Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2014/1

WikiCup submission declared in nominations

Sorry if I missed it but is it made clear in the WikiCup rules that all nominations as part of this contest are noted to reviewers as WikiCup submissions? There often seems a rush to get nominations closed out (e.g. at FLC), presumably to hit a scoring deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That has never been a rule? There was a rule with featured article candidates (but now a bot will make a note on the nomination page so that you don't have to), but if there has been a request for this sort of declaration elsewhere, I have missed/forgotten it. Could you please explain? J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, frequently at FLC, nominators have attempted to rush directors or delegates to promote a particular list and sometimes it's been as a result of a deadline at the WikiCup. Often, nominators would tell reviewers that the nomination was a WikiCup nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The same thing happens at GA but you can't blame people for wanting to get the points ASAP, especially given there can be 2 month waits that could potentially rob people of points. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

People are welcome to declare that their nomination is a WikiCup one, but I don't see the need for a rule saying that they must. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this seems in direct contradiction with WP:DEADLINE. Plus it's really draining to be continually asked to review/pass/fail nominations just for a contest. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not really sure we're talking about the same thing here. I have certainly never supported WikiCup participants pestering people to deal with their nominations, and we have told people not to do this in the past. If I thought that people were trying to get substandard work through the processes in exchange for points, I would be willing to remove them from the competition (we have done this in the past). I was not aware that it was a current problem, and would be willing to talk about ways to solve it, but I fail to see what that has to do with compulsory declaration of WikiCup participation at FLC. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. Several historical nominations at FLC said "Declaration: This is a WikiCup nomination" which was a noble thing to do instead of not understanding why some editors were so keen to get lists promoted. As I'm no longer involved in the FLC promotion process it's none of my business but I just wondered if there was a general approach. It appears that there isn't and that some do it very differently from others, unknown to the "management". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a random thought - there's a bot that tags the FA noms as WikiCup nominations isn't there? Could it also tag any FL nominations too? Certainly if it is a problem then we might as well nip it in the bud before it becomes endemic. Miyagawa (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There was a bot tagging the submissions at FAC, but it became clunky later in the year, and hasn't been working properly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the same bot that tagged some of the FLCs. It's not a problem per se but sometimes nominators working towards the Wikicup can become somewhat "urgent", and that really isn't what the featured processes are about. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest that since it's been an issue across all parts of Wikipedia (and because it's pissing a lot of people off per WP:DEADLINE), nominations relating to the WikiCup should be tagged so reviewers and delegates etc understand why some nominations are being rushed through. This contest is fine for improving Wikipedia but it's not fine for doing it in a rush. We should be informed that the main drive for some editors is that they want to win points for a contest, not just improve the encyclopaedia for its own good. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

But in doing so, they are improving Wikipedia in a way that they wouldn't have necessarily done otherwise. Surely it's not all bad if that is the incentive? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they're defying WP:DEADLINE by clamouring for a promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a policy or guideline. I wouldn't necessarily take it as gospel since there is an opposing view at WP:TIAD. it's a good guide to Wikietiquette don't get me wrong but it doesn't bind editors to have to follow it. Besides sometimes a note is needed because some get lost in backlogs (particuarly in GA) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure but in my time at FLC I was pestered day in, day out by WikiCup contestants. That's not the point of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, then bring it up here if it happens this year. Nothing the judges here can do about it if they aren't aware. Resolute 23:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can do anything to prevent clamoring tbh. It is too late now IMO as the cup is about to being in a few mins. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the key tenets of the game is supposed to be friendly competition. If someone was found to be routinely harassing others in the name of the Cup, I would be very quick to support the judges if they declared an affected nomination ineligible, or even booted a competitor out of the game. Hell, I got bounced last year because a 132-point GA nomination got stuck in the queue. I never once considered bugging anyone for a quick review. Dealing with the queues and process timelines is part of the game. Resolute 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought they were aware (given the above discussion), but yes, that'd be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE essay says that WP is not a competition, but WikiCup is a competition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• The bot is the UcuchaBot, and it seems to be working fine at the moment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Participation

