Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/5

Amendments...

...can we please stop trying to change the contest halfway though it? I mean, seriously, this happened last year and people were none-too-pleased.  GARDEN  12:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely agreed, we have a set of rules, lets stick to them. If they can be improved, lets improve them next year, rather than alter the rules halfway through. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

The competition has yet to be changed (some rules have been clarified, but certainly not rewritten) this year, and I think most people are happy about that. Instead, the discussion on this page mostly seems to be musing for next year or even other competitions. It has been made clear that there will be no rules changes for this year's competition, and I think people have got the message. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I was not recommending any changes to this years' competition but only discussing for next while I thought of it. I wouldn't dream of trying to change rules half way through. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

I've got an article saved up for a DYK in round two. If I move it to the main space and get a DYK for it, can I still get points for it? Or do I have to work on it in just the second round in order to score. (NOTE: I created the article in my sandbox back in January of THIS year)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's worked on and nominated this year, you claim points for it whenever it is promoted/featured on the main page. However, deliberately keeping back content so that it can be used in a later round is not cool. J Milburn (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why nominate it now and get points for a round that I'm bound to pass? Trust me, I've seen worse, people bypassing the rules and working on content prior to the competition.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, other people bypassing rules gives you permission to do so yourself. I forgot! iMatthew ^talk at 03:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Must we go through this again? There is no rule against it so maybe you should have thought about it beforehand.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Holding it back is not against the letter of the rules but it is against the spirit of the competition. But DYK is kind of backlogged, so they're not hurting for nominations at the moment. Useight (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's extremely bad faith editing, Coldplay. No rule against != You should do it. I'm working on List of Major League Baseball home run champions in my sandbox right now and pushing to try and get it up in time for to grab DYK credit this round. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Second Stax's comment. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides, it's not even done. I still have to copy-edit it for grammar and spelling and I still need to add in the italics to the name of the sub itself.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• If the DYK makes it onto the Main Page in the days between Round One and Round Two, will it be counted? Abductive (reasoning) 04:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it... Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be counted in Round 2. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For those who were not paying attention to a discussion that happened here a couple of weeks ago: last year's competition was decided in some significant margin by who held back more stuff for the final round. If you actually plan on winning this competition, then it might be better for you to follow the same path. If on the other hand you don't really care, you may want to play cool just so judges think you are a nicer competitor. Nergaal (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Or if you recognize that winning means absolutely nothing, since all it represents is a series of photons arranged in a pattern that looks like a trophy, perhaps you will focus on the meaning of the competition. If winning is the only purpose in competing why do thousands go to the Olympics when only a handful are anything close to competitive? Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• There seems to be a lot of aggression and sneakiness in this thread. Speaking as a player from last year, I did nothing to bypass the rules (though I accept that one of my nominations would not have been counted this year- I did, however, ask a judge for permission to claim the points- I believe I nominated it before I'd even heard of the Cup) and yes, I didn't win, at all, but I feel I achieved a lot and I had a lot of fun. Sure, if you want to win, sneak around and hold back nominations, but first place is not the only prize at stake here, both literally and metaphorically. Some of the things I've read in this thread have saddened me, particularly the threat to drag these issues to ANI (which would be the worst possible thing for the Cup) and I hope we can calm down a little. If you feel that playing fair and helping the encyclopedia are not going to win you the Cup, sacrifice the Cup, don't sacrifice your integrity and the encyclopedia. Let's remember what we're here for, and what the Cup is about. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Actually quite the reverse. I never held back content tactically, and those who did seemed to set themselves in the wrong frame of mind for the final round. Durova⁴¹² 20:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Durova, I don't believe J was referring to you personally. I think he was just saying "it would be sad if winning the competition is that important to you" (where "you" is someone holding back content) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, of course I wasn't- sorry, I was meaning to say "if winning means that much to you, you go ahead and do x, no one is going to stop you". I have no reason to believe anybody in the last competition was playing unfairly, and I have defended the actions of at least three of the final competitors when they have come under attack for playing unfairly. J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, and please accept my apologies if I misread. Durova⁴¹² 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

One must journey across dry sands before climbing the Great Mountain of Wiki Wisdom in Tibet.

