Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2019/3

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


Bot

Is livingbot not updating yet? I see there are a few items added, but no multipliers/points. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! Should be working now. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 11:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a question on the bot - it put Miquel Bauçà as a 5-point DYK, but the article's over 7k bytes, is there a way to signal this for the 10 points? Kingsif (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

According to the page size tool, the article only has a "readable prose size" amount of 4093 B. I believe it needs 5120 to earn the bonus points (see this page for more details). Ruby2010 (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
the amounts are based on prose not lists or formatting. The whole bit on works doesn't count towards this amount in this article. You can either use page size, or User:Shubinator/DYKcheck to see the amounts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I hadn't considered that! Kingsif (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Came here for a similar reason. The page size script says Mandarin Patinkin's readable prose is 5261, but it was still listed at 5 points? Could the bot's script be different? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that it run of this version of the page. It was 5120, which would be under. I don't know how the bot works, but that seems like the most obvious reason for it not getting the points. As it's borderline regardless, it may be a good idea to check with the co-ordinators. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
This was the version when I added it to the submissions page (and when the bot ran on that page). That version comes up for me as 5262. I'm not sure how a bot would choose a version before it was added/run. I guess you could argue that it should be run based on whatever version exists at the exact moment it appears on the main page, but that's yet another version and also seems kind of unnecessary. Meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
perhaps we should get some clarification on how it works. FWIW, anything in the 5k characters range would be suitible for 10 points in my eyes Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jarry1250: just a ping to see if you can shed light when you get a minute. Thanks — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The bot tries to work out when the DYK appeared on the main page (surprisingly difficult!) and then asks whether their prosesize is greater than 5120 for that version (actually 5100 to avoid arguments at the margin). Measuring prosesize isn't terribly easy either, so I won't hold it against people if they want to ask the coordinators for a manual intervention! Best, - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 12:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I've looked into it a bit more and there was a bug in the way that the bot was working out when the DYK appeared on the main page. Correcting that does give Mandarin Patinkin an extra five points (ping User:Rhododendrites). Sorry for any confusion. (No other DYKs are similarly affected.) - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 18:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it/fixing, Jarry1250. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviews

@Sturmvogel 66, Godot13, Cwmhiraeth, Vanamonde93, Laser brain, Ergo Sum, and Coffeeandcrumbs: it appears that there was an undeclared Wikicup review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Mulledy/archive1 (now promoted), for which points were claimed. Since two of the four reviews on that FAC were WikiCup participants, a reminder might be in order. (Fortunately, Ergo Sum is an experienced nominator and we need not worry about their articles, but nonetheless bringing this to the attention of WikiCup.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you. I am also concerned about this, especially as it is also relevant to another FAC, Donald Forrester Brown. I have contacted the editor concerned on their talk page asking them to rectify the omission. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not particularly worried, as in this case, the nominator is solid and the reviews just helped speed up the process. But it's good to make sure early in the game that all participants are aware that their WikiCup participation should be declared, so Coordinators can take that under consideration. (Bolding would help, too.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth I had a faulty link to Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2020/Submissions/Coffeeandcrumbs in my post above; I see those points have not been corrected yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
With regard to Donald Forrester Brown, the omission has been rectified, but this is not possible in connection with Samuel Mulledy because the FAC review has been archived. As this is the first time that FAC reviews are being included in the WikiCup, I am inclined to be lenient on the first occasion. I will be reminding contestants of this requirement in the next newsletter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Points for FAC

Would the same rules and points apply for FLC reviews as it does for FAC reviewes? The process is virtually identical after all. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I would say it would qualify as long as it involved a significant degree of effort as in a GAR or a FAR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, was just coming to ask the same. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It strikes me that a FLC review and a FAC review are different things, but I'm not going to argue. In any case, could this be clarified on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that clarification is needed. Some perfectly acceptable FLC reviews might be less than what you're looking for, and if so, people should know that going in. That's why judges get the big bucks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I have provided clarification on the scoring page and am awaiting the big bucks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The real money comes after you retire. I now make a pretty penny on the after-dinner speaking circuit. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

