Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2016/2

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


Year of Science/WikiCup competition

The main WikiCup page says (emphasis added):

This year, in conjunction with several science-based WikiProjects, and in celebration of Wikipedia's Year of Science, we are offering a special side-competition, with actual monetary awards for competitors who submit science articles. This marks the first time in WikiCup history that we're attempting something like this. The Year of Science/WikiCup competition will begin by Feb. 5. Watch this space and future newsletters for more information.

Details? I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Year of Science/Projects either. AHeneen (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Competitor courtesy help offer

If anyone has an approved DYK hook stuck in limbo, please ping me. I just asked someone to put one of mine into a prep set before the round ends, and they refused to do so, saying, basically, that it wasn't fair to everyone else in the wikicup. Someone else will probably do so for me, but I realized that others may be in the same boat. So, given that lack of understanding, I promise to do the following:

  1. If anyone in the wikicup has a DYK hook that has passed but hasn't been placed into a prep set, ping me NOW, and I'll put it in this weekend (there is about a 4-day lag from a prep set to the queue to the main page). (Might be too late to review a DYK and get it into the queue for the main page at this point, but if you have it passed, just not queued, that we can do!)
  2. Next round, if anyone in the wikicup has a DYK that has languished for more than a week, ping me at my talk for help and I will either review or find you a reviewer within 48 hours. (I'm a pretty rigorous reviewer, but I try to be fair!)
  3. In subsequent rounds, if we are two weeks from the end of a round and someone has an approved DYK hook that isn't yet in a prep set, ping me and I'll put it there. (Providing it doesn't have problems, of course)

No wikicup participant should lose points due to bureaucratic backlog! I'm not an admin and I can't build queues, but we all can build prep sets, and I am willing to help my fellow participants! Montanabw(talk) 06:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Further rule clarification

I’d like to clarify a few other scoring issues that have resulted in claims for points being removed from competitors’ submission pages.

  • GA Reviews must be a minimum of 1,000 characters/bytes. This is not the total length of the review including back and forth dialogue; rather it is the reviewer’s "prose" commentary. While some quotation from the article is usually helpful, if the vast majority of the review consists of quoted sentences or small paragraphs regurgitated verbatim, the GA Review may not count. Templates used for scoring do not count towards the minimum length unless commentary is added within the template).
  • Simply shepherding an article/list to promotion (GA, FL, or FA) without making a significant contribution to the prose or lists/tables during 2016 is not eligible for WikiCup points.

Pinging both Figureskatingfan and Sturmvogel 66 to correct me if my interpretation is off base and/or add any comments.--Godot13 (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on DYK

Hello. I noticed that the WikiCup scoring page states that contestants cannot claim points for DYKs of articles recently promoted to GA status. Does that mean that I cannot claim Template:Did you know nominations/Songs by George Harrison? Out of curiosity, why did the judges decide to exclude points for DYK nominations of recent articles promoted to GA status? Thanks, MJ94 (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason they don't do points for the DYK after a GA is that you get points for the GA itself. 1bandsaw (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Plus it was agreed that it was against the spirit of the competition to allow people to double-dip for points and essentially get points for doing nothing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
But that has nothing to do with DYKs nominated by people who didn't help get the article to GA. MJ94 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
But then you haven't made a substantial contribution to the article and can't claim points anyway...--Godot13 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

End of Round 1

Congratulations to those moving into the next round. The groups for Round 2 will be uploaded shortly. There are still eight groups, but with six contestants in each (one with five) to account for the slightly smaller group starting the second round. Group assignment was made based on round 1 scores- the top eight players were distributed one per group, the second group of eight were distributed one per group, and so on. Advancement to future rounds will follow the same guidelines as stated above. The March newsletter will go out in the next day or so. Just a reminder- please do not to make any submissions until after midnight tonight (UTC). Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup

The Good article Cup is starting tomorrow, and taking sign-ups until March 15th. The GA Cup focuses on reviewing good articles, which are worth 4 points in the WikiCup. So one review can get you points in two different competitions. Two birds, one stone! If you're interested in participating, you can sign-up here. Wugapodes (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter

Rather than sending out another mass message, I'll apologize here for getting the year wrong in the newsletter... --Godot13 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Scoring error

