Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2013/3

Commons FPs

Do Commons FPs count, if not redundant to En-wiki FPs? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons FPs do not count in any way. Anything outside of the English Wikipedia is outside the scope of the Cup. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2013/log

I'm just wondering, is there any progress being made going through these claims? If there are too many, should we be looking for additional volunteers to judge them? -- YPNYPN ✡ 01:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I normally only go through everything for the first few weeks. After that, spotchecks, as I don't think it's a particularly productive way for anyone to spend their time. There has to be a degree of trust here! J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I withdraw

Due to various reasons, I need to withdraw. Sorry. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Hope to see you again next year, if you're not affected by the same issues. All the best, J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Bot

I have obtained the grand total of five points in this Wikicup. I updated the table to show this and a bot has just reverted me removing my points! What do I have to do to get them back? Francium12 (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It was due to the formatting on the submission page- the bot looks for numbered lists, not bulleted ones. It should update next time. Thanks for the note. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Awards from last year's drive.

I'm confused. When the 2011 WikiCup concluded, although I was eliminated in the first round, I still received a "Participant" award, which looked like this. In the 2012 WikiCup game, I was eliminated in the first round again, but this time, when the game ended, I did not receive this award. It's been almost four months, and we're into the 2013 game, and still nothing. Has the distribution of the "Participant" award been discontinued? Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make a conscious decision to not send them out; it just completely slipped my mind. I do think they're a good idea, and I still display mine on my userpage from back when I participated. It's probably a little late to send them out for 2012's competition now, but I'll certainly make sure I send them out this year. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Okely-dokely! Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Bonus points

If anyone's looking for a lot of bonus points, the article Curitiba has 243 interwikis according to Wikidata (Q4361), which would be a 960% mulitplier. (That's 288 points for a GA and 960 for a FA.) HueSatLum 23:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that one last year. It appears to have been a test case or special project to get that onto as many Wikipedias as possible. Abductive (reasoning) 07:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we'd have to limit the points for that one... J Milburn (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised that it had almost 100 more interwikis than the average level 1 Vital Article. HueSatLum 22:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Stunted stubs

So, I've created five articles since Jan 1st. But I was incapable of expanding them to the size needed for DYK. I now realize that I can't do it without the pre-settlement Google Books, back when they had all that copyvio scanned in. Sigh. Abductive (reasoning) 23:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What are the topics? I may be able to access something useful I could send you... J Milburn (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No, don't worry about it. After all, the purpose of the Cup is to improve content, which I have done. Maybe next year I will figure out a way to generate content in a big way. One needs to find a trove of material that is not on Wikipedia. So far I can only do species. Abductive (reasoning) 22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If I see anything about the foundation giving away Questia subscriptions and the like again then I'll post them here for competitors to see. I've found those resources really handy, in fact I've created more than a couple of new articles based on those sources alone, and they're not even remotely tapped out. As we only get 12 month subscriptions, they should up for renewal at some point during the middle of the year at which point you just need to meet a fairly low Wikipedia editing requirement and add your name to the list. I'm not sure how much biology information they have, but I've never really looked either. I know they have some really impressive magazine resources, such as every issue of American Cinematographer from the mid 70's. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There are also users out there who are willing to help you find resources, if you need it. See the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Round 1 closure?

Wasn't the first round of the comp suppose to be closed yesterday? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The round is over, but we keep these two days to allow the judges some time to do what needs to be done. The next round will be ready to kick off come 1 March. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was just unsure whether my DYK featured today would count towards round 1 or 2. Now I know. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, will count for round 2, but please don't add it to your page until the first! J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise the round had ended (I assumed it would end Feb 28) and submitted something earlier today. I have reverted it, [1] will this be ok with the bot? I realise I won't get any points but I made it to the next round anyway so it doesn't matter. James086^Talk 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The bot stopped updating at the round end. It'll be fine- you're welcome to claim that next round, provided it was promoted after round 1 had ended. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, they were promoted during round 1 but I didn't log on to WP so didn't submit them in time. No matter, it won't affect the results of the cup :) James086^Talk 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Requirement for reviewers at FAC

