Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2013/1

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-11-05/Op-ed

Hey everyone; I thought you may be interested to know that there's an article in the latest Signpost about this year's WikiCup, with a little about the history of the competition. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Points enquiry

I'm entering the Wikicup for the first time and I would like to ask, do content thats been made before the competition starts but then appears on (say) DYK after the competition has started, will they be counted as qualifying for points? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The general rule is "significant work" during the year of the competition. You need to work on the content and then nominate it during the year of the competition, and then you can claim points once it is promoted. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive

Just a quick note for editors in case they hadn't already seen - Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/November-December 2012. If your competing next year it might be a good idea to clear out GAN so your first round nominations can get reviewed quicker. Or you could have a less nefarious motive. ;) Miyagawa (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Finalised changes for next year's competition

I've closed the rules discussions for next year. Please see my comments here. Feedback is very much welcome. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags

Can we use the flag of a non-existing entity? I would like to use this as my flag - File:Sheldon's apartment flag.svg TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry...

...about sending the welcome message multiple times. It seems I consistently make a mistake with that. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Joining

Can I join to the wikicup now?--Pratyya ^{(Happy New Year)} 14:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I see you've added your name to the signup page- I'll add you to the main list soon. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification Request

For the hell of it, I would like to ask if I can enter Operation Majestic Titan in the WikiCup as a competitor for points. This is a special project, so its not a Military history project task force, but rather a gathering of like minded individual who share a common love of battleships. I know that some of the special project's members compete individually, but I felt like asking for curiosity's sake. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I will say that I may be making some additions that would fall under OMT's scope, but would obviously prefer they be credited to me individually if I worked on them by myself. —Ed!^(talk) 16:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh the idea wouldn't be to hog the attention, instead it would be a flimsy pretext for me to bring up the idea of an OMT flag for use here under the project's admission :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Sorry, but this would not be allowed. Only editors can enter. Also due to past controversy over flags, an OMT flag would not be allowable. Apologies! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

my 2 ¢

I have a hard time understanding how a GAR is worth more than an entry for a GT.... Nergaal (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Because a GAR requires actual work that GT does not. The actual work in the latter case is in bringing the article to GA. As such, a qualifying entry for GT is actually worth 33 points. 30 for reaching GA and a bonus 3 for being part of the GT. Resolute 16:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. It wouldn't be the greatest loss to do away with GT/FT points altogether, in some ways; we've always been very against awarding points because an article appears as TFA. Just as there is no particular skill in getting an article to TFA beyond the skill required to get it to FA status, there's little skill in getting an batch of articles to FT/GT status beyond the skill of getting them to featured/good status in the first place. I wouldn't want to make that argument myself, but I'd have a hard time countering it. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I did make that argument a couple years ago, but alas, consensus was not on my side. Resolute 17:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The spirit of the rules is/are...

It should be is. Why was that reverted? -- YPNYPN ✡ 15:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, I think "The spirit of the rules are..." is proper. British vs. North American English, in all likelihood. Resolute 16:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Of the rules" is a prepositional phrase, so "spirit" should be the subject of modification. "The spirit ... is X" —Ed!^(talk) 16:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right of course; "the spirit of the rules is" is correct. I thought I was reverting the other way- you'd think after this many years I'd know how to read a diff. Sorry Deb! J Milburn (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

What happens if at the end of February, there are still outstanding GANs (e.g., I've nominated, but no one has reviewed)? This seems likely since I still have some unreviewed ones since November. Go Phightins! 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think those would just remain open as potential points for the next round, assuming you advanced. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Its quite normal for it to roll over to the next round, same goes for other nominated DYKs, FAs etc that aren't promoted/posted until the following period. GAs should hopefully be better this year because of the increased number of points for reviews. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Go Phightins! 20:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by this as well. I'm just getting started working on ranked content and figured the WikiCup would be a nice bit of motivation. But I see the back of the queue for GA reviews for the companies/economy category is about three months old. But the first phase of the competition would require us to nominate and pass within 2 months. CorporateM (Talk) 09:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is the chance that you will not reach round 2 because of a GAN backlog you could ask for a review on the Wikicup/Review page. Most likely somebody will step in and help. --Stone (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Featured portal

