Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2019/2

Mass Message to competitors

Currently, I count almost a dozen competitors with 0 points so far this round, and some others with only a few entries. Would it make sense to send a mass message, like the one discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2019/1#Message to users with no points, to all competitors for Round 2, reminding them that the end of the round is approaching? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to try for a Signpost article again, if we can get the newsletter or the end of round out quickly. Something like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-05-17/Wikicup Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 00:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I support that, but I don't see them as mutually exclusive - a message would remind competitors to score more points before the round ends, while a Signpost article would inform the community at large of the current status of the competition, right? Or am I missing something? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, nothing exclusive, just a related matter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 02:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning, but I did a little sort of the participants, and the current cut for progression is higher than previous years, at 12 points. (That's if I've done my maths right, of course) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Higher than many years, but not all - in 2017 it took 98 points to advance, and in 2014 it took 192 points! Guettarda (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, those years were nuts! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That said, scoring has varied. Did 2014 have the edit counter points still? It was an idea that was dropped later. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 15:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Was that before or after they cut the points for DYK? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like that was after the cut - in 2014 DYKs were 5 or 10, like now. FAs, on the other hand, were only 100 points. Guettarda (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That said, I think that was the old bonus system, so 100 points for an FA could easily multiply upwards. Didn't someone win the last round of the Wikicup once by bringing Sea to FA status? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 06:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: yeah, Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletters#WikiCup 2013 October newsletter - Sea was worth 720 points. Also, to see just how different the old bonus system was, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2013/Submissions/Cwmhiraeth --DannyS712 (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Aye. I'm not saying Cwmhiraeth could ever NOT deserve huge amounts of praise for what he does. However, my own past experience with the Wikicup is that even attempting to compete in the final round as anything but a writer of Featured articles will make you burn out terribly, and the old system was particularly bad in that respect as everything article related wa potentially s getting massive modifiers, while FPs and everything else got none. Honestly, I don't think I could do substantially better than I did this round without either massively gaming the system - holding back restorations from judgement for most of the competition in order to drop them at the end, or giving up all social life to FP creation, and burning out again (and probably still not winning). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 06:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of objections, I have  sent the reminder --DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

In years I have participated, sometimes I go through the participant list and find users that have 0 points that also have a GA nominated and then go review that GA. Something that could be done if anyone was so inclined. I know of at least one case of that, and I am sure there are more. Kees08 (Talk) 20:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw

Hiya, can you withdraw me? Also I recommend increasing GAN reviewer points for next year—makes sense to incentivize the biggest backlog affecting the cup. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 13:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: Right, I have marked you as withdrawn. We will have a discussion at the end of the competition on whether any scoring changes should be made before next year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Mostly restorations" (newsletter)

Which of my FPs weren't restorations last round? I don't mind really, but as restoring images is the only thing that makes them worth points in the WikiCup besides photography (which I definitely didn't do)... I'm a little worried as to what I may have done wrong... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 18:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Mass message delivery to Portal talk:Current events

For some reason, the WikiCup newsletter has been delivered to Portal talk:Current events since May 2017, however I cannot find it on the mailing list. This has become more of an issue since the November 2018 newsletter, when they started to become unsigned, and so do not get archived. If anyone can unsubscribe the page from the newsletter, that would be appreciated. Danski454 (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Danski454: User talk:Candlewicke for some ungodly reason redirects to Portal talk:Current events. Yes, this is madness. He was removed from the mailing list in this edit so it shouldn't be a problem, and I think I might undo that redirect. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 06:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured Sounds

I realise that I'm going to be told to hold it until the end of this year's competition, but with Commons:COM:FSC having started up and going well, I think we should consider it for inclusion here. I'd say any files must be used on en-wiki to qualify for points, though. Perhaps 5 points for uploading a file, documenting it, getting it through FSC, etc, and 30 additional points for creators/restorers/negotiators of release? I think en-wiki has traditionally been appallingly bad at getting sound files, so I'd say that driving people to try it - without overbalancing the competition - is a very good idea. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 06:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure! As you say, it needs discussion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