WP:WikiCup/Scoring#Featured articles says: "You must declare your WikiCup participation if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC." But when I asked two days ago at WT:FAC#Wikicup (I couldn't remember where I had seen this requirement), no one had heard of it, and when I search WP:FAC, no one is doing it. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do we even have the rule in the first place? I think this could be botted though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Because a certain party at the FAC process has an extreme problem with assuming bad faith of anyone not part of their little group and wanted to hang a scarlet letter on Cup participants. That being said, I think this text is in error. The rule was that nominators had to declare if it was a WikiCup nomination. There is (or was) even a bot that would mark such nominations. I don't think we ever mandated reviewers had to identify. Resolute 14:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The real rule was concerning nominators, and yes, Ucucha's bot still does this. I think, technically, any potential COI (including WikiProject membership, former collaborations, previous involvement in review processes, etc) should be declared. I wouldn't worry about this too much. We could perhaps revisit the question after this year's competition. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It just feels a little BEANSy to me. Some noms might hear this as "I'm going to to review your FAC, but be aware that I have a conflict of interest." If I had a conflict of interest, I wouldn't be reviewing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous submission

Apologies for this, but I apparently missed that a DYK cannot be submitted "until the article has actually been featured on the main page. Merely being approved by a reviewer does not count. If a hook is being held for a specific date after the end of the round and you need to claim the points, talk to the judges." The DYK I submitted is Betsy Blackwell, which is being held for Women's History Month in March. Would it be possible to have this removed? Again, sorry about this. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've updated it "for the record". J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Easter DYKs

Hi everyone - User:Miyagawa and I have been starting to look at building DYK sets for Easter, and we'd like to invite everyone to participate. Rabbits, chocolate, Easter music, plants with Easter in the name, Easter food, Easter traditions, the more variety the better. It would be great to get a good selection of secular and religious traditions, as well as some things that are only connected by name. I just put up the first of the Easter DYK noms, so there should be a special holding area built within the next few days to start collecting the hooks. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll join in with the Easter Island butterflyfish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter issue

Question. Why did I get this? I'm not part of the Cup and never have been. GamerPro64 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If J Milburn's talk page is to be believed, he accidentally sent the newsletter to everyone who subscribes to the Signpost. As the other judge of the competition, I wish to apologize to everyone inconvenienced by this. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry- this was a ridiculous mistake on my part. Seeing as this was all done many hours ago, there's not a lot I can do about it right now apart from apologise... Presumably, this also means that people signed up for the WikiCup newsletter but not the Signpost have also failed to receive it... J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, I did not get the newsletter, despite being signed up for both. Ahh well, shit happens. Resolute 14:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The bot was stopped mid-run. Anyone who was on the WikiCup list but not the Signpost list will have received it, and some on the Signpost list will have received it. I'll try to get it out to everyone else at some point soon. I'm really not built for anything even close to the use of bots... I had to ask for help using a citation template last week... J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we'll forgive you, J. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like you've taken an entire company offline by failing to set one little flag in SCCM or anything. I may have... err... I may know someone who did that once... <whistles innocently>. Resolute 14:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, once EdwardsBot finishes its current run, everyone should have gotten the letter. Touch wood. J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Invite to help under-covered area

DYK away! TCO (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No category for performing cleanup actions?

I'm surprised that the WikiCup doesn't include a category for eliminating items at Category:Wikipedia backlog, or other maintenance type work. Have those items been considered for inclusion in this contest before? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

They're probably too hard to quantify. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ypnypn is right that they difficult to quantify. Spending some time on an article that needs some cleanup could potentially produce a good article (or did you know if there is considerable expansion). We are offering some encouragement in this regard by giving extra points for long DYKs and DYKs of articles that have existed for a long while, but the focus of the Cup is very much on high-quality audited content, rather than maintenance or cleanup. There are dozens of highly worthwhile activities on Wikipedia not recognised by the Cup; in addition to article cleanup, there is new page patrol, anti-vandalism efforts, copyvio removal, dealing with non-free content issues, categorisation, reviewing at peer review and FAC, mediation, OTRS work and so on. Trying to quantify the value of all of these and more to offer fair point-values would be a somewhat quixotic task of questionable value. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Good article criteria

I have just claimed points for a good article, European hare. I was not the nominator of this article or the prime mover in getting it approved as a GA. On the other hand, I believe my contributions were more than was necessary to exceed the threshold set by the statement "Merely copyediting or wikifying an article does not constitute "significant work"."

