Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/8

We're down to two judges now...

J Milburn seems to have left (for an unspecified amount of time) That means that Fox and Ed will have to pick up where he left off. You two seemt o be the ones who did not do much as judges to be fairly honest. It was usually IMatthew and JM that updated the pools, wrote the newsletter ect. Hope you guys can continue on without him....(I hope JM returns soon...)--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hopefully he just needs a week or two away from everything. We probably burned the poor guy out... — Hunter Kahn 21:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, this had nothing to do with the WikiCup. JMilburn was personally attacked egregiously on his talk page. The revision has since been deleted and there is no need to go into any further detail on this matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Without mentioning what caused all of this, I think that it's safe to say that we all wish that he returns soon. The Wikicup rests almost entirely on his shoulders most of the time and I'm not sure what we would do without him....--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've been in touch with J off-wiki, and I believe that he will be returning in the near future. No need to panic, even if only the semi-active judges are left. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks for letting us know about that Ed :)--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm back. Just wanted away for a few days, so I was making it clear that I was not about because I guessed there may be some issues. I've got a commitment to the WikiCup, I'm not gonna run off and leave you to fend for yourselves :) J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Also, having just reread this thread, thank you all for your kind comments. I have no doubt that the Cup shows off some of the best of Wikipedia, and I am proud to be so heavily involved with it. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Early WikiCup awards

Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) has taken it upon himself to send out some awards for reaching this round of the WikiCup; while I appreciate his good intentions, I just wanted to say that "official" WikiCup awards will be sent out at the end of the competition. Myself and the other remaining judges will have a chat about what precisely we will be giving awards for, and then send stuff out. You are, of course, welcome to give each other barnstars and the like as you see fit, but please leave the WikiCup prizes to us. I promise there will be some :) J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Hey, I have a nom for Rudyard Kipling (ship) that has been verified to be on the main page. The only issue is that many people want it to be an April Fools hook, I'd like for it to be on the main page for April fools but may I still claim points for that. (The rules say talk to the judges so that's what I'm doing) If you all won't let me claim points for it on April 1 then I'll just tell the reviewer of the hook to put it on the next queue instead....--White Shadows ^{I ran away from you} 15:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of holding hooks for special event days, but 10 months might be excessive. I've no issue with you getting the 10 points now even if held, but either the idea would be forgotten, or ten months from now people will complain that the article is waaaaay too old. Personally, I'd say to give it the April Fools treatment now - DYK can always use entertaining hooks to draw eyes to that section. Resolute 16:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that is odd. DYK points are recognized when the hook hits the main page. There are lots of articles I intend to bring to GA and FA between now and April 1. Can I get points for those now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is is that it can go on now if I'd like it to. So since it;s ready can I wait and claim the points? If not then I'll just ask them to put it in a queue.--White Shadows ^{I ran away from you} 16:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a unique situation rather than a case of "I might do something later but want the points now", so no, your comparison is not valid. In this case, WS did the work with the intention of submitting it for this contest. If the people who maintain DYK wish to delay its appearance by 10 months, that is a situation beyond his or this contest's control. I don't see the need to penalize him for someone else's decision. For a 10 point score that is very unlikely to affect the outcome of this round, I personally have no issue. I still say queue it up now, however. Resolute 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• What Resolute said. WS did his job, creating a DYK quality article and an approved hook. He's not saying, as in your comparison Tony, "I plan to write a DYK, can I get the points now." Whether the DYK people do something whacky with it or not is their business and out of his control. I would tend to agree that a 10 month hold seems like a lot, but WS shouldn't be punished if that's the route they choose. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• I think it's a little odd to hold a hook that long, but the WikiCup should not get in the way of ensuring a nice main page balance- make sure it gets on next April 1, don't claim for it in next year's contest and I have no objection to you claiming the points now, in this one-off. Normally, yes, points should be awarded when the article hits the main page, but as it's completely legit and it's being held back by someone else for a special occasion, I don't mind. If I remember correctly, we allowed Sasata to do something similar with Halloweén hooks last year. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I was told explicitly to not claim them until they were on the main page. Sasata (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I do apologise- was it within the same round? J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. (FWIW I think WS should be allowed to claim the points now if DYK decides to sequester his hook for a later date.) Sasata (talk)

