Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2015/6

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


Emeritus participants?

This will not resonate well probably, but how would people feel about not taking into account the scores of previous winners? By which I mean previous winers can get points and whatever, but are not included in the rankings? There are some real-world competitions that apply such rules.

  • Pros: promoting diversity, no real point in becoming double winner, encouraging newbies and those that haven't figured 100% yet how to optimize their work based on the current scoring system.
  • Cons: less submissions, some will think that two cups are worth more than one, veterans are given a less attention when it comes to their opinions (latter can be seen as a pro also).

Feel free to add some more examples of pros and cons (preferably succinct ones). Nergaal (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal, I seriously doubt there is anything that can be done here, but I've been thinking about an alternative competition called the Wikiatholon, where participants compete in five or more categories, but they must max out their points in each one before being allowed to add more to one category. E.g., 250 max points for an FA, and you only get to claim one per round until you max out your points in all other cats. This would produce a well-rounded winner that can succeed at all aspects, not just one category or bonus points, because there would be no bonus points. Equal points for equal work. What do you think? RO(talk) 22:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Strikes me some things just aren't possible for everyone. Can a general person create a featured picture, short of allowing them to simply nominate something without putting in any work?
I mean, I'd be happy to teach people basic restoration, but I don't think it's a preexisting skill for most. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
True, but don't we currently allow Wikicup participants to get FP points for images they did not take or restore, but simply got an OTRS for? The FP cat could be just one image per round. RO(talk) 19:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that's not trivial either. Getting permission requires a lot of communication and is a crap shoot. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Also true, but 10 weeks ago I knew nothing about photography, and now I have one FP to my credit. So it's certainly possible for someone with no background to learn what's expected. I get your point though, and FP might be the most difficult cat, but like I said, maybe we require only one FP per round, which might be 10 weeks long. Besides this, do you think a Wikiatholon is a good idea? RO(talk) 20:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe? I'm not sure. The time for FPs can be much lower than for other types, so it might be an idea to balance by numbers, e.g. - and this is pure pulling out of one's ass - 10 DYKs, 3 GAs, 1 FA, 6 FPs. Or do categories. E.g. use the GA categories, and allow GAs in up to three categories, DYKs in 10 categories, 1 FA, and FPs in a number of the divisions at WP:FP. Maybe? It'll encourage variety, while not having too many categories athat are trivial. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not set on any specifics. I just like the idea of a Wikiathelete that can accomplish all major goals, not just milk bonus points or rack up tons of FPs. I'm not sure I'd start with 6 FPs for the first round, but maybe they should increase with each round, so maybe 1 the first round, 2 the second, and so on. If you think it's worth discussing, we could make a draft and put it up at the Village Pump. RO(talk) 20:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver: I think it needs a bit more planning still. Maybe a test run? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I would support this because it would mean that competitors still have a target to aim at while also knowing that they can still make the next round even if they don't meet the same scores. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I am opposed (for obvious reasons) to telling people they can't take part in the main competition, unless they are problem editors. And, just to be clear, people who produce large amount of high-quality content are not (for that reason) problem editors. If the competitors who would be "emeritus"ed support this kind of move, I would only say that the judges' workload should not be increased excessively. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@J Milburn: Conversation's moved on from that by now. New competition being proposed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
My mistake; sorry. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries! Just wanted to catch you up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden, I'm very interested in a test run, but I assume we need a little more planning first, and to be honest I wouldn't know where to start. I made pages at: Wikipedia:Wikiatholon and Wikipedia:Wikiatholon/Rules, should we see where it takes us? RO(talk) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reminder about WikiCup articles needing reviews

I've just about completed one round of reviewing one GAN from every contestant and will begin another in a few days. It will make it easier on me if y'all post your requests for reviews in the table at the head of this page. To avoid charges of favoritism, I will review one article from each contestant per round. If you nominate an article in a round where I'm not reviewing one of your articles, ping me directly and I'll add it to that round. Any questions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a good idea, Sturmvogel 66. Thanks for doing this! RO(talk) 16:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Points query

