Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/7

Round 3

So round 2 has ended and round 3 will begin this Saturday. So when will the new groups be posted ect ect?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I prepared a list myself. Does it look OK? --Stone (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been more than a little busy this week, and said busy-ness will continue into the weekend. I'll do what I can to arrange everything that needs to be arranged tomorrow at some point, and get it online. I will probably also send the newsletter out a few hours early, as if there's anything I need, it's a Friday night out. J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And Stone, that's brilliant. I'll take a closer look when I have time (read: tomorrow) but if that's accurate, that's a big help. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Already checked (and boy did it take a while). It is accurate. If you need any help with the "transition from round 2 to round 3 backlog" just ask. I'll be willing to help as long is it has nothing to do with chooseing groups as that would ber a COI :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, if two of you have checked, I'll take your word for it, as something else has cropped up... Damn you, real world. White Shadows- if you're willing to do legwork for Brownie Points, could you possibly update this using Stone's list, to show who's withdrawn and the eliminations this round? The format should be fairly obvious. Thanks again. J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh Brownie Points! (Laughs) sure. I'll update it. However I only have a few minutes right now. I may have to finish it once I get home today. (9:00 PM London time)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've started on the pools. After that, there's the newsletter and blanking the scorecards to be done. I will get this done before I go out tonight. However, for now, the real world calls. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'm starting on the list that you asked me to update. I'm leave the name of who ever I have not goten to when I have to go.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'll finish the list tonight.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay. My PC has been acting up. One second I can copy and paste, the other, I cannot even left click! My aplolgies for the delay on the list. I'll try to finish it soon. I have about 50% of it done.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Round 3 ready to roll

Ok, the groups are up (if you look for patterns, you shouldn't find any- they were mostly chosen with dice) and the submission lists have been blanked. The newsletter will be going out in a matter of seconds, I'm just waiting for a bot to kick into action. The various lists are in the process of being updated, but there is no urgency there. If there are any issues or anything I have missed, please let me know. Good luck everyone, and sorry this was so last-minute. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a bunch of stuff promoted a few weeks ago and I forgot to add it to my submissions page before the end of the deadline. Can I get those points this round? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken what matters is when they were promoted. If they were promoted in Round 2 (even if you forgot to submit them) they are round 2 items. Otherwise everyone could "forget" to submit whatever gets promoted past the points they need to move on. (Not implying anything, BTW, just explaining). Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Stax is correct. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

New Group of Death (Pool C)

Oh jeez, Sasata, ThinkBlue, Geschichte... I'm in the fight of my life and we just started. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Pool D is the new pool of cool dudes. I may just have a chance of placeing second in my pool again.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, two of the top 3 in round 2 are in mine. Which is a blatant fix. None of the four people I actually outscored are in there either - must be a conspiracy! :) Will give it a good go though... - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I always count Sasata as a leader. She cooled off once she had a comfortable score last round, but her finish last year is the only evidence needed to show the power of that mushroom library. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh great, TonyTheTiger, Casliber and Theleftorium in my pool! I'm going to have to pull out all the stops in order to come in even second this round.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to see my dice are biased against everyone :) And, for the record, Sasata is male. J Milburn (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

He should change his name to Sasato then:)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you think, White Shadows? Should I block them for two months so as to give us a chance? ;o) Resolute 23:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Per WP:White Shadows and Resolute deserve to advance to round four. (Remind me to write that someday :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wait, what? I definitely thought Sasata was female. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Apologies for being wrong on gender, but yikes. Read one recent GAN where Sasata promises to "drop about two dozen GANs into the queue at once" in the "not-too-distant future". Pray for my soul. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I might do the same, but I can't buy a GAR for love or money this round.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Deadline dynamics

