Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2009/3

FA points

Seems a bit odd that FAs, which can take months of work, are only 20 points higher than GAs, which often take an hour of work. Just my $0.02. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep Gary King (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to change the rules in the middle of the game! :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I never said the rules should be changed, I was just complaining! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Julian, even though his FAs on those weird storms are easier to write. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically those are the same articles you got to GA meaning that you earn GA + FA points, 80 if I remember. Garden. 21:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but not all FAs are promoted from GA; one of mine, Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison, is an example of this. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I hardly use GA to get to FA. Maybe straight-to-FA should get 80, and GA-to-FA gets 50 (and GA remains 30)? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I could see "presuming" GA if you go straight to FA. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I've gathered on IRC, it takes some users around thirty minutes to complete an article for GAN. It could take over a week to prepare an article for FAC. That should be taken into consideration. Even if a straight-to-FAC article received 80 points, that's 80 points for a 1-week effort. In that time space another user could dominate a dozen GAs, if they wanted to. The point system (for next year, of course), in my opinion, should weigh that into consideration. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A week from start to finish on an FA? I'm not sure how you're estimating that time. Perhaps the articles you're considering are the famous short articles causing the FAC talk pages so much consternation. I've written the bulk of some articles in 7 or 8 days (in a frenzied manic state not sleeping but 2 to 4 hours a night), but the GA and Peer Review process, asking for feedback from respected editors, copy edits, and the like take much longer. Let me reiterate my concern above: please don't depict the construction of an FA as something relatively effortless. I predict a rush on FACs where "this was all the information that is available". My advice: pick a topic you are passionate about, one that you don't mind spending months working on, digging deeper into new sources, or poring over writing to fashion into brilliance. --Moni3 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From personal experience it takes me four to five days to get the bulk of an article done. It's true that the peer review will take even more time. I meant for pure article construction. It will take at least two weeks for a FAC to pass, alone. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And not all articles require PR. Extremely experienced users such as JonCatalan can easily handle minor issues brought up at FAC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 06:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that quite strongly, actually. All articles benefit from PR, regardless of how much experience an editor has at FAC. I wonder if you think all your articles are about storms, or JonCatalan's about tanks or military equipment, that you have all the writing experience you need. In this thread you're trying to work points for FAs, and there's a suggestion for skipping GA now. How many FA storm articles do you have? Do you already have all your sources? Is it just a matter now of plugging in the right information in the right place? Is the effort your spend on your next FA going to be the same as someone who has never written an FA before?

What if you were exempt from FA storm articles, or JonCatalan from military equipment for this contest? What if you had to get an FA on something completely different, start from scratch, totally new sources, Day 1 standing in the library wondering which way to go? Wouldn't that be more fair, and actually help you grow as an editor?

This is my primary issue with contests such as these. On the surface it looks like a game where the objective is the growth of the editor. But here is the opinion that no, some editors don't need PR. Some can skip GA. It takes only a week to write an FA. What simplicity. No growth needed. Absolutely no challenge. Well, I'm challenging you—all of you. Start from scratch. Don't write for arbitrary points set up on a talk page. Do something worthy of acknowledgment and show your growth. --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well to be fair, I've written both about military equipment and military operations. I've written on topics that I haven't researched in years (such as the Battle of the Bulge), although I do have the resources for them on hand. But, in any case, isn't the point to take on topics that you're comfortable in? Not just random articles? I mean, even you suggested in an earlier topic to "pick a topic you are passionate about, one that you don't mind spending months working on, digging deeper into new sources, or poring over writing to fashion into brilliance." JulianColton is passionate about hurricanes, and I'm passionate about military history; our passion means that over the years of our lives we've built up personal libraries worth of information. As a result, we have the information to write articles on hand. This doesn't mean that's all in my head; I still do quite a bit of research. But I don't have to spend weeks upon weeks researching, and then writing. I can read relevant passages from several books and move this onto Wikipedia and write a well-written article. Of course, there will be copyedits and the FAC alone will take at least two weeks or so, but the bulk of the article was written within a week. I mean, even you admitted that you can write the bulk of an article within a week. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

True, I do write about storms. Also true is that JonCatalan works on military articles. I definitely agree that it would difficult for me to write on a topic foreign to me, but since those are the topics we write about, we have sufficient experience to push an article to high-quality levels in an efficient manner. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

JonCatalan, are you suggesting the only thing you are interested in is military equipment? JulianColton, have you no interests outside of storms? Surely I am not unique that passionate interest can be directed at many topics. I briefly considered getting an FA in each category of FAs, but that math category will kill me.