So you guys are cool with letting me have the 10 points for this round? (And no I will not claim them for next year!)--White Shadows ^{I ran away from you} 23:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am ok with this, I think the consensus is pretty clear. (Also, I feel that this is a different case to Sasata's, due to the round differences- the fact Sasata is OK with this shows there's no hard feelings in that regard.) If people have further issues to raise, it can be considered and the points can be revoked if it is determined necessary. I would also like to point out that this is very much a one-off, special case, not something that is gonna come up much. Additionally, for what it's worth, White Shadows has behaved in a very sportsman-like manner throughout the Cup, donating his time to help the behind-the-scenes stuff and being careful with his nominations. I have no doubt that this is entirely in good faith, and not in any way an attempt to cheat the system. As such, I think our most important rule when judging whether points are to be counted- don't be a dick- has most certainly not been broken here. J Milburn (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That was very kind J Milburn, thanks for allowing this :)--White Shadows ^{I ran away from you} 01:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Bowing out...

Hey all. I know this might come as a surprise, but I'm going to have to withdraw from the WikiCup. I hate to do it, especially in the fourth round, but I unfortunately don't have the time or energy to dedicate as much time to editing these days as I'd like, and probably won't for a couple months or so. My wife and I are co-writing a book together and the manuscript is due by the end of the year, so it's eating up a lot of our free time. And, on the (extremely) off-chance that I generate enough points for a wildcard spot, I don't want to take it from someone else still dedicated to the contest. I've really enjoyed participating. I think this thing is an awesome initiative that has spurred a lot of excellent articles, and the judges and contestants all deserve kudos. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message- I will remove you from the lists now. Good luck with your book, and I hope to see you back next year for another go! J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I had figured you and Sasata would be going head to head in the final. Good luck on your book. You'll just have to win next year. Resolute 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck on the book. Sounds wonderful to be writing one with your wife :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yup. Everyone I talk to asks if we're constantly at each other's throats yet, but so far, so good! :) — Hunter Kahn 18:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The curious case of Dan Bain

Way back when this competition first started, I expanded Dan Bain for the 10 DYK points, but left it at that. Another hockey editor, after adding just a few (excellent) images, has nominated it at GAN. At this point, I remain the primary contributor to this article but haven't touched it in six months. If it passes GA, can I claim the points or no? Resolute 00:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Rules as written, you can indeed. Applying the rule of "don't be a dick", you can- this clearly isn't an attempt from you to game the system. In any case, I suspect you'll end up doing work in the GAC, so it'll feel like you've earnt them anyway, I imagine. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Resolute 00:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• ThinkBlue (a fellow WikiCup'er) and I have had this with a couple 30 Rock articles. I DYK'ed them a while back and he did some work to get them to GA, though I was there throughout. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Bot down

Is the bot down. It usually updates the totals every six hours if anyone has added any submissions. It did not do so when I added my submissions this morning.-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything to worry about yet. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Submission page archiving

• I think submission pages should be archived so that each round has submission page that can be found with the click of one link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've had no issue with that. Just go into the history and click a the timestamp immediately before one of J Milburn's edits. Resolute 00:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Honestly, the reason I didn't do any of that kind of archiving was because I thought it sounded like an awful lot of trouble for minimal gain; I couldn't see an easy way to do it for the (many) pages that needed dealing with in the first round. I have absolutely no opposition to someone else working something out for that. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• wouldn't a simple solution be to move each submission page to a /round 1 subpage. Then the pool pages in later rounds could have (submission, 1, 2) links.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• If you want to do it, do it. I've got no objection to this. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change (for next year, of course)

