Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2009/4

Scores updated at strange times?

This is a trivial issue, but I find it strange that the scores are updated at 23:00 UTC and 0:00 UTC? Can the scores update every six hours, so that would mean at 23:00 UTC, since the scores already update at 5:00 UTC and 11:00 UTC? Gary King (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect they update whenever User:ST47 feels like it. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

meh.  GARDEN  08:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New look?

I'm not really a fan of the new look. Gary King (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah? Me neither :P iMatthew // talk // 21:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Can there be a table of the top 10 contestants? I'm too lazy to go through all the tables just to see who is in the lead. :P TheLeftorium 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. iMatthew // talk // 21:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like that too. Gary King (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it really important to know who is top of the whole competition at this point, considering we're still in the first pool stages. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As a note, expect some graphs at each checkpoint from me, because I'm uncool like that. :) — neuro^(talk) 01:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it wouldn't be Wikipedia if there weren't graphs! (I have to say, taking Advanced Placement Statistics really awakened my inner urge to crunch numbers... I'm just too lazy to onwiki most of the times :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No newsletter

Sorry about that. I was too lazy today, and nobody else got to it. iMatthew // talk // 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, we will go on :P (What you mean I have to actually check the page? Gasp.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot tweaks?

Thank you very much Garden for the extra work on the bot to handicap my score. Seems like it's not quite perfect though. Last night for a while it appeared to un-handicap for a bit and give full credit. Now it's undercounting. 15 points X 18 featured pictures = 270 points. The bot lists 240. Sorry to be trouble; thanks for all your help. Durova^Charge! 20:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're getting full credit again, so you're at 600+ points. Gary King (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So it's broken, Gary. :P  GARDEN  21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought she found the bonus level that gives an extra 300 points. Gary King (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's me thinking I could possibly catch her... J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, you could learn restoration. I'll happily coach/conominate, then feed you feature-worthy material so you can get credits on your own. I get more material than I have time to work on. :) Durova^Charge! 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't work out- considering the amount of time I spend online, I'm one of the least tech-savvy people you'll meet. I struggle too much with AWB and ChatZilla to start messing with Photoshop! Besides, there are still plenty of mushrooms lacking articles... J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

/me keeps you in the dark and feeds you...never mind. ;) Durova^Charge! 23:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: 3 more promotions. FP point total should be 315 now after handicap. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 05:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's now at 718 points, heh. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw please

I would like to withdraw from the cup, please and thank you. --TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 23:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, ok then.  GARDEN  23:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. No personal feelings.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 00:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Participating or submitting FAs etc

I appreciate that if we submit an FA, or anything that would earn extra points we need to declare Wiki cup participation. But unless I was reviewing an FA by someone competing in the same group as me, is there any reason why it would be relevant to declare Wiki Cup participation when reviewing articles at wp:FAC, or indeed elsewhere? WereSpielChequers 11:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think we could trust reviewers to be unbiased at FAC, considering the volume of reviewers there. (Well, someone would notice.) Although if there is an FAC by someone in your group, if you're unsure, I'd avoid reviewing it (same for any other type of FXC). Hope this makes sense..  GARDEN  14:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandy seemed to suggest that all participants should make it clear that they are participants regardless of the relationship when she made notes about it before. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a little symbol with a link to the WikiCup we could put next to our signature in FXCs so that when we make comments, it's known, but unobtrusive? like [[WP:CUP|(ωс)]] as (ωс)? Spencer^T♦C 21:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, great minds think alike! :) iMatthew // talk // 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to replace withdrawn candidates?