File:FrederickFleet.April1912.jpg

My feeling is that I haven't done enough - maybe an hour of work at best - to make this claimable. My normal ones are generally between, I don't know, 5-20 hours, depending on image? More if you count documentation and research time, which can be fairly extensive in some cases. Judges, what do you think? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 02:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The judges cannot tell how much work you have put into any restoration. If you think that any particular featured picture doesn't deserve to score, don't submit it! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Think I might skip this one, then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 11:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawal

With a heavy heart, I am requesting to withdraw from this year's WikiCup. I love this competition and think that it is exactly what Wikipedia needs. Unfortunately, I must find that my way of editing does not allow me to be competitive. I focus on few, long articles and bringing them to FA status. If it takes three months for a GA review to be picked up and then the FA review fails simply because no one chips in, I find that I cannot acquire enough points to continue. The length of the articles that I work on apparently scares away potential reviewers. This is very frustrating to me, but I cannot help it. I wish all competitors the very best for the coming rounds, you are all awesome! <3 Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase - Do you have any outstanding reviews? I don't mind taking a look (I need them points.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the offer, but no outstanding reviews at the moment. I need to re-admit my FA reviews, but I am quite discouraged at the moment to do so... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase - Thats a shame! I like your content. I'd review some F1 GAs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I've run into this before myself. I suggested adding points for FA reviews to increase participation, but it didn't gain any traction. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Yeah, I don't really know what to do about that as well. I am very much unsure wether adding FAR to the WikiCup would be any help. I can see in myself, that when I do a lot of editing, I hardly find the time to do FA reviews too. @Lee Vilenski: Thank you for your kind words! I am sure I will have something to review quite soon, 1998 Tour de France is on a good way towards a GA review, if you are interested in cycling as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

FAR/FAC reviews could do with being a thing. Hardly any editor really chime in there (especially outside of subject area), and could do with additional eyes. Points given once review is of certain length, on digression of judges. I'll review whatever. I have a load of outsanding GAs (and an FAC) which I don't want to add to much more to the backlog right now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll chuck FLC reviews in the mix as well if that discussion is starting. Kosack (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly unfortunate that Zwerg Nase is withdrawing because of lack of reviewers at FAC. I am hesitant to do any reviewing of contestant's articles because it might be viewed as reducing my impartiality as a judge. ZN, I hope you will have better luck next year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawal request

Hello. I would like to be withdrawn from the WikiCup as I will be limiting my Wikipedia time and activity. The work done by all of the editors is very inspiring though. It will be cool to see how it all turns out. Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this post. See you next year, perhaps? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Header

My changes to the archive box were reverted with the subject line "Nothing wrong with the old one." Yes, there was something wrong - it wasn't searchable. I wanted to find old discussions about credits for FAR/FAC and couldn't. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Not that I care how it looks, but you can search archives by putting prefix:Wikipedia Talk:WikiCup/Archive in the search bar, prefixed by the search term. Hope that helps. (Although, it would be good to have an actual search bar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It was at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Good Article Reviews, so you wouldn't have found it in the archives here anyway. It wasn't much of a discussion - the only response was "Points for chiming in at FACs? Yikes, that's a slippery slope if ever I've read one." by User:DarthBotto. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information. I see that @Lee Vilenski favors a search bar. @Argento Surfer, what do you think? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't like it aesthetically because it centers a few characters and leaves lots of dead space, but maybe that's adjustable with some more code? Even if it's not, it seems like a helpful function to include and I don't see any reason to oppose it. I played with it and realized that it does search through subpages as well, so the discussion I linked would have come up in the results (if you search it right). Argento Surfer (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The existing header doesn't look great either with that huge, nearly empty white box. The formatting could be improved by some variation on removing the bullets. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm used to that :) Argento Surfer (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A search box has been added to Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Header while retaining the existing formatting, although I'll need to fix the width of the right panel. SounderBruce 19:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That solves the basic problem, but just to illustrate an alternative I have substituted a compact archivebox. If the consensus is to keep the other version, fine. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be better formatted, and retain the links found in the old box (namely, the FAQ and user submissions lists). SounderBruce 23:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the time to solve those problems, so I have restored the other version. RockMagnetist(talk) 14:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK on 29 June