Not that it really matters, given I'm not going to win, but I think the bot might have got a borderline case wrong (though I could be mistaken). My recent DYK for Pope Theodore II currently has articles in 53 Wikipedias. However, I know the number on 31 December 2014 is relevant. Given this is on Wikidata, I took a look when I "only" got a 2x multiplier. On 23 December 2014, it had exactly 50 entries: on the next entry on 7 January 2015, it also had 50 entries. Am I missing something, or did the bot miss something? Harrias talk 20:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the explanation, but I seem to remember that the bot sometimes wouldn't count the English Wikipedia, only "other" Wikipedias. It does look to me that this should have had 3x multiplier. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll flag it up with the bot owner as it should have had a 3x multiplier. Miyagawa (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Should I manually change the template to show a 3x multiplier, if we're all agreed it should have been? I don't want it to look like I'm fiddling the figures! Harrias talk 18:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If you do, the bot will only change it back on the next pass, I'm afraid. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I hadn't really twigged that there wasn't a place-holder the bot scanned for. Looking at the bot's source code, it looks a reasonable obvious problem ($existsOn > 50 should presumably be $existsOn > 49) with a simple fix, but who knows! Harrias talk 21:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the bot would not change templates back when manually overridden. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I've changed it, so we'll see what happens! Harrias talk 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The bot has run, but not changed the template, so all seems to be corrected now. Harrias talk 14:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: You are precisely right, thank you! I've updated the code exactly as you suggested (incidentally if you're good with Github you also issue a pull request). As Josh says, the bot is programmed not to override a human amendment, a switch which has yet again proven its value. Apologies for any inconvenience. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE increase the points for Good Article Reviews

Note: I am not a WikiCup participant myself, I have no vested interest in this except helping Wikipedia clear the backlogs.
  1. PLEASE increase the points for Good Article Reviews.
  2. Something like half (50%) of the points for an actual Good Article.
  3. So if a Good Article is thirty (30) points, then a Good Article Review of someone else's Good Article nomination would be fifteen (15) and not four points.
  4. Otherwise, Wikicup is (most unfortunately) helping through token economies to actually contribute to the GA Review backlog -- which is at least six (6) months !!!

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The scoreboard

The scoreboard is misleading and gives a false impression as to the order in which the contestants stand. Rationalobserver's full point score is shown but Godot13's is not. Please add an extra column that clearly shows the total points amassed by each competitor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RO's does not shown her total points. It said 332 before her 20 bonus points were added, the bot just hasn't worked this out. That's why it says +20. If it had been added already, it wouldn't have a side note. So neither are true impressions.  — Calvin999 12:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
We can't add an extra column because it could very well cause the bot to break the table (I'm not sure if the bot goes by column title or number, so it very well might inserting scores into the wrong column). Even if we could add the column, it'd have to be manually adjusted and so depending on the bot update times, the scores will still be wrong as either the bonuses will have been added early or haven't been updated. Furthermore, the bot might very well blank out any modifications we make so every time it updates, it could zero out the new column. For the remaining two days of this year's cup it isn't worthwhile playing around with this and risking causing something else in the bot to break. We are taking very seriously the issues (it's my #1) with the display of the FP Bonus points this year and it will be one of the major themes raised when the points discussions start up. Miyagawa (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

End of Final Round

The scores for the final round are up, and we now know our winner. A big thanks to everyone who was involved and competed in this year's cup. The newsletter will be sent out and next year's points discussions will be set up in the next couple of days (the judges will add a further post here to announce them opening). Miyagawa (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Table hasn't updated.

