Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/6

Submission pages clear

The submissions' pages are now clear, so feel free to start adding anything for which you wish to claim points this round. Hopefully the bot will clear the scorelists at the first update. Remember that anything that has passed since the end of round one may be claimed in round two, providing it has been worked on and nominated this year (not necessarily this round). J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Woot, DYK credit. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • F*ck, I was working on it now! :( iMatthew ^talk at 22:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • NINJA'D J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Flag confusion

Currently, I have the Czech Republic's flag (see Pool D), whereas I was assigned the flag of Tokelau in the preliminaries. I was just curious about the change, since I'm still listed under flag of Tokelau in the big picture with the silver cup on the contest page. If possible, I'd like to keep the flag of Tokelau as my banner. Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how that happened. I've changed your flag to Tokelau on the main list. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Airplaneman ^talk 04:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Early Round 2

Holy God, Chamal has burst out of the gate!! Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, look at the dates of the articles - looks like his submission page wasn't cleared. Guettarda (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)~

Sorry, yeah, that's my fault. Fixed that now. It is, however, nice to see a large number of early points. Good work everyone. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Points scoring

How is this project any different to the kind of points-scoring problems which led to such things as people inserting incorrect material into articles just to get their DYK stats up? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that people in this competition take the project seriously? Everyone here is interested in the encyclopedia first- this is meant to be a little fun and motivation. No one interested in abusing Wikipedia in order to win some pixels is welcome in this competition, or, I suspect, is currently taking part in it. Much like Wikipedia itself, this is perhaps something that works better in practice than in theory, and, being who I am, it pains me to say that... J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Would also note that pretty much anything that scores points is something requiring review, including DYK. If folks are running around just throwing stuff up just to throw it up, its generally caught, same as it would be if there were no WikiCup incentive. Its not as if we win money or prizes here :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Submission page archive

Is there an archive of Round 1 submission pages not shown on the template yet?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is not. What I thought we could do is just re-add the round one submissions from the page history once a person is eliminated, leaving a full submissions page. If you have a different idea of how to work it, I'm all ears. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the submission pages should be moved to /1, /2, etc. archives.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Or just create a link to a dif from before the page was refactored. Resolute 19:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode

Unitanode wishes to drop out of the competiton. (See his talk page) He also said that If the rules will allow it, he will give up his spot for someone else who did not make it to round two.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. Probably not to the letter of the rules, but I think it would be great to get someone else into round 2. Giants27 was next from the bubble, I will contact him. J Milburn (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd

Why is'nt the bot updateing my points. It still says that I'm at 0 when I have 3 DYK's and I added them to my submissions page on March 1.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• You've put an extra colon in front of the # symbols. That might be doing it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for letting me know what I was doing wrong.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... Still not working.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Popular Page Improvement Award

Although there are no official bonus points for the WP:Wikicup, I'd like to award five contestants with a total of 210 honorary bonus points for Round 1. I thank and congratulate User:Staxringold for 2009 World Series and List of World Series champions, User:Airplaneman for Mac Pro, User:Nergaal for Caesium, User:Wehwalt for Antonin Scalia, and User talk:TonyTheTiger for Inauguration of Barack Obama. These articles each receive well over 500 page views per day. While these players could have done articles on easy unknown topics, they chose more difficult, important, popular articles that will be a great benefit to many more Wikipedia readers. Keep up the nice work! Reywas92^Talk 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting- so these are the promoted articles that are receiving the most page views of all WikiCup submissions? J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these are the FAs, GAs, and FLs that have an average of at least 500 hits per day. Caesium and Antonin Scalia have over 1000 hits per day. I'm a little disappointed that only these six out of 130 articles submitted are of popular topics (unless I missed any), but of course you should work on the articles you're most interested in. My honorary bonus points are 50% of the standard value. Neither of my Round 1 submissions were quite there, but my current project should be. Reywas92^Talk

Did you overlook my article Andrea_Fay_Friedman? It has been viewed 26,158 times in the 17 days of its existence (1,538.71 views a day). Abductive (reasoning) 05:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he's only counting GA+ articles. --PresN 06:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