It's a bit of a moot question, since round 3 has started and I had already said elsewhere that I had changed my mind about submitting the article in question as part of the WikiCup, but an article I worked on with two others, which was a three-way nomination at FAC, was promoted between rounds 2 and 3 (on 30 April). I deliberately held off from asking about this while the FAC was still open, and as I've said, I changed my mind about submitting it for the WikiCup, but my calculations show that it might have made a difference! I did ask another editor (not a WikiCup judge) whether I would be eligible to claim the full set of points, and was told yes (i.e. the points don't get split when it is a joint nomination). So my questions are: (1) How exactly does it work for review processes that fall just after the end of a round? [I think the answer is that this would have been eligible for round 3, but not round 2] (2) Do joint nominations affect the points awarded? [I looked in the FAQ but couldn't find answers to those questions - for DYK it is clear, for other items, there is nothing]. As I said, this is a hypothetical question only (I'm rather relieved to have been eliminated, as I've found I don't work well to even 2-month deadlines), but I was curious what the answer would be, and it might be useful for future reference - the lesson I suppose really being to submit stuff early enough for the review processes to finish... :-) Anyway, before I forget, I'd like to thank those organising the competition and sending out the newsletter - will I still get the newsletter, as I'd like to keep following what happens? I'm going to carry on working on articles through the rest of the year, and I'd also like to help out with reviews in future rounds if needed - what is the best page to watchlist for that? Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Joint noms are fine. One of my GAs last round was joint with ThinkBlue, eg. And yes, interround stuff goes ahead to the next round (here Round 3) Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Staxringold is correct. You will still get the newsletter provided you are on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send, and Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews is the place where people wanting reviews list things. Keeping an eye on this talk page will probably also be useful. I'm glad you've had fun; hopefully you'll be joining us again next year? J Milburn (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. If I have time, I may well join again next year. I do have some suggestions for possible changes, but I'll wait until nearer the time to bring those up. The one idea I will mention now is to have something running parallel to the elimination rounds, that involves being able to submit reviewed content contributions at any point throughout the year towards a total, but limiting the amount that can be submitted in the categories each month. This would sort of work as a way to encourage diversity in contributions, and to avoid contributions in one area overwhelming things. No-one would be eliminated (instead there would be a running total), but if you took a break or holiday, you could chose to carry one month's quota over to add to the next month (you would only be allowed to do this once or twice). It might not work, but I've been thinking about it quite a bit, and there are lots of possibilities. As I said, though, I'll wait until nearer the time to see if those ideas can be fleshed out. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

bot fail

I see that everyone has at minimum 90 points, but some do not have anything on the submissions page. I assume that bot automatically added 90 points to everyone. Please fix. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have geven everyone one free GA, one free FL, and one free DYK. However, if you then (like me) had a real FL, it overrides the "free" one, leaving you at 90. You can only go above if you have more than one GA/FL/DYK, or if you have something in a different category. Odd bug. --PresN 13:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is probably my fault- I probably copied across the scoresheet wrongly. Looking at this, it would seem to be the case. Apologies everyone. I will deal with this now. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was caused by spare spaces. I really should have been more careful. I hope it's fixed now. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still seeing all the 90s (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot has yet to update. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems I have not managed to fix it. I have contacted X!, but he is not about for the next few days... J Milburn (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you were right the first time. The bot simply hasn't run again yet, so the space thing was probably the problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has ideas, feel free to mention them here/give them a whirl. J Milburn (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to be fixed now... Wow, looks like all the early points are in Group D. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like the new Group of Death! — Hunter Kahn 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Sheesh! I pull off the first closed FAC of this round and I'm only in fourth? Resolute 16:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah, I'm leading the pool of Death! first place (in my pool) here I come. (How much do you wanna bet that I'll get eliminated this round?)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Good topic scoring

The bot is not counting the main article of the GTs. I've submitted two GTs, each with a main class article and two individual ships apiece, but I'm only credited with the ship articles. And since I have only one of the three articles in another GT I listed that one as if it were the main article and it's not counted at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• So just list the real main article and only list your articles in the numbered ones below. That's what I did with the awards topic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess I'll list the main article twice, when appropriate, so it will get counted. Thanks for the pointer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

