Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2017/1

Submissions

Please do not edit the submissions pages of other contestants. The judges look at every submission and disallow those that do not qualify for points. If you want to bring anything to the judges' attention, please mention it on this page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry for meddling. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Work in 2017

Seems to me that I have a whole bunch of work I did in 2016 that has yet to even be nominated for FA and in some cases GA. I have a FAC that has been nominated for some weeks and only has one support at this stage, although I am confident it will get there. It is unlikely that I could add much to it (I wouldn't have nominated it for FA if I hadn't). I could wait the whole first tranche of the WikiCup for an article I worked on in 2016 and nominated in 2016 to pass FAC. I wouldn't be on my own. I also have a dozen articles waiting to go into the FAC machine, all of which I worked on in 2016 (or even 2015). Again, I'm no orphan. It seems to me that the old WikiCup ended on 31 October, anything that has been significantly worked on since then should be ok for this WikiCup. Or am I missing something here? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

We have to set a start date and it's set on 1 January 2017. Although your all contributions before that are not going to be qualified for the cup they have only helped Wikipedia be better. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha is correct. The start date for work to be considered for this year's cup is January 1st. If you do some work polishing up or expanding the articles you mention before nominating them for GAN or FAC in 2017, they should qualify. The points thresh-hold for continuing into Round 2 is usually low, and featured articles, in particular, score good points in the later rounds when higher point scores are more needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are feeling me here. I have a pending GT with 30+ articles almost all of which will have got to GA pre-2017, but I can score it if I get it up? The rules seem pretty rubbery here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to have done significant work on an article this year for it to be eligible; typically, this means work, then nomination, then promotion all this year. Work done after the end of the last competition but before the start of this competition is not work done this year. There's a very slight exception for good/featured topics, as explained here: Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Featured and good topics. For topics, "Points are awarded per article in the topic that was worked on by you. If you would have a right to claim points for the promotion of the article to good or featured status, you have the right to claim points for its promotion as part of the topic, even if you did not nominate the topic. ... This applies even if the work on these articles was not done this year, as long as you have done significant work on at least one article in the topic this year." So if you bring A and B to GA in 2016, and then C to GA in 2017, you can claim GT points for A, B and C if the topic is promoted in 2017. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's seems fair for GTs. I spose I'll just see how it goes... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles

Will my current nominations - Jennifer Lawrence's FAC and DYK, Bradley Cooper's FTC and Hrithik Roshan's GAN - be included here if they are promoted? - FrB.TG (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Lawrence and Cooper were edited and nominated in 2016; so no. Roshan's GAN was nominated on 5th Jan and quite a considerable amount of work has been done since 1st Jan. So it might be considered. Judges would look at the quantum of work and decide. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I am not sure how active I will be this year so removing my name. - FrB.TG (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Don't be too hasty in removing your name. If it passes GAN, Hrithik Roshan is likely to qualify, and there are still 300 days left before the WikiCup ends, and who knows what may happen in that time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Yes, and one GA is likely to put you through into Round 2, so you can worry about what to do then (though if come end of February you are still convinced not to compete you should probably say so to allow someone else to take your place in Round 2). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tiebreaks

If several people tie to qualify, is there a tiebreak to determine who advances and who does not? If so, what is it? Joshualouie711^talk 17:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think that if people tie to qualify both would probably move on to the next round. The only true tie that needs to be broken is if two people are tied for first in the final round and I guess this year if two are tied for cash prizes.  MPJ-DK  18:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

MPJ-DK is probably correct, but it would depend on the circumstances. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In previous years (though this was never codified, so it's certainly up to the current judges whether or not they want to follow suit) we had a rule that a tie would be decided on the basis of review activity; specifically, the judges would consider which of the two users had contributed more to the likes of FAC, PR, and FLC. I only remember this rule having to be applied once, but it did amicably resolve the situation. (In other tie-like circumstances, we have advanced more to the following round. This kind of thing, of course, is why we have judges!) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting how the tie-breaker would be resolved by looking at the work that have not been used to score any points; so taking overall project participation into account. But I wonder why deletionistic activities have been neglected yet again! Just wondering... nothing serious. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a project about content creation and improvement; more "administrative" work is certainly important, but it is not, and has never been, the competition's focus. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