...that the winner of the WikiCup is the one that qualifies for the finals (in the same manner as is done now) and has the greatest total cumulative points (i.e. added from all rounds). Advantages:

• sustained effort over the whole year is rewarded, rather than whoever can stuff most into the last round
• no need to "hold back" material when one has already qualified for the next round; this should ease the spikes of activity seen at various review processes at the beginning of every second month
• does not penalize those who for whatever real life reason aren't able to dedicate as much time in the final round

The only technical change would be to add another column in the standings chart that shows the cumulative score. Comments? Sasata (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as is, but add special recognition to the editor(s) with the most cumulative points. That way you could retain the head to head aspect while also honouring dedication. Resolute 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should make something like 20 or 25% of the points carry over in each round.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think we should ask GAC to coordinate their backlog elimination drive with our final round though. Things will get confusing trying to get things reviewed at the end and the winner possibly being determined by the queue at GAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that some form of point carry-over would be nice. I've found myself slowing down as rounds come to an end once I know I've got enough points because I don't want to eat up topics I know I can write on, and that seems counterproductive to the Cup. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting. I do like Sasata's idea - the only thing is how game show formats often work on an escalating scale per round ("quick dollars" etc) akin to a geometric series to keep it interesting so "dark horses" have a chance to sneak up on the others. NRL playoffs have the same rationale. One way would be to have two awards, a bit like out NRL competition in Sydney - a "minor premiership" for the most points overall over the whole wikicup, and an award for winning the "final" or final round. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Simply having two awards might be the easiest way to go. Then the real challenge would be to win both :) Sasata (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposing this idea of carrying over points. It will eliminate a lot of content writers like myself (though I'm not participating next year as a contestant) by round 2. People like Sasata or TTT or even Hunter will just get 1000 points in round 1 and do nothing for round two and possibly half of round three.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Two things. First I very much doubt that the Sasatas, TTTs, Hunters, etc would just do nothing once they got a load of points. Then, going off that, shouldn't the goal of the project be to encourage as much writing as possible (in that way) as opposed to just enough content creation to move forward (until the final round)? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• • True. However people just cannot catch up to 1000 points in round 1. You'll have many a good content creators drop out in round 1 or 2 if this proposal passes.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 17:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am against this format. Someone can earn 2500 (65-70 fishipinner tropical cyclone articles) points in the first two rounds then in Round 3, do nothing and still be in Round 4. Having one round is too difficult, you need to keep it at one thing at time. IMO, I think we should bring back major mainspace edits as it increase scoring. Also, we should start signups soon. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Failing to see why this isn't better. Currently, one can sail by under the radar with minimal involvement for the first 4 rounds, saving content until they qualify for the last round, at which point they use their 65-70 fishspinner articles. In the new proposed system, using your example, they get a break in round four (good for them, they earned it) but must continue contributing content soon to keep up with all the others. In addition, their early start encourages other content contributors to submit more to keep up. The net result is more reviewed content for the encyclopedia. And in the end, that's what this competition is about, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasata (talk • contribs)

• How about not carrying over all the points, but a percentage? This means that there is motivation to keep working throughout a round, but means that it's highly unlikely that people will win on points from earlier rounds. J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the percentage idea too. Sasata (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not leave the system as it was? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not broke, just working less optimally than it could be. Sasata (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Now's a good time to start brainstorming for next year's competition. J Milburn (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
        • True. Perhaps we should open another sub-page and discuss the changes in points, flags, groupings, and other issues like this rather than on this talk page since this is supposed to be used for issues with this current round. I'm all ears for proposals for next year, though I hope that not too much is changed.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Sasata's point above is also the point I'm trying to make. Currently the system incentivizes editing just enough to make the next round and then hold off to keep your content for the next step. A percentage carried over system (I admit, probably better than just raw point carry over) encourages constant editing as it's always of value for every round. And while some may argue that it incentivizes editing less as the contest moves on...

