Examples:
Process | Code | Result |
---|---|---|
FAC | # {{cupnom|Example|FAC}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Example/archive1 [3] |
FLC | # {{cupnom|Example|FLC|2}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Example/archive2 [4] |
GAN | # {{cupnom|Example|GAN|1234567890|3}} | 1. Example [5] Talk:Example/GA3 [6] |
DYK | # {{cupnom|Example|DYK|1234567890}} | 1. Example [7] [8] |
ITN | # {{cupnom|Example|ITN|1234567890}} | 1. Example [9] [10] |
FPOC | # {{cupnom|Example|FPOC}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Example [11] |
FPC | # {{cupnom|Example|FPC}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Example |
FSC | # {{cupnom|Example|FSC}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Example |
VPC | # {{cupnom|Example|VPC}} | 1. Example Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Example |
As an example, I'm using it on my own submissions page. The template won't actually benefit myself that much since I usually have few submissions, but it might be helpful to those who produce more content than me. Gary King ( talk) 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If the 64 editors progressing to the next level had to be chosen today, how would it be done? There are 45 users with 20 or more points, but 67 editors with 10 or more points. On Feb 26, unless the number of points happens to exactly break at editor 64, there will have to be some sort of tiebreaker. I suggest:
For those who don't know, there is Wikipedia:WikiBowl Silver so some people may voluntarily withdraw to compete there. JB50000 ( talk) 06:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Luckily FPs and FSes are each worth 35 points, so swapping the points doesn't disrupt things, but the bot continues to misfile my FP. I've now tried swapping the headers of the two sections (so I have my FP listed where FSes were and vice versa) to try and trick the bot into filing them correctly. Staxringold talk contribs 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
My points have not been credited yet for a GT (with 7 articles) that I've listed in my submissions page. Is there a problem with the bot? — Hun ter Ka hn 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I just learned over at the FAC page that the only FAs which count for the WikiCup this year as those which have been worked on during 2010. I'm a bit concerned about this rule. That basically excludes anyone who does research for a living and then writes Wikipedia articles about that research, or, in fact, anyone who has spent a lot of time reading about a specific topic (precisely the people you want writing FAs). To give a hypothetical example. Several years ago I did a bunch of research on Thomas Day. I haven't bothered to write up the article yet, but if I did so in 2010, it shouldn't count for the WikiCup because the bulk of the work (the researching) was done years ago. I understand why the rule was made, but it seems difficult and perhaps detrimental to enforce. Awadewit ( talk) 21:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a userspace draft that I intended to start working on again during this WikiCup, but the draft is over a year old (at least). Does that disqualify it, or does it depend on how much the article changes between now and when I submit it for GA and FA? One of the reasons I entered the WikiCup was to encourage myself to work on such drafts, so it would be a bit of a pain if drafts started before 2010 were disqualified. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
But at least from the next round, is it possible to give a bonus if the articles are from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded? Say doubling the points? A few obvious reasons: there is no DYK possibility; it is much harder to get them to FA; the community benefits more as they are of more encyclopedic value (and usually have more regular visitors). Also, to exclude abuses, the article must have been on the list say at the beginning of 2010? Nergaal ( talk) 10:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Has there ever been discussion of how bad timing of holidays and wikibreaks might affect things? Or are people just expected to manage their time and do more in the time they are here, if they happen to be away for two weeks in one of the two-month periods (presuming, of course, that one is still in the competition when the two-month period in question arrives!)? Carcharoth ( talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
When I signed up for the WikiCup, I thought that I was going to be able to get internet access on my computer before then (I'm on a relative's computer), but a month into the proceedings and I still do not have internet on my computer. As much as I hate doing this (I'll still edit Wikipedia, but I doubt I can do so on a timely basis like this since I'm sharing the computer), I must bow out and sign my withdrawal. I hope there's one in 2011 so I can come back at a better time. Hurricane Angel Saki ( talk) 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that for the flags poster of the Wikicup, you used the original CSA flag (aka the actual "Stars & Bars") twice. I have been using the 3rd CSA flag, which is why ACDixon was using the 1st one. Why the double use of the original CSA flag?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:FCDW/Reviewers and consider adding points for doing reviews at WP:FAC/ WP:FAR, WP:FLC/ WP:FLR, WP:GAN, and WP:PR next time. Reviewing content is part of building the encyclopedia too ;-) Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