Yes, I have written FAs such as the Everglades satellites in 3 to 8 days. For one article I had the freedom two read and write 12 hours a day. By the last one, I had already read all the sources and it was only a matter of doing the writing and checking for completeness. But all my articles went to PR and GA, and I had the incredible help of the FA Team.

My point is that while it appears the rules of this contest are dickered about here on the talk page, the spirit of it is abandoned. Challenge yourself by writing about something you have to research almost or completely by scratch. Why not choose Battle of the Bulge, the Siege of Bastogne or D-Day? They should be Featured. Julian, what about meteorology, Atlantic Ocean, or create an article about storms in literature? The amount of work that go into those will be substantial and look at what Wikipedia will have to show for it. Even better, look at what you will have to show from it. If growth is the point of this contest, then show you have grown. Otherwise, why not post "I got 1,000,000 points. I win." on your user page? --Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have interests outside of storms; see New York State Route 311, a current FAC of mine. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, however, and the great thing about that is anybody can write on any subject they wish. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Moni, I have worked in the area of the Battle of the Bulge. Please see Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive; that was no easy topic. But, given my areas of interests I guess my point is that the basic information is already in my head. Given that I know the skeleton of what I'm looking to write, using sources for me is fairly easy. I can read a couple of pages of different books, sort it in my head, and extrapolate it in my own words onto Wikipedia. That article took me roughly two days to write (minus all the hours I wasn't writing). It has taken about a week to get through ACR (and hasn't passed yet), and once up for FAC it will take two more weeks. That's a total of four weeks. But, the time I spent the most on it was two days to a week (including copyediting); I don't count lulls. Between that, I can write other articles, so it wouldn't be fair for me to claim that those four weeks should be rewarded as if I was doing the same amount of work as someone pumping out GAs, because I'm not. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, Moni has a point. I'm predominately a television episode FA writer. And it does sadden me when I see small articles like Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), at barely under 20KB, get on FAC. People shouldn't be afraid to spend money on resources to get a truly great featured article. For example, take my labour-of-love, The Stolen Earth, and how much it cost me:

• Man-hours: about a week added together (normally in 4-6 hour stints), over the course of six months (I "finished" the article exactly six months after I started it), and a hell of a load of lemonade
• The Writer's Tale: £15
• Doctor Who series 4: £30 (from eBay; it costs about twice that RRP)
• Doctor Who Magazine special edition #20: £7
• Five regular issues of DWM: £20
• Two issues of the Radio Times: £2
• Stephen James Walker's "unofficial guide": £10
• SFX special edition #35: £5

Which adds up to a total of £89 (around $135, though mind you, I do get to use the sources somewhere else down the line as well, so it's not just all spent on this article). And remember: I'm a sixth form student. I don't really have the money to spend on loads of fancy stuff; I bought most of this stuff saving up for a few weeks (though I nearly always put aside £4 per month for DWM). And this is a television article, which says two things: one, I'm a geek with no life; and two, it's on the lower end of the spectrum of featured article writing. You really need passion and drive to write a featured article, not just exhaustion of real-life sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

An open offer

Actually there's no rule saying the editor can't route an FA through GA first if they want to, then they also pick up points for mainspace edits. The WikiCup doesn't count anything for the thousands of edits in Photoshop it took to get this ready for FPC. Let's sit back and enjoy the process.

Place finish in the WikiCup doesn't matter much, but improving Wikipedia's content does. If we had 100 editors each restoring 2 images a week, Wikipedia could gain 10,000 featured pictures in one year. Shoemaker's Holiday and I are glad to help new people get up to speed; we've already handed material and/or advice to about half a dozen WikiCup participants. More are welcome. Recommend getting Skype: it's a good client for media file transfers.

