Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2014/3

< Wikipedia talk:WikiCup
Latest comment: 10 years ago by J Milburn in topic Round 4


Withdrawing

Latest comment: 10 years ago58 comments18 people in discussion

As I realize I am in the same pool as User:Godot13, and that he/she has gotten 2,155 points points from featured pictures of American currency so far this year, I have decided to withdraw from the cup out of protest. I realize Godot is doing good work for the encyclopedia, but I simply can't compete with that. For comparison, that would be 21 featured articles, or 72 good articles, to get the equivalent number of points as him. Anyone else in the cup right now, I'd gladly take on and make it a fun challenge. But not when 13 FP's get promoted at once and get counted as 455 points. When I won the Wikicup in 2011, I did so by writing many articles, which is what Wikipedia is all about. If it weren't for the content, there'd be nothing to celebrate. I hope everyone keeps up the good work, including Godot13, whose work looks good! I just disagree with the points awarded, and for that, I'm withdrawing. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm also resigning too. No matter how fast I get GAs, I will still lose by a thousand points. Also, I'm getting busy in real life, and that means less time on Wiki. Good luck to everyone else in the contest!—<spn class="button">CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with User:Hurricanehink. It is a shame we are losing such a valuable contributor in this contest mainly because of some technically rules which should be disallowed. I was thinking about withdrawing as well as I got busy IRL but I'll just withdraw now in protest. Secret account 01:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I realized the WikiCup is making me edit, so I'll strike the last comment for now. Secret account 02:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I've withdrawn you both. It's slightly frustrating for me that I first I hear about this dissatisfaction (the belief that Godot is leaning on some "technically rules which should be disallowed") is with protest resignations. If there is an air of dissatisfaction, we can certainly look towards making some changes, but I need a clearer idea of what the problem is actually perceived to be. (Can I also add that, as Adam Cuerden has pointed out, article writers have the distinct advantage of bonus points, which is where the game has been won in the last few years- this is something not open to FP people.) J Milburn (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm just not sure how article writers are at too much of an advantage, considering what I brought up earlier that Godot's points this year is equivalent to 21 FA's. The problem is that so many FP's can be passed with one single FPC, whereas every other thing in the cup is through separate nominations. Those 21 FA's would take years to do, but it took just three FPC's. Again, I realize that Godot is doing good work, but I just can't compete with such an unfair distribution of points. Thanks for withdrawing me, cheers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
While I think it's (for lack of a better word) weak to withdraw, I mostly agree with Hink. How much value does the FP have to wiki? I don't think they should be disallowed, but there should be some limit. To be fair, you cold get points for a bunch articles through GT's, but GT's are only worth 3. As for bonus points, I think it helps level the playing field somewhat, but it's worth nothing that Hink's (and mines) editing area has limited bonus points opportunities. YE Pacific Hurricane 13:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you not noticed that the winner of the last two Cups has done so with DYKs coupled with massive bonus points? FPs don't stand a chance against a flood of DYK bonus points. The QPQ policy of DYK means that they get reviewed far faster than anything else, which is a massive advantage. GAs and FAs often take a month or more after nomination to get promoted which means that even building a large queue of them isn't really worthwhile. Massive FTs can be helpful, but they take years of preparation. I collaborated with several other editors on a 61-article FT last year, of which 30-odd were my own work, and we took about 4 years to finish it. IIRC, I had the highest score last year if bonus points were excluded, but even my large body of work was ultimately less than half the winning total, even with the minor number of bonus points that I did earn.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm rather upset that the reaction to people putting in masses of work is to demean their work. Do you have any idea how rare it is for a large FPC set to go through? Godot's was up there with the largest ever, because he put in the work to get access to the Smithsonian and actively scan their collections. If he wins, he deserves it, and, if you feel this isn't valuable to Wikipedia, uniquely so, in fact, then [shutting up now before I say something I'll regret]. No, wait, I'll say one thing more: The bonus points in the last two rounds of the WikiCup last year were massive, to the point it felt impossible to compete. For example, the winner got 820 points from a single FA. The previous round, he got 246 points (if I'm calculating correctly) for raising the same article to GA. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but my point is that a single article, GA and FA together, would have been nearly enough (1066 from that one article as opposed to 1190 from FPs (me) or 1155 (Godot)) to beat what I believe was both my and Godot's most productive two month period for FPs ever, Round 2. Also note neither of us are playing tactically: We could have held back the large nominations and done just enough to assure a place, keeping the rest for later. We did not; we are pushing ourselves to make content anew every round.
Finally, let me point out that last year was my most productive for FPs ever, with 65 (excluding any I merely nominated). I have 47 this year already, because I'm pushing myself much harder to keep up with Godot. This can only be good for Wikipedia.
Oh, and even if I had all the FP points for last year in the last round alone, I would not have won: 65*35=2275, only enough for third place. I would need 104 FPs in the last round to win. I do not believe anyone has ever gotten that many FPs in a year with their own work, let alone in two months. If someone does manage to win with FP work, that's not a sign that FPs are overvalued, that's a sign that amazing work is being done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I’ve never had anyone forfeit their place in a competition citing it was in protest of my participation. Despite the careful verbiage about the good work, I’m not sure what to feel. It’s ironic that even if I were to advance (taking nothing for granted) to the next round, at least one other person in the pool would advance and then there are eight wildcard slots for the highest scorers. If you don’t want to compete then don’t… but out of protest? “Weak” is a good word, thank you Yellow Evan. As to the value of FP, sometimes images just drive home the subject as well as (or better than) bare text, regardless of whether the subject is currency, constellations, or Hurricane Isabel. I entered the Wikicup because it seemed like a great way to contribute some rare and never-before-seen images. (I also figured some friendly competition with Adam would keep us both on our toes and help the project.) I hope to advance, but know that if I am lucky enough to make it to the last round I will likely get killed on the bonus points. So if I can’t win should I just give up now? Nope. I’ll make my best effort until I get knocked out, and then I’ll keep nominating FPs, whether I’m competing or not. -- Godot13 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I get it that images are a good thing. However, nominating just 3 (in a single nomination, might I add) of them exceeds even a regular FA. Even a normal GA is worth 5 points less than a single FP. According to the information on the WP:FPC page, it takes only 10 for an FPC to pass and you can nominate dozens at a time. However, most FACs last at least 30 days and there can't be multiple articles in a single nomination. As you know, an article can have many great pictures, but prose is more important, because if its bad, the article cannot be an FA. Here's my opinion in a nutshell: FPs are good, but sorta overrated.--12george1 (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm in Godot's group, and I accept that I will probably be smashed. It is slightly frustrating, but I still acknowledge that he is doing good work, and that untimately it won't make a different to me: I'm not going to win this year's cup, I'm in it for the fun of it. Overall it's just a game, I can agree that FAs take more time than FPs (from an outside perspective anyway, I've never had either), but them's the rules I agreed to when I began participating. Matty.007 16:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we are stuck with this for this year, but I do see the following issues that should be addressed:

