Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2009/9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2010 WikiCup Sign Ups are Open!

In order to keep organized, way in advance, we are already opening the Sign Up page for the 2010 WikiCup. Details are all listed here! So go sign up for another fun year. :)  iMatthew :  Chat  18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

One question. I have added my name and my flag from this year (Julian stole the one I wanted again). May I change my flag at a later date if the flag I choose is still available? --candle•wicke 18:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course :)  iMatthew :  Chat  18:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I will copy and paste this to the signup talk page because others will possibly want to know. --candle•wicke 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Disqualified?

If my GA doesn't qualify for points this round, please explain? DurovaCharge! 18:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When was it submitted? I've seen totals calculated from minutes after an update to a few days after. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Mitchazenia fixed it. You typed something wrong when submitting it.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Shuffle?

Did people move around for a reason? DurovaCharge! 19:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I made a note about it in this weeks newsletter. It should go out before the end of the day, but if you want to see it in advance, here it is.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Sooo I'm left with a 228-point guy, a 106-point gal, and a withdrawn candidate. Guess I'll have to step it up ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Note on next year's tournie

This conversation could be of interest to those signing up next year... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Theleftorium's edits

After listing one of his FAs at FAR for misuse of references, I decided to check his many GAs. Here is just a section of what I found which caused major concern and verifies that his involvement with the cup needs to be scrutinized (just putting on source up per each as example of the need for this):

  1. Claim - "The family is portrayed as The Brady Bunch.[1]"
    Original - "The Simpsons are inside the boxes normally reserved for the Brady Bunch."
    Reaction - Clearly not the same.
  2. Claim - "Hurlbut mentions the American revolutionaries William Dawes and Samuel Allyne Otis as equals to Jebediah Springfield."
    Original - "William Dawes and Samuel Oatus, mentioned by Hurlbutt, are such minor revolutionaries that we can't find any trace of them."
    Reaction - Original research attributed falsely.
  3. Claim - "Hurlbut claims Sprungfeld's confessions are "just as fake" as the will of Howard Hughes and the diaries of Adolf Hitler, both of which are genuine forgeries."
    Original - "The Howard Hughes will and the Hitler diaries were genuine forgeries, but there's never been a retraction of the emancipation proclamation. "
    Reaction - Original research attributed falsely.
  4. Claim - "Chief Wiggum is singing "Camptown Races" from 1850 by Stephen Foster ventriloquised with the skull of Jedediah Springfield."
    Original - "Camptown Races sung by the skull of Jedediah Springfield ventriloquised by Chief Wiggum. "
    Reaction - Way too close for comfort and almost plagiarism.
  5. Claim - "The authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood, thought it was a "clever" episode, and highlighted Homer's fantasy of the fight between Sprungfeld and George Washington as "fantastic""
    Original - Not there in the source which states information is -taken- from the book and not stated to be a copy of what the book claims.
    This is blatantly false as far as the source is concerned.


  1. Claim - "A drunk Homer performs his first dance to the 1961 tune "Baby Elephant Walk" written by Henry Mancini."
    Original - "Homer becomes a baseball mascot for a local team, thanks to his butt-swinging dance to The Baby Elephant Walk."
    Response - Definitely not what the source claims.
  2. Claim - "The authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood, wrote:"
    Original - See above, the cite states information is -taken- from the book and not stated to be a copy of what the book claims.
  3. In addition, the page attributes many sentences to Amazon, which is not a reliable source.
  1. Claim - "As Herb departs on the bus after becoming bankrupt, he tells Homer: "As far as I'm concerned, I have no brother!", a reference to the exact same line spoken in the 1972 film The Godfather."
    Original - "The line, 'As far as I'm concerned, I have no brother', comes from The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, 1973)."
    Response - OR synthesis - the source does not say anything about bankruptcy.
  2. Claim - about what the authors state, see above.
  1. Claim - "Dr. Hibbert's home and family resemble that of the The Cosby Show, a program that at the time competed with The Simpsons for the Thursday 8:00 p.m. time slot."
    Original - "Dr Hibbert's home and his family rather resemble Bill Cosby's home and family in The Cosby Show, which was running against this season of The Simpsons at the time."
    Response - Blatant plagiarism with deviations only in original research.
  2. Claim - "When the scene changes to Santa's Little Helper's point of view, a small explosion sound is heard; this sound is used in the film Predator, when the camera switches to Predator's point of view. The dramatic music from the film Jaws is used just before Santa's Little Helper attacks something."
    Original - " The shots of Santa's Little Helper's point of view are a lift from Predator (John McTiernan, 1987)."
    Response - No mention of Jaws, nothing about explosions, or any of the rest. Clear original research.
  3. Claim - "Winthrop is based on British dog trainer and author Barbara Woodhouse."
    Original - "Tracey Ullman's Miss Winthropp clearly seems to be based on the late TV dog trainer, Barbara Woodhouse."
    Response - Additions above are original research to what was in the source.
  4. Claim - "One of the dogs seen in the graduation ceremony is named after Lao Tzu, an ancient philosopher of China"
    Original - "Other dogs at Miss Winthropp's class include Buddy and Lao-Tzu."
    Response - Pure original research.

