Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2009/2

Featured portals?

I take it they don't get you any points, since they're not listed. Is it too late to get them added? (I've been working pretty hard on P:TB recently). The same goes for FTs and GTs. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 14:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

FT/GT are already covered; portals aren't as far as I know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

They all are - I just realised I was looking in the wrong place. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 14:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

so i'm clear...

The dates are january to march... but is the period only January and February, or does the round go through March ending on he 31st or whatever? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Jan 1 - March 31. ayematthew ✡ 14:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A question

"Articles or other media raised to any other status (featured or good) must have also been nominated and passed/promoted during the individual round." Does that mean to say that, if I nominate an article I've written for GA/FA in Round 1 and it only passes in Round 2, that the contribution doesn't count for anything? (Since it doesn't slot into either round perfectly.) That'd be a bit of a blow. —97198 (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd count that for round 2. Don't worry :D Garden. 08:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, that's good. —97198 (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem if that GA/FA is the difference between advancing to the next round and not. Since the second round starts when the first one ends, and there is no time between rounds, the user who was eliminated would replace the user who initially advanced when the second round has already started. --Pwnage8 (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No, as the article counts for round 2. If you're not in that round you can't score. That's your fault for nominating the article too slow :P Garden. 22:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. I get it now. Submissions promoted after the first round will count for the second round, but only for users who advanced. I just saw an ambiguity, and I'm glad you cleared it up now. Not that I need to rely on those points, as I'll be pwning everyone quite easily :) Can't wait! See you all in the WikiCup! --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Credits problem

If two people work on the same article to get it to featured or good article status, then how is the credit given? Do both get the same points or are the points divided? Chamal ^talk 14:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of you will get the full amount of points. ayematthew ✡ 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions

I see the format we will need to put our submissions in. Does it mean we will need to add every single diff of the edits we made on the page?   jj137 (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Glares at Garden - No, add a link to this page Statistics (see the last bullet). ayematthew ✡ 15:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How about just writing a template that links to the correct diff and history? The only arguments that a person would have to enter is the oldid and the article's name. Gary King (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the diffs aren't required, thinking about it. It'd be easier to look at the history. Garden. 16:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Be warned, though, history isn't always the best indicator. In some cases the nominator doesn't always have the most edits, but perhaps their edits still added a lot. Happens to me a few times, even for some articles that I have at FAC. Gary King (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing entry

Now that there are exactly 60 entrants, shouldn't entry be closed to new contestants? Just to keep things a round number that is easy to work with? Sorry if I missed something if it's already closed; I'm on vacation and only hop on Wikipedia for a few minutes every other day or so. Useight (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already closed. Thanks. ayematthew ✡ 16:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please add my name to the "waiting list" (if there is one) if anyone drops out between now and the start... I mistakenly assumed the registration was open until Dec 31. Sasata (talk)

The rules state that if anyone drops out, place will not be taken. However, as the original closing date, and starting date is midnight January it might be a possibility people can take withdrawn places. A member of the team might be able to answer this better. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sasata, unfortunately there is no waiting list. I sent messages out with information about the cup today. Those messages have been known to remind people about the cup (which often reminds them they will not be active enough)...and they drop out. So there is a chance someone will drop out, but two people have already asked for spots...so there will be competition to get the last spot if it becomes available... :-) ayematthew ✡ 20:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates

This is sorta like the GA for images. Should it deserve any points (10-15?)? Spencer^{Merry Christmas!} 17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That page looks kinda dead... –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to ignore it like A-class. Garden. 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Other question

From User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions: "You must have nominated your In the news fact during the round."

Shouldn't you also have written the update to the ITN article, like DYK?