Perhaps the judges would like to make a ruling as to whether my participation in editing this article was sufficient to claim the points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here- this is borderline. While you've clearly done good work on the article and devoted time to its improvement, the fact, as you say, that you're neither the nominator nor the "prime mover" does raise some worries. The fact that this is a important topic is also significant; while, on the one hand, I'm always keen to see work on important topics recognised in the WikiCup, I can, on the other, see people having a legitimate concern that you're being awarded a whopping 90 points for a good bit less work than is required for many 30-point GAs. I'd be inclined to say that you can't claim for the article, but I'd be willing to offer two compromise type positions; firstly, if you were to push the article towards featured status, the work you've already completed would certainly count towards judging whether you have done "significant work", and, secondly, should it be needed, this work would count as a fair tie-breaker. How does that sound? J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, with which I basically agree. I think claiming points for the article might come within the letter but not within the spirit of the rules. I will remove it from among my submissions for points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK bonus

Hello, according to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring a DYK article can be worth 5 or 10 points, according to size. Why then did I gain a 2 point bonus on Wise Men? My scoring page is at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2013/Submissions/Albacore. Thanks. Albacore (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles that were created in 2007 and before, and taken to DYK during the course of this year's Cup, are eligible for 2 extra points. That being said, articles that were previously redirects (before the DYK expansion) aren't supposed to count, and it looks like this article was a redirect. Possibly a bot mistake, or possibly I'm reading the instructions wrong. Dana boomer (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Dana: That's correct. There was an article there several years ago, but this certainly isn't an expansion of the older article. I've removed the bonus points. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth me updating the bot for this? - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 13:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's not too much trouble, I think so. Former redirects becoming DYKs is not at all uncommon. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Similar issue. I got a bonus here, but I don't think I should have; I think I either got the pre-2008 bonus (the article existed since 2007, but as a draft in userspace) or the 5-Wikipedia bonus (again, to get to 5 you'd need to count this article, which was a draft). Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it looks like I got both bonuses. Guettarda (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't that similar to the issues above, but I should get a 1.2x multiplier for my DYK Emmanuel de Martonne, with 8 other foreign language Wikipedia articles, but the bot didn't notice it because it was only created recently. (I'm not sure why, because all interwikis are now on Wikidata.) Thanks, HueSatLum 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In short because I have yet to be bothered to get it to work out what interwikis it was on from Wikidata on January 1. I'll shall investigate again, I got close before. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 22:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Could a judge please take a look at my note? It's been over two weeks. HueSatLum 14:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this was resolved. The bot will pick it up on its next run. J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Priority review"

Is there a list somewhere for pending promotions (e.g., GAs that need reviewed) for WikiCup points? I have three GAs pending and they have been since the WikiCup began in January. Thanks. Go Phightins! 01:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews is what you're looking for, I think, although I don't know how many people use that page to pick articles to review. Dana boomer (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not that heavily used. I'm incredibly busy at the moment, but next time I've got time for a GA review, I'll be sure to pick one off the list. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll try tackling a couple soon. Wasn't touching it originally since it's essentially just the music section, at least until Phightins' additions. Plus I'm still trying to wipe out 2012 over there (anyone looking for 4 points, there you go). Wizardman 17:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Getting down to crunch time and they're still there . Oh well. I'm not sure 60 points would help me at this point. Go Phightins! 19:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Good article drive at WikiProject Baseball

I don't know if any editors here are interested in baseball, but we are starting a good article drive at the baseball project and have identified 60 active MLB players' articles for improvement. Some are already in decent shape, so there definitely are GAs available. See the drive page for details. The newsletter said that one can organize any collaboration on the drive talk page, so I thought it would be worth it to bring it up. Thanks, and happy Easter to everyone! Go Phightins! 22:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm sure some eager editors will take you up on your offer. Hope you had a good Easter. :) Miyagawa (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Featured topic options

Not sure if there are any Walking Dead/zombie/television writers here or not, but I created these draft topic boxes a while back. If anyone is looking for a project...