• A. If you use a percentage carry over then it's still more efficient to score points in the round they are for then to build up a backlog and try to win the Cup in Round 1
• B. As I said before, it seems unlikely that the highly motivated editors who build up a significant point total in the early rounds will just fall off a cliff and decide to not do anything because they don't need to. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I like the percentage idea more and more. Even if it's only 10-15%, an editor who consistently gets 1000 pts in each round goes into the last with a nice chunk of points (400-600), but it's not so much that another motivated editor couldn't overcome in the finals. Sasata (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• It sure is for me... Odd to know that those who scored the most in all three rounds are the ones who are trying to implement this new system. I'm not going to be a contestant next year so it will not affect me but implementing these ideas will keep the Suomi Finland 2009's and the Resolute's of the Wikicup out of anything after round 2-3.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 23:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• The same number of people will be getting through each round; I'm not quite seeing how this will be the "pushing out of the little guy" you're suggesting. Could you explain your thinking? J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, my biggest limiting factor is that my editing intensity ebbs and flows, so in either system I could easily be knocked out on a downswing. Implementing a carryover would require a change in strategy for those that wish to move on. I don't think it would hamper anyone's abiilty to compete. My real concern with a carryover system is that it devalues work as time goes on. i.e.: if you keep 10% of the points, then a round 1 o r 2 FA is actually worth 111 points (100 in r1/2, 10 in r2/3 and 1 in r3/4), while a round 4 FA is only worth 100. I would say that if you are going to use a carryover, that the point values should be increased each round, but we are then getting into what may be unnecessarily complicated scoring systems. Related to this, I already don't like good and featured topic candidates scoring points, since there is no actual improvement of the enyclopedia behind those processes. Effectively, they become a means of double dipping on a GA, FA or FL and a carryover on points would exacerbate that problem. Resolute 23:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• (The good/featured topics issue is separate altogether- I will be creating a page to discuss rules for next year, but not yet.) J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's precisely the point of topic points, though, providing an additional bonus for focusing editing on a particular topic rather than just random things. I don't think it's a stretch to say the project is improved by (to take the topic I'm claiming this round) having every Major League Baseball Triple Crown list featured. Now someone interested in that general subject gets the best possible Wiki-perience. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess carrying over points are fine. However I have no clue how we are going to be able to calculate this though....--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 23:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding another column to the points table (updated manually, by the judges) that the bot ignores, I reckon. J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• My 2 cents: keep everything the same except for the last round. In the last round (where the winner is declared), all points are added up (or a % of the points in the early rounds). This way, a 1000-pointer in round 1 would still need to get through 2-4 before actually enjoying the benefit of the cushion. The crown should be given to the best contributor overall, not to the best holdoverer overall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.74.5.1 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That's actually a really good idea. Are you not logged in, or just some kind of wise, benevolent IP address? :) J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This is what I was kind of thinking because I actually don't like the fact that I'm mostly on cruise mode for the rest of this round as I'm fairly certain that I'll make the final cut. In some ways it's pretty annoying as I have to save my planned DYK-eligible articles for later to maximize my points for the last round. Although I don't think that the points from the early rounds should be prorated as that would still encourage people to save things for the last round. Coordinating a GAR drive with the last round is pretty key as otherwise I expect that several of us could jam up the whole system with a large number of submissions. And we can still do that for the DYK system as well. Averaging out the burden would be useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

FAQ page judges

The FAQ page lists as judges: Fox, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17. Is this accurate? I seem to recall seeing one of these guys dropping from the list, but I'm too hungry to go looking through the archives at the moment. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

iMatthew has retired, and Fox has never been a particularly active judge. I will remove iMatthew from the list. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still here. Lurking, mainly. But after my holiday I'll try to help some more.  f o x  22:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as you're still able to do some pretty designs for the prizes, you can do as little as you like :) J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter

Can you please datestamp the newsletters you send out so that talkpage bots will archive them? Cheers, Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise. The others were datestamped, I thought the bot would do it itself. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixing this now. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the note. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I think I might have sounded a bit terse before. If I did, my apologies :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the kind words in the mid-round update message! You should all know I'm getting much more work done on the book, but not a day goes by that I don't regret having to bow out of the contest! lol — Hunter Kahn 22:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Good luck Hunter Kahn. Just a question, what is the subject of the book and are you going to self publish it?--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 22:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's a non-fiction true crime book about a 65-year-old woman who shot a 42-year-old woman to death inside their rural country church because she believed (wrongly) that the victim was having an affair with the pastor, who the killer was in love with. It's a mass-market paperback deal, so it won't make us a million bucks or anything, but no, we're not self-publishing, we have a publisher. My wife and I both covered the story, which was actually on Dateline eventually. If you're interested in reading about the case, there's a few stories out there, like [1], [2], [3]. — Hunter Kahn 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe it, I actually remember watching this on dateline! Nice to see that you are writing about it. I've tried to write a book for myself once as part of a school assignment that I got an A on. I thought that I could keep on going but I eventually stopped writing it and it's hidden somewhere on my flash-drive.... Subjects such as these are not really up my alley so I'm probably not going to buy it (That probably sounded pretty rude, sorry) but good luck nonetheless :)--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 01:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Another scoring discussion point for next year....rescuing articles at WP:FARC

I did bring this up before but now as any time may be a good time to at least flag it - one of the areas with lowest activity is WP:FARC, and I do think incorporating some reward for reviving and improving articles would be good. J Milburn pointed out it is not exactly improving articles, but I must admit, we really do when we revisit Featured Articles from 2007 and earlier. So I do believe it would be great to incorporate this somehow. Biggest obstacle is that there is no designated or nominated 'improver', hence could be tricky to clarify who gets the points....thoughts? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We also have Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Nominations for delisting, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates, Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates#Nominations for removal, Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates and possibly others. The first things that springs to mind is that if we include FARC, we would have to include all of these as well. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. I think that is doable, but who then judges someone has been a 'rescuer'? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We could very easily just use our "significant work" rule; it's served us well so far. I will be opening up a page comparable to what we had last year (see our archive for the majority of discussions) for these kind of discussions at some point in the future, once I have opened up the signups, but I have no issues with brainstorming at this time. I doubt these areas would actually affect the scores in a big way, as they are not heavily frequented, but I don't want to open up an avenue for abuse. The KISS principle also springs to mind. (For what it's worth, I have no opinion on this issue at this time, I'm just offering thoughts.) J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something workable. Have another idea too...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• So long as the points aren't insane I think this makes sense. The major issue, I feel, is there's no clear line for what something needs to be listed at FARC. So unlike all featured content, which needs to pass through the same path, rescuing articles can be very different (is it a couple broken refs because a site moved or an entire rewrite)? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing wads of text

My other idea was also along the lines of how the competition can relate to consolidating and improving content we actually do have. This might be tricky but run along the lines of citing wads of unreferenced text, and reward on a word-count basis (bit like the guild of copyeditors running word-count). I am just floating a half-formed idea here....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about this one, at all. It's just not in any way quantifiable. I mean, you can easily say "I got article Y to DYK", and you could even say "I reviewed article Y, promoting it to GA" or "I saved article Y when it was nominated at FARC". You can't really say "I referenced what was paragraph two, section three of article Y, but it got merged into another paragraph when the article was at GAC". We've got to remember that this is a points competition, and so we need to have very clear things for which to award points. J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(belatedely) I agree with you actually - i was sort of thinking out loud/brainstorming about what else folks do which help improve encyclopedia quality. Even though I am an ardent inclusionist and cruft-lover, I do strongly agree with the idea of looking at ways of improving what we do have encyclopedia-wise. The gradual conversion of wikipedia to an inline-referenced entity is a Good Thing (it's funny - I look at little blue numbers in a good way now - they don't disrupt my reading at all but suggest the work I am reading might be reliably sourced :)) and any way we can give the 'pedia a push in that direction is a good thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Between rounds submission page blanking