Hi, Birjis Qadr, an article nominated by me for DYK has been promoted on 29 June, one day after the latest round has been completed. Am I eligible to claim points for it in the next round, provided I qualify ? RRD (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe they go for the next round. Kosack (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it will get you off to a flying start in the next round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ineligible submissions

Certain contestants have made submissions for points outside the allowed time frame. The rule states "In the spirit of fair play, contestants have 14 days to nominate their work after promotion (for good and featured content), appearance on the main page (for did you knows and in the news articles) or the completion of good article reviews. Work submitted after this time is no longer eligible." I am removing the ineligible submissions, and this will affect which contestants move on to the next round. If any contestant were to put forward a valid reason for a late submission, this decision could be reconsidered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth, my submission of Template:Did you know nominations/2018 European Pool Championship was actually submitted the day it was on DYK, (2 June), but when I put my next DYK on, I realised that I had only put the template on the submission page, and not the link to the article. It looks like this was the reason it was pulled, but this was more of an oversight, as I had already been awarded the points.

Is this a problem? I can provide diffs if this is an issue. Thank you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I have looked into the course of events and I agree that your explanation is reasonable, so I have reinstated your DYK submission. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The bot seemed to have missed some of my points...

I added Chesma to my FPs early this morning when it passed, but the bot's run at 8, and didn't add the points for it. Is this a minor blip, or did I do something wrong? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 12:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And now (after another passed) it's updated my points as if I had three FPs, not four... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 16:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what the problem is, but the one that has not gone through is Chesma. I suggest you try submitting it again, and if your score is updated this time, we can delete the original submission. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I have done so. I believe the bot runs in about an hour and a half? If I end up with double points, my apologies. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs}

Right. It gave points for the second one. I'm going to delete the first Chesma and hope for the best. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 22:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Good! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK

I just noticed the approved queue for DYK has 181 artcles in it... and DYK updates once a day. How does anyone ever get DYK points in early rounds of the competition? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 01:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Submitting an article and getting it approved within the first week of a round tends to work. The DYK queues do move pretty fast compared to the glacial pace at GAN (where I have holdovers from last year's cup). SounderBruce 02:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I have one waiting since June 2nd. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 03:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That's normal for the "high" season of DYKs. Sometimes the coordinators will switch to two sets per day to cut the queue, but otherwise it will take over a month because there's only so much room in section. SounderBruce 04:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

FA requiring attention Suggestion

An Featured Article nomination that might concern this competition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2018 World Snooker Championship/archive2 requires additional commentary and support/opposes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Woman Suffrage Procession

Just to get this out there before everyone's rushing to deal with everything else related to round end - and I don't imagine it really affects the progression much - but this is a delist and replace of an image I did several years back with a completely new restoration from a better source I did this month, and, as such, I believe the new FP qualifies here. If there's any objection to this, please discuss here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 03:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass Mail

Hi all,

As it's only around a week to go before the deadline, would a mass message to the mail-list be a good idea to get some more eyes on the competition? I don't think it's needed to let anyone competing know, but might be good to push one out now, and one before the final round. Thoughts? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think we need a mass message at this point. Scoring has been brisk and the round is quite competitive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Bonus points

Hi! I recently submitted a GA article for Daryl Peach, the bot awarded 1.2x multiplier, but I as far as I can tell it's only linked to four other wikis. Is the Initial wiki (the English one) included in the 5 languages multiplier?