I have worked a lot on Portal:Judaism, and hope to eventually get it to Featured Portal status. However, I'm not sure if it qualifies according to the rules. In particular:

• "The content featured in the portal does not need to have been created by you, only the portal design and selection itself." Does that mean that the entire design and selection must be done by me?
• "Content must have been worked on...during the competition." If most of the work was done last year, but quite a number of minor changes were done this year (adding a few images to featured articles, adding new DYKs, creating more of the "Today in Jewish History"s, finding new pictures to present, and so on), does that qualify? -- Ypnypn (talk)
  • As long as significant work is done this year, that's fine. From this description, it sounds like it would qualify. Not only that, it would be our first ever portal awarded bonus points- it would get nearly double the points of a normal portal. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Submittable?

I have a question regarding a possible submission: if Talk:Lothian Buses/GA1 passes, would I be allowed to submit it here in the wikicup even though it was nominated last year and promoted this year (assuming it does)? Rcsprinter (orate) @ 02:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the rules are that only work done during competition qualifies. i.e.: I have no intention of claiming points for Angela James whenever it recieves a GA review. Resolute 02:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is my interpretation of the rules as well so I wasn't going to submit Somerset Coalfield which needed work and passed this year but was submitted in 2012.— Rod ^talk 08:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Article

Do I need to right good article? Would I get score if I nominate 1 as good article?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In order to claim points for a good article, you need to have done significant work on it this year. Ideally, it needs to have been nominated this year, but it doesn't have to be you who nominates it. It then needs to be promoted this year. A good article is worth 30 points. Does that answer your question? J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I could not understand again. Please explain this again.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 11:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to have worked on it in 2013 and it needs to be approved as a good article in 2013. Then you can claim your 30 points. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay I need to work on it. But does the placing of good article template on an articles talk page means I worked on that?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 12:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you have to help write the article. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine I have one last question. I have made just one edit or you can think of 5 at least. But reviewed the article. I mean reverted some mistakes and made the mistakes right. Then I nominated them for good article or featured article. Can I claim my point?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 12:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, just reverting vandalism or making one or two edits isn't enough. You need to have done significant work on the article (adding content, adding references, etc.) in 2013 to be able to claim points for the article. It isn't about who nominates the article for GA/FA status, it's about who wrote the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

When to add?

I'm a little unclear on this part. I just nominated an article at GAN and added it to my submissions page. Is that okay, or am I supposed to wait until the article is reviewed and promoted? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

After it is promoted. Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Why my name is not in the competitors list?

I have a submission page and I'm not withdrawn. Also I'm participating and I'm writing articles also. Maybe I'll be able to get points after 20 of this month. But why isn't my name is on this list??!!!!!!! My name is Pratyya Ghosh--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 07:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed you. You're on there now. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles on many wikis

Is there a list of articles found on many Wikipedias? Abductive (reasoning) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Individual articles have a listing of foreign language equivalents on the toolbox on the left column, but the most wide-ranging ones are probably going to be the most basic ones. WP:VITAL is a good place to look. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I would prefer a master list. Abductive (reasoning) 03:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Suggestions list articles that qualified under the previous bonus scheme, and so are on quite a few Wikipedias. Chris857 (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Good topics

I have a good topic I have nominated at WP:GT. Out of the six entries, only one has been improved during the WikiCup period. If it is approved, could I only claim points for it or could I claim 18 points for the combined six entries? Toa Nidhiki05 19:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The rules as written are a little ambiguous there, but I personally am happy for you to claim points for every article in the topic on which you have done significant work, as long as there has been significant work on the topic (IE, at least one of the articles) this year. That's what I intended when I wrote the rules, but I could have made it a lot clearer. If Ed feels that this is unfair, I am happy to go with his view. If he's OK with it, I'll clarify the rules as written. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, good - I did (and am currently) work on one this year, but I wanted to make sure so I don't violate the spirit of the rules. I'm fine either way because the points off of the GA will be more than the GT, but I wanted to be 100% sure for future reference. :) Toa Nidhiki05 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Jain

The following discussion 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.