While I respect the above praise for "popular pages", surely it is misguided to suggest that obscure or "unknown" topics are easy? They often are not. I also imagine that importance and popularity do not always come together. --candle•wicke 01:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been discussed before, pop culture articles have the potential to be incredibly popular (while remaining less "important" in the standard encyclopedic sense) and, at the same time, often have a reputation for being easier to write about. Equally, topics currently in the news, and topics of high importance to certain nations (say, the US) have particularly high viewing figures. There's also the very important point that viewing figures are an imprecise science, and, in any case, say little about how useful the page has been (for instance, I suspect the high viewing figures for pages like penis are not because a great number of people are doing research about penises). I think these results are interesting, certainly, but I feel that Reywas is wrong to read into them so much. If we were to implement some sort of bonus points for more important/more difficult topics, it certainly would not be based on viewing figures. However, naturally, this does suggest that these articles have proven valuable- no matter why people visit pages, if they are being visited, a strong article on the subject is a good thing. Well done to the users mentioned. J Milburn (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• As an unexpected recipient I'm obviously biased, but I will say two things. First off, I don't think Reywas was saying all unknown topics are easy, the message specifically states "easy unknown" not "unknown and therefore easy". Unknown and easy is the center of a Venn diagram between the two characteristics, easy is not stated as simply a characteristic of being unknown. Second, I think there is an argument to be made for page views as a basis for bonus points in future Cups. If the goal of the Cup is to improve the project, surely improving the image of Wikipedia goes towards that goal. I'm glad I got my points for List of Houston Astros first-round draft picks, eg, but with far far fewer people reading it than List of World Series champions it is that work on the latter that improves the stature of Wikipedia. Imagine if the 130,000 viewers of 2009 flu pandemic by country in August 2009 saw a perfect article, by our standards. Page views demonstrate, if nothing else, what pages on Wikipedia people view, and surely the project is better by ensuring the maximum number of eyes see our best work. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily- we are an encyclopedia, so our focus should be on covering the issues of the highest encyclopedic importance, which will then hopefully draw the real eyes- students and academics. That should be our long term goal, rather than improving sex and High School Musical. And, again, as has been said, page views are a wholly imprecise science. Someone on their own (especially if they can write a bot to do it for them...) could easily shift the page views number for a single article if they so wished. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • We do not built a encyclopedia for the sake of the encyclopedia we do because somebody is reading the stuff we are writting and High School Musical is the most important topic people are searching for than this article has to be up to the standart. Wikipedia lives because we have an article on everything and we draft in viewers from po articles into the use of an encyclopedia, even people who would never put their hand on encyclopedia britannica. (I know that altruism is not existing and we writte because we like to have readers like to get points or what to become important in wikipedia long for imortality or so on .....)--Stone (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I still disagree with your suggestion here, J Milburn. We are very clearly not just a normal encyclopedia. Brittanica has no entry (or a very small one) on Hannah Montana, for example, but we strive to cover everything. On Wikipedia there is no such thing as a "better" topic, it's a simple yes/no of if it's notable enough to have an article. The idea behind page-view-points is increasing the image of the project, because improving the quality of something a lot of people see improves the quality of the project's image with the general viewing population. The rules could be easily written to avoid the problem you suggest below. One-shot main page features like FA and DYK could be fixed by requiring at least X viewers on 3 days or something, and I'm not sure ITN drawing many viewers for days is contrary to this (a FA quality article on this year's Oscars, for example, might draw viewers thanks to being on ITN but would certainly improve what Wikipedia looks like to an outsider). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• What are you saying, then? More page views makes an article more important? J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• No. As I said, there is no such actual scale of "importance" or "betterness" for the project as a whole (even if Wikiprojects rank articles as such). Hannah Montana is exactly as important as Albert Einstein because they are both notable enough for an article. Page view points aren't about the importance of the topic, in my view, but about how much their improvement helps the project. If 100,000 people view a page in a month, good work there improves Wiki's image in far more people's eyes than if you spent similar effort on a page seen by 100 that same month. It's the same reason you put up billboards in areas of heavy traffic/population and not out in the middle of the woods. It's the same billboard, same quality, but there is more value when the message reaches more people. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I simply don't agree with you that every article is as important as any other. It's a nice idea, but it's not actually how things work- the article on some pop star who scraped the top twenty in a small nation just simply isn't as important as an article on a major nation, a major philosopher, a major artwork or a chemical element. Your second point ignores the nature of page views- just because people are viewing an article, does not mean that they are using it. It's better to improve an article that will help 10 people with an essay than it is to improve an article that 20 young children click because it is the top Google result for something inane. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• That makes a pretty large presumption about Wikipedia that doesn't seem to hold true in practice. Today's Featured Article explicitly states they don't judge the importance of an article, nor do any of the featured processes. If it is up to our standards then it's up to our standards, period. Where does it say Wikipedia exists as a piece of academia and not as a piece of pop culture? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly support the sentiment of articles being judged on their quality and not content, but that doesn't suddenly mean that every article is as important as every other. Our nature as academic is grounded in the definition of encyclopedia; even an encyclopedia specialising in a non-academic subject (if such a thing could actually be called an encyclopedia) is academic in its approach. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ITN

