Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2012/1

Points next year- conclusions reached

In case anyone's not watching, see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Some conclusions for how things will be working next year. A few changes (DYK and FL up, GT and FT down, new multipliers, FS gone) but nothing earth-shattering. See that page for details and questions. J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Should we close at 72 entrants?

January 1 is all of a few dozen hours away. Right now we have 71 entrants for WikiCup 2012, shall we close nominations upon entrance of the 72nd? At least with 72 we can have Round 2 be 36 in 6, Round 3, 18 in 3 pools, Round 4 the remaining 9 go for the win. Just my theory. The difference between Round 2 and 3, top two in the pool, plus 6 wildcards to make all 18. Round 3 to 4 would be the top 3 from each pool with no wildcards. This might need adjustment, but I haven't seen much in this department.Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 21:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not a judge, but I like it. However, I'd like to see a few adjustments. For Round 3, I'd go with top 2 in each pool and 2 or 3 wildcards, that way if say they are the four highest scorers in Round 3 all come in the same pool, the fourth highest scorer can have a chance to make the Finals via wildcard. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Our rule has typically been to let anyone in who wants to participate. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a sensible idea, and I'm sorry I didn't see it earlier, but we last year kept the signups open through January, too. We've now crossed that line to 73, and I suspect we will get some more yet- I've sent out messages to a number of people/projects who may be interested, and the competition advertises itself to a certain extent once it gets going. A few years ago, people were turned away so that we could have a round number (I myself only got in at the very last minute because of a drop-out) and there's something a little sad about that. It's not something Ed and I were keen to see again. Also, with only 36 in the second round, we cut a large hunk of the competition out very early- better to keep people a few more people in for longer, even if they aren't very high scorers. J Milburn (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Hello everyone. Please take a look at User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help the National Archives ExtravaSCANza. My hope is that the success of this event will ensure that others will be organized in the future, even without Dominic as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, so we all benefit from the high-quality, formerly non-digitized media uploaded to the Commons. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Logo of WikiCup

This is the logo of WikiCup made by me. You may change this. --Il223334234 (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually quite like it; perhaps it's something we could adopt for next year? It could be fun to have suggested submissions.... J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I might suggest changing the yellow to green, perhaps. That yellow-white combo is kind of... blinding. Resolute 16:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I like the chain venn-diagram. BCS (Talk) 20:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

I swear I saw a userbox for the 2012 Wikicup but I can't find it lol. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This one? J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol thanks. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Work done in both years

Two questions: (1) If you work on an article in both 2011 (e.g. in the last few days) and in 2012 (e.g. the next few days) is that eligible for entry into this year's WikiCup? (2) If you start work on an article in userspace (I have some drafts going back a fair amount of time and one of my New Year resolutions is to do more work on those) and then move it into article space, are those eligible? Should some of the work be done in 2012, or is moving it into article space in 2012 enough? In my case, all the drafts will need additional work before they are ready, but I thought I should check. Carcharoth (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is "significant work". If you've done significant work on an article in 2012 (light copyediting/moving to mainspace would probably not count, expansion, restructuring and so on probably would) then you can claim. It's mostly an honesty thing, but the judges will be looking. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this seems to come up every year. See 1, 2, 3 (two comments at the end of that thread), 4. The answers are not entirely consistent (if anything, the attitude seems to have hardened over time against allowing any work done over the holiday season), but I think I get the general jist. For next year, you could consider trying to include the holiday season for those for whom that period affords more time to do article work. I realise for some it is the opposite (that the holiday season results in less time to do article work), but you should cater for all those working on articles. Oh, and there are other holiday periods throughout the year as well (and different religions) so probably not workable. It is a bit disappointing that there isn't anything that caters for the period of the year when the WikiCup isn't running, or indeed that there is not a permanent contest running like the Military History WikiProject has (hence people can enter at any point in the year). The WikiCup has always struck me as being rather seasonal and too tied to its usual dates with no flexibility. Maybe next year, try a different starting date and see what people think? But next year is a long way away right now. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that the attitude has hardened over time. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Following up on this, the article in question for me was Victor Negus (which has just been at DYK). I'm happy that I did significant work on this article in 2012, but want to check here first rather than submit it and then have it questioned. The editing history is in a userspace page (I prefer to keep my draft editing separate from my mainspace editing, which is why the history wasn't moved). The article went from a partial timeline and collection of links (26 December 2011) to a more complete timeline and links with some references (28 December 2011). That same day I added a lead section and headings (that is the point where I consider I really started writing the article, as before then it was just notes). By the end of the year that had become two article sections in addition to the lead (31 December 2011). The work done in 2012 spanned two days and brought it to an article with an additional three article sections, pus images and general tidying. The move from userspace to mainspace and the nomination at DYK, all took place in 2012. Would there be any objections if I submitted that DYK for this year's WikiCup? Carcharoth (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not; there was clearly significant work this year. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