I could go on but I have better things to do. The other pages follow the same problems. Who knows what problems there exist with the offline sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a willing to withdraw from the WikiCup if that's what the contestants want. But please, all of you, try to assume good faith, I'm only trying to make the encyclopedia better (which I believe I have). TheLeftorium 08:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets all forget about this. This toury is for fun. If we are watching eachother it means we are all taking this too seriously.--WillC 08:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like you to put far more effort into correcting pages and ensuring that the sources match instead of just hurrying onto the next. The competition is quality in addition to quantity, so don't just push things through GA. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I will definitely put more effort into making sure that there is no OR in the articles I work on. I will also go through all my previous GAs and clean them up. Thank you, TheLeftorium 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a quick note that for Lisa the Iconoclast, #2 is at worst improperly cited, since it can be verified by the episode itself. Similarly the first clause of #3 can be directly inferred by the episode, while the cite verifies the second bit. Agree that #1 is a bit of OR, and possibly #5. decltype (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The WikiCup is supposed to be fun and good for the project. Although we wouldn't want to suppose any participant had plagiarized--even inadvertently--when a featured article contributor raises that concern it is something to take seriously, since it strikes to the heart of the WikiCup's credibility. And if the person raising the concern turns out to be mistaken, one would hope that could be handled without hasty accusations about that person's motives. Furthermore, I do hope we watch each other--in a good spirited way--because it would be very embarrassing for the Cup if we failed to handle the matter internally if someone actually did violate a major content policy. DurovaCharge! 15:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter?

Time to put an end to the above. Has it been delivered? --candle•wicke 21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No. I didn't get to finish it, and Garden/THO weren't around. Sorry! – (iMatthew • talk) at 21:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No problems, no rush, I just wanted to start a new section. I have it now anyway. Thanks. --candle•wicke 22:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I just finished it and THO delivered it. So all should be good. – (iMatthew • talk) at 22:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Problem with the newsletter - last week I had 0. This week I have all the points I have now. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, nothing I can do now. I'll make a note of it in next week's if you want. – (iMatthew • talk) at 23:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it. I just felt like teasing you about it after you finally got it finished. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this has gone far enough

[4] Please tell me why I should continue in this competition when users are going to blatantly try to sabotage xTCs? If he left a good set of actionable comments, that would be one thing, but the fact that they are so vague leaves little doubt as to his motives. -- Scorpion0422 23:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yours wasn't the only feature topic I responded to. Yours just had a FL that happened to be from 2007 that needed improvement. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Did that really require a "strong oppose" if it was just one article needing improvement? – (iMatthew • talk) at 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It was the topic article. Plus, the strong oppose was mostly to get them to make the corrections now. I don't feel like waiting around constantly refreshing the page to see if it is done so I can support the bloody thing. I performed a GA review and the person hasn't yet responded to it after a few days. People sure are going slow right now. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
So, since your concerns are apparantly addressed, are you going to "support the bloody thing"? -- Scorpion0422 01:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Already did, a good 47 minutes before you posted that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding article

Okay, recently, which I use loosely, the article Armageddon (2008) was nominated at GAN. It is now under a GA review. The one who nominated the thing has went missing. So the nice guy I am, I decided to fix the problems from the review. Turns out the bloody thing is so messed up I almost had to rewrite the entire article plus add third party refs. The reviewer says it looks alot better and since I've wrote a few GA PPVs plus one that is an FA, I can sense it will probably pass, hopefully that is. If it does, though I did not nominate it instead just helped it pass by really rewriting it, does it qualify for inclusion to be submitted on my submissions page? I feel it does, but rather instead get a few opinions because the less drama the better.--WillC 04:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

GA is not about nominating and passing, but about doing all the work at the GAN. You earned the credit. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't object to it being counted. You added the content. --candle•wicke 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Shortening the competition?