ITN for Copernicium is my personal favorite with 110269 views within eight days.--Stone (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

At least a few of them were me. Very interesting topic :) J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think ITN and DYK articles may appear to be popular for having been on the main page. Averages should exclude days on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By their very nature, regardless of being on the main page, ITN items will receive a disproportionate amount of views. As I have said, this is a very imprecise science. Reading into it too far is not a particularly worthwhile activity. J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Review requested

(Sorry, I didn't know whether the Reviews page was still watched mid-round.)

Would someone mind doing the GA review on price elasticity of demand. I know many of you will be put off by the subject matter, but really, if you can't understand at least most of it, we article writers have failed, and I for one would be glad to know. Likewise, I would be happy to GA-review your article on Rail transport in Benin, Simpsons episode #435, or whatever you want really, I don't mind.

I only ask because there are a raft of similar articles I would like to bring up to GA (sooner rather than later), but I really need some outside pointers so I don't start getting all idiosyncratic and OWNish (WP:ECON is a bit dead). I do have another article awaiting review (for a longer time) but in a way that one's less urgent. Ta, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just seeing the link to the article brought back bad memories of Managerial Economics 387. Useight (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jarry, if you really can't find anybody in the next week or two I'd be willing to try reviewing it, but to be honest, this isn't my area of expertise by a long shot. I'd suggest in the meantime you see if you can seek out a review with a bit more knowledge of that field. If the WP:ECON's talk page is a bust (I know you said the WikiProject is mostly dead, but there does seem to be discussion at that talk page), or perhaps look at the WP:GAN history page to see which Wikipedians have frequently edited economics-related articles, and see if you can ask them might be willing to give it a try? Or maybe ask one of the peer review volunteers who reads economics articles to look at it? Obviously WP:PR and WP:GAN are two different beasts, but they are similar enough that one of them might look at it. And also, a GAN backlog elimination drive is about to start in April, so many one of the reviewers there will be willing to give it a go? — Hunter Kahn 23:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Stick it on the review page, and I guarantee I will do my best to make sure it gets a review before the end of the round. I realise that's well over a month, but that's the best I can offer :) J Milburn (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Group of Death update

FYI, in the group of death fourth place is now 90 points. Any estimate on how many points the at-large qualifiers will need to make the next round?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• As of right now most of the at-large's are in the 30-60 point range. I'd bet that 150 will lock up a spot, no matter the pool, and probably 125 or even 100 could work. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here...