See the bottom of WP:Featured list candidates/Sussex Wildlife Trust/archive1 for my review. (I won't claim Wikicup points unless you guys want me to ... whatever works best for your system will be fine.) The typical FLC review has less detail than the typical FAC or GAN review. Fewer points, maybe? Or you could ask people (such as me!) to do a better job explaining why they think the criteria are met ... like some reviewers, I'm a believer in keeping the words to a minimum, but I can expand if that would work better for what you're looking for. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Take your time ... I'll go ahead and claim it for unknown points so that I don't miss the deadline. - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

As we have GAN and FAC reviews here, is there a previously discussed reason why a review at FLC shouldn't be counted too? After all, FLs are counted, like GAs and FAs. Just askin', for a friend, like. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, SandyGeorgia, anything to say here? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been traveling for a week and barely keeping up. I can't imagine any good reason that FLC reviews are not treated the same as FAC reviews for point purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Sorry I missed this. The subject was discussed higher up this page, and it was decided that FLC reviews should be included with the same points and provisos as FAC reviews. I made an alteration to the scoring page to that effect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
So I presume the scoring instructions etc will all be updated, right? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Duh, you just said that. Thanks for the response. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
But I still don't see it being reflected in the scoring templates nor the overall score list.... It should be explicit. FAC is not FLC. FA is not FL. Make it clear please. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: These are good points. I have made some alterations, but I do not intend to alter the 90 or so individual submissions pages for the moment, though I will change the headings when setting up Round 2. Was there anything else you feel needs changing? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
It's still not clear on the main WikiCup scoring page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Is that better? If not, perhaps you could specify precisely which sentence / section / page needs alteration. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Another FAC question

Mid-January, the FAC review rules were changed so that points could be claimed (assuming the review was long enough, declared, etc.) when one states opposition or support for a candidate, and not when a review is closed. I have two questions. 1) Does this mean that detailed reviews that do not offer support or opposition (including explicitly "neutral" "votes") are not eligible for points? 2) Where does this cases in which support or opposition is offered but then withdrawn? (E.g., I have here opposed with the explicit hope that problems will be resolved and that my opposition can thus be withdrawn.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It is difficult to envisage all the possible outcomes and incorporating them into the rules, so let's invoke the "spirit of the rules". As long as you have provided a review, image review or source review of the standard expected in a FAC, and not forgotten to mention your participation in the WikiCup, you should be eligible for points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Yep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok; thanks. It does seem that incorporating FAC reviewing has worked well so far. I think it's a good addition to the competition; I just don't want to see it creating problems for FAC or the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@J Milburn: With the caveat that RL has been keeping me off-wiki quite a lot; I'm quite willing to invoke the spirit of the rules to disallow pro forma reviews; so feel free to let one of the judges know if you feel that an editor is submitting such. We will, of course, also be performing our own checks, but we do not catch everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Interested editors should be aware of the March |Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon. There are likely good DYK candidates in the list, and you could kill two birds with one keystroke. There is a signup list if you are interested. Kees08 (Talk) 20:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how well I'll do...

Came home to discover my Desktop has finally gone from useable-with-issues to randomly cycling power on and off. It's quite old, so it's somewhat expected, but the laptop isn't very good for image editing, so... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 22:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mass message

Seeings as there is less than a week now, and some places still to fill for anyone who completes a review... Would it be suitable to send out a message to the participants/subscribers to remind them of the competition, and that there is still a chance of progression? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: It might have been a good thing, but I only just saw this suggestion today. I have this page watchlisted but for some unknown reason, it often seems to be missed when I look at my watchlist. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
not an issue. So long as we have enough for there to be some cut off for round 3, it's not so bad. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