The Walking Dead (season 1)

14 articles

"Days Gone Bye"

"Guts"

"Tell It to the Frogs"

"Vatos"

"Wildfire"

"TS-19"

The Walking Dead (season 2)

7 articles

"What Lies Ahead"

"Bloodletting"

"Save the Last One"

"Cherokee Rose"

"Chupacabra"

"Secrets"

"Pretty Much Dead Already"

"Nebraska"

"Triggerfinger"

"18 Miles Out"

"Judge, Jury, Executioner"

"Better Angels"

"Beside the Dying Fire"

The Walking Dead (season 3)

17 articles

"Seed"

"Sick"

"Walk with Me"

"Killer Within"

"Say the Word"

"Hounded"

"When the Dead Come Knocking"

"Made to Suffer"

"The Suicide King"

"Home"

"I Ain't a Judas"

"Clear"

"Arrow on the Doorpost"

"Prey"

"This Sorrowful Life"

"Welcome to the Tombs"

Or not. Thanks! :) --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note

Hey. For the next cut down in a few days, I ask that I not advance. I'm barely through anyway so it's possible I fall out, but in case I barely advance I don't wish to, since I know I'm going to have sparse time to write the next month or two; better someone advances who will actually score points. Wizardman 16:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note- if you get through, I'll list you as "withdrawn" :) J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Round 3

Ok, round 3 should be good to go. I'm very much strapped for time at the moment, so there may be the odd mistake- for that, I apologise. I'll do my best to get the last bits dealt with in the coming days. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Should the bot be updating the main page at the same time as it calculates the bonuses on the submission pages? I only ask because it updated my submission page, but hasn't done any updates to the main page since midnight. Miyagawa (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The bot's not updating much at the moment. I can manually force an update, which I'll do now- double check it's giving you the number of points you're expecting. That's the important thing. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that seems to have done the trick! Thanks. Miyagawa (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm

Kinda figured I might drop out this time because of being so busy in May. Ah, well. Will see if I can catch up enough. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, looks like I squeaked by. Time to put my A-game on. Or however you punctuate that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd figure out the punctuation before someone hits you with MOS violations. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Seems like some might be affected by the backlog over at the Good article candidates page. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That, unfortunately, is inevitable. We already encourage taking up good article reviews with points and we have the reviews page. I've tried to take on a few pop music articles, but they're not the kind of articles I usually enjoy reviewing. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a shame. I would review myself, but most of my contributions on Wikipedia have been writing content. Usually, any MoS violations I make have been picked up in peer reviews and the like. And where reviews go, I would likely be too nitpicky for people's tastes. And as well, even though I have written GAs I would have to properly familiarise myself with the criteria, given I use it as a precursor to FA. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that summer is a go for me, I have some time in which I can take on some more reviews to help this out.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what. If anyone asks on my talk page for a GAR, I'll try to do it. There's a 9-day lead time on my Wikicup work anyway. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I count the backlog as part of the game, so to speak. It got unusually bad this year though and my attempts to time reviews for certain rounds backfired miserably. I was hoping that 1988 Winter Olympics would score me a ton of points to get through round 2, but that only got reviewed a few days ago. Ironically, the sports and rec backlog is shorter than it's been in months... Resolute 01:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah- it's just something we have to work with. The only alternative, that I can see, is awarding more points for WikiCup reviews (which I think is an awful idea, as it creates an "us and them" situation) or Ed and I shouldering reviews ourselves- I personally know nothing about, and have no interest in, sport, and so that would be pretty disastrous. I review a lot more than I nominate, but I'm only one person, and, naturally, I prefer certain topics. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel able to try, anyway. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't want me to review any GAN outside of history or politics, trust me. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just cleared out WP:Wikicup/Reviews of all the GANs (to be fair, all but one had already passed, just hadn't been removed. Note that an FLC and my own FPCs remain on there. Anyone else? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Did You Know Shortage

Just spotted over at the talk page for WP:DYK that there is talk about a current hook shortage for DYK due to a decreased number of nominations. This has resulted in the shorterning down to two sets a day suggested. While there isn't any need to be alarmed, I thought it would be best mentioned as if you were to nominate an article that clearly met all the requirements then you could expect it to make it through the DYK faster than normal due to the lack of other hooks avaliable. Might only be a matter of days from review to posting rather than the couple of weeks it was earlier in the year during the first round. Miyagawa (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've been eyeing creating Fatinitza for a bit, and finally finished it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:Featured picture candidates

Could really use more reviewers here, as Featured pictures reviews are on a time limit, and half of Wikipedia's off on holiday. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

2014 signups

Just to let people know- I've opened the signups for next year's competition. WikiCup veterans, WikiCup newcomers, long-time Wikipedians and newbies all welcome! This will be advertised more broadly in the coming months. J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

GAN reviews

Just to note, my offer still stands to review any GAN put forwards to me. But please do so soon; the day's almost over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wish I knew about this earlier. Thanks, though. Good luck, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

How was I eliminated?