(belatedly) - this has my strong support too. Reviewers are necessary for articles to be audited - I think the reward should be minor. My guess is 2 points per GA review, and 1 for FAC comments (?) - the idea is that the main points still come from writing but that one can get a few extra by reviewing - a bit like being a good goalkicker to convert tries or touchdowns in gridiron or rugby union/league :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I spoke with the winner of the 2009 wikicup, Durova about a reference contest, and she suggested that I ask you folks. I am interested in seeing Wikipedia starting a unreferenced living people (BLP) sourcing contest, to help alleviate the 44,000 unreferenced BLPs, there is definitely an interest. Since the "BLP_madness" which started Jan 21, in just three weeks, 7,000 articles have been removed from the list. Okip (formerly Ikip) 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, the amount of work and effort that has been put into this project, for example, User_talk:Nergaal#WikiCup_2010_January_newsletter is inspiring and also overwhelming. This project is definitely a guiding star and barometer test for all future contests. Okip (formerly Ikip) 23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is the stub section from the table Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Quality_scale:
Class | Criteria | Formal process | Example |
---|---|---|---|
Stub | The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. | May be assigned by any reviewer | Flank speed (as of January 2010) |
Wikipedia:Stub#Ideal_stub_article
Referencing BLPs is not even getting an article to start level.
The only way I could see a WikiCup-like contest being used in a BLP setting is if it was something as simple as "a point for every unreferenced BLP cleaned up". However, there would be real issues with subjectivity- what constitutes "cleaned up"? What about the short versus long issue?
All material referenced with a reliable source, everything else removed, with a brief note on talk that the material has been deleted.
Maybe a point for each reference added?
Okip (formerly Ikip) 08:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
If my count is correct 60 users currently have at least 20 points. If 4 more folks write a DYK or something, the 10 point problem will be solved (though we may run into the same thing at 20 points). Staxringold talk contribs 23:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Was a reward for the winner ever discussed for this contest? Similar to Wikipedia:Reward board, if so where is the conversation? Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, seing that the possibility of more than 64 editors has come up this year, I propose that next year, between each round, we allow all of those who did not drop out to enter into a tie breaker after every round. Here's how it goes, after every round there will be a 1 week tie breaker round where all the contestants that are tied for the last spot will compet for that position. Whoever scores the most by the end of the week will move on. If there is another tie, then whoever scored first will move on. Does that sound good?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I was musing on this currently as I am working on coffee as well as various plant/bird/fungus articles. The work on some big articles I have worked on would be easily double or triple those of more esoteric articles on individual species. The nightmare of various secondary sources disagreeing with each other and having to sift through large amounts of material and rate reliability etc. as well as chopping up articles once they reach gigantic proportions and move large chunks of text to daughter articles - this has happened several times. Also having daughter articles with text that disagrees with amin article etc. etc.
Despite all this, I have found working on these monster articles a great experience on the whole, and representative of a real collaborative spirit. Anyway we can promote the improvement of 'core' articles would be a big benefit.
My gut feeling calculation is that a triple point bonus for GA or FA would be a fair reward, but that might look a bit unbalancing, so double might be more prudent. The next question is what list(s) represent 'core' articles.
WP:Vital is an obvious anr (roughly) consensus-derived. I was musing on considering also, say, any Top Importance article as rated by any particular wikiproject, but would worry that could be gamed. Anyway, what do folks feel about this idea for next year?
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs)
00:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The Cup went through a similar discussion last year. It's not a good idea to change the rules while the competition is ongoing and the idea is gameable: anybody can reassess articles within a project and the distinction between importance categories is not clear cut. Version 1.0 or 1.2 core topics can be so broad as to be nearly unworkable. Clothing is that sort of core topic. The FA at cochineal fares better despite mid-importance to the textile arts because it covers a more focused scope. Durova 412 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I have been thinking about this and do see the issues with the vital and core articles, yet I do see the headaches over possible gaming and also funny broad topics like history etc.
How about the any/some/all of the following for next year:
A double point bonus/multiplier for articles in the following categories (which hopefully can't be gamed):
I'd figure the above cats are pretty unambiguous and core encyclopedic material - how do others feel? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
One possible multiplier (that would at least for FA and FL) is to give bonuses for articles within underrepresented topics (like it is done now for wp:TFAR). Nergaal ( talk) 05:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)