Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/11

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


Declare independence

If the others do not like us a way to go is separatism. We make our own wikicup-DYK, wikicup-GA and wikicup-FA. And organize it as a separate and independent project based rating system. We do our own reviewing and promoting making us independent from the other systems and nobody could bother us. There would be not a single DYK, GA, FA from wikicup, but a list of articles which have a similar quality.--Stone (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, there's no such thing as an DYK, GA or FA outside of the processes which determine those-- it would be meaningless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What Sandy said. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the point! We make the rules of our own and do not bother others any more. They will not even know which article is which rating in wikicup, because it will be written nowhere near the article, but only on a list in the wicicup archive. Than we do X-article ( 1500 characters long and not older than 5 days) Y-articles (they have to meet the GA criteria) and Z-articles (they have to meet the FA criteria). These articles show up in the wikicup list and nowhere else. So we would be truly independent and comments on overload of the system would be gone.--Stone (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
That is so poorly thought out words almost fail me. But let's start with the point that the wikicup has contributed to various backlogs across Wikipedia rather than helped them; it is reliant on external reviewers so exactly how would your system last? Unless of course you start rewarding reviewers, and with minimal external input standards will inevitably drop sharply. Nev1 (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The reviews will be done by the wikicup participants and not by external reviewers. So we are independent and self-sustainable.--Stone (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
If that is what you think, you are out of touch with how the review systems work. It is foolish to claim that the cup could survive on reviews of other competitors alone. Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. DYK may be easy for someone to judge by just counting (hell, you could probably create a bot to do most of it), but GA, and especially FA (as well as FP and possibly others) have developed over time to have specific requirements. I do not think this is a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It was very heretic I know..... First point- the standards are internal ones so we would not care, because this new standards apply to all wikicup articles and as we are than independent there is no need for comparability. The way we do our review will be on our side and than we can reward points for reviews within the system without flooding it with bad reviewers. We are independent and a Z-article is a Z-article and not a FA one. Special requirements or special processes are of no interest for the Z-article.--Stone (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like an awful lot of work, and we're really supposed to be working with Wikipedia, not against it. The GAC, FAC (and FPC, etc) criteria have been established as solid targets; inevitably, we would just end up lowering the standards of a "I-can't-believe-it's-not-[whatever]" article, and all of them would be eventually nominated for GAC and FAC anyways. I don't think I like it. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It is not really what I would like to have, but it would make any complaints go away. And the fact that every X,Y,z-article is also going to DYK, GAN or FAC is not our problem anymore. --12:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd strongly advise anyone supporting this to have a good hard look at what happened last time someone tried something similar. The bad feeling it caused took three years to die down, and almost derailed the entire project along the way. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a collection of feuding tinpot fiefdoms. – iridescent 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Esparanza was pretty much a real failure. As for my opinion on this, forking the GA, FA and DYK process basically eliminates users from a collaborative environment, which as Iridiscent said (and I am paraphrasing), is against the purpose of Wikipedia. There are a number of users who want this gone, and at times, its proposals like this that would definitely make that a reason.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 15:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, Stone I really don't like the idea of hiving off more/separate review boards. We lack the personnel to review all as is currently. This could be a catastrophe just at a time when things are (sort of) running okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between going "independent" and my creating a pretty box to put on some articles to declare it a Monified Featured Article? Surpassing my own personal standards, whatever they happen to be. --Moni3 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A very good point. J Milburn (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fresh suggestions

Sorry to create a new section, given the bloat over two pages, but hey, it's the megalomania, you know? So, my thoughts...