Also, just a quick note, I had to change the link for one of my articles so that it showed the correct GAR. As this popped up before, I'd just like to comment that I fixed the link for 2019 Six-red World Championship. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

With regards to your first point, yes, English counts as one of the language versions, so that four other languages gives you a 1.2 multiplier and nine, a 1.4 multiplier. I'm not sure about your second point. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosa Parks

Quite pleased with my newest FP, File:Rosa Parks being fingerprinted by Deputy Sheriff D.H. Lackey after being arrested for refusing to give up her seat for a white passenger on a segregated municipal bus in Montgomery, Alabama.jpg. Though given it took a week to do it, I do worry that FPs might be a little undervalued... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 18:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We'll have a discussion about the scoring after the end of the round. Of course you could choose easier restorations that would take you less long, but I can see you are very conscientious and like the challenge of a difficult task. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

True, but easy ones are kind of exchanging research time for less difficulty. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 23:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Also, isn't it kind of cheating to work under the level you can work for two months? I suppose I could've saved some FPs back from submission in previous rounds, but, again, that felt a little cheaty... Although I'm also pretty sure most contestants do it and I have no problem when they do it, so.. uh... AND for that matter, I kind of did hold back two, because I was trying to get better resolution of some points that apparently no-one but me cares about.

I dunno. Maybe we should put extra points on FPs above a certain number of megapixels. That's generally a good measure of amount of work, or, at least, the fairest non-subjective measurement. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7% of all FPs} 20:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor thing, but...

I made a typo when submitting an FP earlier today: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Iris Calderhead instead of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Iris Calderhead. I got the points, but if the bot's meant to be checking anything about nominations, it's not. This may be for the best, though; minor typos probably shouldn't cost points. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.1% of all FPs} 21:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Timing

I have a nomination where voting closes at around 9 pm on the 31st. Nothing can change in voting after that time. However, the actual promotion won't necessarily happen right away. It's a strict, numeric counting, so it's unambiguous as to whether it's passed once voting closes. Which is the limit: the end of voting or the time it's added to the featured pictures? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.1% of all FPs} 05:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the relevant time is when the file is promoted (07:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC) in the case of this file). Submissions need to be made before the deadline of 23.59 (UTC) on 31 October, but allowance would be made for late submissions of files/articles that were promoted in the last few hours of the competition, to make allowance for editors living in different time zones. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Thought it better to ask now, rather than have to argue it afterwards. Better to have judgements before they matter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.1% of all FPs} 07:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, uh...

Reviewers seem to have dried up at FPC for the moment, which probably ends my run. And, while productive (I have 10 FPCs up at the moment, last I counted), I think I can certainly point to some impressive feats:

• 
• 

Dare you to remove writing that well.

Ach, but, really, it's just depressing. It's the first time I ever even had a chance at winning out of all the, what, ten or so Wikicups I've been in, and I hit reviewer burnout, because the number of FPs required is too high to realistically process. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.1% of all FPs} 16:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a very impressive restoration. But creators and improvers of articles sometimes face similar frustrations when their FACs and GANs go unreviewed, or their DYKs remain unpromoted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the base points are worth slightly more for GAs, and a lot more for FAs, and bonus points can make them worth a lot more. And people on here actually do each others' GA and FA reviews. I get it, it's just frustrating. I'm pretty sure I have more FPs than any other person in the history of Wikipedia, and this is easily my best year ever. And it still looks impossible to make any progress. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.1% of all FPs} 21:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any almost-closed nominations that are lacking votes? Were some recently closed without consensus? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: My experience is if there isn't votes after the first 2-3 days, it won't be able to catch up. The time at the top of the list is crucial. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.1% of all FPs} 06:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