Table didn't update at 00:13 GMT (13 minutes ago).  — Calvin999 00:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As I remember from last year, it will only update if something changed. Has anything? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, else I wouldn't have said.  — Calvin999 11:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see what happened. The next update would have been at 00:13, but the bot thought the competition had ended already, so didn't bother. I've fixed this design feature for next year. @Calvin999:: Just working out now why the bot disagrees with you. Until I do it's going to continue to revert you, sorry. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 11:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you.  — Calvin999 11:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Calvin999:: Ah, found it. You had some random whitespace character (RTL mark? Zero-width space?) before your Drishyam entry that was confusing the bot ( fixed in [1]). Unfortunately I can't get my PC to identify it as anything other than a regular space -- which it wasn't. Difficult to know how fix this long-term but at least on this occasion all's well that ends well. Sorry for any inconvenience. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 11:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
That's okay. Thank you.  — Calvin999 12:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Poor sportsmanship

Calvin999, I'm really disappointed in your tactic of dumping a bunch of stuff on your submission page from 14 days ago with just 28 minutes before the end ([2]). RO(talk) 17:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Newcomer?

Closing this discussion before it gets out of hand. Miyagawa (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Figureskatingfan, Miyagawa, and Sturmvogel 66, I'm curious why Calvin999 is considered a newcomer to the Wikicup. They participated in 2012, 2013, and 2014. RO(talk) 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Having double checked, you were the only newcomer in the final round and therefore win it by default. Miyagawa (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
There you go, RO. You achieved what you set out to do, albeit being extremely rude in the process. Thanks for dragging me over the coals and throwing me under the bus multiple times. All this drama nothing.  — Calvin999 18:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever, Calvin. Nice try! RO(talk) 18:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't, you did. You've shown your true colours.  — Calvin999 19:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gaming the system?

Closing this one for the same reason as the above thread. Miyagawa (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#General rules

In the spirit of fair play, contestants have two weeks 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 reviews (in the case of good article reviews and peer reviews). Work submitted after this time is no longer eligible. In case of illness, vacation or real-life issues, please notify a judge on his or her talk page, or by email, and a decision will be made as to its eligibility by the judges.

But Calvin999 added a bunch of submissions just 28 minutes before the end, lots of which were from 10 to 14 days ago ([3]). I think it's pretty obvious he withheld the submissions as a strategy to get more points than me. Isn't this gaming the system? RO(talk) 17:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to prove here about from that I have abided by the rules?  — Calvin999 17:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you intentionally withheld submissions until the last minute so I wouldn't add more myself. The two week rule is not there for this purpose. It's their for good-faith editors that forget or are too busy to add them as they get them. You used the two week rule to trick me. Are you denying this?RO(talk) 18:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you are taking this way, way, wayyy too personally RO and I don't know why. You appear to think this is focused on you but it's not, and by the same token it's not a focus on any other editor either. It's a game.  — Calvin999 18:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. It's a game, but you gamed the rules, and that's unethical. RO(talk) 18:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this really your first Wikicup? Because it looks to me that this is your fourth. So, did you plan to tell the judges that you are not a Wikicup Newcomer? RO(talk) 18:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You've already highlighted that we we are all allowed to submit submissions up to two weeks after promotion. Yes, this is my fourth cup and I've never said that I'm a newcomer because I'm not. (Third technically, since I withdrew last year very early on in round one). So is this what this is all about? The newcomer trophy? You're not the editor I thought you were RO, I think you're acting very sulkily and you are displaying very poor sportsmanship by saying that this is some form of attack on you specifically when it isn't. I don't understand what or why you are taking so personally here, or why you are behaving so badly towards me.  — Calvin999 18:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


  • J Milburn, what do you think about Calvin dumping a bunch of submission from 10 to 14 days ago 28 minutes before the round ended? And why is Calvin a newcomer if this is his fourth Wikicup? RO(talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    • 10-14 days ago? I've had 3 GANs and an FLC pass this week. I think you should stop with your less than desirable behaviour RO, this is getting a bit embarrassing on your part now.  — Calvin999 18:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
      • You added stuff that passed 10+ days ago when there was 28 minutes left. That's gaming because you essentially hid points until the last minute. RO(talk) 18:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
        • 10 days is less than the 14 allowed, so still, your point?  — Calvin999 18:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
          • It's bad form. That's my point, and since you weren't even eligible for the newcomer's trophy the point is now moot. RO(talk) 18:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
            • You mean that you've shown yourself up by creating an issue out of nothing. Yep, you got that right.  — Calvin999 19:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
              • Whatever, Calvin. RO(talk) 19:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
                • Don't you want to talk now you've got want you wanted which was always yours anyway? Okay, double standards are play here then. I'm so pleased I didn't agree to your offer of us both scoring exactly 100 points so we would "both win" the newcomer trophy and come joint last. Did you know then back in August that this was my fourth up and that I wouldn't win it? Isn't that gaming the system to ensure that you won the trophy albeit jointly?  — Calvin999 19:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia Asian Month