I do have one request about this. It would be easier for the contestants if the contestant's submission page could have the scoring format added at the beginning of a round rather than a simple blanking. It would save me from going to the scoring page or the previous edit of my submission page and copying stuff. A small thing, but generally useful I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. I will have to add them as hidden comments so I don't confuse the bot, but that seems sensible. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Places

In the WikiCup, do I have to represent where I live? Us441 (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No. We're working out exactly how the flags will work next year, but, basically, you can choose whatever flag you like. See this thread for details. The final rules will be posted when I open the signups for next year. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing

Hi there, having recently spent six weeks overseas, my campaign has run its course so I'll withdraw now and be satisfied with leading my Round 3 pool and making the overall final 15... Thanks for organising! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Hope to see you next year :) All the best,--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Look forward to seeing more of your high-caliber work on WP in the future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, and good luck to you all for the remainder of this year's comp! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Flags for 2011

Resolved

 – Signups are now open. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, before I open signups for next year (which had already been done a while this time last year) I want to discuss the issue of flags. This worked fairly nicely in the 2009 competition, but the much higher numbers of people taking part this year meant that signups got a little fratchy; inappropriate flags were deliberately chosen, some good faith flags raised concerns, people missed the point and there was heartache about people being unable to have certain flags. At times I was worried the concerns would spill out, and the WikiCup would get bad press from something as silly as the flags. So, basically, I'm looking for suggestions and thoughts. How do people feel it would be best dealt with? Here are a few thoughts I have had at various times-

1. Keep it as it is, and just cross our fingers. (To my eyes, not preferable.)
2. Do away with the flags altogether. (I think the flags are a nice touch.)
3. Allow any free image. (This could end up silly, and could raise all sorts of new problems. I don't like this idea.)
4. Limit allowable flags to anything on List of sovereign states. (I like this. It would remove some of the controversy, and keep things much, much simpler than they were. It's also compatible with ideas below. It is also more in the spirit of the original idea, to my eyes.)
5. Only choose flags once we reach the first "real" round, having the first pool as a "qualifying" round. (This would mean fewer flags need to be allocated, would keep out timewasters, and be a little neater all round.)
6. Allow people to choose the same flag someone else is using. (Sure, we may end up with 30 USAs, but it's all just a bit of fun. We could even "strongly encourage" people to use their own nation's flag- I think that would be quite cool, really.)

As you can probably tell from my annotations, my personal preference is for a mix of four and six. As I see it, the two combined would eliminate the complications in flag choosing that we faced this year, and let us get on with more important things. Ok, enough of my rambling. What do you lovely people think? J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment personal order of preference 1, 5, 6, 3, 4, 2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I was looking for discussion at this stage, as opposed to votes :P I was thinking we could open up a straw poll if there's been no real progress discussion-wise in a few weeks. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• I personally prefer number 5, but I'm OK with 4 and 6 as well. In any case we should keep the flags as they add a nice touch to the competition (especially in the newsletters) perhaps a combination of 4 6 and 6?--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • For me, there are logistical problems with 5. If we only choose the flags at the start of the first "real" round, that will probably leave us with only a couple of days to deal with the entirity of the flags, when, quite frankly, there's gonna be bigger fish to fry- large number of pools, large number of contestants needing their submission page's wiped, newsletter to write and so on. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • True. Perhaps we can just use option 4 and 6 like you said. I have to say that I like those the most out of the ones that are the most possible and would cause the least headache.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What is an "inappropriate flag"? --William S. Saturn (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably something like or other racist and generally evil orginizations/nations. --White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Nazi Germany is the obvious example, but there were flags that caused problems for a great number of reasons. I could list them, but some of the issues we ran into were laughably silly... There was a severe lack of common sense/ability to "get" it in a number of cases- that's why I feel the "back to basics" approach would be better. The flags should not be a big deal, the rules and extensive discussion that came up at the end of last year were just silly. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In that case others may include , and even for Vietnamese people who obviously hate the communist government there (same thing with native Cubans living in the US). There is a fine line between inappropriate and Ok.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And now we're drifting into that dangerous "this isn't OK" "YES IT IS" territory- it's this sort of thing which is exactly what I want to avoid. J Milburn (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

