Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2015/3

End of Round 1

Just a quick note to remind everyone that Round 1 finishes tonight at 23:59:59 server time (GMT). Any submission that should be placed for round one need to be added to your submission pages by then. Please note that if you fail to claim an article which was promoted prior to that deadline, then you can't claim it in round 2. If however it becomes worthy for points during the gap between rounds 1 and 2 then you can claim it as soon as round 2 starts.

As we haven't yet managed to get the bot to successfully add the points for the bonuses for FPs, I'll do that manually after the end of the round. We'll get something working on this before it becomes serious in round 2 (I say that because at present no one will be eliminated by those bonus points being added late as currently everyone who has scored points is going through to round 2 - but this could be possible in later rounds).

I think it's also worth while mentioning the seeding that we'll be doing once again. In previous cups the draws for the forthcoming groups were random - we're switching to a seeding system so that each of the 64 going through will be placed in groups of 8 based on thier scores (any ties will be broken by whatever magical way the table sorts people). So for example, the eight currently leading editors according to the unofficial tool are Freikorp (622), Caponer (391), Casliber (310), Rodw (304), Jaguar (292), Good888 (246), Cwmhiraeth (237), Harrias (208) (although note that Godot13 is in 9th place and hasn't been credited FP bonuses yet, but let's stick with Harrias for this example to keep it simple). Those eight would form the first pot, thereby meaning that only one of each pot will be placed in each group for round 2, meaning that they won't have to directly face each other to qualify for round 3.

We will continue to keep to this seeding system throughout the competition as it makes the earlier rounds more important. For rounds 3 onwards, the winners from the groups in round 2 will form one pot, and the runners-up will form another. The wildcards will be split into pots based on their scores.

I'll update the table tonight straight after the end of the round with the FP bonuses and to clarify who has qualified for round 2. I'll do the draw out of the pots using a random number generator on Friday night and put the finalised draw up on the 28th so that you can see who you've been drawn against for round 2 before it starts - at that point I'll blank out the submission pages for the new round too. Then once March 1st begins on server time, you can start submitting articles/pictures/reviews once more. We'll also send out a newsletter at some point over the weekend to cover the end of the round and the start of the new one.

Good luck everyone, and happy editing! Miyagawa (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan, Miyagawa, and Sturmvogel 66: Hello judges! I am writing today to ask for a bit of clarification on the WikiCup scoring guidelines regarding peer reviews as I am currently in the process of completing one. Would I be able to claim points if I finish a peer review or do I have to wait until the whole review is closed? Thank you! MJ94 (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@MJ94: You can claim as soon as you've posted your review. There's no need to wait until the closure of the review as others can jump in and add their two cents. Miyagawa (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, updates are done and the draw for round 2 is now up. Feel free to add submissions once more after midnight tonight! Miyagawa (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Core Contest

For those that don't already know, The Core Contest is starting tomorrow and running through the month of March. Also if you want an article which could be massively improved then look no further than Animal husbandry - it's hilariously short for a vital article. Miyagawa (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Good Article individual reassessment

Is a Good Article individual reassessment considered a GAR and eligible for points? AHeneen (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not presently. Miyagawa (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Something to consider next year I hope.

Is there a reason for points not being awarded for reviewing FACs? I've done a couple since I have an article in the queue and saw them pop up at a project I dabble in. It has been a good learning experience and feels kind of cool trying to help someone else get an article to the highest level.Cptnono (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We agree with you, but it's very hard to define a "good" FAC review and it would necessarily very subjective on our part. The line between a 30-comment review and one that only makes three or four comments is hard to draw. I've done both myself on occasion and it would hard to to tell if the latter was a valid review or not. But when I was the last reviewer and the editor had already responded to all the previous reviewers' comments and it was well written to begin with... But we welcome any thoughts on how to make the task of evaluating a contestant's FAC review less subjective, please feel free to share them with us.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Certain FAC regulars have in the past been very clear about not wanting WikiCup points awarded for FAC reviews, while being open to WikiCup points for FAs (as long as people are clear about their participation in the competition). The fear was that rewarding reviews could lead to substandard reviews, which were considered (with good reason) a more serious problem than any potential poor nominations. I was (and remain) of the view that the Cup should give a good amount of weight to the views of those directly involved with these kind of projects, whether or not they are involved in the Cup (even, potentially, especially if they are not). It is possible that consensus may have changed, or may change in the future. In addition, I think Sturm is right about the difficulty of judging the extent to which a review is one worthy of points or not. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah... that makes sense.Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