German WikiCup

Just thought people may be interested to know that there is a German version of the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha, they get points for writing articles about plants. BCS (Talk) 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's how Google translates it :) That means Articles which are like plants (small ones which will grow) doktorb _words^deeds 10:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoops... BCS (Talk) 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for articles to work on

Hey all. As the operator of the WikiCup bot, I'm the guy responsible for slapping "{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Multiplier|none}}" next to your submissions. As such, I'd thought it might be useful to demonstrate that mulitpliers - bonus points for working on articles deemed to be of "higher priority" - are very much within reach for all participants. Thus, here is a list of semi-random suggestions (all are at pre-GA levels):

• Tomb Raider: Legend (double points)
• Billie Holiday (double points)
• Battle of Magnesia (double points)
• Hurricane Katrina (triple points)
• Word processor (triple points)
• Louis Braille (triple points)
• Humphry Davy (triple points)
• Dyslexia (triple points)
• Gulf of Bothnia (triple points)
• Forbes (triple points)
• Flag of Algeria (triple points)
• Asian black bear (triple points)
• Brazil national football team (triple points)
• Battle of Hastings (triple points)
• Francisco Goya (quadruple points)
• Goat (quadruple points)

So, as you can see, whether you prefer working in a specific field, or use to the cup to read up on something completely new, multipliers can be a useful way of selecting articles to work on. (If anyone wants me to trawl the list looking for articles in a particular field, let me know!) Happy cup'ing, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I should work on Katrina, though there's too much on it that it'd take probably more than 6 months to finish, though I guess it'd pay off when I get 390 points for it. HurricaneFan25 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Katrina was my attempt to give you "tropical storm" people something to work on :) The full list based on names alone is (some of these could well be GA or even FA already, mind): Hurricane Katrina (3x) ~ Hurricane Irene (2011) (2x) ~ Hawker Hurricane (2x) ~ Carolina Hurricanes (2x) ~ Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale (2x) ~ Hurricane Gustav (2x) ~ Great Hurricane of 1780 (2x) ~ Hurricane Ike (2x) ~ Hurricane Rita (2x) ~ Hurricane Dean (2x) ~ Cyclone Nargis (2x) ~ Cyclone (2x) ~ Tropical cyclone (3x). Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks muchly! I'll be doing Ike, which might take two to three months... HurricaneFan25 17:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there some way to look up articles by number of Wikipedias? Speciate (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I can get you the number of Wikipedias for given articles or for each article on a list, in a category, etc. I would just publish the full list but it would include a handful of tempting game-y options, not sure if the judges really want to encourage that. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I reserve the right to deny points for any if all you're doing is tipping it over the edge (that what you mean by game-y?), but if we're able to get a few more widely covered topics through GA/FA (or expand the articles enough to get them on DYK) then I think we're doing a good thing for the project. Jarry, if you have specific concerns about publishing such a list, feel free to email me and we'll have a look at the issue, but if you're able to and don't mind doing so, a full list would be incredibly interesting and helpful. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I meant more that there are some who appear with 100+ multipliers because their creator went around translating their article about their local village (population 200) into different languages. But as long as you're okay to not award points to those, I can publish the list no problem. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would be within the spirit of the rules to ignore those ones- even if it wasn't the participant who created the foreign language articles, chasing them for double points would be gaming the system. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The rules state that that the article is on X Wikipedias "as of 31 December 2011", so someone would have to go back in time to create a Simple English one or whatever. Speciate (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there are some that already existed on many Wikipedias on that day. The full list (I've hidden calendar days and numbers to improve the visual display) is available (I strongly advise downloading this rather than viewing it in browser) here, or, if you feel like only looking at 3x or 4x, the much reduced list with 2x is available here. Happy editing! - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Any way we could get those sorted by say wikiprojects? Or categories? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it shouldn't be too tricky. Especially with the latter list, you could try just copying it onto a Wikipedia page and using Catscan. Otherwise, it might be necessary to code something specially (not that I'm particularly averse to that). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No clue what catscan is, honestly. I'm not particularly technically savvy ... plus I'm on a Mac so I don't have access to a lot of tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This. But actually it can't do what I thought it could, so I'll write a tool specially later in the week :) Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jarry, thanks for reposting catscan and for compiling those lists. It's a brilliant idea - and catscan is very useful - I remember last year I found a bunch of dog breeds that had several European language articles but not an English language one. Been looking for it ever since but I couldn't remember the name. :) Miyagawa (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Bleh, tried to write a tool, more work that I hoped. My advice would be to use AWB's list comparer tool (or ask me too). You don't need AWB access, but you do need to be on Windows (or have an emulator). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Advancing to round 2