---

Hello,

I wonder why the Jain flag was allowed, even though it is not a flag of an "extant political entity". I also see some curious flags in Wikipedia:WikiCup/2013 signups (anonymous; some fictional country). Kingdom of Prussia is not extant. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I also found many flags of extant countries that were accepted, among them Confederate States of America, British Empire, Irish Citizen Army. I was forced to remove my Russian Empire flag, but why are those flags accepted?--Tomcat (7) 13:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see that the yearly tradition of people complaining about other people's flags continues. Thank you for doing your part to ensure that there won't be flags at all next year. --PresN 15:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to enforce the rules causes so much angst that I just haven't bothered; I really have better things to do with my time. I have, however, removed the Anonymous flag. That's just asking for trouble. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So why is it still there? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

...and someone else added Anonymous as their flag. —Ed!^(talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bzweeebl: Some people don't need armed police breathing down their neck to follow rules. Plus, having it there means I have some recourse beyond "stop being a fucking moron" if I do need to remove something. J Milburn (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oh boy, I just had a look at this and had to comment. This was the first time I've looked at the WikiCup page (and I've been around before it existed) since a friend suggested I joined. Now correct me if I am wrong, but LeftAire and Guerillero are time travelers from Prussia and the United States c. 1776 respectively, Albacore is with John Lennon in Nutopia, and X! is either a scientist or a penguin in Antarctica (amazing WiFi reception either way). When these are deemed acceptable flags, why are any other flags such a big deal? Obviously you can say you are representing the great nation of Prussia, but it doesn't exist anymore and is about as real as any of the others you remove. More directly, how is Anonymous, a mass collective of unknown people on the internet, asking for trouble? Moreover, out of all the examples I provided, Anonymous is a more believable than any of them since they actually exist to this day (except Antarctica, but again, you're a penguin most likely). It's really a waste of time from my perspective, but if there is this much hypocrisy and general stubbornness on such a minute detail of a project that's supposed to be for fun, I don't want to be a part of it. Thanks for whatever this experience was. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:48, 7 January 2013 (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.

I merely asked why you write rules that you are ignoring. And I did not know of any past discussions. I made the wise step of simply removing the incorrect note that just caused confusion (and frustration, I assume). Sorry if you have so much "angst" discussing properly.--Tomcat (7) 13:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why must you fiddle and poke? Is this really that important? J Milburn (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've said last year, "extant" to me means that it's real and not something user-designed. I'm using the starry plough, although the Irish Citizen Army no longer operates as an entity—because it's something that has existed, rather than me creating a banner to run with. It's something that's already recognisable. I'm pretty sure this was the agreed-upon interpretation last time around as well. GRAPPLE X 14:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, Tomcat, your edit summary was unacceptably rude. The rules were decided by consensus, so they're best not to change without discussion. The rule regarding flags have evolved over the course of the contest in a way to make things fun for the contestants while allowing the judges to manage potential disruption (I seem to recall someone wanting to use the Nazi flag or something similar that many people considered offensive.) There's a window to change the rules, by consensus, between contests. Once the contest is going, changing the rules isn't helpful.