Spencer^{Merry Christmas!} 20:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Garden. 22:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

MFD banner at top of page

Is it necessary to keep it? That MFD was created by someone who has now been found as a sock, and IMHO, the banner is kind of unneeded.   jj137 (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, I removed it. ayematthew ✡ 13:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

If anyone drops put in the coming days, I'd be more than willing to take their spot.--Iamawesome800 19:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Stage 2

Will the selection of the six groups of five in stage 2 be random or by seeding based on the scores in the first round? ϢereSpielChequers 19:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that is decided yet. Garden. 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem

I went to check the page statistics of an article earlier using the supplied tool. I entered 'en-wikipedia' and typed in the article name, then I clicked next, and then the words 'internal server error' came up. It said to report it to the creator, but he's on the German Wikipedia, so I thought reporting it here would be the next best thing. Is this happening to anyone else? TopGearFreak 20:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you may be looking for WP:EDITCOUNTER. Sam ^Blab 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:COUNT? Gary King (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Or this nifty process http://stats.grok.se/ which gives you the stats for any page ϢereSpielChequers 20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but the problem's fixed now. I meant the one here, but now it works, so it's fine. TopGearFreak 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking to page stats

To submit an article for points, I have to link to the statistics page for the article. However, the tool given does not give each article its own URL, so the URL always goes to the tool home page. Is there any way around this? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right and there's no way around it....[1] ayematthew @ 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Here's the history for the page I'm currently working on, for instance. Gary King (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Sorry guys, but it appears now that I could be substantially less active in some upcoming months, due to school and some other conflicts. I'm going to have to withdraw. Once again sorry. VX!^~~~ 03:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Grrr. ayematthew @ 03:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"If you remove him from the page, they will come"   jj137 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

So only Huggle edits need to be marked as minor, and all other "assisted" edits...? Spencer^T♦C 20:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Only huggle. ayematthew @ 20:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You has a problem

Diligent terrier has taken a huge wikibreak. Is he active? if not, then I'll gladly take his place representing Great Britain (I'm English/Irish/Irish) in this eleventh hour. However, I have no true problem with not competing, just volunteering as a last minute saviour. PXK ^T /_C 23:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, he hasn't edited since September 2008. Gary King (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So am I alright to jump in? (This wouldn't be hard to swap, surely?) PXK ^T /_C 23:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Iamawesome has first dibs on any available spot. // roux   23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

He's already in. PXK ^T /_C 23:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well spank my ass and call me Judy. // roux   00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So, as it is now started, can I join? He was the last in the queue AFAIK PXK ^T /_C 00:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. I've replied on my talk page. ayematthew @ 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

When does January start?

Is it UTC New Year (i.e. now) or some crazy US version? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It starts now. Gary King (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

=D Dendodge Talk^Contribs 00:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I already have a couple nominations up. :) Good luck to all, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah good luck everyone, I too have nominated some GA's. And I got a question why do the standings say everyone (but me, cause I have 1 mainspace point) has 225 points. Is that a bot glitch?--Iamawesome800 02:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It says 0 points for everyone. Gary King (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ST47 (talk · contribs) was doing some testing earlier. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Entry?

How can I enter it? LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 00:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You're a few weeks too late. Gary King (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn it! I've never heard of this before. I miss a wikicup year out now...oh God this is painful. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 00:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know if anyone drops out before January 5, 2009. ayematthew @ 03:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's an additional opening after LOTRules, I'd like to throw my hat into the ring as well.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 04:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants, I can drop out. I only entered because of silliness. I will be dragging behind and I don't like medals or anything. Its a thing for the young anyway. Garden, if you would like to contact me and see if I should be replaced with someone, please do. Just an offer. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So, who's next in line for it? PXK ^T /_C 05:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Chill out, he never said he definately wants to give it up. Ottava - I'll talk to you on IRC. ayematthew @ 14:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw

I want to withdraw. I feel I'm not experienced enough and am not up to the standard of the other contestants in my pool. TopGearFreak 14:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry to hear it. ayematthew @ 14:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not fair to just hand it over. The spot will be given to the first person who goes to User:Garden/WikiCup/Contestants and adds their name. ayematthew @ 14:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be me, then. (In case anyone is wondering about the flag, My maternal grandfather's family are from Hungary. PXK ^T /_C 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Counting

How often will the bot be recalculating scores, and when does that begin? ϢereSpielChequers 17:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

...And what bnamespaces does it count in? Is it only mainspace? It makes more sense for it to count all content namespaces, like portals and images. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just mainspace. Getting into portals and images and everything is just going to far in. ayematthew @ 18:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to type in the mainspace edits at the submissions page right?--Iamawesome800 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the bot will count your mainspace edits. It will not count edits marked as minor. Gary King (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought but just wanted to make sure before I had too many edits to catch up.--Iamawesome800 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's strange - I thought that mainspace edits got 0.1 points except for minor ones which only get 0.01 points. ϢereSpielChequers 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's what it is. Gary King (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So when will we actually see the scoreboards updated? Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 22:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