First of all,t he round isn't meant to end for 24 hours. You said it ended ont he 29th, it's not the end of the 29th yet. Secondly, whilst I was considering dropping poitns to tie with Piotrus, I never asked for myself to be eliminated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ, Adam. Calm down. A) I made a mistake in when the round ended. B) I thought it was clear that you wanted to be eliminated based on J's talk page. That can be changed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but I've kind of set my sights very hard on winning the Wikicup, and now you've gone and announced to hundreds of people I've lost. It's kind of frustrating, and I don't see you throwing out a retraction. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

On the round-ending timing mistake: I'm kind of extremely busy in real life, and I miscalculated the dates. Let's not go berserk over that, please. The final round can only have eight users, so you'll have to choose (when a tie happened in 2012, we had a tiebreaker). I'll be happy to retract what was in the newsletter if required. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There's been an extra user before in this very competition. But, fine, I put in the work for my place, but I'd rather both Piotrus and I could advance, though, as he's a very good user, hence my comment on Milburn's talkpage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

At the beginning, if my memory serves me correctly. Not in the final round. I agree with you re Piotrus, but only eight can go on. I'll leave a message with him now, and then I'm going to bed, because I'll be working close to twelve hours tomorrow. I'm not going to spam everyone again with a retraction through Edwardsbot, but if someone can AWB the switch, I'd be much appreciated. You would be replacing the Piotrus text with #8 here on everyone's talk page listed here. Apologies to everyone affected. :-/ Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It was the third round, which is hardly at the beginning. And no retraction? Seriously? that's not going to cause any confusion, I'm sure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Adam, I'm not spamming 294 users with a second new section. I'm looking for an AWB user now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

*sigh* Look, if you need sleep, that's more important than this, and I'm sorry I got so annoyed, but at this point you've basically accidentally eliminated me without asking, told Piotrus he passed, without having yet told him otherwise, and all this a day early, which could have made the point moot, had he had a GAN pass, announced to nearly three hundred users the wrong information, offered to retract it, then said there wouldn't be a retraction. It's... frustrating, to say the least. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The corrections are being made now by an exceedingly helpful AWB user. Thank you, all, for your patience in correcting this. As for ties, the third round is pretty much the beginning for our purposes. 65 vs. 64 users isn't a big deal. 8 vs. 9, in the round that determines the champion, is. This is the exact reason why we could probably be a little more strict with the rules. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, er, you do realise Edwardsbot wasn't done when the AWB started, right? It's still cranking out uncorrected newsletters. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The AWB run should go down the same list as EdwardsBot, so they will proceed in tandem... the bot is pretty close to the end of the list. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That EdwardsBot character... always up to no good, I tell ya. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective: Adam, I'm sorry about the mistake here, but both Ed and I have got a lot going on in real life right now! I'm not really "here" at all- I'm just dropping by while in a public library. Now, as for precedent: In the past when there have been draws, we have used a tiebreaker. Tiebreakers are generally participation in review work which doesn't have any points attached to it. So, if Smith and Jones tie (each having produced three good articles), we would take into account Smith's work at FAC, while Jones, who does no review work, would be eliminated. (This has previously happened, normally in early rounds, but I have a timer on this computer, so I can't check the archives for a link.) In this case, Adam, if you were to drop your points to match Piotrus, still only one of you would make it through. On the one occasion (which was earlier this year) in the last five years when we have had more users in a round than were expected (excepting the first round) this was because of a combination of factors- an honest mistake by a user, some scoring irregularities and an oversight on my part. In that case, the most sporting thing to do seemed to be to bend the rules. In this case, it seems to me that Piotrus has just been beaten out (the third time, I believe, he's been eliminated at this stage). I'd be inclined to say that this is just part of the game- he's certainly an impressive competitor, as is everyone who makes it to this stage, but them's the rules. Ed: If you disagree with me, you're completely welcome to chop and change. You're in charge right now and, of course, I trust your judgement. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Final round composition