...I appear to have been wrong. In any case, this has been my most productive week ever, I'm pretty sure, and I think I can provably say my best year ever, given the old record was 81 (in 2014), and I'm at 76.5 already. I may have gotten a little obsessed with winning, and near-literally stopped doing anything but restorations and eating for a week... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.1% of all FPs} 07:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Fun fact: It looks like my FPs for this round alone will make up pretty near 0.5% of the total Featured Pictures on English Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 21:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi! I just wanted to thank the cup judges, and in particular Cwmhiraeth for creating and running this competition this year. This was the first time I have entered, but it was definitely a fun structure to contribute too. I know the scoring isn't completely finalised, but a big thanks to everyone in the 105 entrants to the tournament, and the several hundred featured items over the course of the competition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised you (presumably) didn't win, Lee. Luck of the dates to closing of things is the only reason. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 09:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I did spend last night hoping my FAC would close before time, but regardless, the amount of featured pictures you worked through deserved the win. Close run thing, I'm looking forward to next year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and congratulations to all the finalists, especially Adam, Lee and Casliber who were running neck and neck, and any of whom could have won had any of the featured picture reviews not attracted enough attention or the FAC reviews ended with promotion before rather than after the deadline. It was an exciting final. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations to all and thank you to the judges! I am hoping that next year I can get into the running as well :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Echoing Lee, it was fun to participate in my first ever WikiCup, though I definitely lost steam at the end. It definitely encouraged me to go big, and happy to get my first FA out of this. Thanks to the judges as well. Enwebb (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks to everyone. It was very close, and deservedly so. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 23:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, congratulations to the podium finishers. I hope to join y'all up there next year. SounderBruce 04:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Counting highlighted content on Commons used in Wikipedia articles

Thanks to the organizers, and congrats to Adam and all of you other content-creating machines who made it to the final round! :)

Since there's a relatively short window between events, I'd like to bring back a discussion I started earlier this year concerning highlighted content on Commons used on the English Wikipedia. It was suggested at the time that we revisit it at the end.

The archived thread is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2019/1#Commons_QIs,_VIs,_FPs_used_in_enwiki_articles.

Here's the original context: I was talking with someone about the German WikiCup, and learned that they award points for original images promoted to QI, VI, or FP on Commons and then used on Wikipedia (i.e. promotion on Commons alone isn't enough -- it has to be in the article). A VI on Commons is, by definition, representative of the best we have to offer for a particular subject/scope. Such images are often not right for FP, but have undeniably high encyclopedic value. QI is about the quality of the image, not "value," but adding a Quality Image to an article can, of course, have a marked improvement on the article. It seems like these are things that could easily be encouraged through this contest. Maybe something like a QI used in an article=4 points, VI used in an article=15 points, FP used in an article (regardless of Commons or enwiki FP)=30 points. I don't have strong opinions about the point values, though, and others in the thread did. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean,this primarily benefits me, and that's awkward I can usually get a VI if I try with my images, so that's worth noting. Commons FP counting may lead to a lot of extra work making sure images don't appear twice in separate rounds, not that I'd do that. I do think 35 would be a fairer score for FPs, but after that week and a bit I spent pretty much every waking moments on restorations or eating, I've shown it is possibl e to win as scores are. But I'm probably never going to be able to do that again. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 22:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, it would've primarily benefited you this time. Who knows what happens next time? :P Even beyond thinking about new people, didn't Godot13 win based largely on images, too?

Regardless, who it would help doesn't seem so relevant. The question is whether it's something that could be motivated by this contest and/or whether it would encourage people to participate and/or whether it would improve Wikipedia beyond what would be improved anyway. I think the answer to all of those is yes. If there's a concern that it would give an unfair advantage to people who work with images (and I don't know that that would be true, necessarily), then points could be adjusted a bit. Mixed feelings about that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

We'd need to set effort levels on VI. Like, my image for Frances Willard - the lead; a bit small, but otherwise pretty decent, or this image of Rosika Schwimmer, where I removed the big damage, but didn't despeckle the background becaue I was extremely unhappy with the pre-done crop, and didn't want to have to do it over when a better copy came available - would be justified; but if I just did a levels adjustment on File:Georges Rochegrosse - Jules Massenet - Roma - Original.jpg, it probably shouldn't. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 03:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Presumably, we're specifically talking about "effort level" when it comes to improvements to existing images, not, of course, new images. From what I've gathered, "effort level" is kind of an honor system sort of thing. There were a couple FPs I got this year that were images I had taken previously but spent a long time working on afterwards. There was at least one other which was similar, but I didn't change all that much so didn't claim it. I think you already do something similar with yours, and that you're concerned about it at all makes me think this isn't really a big problem... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean, there's effort level for new images. But it's a low bar. Unless you're driving a Google Maps-style van around and auto-photoing everything, you're probably fine... Anyway, even if we don't specify, it's probably worth having loose language about effort. Because implied rules kinda suck. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 05:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You will need to make some concrete proposals on how this would work and how it could be scored. Who decides whether an image is a VI or a QI? Does it have to be added to an article having not been there before? Does it have to be uploaded, improved or whatever by the submitter, or merely added to the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