During 2013 I worked on two articles which are currently up for FA consideration. In both cases there have been two major contributors to the article. In both cases it is the other contributor, and not me, who has put the article up for FA consideration. Question: as one of two major contributors in both cases, can I use these articles towards the WikiCup? Or is it only the nominator who is eligible? Amandajm (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to have worked on them in 2014 to be eligible, not last year!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As one of the other editors concerned, I was surprised when a notice was added to a nomination at 2 seconds past midnight. I thought only those nominated in 2014 could count towards the wikicup. Should I just remove the notice as I'm hopeful not too much work will be needed to pass. I did it as a co-nom so I would have thought that if it did count we should both get "points".— Rod ^talk 08:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove the notice since it's not eligible and do the same for any other articles that you might have coming in the same situation. I'm in a similar boat as three or four of my upcoming FACs will be ineligible as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot notice removed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wells Cathedral/archive1.— Rod ^talk 08:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's my participation in pedant of the year: two minutes past midnight, not two seconds... Matty.007 09:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

OK my first error of 2014 & yes you win the first entry in "pedant of the year".— Rod ^talk 09:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I spoke too soon. The amount of extra work now being required by reviewers might be considered "significant" work in 2014 before long.— Rod ^talk 12:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bonus points

Hi, if I am reviewing a GA, and it appears on 5 Wikipedias, is that eligible for bonus points? Thanks, Matty.007 12:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not for GA reviewing you don't (I think, J Milburn?) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The C of E is correct; from the rules page: "For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia) on which an article or portal appears as of 31 December 2013, the article or portal is awarded an extra 0.2 times as many points if it appears on did you know, or is promoted to good article, featured article, featured list or featured portal. (Note that this does not apply to in the news, featured picture, good topics, featured topics or good article reviews.) For instance, a featured article (normally 100 points) appearing on 21 Wikipedias is awarded 80 bonus points (an extra 80%). A short DYK (normally 5 points) appearing on 65 Wikipedias is awarded 13 bonus points." J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I must have glazed over, thanks again. Matty.007 13:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

How to get things reviewed in time?

(Sorry for all the question) If I submit a GA, how can I ensure that it will be reviewed in time? Thanks, Matty.007 19:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked myself the same question last year. I think that all you can do is ask around to see if someones willing. I did a bit of tit for tat with fellow wikicup competitors last year (ie. I review yours if you review mine and vice versa). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pulling in my contacts then :) Thanks. Matty.007 19:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Matty.007 No problem with lots of question! There's no certain guarantee that you can get a quick review. Stronger articles will often be reviewed quicker, so make sure it's ready before nominating. Articles usually won't be reviewed for weeks, so nominate them well in advance. We have Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews which attracts a few eyes; the judges also conduct reviews, but, naturally, we don't have the time or expertise to review every nomination by every editor! If you're talking about Herm, that looks like a really interesting topic, so you'll hopefully be able to find a reviewer fairly quickly. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think Gilderien removed this by mistake, so restored it. Thanks for all the answers everyone! Matty.007 20:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The best way to get reviews is, simply, to give reviews. I never have a problem getting quick reviews (sometimes too quick) since I'm pretty well-known as a reviewer. Wizardman 20:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just getting going with GA review, I did my first today. Matty.007 20:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

If you have an article that you helped make a GA in 2013 (Major League Baseball), but you expand it in 2014 to FA status, do you still get points? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 23:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I would assume that providing you do a sufficient amount of work towards FA during 2014 that you would get the points. FAs are usually GAs before being nominated for FA anyway, right? Samwalton9 (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Samwalton is correct. J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Do I still get points if another editor who is not in WikiCup also contributes to a status (again my MLB again above)? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to have completed significant work on the article this year and helped it along the way to promotion. If you're working with someone else, or even if someone else is the nominator, you can still claim points provided you've done significant work. (Whether they are in the WikiCup or not is not important- if they are, you can both claim.) J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A little help here please