Been doing up the galleries for the Wikicup. User:Casliber seems to have lost his points for the first FA of the competition. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2016/Submissions/Cas_Liber&oldid=707279673 Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. The submission had a formatting error so the bot didn't register it...--Godot13 (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
And yet the bot got the blame in the newsletter!! Outrageous!! If it were humanoid it would sue for libel... - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 14:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Whomp whomp. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Stade Français history - Restoration.jpg

Hasn't passed, but presuming it does, reckon this is eligible? It's one of the easiest I've done in a while. While not a perfect way of evaluating (it can fail where the resolution of the damage is much smaller than the size being compared) I think in this case flipping back and forth between https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Stade_Fran%C3%A7ais_history.jpg/1280px-Stade_Fran%C3%A7ais_history.jpg and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Stade_Fran%C3%A7ais_history_-_Restoration.jpg/1280px-Stade_Fran%C3%A7ais_history_-_Restoration.jpg will give a decent idea - the eye's drawn to the changes. Pay attention to the edges, though; a lot of the fixes are there.

I don't mind whatever's decided. I did it because it's used in one of the first Good Articles of the cup, and I've been meaning to take a close look for a while. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicup report

Please check Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-03-09/WikiCup report I'll probably stop the list once I get the first person for whom no image is possible, which may be the first person to get through based on reviews, or just someone who doesn't have images in any of the articles they worked on. Until then, I'm going to do my best. The basic logic of the image selection is that I try to get it from the most impressive single contribution where possible - e.g. FA, FL/FP, GA, DYK, in that order, but if no useable image exists (The Signpost does not accept fair use, for instance), I'll go down a level. It's a sample, not the whole smorgasbord. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I did the top 25 for the gallery, simply because it was getting a bit awkward to find good images around that point to illustrate things with (Ealdgyth is such a copout, but it was the best I could do, for instance). I'll try to at least do everyone who passes Round 2. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Figureskatingfan: Can you please archive the submission pages at the end of a round instead of blanking them? I had to go in and replace every single person's Wikicup link so I could actually link to their submissions. That's kind of terrible design when any sensible archiving would mean that just adding |round=1 to the Wikicup link could link to the correct round. If it can't be done this year, fine, but last year it's done this way, please? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As a general note- if we've ever done it like that (I don't think we have...) we haven't in years. Also- honey, vinegar, etc. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you have, but I've mentioned it once or twice when making the galleries. It's... a bit awkward, at best, as it means, for example, that the Wikicup history is a little confusing. Round 1 won't link to the contributions for round 1 in any simple way, and the end-of-round reports link to submission pages that have been scrubbed of all the data being discussed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...

Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon

I've only just heard about this myself, but it looks like a great scheme in which WikiCup people may be interested in participating. Perhaps the judges could mention it on the next newsletter if there's one going out in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This round is annoying...

Nothing is reaching quorum on FPC this month. I've had three images so far with no opposition but with a lull in FPC activity meaning that they didn't pass with three or four of the needed five supports. Very frustrating... Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

ITN score

Imre Kertész was posted in recent deaths in ITN yesterday. The ITN nomination was placed by @Zwerg Nase:, who is also competing in this WikiCup and is claiming points for it. Meanwhile I have also contributed to the article, in expanding some prose and providing citations to some unsourced claims. The nomination was posted successfully after cleaning up of the article by many editors. In this case, Zwerg's claim of points is well justified. But can I also claim points here? Please have a look at the history of the article and let me know if I can add it in my submissions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the scoring rules on ITN are so wonderfully vague that I just went for it. But in my opinion, everyone who worked on it should also get points. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well yes... FAs/FLs or even GAs/DYKs have co-editors who work in bringing the article to that status. If all those are participants here, all of them will take points for it. But our Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring says "Articles appearing on recent deaths are eligible for in the news points, subject to the normal requirement for substantial work by the nominator." (emphasis added). Also, it talks of "substantial work" which I wanted judges to confirm. Hence queried here. Pinging them, @Figureskatingfan, Sturmvogel 66, and Godot13: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
My interpretation is that contestants can, if they've contributed to an article, submit it even if it's been previously submitted by another editor. Then it's up to the judges to decide if, as the above mentioned rule states, the second nominator is awarded points for it. The other judges can confirm if I'm correct, please. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why ITN specifies nominator; as far as I'm concerned (and I probably wrote that rule) there's no reason to treat ITN any differently to anything else, and one would not need to be the actual nominator to claim for (say) a GA. A user would just need to have done significant work on the article in the run up to the nomination (during this year) as normal. However, I defer entirely to the judges. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with both Christine (Figureskatingfan) and Josh. What it ultimately comes down to is making a significant contribution. If it is not the nomination and article work itself, then article work alone is fine, provided that it is more than merely cleaning up, adding references, or adding a few sentences. Later review by the judges may remove submissions that do not qualify as a significant contribution.--Godot13 (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
P.S. It seems that you both contributed roughly the same amount of prose to the article (just over 10% of the article's prose each) which, at least to me, seems like a significant contribution.--Godot13 (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies everyone. I will add it in my submissions for now and let judges decide whatever they wish later on. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon

Hi, can I interest anybody in participating in April? Up to £200 in Amazon vouchers and books up for grabs. Expansions and Good articles about Wales are warmly welcome. Anybody can contribute and get points for both the wikicup and the Dragon contest at the same time and potentially win over £100 in doing so if you focus on Wales in April! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hee hee! Want another horse article or two? Dream Alliance... and Welsh pony and cob... (rubs hands, thinks of another Blofeld review of a pony piece... I am sooo evil! bwahahahaaaaa!) Montanabw(talk) 23:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if I can get the article about Welshmen indulging in carnal knowledge of ovis aires written in time to go with that.......:) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you are confusing the Welsh with Wyoming cowboys... /lol (regional humor). Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I said I'd do it, and I did! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Bot mistake

Hey everyone! I was shocked to find that the bot assessed my GAs wrongly in terms of multiplying the score. I should have gotten a 1.4x on Milan-San Remo and a 1.8x on the Australian Grand Prix, if I am not mistaken? Can someone correct this? Thanks! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zwerg Nase. Multipliers are awarded based on the number of other wikis a subject appeared on, as at 1 January. I think the issue here will be that most of the articles that exist now did not exist then. For example, the Australian GP article only existed on circa 3 wikis on 1 January. As I recall, the rule is there to protect against gaming (and maybe against recentism), but in your case it does feel a little harsh. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 08:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
That is not a live count? Jesus! I was against using the "other wikis" rule anyway, but now I am practically pissed about it! So I can pretty much forget writing articles on recent sports events from here on out since it won't give me a fighting chance in the competition?! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
We've had cases of people trying to game the system by writing microstubs about minor topics on other language Wikipedias (Scots, Simple English and even mangled Old English were favourites); that, along with concerns about recentism, was part of what motivated the 31 December cut-off. It it was removed, there be a weird shifting-of-goalposts mid-competition, as well as the chance for endless arguments about how many articles were there when you wrote it versus when you nominated it versus when it was promoted versus when the bot got to it versus... I accept that the system isn't perfect, but I do think it's a lot stronger than the alternatives which have been considered. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

April Wikicup Newsletter

What happened to the April newsletter, anyway? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't usually publish one mid-round, unless it's warranted, which it wasn't this time. Look for the next newsletter at the start of Round 3, about May 1. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Scoring question?

I created the article Gobioolithus and it got featured on the homepage as a DYK and promoted to GA status, am I allowed to claim points for both the GA and the DYK? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Round over

Round ended 20 hours ago...time for the judges to update with who proceeds to the next round and clear the submissions pages. I counted 36 contestants that scored points this round. 32nd place is a tie (Azealia911 & Wizardman with 12 points). Only three contestants that scored points are eliminated: Skr15081997 (10 points), Ikhtiar H (9 points), & Yellow Evan (4 points). AHeneen (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your math is a bit off...--Godot13 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
My math was a bit off too (sorry for my comment). You may have forgotten that two of the contestants (Cwmhiraeth and me) can not take the place of another contestant, as we are only competing through round 4...--Godot13 (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

End of round scoring

Anyone who has added submissions to their scoring page on April 29 or 30 representing material promoted or appearing on the main page on those days must remove the submission and wait until the next round begins (May 1) per General scoring rules. Thank you--Godot13 (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter to who passes to the next round, however. Casliber and ZappaOMati both lose some DYKs (Muboshgu's points were scored within the timeframe, so ignore that part of the diff) - but neither Casliber or ZappaOMati are at any risk of dropping out of the round, they just need to know that they have some points to start Round 3 with. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Darn. Zappa24Mati 23:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Round 3 mea culpa...