FP scoring

What are the rules for pictures where you are not the photographer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• If you did significant work on making the photo featured quality. As the scoring page says you can take the photo "or [give] significant restoration work", and simply uploading a photo from somewhere else is not significant work. Take, for example, my Johnny Evers restoration this round, Pirates resto from round 1, or Juju's great image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have found the following six images for WP:CHICAGO that are commons FPs and not WP FPs: File:CTA Night.jpg, File:Chicago sunrise 1.jpg, File:Patti Smith performing in Finland, 2007.jpg, File:Gary Sinise on stage 1 crop.jpg, File:Chicago.jpg and File:Pulaski Skyway full view.jpg. I am not eligible for points for any of these if I get them promoted to FP am I?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think so, if you neither took them nor restored them. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Stax is correct. Finding stuff on Wikipedia and nominating it does not make you eligible for points, and finding stuff on other websites and uploading it then nominating it normally does not make you eligible for points (I'd certainly be willing to discuss the idea of images you have worked to get released being eligible for points, but this has not been raised yet.) J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• For next year I propose that if an FP is worth 35, that someone could get 5 or 10 for noming successful FAs that they did not work on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• The only danger there, I think is opening the window for people spamming up a good process just for nominations and not so much for real content. For example, File:King Kelly 0554fu.jpg is featured, but there are literally DOZENS of similar baseball card images from the same series of similar quality at the LoC, but how is Wiki improved by me nom'ing up a load of them? Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • They don't promote FPs that arent used in articles. It is called encyclopedic value. If you nom a bunch of images that have encyclopedic value, you are helping the project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • We are not in the business of awarding points for everything that helps the project- nominating things you have come across is purely procedural, the kind of thing any Wikipedian should be doing. We award points for actual content work; otherwise we'd also be awarding points for the likes of getting poor articles deleted, getting vandals blocked and so on. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I am finding that the procedural element actually improves the content of articles. Take for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA Night, which is a surefire FP. I did no work on the article. However, to ensure its candidacy, I tracked down about a dozen articles on WP that it would add value to. By adding it in many places, I improved the content of each of these articles. I think we should consider giving some credit (maybe just 5 points) to FP noms requiring no work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
        • We are not currently awarding points for any other kind of indirect contribution- I would think that the likes of PR and FAC work would come long before the nomination of found images. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I won't have time to work on content anytime soon so I'd like to withdraw from the contest. I wouldn't want to steal a place in the next round from someone who has a better chance of succeeding. :) Cheers, Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for your contributions and I hope to see you next year :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • No problem :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks White Shadows, you've saved me yet another job. Thanks Theleftorium, and, to repeat, we hope to see you next year! J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh don't mention it J Milburn! I've been doing a lot of behind the scenes work for the cup lately. I've also updated all of the lists as well. See you next year Theleftorium :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm also withdrawing for similar reasons. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Hope to see you next year :)

As is everyone else but me. I win, yay! ;) Resolute 01:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Resolute, you'll have to beat me. I'm staying in until I'm eliminated.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

FP points instead of FS

I see that I am again getting points in the FS column instead of FP (this happened in round 1). I seem to recall the last time I tried to fix this, it messed up the bot. Could someone fix this? Jujutacular ^T · C 07:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• The easiest fix is just swapping the order of your FP and FS sections on your score page. That fixes it immediately. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot frequency

Why is the bot running so infrequently this round?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. If it's bothering you, poking X! (talk · contribs) would be your best bet. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• IIRC it generally doesn't run as often in the first month. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there's two weeks left, hopefully the bot starts running more quickly. Been over a week and I'm not sure if I'm okay, borderline, or have a lot of work to do. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's not too hard to check. Your own pool takes 10 seconds, and then if you're looking for an at large spot there's only a few people you need to check, really. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Poster

Resolved

 – fixed by Gary--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea why the flags of competitors out of the competition are no longer faded? I'm assuming it's something about a change in skin- could someone who is better at this than me please take a look and see what they can they do? J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did some digging around, and it probably has something to do with Wikipedia:WikiCup/Poster/X. Not sure what, though. Airplaneman ✈ 20:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Doubt it's the skin change, because the base code at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Poster/X doesn't seem to call for any classes that would need defining in Mediawiki:Common.css. Still looking, though. —fetch·comms 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I dumped vector about a week after it was launched. Nothing is faded on monobrook either. Resolute 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it does appear to be due to the skin change. —fetch·comms 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, switched to monobook and it is not faded. Using Google Chrome for Mac, if that's relevant (latest version). Airplaneman ✈ 21:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Something's obviously interfering with the html/css opacity elements, because they're working fine on non-wikimedia wikis for me. I got the transparency on a personal wikia page, but not on Commons, Wikinews, Wikiquote, fr Wikipedia, or pt Wikipedia--some of which are vector, others monobook. —fetch·comms 21:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. "filter" no longer works for logged-in users since May 28. Gary King (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was suspecting something about the IE bits. But this means IE users can't see the transparency, right? Or does opacity work there now? —fetch·comms 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you everyone for your attention and effort, and well done Gary for working out and fixing the problem. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Images

What is the rule for images qualifying? Photo taken in 2010, photo edited/restored in 2010, photo uploaded in 2010, photo added to encyclopedic content in 2010, or photo nominated in 2010?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Significant work", as with anything else. I think the basic rule is don't be a dick. For what were you hoping to claim? J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have started to become active at WP:FPC and WP:VPC and have a list of upcoming nominees at User:TonyTheTiger/upcoming FPC noms‎. Most my self published future images were actually shot in prior years and are in use on WP. Do I only get credit for prior year photos if I edit them this year? What about things that I might just upload this year but shot in prior years. . .would I have to edit those this year?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have any objection to you claiming for the odd one or two. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So if I am understanding,