About Submitting

I never got how you to submit to enter in the competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:3FF2:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a signup page that was open from approximately November to the start of February where people could sign up. However, I think there was a requirement that all who signed up had a Wikipedia account. The signups for this year's competition are now closed, but you would be welcome to join in next year- signups will open towards the end of 2015. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• No my question is I never really got how to submit my articles. how does one submit what is the right process.

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Submissions#User list. Select the contestant user name from the list then follow the templates in the edit screen. For example, I am at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2015/Submissions/Cptnono.Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing Negative24

I am requesting to be withdrawn from the WikiCup. I'm just a bit too busy with other things (MW extension writing) and I don't think I'll be able to go on much further. I'll probably enter in next year's competition. I would like to stay subscribed to the newsletters so tell me if I have to subscribe somewhere else. Thanks, -24^Talk 01:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for competing - I'll withdraw you now. Hope to see you again next year. :) Miyagawa (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding options for moving articles up a level

I believe that people should get points if they move articles from Start-class to C-class, C-class to B and so on. This would mean that articles with minimal text will expand and it would become a lot easier for readers to get information from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremantle99 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In theory that's a nice idea, but we depend on assessments by people other than the main editor(s) to validate an article's improvements. And many projects don't do any formal assessments at all. Even MilHist, which does, only does B-class assessments, and allows for any editor whatsoever to assess C-class and below. So I think your idea is effectively a non-starter, however attractive it might be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Points for DYK also help cover expanding minimal articles, since DYK can be done for increasing the size of an article 5x 1bandsaw (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2015/log

Hi all,
Bot is linking files on Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2015/log. Check them out. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe have the bot put a date for each entry? Nergaal (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's the judges page so that we can manually check every entry. When they're checked, we removed them from that page. Miyagawa (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Fear we have a backlog now...-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's under control- leave it to the judges. If they need help with this or anything else, they'll ask (perhaps privately). If you are concerned about particular nominations, leave a note on this talk page or on a judge's talk page, or drop a judge an email. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There isn't much of a backlog at all there. Also, we wouldn't be asking for competitors to review there anyway as that would be quite the conflict of interest. Miyagawa (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

double-dipping?

I just got my first ever GA (which is very exciting). I note within the DYK rules that one can do a DYK for a newly promoted GA, so I'm going to do so, but is it proper under the WikiCup rules to double-dip on this? That is, to score points for GA and DYK on the same article at the same time? I'm doing the DYK anyway, but want to be sure it is OK before I try and claim the points. Thanks, 1bandsaw (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not. It was agreed that that was just a cheap way to gain points for no work thus the rules made it clear that GA DYKs don't count for points. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This might be a "tone doesn't travel well over the Internet" thing, but I think that was a bit of an overreaction. I don't think 1bandsaw was/is looking for a way to abuse the system, here-(s)he's just after a rules clarification. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I missed that part on the Scoring page, but it did feel cheap to me, which is why I was asking. I'm happy with the GA points. Thanks for the prompt replies! 1bandsaw (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I hope my tone carries as intended: Nice work on your first GA!!! (don't double dip and stuff... actually I don;t even know what double dipping is but am stoked for you)Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What about the reverse order? If a new or 5x-expanded article is nominated and appears as a DYK and is also later promoted to GA (in same round), can points be claimed for both the DYK and GA? AHeneen (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine, and if you subsequently get it to FA, you can claim for that, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing Vinethemonkey

Yeah, I'm way too busy to actually participate in the competition. Please withdraw me from the Wikicup. I want to stay subscribed though! Vinethemonkey (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Vinethemonkey

Sorry to hear that, I'll withdraw you now (also sorry for the delay!), and I hope to see you again next year. :) Miyagawa (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Unofficial tool" broken