Scroll to view the karmic consequences of holding back content work based upon WikiCup rounds.

The trophy ain't worth grief. Seriously, just go with the flow and edit. Durova⁴¹² 20:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Look. The artilce in question is'nt even done!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the last issues and nominated it ok? Gues you were all right after all. And besides, I was only "holding back" because I know that I don;t really have a chance at moveing on past the second round. I'm not like the rest of you. I con;t write DYK's at lighting speed nor can I get a GA in 24 hours.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination. :) And best wishes. Seriously, the best strategy in the long run is to just go for a personal best. Focus and concentration sometimes yields the wonderful surprise of discovering you're capable of more than you imagined. Durova⁴¹² 03:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously Coldplay Expert, don't hold back, just do another one. Remember that all this is out in the open and plain. You wouldn't be impressed if someone else was doing it now would you? It is about how much you can contribute, not how much you can get away with. Make a lifetime list on your page to show folks what you've done - the longer it is, the better it looks. If you want help with it just ask. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Cas, maybe we shouldn't single out Coldplay quite so much. What's more surprising is that so many other participants (including a judge) got it into their heads to think the Cup had been won that way last year. Doesn't say much for their trust in my integrity, does it? sigh Durova⁴¹² 16:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Now I'll go wonder what I did to deserve that opinion.

For what its worth I didn't think you were holding back I just figured it takes a while to get an image up to FA status and its easier to add them out here in groups rather than one at a time. --Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. For most of the '09 Cup my FP points had a voluntary handicap: 15 points instead of 35 points. Durova⁴¹² 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that but I don't think Ill win no matter how many I submit even if I got double points. Since I deal mostly with Military biography's they simply take too long to make it through the process. Its typically at least 3 weeks to a month before a GA gets cleaned up, submitted, reviewed, corrected and promoted. Even longer for FA or FLC. --Kumioko (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for not looking so down on me guys. I just thought that being probably the newist competetor that actually has points, I have to hold back DYK's and GA"s in order to go on to the next round. To bwe honest, I don't care anymore if I advance to round X or not. I know that I'm not going to win frist, second, third or any other prize. And besides, "the real winner is Wikipedia". I'm just glad that I got a few GA's and DYK's in the first place.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Couple of questions

Sorry I just had a couple of questions since I forgot I even signed up for this until recently. Do we get points for getting an article to A class from GA? and do I add the points myself? I have already gotten a couple promoted and they arent here so I assume I need to do it. --Kumioko (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there are no points awarded for A class, as there is not a universal, objective A-class assessment procedure. For details of for what you can and cannot claim points, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. To have the points added, add the content to Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/Kumioko using the formats outlined at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Submissions. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Ill add 3 in a few minutes. --Kumioko (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Asian American MoH list was nominated in December. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• As were Francis B. Wai and Jose Calugas. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes they were nominated in December but I thought it went by when they were promoted, which didn't happen until January. Do you want me to remove them? --Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• As per WikiCup scoring rules: "Content must have been worked on and nominated during the competition." Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, understood. I will remove them. As I mentioned to Durova above it simply takes to long for the articles I work on to make it through the process. By the time I get an article built up and promoted it will nearly always cross into the next elimination round so the rules are simply not flexible enough for me to participate in this contest. You can withdraw my name from the list if you like or let it be eliminated. --Kumioko (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a system whereby you can add any nominations you want reviewed quickly to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. I appreciate your concern, but you are certainly not the only person working on that kind of article in the competition. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that, I was unaware of this special workaround. But perhaps this helps to illustrate my point that if we need to create a special article promotion process for Wikcup competitors that the rules are too restrictive. and I would be willing to say that those others that are working on like articles are also unlikely to make it through. Without this special vetting process that I just learned about that is. --Kumioko (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GAC is slow for everyone, to be honest. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note about FAC

