Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2017/3

The round breaks

Why is there a two day gap between each round? If a DYK or article promotion occurs during the gap, would it not count for points? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It would count towards the next round: see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#General_rules. A break is presumably needed to organize pools, etc, for the next round. Vanamonde (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure how I missed that. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As Vanamonde states, the gap is needed for setting up the pools for the next round. Doing this will be much easier if the bot is not busy adding points to people's scores at the same time. Anything that qualifies during the gap can be submitted in the usual way as soon as the next round starts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

The bot is moving current discussions to the 2016 archive 3. I'm not sure how to correct this, but wanted to point it out. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, I do believe. I will move the erroneous archives to the correct location soon. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

They're saving to 2017 archive 3 now. archives 1 and 2 do not exist yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK scoring

I just took a look at the scoring process, and it looks like this is not actually eligible for points here: and I wanted to both confirm this and ask why this was the case, as it seems rather odd to exclude a specific DYK criterion. Vanamonde (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Because, theoretically at least, you already earn the points for the promotion to GA. If GA-promotion DYKs were allowed, it would essentially just be equivalent to making GAs worth more. Harrias ^talk 07:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

As Harrias says, because no extra work is needed for it pass the DYK criteria. However, if you were to expand a short GA five-fold and subsequently nominate it for DYK, that would be a different matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You are the judges, but I respectfully disagree;

1. Not every GA has facts that are new to Wikipedia, not earlier described and sourced before in another article (the 7-day limit for new info)
2. There is "extra work" for a DYK; it goes through a second set of eyes and needs to fit new criteria in order to pass as DYK
3. For a DYK to pass, at least that's what I understand from the process, the other hooks in the DYK need to be more than just stubs. So if for instance you write an article about a Spanish colonel, like the example, it passes to GA and your DYK is like "DYK... that <main hook>Jacobo Árbenz</hook> was born in <hook2>municipality X in Spain</hook2>" and that mun article is just like one of the so many stubs we have, that hook 2 needs expansion to get the DYK approved, so extra effort

What I've seen some weeks ago, didn't check right now, is that quite some of the approved GAs that produced 35 points for the participants were of a far less standard than this extensive article by Vanamonde. GA is GA, but not every GA is equally GA, if you get what I am saying. A good GA + DYK according to the judges now is worth 35 points, while a mediocre GA is also worth 35 points. Apart from the contribution to Wikipedia in general which is good and a joy, the WikiCup motivation is then less for more effort (DYK work and review), which doesn't sound really fair. Also because it's just 5 points. It is also a loss for the DYKs, this motivational slack; if WikiCup scoring is a major motive, the writer (in this case Vanamonde), then would just focus his/her energy on other things and the DYK gets lost after the 7 day period while it could have been there if the mere 5 points would be awarded. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that it is essentially that the Cup stands against a principle of "double-dipping" whereby a once an article is made a GA, it can equally be taken to DYK with no work being done on it to claim even more points for free (including the double bonus points that could come as a result.). Such an activity is viewed as unfair and unsporting thus that is why consensus was against allowing GA DYK points. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Multiplier

I have some questions about the multiple languages multiplier Scoring#Bonus points. Does any other-language article count, or does it have to have the same status, e.g. does it have to be GA in order to claim GA bonus? From the context it seems likely that they don't have to be, then my next question is: what is the motivation of this multiplier? HaEr48 (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The status of the article on other Wikipedias does not matter; the original idea was that the existence of an article on multiple Wikipedias was a good metric for the significance of a topic (and, it was suggested, was a better measure than an appearance on one of the the "vital" lists). Some articles chosen at random: Americium has an article on over 100 Wikipedias; Atlanta Falcons has one on over 30; Family Guy (season 1) has fewer than 15 and Overly Attached Girlfriend has an article on fewer than five. While there are inevitably aberrant cases, the system does generally work well. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Increase participation