COM:VIC and COM:QIC, I'd imagine. They're different processes. No point giving points merely for nominating it there, or putting it in articles, though, same rules as the image eligibility for FPC. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 11:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, VI/QI/FP are all separate processes with their own system of promotion.

The reason I mentioned that they should be included in an article above is because of QI. It's possible to take 10 very very similar images of the same subject and have them all be QI, but they don't really add that much beyond the first one. I can also just take QIs of every object in my house, and if the quality is technically good, it'll be promoted. So "used in an article" for QI. "Used in an article" in general is kind of tricky, because anyone can add their own image, and likewise someone could remove it just before the points are assigned. That's sort of true for Wikipedia article text, too, but someone's not going to replace the whole text of one article with another in a single edit (or, well, it's rare at the level we're talking about). Regardless, "used in an article" would be necessary for QI.

For Commons FP, it's a little less clear. In that case, many people are required to support it as one of the best images on Commons, and educational value is one of the considerations. It strike me as acceptable to award points for Commons FPs that aren't used in articles, but I could see where some would object to that (this is a Wikipedia contest, after all, not Commons). Curious what people think.

Regarding uploaded, improved, etc. I think it would be the same rules as exist currently for FP (and most other things): some substantial work needs to have been done during the contest period. Doesn't necessarily mean a new upload, but can't just be a quick edit. Whether or not the judges want to simplify things by saying new files only or any new version of an existing upload counts, that's up to you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Featured sound candidates

Admittedly, the process looks a little moribund at the moment, but I'm going to suggest we add Commons:Featured sound candidates to the scoring, and would suggest 40 points as the scoring, 4 for files not edited or made by the nominator (same requirements as FPC files). We can reduce points in future, but I think this one is worth trying to get off the ground as much as possible. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 11:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Some context: Featured Sounds and Featured Videos are relatively new processes. Previously, videos were somewhat awkwardly covered by FPC, but we at FPC didn't have clear standards and people were often reluctant to nominate/evaluate. They were separated some months ago. FSC never really got off the ground, having promoted only a handful of clips, and I don't know if it ever will, sadly. There just aren't enough people on Commons who know about audio to participate in the process of determining which are the best. And so few people even upload audio. FVC has been a little more productive, slowly developing some standards. It's still a lot more sparse than FPC, though. The current issue, especially with FSC, is that we don't even have great documentation of how to tell someone what to look/listen for, and we're short on really good content. So if anyone uploads anything made using any sort of real equipment, it's pretty likely to meet the standards and will come down to whether 7 people like it or not based on near-arbitrary criteria. Maybe that's ok, especially for a new process, but seems worth noting.

All of that aside, I like the idea of trying to boost a fledgling highlighted content process by incorporating it into a contest that already gets a lot of participation. There's certainly an opportunity to include more sounds on Wikipedia. Maybe worth a try. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's Not that new and currently dormant on WP. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Adam linked to the Commons process, which was indeed launched more recently. Or, I guess it would be more accurate to say relaunched or something. Either way, the processes, criteria, and culture around it are undeveloped, as above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's on, right???

I've been waiting for weeks now! Is the WikiCup official on yet? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

yes, and no. Bare in mind that any interested editor can sign up until the 31st. I'd recommend advertising the competition, as it's a little thin on participants so far this year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, now that my dodgy internet connection has recovered, it is up and running. I am doing a bit of advertising and I expect we will soon have a flood / trickle of new participants. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Changes to scoring and rules?