I feel like going to the end of October from the beginning of January makes a very long competition. You guys must be getting tired by now. My only thought was to make the following changes:

  1. September 1 to September 28 – 4 users left – 1 group of 4, top two progress.
  2. October 1 to October 31 – 2 users left – 1 group of 2, top one wins.

changed to:

  1. September 1 to September 28 – 4 users left – 1 group of 4, top one wins.

It would now end in September instead of October. That gives us judges three good months to prepare the next Cup, and contestants three months to relax. :)

What d'ya guys and girls think? (I happen to think that 4 users competing in the final round would be more interesting than 2. Especially if say, one of the two contestants suddenly has to take a break from Wikipedia. We would still have 3 editors in the running). iMatthew talk at  20:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How about one group, but until October? (like, for FAC etc) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
We have 8 after this round. How about we eliminate 4 users at the beginning of September (mid round). The 4 users left will keep their points from Aug-Sept and continue the same round until Sept 28. iMatthew talk at  20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain the two proposals (under proposal A and B or whatever and then they can say which is better). I like the idea that there would be more than two at the end as, like was said, something mysterious could happen to one person... --candle•wicke 22:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll (shh!)

Proposal A

Leave it the way it is. Round 4 will be August (8 contestants). Round 5 will be September (4 contestants). Round 6 will be October (2 contestants). We will end the competition with two users in the final round.

  1. In lieu of this option not being accepted, this is the only one that I can support. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal B

We should combine the last two rounds. Round 4 will be August (8 contestants). Round 5 will be September (4 contestants). We will end the competition in September with 4 users in the final round instead of two.

Proposal C

We should combine the last three rounds. Round 4 will be August through September. We will have 8 contestants. On September 1st, we will eliminate the bottom four contestants, but the top four contestants will continue the round with the same score. Then one person will win out of the remaining four on September 30th.

  1. iMatthew talk at  22:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Okily-dokily-doo. Theleftorium 22:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Gee, this is really complicated. So many choices, so little time... so many possibilities, so few responding... --candle•wicke 03:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Sure. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Yup. Sasata (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    Do I get a vote? J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    Completely of my own accord, and with no outside interference from any kind of police, secret or otherwise, run by anyone, be they iMatthew, a third world dictator or anyone else, I would like to withdraw this vote. J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing another competitor's GANs

I see Ed! working hard to clear the backlog in the "War and Military" section of GAN, but no-one has reviewed any of his 9(!) GANs. With respect to this competition, will there be any problem with me reviewing one or two of his GANs? Sasata (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for the note, however. If the_ed17 doesn't have a problem with it, and he doesn't have any concerns after the reviews are over, it shouldn't be a problem. iMatthew talk at  14:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Only 9? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh goodness, I have no problem with it whatsoever. I certainly know how long it takes for GAN's to be reviewed! Ottava, just because you have 921/2 GAN's up doesn't mean you get to tease us. ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, 2 of the original 11 were reviewed, and that is not including the other 19 pages that I have waiting for those to clean out before being listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm dumb, I just reviewed one of Ed!'s GANs, and then realized that The_ed17 and Ed! are not the same person... Sorry for the confusion, and The_ed17, if you put up another 7 GANs I promise to review one! Sasata (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rejoin?

Would it be alright if I rejoined? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope (IMO). iMatthew talk at 19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting a very mixed message here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I will say a big yeah if my opinion counts. Then again I'm not entirely sure. --candle•wicke 21:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I meant it's fine with me. Not sure about others, though. iMatthew talk at 22:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I don't mind either. :) Theleftorium 22:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - someone has to be able to take on Durova for the finale, or she will just win by default. Ha! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
If it's alright with Garden, I'll add you back in tomorrow. iMatthew talk at 23:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm against it. Lets say if a team withdrew from a tournament final, would they later be able to say, "hey, we want back in" and just be threw right back in to the tournament? Nothing against shoemaker though.--WillC 00:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This is just a fun Wikipedia contest. We're not going to make a big deal out of something so small. Shoemaker didn't withdraw because he felt like it. He had a problem with other areas of Wikipedia, and took a long Wikibreak. Look at it like this, as you're a fan of wrestling: "A wrestler gets injured and takes time off. He thinks the injury will be career ending, but it quickly heals and he is now ready to return. He should be allowed back into the company, right? Not penalized because something prevented him from continuing to work." I know it's a tournament, but it doesn't seem like a very big deal to me. iMatthew talk at 01:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
His withdraw was only part of him being run off the project and then also abstaining from a problematic process. Those situations are fixed. He never wanted to leave, he was basically forced by circumstances. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with his return. It's still the same round, after all. Durova273 03:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Just let him in. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay.--WillC 04:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Luckily, a few things happened in my absence - the promotion of an article to FA that Ssilvers and I have been working on for some time, two Portal promotions, and... er... a ten image featured picture set on The Hunting of the Snark. This may result in a small jump ahead that may help keep me in the game. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a little two-minded in this case - we don't let users in from scratch but I guess this is a re-join so... well, what the heck. It makes the groups (which were reshuffled due to the absence) a bit imbalanced but I'm sure nobody minds... :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My Nation

