Ok folks, next running will be from 00:01 1st March 2015 to 23:59 31st March 2015 - Greenwich Mean Time......now, first up, who wants to help me judge it? cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great news, but frankly that seems a bit soon. I think the contest needs much better publicity, which means a longer run up. WMUK may be able to help. At the least a watchlist notice ahead of the launch, a signpost feature, a WMF blog and postings to mailing lists. You won't do that in 36 hours. I don't think I will be participating this year, so would be available to judge. Running it in April (as in 2013 and 2014), or say 15 Mar-15 April would be better. This page is only on 145 watchlists, and as always many of those will have ceased editing by now. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Thanks for alerting the signpost, I'd forgotten about them. Have alerted vital article, good article, FAC talk pages and village pump. As well as central alert template. Any other places? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John this sounds remarkably quick off the mark, but good luck! I'll get a watchlist notice up for you now. Running until say 5 March, to allow for late signups?
I'd offer to help out as a judge, but I'm away on holiday first week of April and I don't think escaping as soon as the decisions need made would be very useful ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two issues here. The vital topic is the conquest of the Aztec empire. But I do think we need an overview article summarizing the process of Spanish conquest of New Spain - including subsections for Chiapas, Yucatan, Guatemala, Central Mexico, Oaxaca, Nuev Galicia, Panuco etc.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·20:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the time there was no geopolitical entity called Mexico. I would recommend digging into the Aztec Empire article rather than creating a parallel article under a similar name. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't this at WP:Core Contest? See WP:THE for my reason; while naming conventions don't apply to project pages, it seems (at least to me) that the spirit of the convention should be followed here. As far as I can tell, only 72 project pages begin with "The" (if we exclude redirects and subpages), and most of them are essays and the like. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I wasn't sure if you meant "not interested" or "opposed to moving" or something else. Thanks for the clarification. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was Moreschi who started the page - I just carried on with it. Not sure how finicky he is, might not have given it a second thought. I certainly didn't until I saw this thread and have no problem with the "the" removed, so have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extending deadline by 2 weeks to April 14 - so total running is ~ 6 weeks?
Just throwing this out there - I have been musing on the idea of extending the deadline into mid-April - partly as my piece in the signpost is being bumped and I was hoping more folks might join if they saw it, but also to give everyone time to really buff stuff that might then be on the cusp of a GA/FA nomination maybe (maybe go to library etc.). How do folks feel? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the contest is to improve content - winning any prizes or accolades should be secondary. So if it might bring more people in and give them a reasonable chance to contribute, why not? The only downside I see is that it might be harder to stay motivated for six weeks - the longer the window, the more real life can intrude. Guettarda (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 30 day concept, one month is good. And there's no need to stop after 30 days, surely. 42 days don't have the same appeal .Rwood128 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right - let's do it - am extending time by two weeks to 23:59 of April 14. Mainly as I'd hate it if folks tail off after the contest and stuff is short of a GAN or FAC. Go for it, folks! Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good to me. I had it in my mind that the event lasted a calendar month. I was checking back today to report that I'd not found any time yet in March so another fortnight will help. My personal feeling is that this time in early Spring is not a good time of year for me as the UK's emergence from winter tends to get me out of the house or doing chores like gardening and spring cleaning. And I plan to go away for Easter soon. Andrew D. (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find that the contest format is not very motivating, as compared with the DYK process, say. The prize isn't much of an incentive as I don't expect to win and there isn't much in the way of process to engage with. Perhaps we could establish some KPIs and then update them every day or week to build some race atmosphere. I'm not sure if there any standard tools which measure article size/quality but we could count stats like:
Ideally, someone would build a tool like DYK-check to report these stats for easy compilation and charting. At Wikimania, I had a talk with a foundation staffer who was working on some great ideas for measuring authorship. That was EpochFail – perhaps he can advise ... Andrew D. (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would be difficult if not impossible - we've had entries improved by reduction of flabby prose. Citations is good and can be counted easily. Incoming links? Interesting concept.....like idea of readability, though maybe more a change in readability as some articles are going to be innately easier to write more simply than others....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we start up a 2016 contest I think I will have to bow out as part of the judging panel. I have been busier than usual in real life. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A contest has been announced, but nobody's signed up for it yet. I'm considering it, but not much point if I'm on my own! — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the winners have been announced, many thanks to the organiser and judge, and to WMUK for the prizes. I thought the entries were strong this time, and once agauin the competition has benefited the project. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Well done to the winners and all participants, there's some great content been created, benefiting the encyclopedia. And a hearty thanks to the organisers and judges! — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for taking part, and of course to the organisers for making it possible. Karla Marte from Wikimedia UK will be in touch with the winners to get the prizes sorted out. What with it being the holiday season, this might not happen until the week beginning 8th August so please bear with us :-) Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have been given approval to run this again (yippee!) so that's 250 quid's worth pf amazon vouchers to be shared among the editors of the best-improved articles. We'll do it May 15 to June 30 (from 1 minute past midnight UTC). So folks can start listing their desired articles to work on at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Government and Old World are the two worst articles I've found; they're both linked from many high-profile pages and are stub-level quality. I'm not interested in improving them for this contest, but somebody else may be interested. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
we had some problems with one judge being very very busy....aaaand ultimately being unavailable. Then have spent some time getting a third judge. Have one now. Should see an announcement in 24 hours....sorry about delay...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know roughly when the Core Contest will take place next year? I unfortunately forgot about it this year and didn't enter, so would like to set myself a calendar reminder to enter next year! — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