you're right. I'm not trying to drift into that topic again but just think of flags that we should not allow for obvious reasons. Flags should not be a big deal like you said.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 18:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Let people create their own flags.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential copyright problems (what sort of thing would people put on them? Even if they're putting free stuff on, careful sourcing and attribution would be needed) and potential MySpacey problems, not to mention the fact that it would open the floodgates to anything and everything- I shudder at the thought of the kind of things we'd probably get... Additionally, there will be plenty of people who simply won't care enough to bother. On a more personal note, I don't think I'd like to be the one responsible for the upload of 100+ personal images that are useless in the mainspace... J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Joking aside, I don't see a need for flags. They seem to be just causing problems.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The flags really are just decoration, but they can be a bit of a fun part of the competition. I say allow multiple people to use the same flag. Almost any individual international competition will allow multiple representatives from the same nation, so why not this too? And if you wanted to unnecessarily complicate things, you could open up the concept of representing a team or nation further by adding a team/nation component to the scoring. Resolute 19:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not, "any flag that is not obviously insulting and each user may chose a flag that is already in use by another contestant" or something along those lines like Resolute said? After all, it is just for ascetics and the flags are really not a big deal....--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 22:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be a shame if flags were removed. It looks like ti should add to the fun. I was considering joining on this last one and thought I would go City, State, or Country depending on what was available. No worries if they were not available (go County even). White Shadows ides is great and editors should feel bad if they are not encouraging a fun project by getting bogged down in what flag to use.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

White Shadows, I think you're over-simplifying the idea of what is "obviously insulting". J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am. Can you think of a better alternative? I'm thinking way too inside the box here.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the flags. I'm partial to retaining the status quo, and/or possibly expanding to fictional or "other" flags (providing libre-licensing). My recommendation for WikiCup personnel would be the institution of a notice that says something along the lines of: "Here're the types of flags you may use. Here're examples. We (judges/officials) have the final word on the matter, and if we reject your flag or instruct you to choose again, we may do so with impunity and the decision is not subject to appeal." Forgive my flippancy, but people are voluntarily opting in to play your game, under your set of rules. If they don't like it, you don't beed their Drama anyways. Perhaps it sounds a bit draconian, but it allows for the the fun flag bit which many of us enjoy and prevents Drama. Just my 3¢. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There could be the thing said that you are free to chose a flag, but if sombody objects from the judges or serious and resonable complaints arise from the participants you have to chose another flag. --Stone (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How about #4, but restricted to current official flags (or approved variations of) of extant political entities (i.e. countries and any subnational entity)? This cuts out most troublesome flags. Circéus (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I like #6, which #4 as a caveat. After all, in international competitions like the Olympics, you do have multiple people from one country running under the same flag. While you will end up with many US flags, enough people will see it taken, and decide to go with something else in order to be different. Guettarda (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I like Circeus' idea. many people see themselves as part of a subnational entity, whether it be Queensland, Texas, Yorkshire, or Quebec to name a few. Limiting it to just sovereign states makes it a bit bland in my eyes. I'd also add multinationals ...the golden arches, shell, etc. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh! Commercialism must infect every sporting competition it seems. /me cries for the days of pure amateurism.  ;) Resolute 00:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of those logos will be non-free, so couldn't be used, and many won't be of a similar shape similar to the flags, which could look messy. Also possible trademark concerns with regards to pretending to be linked to an organisation which you are not? (IANAL) Although, yeah, it could be changed from "choose a flag" to "choose something to represent"- people entering as their university and things could be nice :) J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Choice 6 is the best, with Choice 1 being the only other good choice.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm for choice 6 as well, although I'd add any flag of a currently recognized polity should eligible to be used. Somebody was using the flag of the City of Chicago earlier which is fine by me, since I'm using the flag of my current state. I see no reason why we should limit it to national polities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the best options are 5 and 6, with my preference being the latter. Suggestions 1 and 3 are unworkable, while 2 would be giving in to those who have made this thread necessary in the first place. Option 4 is tempting, but throws up one very obvious problem, and if you make four exceptions there, where would we draw the line? --WFC-- 01:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Final proposal(?)