Is there a good way to get the 60 ish people that signed up but haven't submitted anything some experience? I was thinking of offering help to a couple of them, but there is no way I could do all 60 ish. Kees08 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A reminder may be helpful for those who haven't submitted anything yet. Perhaps a reminder can be put on the talk pages of those who haven't submitted anything reminding them that they signed up for the WikiCup competition and that there's just two weeks remaining to submit content. Because that may not be enough time to get any content promoted, the reminder could mention that GA reviews are worth 4 points. AHeneen (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kees08: You could offer a few of them to work jointly on a new article or an expansion/improvement, particularly if you knew that any of them had similar interests to yours, but time is limited before the end of the round. Co-operating with an experienced editor is a great way of learning the ropes, and both can score points in the WikiCup that way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominations outstanding at round's end?

Hello, I was wondering what would happen if an audited content nomination (such as FAC, FLC, or GAN) was still open at the end of the round? Would the nomination still be considered as part of the round, and be eligible for points should it be passed; or would the article(s) in question be ineligible for points? --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 00:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dylan! Content is eligible for points in the round it which it is promoted as long as you have done significant work on the content this year. If it is promoted between rounds, you can claim for it in the following round. Does that answer your question? Josh Milburn (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Josh! Sort of. Say a user nominated content a little over a week ago, or perhaps even earlier. At the time the round finishes, the user does not have enough points to proceed to round 2... but after round 1 has closed, the content is promoted, and the points that the user would have earned from the content would have been enough to keep the user in the Cup. Would the user be retroactively eligible for round 2, or would it be too late by then? --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 02:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be too late by then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was late!

Can I sign in? I was late...! --Mhhossein ^talk 17:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sign-ups closed on February 5th. Was there any special reason you were unable to sign up before? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I just did not see that, although it's banners had probably been almost every where. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: IMO we should let him participate, I just passed one of his GA's which means we will have more participants for next round, based on our participation this round. Kees08 (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"The purpose of the Cup is to encourage content improvement and make editing on Wikipedia more fun." On this basis, we will allow this late entry, but other competitors can be assured that Mhhossein's participation will not exclude anybody else from moving on to Round 2. If the scores were to remain unchanged from their present level, about 67 people with point scores greater than zero would move on to Round 2. Since there is no way to separate the people who have scored the minimum of 4 points from a GAR, the pool sizes in Round 2 would be adjusted to accommodate them all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Need sources? Try the Resource Exchange

If you come across a source that would be helpful in creating or expanding an article but don't have access to that source, you may wish to check out the Resource Exchange at WP:RX. The volunteers at the Resource Exchange help to make sources available to editors without access to a major institutional library. Simply provide as much information as you have about the source, which pages/sections you need access to, and a link to which article you're working on and we'll do our best to get that source to you. Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Work question

So what exactly determines whether or not a featured article can be included in a user's submissions? I mean in terms of when the bulk of the article's size was added to the mainspace. I've noticed that a recent FA for the WikiCup had like 90% of its work done in 2016, yet is included for points here. I hope this doesn't come across as a complaint, but I'm just curious as to what the official rules are. Thank you to all, Carbrera (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

The rule in question states "Content must have been worked on and nominated during the competition." In the case to which I think you are referring, Nyuserre Ini, although the bulk of the work was done in 2016, a certain amount was done in January 2017 (4800B added) before this article was nominated for GA on January 3rd and then FA on January 5th. I am inclined to consider this as sufficient to accept the submissions. This is primarily a problem of Round 1 and is unlikely to crop up again in subsequent rounds. For those who advance to Round 2, all scores will revert to zero at the beginning of the round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Out of curiosity, does the work of refining to GA on its own "count" (as opposed to the bulk of writing the content)? I wrote a good chunk of Derel Walker last year, but at the time, it was too short to make a go of GA. It's since been expanded with new information. I'm still doing some clean up, expanding the lead, filling in some holes, etc. to bring it up to GA quality, but it's unlikely I'll add whole paragraphs to it during the competition. I doubt it will matter in the end, but curious whether I should submit it or not. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Each case has to be judged on its merits. At the moment I would say you had not done enough on the article in 2017. However, if you do more, it may well qualify, and yes, refining the article counts towards "work" just as much as expansion. Not a very helpful reply I am afraid! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the work does remain to be done. Thanks for the answer. :) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

End of round?