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but for the second round how are the participants for each group decided? Round 1 explains that the top 64 contestants will advance to the next round and be put in 8 groups of 8, but is unclear on how these groups are decided. Is it random selection? Alphabetized somehow? This is my first year in the WikiCup, and I haven't been able to find any info on this. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 04:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

From recollection, it's semi-seeded, such that in each group there's a mix of people who scored well in the first round, and those for whom the two months were relatively quiet. (This attempts to preserve the incentives to qualify top rather than #64.) I'm sure someone else will recall more accurately than me, though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 08:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I group them. There is a vague attempt to spread the higher scorers, but it's fairly random. It often involves dice rolling. If it was predictable, then I can imagine people playing tactically, and I want to avoid that! J Milburn (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA and the Cup

If we really blackout, how will the Cup be modified to workaround the "lost time"? Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone faces the same challenge, and there's still plenty of time left in the round, so I'm not sure we need to do anything to acommodate any blackout. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily everyone. Ultimately, the "complete blackout" (no editing) looks like it might be worldwide, or might be US-only. Not sure how the 'RFC' will be called (here). Having said that, it's one day. I don't see much of a problem, nor an easy way of fixing it. We apply discretion anyway, and it's not at a time-critical part of the round. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there is much that can be done about this, I'm afraid. We may, or some of us may, lose a day of editing. I don't think that will or should affect the Cup too much. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Question ...

Someone else has nominated my latest article for Did You Know, before I could. Sweet of them to think it worthy, and I hurried up and completed it, but . . . it's been my assumption I can only claim for DYKs that I myself nominate. Am I right in that or have I been misreading the rules? --Yngvadottir (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no such requirement; you can relax. (You may be thinking of the reverse rule, which is that you can't claim points for article you nominate but do not work on.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's correct- you don't need to be the nominator, as long as you've done significant work on the article. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I take it that it would be the same if two competitors worked on the same article with both doing significant work? (Albeit a purely hypothetical situation)? Miyagawa (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Completely fine: There was a drive a few years back to get some collaborations going. A rewarding and effecient way to accumulate points, if there's another editor with the same interests as you. As with most other things, it could be abused, and we are ready and willing to remove points if it is. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Submission Pages - DYK's