Ok, I've read through this thread, and I think we have a moderately clear consensus. Option 6 seems the general favourite, while Circeus's idea also seems sound. This is what I'm thinking- You may choose the flag of any extant political entity (countries, counties, states, towns, principalities and so on) providing it is freely licensed. If you do not choose a flag, one will be randomly assigned by the judges at the beginning of the competition. You may choose a flag that has already been chosen by another participant, or a new flag all together. The judges reserve the right to remove any flag deemed inappropriate. Thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Good! One earlier proposal limited it to countries but left out states and provinces. I would never choose but someone could want that flag much the same way as people dress up as Klingons (the bad guys). I would be more offended by the North Korean or al-Qaeda flag than the German flag. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The final proposal sounds good but I am very much against encouraging people to choose the flag of their country. Not only does that raise issues for those with dual nationality, refugees, resident workers, etc., but anonymity is an important principle here; I don't believe we are even supposed to ask each other where we are from.Yngvadottir (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you can ask whenever you want; just don't expect them to reply. "Encouraging" != requirement.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Scoring

Discussions moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

2011

Resolved

 – Signups now open. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

When can I sign up for the 2011 WikiCup? Even though I don't think I can win, it doesn't hurt to try. Us441 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I will be opening the signups any day now, we're just resolving the issue of flags in a discussion above. As soon as that's done... J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not start a pre-registration sign up. These people can choose flags later. Let me be the first to sign up. I was one of the last ones for this WikiCup.

1. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Preferred flag, if allowed

• If there is a contestant count limit then it's unfair to people to pre-register, and if there isn't it's pointless. So... Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, no pre-preregistering please :) I will open it soon, don't worry. The quicker the flag issue is sorted, the sooner I'll open it. J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

2011 signups are now open!

Sign up now.

I'm gonna be advertising this in three basic ways- firstly, it will go out on the newsletter later this month, secondly, we will hopefully be able to get a Signpost article when this competition ends to announce our winner, and, thirdly, I will be spamming a large number of talk pages in December. Additionally, any advertising on userpages and such would be appreciated- I've created a userbox for those that way inclined (feel free to edit it if you see fit) and will now be losing Nietzsche to advertise this on my own userpage, for what it's worth. Any questions/thoughts/death threats/whatever are welcome below. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have been keeping track on this year's WikiCup and I wonder if I could be a judge next year. Is there any requirements to be one? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I will be opening discussing concerning judges at some point soon. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Points and other stuff worth discussion for next year's upcoming cup.

Well some discussion over new ways to get points, changes in the amounts of points for articles/lists/topics as well as rule changes have taken place. While much of this is likely in it's infancy, perhaps we should think about the creation of a new sub-page to discuss this much like last year's discussions in order to keep this page from being overloaded with ideas/proposals and keep it open to those who have questions/issues for this year's competition. Should we open a new sub-page or is it too soon or just a waste of time?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 19:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring would make the most sense, no? Resolute 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we archive the last set of discussions on that page then?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 20:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say so. Resolute 20:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the discussions to Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, I will be opening a discussion about next year's judges in the next few days, and I'll be doing it on this talk page. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)