1. I have to either shoot, edit or upload them this year or is there more to it than that?
2. I would still get no credit for an image like File:CTA loop junction.jpg, shot by another that probably won't need to be edited, where I found almost every one of the nearly two dozen pages it is included in.
3. I am unclear on images shot, uploaded and incorporated in WP by me in prior years if I nominate them this year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sometimes it takes a long time searching through images on photograph websites to find the good ones. The FP may be one in a 1000 or one in 10,000 inspected or taken by ones own camera. Much of the work of an FP may not be apparent by the number of wiki-edits or time on the wikipedia. I think that sometimes both sifting through many images and nominating an image in the time period should be adequate criteria, even if it is an old photograph. Snowman (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Merely uploading an image is not enough- you have to do work for it. Taking the picture yourself or editing it are the two methods that have already been used, but I am open to suggestions regarding requesting the pictures or working with them with regards to licensing issues. I think you already know the answer to the second question. Regarding the third question, technically, no, that's not allowed, but I can't see it being too much of a problem at this stage in the competition. Of course, as with anything else, don't be a dick about it- as long as you're not doing it in some pathetic attempt to cheat the system, I doubt I'll have any objection. J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

About timing of points awarded

What if a FPC, FLC, FAC or GAC in closed in good faith, but may appear to some to be closed early with unresolved issues? Snowman (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Very unlikely to happen on an featured process, considering they won't even close ones that have all issues resolved because no one said the word "support", but I'd probably start by asking the closer if you felt it was wrong. They are rarely closed early. For GACs, if you think an article was passed for GA that did not meet the GAC, first, again, talk with the reviewer. If you still feel it was an incorrect close, send it to WP:GAR, and/or post a note at the GA talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I left a message on the list talk page, and the reviewer has re-opened the FLC. I think that all this happened in good faith. Nevertheless, I think that this is the sort of thing that the WikiCup organisers should watch out for. I think that there should be a sub-page to this WikiCup page, where people can make comments about the closing of discussions and where the wikicup organisers can help with the discussions and perhaps adjudicate. Snowman (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

This GA review has not been completed because the reviewer was blocked. Could someone please finish the review? I previously requested this on WT:GAN, but it was not fulfilled. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Err..

...am I on drugs, but is the WikiCup using the flag of the German Confederation that has not been in existence for a century, instead of the current flag for Germany? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

White Shadows is playing as the German Confederation? Historical nations were allowed. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Grandiose had Germany. --PresN 18:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It was cooler than Florida, my first choice.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I was really close to using File:Naval Jack of the Netherlands.svg last year... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't have been allowed under this year's rules (speaking of which, we really need to make the whole flag thing less stressful- I'm thinking "any nation, even if someone else has it", but we can discuss that another time) but, Hell, that's a cool flag. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Even though I had to go with the flag of my 4th or 5th choice, my birth city (New Orleans), I think the one person-one flag rule is kind of cool. P.S. The German Federation sure beats the Nazi flag.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. It was a pitty that it never actually untied into one government. (the Austro-Prussian war ended the confederation)--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 17:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The one person one flag rule is pretty awesome, and it worked well last year, but there was a hell of a lot of heartache this year- scrapping over precisely what was allowed, abuse of the system, people just not "getting" the idea of flags, people switching around... At the very least, we need a smoother system for next year. J Milburn (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal for next year
• Participants may only be able to choose a flag from an existing nation, not a former nation or a province, state, or city.

Much like the real world cup (which this is modeled after) right?--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - this limits the number of participants. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh forgot about that! How about any existing or historical nation but not cities, provinces or states?--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just make it "any flag for any real or fictional nation, province, state, or city that is free-use and not already taken." If the idea is to make the flags less of a headache, seems like throwing out most of the rules is in order, not adding new ones. --PresN 17:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright then and no "calling this flag" at all. First come first serve. I like that last proposal.--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely what we have at the moment. As I say, a change would be nice. Everyone have a think... J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