  1. FP points probably should be reassessed for next year. While it's nice to improve the wiki, someone sitting by a scanner doing hundreds of images is arguably not as difficult as someone writing a GA or FA about the same currency.
  2. If the multiplier points on DYK, GA and FA articles are artificially skewing the results, then maybe the points assessed should be reduced.
  3. Maybe more points should be assigned to GA and FA, possibly the DYK bonus points should also be greater for the longer articles.
  4. Look at the rigor of the various review processes and the actual hours of work needed to get an article promoted: I have been routinely discouraged that all the work I put into creating a good DYK or a GA gets me so few points
  5. Perhaps there needs to be a GA class for images akin to GA for articles? For example, the images I sometimes take to illustrate articles take me more time and effort than sitting at a scanner, but due to inadequate equipment, modest software, and the vagaries of shooting real life stuff, none are likely to ever be deemed worth of FP (unless I get a better camera).

All of the above JMO and food for thought. Montanabw(talk) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw- I really only want to address point #1 which is incredibly insulting. I live in the New York area. When I want to make scans (and for brevity I’ll skip over the Federal criminal background investigation required to do this), I need to travel to Washington DC (Smithsonian), stay several days at a time and, while digitizing parts of their banknote collection, catalog (for them) as I’m going along. Processing raw files, minor editing, and corrections probably takes about 2-3 hours per note. Travel time + scanning/researching/cataloging time + post-processing time = a lot of time. By the way, I have written three featured lists (two in 2013 and one so far this year) on currency to better put the Smithsonian notes in context, and have a few more in the works. Having done both FP and FL, the time and logistics involved in FP (in this case) makes it more difficult.--Godot13 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's fair enough, your situation is a unique one. Thank you for explaining that situation. Mea Culpa from me to you. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that actually working with images is time consuming - I'm a pro photographer and you spend ages more time tweaking than actually snapping the shutter. But .. there is an issue here - FACs are limited to one at a time. GANs have an incredible backlog. BUt there is no limit on the number of pictures that can be at FPC, or so I understand. Plus, unfortunately, the rigour of an FAC is such that you can at most get three or four in a round (and that'd be pretty amazing.) Speaking as someone who had FAs and GAs last year with hefty bonus points, it's still not quite up to the difficulty of actually working with big subject articles. Middle Ages literally took most of six months of hard work to get it up. I'm not saying FPs aren't a LOT of work, but the fact that there is no limitation on FPCs is going to make it seem unfair when you look at the limits on FACs. How long does a usual FPC last also? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Will note that it takes me a fair amount of time to make a totally crappy image taken with inferior equipment into something adequate to upload. Not to take away anything from people who put in the time and investment in both software and equipment to routinely take images suitable for FP, but I think Ealdgyth's point about the rigor of FAC and GAN in terms of backlog and nitpicking is well taken. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw: I have to agree with the above that your point 1 was unfair. For point 5, that's all well and good, but nothing to do with the WikiCup. Whether/how it would work is a big question. I put time and effort in to the valued picture project when it first came about, but, when the time came (as the project just failed) I was quite open about wanting to see it buried. Concerning 2-4: we have extensive discussion time at the end of each competition, and the base points have remained pretty constant for the last several years. Occasionally someone comes along and says "DYKs should be worth more than GAs!" or "FEATURED list and FEATURED article- clue's in the name!" but the sentiment is generally against that. Perhaps a shakeup is needed, but, if so, and like almost anything else on Wikipedia, we need a clear idea of what needs changing and why, and we need to see support for it. J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw: I have to add to Godot's point that there is also the process of ensuring the scanner is free of dust and hairs (try looking at what the LOC has to offer, and all the hairs), possibly every time you scan (so maybe 10 or 20 times a day). And even then dust and crap still gets through. Pictures such as Godot's make look simple, but they are far from it. Aside from photography, I do restoration work for FPs... removing this dust and other junk can easily take an hour or more on a 3000px * 1000px scan... and Godot's are bigger. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • To those who are worried about points, I think you are missing the goal and purpose of the Wikicup. Mind you, I've started doing a lot of content work from being one of the top gnomes, but I still put a lot of time into doing things which will never get me points simply because they make Wikipedia better. I expect several hours worth of work for 5 points, regardless of how large the GAN backlog is or how many pictures or featured content nominations you can get at once is rather irrelevant to Wikicup. Yes there is a horrible bottleneck, but care is always the most important thing. Never sacrifice your standards for some barnstar or shiny trophy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    This is the first year I've ever done the wikicup, and I passed 60,000 WP edits this month, so I think my credentials as a content creator who is not motivated by shiny things is pretty unquestioned, so just because I was unaware of the level of work Godot13 put in does not mean others need to reciprocate in kind. I do think that this discussion raises a question of what IS the relative time/effort/hassle needed for the various qualifying contributions; clearly an example like Ealdgyth's Middle Ages effort is daunting, and I for one would hesitate to tackle any article with tons of bonus points solo for FAC due to the challenges it presents. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I think bonus points are overvalued. but that's a whole another fight. I will like to point out that Hink won in 2011, when bonus points were not heavily used, and he edits a wikiproject that has less extensive bonus point opportunities. Do FP's take a lot of time? I've never done one, but I imagine the answer would be yes. Should they count for wikicup points? Yes. But there should be some limit to a number of nominations that can earn points. This isn't personal or anything, but no one should earn 1000+ points in 10 days for just having a 20+ FP nominations, given that to be honest, there is little content work involved. As for why I participate the cup, I do it for fun/motivation. I try hard to win, but if things go against you, you just don't quit, given it's still early in the round. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Limiting the amount of work one is allowed to do cannot be a helpful system. And, again, I would need around 100 FPs in 2 months to win the WikiCup at current scores. If there's a limit, that's not a very fair competition, is it? Will there be a limit on any other type of content? Seriously, drop it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Adam, limiting the number of submissions would lead to a different set of ways to work the system. That said, this may be evidence for looking at the point system, no way could ANYONE get 20 FACs through the system in any given round - even if they had a couple years' work cocked and loaded, as noted below, they can't have them all nominated for FAC at once. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there's already a limit on other types of content. For featured article, list and portal candidates, we're only allowed to nominate one at a time. Unless I'm mistaken, one is allowed unlimited FPCs at any given time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I raised Ealdgyth's point about adding a bonus of some sort for lengthy articles when we had our discussion about changes in point values after the end of last year's competition and I don't think that anyone even bothered to comment. It's kinda discouraging to spend the time required to tackle a massive subject like Middle Ages when you could do many more, say 10 times, the number of shorter articles for the same investment of work and time. The obvious response is, of course, is game the system a bit and work on short articles alone if you want to win. I've done that successfully (most of my GAs are well under 10K and my FAs under 20K), but I've also done articles up to 50K because that's what they deserved and I wanted to improve those articles for my own purposes.
Right now the scoring is set up to reward quantity with a rough estimate for general importance in the bonus points and I'm not at all sure that we've struck a good balance between quantity and quality. I'd like to see these better balance so that people can be more competitive when writing about obscure topics in greater detail. One of the primary purposes of the Cup for me, and I gather for many others, is to provide a focus and a motivator for my own writing on things that I care about, and the paltry bonus values for my chosen topics does little to reinforce that. While I like the general idea of the bonus points, I'm a bit concerned that they're biased towards topics of general interest to people in all languages; things like science that apply to humans universally. It's easy to say that "of course these are the most important things", but I do wonder if we're not penalizing articles that are much less universal like culture or history which are likely to be most important to only a few languages. Forex the Chaco War is likely to be very important to Spanish or Portuguese-speaking people in South America, but almost meaningless to a Ghurkali-speaker. Perhaps a bonus for length might help to offset some of the current bonus points and encourage people to tackle some of the bigger subjects. So is this a real problem or am I just trying to twist the Cup to favor my own approach? Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Possible bonus points like the DYK multiplier for longer articles may be worth looking at; not double points like DYK, lest we encourage bloat, but perhaps a 50K multiplier or something....? Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
That's also true, but it could be gamed and would encourage quantity over quality. But yes, I think it it's a reasonable topic for discussion. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly (and I've no doubt in good faith), what we're seeing here is people generally unhappy with how many points can be claimed for content on which they don't work. Adam (who, until this year, was the only "FP person" for a while) has previously suggested that bonus points were overvalued. "Tropical cyclone people" (in this thread) agree, but are also concerned about FPs, because of perceived lack of importance and ease of nomination. Of course, bonus points were introduced in the first place because of dissatisfaction with how "cookie-cutter" articles (tropical cyclones, for example) could result in large numbers of points for what was perceived to be not-so-important work. The perception has sometimes been that FA/FL were at a disadvantage when compared to GA/DYK, precisely because you can only have one nomination at FAC/FLC at a time. This isn't quite a rock-paper-scissors situation (it's not that simple) but it's not far from it. I think these kinds of disputes are inevitable while WikiCup participants are such a heterogeneous bunch. Of course I want to see the WikiCup as a fair competition, but views on what The Problem with the competition is are extremely diverse. (There is at least one problem I perceive which has never been expressed by anyone else, as far as I remember, and I've not commented because I want to remain neutral, but it's the same kind of complaint as those expressed above. The fact no one else has suggested it makes me think that it's a pet peeve rather than something that genuinely is problematic.) J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No, what we're seeing is people taking a friendly competition and constantly belittling another competitor's work. II may have complained about bonus point, but, while I may think they're a bit too high, I would never say things such as "How much value does the FP have to wiki?" or "there is little content work involved". If the WikiCup has now become nothing more than a chance to demean other competitors for doing the "wrong kind" of work, then it should be shut down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Adam, I do not think any of my comments above can be at all construed as saying anything of the kind. Please don't paint with such a broad brush. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, Ealdgyth, but you can understand why such commentary would upset someone putting hundreds of hours into image work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I apologized to Godot13, who does have a unique situation and made the most of a unique opportunity. So I hope we can close that bit of this. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've raised this point at the beginning of the year when the points distribution was voted. I've said then that FP sets should get different point distributions than separate FPs. If you take an article and get DYK, then you can get, GA, then FA, but that is it. Technically, you can put 100 pics into one FP nom which is 33 times more "efficiency" — without counting the impact a picture has vs a low importance article. The current point distribution is a result of the aftermath of Durova's scoop (when people also felt it was unfair to have somebody win JUST by doing tons of FPs though she won without really doing any sets) the points for pics were slashed considerably; until this year, nobody has shown any visible interest in FPs, so the points were slowly brought back up so they have an impact similar to Durova's period. For articles there is a hard cap for an article to get in any theoretical situation (which is probably around 1000 pts for an article like Jesus), and I suggest there should be a similar cap for a single FP nom which has a similar impact on wiki to a FA on Jesus. Or at least have FP sets be awarded something like 35+10+10+10+... pts. Nergaal (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Featured picture discussion. Nergaal (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
That's just breaking the FP process for Wikicup purposes. Hell, look at my Urania's Mirror noms. Under that scheme, the exact method I used to divide them up would radically change the points. Also, under that scheme, in order to win the final round, I'd need to create over 100 separate FPC nominations. Not only does that break the system, but it creates bad priorities: Complete sets are far, far more valuable than jumping randomly between content: What you want is a coherent set, not things done by many people. We should not be discouraging the more valuable method of handling content in order to keep FP creators Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
By the reverse I should nominate 100 FAs all at once in a set for a featured topic. Care needs to go into everything, and you know as well as I do that large FP sets do not get the full treatment and individual attention that they would otherwise. People like to complain... so what, but we are colleagues and I don't think an editor's priorities should be governed by points in the Wikicup - you seem to draw a line that excellence by one editor is better than numerous editors who contribute to the whole. For a picture - it shouldn't matter if its truly worthy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Remember I do restorations, Chris. You don't want every image in a set of restored - say, book illustrations - to have a different paper tone, different decisions about managing fading, and so on. Consistency is necessary to make it a coherent whole, and having it done by a group will not provide that. As an example, see the Urania's Mirror images I replaced. Some aren't very good, but a couple would be reasonable - if the rest of the set matched. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • For those of you comparing FAC to FPC: try and learn more about the process. In FAC, an editor will generally not immediately oppose if there is an issue that should be addressed. In FPC, not only is it common, but in many instances it is something that you cannot repeat without redoing the whole thing. I spent 18 hours putting together my first Sari temple nomination, only to withdraw it after there were post-processing and perspective issues that couldn't be fixed without a reshoot. Can you imagine doing the same for an FA? Writing for 18 hours, an issue being found, then having to start from scratch? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry to be blunt here, but well, in an FAC, you have to actually write the content, spend days researching everything, ect. I doubt that FPC's are harder than FAC's. If opposes are common in an FPC, why did 10+ pictures get away without any opposition? Switching gears slightly, it's worth nothing this comment: "Also, under that scheme, in order to win the final round, I'd need to create over 100 separate FPC nominations.", which my response is to that I think it's impractical to win the WikiCup from FP's, given that there is little content involved. Is your work remarkable and valuable to the encyclopedia? Yes. Is it right for that alone to win the WikiCup? I know you're frustrated (and rightfully so, if I was in your situation, I would too), but honestly, I don't think so. I think winning the WikCup should be whoever does the best content work and works on the more important articles. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I have a fairly high search skill and a vast number of resources at my hand, but I still spend hours on a single GA. Even when I have sources in front of me, Google is only a trivial part of the process. I go to libraries and contact historical societies and try to get more information - I make many trips for some of the data I get. I know quite a few editors who do a lot more than I for meager results - these are people who build the content and I can safely say that I get about 5 pts per hour if you want to put it in Wikicup terms. I've been focusing on articles that have had no sources, or been super short stubs for many years. People still hold the belief that stubs should be deleted or that Wikipedia's civil topics are useless. But yes, I've spent dozens of hours on a page that is a complete trainwreck - Phineas Gage. You may have spent 18 hours putting it together, but months of grumbling over the article took what could have been a good GA to tatters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The gauntlet of the review processes is a factor that should be considered in the point system. Also, the formatting and refining of work after the research is done and written is a factor. I am probably at about 2 points per hour on some of the articles I've brought to DYK, GA and FA. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt that FPCs rate 2 points an hour; I' d suspect significantly less. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Evan, did I say it was more difficult? No. You are misreading. I said it was different, particularly in how oppositions are both given and dealt with. Obviously, the type of preparatory work is different: research for articles often requires long hours of reading books and, in the case of obscure topics like those I specialize in, may even involve trips to archives several hundred miles away. Photographers have to know lighting really well, and this may involve one or two trips to a location to figure out the layout so that they can get the best lighting for their purposes. For people who like to make really big images (I have several 50+ megapixel images on Commons), this may mean at least an hour each time you stitch the image. Scanners like Godot have the issues I've mentioned above. I'm not even in the Wikicup (don't feel I should be essentially writing for "pay"), but I take concern whenever someone seems to think FP is "easy" or not on par with (at least) a GA.
As for Godot's sets, obviously he drew enough attention to reach that support benchmark. I said reviewers are quick to oppose if they find issues with an image (look at, say, the basking shark image which just failed); this does not mean supports are impossible or difficult to get. If an image is done well, it's done well, and supports come through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Chris, I know how you feel: I might spend weeks with a single GA (Dr. Blofeld essentially forced me to nominate Amir Hamzah for GA even though I felt it could still be polished a bit, and that's after 3 weeks off/on writing). However, I don't think people should automatically dismiss the value of an FP. Heck, several articles (Gita Gutawa comes to mind) were questioned at GA because they had no images at the time. How could one write a GA or FA without images? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, "little content involved"? So images are not content, in your opinion? Fine. Write articles without images and see how well they pass GAN or FAC. Please, be my guest. Bottom dollar says any refusal to add images where images are available would lead to opposes pretty quickly. This is what Adam meant by "belittling others' contributions", and I agree. It's downright infuriating. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I have several GANs without images as well as several (as in 10+) GAs which have no images. While ones like the Winslow Ames House have no images, true, but its not forced - and much less so for BLPs where NFCC is positively strict about it. A lot of my work will not earn me Wikicup points, but as someone who is trying to make those pictures useful - a photograph is a good contribution, but it is the content surrounding it that places it in context. It seems the "fairness" of batching 10+ images that are not "of artistic origin" is the issue because the impression of Godot's work seems to be limited to scanning items from a museum with little post-processing. I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue with paintings or drawings by nature of their execution - but the notion of "work" is related to the personal mark visible on the end result. A photographer who manages a picture of an extremely rare bird in the wild has a photograph of an extremely rare bird - but the 2 weeks spent hunting and trying to bait the bird to the camera is not evident to the viewer's eyes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Chris, I agree that there is a problem that the work involved in a FP is not always evident to casual observers. Evan, I think your view that pictures are not content is seriously mistaken (unless you are meaning something very unusual by "content") and is deeply unfair to those people who devote much time, effort and money to producing FP-quality images. For what it's worth, I also think it is a deeply unpopular view. Seeing comments like that, I understand Adam's frustration with this conversation. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, I suppose this is the elephant in the room... If what Godot is doing is so easy, no one is stopping you from doing the same thing. Or, perhaps, negotiating and working with museums/related institutions, handling very valuable and rare items, operating a scanner and then editing the resulting files are difficult. These are all things which come prior to the uploads and nominations, so are things which are not easily visible to us. On top of all this, Godot has worked on the articles in which the images are used, bringing them up to featured list status. If you believe that Godot is not working hard for the points, you are mistaken. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) Who said FP is meant to be artistic? That is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the process and the value of the contributions, and illustrates (to me, at least) why such a mountain has been built out of this molehill.