Just a quick note to say that it might be worthwhile updating the submission page template for DYKs, as they introduced subpages during the latter half of last year. At the moment the template reads: # [[ARTICLE]] [diff of nomination] {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Link|ARTICLE or LIST}}, but it would be better if it was updated to read: # [[ARTICLE]] [[Template:Did you know nominations/ARTICLE or LIST]] {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Link|ARTICLE or LIST}}. I've been using this different code on my DYK submission page, so you can see how it displays here. Miyagawa (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Very sensible. I will send out a note about this in the next newletter, and make sure that the hidden comments reflect this when I update the submission pages. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, actually, a lot of these could probably do with being updated... I'll look into it soon. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Was that the only limitation on us having {{WikiCupDYK|article=NAME}}? I'm not great on template-fu, but I could it a look. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never had anything to do with those templates; they predate my judge-hood. I don't personally want anything fancy. I will look to redesign them based on the information that I, as a judge, want to quickly see. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about this. I decided to give the diff for when I transcluded the nomination subpage. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This message is going to have to wait; the newsletter has ended up longer than anticipated. It will get done, but, in the mean time, just don't worry about it. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Pulling out

For the fourth consecutive year I'm pulling out of the competition. Sorry. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Submissions

I've just signed up for this event for the first time, so I am a bit confused on scoring. I have 3 GAs (Spoken For, Word of God Speak, and Move (MercyMe song)) as well as a DYK (Long Way Home (Steven Curtis Chapman song)) that were confirmed within the time period of the first round but before I signed up. Can these count, or are they not able to? Also, I have a GT nominee, The Generous Mr. Lovewell, that I nominated before I signed up and that has not passed yet. In the (likely) event it does pass, can I get credit for that as well? Toa Nidhiki05 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"When was the work done on the articles?" is the more important question to when they were nominated. If substantial work was done this year, then if you'd signed up earlier on they would be eligible - I think this also goes for you, but I'm not sure. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. If you've done significant work on them and then nominated them this year, you can claim for them, regardless of when you were added to the list. However, if they were nominated last year, or for whatever reason you have done little real work on them this year, then you may not claim. As such, while the DYK is elgible, I am afraid that the GAs are not. Sorry- this is something on which we've been strict, and I fully appreciate that you are not seeking to abuse the system, but we need to be consistent with the application of the rules. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that out. Oh well. However, is the GT fine to add when it passes? Toa Nidhiki05 19:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are only allowed to claim GT points for articles that you worked on this year. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bi-nationality

Hi, just like some people have two citizenships in real life, am I allowed to have to flags next to my name? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of dual citizenship, people can only represent one nation in (say) the Olympics. J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, a lot of us are not from the countries we are using the flags of- I, for one, am not Russian in the slightest. --PresN 20:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK then, can I design my own flag? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phil, the rules on flags are here in the last paragraph. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~jarry/wikicup/

Just to say that I've fixed this: it'll now show where the cutoff is (i.e. be useful) instead of just being blank. Thanks all, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It is rather sad that I'm sitting on just 10 points right now. The last two months have just been an editing wreck.  :/ Resolute 18:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome- love it! J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

First submission

Can someone check out my submissions page for my first entry and make sure I did it right, please? The toolserver url doesn't seem to be working (I'm getting a 504 Gateway Timeout) and I don't know if it's my fault or not. Also, it's an ITN submission and I didn't nominate it, but I did rewrite the blurbline and make all the updates to the relevant articles with refs. Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is perfect. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks, Jivesh! :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Slightly late entry?

Any chance I could still get in? I just returned to Wikipedia after a long hiatus and saw the bot messages on my talk page. Apparently, registration just closed 2 days ago, so I thought I'd see if I could squeak in. If not, no big deal.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Go on then, I did say the middle of February, and we're slap bang in the middle now. Choose a flag, I'll do the rest. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. I'll go with the Ohio flag: --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I'll sign you up when I have 10 mins to spare- hopefully later today sometime. J Milburn (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, sorry about the delay. J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

{{WikiCup}}

Needs updating, I think? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It does, it does. I've got far less time this year, and helpful gnomes used to do some of the work! I'll hopefully get to it at some point. J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a link to the 2012 Wikicup but went no further (I don't think we can add a page on Round 1 until after February 26, right?) Ruby 2010/2013 00:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. 2011 was also missing a round- somehow round 3 got skipped, so round 4 was labeled as round 3 in the template. Now fixed, both tabled and full archives. --PresN 00:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Tie