Will the round end at the start or the end of February 26? —MartinZ (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

At the end. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

At the end UTC. AHeneen (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Hi, I'd like to announce my withdrawal from the cup. Seeing as my FLC has been open for over two weeks without a comment (bit of a raw deal but them's the breaks), there is precisely zero chance of it getting promoted within the next 27 minutes. I contemplated reviewing a GAN to provide myself with enough of a cushion to survive the round, but real-life circumstances (read: university) prevented me from initiating a review until a few days ago; the review is still ongoing and I want to do a proper job, instead of rushing it for the sake of grabbing last-minute points. For these reasons, and because I cannot predict how much free time I will have for the next nine to ten weeks, I'm pulling out of the cup. Cheers, and best of luck to everyone involved, Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 23:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Should I still be updating submissions

Given that we're in a "break" between rounds, is it okay to still update the submission page (and the bot will pick it up when the next round start), or should I wait until the next round starts? HaEr48 (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe you will need to wait until the next round starts. Adding it now will confuse the bot. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, please do not make any further submissions until the second round has started on March 1st and the participants have been divided into pools on the new scoreboard. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Collaborative Writing Idea

Hi everyone!

I've identified a group of 17 list articles that with a fair amount of work, I believe could be brought to reach Good Topic or even Featured Topic status. By my calculations, if each individual article reached Featured List, and the group reached Featured Topic, this could be worth close to 1,000 points. However, the required amount of work is not insignificant. Since two or more competitors can all earn points for a single item, I'm looking for someone (or several someones) to collaborate on this project with me. If you are interested, please let me know. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Can you give a list here? Would be nice to know which topics we are talking about. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Sure. It's List of reportedly haunted locations and its many off-shoots. There are individual lists for 10 countries, 5 U.S. states, and Scotland. Here's what I think needs to be done:

On all lists:

1. Remove all unsourced entries.
2. Move all sourced entries for locations that do not currently have Wikipedia articles to a subpage as I have done at Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States/Sourced but not notable. Later we can evaluate if any of those places are notable, and if so perhaps write the article on them, get DYK credit for that, and move the entry back.
3. Evaluate the sourcing. A great many entries on these lists are sourced to blogs, self-published books, and generally unreliable sources. There's been concern in the past about where does one find a reliable source to say something is haunted; but keep in mind, we are not saying these places are haunted - merely that they have a reputation for being haunted. If they have been featured on a show like Ghost Hunters, it's because the reputation of the place was sufficient to attract interest of the show's producers. A mere assertion that they were featured on the show isn't enough; we need an additional source, and we need to be able to point to the specific episode. For some entries that are poorly sourced, one may be able to find better sources. Others will have to be removed.
4. Evaluate the level of detail for each entry. Some entries are one line consisting of little more than, "Place X is said to be haunted." Others go into excessive detail, going on for several paragraphs telling the ghost story. Ideally, each entry should be written in such a way as to interest the reader in learning more about the place and following the link back to the place's article.
5. Write a sufficient introduction for each list and sublist. Ideally, for List of reportedly haunted locations I'd like to see a very brief intro to each country exploring how the idea of ghosts or spirits are handled in their culture.
6. Watch the lists like a hawk - these lists are hard to maintain because they attract a lot of drive-by edits and attention from newbies who all want to add their favorite ghost story. Once we get them beat into shape they'll be hard to maintain.
7. Look to balance the list. If one country, state, province, county, or city has many, many entries but another one on the same list has only one, look to add to the area that is under covered, and consider breaking the one with too many entries off to another sub-list. However, be selective. If one hamlet has 500 entries, it may need to be trimmed further.