I have nominated the Black mamba article for GA status, which it achieved, but just before the start of the tournament. However, I added a substantial amount of work on January 1st 2014 on the article that totaled to some 124,000+ bytes, how do I go about submitting that? --DendroNaja (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's outside of the scope of the Cup. The article was promoted to GA on December 30th. If you were to take it to FA during the course of the year, having done significant work on it in 2014 then it would qualify for FA points. Miyagawa (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn

I thought I withdrew on Tuesday, why is my name on the list of contestants? --Jakob (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd obviously already added you to the main list by that point. I'll remove you now. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

GA result

A quick doubt: if I worked and nominated an article in 2013, but it will—potentially—only pass in 2014. Will that sort of GAs count as points for the WikiCup? prism △ 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally not, I'm afraid. Generally, you must have completed significant work on the content and nominated it during the year of the competition. (It doesn't matter which round, only that it was this year.) J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Say I nominate 1804 Snow hurricane for FAC and it undergoes significant copyedits and tweaks during the WikiCup. Would it still be eligible this year? Cloudchased (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd want to see significant work this year but before the nomination. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Two questions:

• So I've started work today on my sandbox for an article, I'll post it later tomorrow or even tonight, it already counts for the WikiCup?
  • Yep, that sounds fine, as the work has been done in 2014. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• I nominated an article for DYK in December 2013, if it gets passed anytime this year will it count for the WikiCup, or will I have to do additional work on the article? prism △ 21:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's probably not eligible for points. If you did the work that made it eligible for DYK last year and nominated it last year, this definitely sounds like last year's article. Of course, if you were to revisit the article and bring it up to GA status this year, you could claim those points. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick responses! :) prism △ 23:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that this submission would be ineligible as it was nominated last year, even though changes were made in response to the GA review this year. Any thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct, as written here, "Content must have been worked on and nominated during the competition." I've removed the entry from the user's submission page and notified them here. Gloss • talk 08:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not eligible, but it'd be good if we could keep removals to the judge! Do let us know if you see any, and we'll look into it. We are aiming to have every entry checked for the first round at least. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry J! Figured with all the work you've had to do, having some taken care of for you would've been nice. Throws "retired judge" baseball cap back on and snoozes away. Gloss • talk 18:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation of on-wiki writing contests

Hi everyone. The Program Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation has released a new program evaluation about on-wiki writing contests. Thanks to everyone who shared data, and we hope you'll share with us in the future. You can read the report here:

• Program evaluation: on-wiki writing contests

I think you'll be proud of the results, we are! SarahStierch (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2014/Submissions/Tecmo

I have reverted all of Tecmo nominations as he linked a bunch of non-existent FAs (with non-existent FACs) and DYKs as a submission. Usually I wouldn't tamper with anyone's submissions page, but this was a common sense revertion. Can one of the judges remind User:Tecmo of the rules and give a polite warning for that sort of situation would never happen again. Thanks Secret ^account 02:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll have a chat to the user in question. J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

I know that this would likely be too late for consideration, but I noticed that over the past year, peer review has become close to a ghost town. That used to be a great place to bridge GA and FA, now not as much. Would this be something judges would be willing to add to the WikiCup? Even at 2 points a review it would be valuable, especially if it leads to article improvement (which is kinda the point). I'm fully aware that this would be tough to judge, isn't directly writing an article, and since there's no endpoint it could be a pain, but thought I'd toss out the idea. Wizardman 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with this. There would have to be some restrictions on length etc though, some peer reviews are only a glance at the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of support for peer reviews being awarded points, and it's absolutely something I'm happy to do (and I suspect the other judges feel the same way, though I don't want to speak for them). However, you're right that it's a bit late for it to be done for this year, and the trouble is that no one has really developed a system for it any more detailed than Sam's suggestion above; we need an idea of what does and doesn't count as a peer review, we need to have an idea of how many points they'd be worth, we need to be clear on whether we have to wait for a peer review to close (or whether the person claiming the points at least needs to follow up the review in some way) and so forth. PRs are a little different from the other things we award points for- even from GA reviews. Honestly, if we can get these sort of details worked out (preferably keeping it as simple as possible!) this is definitely something can include next year. J Milburn (talk)