Stone's approval board
  • Require GANs and FACs to be approved by other editors. Three approvals, a net positive, and at least 24 hours on the board would be needed
    • This would avoid the problem of vote-stacking by friends; otherwise you could get a candidate article approved in 15 minutes, with no real review.
  • This would only apply to content that you want to have considered for the Cup
  • The requirement would be removed after 2 (?) rounds, as the pressure decreases and the pool is winnowed to people who actually understand what GAs and FAs really are.
DYKs
  • Limit the number of Cup-eligible DYKs to 3 per week per contestant
    • This will help with the problem of DYK being flooded with Cup entries, while not actually discouraging the submission of DYKs
  • Assign 5 points for an expansion, 3 for a new article
    • All things being equal (and I realise they never actually are), improving an existing stub is likely to be more helpful than creating a new article. Also, as Cas (iirc) pointed out, article creation is, for many people, it's own reward
I think it's important to keep the Cup accessible to new editors. DYK is a means of entry for them into the Cup, but more importantly, it's a means of entry into the world of creating coherent, sourced content. If I had understood DYK back when I started creating articles, I probably would have created better articles.
GAs
  • Requiring passage through the approval board should help reduce the number of unsuitable nominations
    • The rate of GA submission remains a problem, but the bigger problem is driving people to do reviews
  • Award up to 3 points for reviews, but only if they include a thorough assessment of the article (2 point) and substantial interaction with the nominator aimed at helping them bring the article up to GA standard (1 point)
    • A good GA assessment takes a substantial amount of work. This is what I consider a thorough review, but this is an example of the kind of effort a reviewer can put into an article.
    • Good points raised by Mitchazenia, below, but I think there has been enough interest in adding points for reviewing that we need some sort of system. So here's a start.
  • I don't think we need to put a limit on the number of Cup-eligible submissions an editor can make in a week, but it may be worth incorporating the possibility of a throttle if Cup submissions threaten to overwhelm GA. This should be written into the rules up front, rather than added after the fact, so that contestants are aware of it.
  • Perhaps, in the interest of encouraging diversity, limit the number of open submissions an editor can have in a given GA topic area.
  • Award bonus points to editors who get GAs approved in more than three GA topic areas per round
FAs and FLs
  • Requiring passage through the approval board should help reduce the number of unsuitable nominations; the existing rules (1 submission per week and a limit on the rate of resubmissions) already manages some of these problems.
  • Award up to 3 points for reviews, but only if they include a thorough assessment of the article (2 point) and substantial interaction with the nominator aimed at helping them bring the article up to standard (1 point)
  • For FAs, award bonus points based on "importance" of the articles and on the length of the articles, as has been discussed on the Scoring page.
Other article types
  • I don't know enough about them, but I don't think they are less likely to be swamped by the Cup, and less in need of assistance. We probably need to push more editors in that direction.

Guettarda (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Modified. Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds very good. With a few things I want to mention.
Approval board
  • This board has one big positive thing for the DYK, GAN and FAC people. They would get only articles which meet already most of the criteria.
  • From the discussions I see at all three points the Cup shows up as a burden and this burden gets not easier with the rounds but heavier because the involved people want to win at the end. So this board should operate till the end of the Cup and ease the problems as a gate to the non Wikicup part of Wikipedia.
GAs
  • Points for reviewing GANs gives always two problems with attracting people for the wrong reason and that it smells always like a conflict of interests. But I get your point that reviewers are very needed for GAN and FAC.
DYKs
  • like mentioned above, but they should go into reviewing too! Especially in the first rounds less experienced authors would benefit from having somebody look at their new articles.

--Stone (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've spent time reading above, and we're beginning to stray from the point of the WikiCup. I definitely oppose points for reviewing because then you get half-baked reviews, which got me penalized last year when someone was reviewing mine rather crappily. An approval board is so bureaucratic. I realize GAN is flooded, again, 400 noms or so at a time. I definitely think there is a problem with GANs flooding, but we can't blame 100% of it being the cup, I have 2 noms up right now, second and third of mine in 6 months, explain how I am contributing to this. Sandy makes good points, and as a strong FAC delegate, she should have ultimate thought of the process on her pages. I realize that the same time its a consensus thing, but all this limitations kill incentive and in the long run..will kill the Cup. Expansion of articles are definitely something, but that's a problematic thing. Mainly because what, you add a section of info and say its expanded? It would abuse central. You're third point on the Approval Board I hate to say is kind of bitey. I was inactive during this Cup, I admit that freely and honestly. Just because I didn't make it to the third round means I don't know how to use the system? There's a number of problems with these proposals.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to unwatch now; would someone pls ping me if any conclusions are reached regarding FAC, an RFC, or an RFC/U? Also, there are too many unsigned posts on this page to follow the conversation-- would the unsigner please sign? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Good points by Mitch and Cas (in the section above). Bureaucracy will kill the Cup, and experience says that bureaucracy will always grow in any process in Wikipedia. So I'm withdrawing that bit. Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucracy is needed if the people on their own are not capable to do the job and this number of people doing harm is large enough to make action needed. The Bureaucracy created by a page on which every nomination of the wikicup has to be approved might be the only way to turn the wikicup articles from a burden to articles which are liked by everybody because they need only little work and are of a high standard. --Stone (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have said above, through my conversations with Sandy, I don't think there is an urgent problem at FAC that needs remedying by the WikiCup. I do not believe we need to make any major changes there, other than ensuring people make clear that they are WikiCup competitors when nominating (and maybe reviewing). This can be written into the rules clearly for next year. I think the DYK issue will mostly be dealt with through lowering points, but a cap could definitely be a good thing- I think it would have to be a cap per round. GAC is the real problem here. On the issue of the review board, I think consensus is pretty clear that it's not the way to go. (Also, these 8-proposals-at-once threads are kind of confusing- good for bouncing ideas around, but it's hard to reach any kind of individual consensus.) J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop the wikidrama