If you aren't happy with the job that the current judges are doing, you can always volunteer to be a judge. As you're well aware, we're all volunteers here. What you're doing here increases the workload of the judges and makes them feel less appreciated...and it does nothing to materially improve the quality of the contest. The point of this contest is to improve Wikipedia. Everything else is trivia. Guettarda (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CUP h-index

A random factoid about the cup: the first's round h-index is already 21 after only 2 weeks. Even though it will go up logarithmically, it will probably surpass last year's 37, and even the previous thresholds of 50 and 44. Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If I understand the h-index correctly, we're only at 17, since only 17 users have more than 17 points. -- YPNYPN ✡ 01:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

More like 20.5 by now, as 21 users have more than 20 points, and 20 users have more than 21 points.. What do you mean by past thresholds? WikiCopter (t • c • onau) 22:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the h-index is that it is a measure of how many times a work has been cited by others in journals etc & I can't imagine the 2013 wikicup being cited in (peer reviewed) journals (yet). Maybe a calculation on how many points (and therefore contributions eg FA, GA, DYK) may be a useful index - perhaps the wikicup index - but it wouldn't fit my idea of what the h-index is about.— Rod ^talk 22:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Scoring error

I finally had my first submission, however, the bot assessed my score in the table as 8, missing the +2 for dating prior to 2005. Chris857 (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition, looking at The C of E's submission page as an example, shouldn't Nevill Ground have been worth 2 bonus points (1.2 x 10 = 12) instead of 1.2 x 5 + 5 = 11? Chris857 (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems to be off. Jarry, could you look into this? J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I thought I was owed a few more points! The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Jarry's made some tweaks- are you on the scores you were expecting, now? J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

GAR points error?

Hello everyone. I just checked my points for the first time in a few days, and I noticed that I have 54 points for GAR. At the time I looked, I had only done 6 reviews (it's 7 now), which would make it actually 24? What's going on?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to have happened in a few cases. Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2013/Submissions/12george1, Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2013/Submissions/Sturmvogel 66 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2013/Submissions/Cerebellum, to name a few, also seem off. I've asked Jarry to take a look. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot problems

Hi all. Thank you for your patience with the bot -- and thanks also for reliably shouting out when you thought it had got it wrong. There are still probably a few more bugs left, but I think *touch wood* we've had the worst of them now. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible issue with LivingBot?

It seems, from looking through this Talk page a bit, that there have been issues with bots. Well, something's going on that may or may not be an issue. In the past hour or so, LivingBot has added two extra {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Multiplier|none|none|none}} templates, not just on my submission page, but on that of others. It seemed like there only needed to be one {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Multiplier|none|none|none}} template to make everything work probably, which makes me concerned that LivingBot may be having problems; but I could be wrong, as I'm no expert with such templates. Greengreengreenred 00:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, should be fixed now. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 19:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2013/Submissions/Rahuljain2307

I may not fully understand, but 126 bonus points? Can somebody fully explain how bonus points actually work?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand how it works now.  — Statυs (talk, contribs)

I'm sorry, but that GA2 page looks a bit suspicious to me. Have a look at the GA1 page and see that a major contributor tried to review it. They were told they could not, and then it was reviewed by "The Fake ID" in GA2, who gave it an insta-pass, and was just created yesterday with no other significant edits. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, you're right. I didn't actually take a look at the actual page.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't actually take an in-dept look, but interestingly enough, before the user began work on the article in November it was 105,525 bytes. Now it's at 54,489.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup or no WikiCup, there's something going on here. I've blocked the sock and reverted its edits, opened a thread at ANI and a sockpuppet investigation page. I don't do much blocking, so it's now out of my hands. Any discussion about this incident should take place elsewhere. The user in question will be removed from the competition if they have been involved in the socking. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK=7?

I have only registered one DYK to this point, on Xernona Clayton. It's over 5kb of prose, yet my score is 7. I thought DYKs were either 5 or 10. Did I miss something? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an additional two points for articles that have been on WP since 2007 or before. If its over 5Kb of prose I would have thought it to be worth 12 points though.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot is no doubt looking at it in binary. 5KB = 5120B. You're at 5104. That kind of sucks! Resolute 15:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha! The use of binary to me is another sign that computers are becoming self-aware. Seems to me we have two options: (1) fix it so that the bot recognizes 5000, or (2) clarify that the bot calculates in binary so the minimum is really 5120.