So here's the offer: barnstars to the first three WikiCup participants who earn a restoration featured picture credit (other than myself and Shoemaker). Best wishes all, Durova^Charge! 16:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Restoration is more difficult than I thought. :p I'm wary. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker and I have been working to build a path, and make it easier for others to join us. Was a bit tougher to get things started. We'd be glad to have you. Durova^Charge! 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants, I have some Doré stuff that only needs a little cleanup. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How would you clean the dirt off that image of the American soldier in the church, in Italy? JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User Name change effect

Can my entry be changed, I used to be User:SRX, but now I am User:Truco, but I changed my name through WP:USURP and my edits were not tied with both accounts, so all my new edits I have done with Truco are not being counted, can this be changed?--Truco 05:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In the process I believe. Thanks for the info. Garden. 16:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow

I just found this. What a neat idea. Raul654 (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote that Raul should be banned from this becuase he can promote FA's himself. Obviously just kidding (partly because he can't promote FA's), but maybe someone will laugh... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't promote FAs? Huh? Where did you get that idea? I used to promote all of them myself. Now Sandy and I share the job, although in practice that means she does almost all of them :) (So everyone give her a big hug)

Anyway, I think this is a great idea. I'm not sure if the scoring is equitable - it might be worth tweaking it next year - but it's just the kind of thing we should encourage. Raul654 (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "can't promote his own FA's" would have been more accurate - I just remember that this made me laugh awhile back. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank Raul. If you want, you can add your name to the waiting list (see the bar at the top of the page) and participate if a spot opens up. iMatthew // talk // 12:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, if Raul really wants in, he can have my spot and my points. I don't know if he can beat Julian either though. Hurricane season will be around by the later rounds, and, well, you know how Julian spams up the place. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How big a bribe would it take...

... to get me transferred to Pool B :) The folks in Pool J are too tough, they're snapping at my heels! Paxse (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Pool J is by far the most interesting Pool! Gary King (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And Pool B is boring :( Sceptre ^(talk) 19:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OY! Cup officials, two volunteers to swap over here! :) Paxse (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I don't want to move; I just think Paxse would do good in Pool B. I need a bit of competition, but not so much that I may not qualify (and what the hell at people racking up 700 edits these past 10 days...) Sceptre ^(talk) 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

with 1,600 neglected Cambodian articles on my watchlist - 700 edits is no problem! Paxse (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the setup is good, as far as the two of you go. I think the standard deviation of each pool should be as low as possible. Gary King (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing earlier this morning. Pool J is really tight and competitive. But there's still plenty of time. Useight (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Aha Useight, wanna collaborate on a GA or two? That should get us clear of the opposition. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have a single GA to my name (or FA, DYK, etc), and I've been editing for over two years. But, I spent the last couple of days working on one and submitted it for consideration last night. It was kind of fun, so if you've got another one in mind, let's do it. Useight (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice I'm the only one with 50+ total points without anything besides mainspace points. Useight (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone's had a little too much time on their hands... ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, Tinucherian now has 54, there are two of us now. Useight (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the 50+ mainspace group now! I wonder what the minor edits only sub total would be? WereSpielChequers 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pool C has plenty of potential. I have 10 DYKs on the Main Page right now... beats the five I had a few hours ago... it tore me to pieces when they split my record 14 DYKs in one hook down into 9+5 because it went off on so many tangents... but what's most interesting is that 10 DYKs is the equivalent in points to an FA and 14 would have been more than that in one go... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 03:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, pool B is really boring. There's just me and Sceptre doing anything, and three slots to the next round. Oh, well. I'll keep up the FS and FP work. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pool A is mildly interesting...mostly between Catalan and Gary. I took a short time ahead at the beginning, then Catalan got like 100, and then Gary got like a 100 too. I hope they go on vacation so I can catch up. ;P Spencer^T♦C 04:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if you can't, the three of you have created some serious separation in the pool. Useight (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Spencer^T♦C 21:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight, it might make more sense to have a shorter first round, since that's probably when there will be the biggest gap between points for contestants. In later rounds, I imagine the standard deviation will be much lower. Gary King (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe for next year a better way would be to start as a league and after the first month drop the lowest few each week. Then the subsequent rounds could be pooled with a seeding system based on the first round results. What I don't think would work would be shorter rounds, as that could be thrown either by real life interruptions or by the vagaries of the GA & FAC processes. WereSpielChequers 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think WereSpielChequers has a point, but it's perhaps best to remember that this is jus a bit of fun- leaving a while before the first elimination means even casual users can join in, enjoy themselves and hopefully be motivated to improve some content. J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I withdraw my suggestion of dropping a few each week, but I think a league start next year would maximise the fun element by giving most competitors near rivals to compare themselves with. Mitchazenia and I have a close contest for 4th place in group J but I suspect quite a few others have no-one in their pool with a score anywhere near them. WereSpielChequers 12:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem (2)