The unofficial standings tool is broken. It appears to be treating this as the final round of the competition and thus is showing one winner & one runner up instead of the proper number of people moving on to the next round. Not quite sure who to contact to get it fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jarry1250: Was that your tool? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The bot was screen-scraping for "Pool" at one point, which kinda spiralled into the problem Thaddeus saw (they're now called "Groups"). Should be working now. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 20:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That was my bad - I changed it due to a simple preference and didn't realise it would affect the bot. Miyagawa (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Name change

Yesterday, I changed my name from "Caponer" to "West Virginian." Shall I continue to remain in the WikiCup competition as Caponer, or should I change my name here, too? I'll leave it up to the WikiCup administrators as I'm unsure of what the protocol is in this situation. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I can change the display, but the submissions page change will have to wait until the end of the round. Miyagawa (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There you go, it now displays your new name. When I generate the following round, presuming you're in there, I'll create a new submissions page with your new name. Miyagawa (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Miyagawa, thanks for all your help and I appreciate your assisting me with this matter. I wish I had read this first before reverting my submissions page to West Virginian. You may to undo my redirect. I had just noticed it wasn't updating my total after a completed Good Article review. Thanks again, and I apologize if I've made a mess of things! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK points

I wonder why I only got 5 points for S.A.S. v. France which is a very long article. Could it be because I forgot to link to the article when I added it to my competition page (I only added the DYK template). Iselilja (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That was probably it. Now you've added the article itself, the bot should update it. Miyagawa (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't though. I added the article almost yesterday, but still no more points. Iselilja (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

When you removed the bonus calculation and forced the bot to re-evaluate, it fixed it. You've now got the addition 5 base points for length. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Temporary solution to FP Bonus issue

@Godot13: @The Herald: I think we finally have a temporary solution to the issue of the bot not calculating the bonus points for the Featured Pictures. So, could I ask you to replicate what I've done on Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2015/Submissions/Godot13 under the DYK section - adding the same article multiple times to generate the relevant number of bonus points. Admittedly it'll come up in the DYK column of the table, but it's better than not appearing at all. Also, if you could add comment tags like this: <!-- this type of comment --> to each batch of additions so that we can keep track of what points are linked to which picture. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Miyagawa:- Will do, thanks for figuring out the temporary solution. Just to clarify-each time the code is entered counts as 5 points?--Godot13 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If I change the multiplier from none, will the value of the bonus change? That way one entry could account for a single image with a bonus of either 5, 10, or 15 points...--Godot13 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the solution. I don't think I have any bonuses to claim this time. ;) -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 23:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Godot, that's a good idea. Give it a go - if it works, then stick with it. Miyagawa (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Attempt submitted, we'll see when the bot updates...--Godot13 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like it didn't work - it only picked up five points from the first article. Miyagawa (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a formatting error- an extra unattached multiplier script was inserted after the first entry. Let's try one more bot update and if that doesn't work, I'll do it longhand...--Godot13 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Miyagawa- Not caught by the bot, re-submitted without multiplier combinations.--Godot13 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It ran, but it only picked up the first one, not the rest...--Godot13 (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Its probably programmed in the bot to avoid duplicates. @Jarry1250: Jarry, do you have any ideas about what we could do in the short term? Miyagawa (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Desperately seeking points

Is there anyone who would be kind enough to review one or more of my DYKs. I need some more points to be sure to advance, and I have worked so hard the last weeks, but All my DYKs have stalled (exept one which was reviewed at my reqquest); a GA review I worked so hard with turned have some problems I had overlooked so I may need to turn it over to another reviewer and a PR I was preparing turned out to have been requested by a sockpuppet. So, I really would appreciate if someone would very soon review one or two of my four pending DYK nominations, so maybe one can get on the main page within the 28th. They are listed here. Thanks, Iselilja (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that DYK is very slow recently. For example, I've had Template:Did you know nominations/The Airfield ticked since 7 April and it still hasn't run. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK is very slow because it has a backlog of reviewed and unreviewed articles, with 75 currently reviewed and waiting to be moved into the Prep areas. However, take heart, as this unofficial tool indicates that if the current positions are maintained, you will qualify for the next round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing Good888

I think I am already outside the top 16 users, but regardless if I am or not, would you mind withdrawing me from the cup? I am quite busy now and when I do edit, it's mainly on Eastern Counties Football League articles, something of which won't be helping in scoring points in this competition! I look forward to the next cup by the way! Good888 (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I'll withdraw you now. See you again next year, I hope! Miyagawa (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How about a couple of points for new stubs?