...for ten days, as I am abroad. I will not be signing on at all. I'll be back on the 30 March, just in time for the next newsletter; the Cup seems to be running smoothly enough, but any issues will have to be aimed at another judge for a little while. Good luck everyone, have fun. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Joining

How do you join the WikiCup, are you selected or do you just enroll yourself? and also, what date do you join or enroll? Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You enroll yourself, but for this wikicup you had to sign up before January 1. Late entrants aren't allowed, but feel free to jump on in when signups are opened for next year's wikicup around November. --PresN 04:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Group of Death latest

All members of the group of death quartet are up to 110 points. This would be first or second place in the majority of the other pools.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sticking to my 125-150ish points = Locked up spot theory from your last update. If Round 1 is any indication there will be a handful of editors with outlier high scores like Sasata and Hunter Kahn along with a huge group of people in the 150-225 range. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The big unknown really is whether there are people who are racking up points without updating their contribs page. I have seen Cas rack up several FAs and DYKs without updating his page. I'm guessing here's an outlier, but if a few people do that (or even just surge late with FAs) that could throw all predictions off. That said, I suspect that Staxringgold is right - 125-150 points will probably be enough to advance to round 3. Guettarda (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops. forgot. When was the official start date of round 2 and the end of round 1? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Round 1 ended Feb 26, Round 2 started March 1 and end April 28, but (correct me if I'm wrong) promotions in the interim can still be counted to Round 2. Guettarda (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I believe promotions in the interim to Round 2 and 3 will be counted in Round 3, not 2... (Unless its an on-the-bubble situation and there needs to be a tiebreaker, in which case I think its at the judges disgression...) — Hunter Kahn 22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant the interval between Feb 26 and March 1. Apologies for being unclear. Guettarda (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ah. Then yes, you're correct. — Hunter Kahn 01:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second, I'm not considered a threat just because I don't update my scoring page the second something is promoted? I guess I'll have to fix that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My current strategy is to track down something I can use to blackmail the judges. So unless that's your strategy as well, you're no threat to me at all! Guettarda (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A wikicup suggestion

I am not a participant in the Wikicup and stumbled upon this competition recently in my travels around WP. I see that the goal of the Cup is to spur editors to improve the content in WP by using a competition. I think this is a great idea. In order to attain points editors must have their content pass through the various evaluation structures, (FAC, GAC, FLC, and so on). Here's my concern, there is already a paucity of reviewers working at these evaluation structures. Consequently there are significant backlogs at several of these pages. Having editors flood these pages with more and more content without also providing reviews doesn't help the situation. As the Wikicup continues to expand (which it appears to be doing rather significantly) I fear that this issue will also expand. My suggestion would be to require all entrants to performs X number of reviews per round, not for points, but simply as a requirement for participation. The number of reviews could be a percentage of the number of submissions, I'm not sure, that could be worked out. Certainly this would be enacted next year not for this year's Cup.