What happens in the event of a tie for the last qualifying spot(s)? Do all such competitors move on even if that means more than 64 go through? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Participation in review processes counts as a tie-breaker. If someone's been participating in FAC, FLC, PR or the like and is tied for the last qualifying place, they will go through over someone who has not. At least, that's how we've done it in the last few years. J Milburn (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi! If I would promote an article I promoted to GA in Round 1 to GA in the same round- - Would I lose points for the GA promotion, or would I keep both points for the GA and FA promotion? --Khanassassin ☪ 16:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd get points for both. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Khanassassin ☪ 18:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Legolas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

this discussion going nowhere. let's all focus on fixing what we can and sticking together rather than bickering. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Hope you all are aware of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that someone has questioned the edits of an individual participating in the WikiCup is not something we can do much about, nor does it particularly relate to the competition. I'm not really seeing why we all need to be aware of it. If it wasn't for the fact I knew that this was just part of your continual drive to discredit the project, I'd assume it was canvassing or hate-mongering. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

J Milburn, it would be considerate of you to remove the most hateful personal attack you lodged above ... should you decide to go the extra mile, you might even consider thanking me for taking the time to let you know that the entries of a participant need to be reviewed for falsification of sources. I'll hold my breath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

J Milburn, this was a disappointing response. I would have posted the same notice has Sandy not done it. Are you not a contest judge? Are you not interested that a participant in your contest left a streak of very problematic work on Wikipedia and then accepted contest points for it? I would think that step one of trying to deal with these individual issues is to raise them on the project talk page, thus preventing them from becoming systemic issues. --Laser brain (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Seconded Laser brain's comment. Especially the part about it being a disappointing response. If SandyGeorgia wanted to discredit the project, why the hell would she sink so much time into trying to keep copyright violations out of it? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rather poorly expressed, but that's not a personal attack. It's pretty clear you have never approved of this competition, although I don't personally believe that was the primary motivation in this case. I've restored it until J, as the original poster, decides if he would like to redact it (or not). In any case, I will express gratitude for bringing this to our attention, and I assure you that we will look into this. Sven- discrediting the Cup by linking these copyright issues (or quality, etc., etc.) to a supposed drive to win the competition. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK point credit question

As of right now, I'm definitely on the bubble as it were with my ten points ([1]). My question is, right now I have a pending DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Undercover: Operation Wintersun. Would there be any way to receive credit for it now if it gets approved before the end of the month but doesn't go up on the main page? I'd very much like to stay in this competition. Nomader (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. Until articles appear on the main page, they cannot be counted. J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the hook, and think it looks good (made a few minor link tweaks). Hopefully someone picks it up for the queue soon, but you might want to post it on the DYK talkpage to get it attention (note that I'm not sure if requesting a speedier queue-adoption is accepted there). Good luck! Ruby 2010/2013 05:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that asking for speedy queue adoption would be looked upon favorably; thanks for the review! Here's hoping it gets onto the queue on time. Nomader (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I informed WT:DYK of this. I know how I would feel if my approved hook didn't make it in time. :) BCS (Talk) 21:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It currently stands to be displayed some time tomorrow (25th) if I'm looking at things correctly. GRAPPLE X 22:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Nomader (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Archives

Could someone please update the way the talk page is archived? Currently the bot is dumping archived threads into Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2011/4, which I think should be WT:WikiCup/Archive/2012/1. However, I don't know how to go about making this change. The template at the top of the page also needs to be updated to show the new year (I can do this, but the judges probably understand the archive bot better than I do, since I've never used it!). Dana boomer (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, I've made some changes. I've not used that archiving system before, but I think it should work. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Round 1