They are updated.--Iamawesome800 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same page? At User:Garden/WikiCup, all scores are at 0. Gary King (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's weird literally ten minutes ago it had scores.--Iamawesome800 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

← I guess you are talking about this version; it was reverted as a test. Gary King (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good. I thought I had done enough mainspace edits to have more than 1 point! Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 22:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I like my 10 points there, but to reask the question that Fury asked, when will the scores be updated here?--Iamawesome800 23:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

AWB?

I know Huggle is 0.01 points/edit, but what about AWB? I probably won't use it any more than normal, but I'm just curious.   jj137 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just huggle. ayematthew @ 00:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusion over minor edits, etc.

All edits that are minor will be 0.01 points, however you will not get disqualified if you change your Twinkle, AWB, Rollback, etc. to be a regular edit. You will be disqualified if you change your Huggle edits to regular instead of minor. ayematthew @ 00:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So much for the Vatican...

Just a heads up that I've got some personal issues which may unexpectedly affect my work on wikipedia for an extended period. While right now I'm still going to be pretty active, that could change at a moment's notice, so I am withdrawing. If there's anyone still vying for a spot this is their chance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it! I do have a replacement. Sorry, ayematthew @ 16:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry too, it was my chance to put Gary in his place, but I guess I can do that without the contest too :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I've still got Julian. Gary King (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah, but Julian is all storms and such. This was my chance to beat a fellow video gamer :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

{{o rly}}? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Scores

Are they the scores as of the start off today? Or more test edits? PXK ^T /_C 23:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming they will be recalculated every day at 0:00 UTC. Gary King (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Gary, probably will be recalculated in 7 minutes.--Iamawesome800 23:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidently not. PXK ^T /_C 00:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird, wonder when they update.--Iamawesome800 00:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Man guys, have some patience. He is away right now, he'll do it soon. ayematthew @ 00:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Scores put up on User:Garden/WikiCup/2009, about 4 minutes ago, now from what I understand (which is very little) these are "unofficial".--Iamawesome800 02:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing mainspace (major and minor edits)

This is becoming an un-needed problem. The mainspace edits are bringing up many problems and my opinion is that we should just boot them and stick to the article writing/improvement concept. I'd first just like to see what you guys think about it. All opinions welcome. ayematthew @ 03:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is meant to be a content competition, and will hopefully encourage a higher quality of articles produced. Mainspace edits are a little hard for the bot too, so some automated edits that would usually be worth less, are worth the same as normal unautomated edits. Sunderland06 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Having articles go through other processes also helps in determining the quality work; it's hard to gauge the quality of mainspace edits when comparing one to another. Gary King (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WHAT? Please tell me you guys are kidding! I've just spent a day working really hard on mainspace (and built up a handy lead, if I say so myself) and now it's moot? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! *cries in corner* PXK ^T /_C 03:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