Just a note here: FAC implemented a new rule that only allows an editor to nominate 1 article at a time. This essentially makes it nearly impossible to get more than three (I am being optimistic here) articles through a FA review in a single round. This impacts this competition significantly. I know there has been discussion about not changing the rules, but we cannot control the change of rules elsewhere. In light of this, I think the score for achieving and FA is now too low. This change at FAC really handicaps the editors who focus on content improvement vs those who focus on content creation. If nothing else hopefully this alerts other editors who may have been unaware of this change in rules and allow them to plan accordingly for the future on this competition. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I see where you're coming from but, for example, FLC was similarly choked for a period last fall (one nomination/editor) without an increase in FL scoring for the previous cup. Plus, at least in an applied sense, no one has gotten more than 2 FAs this time around anyways. And there's still GA/FL in terms of article improvement as opposed to creation. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree. Does anyone else notice that we are seriously short of reviewer lately? I have been reviewing as I have time. But there is huge backlogs in all the review areas. If things stay as they are, this competition is tilting towards the advantage editors who do not participate in article quality improvement. Just an observation, not a complaint. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That is because for example about 1/3 of the FACs are coming from the Cup competitors, and if any of them did reviews before they probably aren't doing it nerly as much as now there is more incentive to concentrate on creating content than reviewing. Nergaal (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Maybe next year there should be points for conducting reviews as well? I'm not saying they should be as many points as content edits (I was thinking maybe 5 points per GA review, 10 for FA review), and obviously the judges should have the discretion to take away points if they are inappropriate quick-passes at the GA level, or uncomprehensive one-line "Supports" or "Opposes" at the FA level. But conducting a review still ultimately enhances the quality of this encyclopedia, and it would help cut down on the backlog as Charles said... — Hunter Kahn 17:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
        • A lot of people have suggested it. I am certainly coming around to it- discussion would be required for next year. I would be inclined to say that, if anything, a GA review is a little harder, as you are wholly responsible for the review. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I do think honestly, that the belief that you'll get only one average FA through in a single round is kind of looking it the wrong way. Saying there is 60 days in the round (on average), you could get 2 (possibly 3) out of it. My recent FAC lasted 25 days, and if you average that, its still 50 days, enough to sink claim.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 17:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's my experience in the past as well. Two-four weeks is an average review time at FAC. I don't know about other editors in this competition, but I generally review more content that I introduce for reviews. I try to follow the take one leave one principle. The problem at FAC is you really need multiple thorough reviews to pass a single article. So if you introduce one, you need to review on multiple articles - while keeping track of your own nomination - at the same time. That's pretty time consuming. Giving points for reviewing seems like a pretty hard thing to come up with though. I've reviewed quite a few, and sometimes they are rubber stamped; the editor has the article nearly perfect. Others are far more time consuming, (especially at WP:PR) and you have to go line by line pointing out dozens of problems, then go back later and check up on them. In short you can review some thoroughly in fifteen minutes, others take hours. Obviously a short review is not worth the points of a long review; but both short and long reviews could occur at GAN, or FAC, etc. Theres alot to consider. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The same thing's true of GAs. World War II, which is currently being reviewed, is a massive article with many, many regular contributors. By comparison, for instance, there are a lot of episodes of The Simpsons or minor albums which are also GAs- as there is less to be said (to the extent that all available information will probably go in the article) and the subject matter is not nearly as complex, they are significantly more easy. Of course, this is not recognised in the current points, either. For what it's worth, the majority of last year's final 8 did contribute on more "serious" topics- Ottava on literature and Sasata on fungi, for instance. J Milburn (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Being one of the major contributors to WWII, trust me. Getting that article to GA status is hard! Its been over three months and yet there is not a good reason to pass or fail it yet. We're expected to be done in the next few weeks though as only a few image issues remain.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal

I am officially withdrawing from the Wikicup. I am busier than I have anticipated and don't have time writing featured content. Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GAN Concern

I have a big issue. In mid January, I nominated Basketball Association of America for GA, and has not been reviewed. I have never had a GA before, so I would prefer it being reviewed about a week before the end of Round 1. I am sure there is other people with this problem. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