Hi,

Just wondering if my nation, Great Britain (not UK - England, Scotland & Wales, not with Northern Ireland), is usable. Garden doesn't know yet and advised me to ask the 'question' here See here!.

Clyde1998 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, was about to ask here for you actually :D Sorry about that. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It has its own flag () and we've allowed micronations, historical nations, and other oddities before. I don't see how we can reasonably object. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
To loosely quote Eddie Izzard - "Do you have a flag? ... no flag, no country... those are the rules that I just made up." :) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As for me, I think I'll go for either Robert the Bruce's flag, or Gwynedd's. Basically, the Royal Standards of when the countries were their own kingdoms. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Well we were planning on keeping it to countries or places (i.e. States and territories) and I really don't want a double standard coming up. That's why we have to discuss stuff before making what may seem a simple decision. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
List of British flags has a number of flags of former British states. I don't really fall under any of them, annoyingly, but I got in quick to get Jack. :) J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd be willing to accept any of those as a flag (except perhaps the Queen's personal standard because it might muck things up a wee) so unless Matt disagrees I'd go ahead, Shoe and Clyde. Ta, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 Works for me iMatthew talk at 23:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I was going to go for the Scottish Lion flag, but I though that I couldn't, but I'm happy with my 'nation' as it is Clyde1998 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Who else loves it when I make mistakes?

"All scores are accurate as of iMatthew talk at 18:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)"

I meant to do 5 ~'s instead of 4. Oops! :D iMatthew talk at 18:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just too polite to mention. :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I simply don't have enough time to continue to participate in the cup, and while I might have enough points to make it to the next round, I don't want to steal the spot of someone who will be active. I'll be back next year (although I'll likely be forced to withdrawe in the summer again). -- Scorpion0422 01:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, we knew this was coming, so I'm not too surprised. Enjoy your summer, and thank you for sticking around even though you knew you were going to withdraw. :) iMatthew talk at 01:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I won't be on Wikipedia at all during the first two weeks of August, and possibly a few days more on each side of that. I'll try to help organise the end of round administration but I can't promise anything... weburiedourdramainthegarden 10:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

... because you were helping sooo much in the first place! [just kidding :)] Alright, well it's not like you need to help make pools again. They're one big pool next round. I'm not sure if THO is even around, but I think he is (in which case, we'll take care of things). :) iMatthew talk at 11:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I temporarily forget there would be the one pool. Woops. weburiedourdramainthegarden 11:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
When does this round end, anyway? Still July 29, or are you giving yourself a little more setup time? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Still July 29th. iMatthew talk at 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ip edits?

a really teeny tiny minor point - but is the word 'registered' really necessary in this sentence? "Entry is available for any registered user" Would it hurt your cup to remove that word? (Not now, but ready for next round?) 87.113.86.207 (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's necessary. Enigmamsg 04:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Why? just so I stop making this recommendation in other places 87.113.86.207 (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Because IPs can change and thus edits are harder to count. If it really bugs you, create an account - it's really effortless and helps to make you a lot more anonymous than an "anonymous" IP. weburiedourdramainthegarden 09:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Or, if you're that way inclined, a lot less anonymous. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Handicap

Nearly 150MB before JPEG conversion, nearly 400 years old.