Nergaal (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, all entry has closed, and all replacements were made long ago. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This was answered in our funfilled FAQ a while back.  GARDEN  18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

I'm making a stats page for irregular updates (that is, manual) for some larfs. User:Garden/WikiCup/Stats. Maybe to be updated every day... but don't count on it :P  GARDEN  11:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Or not. Sorry :P  GARDEN  21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal edits

I mentioned this to Garden on IRC and he said he thought it was a good idea, but we decided some on-Wiki discussion wouldn't hurt. Basically, as portals are aimed at readers (as opposed to many categories, images and templates, and almost all Wikipedia pages, talk pages, MediaWiki pages and help pages) I feel that they should be considered "content" for the purposes of points, meaning that edits to the portal space would be counted alongside mainspace. It seems to me a little hard-going that all that hours of portal work would earn would be 25 points for the featured portal status. I am working on a portal myself, so maybe I'm a little biased, but note that I am certainly not the only person doing so- Sunderland06 has already had a portal promoted to featured status. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just confirming that I agree with this; and to clarify, the idea is to count Portal: space edits as mainspace edits.  GARDEN  22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I rarely work with Portals so I am quite clueless, but isn't a lot of portal edits minor HTML fixes? Not all, but surely there are more edits related to fixing layout and such than edits to articles related to the layout. Gary King (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything that helps Portals would be nice. I endorse this idea.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, sounds very reasonable (no portal edits) Paxse (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardone?  GARDEN  19:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, ok, I should have added one more indent. :) Now does it make sense? Paxse (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal contributions are surprisingly difficult to make, and require knowledge and skill, as simple as it may seem. I fully endorse grouping portal-space edits in with the mainspace. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support this idea (if only because it will get me more points) - I would also support the inclusion of File: edits. Will the bot count Portal edits since 1 January, or only from when the feature is implemented? (I would prefer the former). Dendodge Talk^Contribs 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the inclusion of File: edits should be counted...say if a Wikicup participant uploads a free image, I personally think it should be uploaded to commons (and then you get your .1 point adding the image to the article). As for portal, I'm not sure. Spencer^T♦C 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to require the download to Commons; regular en.wikipedia works. I fear, thro, that uploading files could be easily abused.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 14:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploading files could be abused, and, as is mentioned, you do get a fraction of a point for adding the image to an article. However, my main objection to file edits is that file is mostly for contributors- fair use rationales, sourcing, that sort of thing. For readers, an image is just an image- the stuff below it isn't important. Further, I really don't think the kind of non-free image administration I take part in (taggings, rationale work, deletion nominations, that sort of thing) are really what this contest had in mind- instead, it should be about improving the encyclopedia in a very visible, reader-driven way. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it seems fairly clear that people are generally in favour of this addition, so can we have it implemented? J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not - we just need one of the judges to approve the change. Densock|Dendodge^{in public} 12:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Garden's commented above, and Thehelpfulone said yesterday (on IRC) that he was happy for the change to be made- ST47 wasn't active at the time, though. I've left a message on his talk page. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why only text?

Quick question: since Wikicup is about providing valuable encyclopedic content, why do we not get points for uploading free images (providing they are used in an article) just like mainspace edits? Text isn't the only kind of valuable content, and images are actually harder to come by. Steven Walling (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

All my free images go to Commons. My fair-use images that come to en-wiki are few and far between and only when related to an article I'm writing. But then you could say, "why not talk page, Wikipedia: page, or Template: page edits?" Each one could be valuable depending on the kind of edit, but a line has to be drawn somewhere unfortunately. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant Commons images used in Wikipedia articles. No, there's really no way you could say the same for Talk and Template namespace edits at all. This is a content creation contest. Text and images are content (just two different forms of encyclopedic media). Discussion pages and templates are tools for group organization and navigating content. Pretty darn obvious. Steven Walling (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That would get very, very confusing for the bot, which is the main barrier. However, this contest cannot be infinite in ways of promoting content. (Sorry, but we really can't please everyone it seems... :( )  GARDEN  10:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could always offer a 10-point credit for Valued Pictures that the person uploaded himself. That way, finding really useful images gets points, and it also provides support to the fledgling VP project Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm from the school that an encyclopedia is text and the rest is just additional fun stuff. So no, that would be horrible. Take that, featured picture and featured sound people! : P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