One thought I had was we could break it up geographically, and start small and work up. So, if we have 5 people working on the project, maybe start with the 5 U.S. states that have individual lists. Each person take one state and clean it up. Then move up to List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States - each person takes 10 states, counting the one they did the individual list for. Then the United States is done, 4 people move on to Reportedly haunted locations in the United Kingdom while the 5th moves on to one of the other 8 countries that have already been broken into individual lists. Etc., ending with the global list. Once the first of the 5 U.S. state articles is done, we try running it through Wikipedia:Featured list candidates and see what they say. Once we get one through the process, it'll give us a better idea of how to work on the rest. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the articles:

• Haunted locations
  • List of reportedly haunted locations
    • Ghosts in Bengali culture#Alleged haunted places
    • List of reportedly haunted locations in Canada
    • List of reportedly haunted locations in China
    • List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia
    • List of reportedly haunted locations in France
    • List of reportedly haunted locations in India
    • List of reportedly haunted locations in Mexico
    • List of haunted locations in the Philippines
    • List of reportedly haunted locations in Romania
    • Reportedly haunted locations in the United Kingdom
      • Reportedly haunted locations in Scotland
    • List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States
      • Reportedly haunted locations in California
      • Ghost legends of Indiana
      • Reportedly haunted locations in Oregon
      • Reportedly haunted locations in Pennsylvania
      • Reportedly haunted locations in the District of Columbia

Bonus points, work and scoring

Hi all, nice initiative here in the previous section, thanks ONUnicorn. But I have some questions about other points:

• how does the bonus system work? Where are the points that can be gained listed for that? What are the criteria, etc.?
• how much work in 2017 does count as "considerable contribution"
• is skipping a GA review before a FA review cheating/not the normal way in Wikipedia?

This is because of some of the early scores by some participants already starting this round. I see user Freikorps has gained a whopping 56 points for his GA M2M (band); 35 for the GA and 21 -unknown why/what for- "bonus points". But looking at the history of the article, just 11 kb has been added to the article and the state of the article at the end of 2016 was already close to what it is now. So it's very easy to quickly gain 56 points, while obtaining that performing proper GA reviews, composing a Featured List or any other work for the Cup is much more work to get that amount.

Also I saw the article Henry Conwell has been awarded FA status. For an article with just 31 references, a size of 21 kb that and having seen many other FAs, that seems very generous to gain 200 points in one go. My C-class articles have already 31 refs and some of them more size than this. A good article, ok, it is good. But featured?

I see in the history of the article that it was not even a GA before getting to FA status?! So skipping a (lengthy) process of GA review, gaining 35 points, which seems reasonable for an article of this volume, means the user has gained 200 points in one go, an almost impossible task to beat that using the normal process of writing/expanding an article -> GA nomination -> waiting until someone reviews it (can take weeks to months, even with the Reviews Needed table here) -> addressing the points that come up in the review -> GA (35 points) -> expanding and improving greatly to get an article from GA to FAC -> FAC review -> addressing those points -> getting FA approval and earning 200 (or 165 extra?) points.

IMHO, a Featured Article, certainly about someone/a topic of whom/which not too much information is available, should have included every bit of important information. Just googling on his name I find on page 10 of my Google search a link where it says "In 1834 Fr. Henry responded to a letter from Henry Conwell, the second Bishop of Philadelphia, asking for missionaries to help with German Catholic immigrants. Lemke was instrumental in creating the town of Carrolltown in western Pennsylvania". It seems pretty important that Conwell participated in helping German Catholic immigrants to the US in 1834, but that information is not in the article about Conwell. Considering all those points, I find a generous 200 points right at the first day of the second round incredible tbh. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bonus points are explained here. They are added based on the age of the article and by the number of languages the article exists for (a questionable but measurable way of determining how broad the importance the subject is).

Most articles do go through GA before FA, but it's not a requirement. The points you raise are better suited for the closer of the FAC. Aside from your points about how thorough the content is, I'm very surprised it closed as a pass with only three supports in 27 days.