At least you don't have to spend so much time increasing your mainspace count anymore, then. Gary King (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No there needed, just look at how many are currently doing mainspace edits, so please don't remove them from counting. Maybe next year's competiton.--Iamawesome800 03:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ayematthew, they should be removed. —TheLeftorium 09:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with removing mainspace counts. The point of this competition is to massively increase WP's stock of Good- and Featured-class content. I'll run a separate WikiGnomeCup halfway through the year, how's that?:P // roux   04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Excellent, I can't wait! :P Gary King (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This should be changed next year because I joined it this year due to mainspace edits not because of quality articles, not that I am incapable of doing them, but my time is limited right now.Truco 04:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Make mainspace edits worth 0.01 and disqualify any huggle edits. I make plenty of mainspace edits outside of vandal patrol which count as improvement of content. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Main space edits, by their very nature, would count the same if someone made a little change or added a lot of k at a time. As someone who does the latter, I say "good riddance". Now, if we could only get rid of featured picture, featured lists, and featured sounds. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please don't change the rules whilst the competition is going on. If you don't want gnomes like me in your next competition then advertise in advance that you are not counting mainspace edits. ϢereSpielChequers 11:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Don't change it in the middle of a round, it'd be very abrupt. My suggestion is to wait until the 2nd round. Sam ^Blab 13:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• In any case, aren't people receiving 1 point per mainspace edit, instead of 0.1 points? --Heebiejeebieclub (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't see why you guys are flipping out that the rules will be changed "whilst the competition is already being held." It's currently three days in, and nobody except Spencer (I believe) has any points other than Mainspace edits. But many issues are coming up with them. The bot seems to be having trouble figuring out the way the points split. It's confusing and stressful trying to keep track of it all. ayematthew @ 13:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Heebiejeebieclub, by the looks of it, mainspace edits are counted at 0.1 points each, as it should. Gary King (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep mainspace, and get rid of Featured Sound, and Picture cause not everyone is a sound recorder or picture taker, while everyone can edit in mainspace.--Iamawesome800 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If that suggestion puts me in the lead, I'm all for it! ;). Spencer^T♦C 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just remove them. Its an unneeded error.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep them for the first round; I don't like changing the rules after the contest starts. Useight (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In general, I support removing the mainspace points, but it would be troublesome to remove them in the middle of a round. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the middle of the round, out of 90 days in the round, only 3 have gone by. No big deal. Many are planning on getting by the first round by making many automated edits and no article writing. We need to stick to the basic concept of this competition. ayematthew @ 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I say implement it ASAP. Gary King (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Mainspace edits can mean improvements to articles as well, for example adding references and expanding sections- it's unfair to only reward articles which make it to GA or above. I am improving articles at the moment, but I have no intention of raising them to GA or FA (yet) when my hands are full trying to write one good article. What's the point of me competing if I just get 30 points for the finished article, when I should get more for each improvement I make? Can't the bot ignore all automated edits? That would be good. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think this would be a good idea to implement in the middle of a round, like others have said. Perhaps next round (or year), but I'm guessing there's quite a few people who use this route exclusively. Or, for example, people like me, who instead of focusing on a few articles to get to a high status, work on lots (as in, lots) of articles in general (for example, bringing a few hundred stubs up to B-class, etc.) I'm still doing plenty of article work, yet it wouldn't get counted. However, I could understand removing this in the future (Huggle too), but just not in the middle of a round. (edit conflict- basically what Oliver said.)   jj137 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Three days in and I seem to be leading my group and in fourth place overall, so you don't need automated tools to compete in this contest, but it does help to be stuck at home with a stinking cold. However this is meant to be a fun competition, if some people are not enjoying it with the current rules we could restart with new rules; As I don't make automated edits myself I have no objection to all automated edits being marked as 0.01. Alternatively why not split the competition, at the end of the first three months use the mainspace edits score to judge us all on the WikiGnome contest and the other columns for a "writers cup"? ϢereSpielChequers 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Myself, Garden, and ST47 are talking in a private conversation right now. We'll let you know the result when we're done. ayematthew @ 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Decision

Alright, we've gotten two conclusions:

• Mainspace edits will still count.
  • AWB, Huggle, and Twinkle edits will not be counted. The bot is able to pick those edits up and discount them.
  • Major edits are still 0.1 and minor are still 0.01.

ayematthew @ 20:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, that was the best decision- it will allow users who improve articles but not to GA or above to get credit. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 20:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it! ;) TheLeftorium 20:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a great decision to me.   jj137 (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, to all Hugglers who "can't write articles" and only joined for the Huggling - this is a content competition. Always was, even if last year it descended into the opposite. It's not hard to write GAs; I'm awful at writing and I got two. Seriously, this contest is to spur up more constructive editing, not to click a few buttons for hours on end. It's not fair on the encyclopedia writers. (Don't get me wrong, Huggle is great, just not what we're looking for. Sorry.) Garden. 20:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's all go get tropical cyclone articles to GA! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweet moses, it must be Christmas! I compliment you on making that tough decision.--Giants58 21:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL Julian! How about we get every single U.S. battleship to GA instead? User:Juliancolton/Faces —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but then we'd have to get every tropical cyclone article to FA. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A plaintive note of caution

Having watched what havoc Sharkface's Awards Center wrought, I have misgivings about this contest. Sharkface's Awards Center garnered so much interest in the rewards that editors were keen to work together to pass articles that were not high quality, and rush through processes because quantity of awards was more important to them than the quality of the individual article. However, I do not wish to urinate on the parade prematurely. Allow me to say to those who do not already know that should any participants consider bringing an article to WP:FAC, it should be after a GA pass and a Peer Review.