@Leech thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of a 2 pt pre-2007 bonus, but I'll take it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Rules-as-written, I appreciate that this is actually ambiguous. I was meaning "kb" in the (what I thought was) typical sense of "1024 bytes", meaning 5kb would translate as 5120b, as said above. I can only apologise for this ambiguity; I'm a long way from a computer scientist. I will clarify this on the scoring page. Because there was an honest misunderstanding here that was probably my fault, I'm happy for this one to get the extra five points (and this can apply to any other in the same situation which has already appeared on the main page, if there are any), provided Ed is. I'll leave him a note. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm also no computer scientist (I only took the intro course in undergrad because it was an easy A, only being HTML), so I forgot completely about binary. You don't have to give the extra 5, though I appreciate it if you do. I'll keep the 5120 in mind in the future. Clayton is only a few words away from it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Binary isn't bad. One of my applications gives me a lot of numbers in hex! J - Since the DYK checker tool that many use lists article size in "characters" (where 1 character = 1 byte) it may help most editors to clarify as "Articles with at least 5kb (that is, 5120 bytes/characters)...".

Yes, J's solution is fine with me too. Binary makes everything so complicated ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the bot was only looking for 5000 bytes of prose (would you like me to change that to 5120 then?).

The reason it didn't award is because it could find the DYK page. Working on fixing that at the moment. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If you could change that so it wants 5120 bytes, that would be super. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, changed. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So now I've got 10 points, after I add my second 2013 DYK to the mix. Do I not get the 2 point bonus for Clayton's article being pre-2007 anymore? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that seems to be resolved now. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing bonus points

My two DYKs, René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, have 5 and 7 articles in other languages, respectively. However, Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring states that [a]rticles appearing on five or more Wikipedias on 31 December which did not appear on the English language Wikipedia on that date will not be seen by the bot. Because of this, I should receive two bonus points. Thanks, HueSatLum 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting, I wondered if this would happen! I've made the necessary edits to the submission page, and so your extra points should be added soon. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If we get many more cases than this, it might be worth thinking about querying Wikidata, which would have found the wikilinks in this case at least (just!) [1], [2]. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding other languages yourself?

I'm in the process of learning another language right now and it occurs to me that it might be good practice to try to translate some of my articles to the Wikipedia in that language. Obviously anything of quality here could pretty easily be added to simple English wiki too, but would that be considered cheating? —Ed!^(talk) 14:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The way I read it is that the bonus points are based off of the number of Wikis on December 31, 2012. I don't think that adding new foreign language/Simple pages now would affect the multipliers, so I don't think you should have anything to worry about. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Mo Rock is correct. Creating articles on other Wikipedias will not affect the multipliers for this year. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, OK. Thanks. —Ed!^(talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK Base Points

Why am I getting 5 extra base points for my DYKs?  — AARON • ^TALK 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

DYKs of 5kb (that is, 5120b) or more "readable prose size" (this script can help you calculate) are worth 10 points, instead of five. This was to encourage more developed DYK articles, and to combat the worry that the Cup encouraged lots of short, "cookie-cutter" articles on similar topics. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ohh right okay :-)  — AARON • ^TALK 20:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Tally of WikiCup contributions

I don't think this is usually done, so here's my suggestion: can we tally together at the end of the WikiCup all the contributions that people have made in order to give a grand total of FAs, GAs etc. Clearly, the WikiCup isn't strictly "reponsible" for all these, since some users would be contribute them anyway, but it would be nice to have some statistical backing to Durova's comment that "the real winner is Wikipedia". MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what you want, but there is this. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Essentially that indeed, cheers. Apparently didn't scroll down enough to see that… But still, could the final tally of this be announced at the end of the WikiCup? I can't remember figures ever being given for the contributions that are made during a competition. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It was done a few years ago- I didn't do it last year because I wasn't sure of a way to reliably work it out. Remember that, sometimes, multiple participants claim the same article. J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm only after a rough estimate of impact really, so I will just use the provided tool as a guide. Appreciate both of your comments. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just updated the numbers which are marked "not live", so assume they are accurate as of 31 Jan. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Score

When I qualify and go through to the next round, is my score wiped clean or do I continue with the same number of points? Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 19:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Scores reset each round. Everyone goes back to 0. Resolute 20:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Bonus points

I expanded 2013 Mediterranean Games and it appeared on DYK, but bot didn't mark it for bonus points. Article exists on the 14 Wikipedia projects. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As it was only created this year, the bot wouldn't pick it up. How many Wikipedias did it appear on as of 31 December last year? J Milburn (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

13, it seems! I'll update the template for you. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! — Bill william compton^Talk 12:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone looking for DYK points?