I have opened a scoring and rules discussion on the "Scoring" talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Did any scoring/rule change proposal get implemented? HaEr48 (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite a lot Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring shows the amounts. FA reviews and more points for ITNs are the take homes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I like the changes - they are in the right direction IMO, and small enough to be safe. HaEr48 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

nav box

The nav box was redirecting to the 2019 contestants page, so I updated it -- just letting someone here know as those pages only have 1 watcher. [[1]] [[2]] --valereee (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Flag for me

If the one I chose will not do, switch it with File:Women's Suffrage Flag (United States).svg, please. Cheers! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 07:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Advertisement

I have created Template:WikiCup invitation, with the intent that folks can post it to the WikiProjects they are involved in, or other relevant places. Feel free to substitute it around. The more the merrier! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, CaptainEek, that's great! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Rules clarification

Since FPC is somewhat different to other featured content processes, I'm going to suggest three possibilities, with examples, to see how the application of the new rule that content need not be worked on in 2020 applies, because I think we kind of rushed the discussion.

1: With no further changes, I nominate File:Randolph Caldecott - Picture Book No. 1 - page 7 - The Diverting History of John Gilpin, Illustration 5 (2nd colour).jpg, an image I finished editing in 2014. Does it count?

2. I finish the nine-item set of images which File:Paul Lormier - Costumes for Hector Berlioz's Benvenuto Cellini (1838) - No. 6 - Ciseleur. M. Wartel, (Francesco) - Restoration.jpg is a part of. This image was finished in 2015, but the other images in the set (including the super-difficult File:Paul Lormier - Costumes for Hector Berlioz's Benvenuto Cellini (1838) - No.9 - Balducci.jpg) are finished this year. Do the old images count?

3. Same as 2, but with minor additional work on the older images. (This was likely within the previous status quo)

4. An image I finished and uploaded in the November-December period (not that there are any, but it's a good theoretical case), but nominated in January.

5. File:Fannie Lou Hamer 1964-08-22.jpg alongside major content work to 1964 Democratic National Convention that makes it much more valuable.

6. (The previous status quo) A half-finished image from previous years that was finished in 2020.

As I read the rule, all six would count, albeit mitigated by the fact that if I tried to win the final round with such tactics as repeated use of Example-1-type-behaviour, I'd rightfully be disqualified. Before, only 6 and, depending on the details, 3 would have counted. I'd say that Example 1 seems outside the spirit of the rules, and perhaps the rules should be tweaked to note that. The rest are at least arguable to varying degrees but are we alright wth those cases counting? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 08:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 07:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've not followed the discussion, but could I ask that if these rules have been changed, the judges update Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring? This still has the old "must have been worked on this year" rule. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn:, Thanks, I thought I had updated the scoring page but missed that change. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden:, that is a tricky question. The judges can easily tell what work has been done on articles, by whom and when, but the same is not true of FPC. Have you any suggestion as to how one could word a rule that required FPC to be recent (within the previous 12 months)? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

How about "Must have had the last upload no earlier than 12 months previous to the start of the round it's claimed for"? It's not perfect, but with context, like "the Wikicup is intended to create new content so..." anything too egregious can be handled. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 20:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Does this mean examples 2 and 5 are rejected, then? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 20:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I would say 4 and 6 were fine, but the judges would probably have to AGF many FP submissions because they would not know the image's history. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to act in good faith in the absence of guifance as to what is, though. The old rules were unambiguous as to expectations. With the change, we need guidance as to what acting in good faith means. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 22:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FA reviews

If anyone would like advice on featured article reviewing feel free to leave a note here or on my talk page. I am also on discord and IRC. I cannot promise I will have the time to respond and that it will be done in a timely manner, but hopefully I can get you started off on the right foot. I can also review your review, be it a content, image, or source review. Kees08 (Talk) 17:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: I would, actually - I've been meaning to review more FAs to improve my own article writing at FA, and any pointers (especially diff from GA reviewing) would be appreciated. Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem, where would you prefer I talk it over, on your talk page? Or do you happen to be on Discord or IRC? Kees08 (Talk) 16:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk page is good :) Kingsif (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)