FA reviews

A great idea. I see several WikiCup participants who are giving indepth reviews at FAC (although these are also people who tend to do reviews anyway). buidhe 17:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, even if some are regular reviewers, others are new to this area of Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
One tiny change to the tables guys ... it seems a little disrespectful to WP:FAR and WP:GAR folks (and potentially confusing as well) to label Wikicup reviews "FAR" and "GAR". I went with FACR, FCLR and GANR, but I don't have a preference. Feel free to revert and discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I think FAC, FLC, and GAN are the proper terms, but I could be wrong. Kees08 (Talk) 17:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
In running text, I wouldn't want to refer to an editor's review as a "FAC", but if "FAC" is needed at the top of a table column because space is so tight, I wouldn't object. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Error in the mass message

The WikiCup mass message that I received stated that User:L293D was in the top 10 for the WikiCup instead of User:Dunkleosteus77. Just wanted to make sure that somebody was notified about this. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for that. How it came about was that I was using last year's newsletter as a basis and failed to change that name. @Dunkleosteus77: would you like me to correct it and send the message again? Or I could instead send a brief correction message? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no preference, you can just flip a coin   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I will send out a short correction message about the error in the newsletter. Sorry for the mixup. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, I completely forgot about the WikiCup these last weeks, but I had a GA passed a couple weeks ago, along with a DYK: Heinz Schnabel and Harry Wappler escape attempt. I also had another GA in January: HMS Sea Nymph (P223). Is it okay for me to join in now, or is it just too late? I'm okay with it being too late: it's my fault that I didn't enter these points into my WikiCup page; on the other hand, I would like to be able to continue having fun with y'all. Best, L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that you would have advanced if you had submitted your DYK and GA, so in compensation for this mixup, I will add your name as a contestant that has advanced to Round 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
It was unfortunate that there was a discrepancy in the recent newsletter. I am not convinced with the error and should have been posted after rechecking. Hope these mistakes wouldn't happen in the future. Abishe (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN coronavirus box

Just a question on if the pages linked in the ITN box coronavirus banner count? For me, that's Portal:Coronavirus disease 2019, but I know other editors in the WikiCup contributed to the other headlining pages. Kingsif (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think they will qualify as long as they have made substantial contributions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Communication

I only just found out about this cup. Why doesn't someone let regular users know about this? A post on the FP page would be helpful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

In 2017, they put a notification at the top of watchlists. That's how I learned about it. Not sure why it wasn't used again. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Obviously a shambles as no one bothers to respond to my post! Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: I didn't respond because I saw Argento Surfer had done so. You can receive notification about the WikiCup by adding your name to the list of WikiCup recipients, as mentioned on the main WikiCup page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about claiming GA nominations

Can I claim Talk:169th Street station (IND Queens Boulevard Line)/GA1 or Talk:Bx15 (New York City bus)/GA1 for the WikiCup? I didn't contribute much to either article initially, but helped out extensively during the review process, by responding to reviewer queries. epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

From my knowledge of your contributions to similar GANs, I'd say yes. Kingsif (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ross Perot GAN

Hi. Is anyone willing to review the good article nomination of Ross Perot? I nominated it in September 2019 and its still sitting there. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/April–May 2020

A good article backlog drive starts TOMORROW! Sign up now - and remember that good article reviews completed in this time count for both WikiCup and backlog drive points. Judges, perhaps this could go out on the newsletter, too? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I have only been sending out bimonthly newsletters, at the end of each round, so the next one is due in a month's time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

1984 World Snooker Championship

Hi, thanks for organising the WikiCup. Would someone mind having a look at 1984 World Snooker Championship Talk:1984 World Snooker Championship/GA1 and seeing if I'm justified in putting in a claim for GA points? Lee Vilenski is the one who whipped the article into shape, nominated it, and responded to the review comments, but I have contributed somewhat. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

as far as I am concerned, we should be giving points if you work significantly on articles that become GAs. You have an authorship very similar to my own, and did very significant source finding for this one.
I'd like to see this type of nomination would get points for the original improver. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I think you both deserve points for this one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks both. (I hope it was clear that I was looking to get points as well as Lee V, not instead of!) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Points gained on April 29/30