Regarding the amount of work Godot has to do while scanning: did you read my explanation above about dust and hair? Or his about the actual effort required for the trip? Do you know what a pain in the a*** it is to replace a background and not affect the source image, especially when it's both not perfectly straight and intended to be seen at full resolution (assuming the scanner gives a white or grey background like most commercial ones I've used)? The images look simple, but that's a deception which arises from a lack of understanding of the actual work that goes into them, a lack of understanding which we have been trying to rectify. We can follow how an article was built through it's history, but the software doesn't do this for images (particularly since we must edit offline). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: I agree entirely with J. Milburn's post. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the goal of the wikicup is to encourage all of us to improve content on wikipedia. The point system probably needs to reflect the content that wikipedia most wants to see improved. None of us are here because we are earning the big bucks or because we "need" the shiny things, we are all here because we have assorted topics we care enough to write about (or scan or photograph). Some of us are also a bit competitive, and these contests help motivate us a bit more. I'm just happy that I made it to this round of the WikiCup and hope I manage to make it to the next, though I am kind of bogged down at a single article right now, so who knows? I see the wikicup as an incentive for for me to do more GAs and DYKs, mostly, the occasional FAC being more good luck than anything. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I think that part of the problem that Godot13's FPs are running into has to do with timing and distribution; a round starts and he nominates a massive set, gets a ton of points, and then does almost nothing until the next round. Aside from his sets, he's claimed one ITN in round one and one Featured list in round two. While Adam has a steady trickle of new submissions, which makes it look like he's constantly working on restorations, Godot13's sets make it seem like he's not putting much effort into the competition (yes, I know he already explained above that he has, I'm talking strictly about appearances here). I'm not going to comment on whether Godot13's scans are "worthy" or "good" or "bad" or whatever, I'm just saying that how people's contributions look from the outside, with only partial information, does have an effect. That being said, I can find faults in a lot of other people's cup submissions, from GAs that were passed despite badly needing copy edits to GA reviews that passed articles that badly needed copy edits, and so on. Looking for problems in other people's submissions is not a particularly productive exercise though, because unless you're going to make a challenge based on a pattern of abuse, looking for problems will cause more stress/dissatisfaction that is worth it. Ultimately, we have to trust the judges to keep the competition fair. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Sven! Montana: The WikiCup started out with an incredibly egalitarian "all content is equal" position- an FA was an FA whether it was about an independent video game or Mozart. Bonus points gradually became more and more a part of the competition, but we're not at (and nor, I think, should we be) the idea of points reflecting "the content that wikipedia most wants to see improved". If we were in that position, the hands-down winners would be people who work on big, hard-hitting core topics- thinking of last year, we had Hawkeye7, Ealdgyth, Cwmhiraeth, Sasata, Casliber. Now, as it happens, all of them made it to the final, so we do reflect this to a certain extent. The WikiCup is certainly a quality competition, as it's about audited content rather than just content creation/edit counts. But that's article quality, rather than subject quality. As such, it is still a step removed from the likes of the Core Contest, in which many of our favourite articles (some of your horses, some of Ed's ships, some of Sven's video games) would literally count for nothing. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
      • You raise the proverbial $64,000 question, J Milburn, and that is if we are looking at use of the wikicup to direct editing patterns. I see good arguments to both improve quality in general (which is a way all of us become better editors), and to improve core articles (which is much harder, due to the massive time sink and collaboration often needed - Ealdgyth, Dana boomer and I have been chatting about taking horse from its current GA to FAC for years, so far we have chosen to work on other things...) The bonus points based on other language wikis is one way to indirectly encourage work on core articles, and as I know Ealdgyth and respect her work a great deal, your note on last year's finalists suggests that maybe things will all shake out in the end. Montanabw(talk) 18:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Regarding the difficulty of some of the core content, speaking as someone who has done pretty much nothing regarding content development myself lately, one thing that might be useful in some areas, like religion, is to maybe look at some of the content of some of the related print or other encyclopedic sources out there. For some time now, pretty much all I have been doing has been getting together indicators of what is included in at least some other reference sources, and a basic idea of proportional weight in those sources, in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles. And, yes, I haven't even started on Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, and some others yet, and still have most of the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion to add to the relevant pages, but at least regarding some of the topics included in some of the lists already generated, they might provide some indicator of some basic ideas to help improve some of the lengthier articles in those sources. At least for some of the (oten at least slightly contentious) material regarding religion and philosophy and beliefs in general, if anyone here wants to look at them for either article content or sources, they might help for some of the basic articles in some of the areas covered in those works. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone- first off, my apologies for not sending out a newsletter this month. I've been very busy, and I feel it will now be best to simply hold on until the end of this round. I'm posting to draw everyone's attention to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, which is developing a backlog. Reviewers are needed for FLCs, FPCs and lots of GACs. If you have a chance, it'd be fantastic if you could help with reviews here- all competitors are also welcome to add anything they need reviewing to the page. J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Being away at the end of the round