It might me just me but I think this overdebating is getting out of hand. There are two notable issues: 1) point awards aren't perfect and we should work on it to not tempt users to do some things more than the original idea of the cup intended; 2) the cup attracts users (I still think a very small minority) that whatever the point awards, are always going to try to game the system and will be consistently trying to shape things in their own interest, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia itself.

The first point needs tweaking and good suggestions have been brought to fix most of them
The second one doesn't require much work if contributors agree to some points when they signup to the cup. In short, one will have to agree that if his behavior is deemed not within the spirit of the cup, he will get penalized and as much as getting kicked out. I would like to think that the Cup will not be remembered by having been won by users who argued so much on overvaluation of FPs that they just barely won; or by others who abused the DYK or the GAN system because it was the easiest; or whatever reason real or imagined. When one signs up for the cup, they will also have to agree on the authoritative power given to the three (or more) judges:
1) strike one: if a user is consistently trying to game the system against the spirit of the cup, then he will receive a clear warning from one of the judges;
2) strike two: it the user ignores this warning and continues the behavior, two of the judges will agree on not allowing any more submissions from that user in that category (i.e. flushing the FAC with ill-prepared nominations will make you not be able to get points in this category)
3) strike three: you're out! If the behavior continues to be outside the spirit of the cup, the judges, unanimously (excluding those with COI) will agree to exclude the player from the cup
Whichever does not like these rules they are free not to enter the cup. Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The poor quality at DYK and GAN (which is the most problematic to the outside world) were answered by a clear warning from one of the judges. Why should this change next year? Sorry!--Stone (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, see proposed rule #2. Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Two thoughts. 1) Currently the scoring page says that "If through the WikiCup any participants are hurting the encyclopedia (whether through abusing the rules, creating a negative atmosphere, or whatever else), they will be removed from the Cup" - I think this may apply to the current situation. 2) I'm not sure the comments I saw (I assume you mean these) are really a warning since no consequences were outlined. ~DC We Can Work It Out 21:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I will let judges do whatever they desire this year, but I would like that next year we have some very explicit rules to discourage behavior "not within the spirit of the cup". Nergaal (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Stop the Wikidrama? We're going to be adding to it with some of these proposals, I hate to say it. If we keep complaining at people gaming the system, we're going to hurt...once again...incentive. Who wants to participate if they are not intentionally trying to game the system or make too many nominations? I think we're trying to be too reforming too fast, and in the process causing more drama.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 21:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. These kind of plans could very easily lead to more drama, which is very much what we do not want. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer drama over everyone hating the Wikicup because of the actions of one user. ~DC We Can Work It Out 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed

Lets celebrate instead the excellent race to the finish we've got going! As of the latest bot update only 5 points separates Sasata and Tony, with Sturm a tight third! Staxringold talkcontribs 02:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh God he's at it again...