For anyone who still has an urge to expand some articles, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month which runs throughout November. Miyagawa (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Echinocereus reichenbachii

I notice that Miyagawa removed the DYK nomination of Echinocereus reichenbachii from Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2015/Submissions/Rationalobserver, citing "Removed GAN nomination - these don't qualify for points in the cup" However, if you read my review, Template:Did you know nominations/Echinocereus reichenbachii, you will see that I said "It is also eligible for promotion on the basis of being a 5x expansion (and so is eligible for the WikiCup)." I therefore think that Rationalobserver should have those points reinstated. Harrias talk 17:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Harrias! RO(talk) 17:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Except that she didn't nominate on that basis. Therefore the points were ineligible. Miyagawa (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It was a 5x and a GA, but the template only lists one. Are you saying I lose these points because I filled out the DYK form incorrectly? RO(talk) 18:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You nominated it on the basis of the GA promotion. Therefore it was ineligible for points. You nominated at 16:12, some 11 minutes after you responded on the GA nominating thanking the reviewer. I think it's easy to see on what basis you nominated the article. Miyagawa (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
But, Miyagawa, it was a 5x expansion and a GA. RO(talk) 18:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
And you nominated it as a GA promotion, not several hours earlier when you could have nominated it as a 5x expansion. Miyagawa (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
FTR, the version when I nomed it had 1,012 words ([4]), and the version when I started to expand it had 177 words ([5]). The DYK template asks for one reason, and I put the wrong one down, not knowing that a silly technicality like that could cost me Wikicup points. RO(talk) 19:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
If this is really about declaring the right reason at DYK, I noticed that some of Cas liber's entries, such as these: Template:Did you know nominations/Alphabear, Template:Did you know nominations/Cortinarius cyanites, and Template:Did you know nominations/Cortinarius glaucopus don't designate a 5x expansion. So why didn't you remove them? RO(talk) 19:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Godot didn't indicate a 5x expansion for Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Khartoum (currency). RO(talk) 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
RO. Seriously stop. You nominated on the basis of a Good Article promotion since you nominated eleven minutes after getting promoted - not eleven minutes after the expansion. The requirement isn't for a 5x expansion - the requirement is for it not to be nominated on the basis of a GA promotion. But serious stop, this is getting really quite pathetic now. As stated on my talk page, you've had your decision. End of. Miyagawa (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I nomed it when it was both a 5x expansion and a GA. Casliber has three DYKs this round that he didn't designate as a 5x expansion, but you didn't remose those. RO(talk) 19:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
J Milburn, does this make sense to you? RO(talk) 19:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Upon further investigation, we have found that your DYK nom met all of the requirements for an ordinary DYK and you will be credited for those points. For the judges,--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it matters now.  — Calvin999 17:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The end of the contest

Because I will be away from home for a few days from tomorrow (Thursday 29 October) and therefore not able to access my computer, I am seeking a dispensation so that I can submit my final point-scoring submissions on Monday, 2nd November. However, ultimately it does not matter whether I am granted the dispensation or not, because I am not going to win the 2015 WikiCup whatever happens.