The amount of work that needs to be done is up to the judges. They do review the material and can remove points if they feel something is amiss. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answers. I read those bonus points when starting the Cup, but I thought it meant to mean "FA in x number of Wikipedias", not "present in x number of Wikipedias". Indeed, it is very questionable. Before I started writing Spanish conquest of the Muisca, that was not an article anywhere, not even in Spanish. Now it is an extensive article but still unique. So in the case this article with the uniqueness of "our" en:wiki would go for FA, after considerable more work in 2017 by me, then I "only" get 200 points, while boosting an article about some pop singer that is on 100 Wikipedias already to FA would earn many many more points, while the informational value of a unique article on en:wiki about a notable subject, especially when it's related to a non-English language topic, would be much bigger. I would say that uniqueness is a plus, not the presence of stubs about topic X on so many other language wikis.

I would say that for FA review a first step is needed in GA, in all cases. Otherwise you miss the two-step process with more eyes watching over the content of an article that is showcased as a Featured Article. I know this is not the place to discuss to change the rules, but what then could be considered for the WikiCup is that "direct FA without GA Review first is gaining the 35 points you'd get for a GA review pass, and not 200 points for an FA without that two-step process". But that's up to the judges. Thanks again, Tisquesusa (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The idea that a GA review is a prerequisite to an FA review is one that I've never heard before. In fact, the FA process predates the existence of GAs by two years. One has nothing to do with the other. They are different processes with different standards. For what it's worth, I've written (or co-written) 22 FAs, 17 of which were GA at some point and 5 of which never were. Further, if I had put the Conwell article through both GA and FA, I would've earned 235 total points for the article, not just 200. You should feel free to attempt either path to FA if you ever decide to write one. If you need any help with the process, please feel free to contact me directly. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That you have 22 FAs approved only confirms my point; very easy to pass to FA, especially getting some friends to do it. And no, you wouldn't get 35 + 200 points as you wouldn't have done the double work. In fact, hardly notable work, tbh. Yes, GA and FA have everything to do with the other; they are the measures of quality used on Wikipedia and they are the ones that produce points in the WikiCup. But enjoy the free ride you've given yourself, you should feel proud for taking the easy route! Tisquesusa (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay I think it's best to remain civil here and not start to imply improprieties in the review process - to say "getting some friends to do it" and an "easy ride" is incredibly rude. Is there really anything in this contest worth getting that mad over?  MPJ-DK  00:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

...eh? Skipping GA (which, as already established, was not intended as a stepping stone to FA) doesn't make FAC any easier. "Double work" makes no sense – the amount of work is the same regardless of which path you follow to FAC. The FAC criteria are inherently more strict than GA, so anything which might have posed an issue at GAN will have to be addressed before promotion to FA. In any event, most GA reviews these days are quite superficial and tend not to prepare articles very well for FAC, so I'm not convinced that it makes much of a difference. Rest assured, nobody is trying to cheat you out of your points... most competitors even find it advantageous to help their "opponents" by reviewing articles or proposing collaborations, etc. When a fun contest starts driving you to post personal attacks it may be time to take a step back and get a fresh perspective. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"Very easy to pass to FA," is it? Then I'm sure you'll have no difficulty doing so yourself. Problem solved! Enjoy the rest of the competition. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the points reset after every round, so you don't need to beat an FA to move on right now. Last year, the minimum number of points required to move on to round three was 5. With that in mind, bypassing GA points to get FA points in this round seems like a waste of effort. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Submissions