This edit speaks for itself. More at User talk:White Shadows#Where you at. Can someone please talk to him, preferably a judge?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone give me one good reason not to MFD this trainwreck now or start tossing civility blocks around? If you have to squabble like stray dogs with a marrowbone (over a meaningless award which is completely ignored by everyone other than its participants) can you at least keep it to this page and your respective talkpages, and quit spilling over into what feels like every page of the project? – iridescent 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not doing anything, Tony keeps coming to me. Malleus seems to failed in scaring him off too...I really don't know what to do. That's why I took it here.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
"The purpose of the cup is to encourage content improvement and make editing on Wikipedia fun". This type of behaviour does not reflect well on the cup and seems to be juxtaposed to the competition's purpose. This point counting does not seem to be healthy and rather than encouraging people to work appears to be leading to desperation and frustration even for people not involved in the cup. Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nev1 has put it as perfectly as anyone can. People are becoming frustrating and I honestly, think are taking this a little too serious. I realize I am against 99.9999% of the bureaucratic proposals coming up here, but somewhere, someone has to decide is it time we boot some contestants for WP:AGF violations?Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to this being fun? I thought that was the purpose. Apparently I'm dead wrong....--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The original purpose of the Cup was to spur editors into writing articles through a friendly competition full of laughs and a general feeling of "oh well" if you were knocked out. This year, something has changed. People are taking this too seriously, so much so that we have borderline submissions and editors keeping close eyes on others to ensure that they don't fake something and get ahead. Really, this "contest" is not a big deal. There is absolutely no need for these levels of drama. J and I are currently discussing a possible remedy off-wiki; please be patient. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For gosh sakes, y'all need to handle this yourselves, just as FAC had to handle ill-prepared noms over there-- you are spilling over everywhere, now it's on Valued Pictures. Why don't y'all just gain consensus here to take disruptive contestants out of the contest? It's a Wiki-- put up an RFC to eliminate disruptive contestants, and stop having content review processes have to deal with this. If you don't, someone will MFD this thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now checked with an image person, and many of those "Valued" pictures are utter rubbish, not complying with image policy. Again, this is a problem with Valued Pictures and one editor passing those nominations, but another indication of behavior from one editor encouraged by the Cup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Valued pictures is a terrible project- it absolutely should not exist, and discussions have concluded that. It's just waiting for its next MfD. However, the consensus was that we would include points this year, and we can't change the goalposts mid-game. This has happened at a very bad time for me, I have just moved back to Lancaster and so currently have very little Internet access. I'm looking into this. J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that ... keep up the valiant effort :) Quite a few of the processes for which y'all are awarding points are "terrible", but I won't name them all. Maybe y'all can decide to eliminate some of the processes that don't have good oversight or that have propelled past Cup winners to victory on original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It will certainly be worth discussing. For what it's worth, I have given Tony an explicit last warning. I think it's clear on this talk page that many feel he should be removed from the Cup, and so I hope people agree that the consensus is that I am able to remove him if necessary. J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
If a flood of 1.6k DYKs isn't gaming, I don't know what is YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
YM makes a point.....--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not nominate them all at once. They were from dates ranging from Sep 14 to 18, but after a long discussion at DYK they wanted them all multied together. It was not my decision to put them all through in the same day.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
As another judge, I think we have the consensus and power (wrong word?) to do that. The main page says "the spirit of the rules are more important than the letter, and the judges reserve the right to deny points to anyone deemed to be abusing the system" – I think this is broad enough to give judges the right to kick people in extreme circumstances. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Putting it "up for a vote" on this page will 1) help prevent judges from becoming targets, 2) demonstrate if consensus exists, and 3) help avoid diminishing the eventual "winner". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
While it would help determine consensus, I'm not sure that is the best idea. We're past most of the drama, and I don't think anyone wants to drag that up again. I also think the judges should be the final arbiters of this situation because we're supposed to be 'in charge' and running the Cup, not standing to the side and letting the contestants duke it out. It's bad for everyone's morale and would further sully the Cup's reputation, if that's even possible. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I only brought it up because, when FAC had to change its instructions to deal with a few disruptive editors, we had solid consensus based on a massive RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews

Are the judges watching Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am, but I personally know nothing about that process. I'd never even heard of it, despite my participation in GAC generally. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


Question for the judges

Is this fair, or even in the spirit of the cup: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest/GAN backlog elimination/October 2010. Nergaal (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only finalist getting articles reviewed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm?!!!!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll admit to wondering about the quality of so many reviews done in such a short time, but then I don't really follow GAN, so I shouldn't opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