Just a quick question, if I do any work on GARs or GANs which "cash in" today or tomorrow, can they still be submitted to round 3 or are they lost in a void? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Usually pointed gained after the end of a round can be counted in the next round, if I am not mistaken pointed earned on APril 29/30 can be counted for the May-June period. We usually just wait to claim them until the points are reset.MPJ-DK (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Exactly the above. The rules are quite clear about this. The coordinators usually create the new submission pages when the round officially starts, but you can claim for anything after the previous round ended. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Cheers both. Mea culpa for not having the energy to read the rules!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
They are quite right, just wait till May 1st to claim them, because the last thing in my end of round routine is to wipe the submissions pages! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Got it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK eligibility

The eligibility section for DYK submissions states "Only articles eligible for DYK through being newly created or newly expanded fivefold (not newly promoted to GA status) are eligible for WikiCup DYK points. It does not matter if the article becomes a GA before being featured on the main page; what matters is that it is eligible to appear on the main page due to being newly created or expanded fivefold", while the bonus section states "Articles which were previously redirects or disambiguation pages are not eligible. Articles which have been moved during the time are eligible." During the course of working on an article, I expanded it from a redirect into a decently sized article, and placed a DYK nomination on it for converting it from a redirect. The nomination was approved, and is waiting at the approved nominations area. In the process, the article has also been promoted to GA-status. Is this eligible for a submission when it gets promoted to the main page? The article in question is First Battle of Newtonia Historic District. Hog Farm (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I've had this happen to me before. If you made the DYK nomination before it became a GA, then it is eligible. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, this first qualified as a DYK as a creation/expansion, and can be scored for that when it appears on the main page, and then qualified again for WikiCup points when it became a GA. What is not allowed, and is not the case here, is listing it at DYK as a newly promoted GA, and then trying to score points in the WikiCup for it when doing so has incurred no extra effort. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I think 50% of my DYKs have this issue. The redirect thing is a bit more confusing... What does this refer too? Is this for the bonus points (in that a redirect from 2007 but written as an article in 2018 only gets regular 5/10 points?) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Both of your DYKs in round 2 were fine, being five-fold expansions. I have always been a bit puzzled about that redirect/disambiguation rule because clearly if you replace one of these with a new article, it is eligible for DYK. and I think there would be general agreement that it deserves no interwiki bonus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I defer entirely to the current judges, of course, but my understanding of those rules (and I think I wrote them, for whatever that's worth): The redirect/disambiguation rule refers only to the bonus points for older articles. (Note the indentation of the bullet-point: It's a "sub-rule", if you like.) So if there has been a stub on Wikipedia since 2012 and someone expands it fivefold, they can get DYK points and bonus points. If there has been a redirect or a disambiguation page on Wikipedia since 2012 and a user turns it into an article, they can claim DYK points, but they can't claim bonus points for turning an "old article" into a DYK. (They can claim bonus points for interwikis as usual for either - that's completely separate. I'm not sure I follow Cwmhiraeth's claim about the "general agreement".) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. You have explained that it is referring to a time-passed bonus while I was thinking of a multiple language bonus. Neither applies to a previous redirect or disambiguation page in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the interwiki language bonus should apply regardless of the current state of the article. If 20 wikis have an article, but we have a redirect, then it's a really good target to write about - it's clear notable, and an important topic. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
There are two different questions about interwikis, here. One is about an article that was formerly a redirect or disambiguation page on the English Wikipedia, but is expanded and has enough interwiki links to qualify for bonus points. In my view, and in the rules as written (as far as I can see), this should be eligible for bonus points - why would it make a difference the page about this very notable (e.g.) book used to be (e.g.) a redirect to the article about the author rather than a redlink? The other question is about when the pages on the other Wikipedias are redirects or disambiguation pages. I don't really have a view on this, as I don't have enough understanding of how interwikis work. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Lee makes a good point. In practice, I have yet to come across this situation, and if it does occur, it can be dealt with on an individual basis. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Does the bot even count redirects linked on wikidata from other wikis? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes - that puzzle was the main reason I said I didn't have enough understanding of interwikis! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