Realizing my own error, I will redo the groups now. Please stand by... --Godot13 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Corrections made...--Godot13 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
cough... I'm missing WormTT(talk) 23:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
please hold...--Godot13 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There are now 3 groups of 9 and one group of 8...that's one contestant too many. It should be 2 groups of 9 (since Cwmhiraeth and Godot13 don't displace any competitors from being eliminated) and 2 groups of 8. AHeneen (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, Cwmhiraeth and Godot13 should be the 9th user in their respective groups. The current grouping (which includes an extra contestant, per my previous comment) has Godot13 in the group of 8. So if the top two from each group advance, that means in groups A & C will be the top 2 of 9; in group B the top two in 8 (excluding Cwmhiraeth); and in group D the top two of 7 (excluding Godot13). AHeneen (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There was a tie for second place pool winner in Group E, so three pool winners for the group advanced... I have moved myself to a nine-contestant group --Godot13 (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

New trophy

Why not use this to represent the 2016 Wiki Cup Trophy?

Spiffs things up a bit...no?

The generic trophy just looks...generic.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, the edges of the trophy are out of focus and jagged, and the "W" is jagged. In some past years, the trophy has been personalized for the winner...--Godot13 (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Scope increase to include deletionistic activities

The WikiCup is the only competition as far as I know which has been actively undertaken since many years and the only competition which focuses on all aspects of "creation" throughout the wiki. While "deletionists" are usually shunned, make plenty on-wiki enemies, are not presented with barnstars or appreciations by registering their names in long adored-editors lists; their work should not be disregarded. Keeping at bay articles and images that are copyvios, unduly projected notable topics, spams, advertisements, vandals, etc. also helps built the wiki equally at par with the works done by creationists. These actions also help prevent unwanted reports on improper functioning of wiki in media and possible law suits. Keeping it short, I don’t think anyone would disagree with the importance of these jobs.
The point of disagreement would come in if such activities are to be considered in this competition and hence we are here to discuss it. I propose that deletionists activities should also be included in scoring scheme from next year. Although Wikicup wants to focus on "content improvement" I suppose the content would improve well with lesser weeds around. Gauging content removal through articles and general cleaning of article is quite difficult. But all types of deletions discussions (AfD, FfD, CfD, etc.) can be scored 2 points and all speedy or proposed deletions where no active discussions take place can be scored 1 point.
If such proposal has been made before and rejected, please direct me to those past archives. I could not locate anything such. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Though I do not wish to dismiss your idea completely, it does seem very risky to me. All of the current point categories go through a defined process to independently validate the quality of the new material. How does one judge the quality of the deletions? A PROD where no one responds in a week is not necessarily a proper deletion, it may just be that no one saw it in time. Just submitting an article for AfD is not very much effort, and can wind up making much more work for those who then have to argue to keep it. If you try to judge it on whether the deletion gets through the process successfully, I could see where an abusive approach to winning those points would be just to submit so many articles for deletion that inevitably some will get through. 1bandsaw (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I forgot to mention that only successful deletions should be counted. So only nominating is not sufficient; the article should be deleted post AfD to be counted in scores. The fact that the article got straight delete votes from all editors and did not require the nominator to struggle to get it deleted should not deter them to take points for it. The other side of such nomination; that the article straight away was not suitable for wiki and it was pointed out by the nominator should be appreciated in this.
For PRODs I do agree with you. We might have to consult some admins to check how they really gauge PROD nominations. Its true that various articles stay undeleted post the 7 days period. Is that because admins have not noticed it or is that so because they think there is an iota of notability and value in keeping it? We might have to brainstorm these options and that's why I started this topic just when the 3rd round started which is when I think editors and judges might be a bit free to discuss. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I am opposed to this, as it would completely change the character of the competition. The WikiCup is about content; this means that there are lots of worthwhile activities which are not covered by it. Work in deletion processes is just one of them. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the other comments that this competition is about promoting the creation of new content. There are many activities which greatly benefit Wikipedia besides creating content, such as nominating things for deletion, but also working on project pages, welcoming new users, helping answer questions of new users, answering emails, etc. I don't think that this contest should be expanded to include deletion activity. Also, any additions should be made after the current contest is over, not in the middle of the contest. AHeneen (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I concur that deletion activity is far outside the scope of the wikicup. Frankly, I don't think they need any encouragement, they are too aggressive as it is. Although the deletionist corps do good things to reject spam, advertising and articles about garage bands, and for that I do applaud them, there is a darker side: there is an awful lot of systemic bias (particularly topics related to women or to people from the third world) and also a lot of recentism (if the person or thing occurred before the age of Google, it's vulnerable) in far too many AfD nominations. I also see far too many AfD noms over inadequate sourcing of articles, when the topic is adequately notable and could be salvaged if the deletionist corps could be arsed to do so. (Really, for all the bandwidth wasted in AfD discussions, someone could just have fixed the article with far less trouble) I also see a lot of things deleted when they could easily be merged with a larger article (particularly articles about minor actors), but again, that would mean... work on content. Sorry, but though I haunt AfD a bit, it's a drama-o-rama neighborhood, not suitable here. Montanabw(talk) 03:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Join