One issue that I'm sure will be raised is that of time. You are working hard on content and don't have the time to also be required to do reviews. This suggestion would negatively impact the amount of quality content that the Cup could produce. My response is that we are all short on time. I'd love to just spend my editing time solely on content, but people do have to do the reviews. My philosophy has always been that if I'm going to use the structure for the articles I've worked on, then I should support the work of others by giving back in the form of reviews. This is a suggestion, I'd welcome feedback, I'm guessing many will react negatively to any form of mandated review requirement but there's no harm in raising the idea and seeing what people think. I'll watch the page and happily interact with anyone who would like to discuss it. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Or parhaps points could be given for reviews. (Next year of course) That would result in the elimination of the backlog(s). (Though they need to be proper reviews, no BSing...)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My concern with points for reviews is that it could lead to a reduction in the quality of reviews (as you studiously pointed out). There are backlog drives that give out awards for the number of reviews accomplished in a given time frame so rewarding for reviews is not unprecedented, but given the very competitive nature of the Wikicup I would be hesitant to support giving points for reviews. It also starts to steer the Cup away from it's intended goal, which is content improvement through mainspace editing. I would argue that reviewing can significantly help content improvement but it is in a secondary form. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps make it an entirely different entity? A completely different, and hopefully less competitive, contest. Different rules, scoring, etc, separate from the Cup, designed specifically for the purpose of cutting down on backlogs, in a legit manner. Useight (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's an idea, it would just take some horsepower to get it done. I thought since the Wikicup already has momentum and since participants must use the review apparatus in order to garner points to win the Cup that this would be a good opportunity to "encourage" reviewers as well as content contributors. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that not what the sweeps just did?  f o x  (formerly garden) 11:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the Sweeps was a project that reviewed all the GA's promoted prior to the date (August 27, 2007) when the GA Criteria was substantially upgraded. The reviewers were working to make sure the old GAs conformed with the new criteria, if they did then they were kept, if they didn't then editors were given the chance to upgrade the articles and if they still didn't meet the criteria they were delisted. The Sweeps did nothing to reduce the current backlog of articles waiting at WP:GAC. Let me know if I haven't explained it properly. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Are you aware of the upcoming good article backlog elimination drive coming up in April? I'm actually planning to do some GAN reviews myself, but am waiting until it starts up... — Hunter Kahn 16:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No I was not aware that this was coming, I'm glad to see it. I will certainly try to participate. I would just like to see editors who are using the system to get their content appraised, also contribute to the system so that it maintains a level of cohesion and doesn't become so backlogged. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 17:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly intend to be taking part in the GAN elimination drive, and, as a WikiCup judge, I've been trying to do my bit with the backlog anyway. I think the Cup is moving towards starting some kind of "points for reviews" system or something similiar- this is something that definitely needs discussion next year. You are by no means the first people to raise this issue. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Group of Death Update

Now the group of death has a quintet of 110 point scorers that would be first or 2nd in 3 of the other 7 groups.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Make sure you keep us posted with every breaking detail!!! — Hunter Kahn 14:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • lol Just kidding Tony. You guys definitely have the most exciting group to follow this round. I'm willing to bet most of you guys will be in the at-large bubble and moving on to the third round... — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's interesting, given the added FFA round to start things (because of the greater competitors) this is basically the equivalent of Round 1 from the 09 Cup. Quite active for the first round. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this really such an important story that it requires an update every few days? The few people whop actually care are fully capable of checking the standings themselves... -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In truth it is a gripe by me. I think the pooling process should be transparent (either by prior round point zig zag or alphabetical slotting). I just don't understand how I ended up in such a competitive bracket.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You're leading by like 135 points in that group...whats to grip about yet? :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tony, I think the way the group was chosen was that they started at the top of the list of scorers from the first round and put each one in a group (Sasata in Pool A, me in Pool B, you in Pool C, etc. etc.), went through all the way down until Pool H (Staxringold), and then started from the top of the remaining scorers in the list (Casliber for Pool A, Resolute for Pool B, etc. etc.) It seems like as fair a way as any to choose... — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• There are two problems with that method. 1. Group A would be the hardest. 2. At one point I figured out that my group was the only grou with 4 150 point scorers from the first round so they must have strayed from that method.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess you're right, I only counted the first two groups of eight I guess. — Hunter Kahn 04:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• At least taking the logic of the NCAA tournament the top overall seed (the top scorer in round 1) should have the easiest 2 seed, 3 seed, etc, etc. So I would think it'd be similar to what Kahn suggested, only in reverse after the top seeds. So start the groups with the top 8 scorers, then flipped for the next 8 scorers (so #16 in pool with #1, #15 with #2, etc, etc), the 8 after that, etc. That would make my pool, H, the most competitive, although that doesn't seem to be the case (no offense intended). Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Whichever method they used to create the current pools, the past results don't dictate the current results. Perhaps some people increased in free time, perhaps some decreased. Some could have had material almost ready when the first round ended; some people may have just barely squeaked their GA/FA/DYK/whatever into the first round. If you ask me, though, the "Pool of Death" is actually Pool A. Since the top two progress, the pool with the highest-scoring third place would be the one with the greatest difficult to get into the auto-progressing top two. Pool A has a third place of 130, while Pool C's third place is only 110. It'd be harder to progress in A than in C. Useight (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to think of group A as the "Pool of Cool Dudes". Sasata (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Pool A is without a doubt the coolest. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• *cries because he's all the way down in Pool H, maximum distance from the kewl geiz.* Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I have no idea how the groups were chosen- iMatthew did that; I was concerned with other things at the time. A transparent pooling would be nice, but I think that may encourage tactical play. Personally, I think random grouping would be best... J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand how the pools are different from just saying "the top 32 will progress". Abductive (reasoning) 04:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• In pools this big it's unlikely, but you could theoretically win your pool with 10 points, eg. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