Is round 1 over? I know it might be a dumb question, but the top of the project page states that round 1 was suppose to end on the 26th. However, no changes have been made. I just had a GA pass today and I'm not sure what to do. I don't want to add it since I think I can claim it in round 2 since it passed after round 1 ended. I don't need the points, as of this moment, to get to round 2 and don't want them to be wasted in a round I've already advanced pass, not trying to be pushy is this is just a time constraint for the judges, I just want to be sure that everything I'm doing is on the up and up. Thanks,--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You should wait and claim in round 2; round 1 did indeed finish at the prescribed hour. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, sorry, I'm running through the necessary bits as we speak. This is why we have the grace period- jumping straight from one round to another would be hell for Ed and I! I'll put a note up on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick response. I understand that it takes you guys time to sort everything out and I didn't want to be a bother, but I was right on the bubble for round one and if players were still collecting points I didn't want to be eliminated while sitting on 30 points for next round. Thanks again, the competition is lots of fun and I appreciate all of the time and effort you guys must have to put in to keep it going. (bonus points for being a kiss up? ha ha ha). --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I never thought of the deadline. I guess I should have taken an extra day to respond to the GAN comments at In Flanders Fields, heh. Resolute 23:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that will just help me take a quick lead for the WP:ice hockey editors, of course my computer's fried so I'm sure that will be short lived.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

preliminary list on end of round 1

I created the Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2012/Round 1 list. If anything is not according to what it should be please change it accordingly. --Stone (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a small mistake with that list, but, as you posted this, I updated the main page. Sorry! J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected the error, and I will update that page once the tiebreaker is complete. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Timing did not cooperate with me this year. I have been working on several articles (including one currently listed at GAN) and spending a lot of time on Commons lately. While I will not be winning the Cup this year (as if I had a chance!) I look forward to watching the competition and seeing the results of participants' labor. Best of luck! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Tiebreaker

Ok, we are left with 6 user on 10 points, but only one of them will be able to make it through. The tiebreaker is simple- I am asking for any of those tied to tell me of any additional work that they have done that may be deserving of recognition. Examples of this include articles upon which there has not been significant work this year passing during the round, articles upon which work was done in the round passing after the round has finished, review work (perhaps at FAC, PR or something similar) which was not awarded points, or the like. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to get into round 2, but there is only work on the Antimony article I did this year, but it is not in GAN yet. I will have time to work on ExoMars in real life a little bit this year so no big deal.--Stone (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not contributed anything significant enough to be awarded points based on the criteria, other than what has already been submitted. I have been editing quite infrequently (abnormally, in fact), and I don't expect my editing habits to change until summer. For that reason, I would like to withdraw myself from Wikicup and allow those to whom the 64th spot is more deserving to have a chance to continue. Akihironihongo (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at my contributions, it is clear that I have not really contributed in any great factor to any articles this year. The only thing I've been giving any consistent attention to is still in my user space, about three-quarters finished. Besides that I've done some FPC reviewing; however, my most significant contribution at one of those I'm pretty sure resulted in it not passing when I redrew a map. And then redrew it. And then redrew it. Ooops. :-/ Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My article work has been pretty limited in January and February. I was planning to pick up the pace at the back end of next month regardless of the Wikicup, but given the size of the bottleneck for this last place I'm happy to pull out. Best of luck to whoever goes through. —WFC— 06:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have generally been working on expanding several of the tropical cyclone season articles including the 1997-98 1998-99 and 2011-12 South Pacific cyclone seasons. TBH im not that bothered about getting through to Round 2 - i think i have several things coming up that wont allow me time to contribute to WP.Jason Rees (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I came in 65th place last year, so this is a great improvement. :) I worked on a Good Article Review at 00:12 UTC after the deadline - see Talk:Promethium. Will it be counted, and can we still submit entries until the end of 29 February UTC? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at everyone's comments, the tiebreaker is won by Matthewedwards, for his work in review processes during the round. This has traditionally been the way to call these ties. AH1, that good article review would not have been eligible for points, even if within thr round; it's too short, and accounts for just a "rubber-stamping". That said, it places you as "first reserve"- I am happy for you to replace anyone who drops out during the second round. There is a good chance someone will. Stone, you are second reserve. Thank you to the others for your gracious withdrawals. J Milburn (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