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I will be sitting in a muddy field, with no internet access for the final four days or so, at the end of the current round. If any of my nominations (GAN/FLC/FPC) should be passed/promoted during those days is it OK to ask someone else to put them on my submissions page? If I get through to the next round without them being added to my submissions but are promoted during that period, can they be carried over to the next round or are they "lost"?— Rod talk 19:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If you say what they are I don't mind watching them for promotion. Thanks, Matty.007 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Anything promoted in this round but not added to the submission page before the end of the round (or very shortly thereafter) will be lost. In one case I updated a the scorecard after the end of the round for posterity's sake, but it generally won't count for much! If you provided a list on here of any open nominations before you leave, I too will keep an eye on things for you. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind offers. If there is anything outstanding which might change while I'm away I will post a list here on 22 or 23 June. Hopefully most will have been resolved before then.— Rod talk 20:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm in the same position in that I am away for the last week but I have 3 GAs awaiting review. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
If you want, give me the list, and I'll review them on the 19th. As seen below, I'd rather work on FPs up to the round deadline. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Another thing I have is Template:Did you know nominations/Soccer kick up for DYK. Since I am away from tomorrow until the end of the round, I will be unable to add that for points because it will run when I am not here. @J Milburn:, any advice? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I've watchlisted the page and will add it to your submission page if/when it runs. Anyone else who wants to watchlist it is also welcome to- I've got a lot on right now. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I may be being cheeky but could you do the same for Template:Did you know nominations/Mungu ibariki Afrika too please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Added. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As for Rod - I presume everything that does get promoted will appear on his talk page, right? So why not just check it on the 28th, and put everything in? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I presume everything will appear there (not that I'm expecting much to complete before 28 June).