Pinging User:Sasata, User:Miyagawa, User:Hawkeye7, User:Ealdgyth, User:Sturmvogel_66, User:Piotrus, User:Adam Cuerden, User:Cwmhiraeth, and User:Casliber. As many of you probably noticed, I cleared the tables a day early by accident. This unfortunately led to mass confusion, something that is now compounded. Thanks to a GAN passed at 20:30 on 29 August—after my mistake but before the official end of the round—Piotrus will go forward into the final round, surpassing Adam Cuerden. As for the possibility of a nine-user final, I'm with J Milburn: one user has been beaten out, and the only time we've bent the rules was for a severe combination of errors in an earlier round. This does not reach that standard. Thank you all for your patience, and my apologies for the large amounts of confusion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Umm, couldn't we really have a 9-user final? I think User:Adam Cuerden deserves to be in the final at least as much as me. Per WP:IAR, I think we should focus on what's fun for us and beneficial for Wikipedia, and I for one would enjoy this competition more with Adam around. After all, it's not like we have another group to balance, so an odd number shouldn't be a problem. What do the other competitors think? PS. Are we going to mess up with the newsletter again? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, Ed. You said the round was over; I stopped the race for GAN points and started on the next round. At this point, the colossal fuckup made of the closing means a 9-person round's about the only way you can rescue it. This is the very definition of a severe combination of errors. You closed it early, and, when I pointed this out to you, you said to me outright that you were going to stick with the closing date, so I moved off GAR to FPC. You can't tell me one thing, then screw me over because you changed your mind. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous, Ed. You can't try to hold to what are, after all, arbitrary rules when you've fucked up this collossally. Wikicup is meant to be a fun, friendly competition. It's not meant to cause players huge amounts of stress because you repeatedly change your mind on something you've told one of them was definitely going one way. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I am really hoping we are not going to see any bureaucrat mentality and arguments about the rules. IAR, let Adam be in, close this, move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This was a big mistake, IMO; it caused me to start responding to open reviews a day early when I had no reason not to delay another day so they'd count for the next round. It was only slowness in closing my open FAC that allowed some of those points to go where they should have, but it still needlessly cost me 30 points. How important they'll be will only become clear at the end, but nonetheless. I think that y'all are in the wrong here and we should go with a final round of nine. You've done it once before in this competition and the fact that it's the final round is essentially meaningless since the principle's already been established. (Do I really need to recite the anecdote about Churchill and the lady's price?) Besides, in the unlikely event that I win this year's Cup, I want to be able to rub it in eight people's faces, not just seven! (That's a joke, friends, honest!)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would support having nine competitors in the final round as being a fair solution to this problem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there have been some real mistakes here, and the situation seems close to the one earlier this year. There also seems to be a consensus that 9 users is acceptable, but I have not had time to check the ins-and-outs of the situation. If Ed's happy with this situation, then so am I. Again- timing has not been on our side, and Ed and I have both ended up very busy at the wrong time. If they count for anything, my apologies to everyone involved. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nine users is fine. I'm glad Piotr made the final round. I discovered in Hong Kong that finalists on the German Wikipedia get a T shirt. I take size large btw. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that a nine-competitors final is a fair outcome. How was User Adam Cuerden to know that User Piotrus had overtaken him or not? It seems that the score board was temporarily inaccurate and User Piotru's late GAN was not entered in his submissions. It took me a long time to trace this discussion. To me it looks like this discussion has a consensus. To reduce confusion, I have created Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2013/Round 4 for the Template:WikiCup, which is a navbox for the history of the competition. I have also explained the nine-competitor final near to the relevant score boards. Snowman (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

An honest error has been made, and I think that the nine person final is a fair compromise. As a finalist, I'm happy to for Piotrus and Adam to both be included. Miyagawa (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, wait, we get t-shirts? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to find a designer and a wealthy chapter to sponsor them. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, far be it from me to argue with a unanimous consensus. Nine users it is! Thank you all for the comments, and apologies for the mistakes. Also, please let me echo the apologies of J above—we're both very busy at the same and poor time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps I need to reread the rules on scoring during the end-of-the-months days, they are confusing. As I got the newsletter stating I didn't pass before I got the notification that the GA has passed I assumed it is no longer relevant and haven't bothered entering it into the scoring page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that GAN that Sasata passed counted for the last round, so you can't count it again. Apologies, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