Maybe the initial question was too cryptic: the issue is not about the legitimacy of the drive. The issue is would having a drive like this specifically covering the scope of articles of a single editor at this critical time? For example TTT might have a ton of GANs in the queue, and if somebody comes and says "come and review my reviews instead you will get a barnstar from the MILHIST project" (presumably among the more reputable ones since the MH is reputable). Seriously, what neutral reviewer (i.e. one that has not bias for a topic on specific) would want to review a mushroom or a sports nomination if he can get a barstar for the same amount of work? What is supposed TTT to do? Find a buddy to take care of his own GANs at a rate of 2-3/day? Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TTT could have tried to organize a drive in his project to review all sports and rec articles; there are plenty there that aren't his. And another thing, the MilHist drive reviewed articles from another finalist, not just me. Furthermore, the bulk of the reviewers are MilHist people so it's not like we poached reviewers from other projects as you seem to imply happened.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I really don't think Catalan or Skinny would review a mushroom or sports GAN... Also, they are both good reviewers, and any accusation of them being Sturm's "buddy" to get him through the Cup is flat wrong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
A single editor? Looking at the GAN page, the 17 MilHist GANs were nominated by 8 different editors, not just Sturmvogel. --PresN 19:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, a backlog elimination drive for a project that hasn't had that bad of a GA backlog, in the last month of the cup, that happens to be the specialty of two of the finalists, one of which now is guaranteed a review within 48 hours.. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, this is no longer true :-( In August our backlog was around 45 articles, and then Jim Sweeney, blessed be his name, ran his own one-man drive and reduced it to 30 by the end of the month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
When the backlog was first started, the backlog was approaching 50 article, if I remember correctly. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
30 GANs at the dawn of Oct 1, 38 by the 4th, which is just before the first reviews started being completed. In comparison, on Oct 1 Film was at 47 and Sports at 67, and on Oct 4 Film was at 49 and Sports still at 67. --PresN 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
So, if any other category has more reviews waiting, reviewing MILHIST articles should be deemed improper? Like Sturm and I have said, there is nothing stopping editors from doing GA backlog drives for other categories. It's not our fault that any other editors haven't taken the initiative. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
In any case, I can sympathize with those who believe it to be unfair, but then should the judges disallow GA reviews which occurred because the author heckled the reviewer through his talk page, or because he offered a barnstar (or incentivized with barnstar distribution). Furthermore, should Tonythetiger's inaction be awarded? I think Sturmvogel has a legitimate point, in that TTT could have done something similar. As far as I know, the tools of Wikipedia are at any editor's disposal. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless the reviews are in any way unsound, I do not see a problem with this. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
An idea would be to offer some type of barnstar for anybody willing to go through the eighty or so reviews (so far) and check them with the article to make sure the article makes the cut. I will bring it up with WP:MILHIST, or take upon myself to provide the initiative to do so. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that efforts be made with the WP:WPGA to run a backlog drive next year timed to coincide with the finale of the Cup to prevent these sorts of castings of suspicions. If one had been scheduled I wouldn't have had to organize one within MilHist and TTT wouldn't have to send his unreviewed articles to WikiCup/Reviews where the judges now have to figure out how to deal with all of them before the end of the month. I'm really not interested in anybody's arrangements to get reviews, the important thing is if they were quality reviews. Which, admittedly, means different things to different people, but the GA bar really isn't set very high, so I doubt that that is much of an issue, even for reviews where the reviewer made no comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing my 2 cents out there. I am not directly involved in this cup and I don't have anything anything against any of the participants. I personally think the cup is an awesome idea, but I don't want to have its positive sides brought down by some overzealous actions. If anything, I personally think that the ship articles are more interesting than other GAs this round. But personally also, I don't think that being a coordinator of a GA backlog drive is in essence much different than flooding DYKs or VPs with submissions, or having essentially a GA or two being reviewed by a single editor each day. Yes, one creates a backlog, while others actually do the opposite, but IMHO they are equally unfair to the other 5 participants. The cup should be about content creation, not some politics behind it. It is too late to do anything now, but this should be kept in mind for next year. Having a GA drive overall would be a good solution, but then, it would encourage editors to focus on GAs instead of maybe FAs or FLs because quick progress in points is guaranteed this way. Nergaal (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Depending on how scoring is changed, the Cup is intrinsically biased towards GAs since there's no limit on the number of nominations and the time required to complete the review is far, far faster. Typically an participant is only going to be able to get 6 FACs completed in a single round, compared to how many GAs?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Same thing appeared true a year ago with FPs (they require even less input from reviewers), but since their relative value has been decreased, they are not targeted as before. That's why FA should be heavily rewarded to compensate for the cap. Nergaal (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't disagree with you. The current 2.5x multiplier isn't enough, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I welcome uninvolved editors to assess any of my reviews done via the MILHIST GAN Drive, but I stand by every single one of them. Skinny87 (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot

I have heard that your bot is currently not working and am interested in helping you with a replacement. I am wondering what you guys need it to do, and I might not need a list of it if I get the code from X!. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have the code now and will be programing it soon. Anyone like any new features? -- DQ (t) (e) 11:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, there will need to be new features for next year, depending on what discussions determine. At the very least, this will probably be different points costs. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for the delay, I will code up to what X! has and then mod as you guys need, just let me know. SVN for it should be up soon enough (maybe a week). When does the cup start next year? DQ.alt (t) (e) 16:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
1 January. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