rankings on table

Hi guys, would it kill our various bots if we added a left hand column for rank? It's a little frustrating having to count/copy to excel to find out where the current cutoff is or where you rank. Is this something that is possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Jarry1250 runs the bot, so he'd be the person to ask. It's a good idea, though. It'd also be good to auto-sort it based on total score (I'm sure there's a way to make tables do that); Jarry, I assume that wouldn't be an issue either? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The table is sortable by using the little arrows at the top of each column. I reckon 20 is the current cut-off point, with 32 people having scored 20 or more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I get that you can find it; but I don't see how a column on the left denoting the seeding of participants. If we could make it sortable for every column without breaking the order, that would be great. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I think an auto-sort on total points could be cool. I'll look into it. In the meantime I've fixed the Current status page which shows where the cutoff is at the moment. Best, - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 10:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jarry1250: I suspect someone better at tables than I would be able to make the table do it without a need for the bot. I assume that wouldn't break the bot? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hard to say! It's a finicky little thing. No harm in trying though. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 22:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

- Is this something we could look into now? Jarry1250 - with the new round, the stats page has reverted to the "winner and runner-up" it was on before. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Are we doing away with pools altogether then? (The bot keeps expecting pools as per previous years.) - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 13:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Cwm will be able to confirm, but yes, I believe they have been shelved completely. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Cool well I've told the unofficial tool to only expect non-pool rounds from now on, which should help. If we don't think pools are going to make a return any time soon(?) it shouldn't be too difficult to add in an automatic ranking feature of some description. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 16:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth - I realise you're very busy right now - is there any plans for pools? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I think we briefly discussed the matter and decided to abolish them. Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) did an investigation and found that there had been no occasions over the last few years on which any high scorer had failed to advance because of the pools arrangement, but it could happen. I hope that's all right Jarry? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

How does a GA conomination work?

Somehow not seeing the answer. Both people just claim it and judges sort it out at the end? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If you nominate the article at GAN, just claim in the usual way. If someone else nominates it at GAN but you play a significant role in improving it beforehand and/or play a significant role in responding and improving it during the review process, you can also claim. The judges look at every submission, so we should be able to see what is happening and whether the contestant deserves the points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK question

Hi, I got this DYK approved for April Fools next year, and was told to ask about claiming points for it. Asking here if it's eligible - thanks to whoever looks at this! Kingsif (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Just submit it now in the usual fashion, and I will approve it. Will it be eligible for the 2021 WikiCup as well, I wonder? Well, that's a problem for the future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Cwmhiraeth - and I imagine this section will be brought up next year if I try to claim it. Kingsif (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think next year should be illegable, but claiming now seems fine. It's a good thing we aren't right on the cusp of a new round though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Good topic points

I currently have been awarded 165 points for Good Topic articles (33 articles) But I have actually added 43 articles in total, which means I am 50 points short it looks like, but I cannot figure out if I made a mistake in how I put the articles in or not? Is there perhaps a stray space or line break that's causing the bot to not count the articles correctly? MPJ-DK (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: Looking at your submissions page, I can see why the bot might have difficulty allotting the right number of points. I will look into the matter and adjust the score manually if it seems wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: It seems to me that you have missed one article, Volador Jr., from the LLA Azteca Champions and challengers topic. Do you want to add that one? Otherwise I agree your computations and will adjust the score. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes please and thank you for adding it. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

What time zone are we using?