A casual observer looking at the scoreboard might think that I was in the lead. The board currently states that I have 6,020 points, Godot13 has 4,705 and Cas Liber 2,379. However, the scoreboard is misleading and that observer would be mistaken. Godot13 has a current total of 1,550 featured picture bonus points which need to be added to his apparent score, giving a total of 6,255 which put him in the lead. To add to that, he has nineteen featured picture candidates still under review (the last ones nominated just 97 minutes before the deadline for use in the WikiCup) all currently with 100% support, so I think we may be pretty certain those will give him another 380+ points and an unassailable lead. Meanwhile, I have three GAN nominations awaiting review, and can expect a small number of my DYKs to reach the front page in time. So the 2015 WikiCup will be a victory for Featured Pictures for the second year running.

One final point, Rationalobserver has two featured pictures in this final round. Where are his featured picture bonus points? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

RO's FPs are only on two article pages and so don't qualify for any bonus. We'll take your request under advisement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
RO is also female, at least according to her user page. Harrias talk 16:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup. I'm a woman, but no worries, Cwmhiraeth. Sturmvogel 66, I'm not sure if it matters, but both of my FPs are in two articles a piece. RO(talk) 16:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant, but failed to make clear. Sorry for the confusion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought that was what you meant. No worries. RO(talk) 16:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Have I misunderstood the rules then? "Featured pictures used in articles which exist on at least 5 Wikipedias, as of 31 December 2014, score 5 additional points." Mammillaria spinosissima seems to be in 10 languages and Echinocereus reichenbachii in 8. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
<Chagrined> No, you're quite right, she does get bonus points for her pics. Give us some time to fix them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Rather than create a subpage as with Godot's points, because (I presume) there isn't going to be additional FP bonus points from RO, I've added them as straight text in the same place as Godot's page is linked to. Miyagawa (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, Miyagawa, Mammillaria is in 23 languages and Echinocereus is in 20. So do I get bonus points for those too? RO(talk) 20:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I regret to inform you, Cwmhiraeth, that your request is denied. If you have suggestions for revising the scoring, please bring them up for discussion on the scoring talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, unless I'm missing something, the rules only state "contestants have two weeks to nominate their work after promotion" they don't mention that this doesn't apply at the end of the round too. Obviously it makes sense that it should be different at the end of the round, but I must say that it seems slightly harsh not to allow two days grace. Harrias talk 19:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Particularly as a blanket denial, as opposed to, say, agreement to check Cwmhiraeth's talk page and copy over anything worth points for him. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No one is saying that someone else couldn't copy the points over. In fact, that's probably the solution if people are content with it. I'm happy to go onto Cwm's talk page when closing down the round and copy over any DYKs that aren't already on her submissions page. Miyagawa (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Miyagawa. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
With regard to Rationalobserver's point above, each of her featured pictures should gain ten featured pictured bonus points, not five. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I've corrected that to a total of 20 points. Miyagawa (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The main point I was making above seems to have been overlooked, so I will start a new section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Miyagawa for adding my four final DYK submissions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well done!

I know that there's been a bit of upset in the last few days, but I just wanted to say that I have personally really enjoyed taking part in and watching the competition. I'm in awe of the incredible work completed by our finalists and congratulate them all. Thanks to the judges for taking on a difficult and, dare I say, almost thankless task. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, congratulations to the winner (it was a good scrap) and thanks to the judges. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Where are the archives?

I was trying to look at a matter discussed on this page in September 2015 but there are no links in the archive box at the top of this page to the 2015 archives 4, 5 and 6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've added the missing archives. Miyagawa (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Scoring Discussions for 2016

We were going to announce the opening of the discussions in the newsletter going around later today, but a couple of competitors have already noticed and posted - so feel free to head on over to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for discussions around the points for next year's cup. I'll be sending around the barnstars/awards after the newsletter goes out for the 2015 competitors. Miyagawa (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Award

I think first time participant award given to to all participants. What do you think about awarding 1st round winner award, 2nd round winner award, etc for the upcoming WikiCup? --AntanO 04:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

New Judge

I am pleased to announce that Godot13 has agreed to serve as a judge for this year's WikiCup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Where do we stand?