GYAAAR!!! *begins beating Ottava up, and does not stop* =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

You get a fraction of a point for adding an image to an article, which is the same number of points you get for actually creating an article, unless it is recognised in some other way. This is to encourage quality content, not just any old content. However, on that note, I would definitely support points for a valued picture promotion. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have one I think would pass at VP, so I'd like them to be recognised as well, to a degree. I just dislike moving the goalposts all the time, so maybe it's something for next year. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. This current round feels like a test run; we're still ironing out the kinks partway through the competition! Hopefully next year will be far more smoother. Gary King (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

People who think featured pictures and featured sounds are overrrated may draw solemn pleasure from the knowledge that we get very few mainspace points for contributing them. Imagine what the scores would be if the bot could count a hundredth of a point for every edit made in Photoshop. Durova^Charge! 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Durova? Thanks for all of the work you do with pictures...even if you don't notice it, many people admire the work you do with them. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks very much. :) Want to learn? Durova^Charge! 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would, but I seem to be bad enough with text... :) (and the small prob of not having Photoshop!) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

GIMP is free. :) Ping me if you'd like to give it a try. I'd be glad to coach, get you over the bumpy stuff, and conominate your first restoration. All the best, Durova^Charge! 03:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

rule change - ten wild cards

I've just read the newsletter and spotted the rule change to 1st, 2nd and ten wild cards, so suddenly I'm back in the race despite probably my lowest weekly points score so far! Neat idea, sorry for all the third places who are no longer in the top thirty, and it now looks like groups I and J could each have 5 go through. One suggestion though, could the newsletter show a couple more than the ten wildcards so we know whose snapping at our heels? WereSpielChequers 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, I hadn't realized this rule change. Not that it matters :) But, it definitely changes the dynamics. And as always, Pool J is the most competitive! Gary King (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Paxse never lets me get into second place for long. It's definitely nice that it is a little more fair for those in tougher pools, however, there is also a potential downside: complacency. In theory, those with higher wildcard seeds, or even those in their top two, could figure that there is now way they could fall from the top 30 now and delay their GA, FA, etc., until the next round when they think they'd need it more. Sorry if I just failed WP:BEANS. Useight (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Major WP:BEANS breach Gary King (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we have more rather than less candidates in contention with these rule changes. I'm estimating 14 candidates who are fairly close to the 30/31 divide or in second place but with challengers who could catch them with a single FA. In the old system there were perhaps 8 players with real doubt as to whether they would qualify, including in one pool a needle match between candidates on 21 and 22 points for that particular third spot. So IMHO more of a contest but not necessarily the same middle ground - and we are much less likely to see anyone go to the next round with fewer than 100 points. WereSpielChequers 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is mainly for the candidates unlucky enough to be in Pool J. :P Also, some of the users in third have scores below 30, meaning that users with scores in the 100s get knocked out. I do hope this change doesn't cause that much of an upset - I swear we posted it here before...  GARDEN  19:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think I'm rather heavily involved in the competition, and the first I heard about it was the newsletter. I do think it's a good idea though. J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I imagine we didn't. I do that sometimes.  :/  GARDEN  19:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was mentioned in passing here. I didn't know it was going through until the newsletter, but I like it, it definitely makes it more fair. I do think there should be some kind of advantage in the second round for those that finish in their top two, though, perhaps some kind of seeding system, to keep the motivation. Useight (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hai guaise, really love the short change I just got on this one. After a month and a half of hard battling for third and even spending half my birthday online now I get informed half way through a round that you just screwed over all the WikiGnomes? Thanks!, I [[sarcasm|really appreciate it. PXK ^T /_C 04:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Pool configuration