I apologize if this has already been discussed, but how about a point or two for new stubs? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the whole idea of this competition is to improve content—and adding lots of stubby little articles certainly wouldn't do that. You can already get DYK points for new stubs; they only have to be 1500 characters long, after all. I'd be loathe to see any points at all given to an article that couldn't reach at least that length! MeegsC (talk)

You may be interested to know that back when we still had points for edit count, one of the people who was able to acquire the most points via this method was involved in mass stub creation (literally thousands of articles). These were, as it happens, excellent stubs- impeccably sourced and on clearly encyclopedic/notable topics, but stubs nonetheless. Since then, the focus of the WikiCup has been on audited content- the introduction of bonus points and review points then added a further dimension. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I can see that the focus of the Wikicup is on content expansion, and stubs don't really fit that bill. I guess there is already a stub contest anyway. Thanks for the comments! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Current round

Hi all, I'm a bit confused: is the second round still going on? More to the point, does the round end at the beginning of the 28th or the end of the 28th? If it's the end, shouldn't the layout say "March 1 through April 28" rather than "March 1 to April 28"? Thank you! MJ94 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is for three more hours. As we can see in the edit history, the first round (to February 26) was finalised at 00:24 UTC on February 27. Regarding the through comment, only in American English. C679 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Round 2 Ended

Uh... Miyagawa, Round 2 has ended. When are you going to fix the leaderboards? Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 05:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Be patient...He'll do his job..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 06:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The boards are updated, I'll do the draw tonight for round 3 using the pot system once again and then put those up around 18:00 GMT tomorrow. Miyagawa (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A thank you

I want to extend my thanks and gratitude to all of you who help make the WikiCup happen, from the contestants to the judges (Figureskatingfan, Miyagawa, Sturmvogel 66). This year's WikiCup was the first time I really ventured into content creation or reviewing and I had a great time. Unfortunately, this round brings my elimination, as the final peer review I was working on was not suitable for submission after I lost half of it minutes before the round finished. That being said, the ultimate winner of the WikiCup is indeed Wikipedia, and I now have the confidence and familiarity to venture out on my own content editing endeavors thanks to the Cup. I wish you all the best of luck. Have fun editing and I'll be back again next year. MJ94 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hope to see you next year! Miyagawa (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bonus points for creating an article and improving it to GA

I can see why stubs ought not earn points, but how about awarding bonus points for creating an article and improving it to GA or FA? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice idea but I think its a bit late to add that into the Cup. Maybe next year. I would support that because I would have got more points for Sunday football in Northern Ireland. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't trying to change the rules for this year; I just wanted to float that out for next year. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: I'm curious as to why you think that creating a stub and getting it to GA/FA should be worth more than taking an existing stub and getting it there. Right now, you can get points for a stub (submit it to DYK), points for getting a stub to GA, and points for getting an article to FA. I guess I don't understand what else you're hoping for! :) MeegsC (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I was merely brainstorming a way that the Wikicup could encourage article creation and not just expansion. If I went to a fairly well-established article that wasn't GA, but had lots of good content, it would be much easier for me to get that article to GA then it would one that I started from scratch. I wasn't thinking about double or triple points or anything, maybe just 5 or 10 extra for creating an article and also getting it to GA or FA. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, if you create an article from scratch, then you have the DYK route to get a few extra points. This works for expansion too, but I would say that the two are as valuable as each other to the encyclopedia, so bonus points for having created an article, rather than expanded a stub doesn't seem a worthwhile move to me. Harrias ^talk 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Claims after 0:00 UTC on deadline day