Is it too early to put my three GAN's on the review page yet? One of them, U-2336 has a reviewer but he has yet to post anything.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Don't forget that the GAN backlog elimination drive is about to start in a couple days, and more than 40 reviewers have signed up, so I think we're going to see a lot of GAN reviews being conducted in the next couple days. — Hunter Kahn 02:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Just to let you all know, User:Coldplay Expert has been renamed User:White Shadows so that way it does'nt look like a newbie is trying to edit his submissions page.--Whité Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and can one of the judges please rename my page as well as fix any links that lead to my old username?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I still need my stuff renamed. I moved my submissions page to my current name but that's all.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 03:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting......--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're wanting done...  f o x  (formerly garden) 11:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well can my submissions page be renamed and my name that appears in pool B? (Sorry for not makeing that clear)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to do it yourself. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right, done. Sorry for not reporting back here :P  f o x  12:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries Fox :) I tried to do it myself before but ended up screwing up the whole of pool B's chart. So I thought, why not let the judges do this?"--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 04:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Points

Hi there. On 27 February, the day after the first deadline, I added a GA to my submissions list. Would I be able to claim that back to my current points? —  Cargoking  talk  10:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think so, assuming you didn't mistakenly get those points to get past round 1. Stuff in the inter-period is supposed to count towards Round 2. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes you can, assuming you did not receive those points for round 1 —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I might have got them. Would it be possible to remove them from the last last round? —  Cargoking  talk  14:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. However, if the article was promoted (not added to your submissions' list) after the end of round one, then it counts for this round. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It was promoted on the 27th, the day after the end of round one. —  Cargoking  talk  18:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Then feel free to claim points for it this round. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. —  Cargoking  talk  21:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-hypothetical situation about GA/A-Class articles

Just a hypothetical situation I'm going to throw out here. Suppose I start working on an article that is already a Good Article and perhaps already A-Class. I help get that article whatever is needed to reach FA, and I (for some ungodly reason, as I myself am 0 for 3 on FACs) get an article promoted to FA. Would I get credit for that FA (and hence a shitload of points)? I'm saying this in that I may have a couple of potential FA candidates but will probably won't get promoted by the time I get eliminated from the WikiCup competition as I have 0 points currently. –MuZemike 07:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Provided you've done some real work- on an FA, that kind of barrier would be higher. However, the fact that the article is A-class does not automatically preclude you from claiming FA points. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive

It's been mentioned in a couple of places above, and I will be mentioning it in the newsletter which will be going out this evening, but the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive will be starting tomorrow. I see a good few people here have already signed up, but this certainly seems to be something that will be of interest to people here. Basically, the idea of the drive is to clear as much of the backlog at GAN as possible, with a slight competitive edge. The drive is not officially related to the WikiCup, but review work will be looked upon in the need for a tie-breaker. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the backlog drive has just begun. So be prepared for reviews, gentlemen and ladies! GamerPro64 (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Update regarding points

Well since the top two in every group moves and the top 16 that were not in the top two in their pool moves on as well I'll break things down for you all as of now. Well (not counting people who currently are leading or in second place in their pool) there are 17 people with 30 or more points. and 13 people with 40 or more points. Since the rules will only allow 16 "wildcards" on to round three, that means that you need to have at least more than 40 points to move on regardless of what pool you are in. But considering that there is a whole month left in round two, that number will likely go up. My guess is that by April 28, if you have more than 80-100 points, you'll move on no matter what.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 04:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on ITN items

For WP:ITN items is it sufficient to do the updating (article work) that gets an article on to the mainpage (i.e. that someone else nominated)? Or do you have to do the update and the nomination? Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Update your own or any nomination seems to make sense. The content work is in the update (or new article as sometimes happens). --candle•wicke 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; as long as you've done the work you're welcome to claim. Don't abuse it, and you should be fine. J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Will the group of death be the only group to advance 6?