There are. I had an co-nom of the article Battle of Belgium that was nominated back on January 1st and yet it only got passed to GA status a few weeks ago.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GAN is always backed up, alot of reviews take a month at least. I usually review one or two here and there. I wouldn't mind reviewing one, to help out some cup users, though not sure if I have time. Though it would be up to the judges if it was fair in the end.--WillC 04:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well then if you and the judges don't mind, I have another article, Battle of Hannut that needs to be reviewed. Not ASAP but hopefully soon.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if I have spare time I'll look into it. Not a definite yes, though; I tend to plan something and I'll either get sidetracked or everything will change in the blink of an eye.--WillC 05:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 05:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you add it to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, it can hopefully get looked into. J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that page originally. I'll review what I can on there before the deadline, though this week is alas quite busy for me. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I created it when I sent out the last newsletter. If people could chip in and help review them, it would be great- sadly, I've also found myself very busy. J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up there are at least a dozen in the GAN review process that fall under the Wikicup and thats just the ones I see. --Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Popularity parameter for score multiplier

A popularity parameter used for scoring articles for WP 1.0 could be used as part of a score-multiplier formula for Wikicup work. It simply accounts for how many hits an article gets per day based on statistics available at http://stats.grok.se/. The exact details of this component of the multiplier could be worked out. For example, assuming we consider viewership a gauge of relevance, would we want to use a logarithmic weight as applied in WP 1.0 -- e.g. log10(hit count) -- as part of a score multiplier? Emw (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As described here, hit count could be taken so as to not unduly favor spikes in viewership by using the truncated mean of page views. The hit count could then be the average of the truncated means for several months of page views. Emw (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed. To put it bluntly, I don't care how many 12 year old girls are reading about HSM, it's not more important than major works of literature, nor is it harder to write about. Awarding points based on page views is not something I think we should be considering. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though I proposed page views as a tiebreaker, I do not think it would be appropriate to adjust scores in this way. Abductive (reasoning) 19:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. --candle•wicke 12:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Garden has renamed to Fox. In case you wonder why some noob is editing all the WikiCup pages like he's running the thing.  f o x  (formerly garden) 19:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews

Hey- if people could please do what they can here (either reviewing those that have languished for a while, or adding more that need to be reviewed soon) it would be great. I have real-world work to do today, but, if I manage to get through it, I will be pitching in as much as possible. Any help is very much appreciated; I will try to recognise it in some way, shape or form. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Scoring

The bot never caught on to my WP:FT points. Is it safe to assume that the judges will do some manual adjustments in the intersession period?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is. Was it just yourself who wanted to claim FT points, or did someone else? J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

All I know is what is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/4#Problem_with_GT_points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• It might be worth noting that I did eventually get my GT points (which for weeks I didn't) only after looking at the submissions page for another user who had their GT points counted. I copied that coding, which was different than those listed under Wikipedia:WikiCup/Submissions, and that worked like a charm, so I'm guessing the Submissions page has to be updated or fixed. I notified one of the judges about this here.

• I have tried to reformat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• It worked. I think my DYK count may still be off though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK

I have a WT:DYK, Flag of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern outstanding for this round, and time is running out - and it may well swing the difference for me. Obviously, it is only a DYK, but it is important to me. Thanks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If it matters I'm in the same boat with Spain men's national ice hockey team, it's verified but yet to have it's turn in the queues.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I also have one nominated on the 15th that at last point wasn't even verified or looked at.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mitch will be fine, though the other two may be concerning. Our safest bet is to just promote everyone at 20+ points. The bot hasn't updated yet but I think there are 63 with 30+ and 68 with 20+ based on looking through some submissions tabs myself. We'll see what happens, they'll likely just be put in the March/April round. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Add me to the list. Mind you, a few days ago when I checked there were less than 64 participants with any points anyway. I don't mind not getting to the next round (this semester turned to be busier than I expected), but it would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 16:30, February 26, 2010