I noticed one of the competitors got an article to FA on 24 April, but didn't claim it until the deadline had passed, at 01:34 29 April. In spite of this, the user was able to make around 100 edits during this time. It doesn't seem very sporting to claim points after the deadline; what is the rule on this? Last year's verdict was "The cut-off is at midnight tonight- after that point, the points are pretty much final, unless someone is seen to have submitted something that they shouldn't have or not submitted something they're entitled to (within reason- we won't punish you for not sitting on Wikipedia at the exact time)". Thanks, C679 04:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I used the bot update from 00:13 to base the qualification into the third round on. Because of that we actually have a extra person going through to the next round as three scores were tied at 55 at the bottom. Miyagawa (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction - that FA has gone through as it was agreed with one of the other judges. I just didn't spot the note. It has had little effect other than to add the nominator to the next round as in fairness all three competitors on 55 points are still going through. Miyagawa (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, given the circumstances. Thanks, C679 14:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstood the conversation from last year. There never was a requirement that the claims be posted by 23:59 on the cut off date, just that the event earning the points be completed by then. It was not at all uncommon for claims to be posted up to 24 hours after the cut off. Indeed, that possibility was the original reason why there was a two day gap between the end of one round and the start of another. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of the reason, yeah- the other was to give the judges time to check the submissions and do the necessary prep work for the following round. There was never a rule that people had to claim before the end of the round, but we do now have a rule that "contestants have two weeks to nominate their work after promotion or appearance on the main page". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Bonus points for articles on 100 or more Wikis

As an idea for next year, I see that we have double points for being on 20 Wikis and triple points for being on 50, but how about quadruple points for being on 100 Wikis? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally i'd prefer they bring back last year's bonus system. It was much better and made the competition much more entertaining and interesting. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Were there less bonus points? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the bonus system from last year. (Like C of E, I prefer that system to the one we have now, and will probably end up suggesting we put it back during the suggestions period).That's not to say I'm not enjoying this year's contest though! Ruby 2010/2013 01:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the new system is much fairer. It doesn't actually take much more effort to make a really general topic a GA than it does to make a pretty general one a GA. Reducing the multipliers also allowed FAs to be worth more this year and FPs be worth less (both things people wanted), which wouldn't have been feasible with the old multipliers. (Either making a single FA win the whole thing or making FPs basically worthless respectively.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessarily only about effort, though. For what it's worth, I think I prefer the old system, too, despite the fact I don't think it would help me personally. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review points

I note that the current rules for PRs/GARs state that "You may claim points upon the completion of a review, that is, when the article is passed or failed or closed.", but I have been claiming for peer reviews once I'd completed my review. As such, I have two questions- first, are we obliged to wait until peer reviews are formally closed before claiming points for them (if so, my apologies for claiming for things I probably shouldn't have...), and, second, might it be better to split the rules for peer reviews and good articles on the scoring page? The current arrangement strikes me as a little convoluted. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is you can't (easily) formally close a PR until the time expires. And that takes two weeks which is a bit excessive for 4 points. As the original proponent for Peer Reviews to be included, I had proposed a separate ruleset for PR points but that seems to have got lost in implementation and lumped in with GANs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

And the last thing we want to be doing is encouraging people to prematurely close PRs... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I would presume that you could claim PRs immediately upon posting them. You're right - they've been lumped in with the GARs at the moment and this needs to be clarified. Miyagawa (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Round 3 is up!

The groups for the third round are now up - please hold off entering in submissions for today and yesterday until after midnight tonight (server time) when the round officially begins. A newsletter will be following in the next day or so. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Will there be a signpost article like last year? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Should be, yes. I've just posted on the Signpost submissions page about it. Miyagawa (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

101 (give or take 96) Ways To Get Quicker Appearances on DYK

Hey everyone. Someone asked a while back if there were any ways to speed up appearances for your articles on Did You Know. So as someone who is approaching their 500th DYK appearance and regularly creates DYK sets, I thought I might be able to lend a few suggestions to help out. So here are my top five tips:

1. The easiest way to get an article to appear quickly on DYK is to give it a quirky or funny hook. The last hook in the set will be generally reserved for the quirkiest of hooks, and there are never enough to go around. So you could have a brand new hook and have it appear with a matter of days if it going to cause the reader to either laugh or gasp.
2. Before working up an article, take a brief look at what is already reviewed on DYK. I personally like to alternate in a set between hooks about people and hooks about anything else - but you'd be surprised because there is very rarely a balance of those articles ready to be used. So by aiming for the under-represented type, you'll find that you'll have your hook added quicker.
3. Speaking of under-represented, the set makers also don't like to have more than one of any type of subject matter in a single hook. So for example, if there are a whole host of church articles already there, so if you post another one then it'll be at the long end of the list.
4. Hooks which require images are all good and well, but you have to remember the proportion of those which appear with images. Yep, there's one per set. Whereas there are seven per set without images. So if you post a hook which really requires an image to understand it, and you've supplied that image, then suddenly you're fighting for that one spot instead of the other seven in every set. So my advice is to be as flexible as possible.
5. So the best result is if you can combine multiples of these. So if you can provide both a quirky and a serious hook, with an image which can be used (but isn't detrimental if it isn't) about a subject which isn't overburdened already at DYK then you'll get it posted in next to no time.

I'll sign off with what is technically not a tip about getting a hook posted, but generally an overall tip which can be applied at DYK and GA - if all the other similar articles are already reviewed then other people will have to review your article. But one step further for DYK is to make your article as appealing to review for everyone - make sure you cite everything to reliable sources and follow the general guidelines for posting. That way there's nothing to put anyone off from reviewing it. Anyhow, that's my two cents, and I hope it provided some food for thought for people. Miyagawa (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Nominating quickly also seems to make it go through quicker on average as people often review a hook created on the same day as theirs for their QPQ. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't let people string you along forcing you to change things to suit their perspective then pull out just when you've done that they wanted. I've done that for something I nommed in early April and it is still awaiting review due to potential reviewers being scared away by the wall of text in the nom page from the overriding reviewers dicussion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@The C of E:, you're not alone...that's happened to me too: Template:Did you know nominations/Tenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida. Nominated 16 January, then on 22 January a reviewer came along and said that it needed secondary sources for the article. I added some but then he complained about the writing without specifying the specific problems. I asked for clarification, but he gave up. It took until 11 April for it to be approved, at which time I think it was the second- or third-oldest DKY nominee. AHeneen (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the key is getting it right first time so that a potential reviewer finds the nomination easy to review and can give it a tick straight away. Things like doing the QPQ review in advance, choosing a precisely-worded hook, and making sure there are inline citations for all the facts in the hook. It is surprising how many people don't do these simple things. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, a fair tactic remains is to do additional reviews outside of the QPQ. This reduces the playing field for other reviewers to review and so shifts it in your favour to have your article reviewed next. Some people keep a list of those reviewed for later use as QPQs, but to be honest when I do it I just forget about them and do another one as QPQ when needed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Big Job

Per the unofficial tool, this year we made almost 500 GAR/PR and 500 DYKs. Great job and that's the spirit of WikiCup..-The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

In case any WikiCup participants wish to create content for an ongoing campaign...

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

This is an easy way to support two campaigns at once. Create new LGBT-related articles and DYK hooks, or promote articles to Good status, and earn WikiCup points in the process. :) Thanks for your consideration. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Withdraw

I would like to withdraw. I wasn't able to begin with good start that drags towards good chase. Maybe, next year. Good luck guys! --AntanO 04:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I hope to see you next year. Miyagawa (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Help plan a new software feature for easy subscription to newsletters

We are developing a MediaWiki extension that will enable users to subscribe to community newsletters much more easily. We are very excited to hear your feedback on the features we have planned. Feel free to share your thoughts here. - Tinaj1234 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'd like to extend my thanks to the organizers for putting on this competition! As a first time participant, I really learned quite a bit more about WP and the inner workings. I've seen some amazing work done here, and I look forward to participating again next year! 1bandsaw (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming round end

Just wanted to remind everyone that we're getting close to the end of the round. Please get all articles added to your submission pages either midnight (server time) on the day of the final day - or let us know if you're going to be delayed for some reason. As always, if you miss posting an article/picture then you can't claim it for the following round - although any articles/pictures promoted/reviews completed etc between the rounds can be claimed at the start of the next round.