Hi, I know it's too late, but is there any chance I could join the 2016 WikiCup? FrB.TG (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Its too late for this year - look out for it again in 2017. Though if you are looking for a contest; maybe sign up for this one? Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge ツStacey (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK vs RD

An article that has appeared on main page as Recent Death article is still eligible for DYK unlike the blurb-featuring article of ITN. In such a case, if the same editing has made eligible an article to feature in both RD and DYK, which points should be included in the WikiCup? I couldn't find any clarity on this in our rule book and hence some mending in rules is required. I would propose using the maximum score that comes from the two features should be included. For real life example; Mike Agostini was recently added as RD and that would give me 10 points. But it is also DYK nominee which if passed would give me 13 points. (5 base points + 8 bonus points for 2007 creation) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that only one of those events should be counted and that it should be the one worth more points. The main page says "the judges reserve the right to adjudicate in the spirit of the rules, rather than to their letter." I think that that is what should be applied here. AHeneen (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting- I don't think this came up during any of our discussions of recent deaths. Personally (speaking solely as another competitor), I respectfully disagree with AH, and would have no objection to you claiming points for RD and DYK for the same article. I would think that (as there is nothing saying otherwise on the rules at this time) this is what the rules-as-written say, but agree that the judges should adjudicate in the spirit of the rules. (What, precisely, the spirit of the rules are is perhaps up for debate.) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
So just like my previous doubt I will submit this RD and also submit DYK if passed before the judges give final call. I have to submit them within 3 days. They can of course be removed afterwards anytime. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. All RDs that meet minimum quality guidelines are currently being posted, regardless of "notability". The trial is a month long and is about 10 days in. This may skew your contest if people get wind of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, no-one reads the talk pages. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Scoring issue

I'm wondering why the bot assessed no points for my recent DYK. Is it a bot issue, or did I do something wrong? Thanks, SteveStrummer (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It gave you the five basis points - but no bonus points for size (too small), age (not old enough) or multi wikis (none). So you did get 5 points you were due.  MPJ-US  02:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Ohhh I see now :) Thanks! SteveStrummer (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Élizabeth Teissier

I did this as a translation from the French. Does it count if it gets DYK? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

While I'm not a judge: It always has in the past- there's nothing explicitly in rules against it. (And, personally, I strongly support it staying that way.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick question: When do the rounds end?

So this may seem a bit silly, but when is considered the end of a round? The rules say June 28th but does that mean 00:00:00 (start of the day) or 23:59:59 (end of the day), and I'm assuming those times are UTC? Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 17:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

End of the day, UTC. Anything promoted/closed/hitting the MP/whatever at any time up until the end of 28 June is eligible for this round. Anything promoted after that but before the start of the next round (i.e., on 29 or 30 June) can claimed in the next round, but not until that round starts (i.e., on 1 July). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

So... uh...