A precise number will need to get through to the next round, otherwise our groups will not work out. I have a few tie-breakers planned, though I myself will be somewhat busy tomorrow. I'll do what I can. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There could always be 8 groups of 9, no?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a possibility. If that is fairer, it will be considered. Sadly, we've not had all judges in one place since mid-January, so it's been hard to discuss anything. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm reading the rules correctly, right, that things promoted/running/etc in the inter-round period count towards the next round? I ask because my DYK for List of Major League Baseball home run champions is going to run tommorrow (I just removed it from my submissions, I'd thought it was running today). Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That is correct. I am waiting for the next update (there will hopefully be one in quarter of an hour) then I will be protecting the page, and working out what to do next. For the record, I will almost certainly not be here much tomorrow. J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat, I have a triple DYK coming up that I've had submitted almost two weeks ago, but which will only get in on the 1st update in March. I'm probably safe since I'm on 20 points, but this would put me well into the promotion zone. It sucks that a big backlog there has occured, but I suppose those are the rules and we all agreed to them on signing up. Either way, I'll get off to a flying start in round 2 ;-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC).

Question

I had two DYK's German submarine U-117 (1941) and German submarine U-241 (1943) that made the main page yesterday and today. Since we are in the transition period between round 1 and 2, do they count for this round or the next. (PS:I have 100 points so I don't need them for this round to pass.)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They will count for the next round. Theleftorium 00:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So I should add them to my nom page once round 2 formally begins, right?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think the judges will clear everyone's submissions pages before the round begins. Theleftorium 00:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Man.....the judges shouls think about getting clerks to help them out considering that half of them are only on at the same time. There must be sooo much work for them to do. Thanks for the help Theleftorium.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Qualification for round 2

Ok, this is fairly preliminary- the "official" announcement, if you like, will go out on the newsletter later tonight. At this time, it seems every person with more than 20 points will be going through to the next round, and everyone with less than 20 will be eliminated. This leaves us with five contestants with 20 points and one space in the next round. I am contacting each of the users. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted the five users, and they will hopefully comment in this thread, letting us know about any outstanding nominations they have or review work in which they have participated over the last two months. Hopefully this information will allow us to tiebreak. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have one DYK from the 21st of February, see the thread two above, and I'd very much like to go through. However, Giant's was in before that, and, given my lack of other notable contributions, I'm very much at least second, should they want the place. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have three DYK's from 15 February that are currently scheduled to go up tonight. See here. Articles should be on the frontpage by the time you read this. Definitely interested in qualifying for the next round! :-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

I'm certainly interested in moving on and have one outstanding DYK nomination from February 19th (Spain men's national ice hockey team) and while I haven't done any GA/FA etc. work in the past two months I plan on getting back into those for the next round if I'm advanced. Cheers and good luck to the other editors on the bubble,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask everyone to volunteer to drop out? I'm sure more than a few folks will look at the leaders and know they can't catch up. Abductive (reasoning) 14:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If people want to drop out, they can. However, those other than the five have fully earned a place in next round according to our rules. I don't feel it is my job as a judge to encourage people to drop out of the competition. J Milburn (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayron (who had 20) had a GA promoted near the end but didn't seem to add it in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

By my count, there are 2 spots left, not 1? iMatthew talk at 16:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC) I counted 63 people with ≥30 points. Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Nevermind ;) iMatthew talk at 17:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC) I had to count the thing about eight times. At one point, I thought we had a perfect number... J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Well anyone with zero points is out, along with anyone with 10 points. Now I count 68 people with 20 or more points so we need four to be eliminated one way or another. Time to ask for dropouts before the next round begins?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Have you actually read this thread? It's under control, don't worry. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Oh, sorry about that. To me it seemed like you were still wondering what to do. But really, what will happen to the people with 20 points?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC) One will go through to the next round based on information provided in this thread. I'm really not sure how I could say this in a less complicated way. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter in the end cause unless they get their points from DYK's or submit a GA for an easy subject like simpsons episodes they'll never make it to the end anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah, absolutely. Sasata only writes about pop culture, and it's all DYKs. Durova, last year, won writing about South Park, if I remember correctly- it's not like she was working with historical material and utilising a genuine talent. If you don't like the WikiCup, you don't have to comment here. These kind of snide remarks really aren't appreciated or welcome. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, right now, it would seem Jayron wins the tiebreak with his GA, as long as he is still interested in participating. If we do not hear from him, Lankiveil wins the tiebreak with his three DYKs that just missed the end of the round. Dpes this seem fair to everyone? J Milburn (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don;t know if we're !voteing or not but I Support the idea. Seems fair. Now what about the groupings? I wnat to know what group im in so that way I will know if I stand a chance in round two or not. I've also got to put in the 4 DYK's that were promoted during the break.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