How about something along the lines of 1000 characters minimum with a minimum of 3 points made on how to improve an article as a base point for eligability. It could then be done on a sliding scale with say 2 points for a basic review as I just mentioned with that raising to 4 points for a 2000 character review with a minimum of 6 ways to improve, 6 for a 3000 character review with a minimum of 9 ways to improve. i think that the 6 has to be a maximum to prevent filler being rewarded. I know PR has auto closure but I would wait a reasonable period of time for the submitter to reply to concerns. If there are none or the review is considered complete with adequate responses to the concerns raised (these wouldn't count towards the character count, initial review counting only) they can then close it and then submit it for points. Thoughts @J Milburn:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds complicated, and basing it on length means that a lot more points will be available for very poor articles (for which it will be easy to list many suggestions) than near-FA articles (which is the more valuable kind of review). I also worry that a bot would not easily be able to judge the length of individual users' PRs. I was imagining something more like this: 3-4 points per article reviewed (discounting short reviews- 1k is a line in the sand, but judges could use their discretion if necessary, as with GACs) but points can be claimed only when the review is closed. Follow-up would be necessary when appropriate, and "review and run" would be strongly discouraged. If we tie the number of points for PR to the number of points for GACs, we could have them double-up on columns and call them simply "reviews". J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. It is sort of what I was getting at when I said using GAR as a system. The 1k character count definately has to be a minimum with the judges final say. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits on both sides of Jan 1

Just put up two articles at GAN, but not sure if I can claim wikicup points on them or not. One is Mucho Macho Man, where myself and some other users have done a shitload of work since November 3 and I've done some additional polishing and finishing up since the first so looking at the history, do I have enough edits in 2014 to claim it for the wikicup, particularly if I continue to do some work on it between now and the end of the GA reveiw process? The second is Rosie Napravnik, where the history shows we started the big GA cleanup after the first, though some edits were in December too. Your advice? Both? Neither? Just Rosie? Please advise. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You have clearly done some good work on these articles leading up to a GA nomination this year; both they look OK to me at first glance, though, admittedly, it's on the lighter side of "significant". (Typically, as an aside, I want to see work prior to the GA nomination this year; both of these seem to have that.) I would not personally object to you claiming either of these if/when they pass GAC- Ed/Miyagawa, do you agree? J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Rosie Napravnik for sure, as the vast majority of the edits were in this without them previously being hosted in userspace and moved to article this year. As for Mucho Macho Man, although you and others have been working on it for a while, there were several thousand bytes worth of edits made in 2014 which wern't just copyedits. Like J says, I think this one pretty much squeeks through. Miyagawa (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. MMM will run this Saturday and the Eclipse awards are that evening (he's up for Horse of the year) so more will be added before we finish the GAN there anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Scoring method

Having signed up for this competition for the first time, I'm a bit bothered by the scoring method. Firstly, it seems each round only lasts two months, and secondly, it appears you only get points for articles promoted during the round. This means I could write a dozen GA-quality articles over the next six weeks and get zero points because nobody got around to reviewing them. That seems like a pretty hit and miss system to me. The "pools" system seems to add an additional level of randomness - why not just promote the people with the most points to the next round? Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have to get GA articles promoted in order to score the points for them. But if you are having trouble getting reviews then post them on the Cup's review page and it'll encourage other competitors (and judges for that matter) to review them before the end of a round. Another tactic is to review other articles in the same subsection as yours as it then reduces the number of similar articles and makes it more likely that a random editor will pick yours up for review. As for the pools query - it's a very standard thing in tournaments, the NFL use it for example. The highest scoring competitors in a round will always go through because of the wildcard entries involved - this cut across all pools and I'm pretty sure one year we had everyone except from one person from a pool go through because they were all so high scoring. Miyagawa (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not keen on the scoring system, but thanks for the tips :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

2013 history needed

I think it's about time a 2013 section got added to Wikipedia:WikiCup/History. Thanks, Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 11:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

question

So if I started writing an article last year, stopped, and then did substantial work on it this year to get it to GA or FA, could I get points for it in this year's WikiCup? Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

We're looking to push Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution over the line into FA. It was suggested that this might be of interest to Wikicup participants. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

LivingBot broken?