If yes, I've got a few articles (10 to 15) that could use a thorough spelling and grammar check, a check for organisation, etc. with each article requiring about 15 minutes to an hour to be DYK ready. They are all new articles. If interested, please ping me via my talk page or e-mail. --LauraHale (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of this kind of collaborative work as part of the WikiCup- I'm very much behind this! J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Bonus points for Jelena Balšić?

Jelena Balšić is new article I created and has 10,632 characters or 1,786 words "readable prose size" or 38,420 bytes totally. I don't know how to calculate the size in bytes of the readable prose but I guess it is over 5,120 bytes. If I am right 5 bonus should be added to my score based on this article. I apologize if I am wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right; I've added it to the template. Sorry about that- not sure why the bot missed it. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's because the bot is obliged to work out when the article appeared on the front page before it attempts a prosesize check, which it does by looking for a DYKnom page. It found none in this circumstance, so erred on the side of caution and didn't award. Not sure what we want to do differently? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jarry; presumably, it couldn't find it because it was a double nomination? As far as I can see, it's definitely eligible. I'm happy to trust your judgement as to how the bot should work; I'm guessing it's always going to be difficult to catch everything. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I think perhaps the only way to solve this would be to have the bot read the diff of nomination provided, though I'm not clear why we require that in the first place (something to do with nomination date, presumably). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a hangover from a previous judge. I just use the link to the article, frankly... J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We could replace it next round with a wikilink to the nompage, then? That would make the bot's life a bit easier. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'll take the opportunity to simplify the submissions generally. Are there any links you would like to see from a bot perspective, or shall we just go for #Article Nomination page for everything? J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, there's no reliance on whatever else people choose to put in the line other than the proposed reliance on a nompage for DYKs. For completeness, I should note that my proposed DYKnom page requirement is itself a proxy measure of when the article appeared on the main page; I think we used to require a diff of that but it was a complete pain to find. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

First big DYK theme of the year

Well, its what I consider the first big DYK theme of the year (boy do I love themed DYK sets!). Anyway, there's a page for it this year - Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month. Its not just for DYK, as I think its hoped that GAs etc will also be produced to celebrate. But I just thought I'd post it here in case anyone was interested in being involved.

Now to plot how to create enough bunny related articles to fill an entire set for Easter Sunday... Miyagawa (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything specifically about themed DYKs on that page - am I missing something or were you just linking to the WHM page as a general resource? I would definitely be interested in working on a rabbit-themed set (or sets) for Easter...there are a bunch of breed articles, at the very least, that could use expansion. Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's more of a general resource page, but if you click through to the to do list at Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month/To-do list there's a whole bunch of articles listed for creation, expansion and translation. As for the rabbits, well I just think that would be amusing as Easter doesn't get nearly the attention DYK-wise that Christmas does. I'm just a big fan of themed hooks. Miyagawa (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Count me in for the rabbit set; Bunnies & Burrows is already a GA, but I'm sure I'll find something... J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to wait another two weeks-ish in order to fit in the six week deadline for Easter at the end of March. My original idea was a double hook using Alaskan hare and Alaska rabbit (one is a wild Alaskan animal, the other is a domesticated German rabbit breed). I'm going to run up a list of possible themed hook days in another section. Miyagawa (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thought I would just say thanks for pointing this out. I went and created/expanded the article on Betsy Blackwell, which is now a DYK Nomination. My small contribution to a great project. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)