Be careful to make your claims for points at the right time and in the correct round. For DYK and ITN, the applicable date is when you receive a notification on your talk page that the article concerned has appeared on the main page. For GAs, FAs, FLs, FPs and GARs etc., the applicable date is the date when the review is concluded. You then have 10 days to claim the points, apart from at the end of the round when you are limited by the closing date for the round. It is your obligation to make the claim in the correct round so as to be fair to other contestants. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: (This hasn't happened yet, just a question for clarity.) I'm likely to get rather busy around the ends of Round 2 and possibly Round 3 given some real life stuff. If a DYK runs less than 24 hours before the end of a round, would it be acceptable to claim on the next round? Or could I still claim on that current round but after the deadline, possibly? Wouldn't be trying to game the system, just not able to be at my computer up to the wire around that time of year. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Each case would have to be judged on its merits. I remember a past occasion when one of the judges was prepared, under similar circumstances, to make a submission on behalf of a contestant who was temporarily away from a computer and unable to make the claim themselves before the end of the round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawal from WikiCup

Hello! I would like to withdraw from the WikiCup as I no longer have an interest in it. I think it would be best if someone more motivated had a place in this round. Thank you for the opportunity. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Aoba47 is in one of the 8-editor pools. I'd recommend moving someone from a 9-editor pool into his pool to better equalize, given how we're already "above capacity". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Okay, that seems like an odd response to my message, but thank you for taking care of it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I'm not one of the people running the WikiCup, just giving my suggestion. From what I understand, we had a late entrant to the WikiCup, which resulted in everyone who scored points in last round moving to Round 2. Because a bunch of people tied with 4 points for the last scoring position, there are several groups operating with 9 people, and a few operating with 8 people. The intended size of Round 2 involved 8 person groups. It would be difficult (impossible?) to select another participant out of those who scored no points in Round 1, so I think it's optimal to smooth across groups instead of now having one group running with 7 editors while others run with 9 editors. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Aoba47:, I missed your post because other posts had already accumulated below it. We will be sorry to lose you, but perhaps you will take part in the WikiCup another year. As for BU Rob's suggestion, it might be sensible to take it up at this early stage in the round. Would you like to volunteer to move groups @BU Rob13:? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your message! Unfortunately, I will be too busy with work to keep with the WikiCup, but I am definitely open to taking part in another year. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I'm happy to move if that makes things easy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedians-in-residence

Are there any rules about submitting articles written as a (paid) Wikipedia-in-Residence to WikiCup? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No rules; do we need some? I personally would have no objection to someone claiming points for articles on which they did significant work as a Wikipedian-in-residence. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Paid to edit Wikipedia and partake in the WikiCup? Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie! ;) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Eh, just thought I'd ask in case someone had a problem with it. My WiR edits are under a different account, hopefully that won't confuse the bot. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hi. I signed up for WikiCip, but withdrew. However, is there a way to stoop me getting the monthly things on my talk page? Thanks, Tube Geek 77 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Tube Geek 77 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You can remove your name from this page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Round 1

Is Round 1 archived anywhere? I don't see a link for it in the template, just the signup. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I have just created it, WikiCup/History/2017/Round 1 but I still have to find out how to add it to the WikiCup template that appears at the foot of the WikiCup page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I believe you didn't intend that to be in the mainspace. Fixed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I did try to move the page that I had created by adding "Wikipedia:" on the front but the software would not permit it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK eligibility

I'm a WikiCup newcomer so I'm still learning the ropes. After taking another look at the DYK rules, it appears I may have submitted an ineligible DYK as articles promoted to GA status don't seem to be eligible for points. ("Only articles eligible for DYK through being newly created or newly expanded fivefold (not newly promoted to GA status) are eligible for WikiCup DYK points.") The bot, however, has already given me the points. I don't want to gain an unfair advantage so is there anything I should do? Or will the judges take care of it? Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: Yeah I did that accidentally too, but all you have to do is to remove that entry from your submissions: the bot will then remove the extra points from your total. Vanamonde (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As Vanamonde says, this article is not eligible for points as a DYK having already received points as a GA. I have removed the submission. Please also note that DYKs should not be submitted until the hook has appeared on the main page as mentioned here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 and Cwmhiraeth: Thank you. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawal

I'd like to withdraw from the completions, given the unfair and disappointing rules clarified just recently (see this conversation please.) As an editor, I may build the encyclopedia even while out of the competition, just what I had been doing so far. However, the disappointing fresh clarification, i.e. "Work done after nomination don't count", does not make me forget how you kindly let me in while I was late at the very beginning. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a very silly ruling. Is the point of the competition to improve content or satisfy some arbitrary rules? What's the justification for not counting work done in response to a GA review? I'm fairly bewildered by this. Would one get points if they nominated something for GA, received a review, withdrew the nomination, did the work, and then re-nominated? Receiving and acting on suggestions is a normal part of the content improvement process. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The rule states "All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you during the competition to receive additional points. "Drive by" nominations are not permitted. This does not mean that you have to be the primary author, though it is preferable. Merely copyediting or wikifying an article does not constitute "significant work", but if you are one name on a joint nomination, you may claim points." In this instance, Mhhossein did not edit the article during the course of the contest before nominating the article in question for GAN. It is apparent from the rule that wikifying or copyediting is insufficient in itself, and here we have less than that, no edits at all. Although deciding precisely what constitutes "significant work" is difficult, the rule is fair and respected by the majority of contestants. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The reviewer admitted that I did "significant work" in order to promote the article. The article readable prose size were 6481 characters before I start the edits aimed at promoting the article, and it's 8619 characters now. I started my edits after I entered WikiCup. Before the nomination, the article in question seemed ready for promotion in my opinion as the page creator and the main contributor. So, why would I have done significant edits before the nomination? That's not fair. Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This is an incredibly frustrating discussion to read. Mhhossein, by your own admission, you believed that the article was ready for GA status prior to your "arrival" at the article this year. And you want to claim points for it. I think that really speaks for itself. I know how exciting it is to attack the judges and play the victim, but maybe we could calm this down a little? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively: If you are committed to withdrawing, just go. There's no need for a dramatic exit, unless you're committed to stirring up trouble. If you are committed to stirring up trouble, dare I suggest you just leave anyway? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Pity it happened this way, Mhhossein. While I don't think the work you did on that specific article was "substantial" (enough), the judges have apparently changed the rules. I asked the question specifically last year still: "does work done during the GA/FA review count"? And the answer was: "if it's substantial, yes, but don't count on it". Now, they have changed their narrative to "any edit needs to be before nominating the article for GA/FA, edits as part of the GA/FA Review are not considered work in 2017". Changing the rules during a Cup is of course not fair at all, so I can understand your frustration, although on that specific point I don't agree with you. The Cup seems a buddy contest anyway, with marginal articles reaching FA status, marginal articles boosted to GA in meagre "reviews", just to score points, no extra points for double work on DYK + GA, but 200 points for FAs that are not really FAs, etc. Doesn't give a good message, but the Holy Judges Will Decide After All. Enjoy, Tisquesusa (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That is unfair. In practice, work done in response to a review process has not generally been counted in the "significant work" metric, but it has sometimes tipped it over the edge. The rule has generally been work, review, promotion, points; any tweaking of that formula has raised questions. Even the quote you've raised is alluding to that. As for the rest of what you're saying: If you have evidence of abuse of the review processes, please bring it forward. (And I'm afraid I've no idea what "extra points for double work on DYK + GA" is meant to mean.) I'm not sure what the snide remarks about the judges are supposed to achieve, but I'm pretty convinced that they're not constructive. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Some competitors think it's unfair that articles qualifying for DYK under "recent GA promotion" are not eligible for DYK points. Pointing out that it's double-dipping and effectively just makes GAs worth 5/10 more points doesn't sway them. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:CIVIL - can we please keep that in mind no matter how upset someone is?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Cwmhiraeth I guess I'm still not getting this. You quoted the rule, but I see nothing in there that specifies the substantial work must come before the nomination. What sentence do you believe gives that impression? The drive-by nominations bit, maybe? Everything mentioning the "substantial work" only states it must happen during the competition when it comes to time period. That would presumably include after the nomination. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This has always been the interpretation of the rules in past years and is why there are few FAs in the opening round. If your interpretation were correct, someone who did no work on an article before nominating it for GAN would not qualify for points if their article was speedily passed but would if numerous points were raised at the review. At the close of the competition the rules will need clarification in this respect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Work is work. I must say I am not pleased that the judges are trying to judge "intent" now ... Was the work "substantial"? If it was, and it occurred during the competition, I would think it counts. Many people nominate for GA expecting that there will be substantial work done during the review. Given the backlog, often people nominate and THEN work - is that disallowed now? That would appear to be the end result of this rule. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