On my submissions page, I have a DYK, but the bot isn't noticing it. Can someone fix this, and update the newsletter to reflect so? Sam ^Blab 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Format it like the example at User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions#Did_you_know_articles. Gary King (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail, i need outside help :P Sam ^Blab 00:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done; anyways, the bot counted the DYK without the right formatting. Just wait for the bot to update the scores before asking why it hasn't counted your points ;) Gary King (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot isn't counting my edits...

Am I right in thinking that the edits are counted from January 1? If so, I think the bot has my edit count wrong for some reason- even removing edits from today (and some of yesterday's) I should have significantly more than 11 points (assuming 0.1 points for a major, and 0.01 for a minor). Could this possibly because I was a late entry, and wasn't actually added to the list until after the competition had started? J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The score looks about right. AWB edits are not counted. Gary King (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Didn't realise that. J Milburn (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Are edits from other tools counted? How come not AWB? Where are you getting those rules from? J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No Twinkle, no Huggle and no AWB. About three days in, the rules were changed slightly here. Major are still 0.1 and minor are still 0.01 points. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 20:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, that explains it. Thanks for the link. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

Just to check - does the bot count edits made with alternate accounts? I don't want to use my main account at school, so I'd appreciate it if edits made with this account were counted too. Thanks! Densock|Dendodge^{in public} 12:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently that was going to complicate things too much for the Bot so none of our alt accounts qualify for mainspace edits - but you can submit GAs etc and that still counts. WereSpielChequers 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No contest for the final two weeks?

Hey, I noticed this before now but anyway... the choice of wording means the last person (and presumably therefore the winner) will be competing against themselves for an extra fortnight more than necessary. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 22:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

August 1 to September 31 – 4 users left – 1 group of 4, one elimination every two weeks.

Yes, that way the last person left will be eliminated (due to their having the lowest score of all remaining competitors), that way they won't get too cocky. Useight (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And then it goes back to the beginning and the person with the lowest points - WINS!!! It's a trick! --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 03:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not give a one-month lead in before the first elimination? It'd give everyone time to get their nominations together, and start racking up points. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good - although I expect it won't affect me. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 03:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Or one out in week three, one out in week six and the final two until week eight could work... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 03:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'd rather not have one week where points don't count. I don't think it makes sense to encourage people to hold off on nominations, which that would probably do. Gary King (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the last one cumulative, so that the points don't reset when people are eliminated? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If they can do it, we can too!

Hi everyone! It's my pleasure to inform you that we have a new judge, User:Thehelpfulone.

Garden and I are two editors. We hardly agree on anything, so we really needed a third opinion. :)

Anyway, THO will be our newest judge, and will be open to questions as soon as we fill him in tomorrow! Regards, iMatthew // talk // 00:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• annoying american idol theme in the background* So, who's going to be Simon? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 05:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I might take up Simon's role! :) The Helpful One 13:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, certainly Garden would have to be Simon. I would likely be Randy, and Thehelpfulone can be Paula. I guess if we needed to fill the new girl's spot, we could make ST47 her. :-P iMatthew // talk // 13:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you all suck. (That's me being Simon, by the way.) :D Garden. 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK Submissions ?