AstroHurricane: Because of a change in circumstances, you will now be making it to round two. Stone, you are now our first reserve. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You will have to life with that decision! I will be around and will try to help with the lists like I did it last year. I will be part of the cup next year again! --Stone (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wha-wha-wha-wha-what??? OK, please give more details on what the changes in circumstances were - I'd be happy to work on more articles, if necessary. Compare my recent review to the one I did last year - what makes that one eligible but not this? Thanks! ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 23:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You're in round 2; you fall within the top 64 scorers. The score required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher, so if you hope to stay in the competition, you'll need to increase your output somewhat; how much depends on how well the other contestants perform. As for good article reviews, only reviews of sufficient length will be counted. This is up to the judges' discretion in borderline cases, but as a rough guide, 1kb of useful, critical text in the review will be enough for it to count for points. As such, quick fails or "rubber stamping" will rarely be eligible. This is not necessarily to say that shorter reviews are bad ones; I've seen plenty of good reviews which are short, but they are not eligible. There is deliberately no strict line in this regard and, yes, we are perhaps being stricter on it this year than we were last year. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please withdraw me i.f.f someone else will be able to take my place. (I had hoped to have this posted 10 minutes ago, but I got called away.) I had hoped to have time to bring Liao Dynasty, worth double points, to GA or even FA status, but I won't. Also, I've decided I dislike GANs, and my camera broke, so I've got nothing of any realistic point value to put forth. Good luck Stone. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know- Stone, welcome to round 2! J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

X-Files GA Reviews

Anyone willing to review some of the X-Files GA's? Quite a few of my nom's (about 30) have built up for awhile, and I've thoroughly gone through most of them, in the mean time, and checked for prose mistakes. I realize you guys can get some points for reviewing, and they are waiting if you want 'em!--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Incredible! Well done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Holy smokes, is the "Episodes" GAN subsection backed up, or what... Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. It's better than it was though. It was nearly 60, and it's down to about 45-ish.--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've always thought WP:WGA should be holding its drives more often; WP:GOCE have one every other month and their backlog grows at a much slower rate (their only struggle is really the huge initial backlog rather than the growth of it). GRAPPLE X 03:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd imagine that less frequent drives are more effective; they'll get people more excited. J Milburn (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikicup Viewer script just created

I just created a Wikicup Viewer script. It was for myself, so I could take a quick look at the standings on Wikipedia:WikiCup to see who would be passing and failing if the round were to end right now (it's particularly useful starting in Round 2 and subsequent rounds because it indicates who the wildcards are at the moment). The script therefore also makes it clear exactly how many points would be needed for a person to move on to the next round.

At the moment, the script automatically sorts all tables by "Score" (descending), and then color codes every row either green (for "passing"), red (for "failing"), or yellow (for yourself, to show where you stand). The script's colors, the "green" in particular, are also easier on the eyes than the current colors. Please note that if you install the script, early in the rounds you will see most users of the top two groups to be in green; this is because almost everyone has 0 points, so of course the script just takes users starting from the top group as those that will be "passing" on to the next round.

You guys can use it if you want, I just decided to let you guys know about it just in case anyone is interested; just install it like any other script. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice, I love your Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer script, and this one seems really useful too. --PresN 03:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, neat, I hadn't thought of having it as a user script. Pretty cool. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawal

AS I have retired and scrambled the password for my main account, please withdraw that one. Thanks --HurricaneFanAlt ≈≈ (bad revert?) 12:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, and sorry to see you leave. I would be open to Hurricanefan's place being taken by WaitingForConnection, if (s)he is interested. J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the acknowledgement, but I'm going to pull out altogether due to being busier than I had anticipated. The realistic timeframe for me nominating my planned featured list and getting back to the swing of both sides of the GA process will be too late for this round of the WikiCup. —WFC— 20:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Creating an unfair DYK burden, skirting the rules, neglecting obligations, and gaming the system

It is not fair that a cup competitor can get credit for dozens of articles, all about one topic, which were nominated by someone else, and not have to do any reviews in return. Doing QPQ reviews is part of the DYK process. Not requiring reviews for nominations of articles by someone else is intended to encourage variety on the main page by including articles on a variety of topics by new users who may be unfamiliar with DYK. That definitely does not include dozens of articles on one topic all by the same person. It is skirting the rules, neglecting obligations, and creating an unfair burden on DYK users who have to review all of those articles which add to the backlog. The rules should be changed so that in order to receive cup credit for a DYK, the competitor should have to do a review, even if someone else nominates their article. This is only fair. Other cup participants do their reviews, so someone who avoids having to do it is gaming the system, getting an unfair advantage, and only doing part of what they should be doing. 159.83.4.153 (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