I don't know if the judges were planning on randomizing the pools again for Round 2 or already had some mechanism set up, but I was thinking it could potentially be set up something like this: since there are going to be six pools of five with the top two moving on to round three, we'd probably want three more competitive individuals in each Round 2 pool so the top two don't run away with it, both possibly becoming complacent and slowing and/or stopping their content creation, along with discouraging the "bottom three" who potentially give up because they "can't catch up anyway". Hence having three compete for two spots is far better, as I see it. However, we also want to give the competitors in Round 1 a continual motivation, and that motivation could be seeking an advantage in Round 2. The obvious advantage would be seeding higher scoring individuals against lower scoring ones, such as is done in an NCAA tournament, but that would lead to the problems mentioned earlier. Hence, I propose something similar: Seed each of the pool leaders as numbers 1 through 20 based on their final score, then the ten wildcards as seeds 21 through 30, also based on their final scores. I came up with the six pools consisting of:

Pool A - 1, 17, 18, 29, 30

Pool B - 2, 15, 16, 27, 28

Pool C - 3, 13, 14, 25, 26

Pool D - 4, 11, 12, 23, 24

Pool E - 5, 9, 10, 21, 22

Pool F - 6, 7, 8, 19, 20

This would potentially result in maybe one runaway competitor with two others closely competing for that second spot or, in the case of Pool E or F, perhaps all three competing closely. This sort of configuration would keep those who contribute the most content in the competition for a longer period of time, and hence motivated to keep contributing that content for as long as possible. I thought this was a pretty good setup, maybe the judges were already planning on doing that, but any comments, questions, concerns, suggestions, statements, or complaints? Useight (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. That sounds like how this Round worked out, don't it :D Sounds pretty good to me, although it's a bit of a "cross that bridge" suggestion.  GARDEN  21:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Pool K

I never heard of thiscompetition. I declare that I am invading even though I am nearly a month late and have had no preparations for combat. The open positions are from countries or islands similarly ill-prepared. The countries listed are Liechtenstein, Tristan da Cunha, Timor Leste, The Gambia, Paraguay, and Tonga. Chergles (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't join in the middle of a game. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I call it an invasion. However, it's not on the main page, just a side page. I also declare that I cannot be eliminated (but will declare that I cannot be a winner).Chergles (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Pool K (Honorary Pool)

User	Mnsp	GA	FA	FL	FS	FP	FPO	DYK	ITN	FT	GT	Score
Chergles	21	30	0	0	0	0	0	10	0	0	0	61
open	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
open	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
open	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
open	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
open	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

There's always the 2010 games :) Gary King (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I like how one of the "open" slots already has a DYK. Maybe I should take that spot. Useight (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

typo, fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should encourage several persons from Pool J to join this new pool <evil grin>.Paxse (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having a hard time breaking back into the top three. Useight (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Useight, I'm your adoptee. Why didn't I know about this before? This shows that if one doesn't prepare for battle, defeat is swift (the point score for honorary pool K is very low!) Chergles (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The WikiCup filled up quite some time ago. By the time this reminder landed on my talk page, it was too late for new entrants. Another of my adoptees asked me about it here, and was able to get in via the waiting list. There are still two entrants with zero points, perhaps you can convince the right people to let you swap in for one of them. Useight (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, you could put people like Useight who have quite a few points but aren't in their top three in that Pool; that way, random chance wouldn't make the difference in winning or not for some people.   jj137 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I has an idea. If we combine the idea before (about people being knocked out in the first round being in one big table) and this, we could make a big table as suggested before, except that the first X contestants after round Y could go into the next round as wildcards. Whatcha think?  GARDEN  21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Count me in. Useight has already blown me into 4th spot - but I don't want to stop in March! Paxse (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What if we have a three-way tie for second? Then they have to take us all. Useight (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I like the idea of wildcards, that keeps it interesting. It kind of makes up for the randomization that set up the original tables. Maybe the three with the highest scores that don't make it into the top three of their respective pools become wildcards. (I'm biased, though, in this suggestion because I currently have the most points of anyone not in their top three). Useight (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. We'll see what the other two think.  GARDEN  09:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought: as of the 23:09 Jan 27, 2009 update, in 5 of the 10 pools one contestant has over half the points in the pool.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC) What about doing a resort based on edit count so they were all averaged out? — neuro^(talk) 18:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If this pool is to be continuously updated, could you copy it to another page and transclude it here, so that edits don't keep appearing on watchlists? Gary King (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

updated my score for February 15. Next update expected March 1. Chergles (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC, etc