T-shirts

I think it would be an excellent idea to have t-shirts for all participants, at least for Round 3 up (so, 32 people). CUP participants contribute a lot to Wikipedia, and it would be nice to reward them to increase the participants motivation (and yeah, that includes myself, so I am being a bit selfish here... so sue me :>). Also, wearing a Wikipedia t-shirt serves as a good advertisement for the project; I've had several people ask me about Wikipedia while wearing a Wikipedia t-shirt. WMF already prints out and distributes a lot of similar goodies (as a WP:AMBASSADOR and instructor I got (or declined) something like three items of clothing/apparel, and boxes of stickers and brochures). T-shirts were given away at this years Wikimania and two years ago at the Wikimedia in Higher Education Conference (just two examples I know of). I also saw people wearing the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Monuments t-shirts, so here's an example of another Wikipedia competition that already has t-shirts associated with it. So it's not like the idea would be novel to WMF, plus WMF probably already has a system in place to get them designed, made and distributed. Therefore I think it would be reasonable to apply for a grant from WMF (through meta:Grants:Index?) to cover the t-shirts for the participants (and the organizers, let's not forget who makes this event possible in the first place). What do you think? PS. Of course there would be an opt-out for those who don't care for this, or value their privacy over giving WMF their address, so please don't veto it because you personally don't care for this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for your thoughts. I've also been musing about finally taking the jump and making moves to get proper prizes- Amazon book tokens or the like. I think I slightly prefer prizes, as I think any t-shirt would be a little bit cheesy. (For full disclosure, I just don't really wear t-shirts, so it's not a very me thing. This may be affecting my view. The Core Contest, I believe, asked a particular Foundation chapter for prize funding and gave out some fairly hefty Amazon vouchers to the winners.) The WMF have recently reached out to me as a WikiCup judge, and I'm listed as a "program leader", so I think the time is right to reach out to Wikimedia a little more, if this is something that the wider WikiCup community supports. J Milburn (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

One thing to be careful about is that we have people from a lot of countries represented - to my knowledge (and checking user pages, I apologise if I missed anyone), we have Australia, Poland, the UK, Canada, and the U.S. in this round alone. We don't want to accidentally end up with the winner not having an appropriate prize for their country, so it might be a good idea to, for example, just offer a book certificate, type unnamed to be decided on in collaboration with the winner. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with choice. For the record, I would strongly prefer a t-shirt to a gift certificate, but I fully respect the right of others to have different preferences. We should allow each participant to select a preferred form of an award (if any). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be much more in favor of online gift certificates, if only because they're useful, can be used for Wikipedia research, and don't have all of the problems that t-shirts would bring: (a) getting a grant, unavoidable for any prize (b) designing the shirt (c) getting someone to print the shirt (d) organizing who gets what size shirts and (e) shipping internationally. @J, I've had a little experience looking at grants when helping with Signpost articles, and I'd love to help with getting a grant if you'd like the assistance. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unlike book certificates, however, apparel is a status symbol, and would raise the prestige of this competition more. And as WLM was able to do it, and as WMF should have experience with all of those elements, I think it wouldn't be that much of a hassle. Could be worth asking who was involved with the WLM and other WMF t0-shirts initiatives and enlisting their help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Might be able to piggyback off of the Wikipedia apparel store to get cheaper printing. I know the German Language Wikicup has shirts; I saw them at Wikimania. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sound like a good idea to me. I think T-shirts for all participants of round 3 and above would be excellent. Also, why not also have prizes for End of Year WikiCup awards? Prizes for the top 3, biggest points scored in one submission, funniest submission etc. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Think I might get biggest points scored in one submission: I have a 20-item featured picture set. It's passing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Good articles at DYK

There is a change in the criteria for DYKs which is to be implemented at the end of September. New GAs are going to be permitted for DYK if they are nominated within 5 days of their becoming GAs. (I believe no article can be a DYK more than once.) How does this change impact on the WikiCup? Can we claim points for an article twice, once as a new GA and once as a DYK following on from that? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion. Once a GA has been awarded points, it should not get DYK points on top. This was one of the reasons why I objected it being implemented because it is a cheap way for WikiCup participants to gain extra points through doing little or no work for them. Besides if you get a high multiplier that gets points for GA and then takes them for DYK, that is unsportsmanlike claiming easy points for no work which could put other participants at a disadvantage. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I voted against it too, because I thought it was stupid, but I don't make the rules. We've already been able to create an article and run it through both DYK and GA, if you do it in that order. The work is in creating a good article in the first place. The other way around now works (GA first, then DYK), but only if the article has not previously appeared as a DYK. Multipliers do not apply to DYKs. The playing field remains level; the same rules apply to all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