To address a point raised earlier by a disgruntled editor, the judges have nothing to do with how the various content processes like DYK, FA and GA evaluate the work submitted to them by editors; the only thing that we evaluate are GA reviews so that people don't try and submit superficial reviews. So address any complaints about the lack of quality of those promoted articles to the delegates and admins in charge of those processes, not here.

It is our mistake not to have made explicit the implicit point that work done in response to a review doesn't count for eligibility in the Cup. We've denied nominations for this as long as I've been judging the Cup and I see no reason to change now. Frankly, it's rarely an issue after the first round because virtually all articles do need work before they're ready for DYK, etc. so they will qualify. The intent of our interpretation is to prevent people from stockpiling articles from the year before and then nominating them during the year at the most advantageous moments. This might strike some as an unlikely tactic, but we've seen all sorts of attempts to gain points illegitimately over the years, not that I believe that Mhhossein was trying to do anything underhanded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Josh Milburn: Your annoying language speaks as if I'm the only editor not satisfied with the Cup situation. At least, they admitted that they had to "have made explicit the implicit point that work done in response to a review doesn't count for eligibility in the Cup". Rules are set to have a fair cup. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Unless you can point to a time this year when the judges allowed someone else to do something you weren't allowed to do, calling the rules "unfair" is baseless. At best, you can say the rules were "unclear", but that's already been acknowledged. You seem to be taking all of this very personally. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Argento Surfer: Things are finished for me here in this cup. The spirit of the cup is to contribute to the Encyclopedia, what I'm doing now. Btw, nothing is personal here, you can see how some other users called it "silly" and "unfair". --Mhhossein ^talk 16:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you believe my language indicates that I'm annoyed, not that you think my language is "annoying". In any case, I have never said or suggested that you are the only person who is unhappy with the WikiCup. I certainly don't believe that; some people seem to make a game out of moaning about the WikiCup. Whatever helps them sleep at night. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The WikiCup is just a game, the much bigger theme is the expansion of Wikipedia. But in a game rules are clear and fair. As it is admitted, the rule about "content added because of reviews is not eligible as 'work'" has not only been unclear, it has been broken. I asked this specific question last year before the cup started and two contributors reacted to it. Similarly for the FA class that gained 200 points; the rules say "in the end the judges decide", but 11 kb work and a smooth "review" were enough to gain all those points. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if you don't name names, it still counts as uncivil if you fling around gratuitous insults against your fellow editors. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein, we are sorry that you have withdrawn from the contest. There will be a discussion on scoring at the end of the year, and the judges acknowledge that the present rules may need clarification before next year. I hope you will join us again in 2018.

With regard to the points raised by Tisquesusa, some featured articles may be much longer than others, it depends on the nature of the subject, but all that pass will have been considered sufficiently comprehensive and otherwise meeting the FA criteria. The FA review process is open to all so you can comment there during the review if you wish. I don't think you would want the judges to give a quality judgement to each FA, and so all FAs are given the same 200 points (+ bonus points). FAs are available to all, and if you or anyone else find the process daunting, you can always collaborate with another editor, inside or outside the Cup. My first FA was a collaboration with Casliber during the 2012 WikiCup, and I learned a lot from him about the FA requirements and review process. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: You're welcome and I already thanked for accepting my belated request. Clarifying the rules would be a great improvement. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)