I'm thinking of withdrawing over this. If participating here is going to directly put me under suspicion, and taint my work by forcing me to declare some bogus conflict of interest, I'm not interested in participating. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you, and have to blame myself and the other two judges. I believe that instead of declaring you are a cup participant, we should really work on the honor system. However, us judges should do a better job looking out for COI and drive-by nominations made by contestants. iMatthew // talk // 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that this was brought about by SandyGeorgia and Scorpion, not myself. I understand that most if not all contestants will be as unbiased as possible in those areas - particularly you, Shoe - but you probably understand why some FXC directors want to make their area as COI-free as possible. I'm pretty sure that most people competing can be trusted to be neutral in FXCs.  GARDEN  07:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, but it still makes me uncomfortable to be put under suspicion simply for participating in what I thought would be a fun, social contest. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, how exactly am I supposed to comply with this? I've been thinking of making a simple statement at FPC talk and FSC talk to the effect that I'm a participant, but that whole business seems bureaucratic and silly. Has anyone from either of those processes complained? Does SandyGeorgia's authority now extend over them? Durova^Charge! 07:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought- sure, Sandy has requested a mention at FAC (I doubt there would be any problems, but I'm happy to mention it, I suppose) but I don't think it's really necessary elsewhere. For instance, I'm far more likely to have COI issues because of WikiProjects I'm involved in than this, and we don't have to declare WikiProject participation. (Say, I'd love more featured articles/featured pictures relating to fungi, to populate my portal). What are people actually worried about? J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ack. Perhaps we should just leave it up to whoever closes these FXCs to decide whether COI-voting has taken place. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that you don't drive-by nom, don't review FXCs of those in your group (unless of course you are absolutely unbiased) and basically be neutral. I really, really hate this bureaucracy as much as you all do. I just don't know what to do...  GARDEN  19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, lets calm down a bit and think of this logically - if you have declared yourself a few times, that should be enough for everyone to have a sense of your participation so they can see if you are gaming anything. That will limit the drive by nominations and the rest. The only other concern is someone opposing or supporting to help another unfairly. This should be declared in order to protect yourself, or some note should be made. If there is a real issue, it should be mentioned here so we can deal with it as a community. We should remember that activity will increase and opportunities to take advantage of processes can arise. We must act in a way that respects the processes so we can have our competition and not disrupt the community. Now, don't think you have to wear this about as a badge, but be a little reasonable when the occasion calls for it and let people know if there is a situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this will please all