FA reviews

It occurs to me that having some points for FA reviews might be a good reform to consider moving forward. It also occurs to me that this has probably been thought of by somebody else before, but I figured a discussion can't hurt. My reasoning is as follows: what we are showcasing here is all forms of content work, from DYK/ITN (which are not very demanding) to FA (which are). But, none of these are viable without the corresponding review processes. We can legitimately not award points for DYK reviews (for instance) as these are rather undemanding. GA reviews get 4 points. FAs are at a higher standard than GAs: shouldn't we then be awarding those points, too? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, while FA reviews may be demanding, they also may be simple drive-by supports. I agree that it would be good to encourage FA reviews, but we have to do it in a way that only encourages good ones, which is tricky. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Coemgenus, and add that there has been opposition from some members of the FAC community to the idea of reviews being worth points. We had points for peer reviews a couple of years ago, but that was not a success. I think it's a reasonable idea, but I'm not sure how viable it is. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that FA reviews can be gamed for points, I do not see how they can be gamed more than GA reviews can. I have seen a number of rubber-stamp GA reviews over the years. We have safeguards for that, do we not? We could do the same for FA reviews. Now FAC also has a solid community of contributors, and if that community is opposed to it that's a slightly different matter. Vanamonde (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that GA reviews are gamable, and that a lot of reviews (WikiCup or no WikiCup) are less than ideal. A difference between GAC and FAC (and I think this was part of the issue with PRs) is that someone who performs a GA review is responsible for all aspects of the review, and it has a clear start, middle and end. The involvement of FAC reviewers, both in terms of the range of issues they address and the level of their involvement in the FAC process, varies hugely. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, but I still think it may be workable...I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts, too. Vanamonde (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that the variability of what an individual FAC reviewer actually reviews is an obstacle here. Some reviewers review only prose, others do source reviews, and others do image reviews. Some do the lot. But a FAC review is usually a team effort rather than a single person job, so I'm not sure it is suited to inclusion in this sort of individual competition. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think having a review of >?k could be a fine rule, but ppl at FAC would complain because it incentivizes useless reviews. Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Updating the points

Hello there, I have a question regarding point updating. I wrote an article Nyuserre Ini, which became GA on the 4th of January, yet the corresponding 35 points still do not appear on my tally. What should I do for this to happen? Should I simply wait? I am similarly worried because Nyuserre Ini will liekly soon be FA (it is reviewed at the moment) and I would like to be credited the corresponding 200 points. Could you indicate me how the point crediting works? Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor: You need to include the article in your submissions page. The way to do it is included in the page when you edit it. Then the bot will reward the points to you. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase Thank you, I did it however I don't know what [diff of nomination] is and also the external link does not seem to be working, see here my submission page. Could you please check that I did it properly ? I apologize for the inconvenience, this is the first time I do a Wikicup and so am still quite foreign to all the processes. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor: I actually do not think that you need the diff and the external link on the submission page. If you need the diff, it is the number of the page revision that was promoted, so in your case "758305180", which is the version of the article that Jaguar promoted. You can find the number by clicking on the timestamp of the revision in the edit history, then the number is given at the end of the URL. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the submission page for others who have received GA points, they're linking the article and the GA review page. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase Argento Surfer thank you to both of you for your help! Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor: I have replaced the submission you made on your submissions page with the correctly formatted one. Any errors in the submission may flummox the bot. The points should now be added by the bot within a few hours. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Thank you I will use this as a template for my next submissions. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple contestents

Assume 2 or more people collaborate on a particular article or articles, and they are/all both contestants in the WikiCup. Can they both/all get points for that content? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, provided that both have done significant work on the article this year. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, if anyone wants to work together on a bunch of articles, I've got an idea for a topic that I think we can get to featured topic status; but it'll need a LOT of work. Contact me on my talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Contestants/points table sorting

The contestants/points table sorts contestants alphabetically by the name of the flag icon (Alaska, Albania, ...). Can this be fixed? AHeneen (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Does that matter? Surely people will sort it based on points scored so far? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to take the time to edit Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant8 and move the flag icon from in front of every participant's name and put it behind their names, it will sort by user name. I'm not sure it's worth the effort... Argento Surfer (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason I brought this up was that I tried to find myself in the list so that I could add a submission in the list and clicked the column header to sort the list, which would make it quick to find my line. I just brought this up on the talk page in case there was an easy fix. If not, that's not a problem (I can just hit CTRL+F and search the page). AHeneen (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this is not an easy fix. If you want to find your name in the table, the simplest way is by using "control" and "F". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that such a change is just window dressing. Points are the things that matter, it's not as if the ultimate tiebreak is whoever is first alphabetically. Use the points tally for navigation, if you know how many points you have then you can find yourself easily. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could place a link to your own submissions page on your userpage or elsewhere, as some of us have done. Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)