FAC is not the place to get a list of things to fix in the article in order to have it promoted as an FA.

I may go so far to suggest that if participants nominate articles at FAC that are clearly underpar in quality, they should lose points in this contest. And any user who attempts to pass an article at GA or through some other process that may further themselves somehow in this contest should be disqualified immediately and possibly blocked.

FAC is for serious hardcore research. It only works when volunteers help to review articles. Those volunteers are attracted to interesting and thoughtful work. I can only image what would happen to FAC reviewers if articles started to show up nominated by participants of this contest eager to gain points by sacrificing work and reviewers' time.

Call me the Grinch. I'm just no fun. --Moni3 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Let Garden or I know if any problems arise. Thanks, ayematthew @ 21:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec, at Moni3) Absolutely agreed. I for one would hate for this to go the way Sharkface's Award Center did. We must take steps to try to focus on the quality rather than the quantity of these FAs/GAs. It's evidently not possible to rate them on a sort of scale (however easier that would make our lives) so iMatthew and I will be counting on you as contestants to only submit articles that you believe to be GA-ready for GAN; possible FAs should go through Peer Review first; and FACs should not be stepping stones. Come on, it's a competition but really it should purely be a content drive. Please, please, please do not try to shortcut your way to the top of your group, for Wikipedia's sake. Thanks. Garden. 21:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

First off, this looks like a great idea for provoking mainspace edits! My question: Why is there no special points awarded for starting a new article either from a redlink or a redirect? When you look at things like Wikipedia:Missing mammal species or the most requested articles, you realize that just creating a decent article with a few references is a big help. Steven Walling (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just added myself to the list of participants, so if I could be added to a pool that would be great. Never mind. I see that it's already well under way. Steven Walling (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:You can still join, if there hasn't been someone who already took the 60th spot. But after the 5th, unless someone else withdraws before that it's set.--Iamawesome800 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone already joined. So unless someone else drops out you'll have to wait till next year.--Iamawesome800 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've created a little "waiting list" under the participant list here if anyone wants to stand-in for early (read, this week) drop-outs due to the unfortunate changes in rules. I've added you, Steven :D Garden. 22:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

64 wouldn't be that hard to work with. Halfing it each times means 64...32..16...8...4..2..1 Just a thought.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, blame iMatt for that :P Garden. 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah Garden, I suggested it - you say "too late"! :P ayematthew @ 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Garden! Steven Walling (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wondering

Okay, from what I understand, you can only get points for articles that you worked on and placed up at GAN and FAC that passed during the first round. So you can't get points for articles that you placed up before the cup began but passed after the new year, is that right?--WillC 00:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's right. Gary King (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I bet he's totally facepalming right now about getting Lockdown to FA over the last few days. PXK ^T /_C 05:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Like we say here in DC, "Blown" :D Its okay Will, you can always get Bound for Glory man.--Truco 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I feel I owe all of you an apology for my conduct a few hours ago. Upon finding our that the contest is strictly content-based, and not spread across all areas of contributing, as I originally thought, I should have just withdrawn cordially. Instead, my reaction was far less satisfactory, and totally uncalled for. I would like to make a public apology for what I did. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The blame here is all on iMatthew and I. Such a large rule change was definitely not the best course of action, and your reaction was perhaps called for. Garden. 19:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should have made this decision prior, but neither of us thought it would be as big of an issue as it turned out to be. ayematthew @ 19:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What's a Huggle?

I don't have Huggle, nor do I know what it is other than some program thing, also onmly a few of them were minor edits.--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Learn about it here. Gary King (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In short, the extinction of vandalism.   jj137 (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted edits

I suspect I know the answer to this, but am I correct in assuming that deleted mainspace contributions won't get counted by the bot? ϢereSpielChequers 20:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's correct. Gary King (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)