To add it here, should the DYK nom be already successfull and featured on main page ? Are 5X expansion noms also counted ? -- Tinu Cherian - 12:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You should only add it when it's on the main page, in my opinion. Also, I assume expansions are also counted. Gary King (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot won't recognise it until it's been on the main page and has the talk page template. I add them as hidden comments when I nominate them so I can easily keep track of what's on. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought the bot just checks if the item is on the submissions page, and goes no further. Gary King (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody confirm this ? -- Tinu Cherian - 11:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It must be successful and on the main page. 5X expainsions are also counted. iMatthew // talk // 11:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification -- Tinu Cherian - 11:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary King- I was assuming that the bot checks the talk page notice, as when adding it to the submissions page, you need a link to the article talk page? J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the bot didn't check any links, since I've seen some people add DYKs to their Submissions page without links beyond one to the article, and it was still counted. I'd like to hear directly from whoever wrote the bot, as I imagine the extra work to make it check the other pages might be too much. Gary King (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, bot is not updating my DYK contribs listed here :| -- Tinu Cherian - 12:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is working now. btw just noticed that it pushed down my mainspace count from 71 to 70. -- Tinu Cherian - 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a page you edited was deleted?  GARDEN  07:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea Maybe.. I try to 'save' some articles at the AFD :) -- Tinu Cherian - 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing Gaps

Based on the numbers currently at User:Garden/WikiCup/2009, I thought it was interesting that the average gap between 3rd and 4th place is 28.1 points while the average gap between 2nd and 3rd place is much higher: 41.4. Don't know if that info could help out in planning a future WikiCup or whatever, just throwing it out there. Useight (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That will change shortly. I will be pulling my weight in my section. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Same. Spencer^T♦C 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too. 239 is simply is not enough to satisfy me. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 17:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also Wondering

I'm wondering if, after the first round, some of the eliminated contestants wouldn't be interested in still competing in a "casual" pool. I don't know if it would make things too difficult for the judges to set up, or if there'd be any interest at all. But I would imagine that some of the 30 eliminated contestants would still have the competitive spirit and would want to be put into a single group to compete against each other. I'm thinking that since there are, at this moment, five editors with between 21 and 51 points aren't in the top three of their pool (and another five between 10 and 20), while in some pools editors with sub-10 points are in the top three, perhaps a portion of these 10 editors would want to keep playing (assuming they don't break into the top three of their respective pools come the end of March), in a pool called Casual. Then, after the second round ends at the end of May, the 18 eliminated editors (or whichever of the 18 that want to opt-in) could continue to compete in a pool called Lightweight. The eight eliminated after the third round could keep competing in a pool called Hardcore. The final four obviously continue to compete for the WikiCup. I'm thinking that this would allow eliminated editors to compete with others in a similar bracket. Being more competitive in nature would foster more content creation and would keep editors more interested in content creation until September instead of only March and since the whole point of this is to create content instead of just eliminate "foes" on your way to winning a trophy, I think this could be a good thing. Useight (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A UEFA Cup of sorts. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd participate, if only because it spurs me on to improve content. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'd be interested. Spencer^T♦C 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, I think.   jj137 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, me and my fellow judges have had some banter on IRC a private discussion about this idea, and we agree that it is a good one. Hopefully we'll get another table or three for the defeated contestants to compete in (I know that some people will be knocked out prematurely due to breaks, so this will be a good chance to continue competing.) Thanks for the idea, Useight! For the WikiCup team, Garden. 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I like this. It encourages those who are eliminated (or who feel they might be) to continue building and editing which is what it should be all about. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 17:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Two talk pages

Is there a particular reason we have talk pages at User talk:Garden/WikiCup/2009 and User talk:Garden/WikiCup? Just seems like an extra hassle to watchlist them both. Is anyone opposed to combining the two? Useight (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

They are not two talk pages. The User talk:Garden/WikiCup/2009 is this page's archive. iMatthew // talk // 00:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it's always used that way, though, Durova just posted a comment there; apparently she didn't know it was an archive, either. Useight (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the former to an archive page and the link redirects here now. Garden. 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary point downgrades?