I've just noticed that LivingBot hasn't made an update for two days. Is it ill? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking into it... - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 00:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2014/Submissions/Hawkturnal and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2014/Submissions/Order of the sword

Hawkturnal (talk · contribs) and Order of the sword (talk · contribs) were just blocked indefinite by a checkuser for sockpuppetry. Hawkturnal, who is the sock of Order of the sword, "reviewed" OOTS GA nomination and passed it, which is a gross violation of WikiCup rules and policy. As they are both blocked, can a judge safely remove both candidacies. Thanks Secret ^account 04:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I've removed both accounts. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Open Access File of the Day

I'm not sure if this'll be of interest to anyone, but I've just come across the fascinating Open Access File of the Day project. These are professional-quality images from open access papers, and many of them don't yet have a home on the English language Wikipedia. The best part is that as the source pages are open access peer-reviewed papers, you've usually straight away got at least one great source you can access for the article. For various reasons, most of these are biological/medical (science journals seem to be more generally open access than arts/humanities journals, not to mention generally much more illustrated). In any case, below are some great pictures just waiting for an article. If you're going to write one, let us know below so we don't double-up!

• 
  Crocidura sapaensis, a species of shrew
• 
  Cortinarius bovarius, an Agaricales fungus
• 
  Anolis podocarpus, a lizard in the iguana family
• 
  Brachymeles bonitae, a skink
• 
  Squalius janae, a bony fish
• 
  Ridleyandra chuana, a plant in the family Gesneriaceae

Anyone inspired? I know a good picture can help motivate me to write an article... There are images there housed in stubs ripe for expansion, and some articles would even be worth bonus points. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

They look like the kind of articles I like writing and I will take a look at the list. You will know if the ones you mention above have been done by the link you give changing colour! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Shotty Brachymeles bonitae :D -Newyorkadam (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Great to see such a good response to this; here are some more great images yet to find a proper home on the English Wikipedia! If one takes your fancy, get writing, and feel free to "claim" an article below so that people don't double-up. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

J, how are you finding these species that don't have articles? I looked on the Open Access page but I didn't see anything with a redlink... -Newyorkadam (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Those links go to Wikidata, and my guess is that J Milburn looked at the data pages for ones without enwiki links listed. ~HueSatLum 23:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah- I clicked on the better-looking pictures until I came across some not used on enwp, and then double-checked enwp to see if the subject had an article. J Milburn (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Cyrtodactylus philippinicus, a skink
• 
  Calamaria gervaisii, another skink
• 
  Euglossa villosa, a bee
• 
  Herennia multipuncta, a spider
• 
  Copa kei, another spider
• 
  Termitotrox cupido, a beetle

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

Hi everyone- just to let you know that The Core Contest, organised by WikiCup veteran Casliber, will be running from the 10 February. The contest aims at improving Wikipedia's most important articles, and, of course, any work you do in the Core Contest will count for WikiCup points if it results in GA/FA credits. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Pinging judges

Hi again, would like a ruling on another GA where I have a quandary on claiming WikiCup points. Pryor Mountain Mustang just passed GA. (yay us!). @Dana boomer: unquestionably led the GA push, which I basically reviewed, made some tweaks, found a bit more research, and supported. Question: Are my contributions to the GA substantive enough to claim Wikicup points for this GA? Note also that I did also provide some research and collaboration with Dana on the edits she made here. Here is the article's entire history: [1] The article began in 2011 as a spinoff from Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range which was created by Tim1965 and the horse stuff in that article was edited and expanded some by me there. I then did the spinoff, expanded more, and did assorted yada yada cleanup, etc. (FWIW, history of the range article here - most work done in 2011). I am perfectly willing to accept whichever way the judges want to go on this, I just don't want to claim anything I'm not eligible to claim. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 20:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. I can see you've done some good work on this article this year prior to the GA nomination which essentially amounts to this. You also clearly helped see the article through GAC. I'm all for the WikiCup encouraging good collaborative efforts (and I note that this is a long article worth only 30 points, that this is something you've been working on for a while and that there is clearly no attempt at gaming here...), so I'm leaning towards this being OK, but I'd wait for the other judges to offer an opinion before counting your chickens! Miyagawa, Ed, do you agree with my assessment? J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you located the biggest set of edits I did for the GA run, yes. I shall await the assessment of the collective wisdom.  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 20:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the 16th January edits I think makes the case. Miyagawa (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not receiving credit for GAN