Dropping by with a word about the handicap. It looked like above the other participants had agreed to un-handicap my featured pictures. Yet the subsequent FP promotions are still being counted at the handicapped rate. If the handicap remains it is unlikely that I will progress to the next round. Currently am working on a series of images like the one at right, all by the same artist. That's part of a larger endeavor, most of which is considerably more labor than the average featured picture. In the aftermath of the National Portrait Gallery legal threat am doing greater offsite outreach (per the open letter from this week's Signpost). So posting here to get fellow Cup participants' opinions on how to handle the scoring. I'd have a shot at the next round as an alternate if the handicap is removed for this round. Otherwise, best wishes to those who progress. Durova279 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The handicap was your decision, so you are absolutely free to remove it. iMatthew talk at 21:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyone that can improve an image of California being cast off into the Pacific because the rest of the US was tired of it definitely deserves to be without a handicap. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I thought we had polled that in last week. My current unhandicapped score would be 258. Currently have 4 FPCs and a DYK in process, with one of the FPCs borderline-probably not getting promoted. So that's a viable wildcard. And Ottava: sooner or later everything east of the San Andreas fault is going to break off and fall into the Atlantic Ocean. Durova279 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. (ST47 is that user, btw.) iMatthew talk at 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe, Durova: You're still awful close to not moving on, and there's only a couple days left to get any nominations that will pass this round. Might want to push yourself a little bit in the next couple days. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Should wp:VPICS receive points?

Nergaal (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll talk about it for next year, certainly. iMatthew talk at 17:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Definitely none this year: We're about to move into the last round. It's too late for this. Maybe next year, but I wouldn't give very many at all. Maybe 5, 10 tops. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
And give wp:FP 15 pts tops also I hope (how can a FP receive 66% of a FA?) Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Because they take hours and hours of work, often including painstaking cleanup; a large monetary investment from either the very expensive cameras or from the books and scanners for getting your own material, and Featured articles get points for the edits, and for going through GA as well. So screw 15 for FP. Seriously, fuck that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but it sounds almost like you are saying you can buy a wikicup with real money. Nergaal (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot of real money, and considerable. I have an expensive camera considering I'm a poor student who needs to drink alcohol and fix shoddy laptops, and this is the best I can do. I've a lot of respect for anyone who can produce FPs. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I definitely support points for VPs. VPs could do with more attention. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, support more VP attention too as it doesn't seem to be doing too well. --candle•wicke 20:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Per Shoe, talk for next year. Worth about a DYK? Durova279 22:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
<-- Yeah, no more changes this year.  GARDEN  09:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Plese allow Two Flags for the WikiCup

Please allow using two flags for the WikiCup. It'll allow more of a distinct feel and that on some sports, they allow it so can you please allow it. Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. It will become too complicated if we allow the use of two flags for each competitor. You represent one place, that's it. Please stop going place to place to look for the answer you want to hear. iMatthew talk at 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not even getting why you'd use more than one flag in any case. But anyway, the contest format is based on the World Cup which is a football tournament.  GARDEN  11:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No, Garden. It's a soccer tournament! :) iMatthew talk at 11:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if y'all are going to argue about it, I'll just stick with the Palestine Flag. Secret Saturdays (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

W'all ain't arguin' about it bro. You asking, we gone said no. Sorry dawg.  GARDEN  19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of week

  • Tuesday and Wednesday: Add your last minute/final items to the submission pages. Or go expand some stubs and write some articles, it'll help you in the mainspace category.
  • Wednesday @ 23:59 (UTC): Round ends.
  • Thursday: Judges get maintenance done, moving pages, updating things, write the newsletter.
  • Friday: Round 4 pool goes up (it's not a secret this time, you're all in one pool).
  • Saturday @ 00:00 (UTC): Round 4 begins.

iMatthew talk at 10:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for writing that. :D --candle•wicke 12:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Can I be in a pool by myself. Pool "OR". I think it would be totally sweet. Who do I have to write the check out to? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That'll be Gar- no, wait, you can't do that! :P  GARDEN  20:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Support. Actually throw those with 600+ points into their own pool to watch them sweat! They'd be under more pressure and create more content... content=good... hmmm... --candle•wicke 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
cackle Great idea! cackle Durova285 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices article creation

Wikivoices' next episode will be a special article creation episode: The goal: A strong Did-You-Know-length article on one of Aesop's fables. This will happen sometime next week.

We've done this before, although it has been a while, and it should be a lot of fun. Anyone from the WikiCup interested in participating may sign up on WP:Wikivoices. You will need a copy of Skype, and preferably a microphone, although text chat is also possible.