By my calculations, we have a little over two weeks until the start of the next WikiCup, and I was just wondering where we stand. Has Miyagawa been replaced, or will we be moving forward with only two judges? I note that we do not have too many signups; is there going to be an advertising drive? Some discussions are still on-going on the WikiCup scoring page; is someone keeping an eye on these? Apologies if this is all under control and I'm worried about nothing, but I think it'd be good for everyone if we all knew where we stand. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It would also be good if the proposed scoring rules for this year were presented before they became a fait accompli. I don't think a repeat of the start of this year (the first time, I think, where the rules had to be changed after the Wikicup started) would help anyone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The judges may consult with the competitors on changes to scoring, but basically they decide on the rules based on what they consider is in the best interests of the competition. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but no-one's perfect. Last year a misunderstanding about how a rule would fail to work in practice meant it had to be pulled after the competition started. Any advance warning would have prevented that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Retiring as Judge

So after two years as a WikiCup judge, I've decided to stand down. It's been a fun ride, and I've very much enjoyed the work that the competitors from this year and last have put out. So a big thank you to J and Ed, as well as Sturm and Figureskatingfan for being a joy to work with, as well as Jarry for keeping that bot going (I don't know where we'd be without it). But as well, a big thank you to all the competitors, without whom there wouldn't be a cup. Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks all - don't worry, I'll still be around on Wiki. I've decided specifically not to compete in 2016 because I want to concentrate on the 2016 Olympics work and the Star Trek 50th anniversary. Yep, I'm a nerd. ;) However, if the judges go for my "Champions of Champions" 2016 WikiCup featuring the return of as many finalists and judges from the first ten years of the cup, then I'll certainly be back for that. Miyagawa (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Score table oops

It appears the latest edit to remove Peer Reviews from the score table on the main wikicup page also removed the fact that the last column is 4 points for GA reviews. Right now it seems to indicate that GAs are both worth 35 points and 4 points. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, I as a contestant, don't feel like I should be changing the score table this close to the start of the competition. Could one of the judges please correct this minor issue? Thanks 1bandsaw (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Where am I?

Just had a look at the 2016 table and I noticed that I am not on it. I am fairly sure I had put myself down to take part (in fact I was the 4th person to sign up!) so can I ask why am I not on the board? Am I suddenly a judge and not been told? ;) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The C of E God Save the Queen! - Looking into it (because your submissions page was made)...--Godot13 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
You have been found.--Godot13 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Something different in 2016

Based on a mutual understanding (and in consultation with the judges), Cwmhiraeth and I have agreed to compete in the 2016 Wikicup and retire at the end of the fourth round (if either or both of us are still in the game). In addition, any advancement during the first three rounds of the competition will not effectively take a spot from another player. To make this very clear: 1) we would compete and are subject to elimination if we are not among any given pool’s top eight players. If we score in the top eight for a given pool, the ninth place finisher would advance as well. If we do not score in the top eight for a given pool, only eight will advance. 2) At the end of the fourth round (provided either or both of us passed through round three), we will retire from the 2016 Cup, regardless of score.--Godot13 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok- so we're clear, you're going to be (sort of) competing and acting as a judge? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to restate: I can neither win nor deprive anyone of advancement at any stage. So, yes.--Godot13 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not orthodox, but if that's needed to keep you motivated and it won't deprive non-judges of a spot ... why not. I would, however, be prepared to drop out earlier if a dispute arises. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Though my mind may be playing tricks on me, I seem to remember that we did something similar years ago- there was a separate table for the judges, who had their own competition. If I recall, it was removed after a couple of rounds so as not to distract from the main competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Your mind isn't playing tricks. I remember that too, and now you have me digging through the archives to find evidence of it. Gloss 04:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
But on the topic of "what we used to do", I found this poster that we used to have every cup, and I'm having crazy flashbacks. That poster caused sleepless nights. Gloss 04:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Found something, in "from the judges"! :) Gloss 04:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
This year's WikiCup theme is "Waiting for Godot to Drop Out" Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you forgot to link that. ;) Miyagawa (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2015/6&oldid=1137396685"