1) If you're going to accuse someone of malfeasance, man/woman up and say who you mean. 2) If someone is writing articles, and someone else is nominating them for DYK in their stead but is not doing any reviews, then someone is gaming the DYK system, and DYK should correct that. I notice that you haven't notified DYK that this mysterious person is abusing the system- perhaps that should have been your first stop? The wikicup judges can certainly kick someone out of the competition for abusing DYK, but only if DYK thinks it's an issue and only if they know who that person is. --PresN 01:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Who it is isn't very important now. Although what they're doing is not fair or honourable, they may not technically be breaking the rules. I proposed a new cup rule which would apply to all competitors, making it fair for everyone and providing a way to address such problems. 159.83.4.153 (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is relevant, because the contest is judged by the spirit of the rules, not the letter of them. Additionally, I agree with PresN that you should raise the issue with DYK, as it would be "abuse" whether or not the person(s) where in this competition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The second "overall" rule is Don't be a Dick. That overrides everything (except have fun, I guess) - if someone is being a "dick" at DYK and gaming the system, then the judges can kick them out regardless of if they broke any "rules" here or there. But without a specific editor to look at, all you're asking for is a new rule- "Don't be a Dick at DYK" - and I don't see the point of that. --PresN 03:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think changing the rules in the middle of the competition is really fair. I agree that this may potentially be a concern, and it's something I would certainly raise with the individual concerned, but I must confess that I'm not really sure who it is that you're referring to. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

From a DYK perspective, there is no issue. Person A writes an article, person B nominates and does the QPQ review. End result is that process is working as intended. So the only concern is at our end. The question is, are we concerned about someone getting an unfair advantage by this? Based on what little details we have, I have to default to no. The point of this competition is to encourage content creation and improvement. Lacking more information, I don't see a violation of the spirit of the competition here as you would see if, say, person A was nominating for GA and person B was giving weak reviews. Resolute 21:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that when person A writes an article and person B nominates it, neither of them have to do a QPQ review. This is per Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules, where it says "New nominators...are exempt from this review requirement, as is the nomination of another editor's article." (my bold). As the IP says above, I think this is to encourage people who, for example, do NPP and nominate new editors' articles in part to get them familiar with the DYK process. In this case (and I think I know who it is, but I'm not going to say in case I'm wrong), editor B is following around behind editor A, nominating all of their new articles for DYK, editor A is collecting all of the points and neither editor is doing QPQ reviewing, which helps to backlog DYK and does make it rather unfair for other editors who nominate their own articles and spend the time doing QPQ reviews. Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes; it's by no means the worst crime in the world, but if it is being done in a deliberate attempt to shirk reviewing responsibilities, then it would look like gaming the system. Admittedly, it's not gaming the Cup's system, it's gaming DYK's system with an eye to furthering yourself in the Cup. I will watch out for it when checking over submitted content. I must admit I am somewhat behind in that regard. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the IP referring to TigerBoy's DYKs? (Like this, this, and this)? All were nominated by User:PFHLai with no QPQ reviews, although he partly offers an explanation on his talkpage. Ruby 2010/2013 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I am the subject of this discussion. I write and improve articles. That's what I do on wikipedia. If other people nominate them for DYK that's fine by me. I have never asked anyone to nominate articles on my behalf. I am not "gaming" anything. I entered wikicup in late January because I was told about it and it sounded like fun. If there is a feeling that I am spoiling things I will be happy to withdraw from the competition. Tigerboy1966  00:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, User:PFHLai has adequately explained the situation and thus it should be a non-issue. It would only be abuse if an editor asked someone to nominate at DYK to avoid the QPQ rule or a team of editors teamed up to nominate each other's articles. If one of the most prolific contributors to DYK nominates some articles of your unsolicited, then you are probably doing something right to get noticed (i.e. writing good articles), not something wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Thaddeus. So far as I see it, nothing untoward has been done in this instance, but it is something that could be done to game the system. Tigerboy, please do not feel that you have to withdraw. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)