Hi, here's an offer in the interests of friendly sportsmanship. Not everyone is a restorationist. Suggesting a voluntary downgrade to 15 points per featured picture, applicable only to myself. Everyone else would still get full 35 points credit for featured pictures. Not sure how others will take this idea, but it seems like the right thing to make the offer. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 23:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First thing that comes to mind is whether the tallying bot could handle something like that. Useight (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: The two above comments were placed on this talk page's archive with these two edits. Useight (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the move, Useight. :) Durova^Charge! 01:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Useight (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't affect me, but if you want to :)   jj137 (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see the point right now - to be fair (and no offence to anyone in Durova's pool) you'll probably storm it even with 15 points apiece. Perhaps the rule could come into place next round? Garden. 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If the purpose of the cup is to motivate people into building the encyclopedia, then keeping the competition fun and sporting is worth doing. Will defer to other contributors and the organizers about when or whether to implement this. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. Only my opinion though - others (namely those in your pool :P ) will likely disagree with me... :P Garden. 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(Someone from pool I, right on cue) I think it would be pretty decent of Durova to lower the featured picture cost. Dunno if I could catch up, but I'll give it a go! J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I really would like the point system for FPs to remain where it is for everybody else. After mentoring people in this, it really does rival the difficulty for the average person to get their first FP as their first FA. 35 points for non-regulars would be an excellent motivating factor, and I'm considering withdrawing this offer if the point count changes to 25 for everyone, which is where the straw poll is heading. We need more restorationists; I get more material than I could possibly do alone. Durova^Charge! 06:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because we have an expert on picture restoration here doesn't mean that it should be reduced for everyone. Should we reduce Featured Article scores because Juliancolton is competing? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell, or that matter, I'm the main person working on sounds just now. I supply Portal:Opera with fresh sounds every update, and have agreed to help Portal:Classical music as well. Shall we drop sounds as well? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Or ITNs, as I'm pretty much the only one with them (Okay, Candlewicke has some too, but it's just us). Spencer^T♦C 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep 'em, or even increase them. The very kind offers of mentoring from Shoemaker's holiday and Durova have motivated me to try restoring some pictures (when work is less hectic) and to be honest the potential points are also slightly motivating ;). I'll definitely need a couple of featured pictures to help get me get clear of the ravening wolfpack in Pool J! Paxse (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Garden, if Durova gets 15 points for FPs, then she would have 207 right now. Theleftorium currently has 199, so it would hardly be a runaway. I think that overall, it makes more sense to handicap her significantly than to handicup everyone slightly. I think that it's easier to build FPs when you get the hang of it, but the barrier to entry is fairly high at the beginning. Gary King (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Point values changing poll

User:Garden/WikiCup/Poll iMatthew // talk // 21:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note...

Because Sandy is worried about this sort of thing, a note to all considering featured content promotion to remember that only significant contributors are allowed to nominate featured content (without a significant contributor's permission.) Any such FAC will be summarily withdrawn as per FAC instructions. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Sandy would like full disclosure if you're a WikiCup member because she's afraid you'll votestack. Crazy gal, I know, but we love her and don't at all envy her position, so do as she asks :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this include Featured Lists, Pictures, Sounds, etc. as well?   jj137 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec, @ Fuchs) Ah, thanks Fuchs. Totally skipped my mind. Sandy, if you're reading, sorry 'bout that.. :P Garden. 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Jj, I would assume so. Garden. 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Sandy has nothing to do with featured content other than featured articles; depends if the other featured content directors want it, really. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Common sense dictate that it would apply to those processes as well. Just in case though, I am leaving notices at the FL directors' talk pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if people did reveal that they are wikicup entrants in FLCs. It's a bit of a different situation with us because both Matthewedwards and I are entrants in the competition. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Points poll

I've just noticed: Only me, Durova, and Spencer have any FPs. So other people are essentially voting to drop the points for doing contributions they themselves apparently have no interest from getting points from.

I call shenanigans. We were promised no more point changes. Durova even offered to drop her points. Instead, I'm the one who gets to suffer by working in the same Featured content group as a highly prolific creator of that content, above and beyond what I could ever do.

The points were set at the start of the Wikicup, and we were promised no more changes. I should not have my points reduced in violation of this promise because someone who agreed to handicap herself - and who is a world-class restorationist - happens to be competing.