iMatthew has prepared the groups, and will be posting them shortly. As such, although the round has technically begun, please hold on for now. J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I may as well let this be known now then. *cough*Conflict of interest*cough* Me and iMatthew are'nt really the best of pals and I have a feeling that he will group me in with those who will kill me in any content creation challenge just to get me out of the cup. This "felling" can be supported by diffs. I'll be willing to AGF but If I'm grouped with Julian or Strumvogel or Hunter, I'm going to be crying foul.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how he has done the grouping. There are wildcard positions regardless- the odds are you will be ranked with at least one person who is significantly above you in points, think about it. J Milburn (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that I'm not going to win my group but I'm confident that I'll pas son to round 3. But If I'm grouped with a bunch of people who will kill me, I will cite IM's COI against me and cry foul. There is no reason that I should be grouped in with a bunch of senior wiki-dragons who can write an FA over the week-end. But Like I said, I'll AGF that Imatt has fairly grouped everyone. We'll see how things turn out.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Jayron is in the pool but as far as I can see he hasn't responded anywhere on the matter (since he hasn't been online for a few days)? When do we decide who gets that spot? Or has he replied offwiki? I don't care either way, I just don't like being left hanging :-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC).

My reply to the tiebreaker questions - Thanks.

• Yes, I do want to go through.
• I do not have anything outstanding at this point. (I have been spending all my time on trying to clean up the Rod Serling entry, but thought 20 points was going to be enough and so I stopped working on other things to get that done.)
• I did not do any reviewing...or if I did I don't remember it. (I'm a newbie trying to learn the ropes thorugh creating a FA out of Rod Serling and do not feel qualified yet to review most things.) Sabiona (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sabiona, thanks for letting us know- sadly, that will not be enough to take you through to the next round. Thanks for participating, and you're welcome to stick around and join in discussions. Hopefully we'll see you again next year :) J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pools have been posted. (Thanks for trying to make assumptions Coldplay Expert... that's really mature.) iMatthew ^talk at 03:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was out of commission from the weekend with "the crud". It looks like while I was gone, I had a GA come up, see Talk:Henry Martin Tupper. I am definately interested in continuing. I don't know if this GA is enough to push me over the edge, but someone let me know... --Jayron32 17:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Error?

According to Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/Jujutacular, he had 2 featured pictures, not featured sounds? Just checking to make sure I'm not crazy... ceranthor 01:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. There are a couple errors in the newsletter. That, and also Sasata's GA and FA point totals are mixed up (it says 600 for FA, 300 for GA, it's flipped). Sadly this means Juju takes the Round 1 FP crown from me. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I'm less crazy than I thought! ceranthor 01:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Both J and I have been pressed for time, that's probably why. Apologies to everyone and thanks for bearing with us! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem, Ed. Sorry for making what now looks like a big deal (I didn't mean for it to be one). ceranthor 02:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not at all :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed this a little while back and posted on Fox's talk page. This was unfortunately right during his username change and probably got lost in the fray. I guess I should have brought it up here but it slipped my mind. Sorry to rain on your parade stax :) Jujutacular ^T · C 06:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I admit I was a little rushed with the newsletter. Part of the problem with this is lack of communication with the bot operator, as the bot reads the submissions' pages wrong. Apologies. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Submission pages

Sorry for the delay, but the submission pages aren't done yet, and won't be done for a day or two. Please hold all of your submissions, and bare with me! I'll get them done ASAP! iMatthew ^talk at 03:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