Will the group of death be the only group to advance 6? I am betting so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tony, I haven't had a chance to check the standings, who is currently winning that group? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I have a bunch of WP:GACs that I would prefer were not promoted in time to surpass you. They would be more useful next round when the competition gets more meaningful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• My only goal, besides moving on, in these early rounds is trying to have the most FLs in every round. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• 6? Probably. B looks to be getting 5 and A with 4. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Retirement of a Judge

It appears that User:IMatthew has retired. He has'nt edited normally in a few months and today he posted the retired template on his talk page with an edit notice. So who will replace him? What do we need to do now?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We'll discuss. Ed's not really here much either, but we'll talk about it.  f o x  10:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. But with only 2 active judges and one that is semi-active, you two are going to be swamped next year. You may want to find another admin (Julian maybe?) to take IM's place by next year.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can always leave my name up for what its worth, my schedule's finally lifted from having constraints and am free :)Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia 1 edit at a time.)} 22:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@Garden, yeah, I was just about to come here and say that. I'm trying to be here at least occasionally, but reviewing at ACR and FAR is sucking up my time. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well there's one person to fill it up. So problem solved?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We'll discuss ;)  f o x  14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK then. I'll leave it in your capable hands. :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User Rename

Need to have my WikiCup stuff moved to use my new username[1]. Is this something I can do myself or something I would need someone else to do.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I think the WikiCup is a great idea, and although I'm still interested in the end result, for several personal reasons I'm withdrawing for the competition this year. I plan on returning next year though. Thanks to all, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame to see you leave. You were a shoe in for round three Julian. See you next year and see ya around :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done See you next year Julian.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing

Hi, I'd like to withdraw from the competition if still possible. Thanks! ceranthor 23:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Done. See you next year :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Pool H

Arsenikk explodes into the lead! Very cool GA work! The GA backlog drive has been so successful, and has caused some nice blasts of Wikicup scoring! Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well done! I myslef am shocked by the amount of content work that I'm capable of. I would have never guessed that I'd even make it past round 1 with any points, much less over 500 in round 2. The GA backlog drive is doing very well indeed.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

JB50000

Does the tag on User:JB50000 page and the discussion have a influence on his participation in the wikicup?--Stone (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

He should be eliminated as a sock.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 19:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly eliminated him considering that he is indef blocked and is a sock. If anyone opposes (especially the judges) feel free to revert me.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 19:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sort of a backlog at DYK

Could anybody who has time pop over to T:TDYK and comment on a few DYK suggestions? I've noticed a lack of comments and generally weak hooks, with some of the regulars there seeming to be MIA. It's not really a backlog, but.... Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a lack of DYK nominations! The DYK will be updated every 8 hours not every 6 hours because of this.--Stone (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's circular; the suggestions sit there without action or verification, so people get discouraged from or put off writing more DYKs. Abductive (reasoning) 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparing February 26, March 27 and April 26 shows that in February we had 239 DYK canidates in February, we had 177 DYK canidates in March and 165 DYK canidates in April. So the total number in the queue is going down.--21:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is less activity in much of the content areas - the number of FAC approvals and reviewers is down significantly month to month and month over month, for example. I think some of the predictions about editor shortages are coming true. I wonder if overall editting is down over the same time frame? my watchlists are even much less active.. Andecdotally, it seems like content creation and improvement has slowed dramatically over the last year. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there will be a pickup in DYKs when the next round of the WikiCup begins. I suspect the overall trend is sigmoidal. If one discounts the creation of populated places, species and athletes, the trend is closer to linear. Abductive (reasoning) 17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)