We going to end this round? It's July 1, and we're meant to be on Round 4. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yup, things have been a little busy IRL, plus the judge who usually takes care of it is out of town; i.e., not available. Working on it now; please be patient. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
If you need a hand I would be happy to help out.  MPJ-DK  21:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @MPJ-DK: but I think it'd be a conflict of interest. I have to stop now, but I'll try to get back to it in a few hours. Again, thanks for everyone's patience. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

ITN points

I was under the impression that ONLY items that appear in the "Recent deaths" section qualify for ITN points. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#In the news says: Articles appearing on recent deaths are eligible for in the news points, subject to the normal requirement for substantial work by the nominator. I noticed that all five of the contestants submitting ITN points had at least one ITN listing that did not feature in the RD section of ITN:

If my understanding is incorrect, could I add points to the last round due to the misunderstanding for Hissène Habré (ITN nom posted May 30; diffs: 1, 2, 3) on account of the confusing wording of the scoring page if non-RD ITNs can be claimed for points? In either case, it means the difference between advancing and being eliminated. AHeneen (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of FAs (and Bonus Points, for obvious reasons), all the other categories at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Specific rules state when you can claim points, which definitely makes it seem like RDs are the only ITN items that can be claimed for points. AHeneen (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that our rule book has various lacunae and if the judges permit, I can WP:BOLDly try to fix some. But I am surprised on why would you assume that full blurbs are not qualified but only single mentions in RD is qualified. The purpose of "specific rules", as I understand, is only to add more to individual category of entries. It is a basic thing that ITN blurb should give you score. With your interpretation as there is no section of FL in "specific rules" FLs would not earn any points at all. But that's not how it is.
I agree that more clarity would help. And I have no comments on whether your submission should now be accepted or not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Because, with the exception of FAs, the other categories at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#In the news all state the criteria for when an item in that category is eligible for points, so it seems that only RDs can get points because the ITN section simply says: Articles appearing on recent deaths are eligible for in the news points, subject to the normal requirement for substantial work by the nominator. AHeneen (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Submissions page

I noticed that the new pools were finally created yesterday. However, the submission pages haven't been blanked yet. See mine, for example.--12george1 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Came here to write same thing. @Figureskatingfan: Please suggest what we should do. If there is delay in doing these formalities I suppose all contestants should get extra time for submitting their entries as many of them would not fall in the 5/10 days limit of submissions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Gack! Sorry, silly newbie error. Submissions pages cleared now. Thanks for your patience with me, guys. And of course, you won't be penalized for my incompetence. Please look over your pages and fix anything that you need to fix. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If the next round contestants are final, I guess we can ourselves blank out our submission pages. Unless that would be a problem with the scoring bot or something else. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know Dharmadhyaksha Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Pic request/suggest

I was trying to find a good picture of Concorde to submit it to FPC and the best I could find was File:Air France Concorde Jonsson.jpg. Most pictures, including this one are under the recommended limit. Someone should try to find a good one (perhaps here) or maybe fix the balance on File:235ac - British Airways Concorde; G-BOAD@LHR;15.05.2003 (8056002570).jpg. Nergaal (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nergaal: You can limit a Flickr search by license. https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=concorde&license=4%2C5%2C9%2C10 Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Should I claim...?

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Carol Greider. It's hardly a huge amount of work, on the other hand, it probably wouldn't have passed without the work happening. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but if anyone objects, I'm happy to remove it. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems fine to me.--Godot13 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, go for it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive

Colleagues, just so you're aware, there is a GAN Backlog drive just started here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/August 2016. Miyagawa (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we lose DYK next year?

The whole system seems highly problematic. Have a look at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Élizabeth_Teissier, where, in order to avoid saying anything negative about someone primarily notable for being controversial, they're proposing pro-astrology hooks. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, no ,no. One bad apple doesn't spoil the whole barrel. Besides what they're doing above is trying to avoid a WP:BLP violation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not not not not not a BLP violation to include well-cited facts that make up her primary claim to notability. A bogus claim of BLP does not allow a very clear violation of WP:FRINGE. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes I think it is OK to just "flunk" a DYK review. Montanabw(talk) 17:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/2016 Women in Philosophy Drive

In case anyone is interested: I've set up an editing drive about women in philosophy. Please feel free to join up! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Hideous Sun Demon/GA1

I've just realised that though I closed this a few weeks ago I'd forgotten to claim for it. I've added it to my submissions page but will not argue if a judge removes it; I know it's only four points, but I appreciate that this kind of thing has caused some problems in the past. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Bonus points