I've been working on the article Steam (software) for months now, ensuring that it would get to Good Article status, even before I knew the WikiCup competition exists. After having it peer reviewed in November, I started a GAN earlier this month and implemented suggestions from multiple others, which included adding paragraphs of information, sentence structuring, removing non-pertinent text and images and general copy-editing. Today, it received GA status and when I tried to claim points, it was reverted with a comment from Miyagawa that insinuated that I did a mere drive-by to the page. I'm rather offended by this, to be honest, and need some explanation. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Miyagawa neither claimed nor insinuated that the nomination was a drive-by. He edited your submission page with the line "sorry, the only edits made in 2014 were as a result of the GA nomination". Typically, we look for significant work in the year of the competition, followed by nomination and promotion. In this case, while the article was promoted this year (and some work in response to reviewer comments took place this year) the work in preparation for the nomination, and the nomination itself, took place last year. J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Then what is the issue with the content contributed this year? I contributed several thousand bytes worth following the nomination. Does the GAN simply nullify the relevancy? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've explained what I suspect is the reason for Miyagawa's edit; again, we typically look for article expansion, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion. If this article were permitted, it would be the only article in the competition which was nominated in 2013. J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I see. I'll just drop the stick with this one. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I appreciate how frustrating this can be, but, thankfully, it's only really something that's an issue for the first month or so of the competition. Please know that we don't suspect you of foul play or gaming the system, if that's any consolation! J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I would have interjected earlier but I've only just seen this thread. What J says is correct, in order for a GA to be considered for points during the year of the cup there has to be significant work completed on the article during that same year. In this case, the GA nomination came shortly after midnight on the 1st January and the work which was completed was as a result of the GAN. Miyagawa (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Also just to re-iterate, I didn't mean to offend or insinuate that it was a drive by nomination. It's just that the vast majority of the work you've conducted on the article was prior to the current cup year. Miyagawa (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ties

May I ask whether the Wikicup has come up with a good way to handle ties for the last place? I'd suggest all would go up, as any other choice would be arbitrary and unfair. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Or just draw names out of a hat, that's a fair and unbiased method. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that in case of ties, one entry from each category should be counted to break the tie. In that case, one who has done only DYKs and reviews is less likely to pass against someone who was more varied with their contribuitons. Nergaal (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But, at the same time, that's adding a bias towards those who are varied. There is the "Jack of all trades, master of none" idea. And randomness seems a bit unfair to the person arbitrarily left out.

Given the problems last year, a clear, understood plan is needed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There's precedent for this. It's come up in earlier rounds in previous years, and we're keen to avoid the problems that we had last year- that was the main motivation for bringing Miyagawa onto the judging team. In the past, ties have been won by those people who have taken part in review procedures which are not eligible for points. Points being equal, we'd rather have the person who has taken some time to partake in peer reviews, featured content review processes, or even did you know nominations; these are very much in the spirit of the competition, even if they are not currently awarded points, and so I hope you will agree that this is not a particularly arbitrary or unfair tiebreaker. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It might be fair to look at earlier round points too: That'd give some reason to, for example, get a decently high score in Round 1. Conflict of interest note: Given I have an 8-part FPC that's currently passing, I rather expect to be in the top 3 this round. On the other hand, I'm also rather active in FPC reviews, so... you know, I'm probably going to be fine either way. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Instead of eliminating people throughout the year (and reducing incentive for those eliminated to edit), there should be quarterly endings. At the end of Q1 2014, the top 3 receive a certain number of points based on their placement. For Q2 (Apr to Jun only), the top 3 receive points. This way, if someone is more likely to edit during the summer (students, teachers), they're not eliminated in the first round. It also lets editors who started off slow in the first half of the year catch up in the second half. I think something along these lines would be better than the current system. This will lead to more competition and more contributions - all good for Wikipedia. --192.136.210.191 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Passing the first round requires fairly minimal work, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If the round finished today, then 12 points would be an automatic pass into the second round. Miyagawa (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Featured pictures