I spent over £100 acquiring the original material I've been using for my current featured picture project, with Doré. I will probably end up having to spend more when I move on from this one. Furthermore, I'm a poor student, living just above the poverty level at best, so I'm suffering for Wikipedia. If you think my work is easy, maybe you'd like to donate some money towards the acquisition of further material, so I can apply my easy work to it, since evidently noone else in this group but Durova is capable of doing this easy work, despite it being so very easy. E-mail me. We could co-nominate the results. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I, too, am against changing the point value between rounds. I have placed my name under "current" in each category. FWIW, I have no points other than mainspace. Useight (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea that may please everyone. I need to wait for Garden and Thehelpfulone to get on IRC. iMatthew // talk // 02:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC) nevermind.

Excellent; I love ideas that are win-win :D Gary King (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a FP too, I just haven't gotten around to putting it wherever it is I'm supposed to for the bot. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

100+

Pool J just became the first with four individuals to cross the 100-point barrier. Why, oh why was I cursed with such competitive poolmates? Useight (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I told you that taking the last cookie was a bad idea. iMatthew // talk // 23:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I bet you that Mathewedwards and WereSpielChequers have both got several featured credits coming as well. If this were pools competing against other pools we'd clean up! Paxse (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was aiming to get through this phase without anything other than mainspace edits, sadly that no longer looks a viable tactic for the Pool I'm in, and I seem set for the second highest score amongst the 30 who are dropped at the end of round 1. However I really like the idea of pools competing and would be happy if I helped make Pool J the top scoring pool - can we add scores by pool to the newsletter? WereSpielChequers 14:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Useight! Check out Mathewedwards talk page - we're all toast now, he's da man. Paxse (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, as one of the few entrants still limited to mainspace points, you guys are making it very difficult. Pool I, though, is far and away leading ing total points. Useight (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pool	Points
Pool I	948
Pool J	597
Pool H	535
Pool C	470
Pool A	469
Pool E	336
Pool G	271
Pool B	255
Pool F	205
Pool D	170

The stats aren't entirely correct as Catalan, in my Pool A, his points are not counted except for mainspace for some reason. Otherwise we would have 200 more points in Pool A. Gary King (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the bot updated the scores right after (or maybe as) I posted. Useight (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK so my most realistic attainable target now is to come last in pool J whilst oustscoring the whole of Pool D WereSpielChequers 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just stay up all night one night editing and you can start closing the gap. Useight (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem

There appears to be a problem with Durova's score. All of a sudden she has 180 mainspace points, but 0 total. Useight (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume they are playing around with making only her FPs 15 points each? Gary King (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been dealt with now. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it may have been undealt with, as her total is still zero for me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Gary King (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Garden.2FWikiCup Gary King (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! We're famous now. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake. //roux   17:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A cursory note to say it's been resolved. Drama over very little. Garden :  Chat  19:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the sentiments of the thead, but I don't think there's any problem yet. The majority of people in the competition were already big content contributors, so they're just continuing what they were already doing, but with a little more motivation now. However, I do feel that we have to keep an eye out for problems of the sort NE2 fears. J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We are - steps have been taken in the (eversoslightly more important) area of FAC to avoid canvassing, see above threads. Garden :  Chat  20:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd also like to suggest that people should not be able to reject DYKs from competing players in the same pool as them (or promote hooks from friends in other pools). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Mgm. I've been thinking I owe DYK some serious reviewing/helping time myself after making a few submissions. So, do you think I should avoid reviewing other Wikicup contestents? I know you don't make teh rulez :) But I'd value your advice as a DYK regular. It seems a bit unfair. I'd be more likely to try to expand an undersized suggestion than reject it anyway. Can't see myself rejecting much, just verifying, expanding a little if necessary and adding the green tick. Paxse (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless the rules change in one of the ways suggested on this page, then you have no link with editors in other pools but it could be inappropriate to be arguing against things that would generate points for rivals in your own pool. As an example I sometimes review articles at wp:fac, if I was picking holes in an FA submission by someone in my pool that would be a potential COI, but while I know whose dust I'm eating in my own pool I have not memorised the other 54 participants and it makes no difference to me in this cup whether they do well at FAC or not. However if the rules changed and especially if we introduced competition between pools then it could get more complicated. WereSpielChequers 14:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

All I'm suggesting is to instigate some rules to avoid unfair advantages or disadvantages. It's unlikely that giving someone an unfair advantage slips by the other regulars of the DYK or FA processes, but I feel more strongly about purposely opposing stuff from pool members to get an advantage yourself. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)