Bit of a long shot but Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Community/archive1 was promoted in some time zones on June 28, though admittedly neither in mine nor in UTC. All the work that went into its promotion was complete by 26 June though. Pinging Dunkleosteus77 in case they have strong feelings because without any other changes to the scoreboard, this would be the difference between them being knocked out or progressing. Happy to accept my fate if this doesn't count. :) — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 08:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

GMT I believe. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I am of a view that @Bilorv: should not be eliminated under these circumstances but should be allowed to move on to the next round, being included among 17 contestants to do so and thereby not eliminating anyone else. @Vanamonde93, Sturmvogel 66, and Godot13: Asking the other judges for their views? I also note, when looking at Bilorv's submissions, that his score should be increased by 15 points because, in three FACs he performed two reviews, and the bot did not pick up on this. I will adjust his score now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have 6 pending GAs but none of the reviews have been started so I guess I have been defeated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you still made the cut Dunkleosteus77 if the above is anything to go by. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Without having looked at what this will do to the scores, I feel that the cutoff should be in UTC. That is entirely arbitrary, but any timezone deadline is of necessity arbitrary. I am a little reluctant to make an exception, not because The Rules are terribly important, but because an exception here is likely to lead to further wrangling in the future, possibly with people less reasonable than Bilorv. I also feel, as I have said before, that multiple reviews (ie source/image/prose) in an FAC should receive five points each. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't really see there being an issue in the future, if there is a specific time in question. We have had items before, specifically DYKs that have gone live on midnight, and been allowed due to the pointlessness of waking up and claiming the moment they go live. I think UTC is fine going forward. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
That's not quite what I meant. I'm not especially concerned about the time at which points are claimed (leeway there is quite reasonable), so much as the time at which they are earned. If the deadline for a given round is 00:00 UTC, and something is passed at 00:30 UTC, it could change the outcome of the competition, and could lead to substantial disagreement. I think that's an issue best avoided entirely by strictly enforcing the 00:00 UTC deadline for points being earned (sorry, Bilorv). Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm with Vanamonde93.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Sorry Bilorv, the consensus is against you. Thank you for participating in the WikiCup and your useful contributions to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Very reasonable, thanks for the responses from all. — Bilorv (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A late submission?

Just going to ask: I completed work for a GA review (Talk:2003 FIFA Women's World Cup Final/GA1) before the Round 3 cutoff, but the article was not promoted by the nominator until a bit later. Would it be possible to count it for Round 3, as it would give me enough points to advance. SounderBruce 03:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I am afraid not. If you were still in the competition, that article would be eligible for round 4, but it does not qualify for round 3. See the discussion above related to Bilorv's borderline submission. Thank you for participating in the WikiCup and your useful contributions to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm in a similar boat @SounderBruce:, I had pinned a lot of my hopes on Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Ulster as part of my strategy. But alas it got waylaid and is now the centre of an RFC on that I had no idea would come up and delayed it so I couldn't use it as a base to continue as I had. There's always next year I suppose. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, SounderBruce, but my response here would be the same (and indeed, this is exactly why I wrote what I did above). You do good work, and it's much appreciated, but the deadlines are what they are because they'd be meaningless otherwise. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I've got it wrong

This appears to be more of a competition of who has the most free time rather than skills per se. Not that I have much of either, haha Sirhissofloxley (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It's more of a marathon than a sprint. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The event was never about either of those things - it's about improving content on the encyclopedia Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Conversation that might be of interest

Just a note that there is a conversation relating to declaring participation in the WikiCup at FAC that might be of interest to watchers of this page, at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Wikicup. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Extra points for FAs that are vital articles

Someone (user Rhododendrites) suggests this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Vital articles. I think this is a nice idea because it can motivate more people to work on vital articles and get them to FA quality! 14.169.190.55 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Final results pending