end of round 3

It appears that as of right now, if you have 240 points or more you will advance to round 4. That means that the winners of pool A are, Ian Rose (talk · contribs) and Arsenikk (talk · contribs), with Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) moveing on as well as wildcards. In pool B, Sturmvogel_66 (talk · contribs) and Candlewicke (talk · contribs) win with Gary King (talk · contribs) moves on as well. In pool C, ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) is the winner (and the overall leader) and Sasata (talk · contribs) comes in second with Staxringold (talk · contribs), William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) and Geschichte (talk · contribs) going on as wildcards. Lastly, in pool D, Casliber (talk · contribs) and TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) win and White Shadows (talk · contribs) (myself), Resolute (talk · contribs) and Suomi Finland 2009 (talk · contribs) takes the wildcard spots. That should equal to 8 pool winners and 8 wildcards, though the scores may change once the bot updates the page for the last time in this round... —Preceding unsigned comment added by White Shadows (talk • contribs) 13:47, June 28, 2010

Good luck to everyone moving on :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if this has already been asked, but if one receives a DYK between the end of round 3 and the beginning of round 4, does it count for round four?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, yes you can include it in your round 4 scores. Basically round 4 "starts" when round 3 ends. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Right--Stone (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I made the two preliminary lists yesterday Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3 it can be updated with the few updates from the last days manually.--Stone (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll update them once the bot runs one last time in this round. Thanks stone :)--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Good going, all! 240 points is the equivilant of writing a GA- or FL-class article every 10 days, or an FA-class article every 25 days. (or a DYK every 2.5 days). And as for Sturmvogel_66's 850 points (the highest this round)... wow. That would be the equivalent of an FA a week, or a GA/FL every 2.8 days- or 1.4 DYKs a day. I don't feel so bad about getting knocked out this round- even if my FLCs had gone faster and I'd qualified, there's no way that I can compete at that level. Good job to everyone, and good luck for the next round! --PresN 19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• And my pre-round prediction was correct about Group C being the group of death. Narrowly beat out Group D (670 to 650) for the highest 2nd place score (and thus the toughest group to get an automatic spot in). Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually my group was the hardest to get second or first in since I came in 3rd, (just out of guaranteed) with 540 points and you came in third in your group with 530, so that makes pool D the "group of death"....--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• How many points you scored to take third doesn't matter because outside of the top two spots you aren't competing against your pool but against everyone else in the competition. The measurement of a pool's difficulty is how hard it is to win a bid from that pool. The fact that you scored 530 is a measure of your editing, not the pool, as you could've scored 250 and still moved on. The issue for a pool is what you needed to win that pool. Pools A and B were easier as a much lower score got you a free pass. The easiest way to think of this is in the easiest possible pool you could get through with a score of 10 (even though you'd need a 240 for an at-large spot). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind as much as I did a few days ago. Even if my two FACs hadn't gotten rather FUBARed I'd have still been out. Am glad to see so much article focused activity either way :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised at how many scores jumped up in the last week or so. I was safely through as the 4th wildcard just over a week ago, and just holding on too 7/8 now. Resolute 20:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone that has passed on to the next round! Even when the bot updates for my last FP, I won't be in, but it's been fun. Congrats also to everyone that has participated, the 'pedia has certainly been vastly improved by all of our efforts. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's analysis and thoughts here- I'm gonna crack on with working things out for the next round now- confirm leaders, sort new pools, update bits and bobs, send out newsletter and blank the scoresheets. J Milburn (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make it? Crap, I though the last-minute DYKs would push me over. Shows how dedicated the pool is this year, congrats to them. Looks like there's an available reviewer for them now, lol. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Start of round 4

Ok, round 4 should be good to go. Pools are up, newsletters are being sent, submission pages have been blanked, most things have been updated (if someone would do the poster, I would be eternally greatful grateful...) and there are no outstanding problems, so far as I am aware. In case people are interested, the pools were chosen randomly again- a combination of dice and coin tossing. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Poster done! --PresN 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can another version of WikiCup be created?

Maybe a new version of WikiCup that covers only July and August (the summer holidays? That way students can focus of schoolwork when we need to and can participate in such a competition during the summer holidays. Also, only students, teachers and other people who work at schools are allowed to participate in that competition. Would that make sense? Kayau Voting IS evil 13:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

People have tried to create spin-off competitions in the past, but they've all fallen flat- organising and advertising the whole thing takes a fair amount of work. In addition, any kind of "only XYZ may participate is a Very Bad Thing. I'd be inclined to say this was a bad idea. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If that 'Only XYZ are allowed to participate' part is cut off and everyone here want to join? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC) PS can you direct me to those spin-offs? I'd like to see them, just being curious. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree doing any kind of "only XYZ" may join, particularly if it involves off-line/real-life stuff is not a good idea. Also don't see why there needs to be a special one just for students. Focus on your schoolwork...you can always participate after you graduate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