So apart from a possible DYK I don't expect anything else to score this round, but I'm relaxed about it.— Rod talk 20:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Boat Race 2009/GA1

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Long enough? I hadn't thought of it at the time, and it seems too short. Thanks, Matty.007 18:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I added it. Thanks, Matty.007 20:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
What's too short? The article or the review? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the review was too short to be counted, and had forgotten about it when I did it in relation to the WikiCup, but I understood J Milburn as saying it wasn't too short. Thanks, Matty.007 20:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review points

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm worried an user won't reply to my GA review in time we can finish the process; can I claim points for the review anyway? I wouldn't ask this but since today is the closing day... By the way, the review is Talk:Lady Gaga Live at Roseland Ballroom/GA1. — prism △ 21:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately it wouldn't count as a complete review - but it will count for the next round once completed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

End day

Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

Does this round end at the end of June 28th or the start? FPC has a ten-day lead time, so I really need to know the answer ASAP if I'm to make my goal of third place this round (not bad considering I missed out on May, I think). I've been working like mad, but there is a limit on how much one can do. (Not to mention one of my restorations is unlikely to gain points, as it was one of two similar restorations). Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is the end of the day on June 28th (23.59 UTC). In fact, I am going away for eight days shortly, and any points that accrue in my absence will have to be submitted late on 28th June or not at all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry Adam, I didn't see this message. Cwmhiraeth is correct that the round ends at end of the day. There is a small grace period after the end of the round when you can add points (though, of course, only add points for things promoted before the end of the round)- that's part of the reason for the delay before the start of the next round. J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
On that note, a question: If a person has enough points to advance in a round but something is passed last minute, do you have to use it or lose it" or can you wait to post those points until the next round begins? i.e. is the date an absolute cut-off for approved material whether you post it or not? (I'm probably sunk this round, but I may have "wasted" one DYK in a previous round that I could have used later...) Montanabw(talk) 21:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
"Use it or lose it", I'm afraid. Content is only eligible for the round in which it is promoted. Content promoted after end of the round but before the start of the new round can be claimed in the new round. J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
In any case, a bit late to do anything for me. I'll just have to hope everything passes, because Shiloh and Grant are NOT going to be ready in time. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Shame on you. You are doing FPs and you will miss the 2nd place? Oh, you will miss eve the 3rd place? Again, shame on you. You are not worthy. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
...Text doesn't convey joking tones very well; I'm going to presume them, but.... I missed an entire month due to burning out from Wikipedia stress, so I think currently being in third place isn't bad. And, despite that, I managed to complete all the illustrations for my future FAC, and finish my favourite restoration of the year. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Let me explain my joke: after a quick glance of the field, I assumed you are an average FP contributor in this cup so I wondered what would an average article editor in your position would do? Would he struggle to be in the first 3 places among all competitors, or struggle to not be in the last 3 in his group? Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I have never actually won a Wikicup, and, last year, my attempt to do so caused me to burn out for the rest of the year half-way through the last round, to the point that I barely touched Wikipedia.
Oh, and the slightly monotonous but focused process of image restoration is therapeutic, in the literal sense. I don't feel the urge to explain that further. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The WikiCup is intended to do precisely the opposite- prevent burnout by giving people something to work towards, and inject some fun/reward into editing that some people feel can be lacking. I mean this non-judgmentally, but if you feel that participating in the WikiCup is giving you burnout, perhaps consider the idea that you're taking it more seriously than it should be taken. J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Or that my content is being constantly attacked as not as valuable by the other competitors, J, but you apparently don't have a problem with that? Just that I take the attacks "too seriously" and thus grow to hate being on Wikipedia? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Adam, I have called people on their aggression/lack of understanding when it comes to criticism of the FP process in the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't get why you assume Adam is an "average" FP contributor - he makes more contributions to that area of Wikipedia than almost anyone else (and many are quite difficult restorations as well). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@ThaddeusB: Very kind of ye to say it, though it's putting it a little strong: For example. Crisco 1492, Godot13, KDS444, Kelvinsong, Muhammad Mahdi Karim and Diliff are all experts in their various fields. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Round 4

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone- I hope you're all well. As you've no doubt seen, the WikiCup newsletter has gone out and the new pools are up. Round 4 will begin in four hours. Last round was very exciting, with lots of interesting contributions and some very close scores. I'm just leaving a note here to say that I will be uncontactable for the next couple of days, but that Miyagawa and The_ed17 have my full permission (as ever) to correct any mistakes I have made, at their discretion. Do take advantage of Adam's offer above, as The Signpost reaches a lot of people, and his last pictorial guide to the WikiCup was excellent! J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

So, has the round begun? (considering it is 00:00 UTC already) I've already updated the submissions page. pedro | talk 00:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The round had indeed just begun when you posted that! J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2014/3&oldid=1159504010"