The scores currently displayed on the project page are shown below. However this is not an accurate reflection of the final position; several submissions were made during the last few hours of the contest but the bot has not yet updated the scores to reflect this. The bot normally runs every four hours at 13 minutes past the hour, but last ran at 20:13, 31 October 2020‎. We will try to resolve this as soon as possible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

User FA FL FP FT FACR
FLCR 		GA GT GANR DYK ITN Bonus Score


Gondor Hog Farm (submissions) 200 0 0 0 90 315 15 270 35 0 27 952
Botswana The Rambling Man (submissions) 800 0 0 0 45 245 0 15 0 12 94 1211
New York (state) Epicgenius (submissions) 0 0 0 0 5 595 0 35 160 0 320 1115
Somerset Harrias (submissions) 200 45 0 0 45 105 0 45 10 0 40 490
England Lee Vilenski (submissions) 800 45 0 0 115 1015 25 115 20 0 466 2601
England Gog the Mild (submissions) 400 0 0 30 45 525 15 35 40 0 941 2031
Free Hong Kong Bloom6132 (submissions) 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 10 360 34 439
Indonesia HaEr48 (submissions) 400 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 10 0 216 731
Thanks for looking into this. I've done some maths, but it's very tight. Best to let the bot do the work. They have updated recently, just not this leaderboard. I'll take the above scores though :p. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
There were over twenty submissions made by five contestants in the last four hours of the contest, so I would prefer to let the bot do the calculations. I have contacted Jarry1250, who runs the bot, but he is not always available and I will do a manual update later today if the bot has not run by then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Lee, while obviously we need to let the bot do its thing, I have also done the maths and make you the - deserving - winner. Congratulations in advance. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to jinx it, but I think it's right, but pretty close, a couple points here or there! I'd just like to say, this competition was incredibly competitive. Last year a single GA could get you to round 4! I'd like to congratulate anyone who competed, as there were hundreds of articles made better during the experience. Almost 60 FAs, over 550 GAs and over 400 DYK nominations making the front page. As much as this is a competitive experience, we all gained from the tournament. Well done also to everyone who made the final round, especially you Gog for making it such a tight-run event. That 600 point FA had me worried for weeks! I do hope you will all compete again next year!
I'll put some more words up when the results are in, and we can confirm who placed where. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
In the absence of the bot, I have now updated the scores manually and posted them on the main project page. If you think I have not worked them out correctly, please say so. Last year the top score was 964, so well done everybody! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski: Proper congratulations this time. That's a lot of GAs, FAs and reviews! Well done indeed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, Gog the Mild wowwwww, talk about nail-biting ending. Well done to you both, you've taken the WikiCup to another level this year. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski, Gog the Mild, and The Rambling Man:, I'd like to congratulate you all for getting 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place. In the end, a lot of articles benefited from our friendly rivalry. Here's to next year! epicgenius (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Epicgenius, thank you. They certainly have. The bot seems to have choked on your total of GAs, 113.14285714286 apparently . Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
It's official? Holy moly. What a competition. After last year's competition, I was a little determined to win this year, but I needed more than 2.5x the points! Thanks to Cwmhiraeth for running a fantastic tournament, and for it all to come down to around 50 points is mind-blowing! I'm going to be taking a couple weeks off from doing much content creation, I quite literally had nothing else in the tank, and I know Gog could keep up the pace all year around. However, I will be back for next year's competition, and I can't wait to see an even tougher and more competitive event next year. If anyone is thinking if they should take part - absolutely, do it! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll assume the winner's check is in the post? 😅 Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I don't think it'll make a difference, but all the DYK bonus points awarded for articles created 5+ years ago are short by one point. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Recount! I demand a recount! Especially as I queried this a while ago and was told that the bot operator would look into it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay Al Gore :p CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it appears that only your first DYK of this round (Mathos) would qualify for an extra bonus point. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I also had a DYK that is over 5 years old this round ;). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2019/3&oldid=1085477975"