Hi there. Please could you clarify whether featured pictures for scoring purposes means just the ones on Wikipedia or does it include Commons featured pics? Green Giant (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Only the English Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Bot not awarding points

Hello! On January 8 2014, I had added my She Wolf good topic achievement to my submissions page hoping to get some points. However, the bot never responded to award the points, so on January 19 I did some tweaks as earlier I had not completely followed the instructions to post a GT topic (the instructions mentioned on the page would result in a red link). Turns out I had did it right the first time because on February 1 judge User:J Milburn also tweaked the page, and he is also not able to figure out why the bot is not responding. What do I have to do? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've tried setting it up as I do for FP sets. If that doesn't work, I don't know. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully it does, thank you for your help anyway! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that didn't work. I've tried using the exact format suggested. Le's see if that helps... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi- thanks for the note. I saw this a couple of days ago and I'm as stumped as you are. I've asked Jarry, but he's yet to reply. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't really matter so long as it's fixed before the first round ends, but, still... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed unusual, it's like the bot's angry. Hopefully a guardian angel fixes the syntax up, we've tried a lot of possibilities now --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If worse comes to worst, we can always go through and add GT (and FT?) points at the end of the round. It'll be annoying for the first couple rounds, but the number of people decreases fairly quickly. I'd be happy to help out for the first couple rounds. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Any update on this from @J Milburn:, @Miyagawa: or @The ed17:? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jarry1250: Have you any idea? J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your note JM. Just a typo in the code I introduced a few weeks ago. Are the points correct now? - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 01:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Harry; looks good to me. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and help! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sun temple

Hello. I have just found that one of my entries, Sun temple, has some corresponding articles/dabs on other Wikipedias. The bot wouldn't have picked them because the article didn't exist until 9 January. Thanks in advance. Green Giant (edits) (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi GG; this is just to acknowledge that I have seen this, and I will look into it when I get a few minutes. J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok- my monolingualism is biting me badly, here. Could you please identify the five articles which existed on at the end of last year which are on the same subject as this one? Sun temple was created this year, so is not eligible. SV:Soltempel seems to be one, NL:Zonnetempel and CS:Sluneční chrám seems to be about only Ancient Egypt (so are a different subject?) and Ru:Храм Солнца, Pl:Świątynia Słońca, it:Tempio del Sole, fr:Temple du Soleil (homonymie), de:Sonnentempel all seem to be dablinks, so are not eligible, but they may link to articles which are. J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah a fellow monolinguist; I relied on Google translations mostly to find that these existed. I didn't realise dabs couldn't count, so we'll knock this on the head. Thanks anyhoo. Green Giant (edits) (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Abandoned GA review?

A GA review of an article I wrote has been stalled for more than two weeks now, and though the GA reviewer has repeatedly told me that he would be finishing it over on IRC, he still never has, and my patience, admittedly, is running thin. Would anyone be willing to take over the review – possibly in exchange for giving another to an active Cup participant? Cloudchased (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I took it over and completed it. Secret ^account 00:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2014/Submissions/Mentoz86

I expanded Jon Inge Høiland for DYK earlier this round, but I believe that the points are wrong: The article was created in November 2007, but those bonus points haven't been awarded. I also thought the article was above the 5kb limit that makes it eligible for 10 points. Will a judge please have a look at this? Cheers, Mentoz (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a historical glitch, since fixed. Should be good now. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 13:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Cheers, Mentoz (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem

Over the first part of this year, I have been working with Newyorkadam on Cole Hamels. We nominated it for GAN on February 9, and Secret started the review page on February 19, saying he would review it. Now we are up against the deadline, and it is unreviewed, and without the points, it doesn't look like either I or NYA will advance. Any chance someone can pickup the review? Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll review it now, I had 12 GA reviews at the same time, I didn't know it was a WikiCup nomination. Sorry about this. Secret ^account 20:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Secret! Go Phightins! 20:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Good luck finishing in time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)