I'll aim to get the points calculated in the evening of the 29th (BST) and then I'll get the next round set up the following evening so that you can start once again on the 1st. Miyagawa (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone that has lots of points (thus no worry of elimination) be very nice and review my GANs? All three were nominated in MARCH, plus a FL nominated on 15 May is currently the third-oldest FLC (I've addressed all concerns, but haven't gotten much feedback).

• Embassy of the United States, Mogadishu (17 March)
• Joint Agency Coordination Centre (18 March)
• Analysis of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 satellite communications (27 March)
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/archive1 (15 May)

Those are four of the seven oldest reviews needed in the template at the top of this page. A couple weeks ago, I worked up three articles for two DYK nominations (10 & 36 points), but only the one with the lesser value has been reviewed. I know that getting a DYK in less than 2 weeks is a bit optimistic, but it's frustrating to see the 3 GANs & FL (135 points) just languish. I realize there are others that are in a similar position, but it's frustrating to be facing elimination despite putting in a fair amount of work (181 points if all were approved/featured) and it's at least worth saying something. AHeneen (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@AHeneen: I'll give them all a review if you can review and pass my 2 GANs (12-6 elbow and May God have mercy upon your soul) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Err, no, that is not how this works. AHeneen, I advise against making any deals with The C of E, as this kind of "I'll pass yours if you pass mine" is contrary to the spirit and goals of the GA project and explicitly against their rules. It is not looked upon at all favourably there, here or elsewhere. C of E, if you're looking to swap passes with others, I think you need to seriously ask yourself why you're nominating things at GAC in the first place. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I agree that doing any such move is not appropriate. AHeneen (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Instructions for submitting a good topic

Having just tried to submit a good topic on my submissions page I think the template may need tweaking. It currently shows:

===GT: 3 points per article in topic=== <!-- # [[TOPIC]] [[Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/TOPIC]] --> <!-- ## [[ARTICLE 1]] --> <!-- ## [[ARTICLE 2]] --> <!-- ## [[ARTICLE 3]] -->

I think this should be:

===GT: 3 points per article in topic=== <!-- # [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/TOPIC|TOPIC]] [[Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/TOPIC/ARCHIVEnumber]] --> <!-- ## [[ARTICLE 1]] --> <!-- ## [[ARTICLE 2]] --> <!-- ## [[ARTICLE 3]] -->

Or something similar.— Rod ^talk 07:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, you're right - I'll get that updated at the end of the round. Miyagawa (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The same applies to Featured Topics.— Rod ^talk 20:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Pro-rated bonus points

Bonus points should be pro-rated, because someone who brings an article in 20 languages to GA then FA will get 460 total points, but someone who brings an article in 19 languages to the same standard will only get 230 total points. RO^(talk) 23:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's how we did it in 2014 and 2013. The current system, which I think was introduced partly to simplify and partly to prevent bonus points being overwhelmingly central to the competition, is closer to earlier systems. In 2012, we had three levels- 20 Wikipedias, 50 Wikipedias and 100 Wikipedias. In 2011, when we first introduced the bonus points, we had one- 20 Wikipedias. This system has two, in addition to the DYK bonuses introduced in 2013 and the newly-introduced FP bonuses. I think there is going to be some frank discussion about the bonus point system at the end of the competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I get the feeling that the majority of people will want the old system back given that the current system wasn't what anyone voted for nor was there consensus for change, in fact a majority wanted to keep last years system. Not to mention that the old system made the competition more exciting and unpredictable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure now's the right time for the discussion- I suspect the judges will open something up in the next few months. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

True. I wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers. The current system, which I think was introduced partly to simplify and partly to prevent bonus points being overwhelmingly central to the competition The way I see it, bonus points are totally overwhelmingly the competition right now, and there is little to no chance of anyone winning this on content creation unless they improve only 50+ wiki articles, which are in most cases very difficult and long. Some editors realize that certain topics are in 50 wikis, but are not especially difficult or long articles to write. My main objection is that 19 Wikis gets you no bonus points, and 20 gets you double. That's silly, and a simple pro-rating would erase that glaring inconsistency. RO^(talk) 15:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. But like Josh said, we will have a chance to talk about this once the rules discussion opens up near the end of the year (I know I will definitely be weighing in then!). I suspect your view is held by many in the competition. Ruby 2010/2013 16:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)