While I'm a bit disapointed to not really have a chance at winnnig or even placeing second in my group, thanks for not caring a grudge into the wikicup iMatt.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Will you ever drop the damn stick? iMatthew talk at 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Stick, I'm estending a hand to you can get a fist in return. Take it to my talk page. This competition does not need more drama comeing from us argueing.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) No, it doesn't. Please drop the snide remarks. If you want to slug it out with iMatt, go to his talk page. If you genuinely have a non-spurious complaint about being treated badly by a judge (or, to remove the WikiCup issue altogether, being treated badly by another Wikipedian) talk to me, and I'll see what we can work out. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I would recommend against going to "slug it out" with a user on their talk page. Disengage. I have given Coldplay Expert advice to disengage on their talk page. --Taelus (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC) As have I. I'm closing this subdiscussion. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Group of Death

I would like to state that Pool C is the official group of death (the only group with 4 150-point first round scorers).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh crap, I'm totally screwed. I've got to beat Hunter Khan!!!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone honestly care? I mean, its just a competition.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know. In fact ti may be fun to try and actually get a wildcard spot.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably should've changed the indentation, but that was directed to TonyTheTiger more than you, CE. But good luck.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you're gonna like kick all our butts. I saw what I was up against and was like "crap" :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I laughed at the poor people in the group of death... until I caught my name amongst them... Someone hold me! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I'll hold you if you hold me. ~hopes her current FAC finishes successfully to at least give her a good start~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You only need to beat the bottom 32 people in the round. You don't need to worry about beating Sasata until September. Guettarda (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not technically. It's possible some people NOT in the top 32 will get through, because they are top of weak pools. J Milburn (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You may as well remove me from the Cup

Well, You might as well remove me from the cup unless someone intends to change the rules so that the FA, GA etc content counts when completed in the month rather than submitted and completed. These rules are obviously too utopian to have taken the real world times for article promotion into account. As it stands I have 1 GA and 2 FLC's that have been languishing since Jan (and I have several GA.s a couple lists, an FLC and a couple of A classes that I will be submitting in the next couple weeks) so as I see it there is zero chance to get through anyway and I see no reason to update my points or to continue since its clear that to do either would simply be wasting my time for inputting it and your time for having to count it. I am going to stick with the Milhist contest which in my opinion was much better thought out taking into account how things really work in WP and that doesn't require the use of a special contest participant review page to get an article promoted. --Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps one of the users from the bubble can be put in in his place? Like Grandiose or Giants27 or whoever was next in the tiebreaker behind Jayron32? — Hunter Kahn 16:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I shaded out my name so feel free to replace it with someone else. --Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. The rules do actually take this into account- anything promoted in this round that has been significantly worked on this year may be claimed, the time rules were there at first in an attempt to prevent last year's articles being claimed, as it were. As such, this kind of thing should not be a concern now. I will replace you with Lankiveil, who was on the bubble. Your thoughts on how to run the competition differently are welcome and will be taken into account for next year's competition as appropriate. Hopefully we'll be seeing you again then. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Thats good to know thanks. I was led to believe that the article must be submitted and promoted in the same month, which would be nearly impossible with the current GA FA systems. This would essentially require (and still may) require editors to "sandbag" nominations until the first of the month so that they would have enough time to get promoted in time, which I have in fact seen several editors refer too. --Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Confused

Did all the points roll over on purpose or are they supposed to be reset each round? I assumed it would be the latter like last year, but maybe not. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Same. I decided to leave work on some FAs till at least the second round in order to help my minimal chances! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure the points are being reset, it's just (as mentioned above) it's taking a bit to reset the Submissions pages. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • They said here that the submissions pages would need a day or two and to hold any submissions until then. — Hunter Kahn 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The points are not meant to be carried over. I will clear the submission pages later tonight if iMatt doesn't get around to it first. I mentioned it in the newsletter- on behalf of the judges, I apologise, as this really should have been done. All of us managed to find ourselves busy over the weekend... J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)