Although somewhat academic because I shall be retiring from the WikiCup at the end of the month, the Bot failed to award the appropriate points for my DYK of Notiomys. It is not surprising that the Bot was confused because someone had inadvisably moved the page to a new name and someone else had returned it to its original name. The article occurs on more than ten Wikipedias and the stub I expanded was created in 2005. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Belated thanks for pointing this out Cwmhiraeth. I have verified that post-moving it back, the bot would have awarded the right number of bonus points (10). It's worth noting that if you delete the multiplier template, the bot will re-evaluate the multiplier, which would have fixed the issue here (after the article had been moved back). Best, - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 19:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Final Round

Congrats to our eight finalists! The final round of the 2016 WikiCup begins in just a few minutes. We hope to have a newsletter out within the next few days.--Godot13 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Godot; I'm thrilled to finally get here! I wish the best of luck to my competitors. According to the records as I see them, and treating 2009 as the first competition recognisable as the WikiCup, this is the first final for Wugapodes, Worm That Turned, J Milburn, MPJ-DK and The C of E, second final for 12george1, the fourth final for Adam Cuerden and the sixth final for Casliber. This is also the first WikiCup for Wugapodes and MPJ-DK, third for Worm That Turned and J Milburn, fourth for The C of E and Adam Cuerden, sixth for 12george1, and seventh for Casliber. The gender balance this year is not great; as far as I am aware, six users identify as male, one user requests to be referred to using the singular "they", and I do not know the identity of the other user. All users for whom I have information available identify as residing the Anglophone west; one in Canada (of UK origin), one in Australia, three in the UK and two in the US. I do not know where the other resides. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Congratulations to the final eight and best wishes for the last round. It was fun being part of the WikiCup; something that Wikipedia had stopped being for me. So thanks for keeping me active in this period. The thanks goes not only to this year's coordinators and the originators of the Cup but to everyone who has been part of it from day one. Although we could not progress ahead it is the tough competition that we gave which will make winners improve Wikipedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Also best wishes to all remaining participants from me! It was good fun to compete with you guys. In the end, with vacation and my master thesis going forward, I was just unable to keep up with the efforts you have put in. Congratulations and more importantly: Thank you for making Wikipedia better! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This is my first WikiCup and what has surprised me the most is the additional attention my contributions have gotten this year, I "dabble" in professional wrestling (sounds better than obsessed) and normally FAC, FLCs and GANs do not garner a lot of attention and sit forever, but it has been a pleasant surprise to see the additional attention and input my work has gotten - and because if it a lot better and stronger too, win or lose this has been awesome. I know some like to slam the cup for being a competition for points etc., but to me, it's about challenging ourselves as editors and improve our work. I see a lot of really strong work going on, very impressed by everyone.  MPJ-DK  00:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    • MPJ-DK: That's great to hear. I think people (competitors, judges, critics) sometimes only hear the negatives. I have always been fairly confident that, despite the existence of quarrelsome individuals, there's a silent majority of participants in the Cup who enjoy taking part and benefit from it. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I've heard it myself, that's why I wanted to make sure people also hear some of the positive feedback, as a whole I think the Wikicup is a benefit for the quality of Wikipedia.  MPJ-DK  01:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Good luck, finalists! I was happy just to make the semis this year, if I could just WP:Avoid all dramas, I might have tipped into the finals on a wildcard, but got distracted and my sandbox drafts languished and I didn't even get Pony ride to DYK in time to count. You folks who keep up this level of work consistently throughout the year are to be commended for your time and effort! Montanabw(talk) 20:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering, is there going to be a newsletter or something in the signpost? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@The C of E: I tend to use the announcements by the judges for The Signpost, because then I don't have to write about myself; these reports have been missing, though. There hasn't, as far as I can tell, been a newsletter since May, which was also the last Signpost report. I actually had to abandon a largely-finished gallery since we never got a report to pair it with for the last two rounds. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I do hope we get one for the end though. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

GAN Élizabeth Teissier

Any chance of a review? It's been literally waiting about 4 months. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

....Guess not. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe the GA cup starts today, hopefully that'll get some attention to articles who have sat a while.  MPJ-DK  10:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2016/2&oldid=1149613894"