(ec, this is basically what Ottava said above) How about we make it not necessary to declare participation and just work on a case-by-case basis? I mean, if we spot something that might be COI, bias, whatever, we bring it to this page and deal with it, voiding !votes, whatever. That includes drive-by noms at FXC (Wall-E anyone). I'm sure the directors are more than capable of spotting bias. Thoughts? (Please?)  GARDEN  20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything of the sort should be grounds for removal from the competition, I reckon. This is all meant to be good fun, an attempt to encourage some content creation. If backstabbing and attempts to game the system crop up, then the spirit of the game is completely violated. Sandy has asked us to make it clear we're participating when we nominate (or review the nominations of another candidate, I believe) so we should respect that. Other than that, we have three respectable judges, who I am sure are keeping an eye on these things. Also, as has been said, any problematic behaviour can easily be reported here. (Can I also note that drive-by nominations aren't necessarily a bad thing- I'm keeping my eyes open for fungi pictures to nominate, I just wouldn't be claiming any points for them). J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You realise pictures don't have to be featured to be on a featured portal, yeah?  GARDEN  20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've set up a nomination process on the portal too. I'd just prefer it if they were :) Not to mention we illustrate fungi articles really well, but we only have a few featured pictures. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok.  GARDEN  20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This looks sensible. And yes, images don't have to be featured to be in a featured portal. Warm wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on SandyGeorgia's talkpage, she's actually on hols but Karanacs has replied with a note that strikes me as both reasonable and workable. "an editor should self-identify their participation in WikiCup if they review any article submitted as part of the WikiCup (even if not part of their pool), and when/if they nominate an article. The declaration could be as simple as disclosure: I'm a wikicup participant." The only slight problem I see is if an article nominator forgets to declare their participation and you review them without checking against the list of participants. Can I suggest we follow this for now? WereSpielChequers 10:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but ideally we'd trust users to be unbiased. I mean, how subtle can a COI be? I'm sure Sandy and other FXC directors know about this contest.  GARDEN  10:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think all the people working on FSC are in the contest. Not that FSC's very active. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah. That too. I'm sure you'll spot bias there and report here. (Not that it's a problem.)  GARDEN  14:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with both Garden and WereSpielChequers. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandy has confirmed the line - declare when you submit an FA or review an FA by a fellow cup member regardless of pool. WereSpielChequers 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit counts after pagemove

If I was to do an article under User:Bedford/Australia and the American Civil War, and then do a pagemove to Australia and the American Civil War, would the bot eventually count the edits I made while it was in userspace?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because the edits will then appear in the mainspace. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 07:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks to the WikiCup organizers and fellow participants for helping provide the motivation that led to a recent discovery mentioned in this week's Signpost News and notes. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How many good topics?

Not sure what the issue is here, but, looking at the recent newsletter, we have three users who have submitted good topics (Scorpion0422, Theleftorium and Gary King) but, apparently, no promoted good topics. I'm assuming there's an issue somewhere? J Milburn (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that when reading the newsletter; I'm guessing they just typed it into the newsletter incorrectly. Gary King (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry.  GARDEN  11:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture sets

An existing featured picture set. If someone nominated a new set...?

Hi, thanks very much to Garden and the other judges for accommodating a few special requests (such as the handicap). Here's another you might not have anticipated: featured picture sets. I'm planning to nominate a pair soon, and may nominate other larger sets. Not sure how you'd want to work this out, points-wise and bot-wise. Best, Durova^Charge! 03:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh er. Absolutely no idea how to work this out... I would think we'd award points for each individual picture, but... argh. Any suggestions?  GARDEN  09:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In terms of labor, each image in a set is a separate restoration. Durova^Charge! 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

At first I was going to say that a featured topic is ten points per article, while a featured article is ten, meaning that, a featured picture being 35, we could have 7 points per picture. I then realised that, with a topic, you also get the points for the various individual articles. Perhaps something like 35 points, plus 5 for every extra picture in the set? J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really asking for a bonus. Already handicapped my score to keep things friendly and competitive, although if anyone else wants a bonus for featured picture sets that's a different question. Just doubted the bot had been written to accommodate this. (Apologies to Garden for the extra coding this probably entails). Durova^Charge! 19:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I don't know. I don't write the bot. I would probably assume that 35 points per picture would apply, although FTs are done differently. I dunno, other people might have better ideas :D  GARDEN  20:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Following up: the pair have been promoted as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Canadian war bond posters, World War I. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Woah

Don't look now, but if Round 1 was to end today, all six individuals in Pool J would move on. We should make that our "Pool J goal". Useight (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to let you down guys but by the time my current travels end and I'm back to normal editing levels I'm sure to have dropped out of the top 30. And to think I was leading that group at one point! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WereSpellCheckers (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)