The race is not close, but I am running for time. I now have 9 8 7 5 4 3 unreviewed GACs that are over 60 days old and another one that is over 30 days old. I would love some reviews.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I could use some help reviewing some of these. At GAN there shouldn't be any GA noms unreviewed from August, yet there's a good 15-20 of them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Flag not faded

Why are 9 flags still showing as active in the contest. It should either be 7 or 8.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Well this years Cup is now over. (At the end of this day I think) congrats to all!--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, almost all over. I will be sending out the final newsletter, and the various awards, this evening. Hopefully. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Congrats to the judges for a sterling job. It was clearly grueling and that was even before the late-season turbulence. Do we want to place a breath-catching moratorium before discussing next year? One week, one month or maybe straight into it? we could place a banner and full-protection for a week if need be or just jump straight into it. I guess I am saying this with all the kerfuffle going on as I do see a great potential for next year with some of Nergaal's and other ideas in influencing content creation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anything would be wrong with opening it now. DC T•C 01:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism and DYK

There's some humungous threads at ANI about some recent plagiarism incidents at DYK, and one or two editors are asserting that the WikiCup is part of the problem. May I suggest that the judges check out those threads and make a comment? Personally I think that as the recently detected plagiarisers are not cup contestants this is an opportunity to improve DYK with lessons from the CUP. But others seem to be using the data to deduct the opposite conclusion..... ϢereSpielChequers 12:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved to its own subpage DC T•C 14:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note WSC, I've commented there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Awards and newsletter

I have sent out the awards, and I am waiting on a bot to get into gear for the newsletter. It's past midnight here, and I need to be up early tomorrow, so I can't stick around for the whole night- however, I will be sending out ribbons first thing tomorrow morning for all those who participated but did not reach the final eight. If anyone wants to update anything, be my guest. Thanks everyone, it's been fun. J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Will there be a final adjustment for the VPs that the bot misses?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to do it. It won't make any difference beyond meaning the numbers on the newsletter are a little out. Sorry, I was a little rushed, I forgot about that. J Milburn (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I fixed it, but the bot unfixed it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

<3 Big thanks to the judges! Staxringold talkcontribs 02:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Finalist

Has the finalist barnstar using File:WikiCup Medal Gold Final 8.png been retired?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

nope, looks like it's an either/or thing with the "top 8" medal or the "1st/2nd/3rd" trophy. --PresN 22:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Correct. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bot turn off

When will the bot be shut off so that I can make the final VP adjustment to my score for posterity?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Round of applause

Let's have a round of applause... not for the finalists this time around, but for J Milburn, who undertook most of the judging work this year and (IMHO) did a stupendous job. Thanks, man. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Forsooth. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Congratulations everyone! Resolute 14:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Also Agreed. Remember (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
For hes a jolly fellow! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
*clap clap* --PresN 20:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Ditto! — Hunter Kahn 20:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I, of course, add my highest gratitude to J. Utterly fantastic dedication.  f o x  22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Your dedication was astounding J!--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 22:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
All of the above! Nergaal (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you everyone :) J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor suggestion

Is there a userbox for having participated in the WikiCup? As in, "this user was a participant in..." kind of thing? If not, might not be a bad idea for the future... — Hunter Kahn 04:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a bad idea, considering i'd get a few of those. :) Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 20:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow

I really didn't see this lasting a huge amount of time back in 2007, when it just seemed like a fun idea to get people editing more. Well done to the people who have kept this going all this time, and have made HUGE improvements! // Finns 22:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're truly back, feel free to join us! :D Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wondering

I am wondering if a nomination would count if I did some writing, but then replaced it with info copied from other articles that I did not write. Us441(talk)(contribs) 22:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with that I don't know where to start. Do not do that, do not try that. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Take it from me, who just had some of his sandboxes copied and pasted into Wikispace then the user had the guts to claim that he created it. That is not a good idea.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 23:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No time like the present...

Okay bombs away.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to clarify some things...

This and this need eyes. It would be nice to get a clear consensus. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Valued Pictures

Wikipedia:Valued pictures is no more per the results of a recent MFD. Adjust accordingly. harej 00:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, mentioned it on the other page, where I have put up some final-ish discussions of points. J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/11&oldid=1086035954"