So, come along if you're interested, join the fun, and pick up a few extra WikiCup points! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A New York Islanders player > One of Aesop's fables. iMatthew talk at 19:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
For anyone interested in this kind of thing, the Spotlight is currently active. Just join us on the IRC channel and get cracking! J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I suppose next year we could start charging people for pixels of adspace on the WP:CUP page? :P  GARDEN  20:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hell yes, next year we will start charging for advertisement space! Muahahahah! iMatthew talk at 21:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, several of the Cup participants are also WikiVoices regulars. It's only five points plus mainspace edits, but we thought it would be fair to invite everyone. Durova285 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, don't take it the wrong way - the WikiCup is an ideal way of promoting certain Projects and areas of content contributions in the shade that not many people contribute to (e.g. FSC, VPC, Spotlight, WikiVoices) and I feel we can really help Wikipedia by exploiting that aspect. Suggestions for other possible achievements to cover are very welcomed.  GARDEN  09:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
We were kind of hoping no one else took it the wrong way. Through some kind of magic alchemy a lot of good content has come out of WikiVoices. The Cup has been popular among WV regulars. Six of the round 3 participants are WVers, and at the present rate it's likely that 5 out of 8 round 4 participants will be WVers. We're not an exclusive club; it just feels more fun (often enough) to have a voice chat going, with people to troubleshoot a citation template or copyedit your prose. Cheers, Durova285 14:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I misunderstood your previous post. Ignore me :P  GARDEN  19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Post-episode update: we couldn't find enough third party sourcing for the planned Aesop article, so went with Mother Goose instead. Shoemaker insisted upon "The Queen of Hearts" because Lewis Carroll referenced it in Alice in Wonderland, so at the last minute I did three new restorations. all of which are now at FPC Durova285 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopeless befuddlement

Um, so what exactly happens after today? Could we please get a recap?

  1. Points that get earned on the 30th and 31st go into the next round?
  2. How exactly do people get eliminated from here on in? Is it bottom four drop out on September 30, and points carry over from that point forward? Or points begin anew again? What happens after that?

Durova285 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bear with us, I'll discuss this with iMatthew and THO. for your first point however I can categorically confirm that points earned on 30th and 31st will count for the final round if the user makes it through.  GARDEN  17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I still say that 30 days is rather unfair on certain types of content. Anyone trying to get an FPO, FS, and possibly FT may as well give up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
@ Shoe, yeah, I'm thinking that way as well. I could persuade the others to make the last round three months or even four. @Stax, stuff submitted this round on 30th and 31st will count for next round but not this one.  GARDEN  19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
FP will be the winner here - fastest of the big point processes. GA will be a strong second. Those like me that go from DYK to GA to FA, well, it wont be happening. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll go for October, but November is too much. Maybe we can find a date in mid-September to drop the bottom four and continue. But giving contestants just one month off before the next Cup starts is too little time. We need at least two months off. iMatthew talk at 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe even August and September with the top 8, then drop the bottom 4 on September 30th, and give the final four one month to finish (their points carrying over, still). iMatthew talk at 21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Any opinions from contestants?  GARDEN  22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a week by week elimination of the participant with the lowest total, but it's changed so many times. Just not sure anymore. Durova285 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. Never was a week by week elimination. iMatthew talk at 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
...befuddled... Durova285 00:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Less than two hours to go...

... and I've highlighted those likely to go through here. Note that this is in no way final and you still have two hours (although the number of points you can humanly make in that time is probably limited). Good luck all... :)  GARDEN  22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind going on IRC? iMatthew talk at 22:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

I know this round is over but I was out of town yesterday so I'm out of the loop, were we doing any GA review things like we did last round? I'm just wondering.--WillC 14:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I see two pending GAN (June 3) listed for you, and I see one DYK about to be listed for Durova. As such (just taken on their own) this would put her in a 2 point lead if one GAN was to be reviewed and approved of today. However, both GAN are in a backlogged area and have statements that suggest they would take more time. I have also had some GANs sit there for a long time, as with FACs. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
As a consolation, I can review one of them regardless of what happens just so you can have a GA review. My reviews are really rough and have caused painful reactions before, so it would be a double edge sword. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
And I also have two FPCs that are days overdue for closure. People did offer toward the end of the round to close them for me, but I requested no special treatment. Seemed fairer and more sporting that way. Durova285 15:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I actually have three GANS (TNA World Tag Team Championship, TNA Legends Championship, and TNA Bound for Glory) and one FLC. I'm just wondering like I said. I was 30 points off when I came back this morning and was checking to see if we were doing anything like that and if the time to list one was over. Thought to bring it up. I'm happy to review anyone's GANs if they want. I do toughs reviews just for people to know.--WillC 15:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2009/9&oldid=1160840859"