But most of the time articles when they are first created go to DYK and once they have appeared there they often require more work before they become GAs. If you do it the other way, once an article has been worked on to specifically be made a GA, it can then claim points for DYK through doing no work to gain them if this proposal goes through. I don't think it is fair or sporting or in the spirit of the rules of the Wikicup. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I voted for it because it rewards quality and depth in an article. A lot of my ship articles already have a substantial amount of text and even adding 10 or 20K of text won't qualify for the 5x expansion qualifier for DYK. Whereas if I put that amount of text and work into a series of small articles for DYK I could get 10x the points. And I think that you're wrong about the multipliers, Hawkeye, Cwmhiraeth didn't accumulate that astonishing pile of bonus points from his FA and GAs alone. Much of that had to have come from his DYKs. In fact, I believe that you can see bonus modifiers noted as applied to DYKs in most people's submissions. Most of mine are only getting 1.2x, so not not a lot of points for me, but others have much larger bonuses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, if we're going to allow good and featured topics - the epitome of extra points for no work - to score points, then there is no reason why GAs that subsequently become DYK's shouldn't be treated the same. It really is little different than taking an article to DYK, then GA. Also, I would commend anyone who is able to get "easy points" for claiming articles with high bonus scores. It means they are working on widely covered topics rather than obscure stuff. Resolute 23:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

GT and FT still require work done to compile them. Gaining points from DYK after it has already earnt points from GA is cheap and doesn't require any work done on the article to get the points. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Some time was spent before the start of the 2013 WikiCup in adjusting the points scored in different ways with the objective of relating them to the amount of effort involved. I think that allowing GAs to gain 10 or more extra points through DYK would skew the scoring system in favour of GAs as compared to FAs, FPs, DYK etc. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a point. But as you say, it would need to be adjusted to relate to the effort. I'd say that any GAs going for DYK points is on a par with GA reviews (maybe even less so because you wouldn't have to do anything to get the DYK points) so I would say that if we have to have this, any GAs that then become DYKs should only receive the 5 point maximum because it really would be just a bonus top-up. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Alterntively, DYKs may be over valued. But I think it's clear that the current system rewards shorter articles as quantity of submissions is the only way to get the number of points necessary to be competitive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I expect it'll be a hot topic after the final round ends when we talk about tweaking the points, but perhaps one way of re-aligning the scores would be to change the 5 base points for 5000 character DYKs to become 5 bonus points instead - so you'd be able to accumulate a total of 7 bonus points for being a 5000 character article created in 2007 or before. But it also means that the multiplier would only be applied to the 5 base points rather than a possible 10 - this would immediately halve the bonus points applicable to DYKs. I'm not sure about including GAs as DYKs after they've become DYKs or not... I think I'd leave the decision down to community consensus. Miyagawa (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the multipliers are kind of excessive. But then, I work in a field with no multipliers possible in the first place. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the multipliers, but they only made it worse when I was eliminated this year with 1988 Winter Olympics languishing in the GAN queue... Resolute 13:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I intend to send out a newsletter tonight, and I think a clarification on this point is a necessary inclusion. I am most concerned, if I'm honest, with not changing the rules mid-competition, but I can see that either allowing or disallowing the new kind of DYK could be construed as "changing" the rules. I'd be inclined, and I am certainly interested in hearing responses to this, to say that we need a full discussion on whether these points should be allowed, but that this discussion should not affect our current competition; as such, this discussion would best fit in the usual "how are we changing things for next year" discussion, and, in the mean time, only "traditional" DYKs (that is, new articles or 5x expansions) should be eligible for points in the final month of this year's competition. We're going to have to rely on a degree of trust, here. Does this seem fair? J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That does seem fair. But then, I'm the image guy; my chances of getting these are minimal. Is this going to screw anyone over? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems good to me. The article Desert is currently at GAN and if it is successful and I then nominate it for DYK and claim points under that heading, it would score about 65 points. This seems excessive to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Adam, I'd be inclined to say that anyone getting screwed over by not allowing these points would have deliberately changed their approach to the competition in light of the change to the rules. This way, barring a deliberate change in tactics in response to the new DYK rules, no one will lose or gain anything that they wouldn't have lost or gained without the change in the rules. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly why I oppose allowing DYK points to be claimed off DYK. People will end up changing their approaches in order to get these cheap points on offer. People would start focusing on GAs alone as they will know that they don't have to do any extra work to get DYK points and any multipliers for length and time that come with them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)