After I graduate? I have five and a bit more years of secondary school and if I go to uni that's four more. That's an awfully long wait... Kayau Voting IS evil 14:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Then play along anyways and don't be scared of losing. Everyone here has a life outside Wikipedia. The spinoffs I was thinking of either did not get off the ground at all (so there's nothing to link to) or were deleted. The WikiCup itself has been going for four years, but it's only been the last two where it has been reaching a wide audience. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Crystal Ball

My prediction for the finals cutoff is 550-600 points. Anyone else have a prediction?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My prediction, a number that I cannot reach....--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 15:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I got $5 riding on a bajillion. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How many zeros is that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The correct answer is probably a bajillion zeros. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Circular logic cat is circular. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the top 8 move on. Last round the 8th place score was 410 (I was 7th, yikes). Assuming a little more pumped up action, 500 or so sounds right to me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm #1

I just thought I would bring this to everyone's attention for my brief shining moment. I don't expect to be in first much longer and may never be in first again in this tournament, but for now I am officially four times greater than my nearest competitor.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be me.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm in a tight, 14-way tie for 3rd! Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I can't believe these posts made me chuckle. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like Tony. 76.27.40.75 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still #1

2nd update and I am still the King (co-King).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My kingdom is now half of what it once was.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Now just a Jack. It was fun while it lasted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: No using the talk page to brag on where you are in points. We are not blind and know where each person is. We don't need to brag to know it.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 00:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am just having fun joking about jumping out of the gate. Being in first on day 1 is not really something to brag about. Bragging would be talking about being in first place when it matters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Its the fact your wasting talk page server space and our time. If we really cared where you were, we'd be berating you right now.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 00:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

All three of the threads I started when round 4 started up amount to nothing but light banter before the competitive juices of the Cup get flowing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right. You're one of the most ego-driven editors I've ever met, and I very highly doubt that you are treating this as a friendly competition. Mitchazenia is right, most of us don't care. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? This got nasty all the sudden. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I do view this as a serious competition. I view Sasata as a much heavier favorite than I. I am pretty sure I have probably been in first place in my group for the last time this round. I am just having fun with having had the LEAD. I don't have much chance of winning because the sports season articles now have too high a standard for GA. Articles with a level of detail sufficient for GA in other subjects only get me DYK points. I expect to advance to the finals and hope to lead for a day or so there as well, but I am not going to be much of a factor when all is said and done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand I agree that this is a bit like bragging, yet on the other I recommend simply ignoring it if you wish. This is supposed to be fun, whether you like it or not. Juliancolton (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We need reviewers

I have 7 GAN's in the review page and some of them have been waiting for a reviewer for almost a month. Can anyone please got to work on those noms please?--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Make that 8. Now I have so many noms that I'm scared to nominate others for fear of being overloaded with comments... Perhaps a judge can review at least one or two of them. They are afterall fairly simple pages about U-boats and an unfinished class of battleships.--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 01:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A month in the queue is not so big a deal. I have about the same number in the queue. When you get some reviews you have a week to show progress. Bunching is not much of an issue really.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the content writer like you Tony. It's a miracle that I've gotten this far at all. It's just that literally no one has reveiwed anything from the "reviews" page since mid-round 3.--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 02:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

After a backlog elimination drive, reviews become sparse for a while.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed, people take long breaks after reviewing dozens (perhaps hundreds) of GAN's. When will the normal review patterns resume?--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 14:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is normal. A two- or even three-month waiting period has been quite common the past year or so. Juliancolton (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh great....--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 15:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why not bring this to WP:MILHIST? They're usually great about reviewing in-house. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I've had 4 of my articles reviewed today by someone and three of them passed without much work. So that only leaves me with the one still in review and four more that are awaiting a reviewer so I think that I'm good for now.--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 22:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Respective WikiProjects are often good. For instance, I would not be wildly confident about reviewing your maritime articles, but I'm more than happy to review mushrooms. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I would not know where to begin on Mushrooms, I know that they are odd looking and that's about it! But I'd be more than happy to review a battleship or a submarine. We all have our specialties and there is nothing wrong with that...--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 22:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There is something to be said for reviewing something one is unfamiliar with - it is a good way to ensure the article is accessible to those unfamiliar with the topic too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Heck, I have 2 topic candidate up White Shadow, and those are basically the easiest review a person can offer. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)