Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2014/2

Good luck to everyone!

Well, by the end of the day, we'll know who's still in. Good luxck to everyone who advances, and for those who don't: Don't worry, it's not always easy to do Wikipedia work to a timer. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You too! -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

GA -> DYK claimable?

Bath Assembly Rooms has just been on the front page as a DYK. I didn't claim it during round 1 when it became a GA (Feb 15) as most of the work I had done on it was last year. However someone else nominated it for DYK & in the process of the GAN review I did some more work. Can I claim this for DYK points? Just to complicate matters slightly - this may be one thirty-fifth of a Good Topic nomination later (but this might not be until next years wikicup at the rate it's going).— Rod ^talk 16:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The scoring page stipulates that only "newly created or newly expanded fivefold (not newly promoted to GA status) are eligible for WikiCup DYK points." —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No. This was already discussed last year. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

OK Thanks— Rod ^talk 17:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

End of round 1

Hello everyone- just to be clear, the round ends in less than five hours. We (the judges) won't make any changes for a little while to give everyone a chance to get the last of their submissions onto their submission pages, and give us a chance to look over the last few, but please note that anything promoted (or, in the case of DYKs and ITN items, put on the main page) after midnight is not eligible for points in round 1, but will be eligible for points in round 2. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Which is somewhat annoying: I could be in the lead if the cutoff was three hours later. Well, next rounf, Godot. NEXT ROUND! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And when you say midnight, that is UTC correct? Go Phightins! 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah- midnight was just over half an hour ago. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Do submissions need to be registered at 26 February, midnight ? User:Soman has signed up as a participant and has many DYKs in January and February, but hasn't submitted any entries yet. There may others like him, as well. Iselilja (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is still time for people to update their submission pages. Obviously, if something appeared on DYK during the round but someone, for whatever reason, didn't have access to Wikipedia at the time, they would still be able to update later; that's part of the reason we have the inter-round period. Not updating in a timely fashion when you don't have a good reason is generally considered extremely bad form; many people who haven't updated at all have likely decided that they are not interested in participating in the WikiCup but have not officially withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like it will take >40 points to advance. Crazy! There have been years were that was enough to advance out of round 2. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed- we're just waiting for the dust to settle before we finally determine who's through. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It's less than four hours before round 2 is meant to start, any guess when things will be ready? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
      • The final scores are up on the page. The pools and newsletter will go out at midnight. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Stats: This year you needed a score of 38 to advance and be in the top 64 out of 144 competitors; in 2013 is was a score of 19 (127 competitors), in 2012 it was 10 points (116 competitors), and 2011 it was 8 points (131 competitors). The highest round 1 score this year was 500, compared to 601 (2013), 486 (2012), and 487 (2011). The scoring changes a bit every year, so it's not an exact comparison, but this year does seem to have been harder, as you needed a GA with at least 8 bonus points or 6-8 DYKs; in 2013 you just needed any GA at all, or 3-4 DYKs, and in 2011/12 you just needed 2 DYKs or better. --PresN 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify- in 2012, 11 secured a place, but some people with 10 also got through. However, you're absolutely right that this is by far the toughest first round we've ever seen. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What can we claim points for?

Can I claim points for things done between the start of the year and now, or does content need to have been worked on since this round began? Samwalton9 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You can claim points for things you've significantly worked on in 2014. So, yes to the first part of your question. Ruby 2010/2013 00:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Provided they have been promoted on or after 27 February. If they were promoted before that, they would have been eligible for the first round, but no longer. J Milburn (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:WikiCup/Reviews

Does anyone use this except me? I've been trying to keep it as clear as possible [Not doing the current GANs as they're things I really don't want to spoil myself for - can someone get that?] But I've never sen any evidence that anyone else does anything but occasionally list things there; I'm not aware of anyone else doing reviews. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly, it's not used as much as it could be, but you aren't the only person using it. I accept that the page does not fully solve the problem. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2014

Hi everyone- it's not been that well advertised (from my perspective) and there have only been three signups, but there's an ongoing GAN Backlog Drive which will run throughout March. More points are awarded for older nominations. If any of you are interested in building up some GAC points or help clear the backlog, this may be something to help motivate you! J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

FL

My FL recently got approved by Crisco 1492, though the bot still hasn't put the star in the page. The article is already listed on the top of the talk page of the Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. Can I insert it already on my WikiCup page or not? Thank you in advance! Prism △ 19:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'll often put in things that are mathematically going to pass before they do, due to a crippling fear of forgetting to document. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We'd rather you didn't do that- if I was reviewing it before it had closed, I would remove it. What I used to do was add things that were definitely going to get points soon as hidden comments, then unhide them when they were promoted. J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If I ever screw it up, by all means yell at me; however, I have been a bit stressed of late, so it's easier and far less stressful to just do it when I notice things. I don't want to screw over others by withholding information. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent deaths

Ok, I want to raise this here at it seems that there is a real ambiguity, and my ignorance of the ITN project is perhaps causing problems. As I understand it, recent deaths on the MP (as I write, we have Ralph Kiner, Maximilian Schell and Arthur Rankin, Jr.) are not eligible for ITN points; for a death to be eligible, it would have to be listed with a news blurb (as I write, we have Philip Seymour Hoffman's death written up as an actual story). Is this fair? Reasonable? The WikiCup rules are unclear- if my ignorance of the ITN project is stopping me from doing the right thing, I'm more than happy to change my mind. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me, especially since the RDs aren't really for article improvements, per se. If someone is significant, they'll get on unless the article is horrid. Granted, I've been reluctant to have ITN count for points at all due to that, but that's soomething we've went over before and I know I'm in the minority there. Wizardman 14:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the whole system for RD is subjective to editor's personal opinions. Once one person makes an oppose, I've noticed most tend to just follow up despite replies being made and ignored. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Well for recent deaths there always must be an update, usually a three to five sentence addition discussing the death and reactions, along with the article be in pretty good shape. Similar to a regular ITN Secret ^account 00:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The understanding is that RDs do not count at current. It is true that the ITN requirements for posting are the same as any story, but it is also true that RDs sometimes require less work. As non-bold links, RD postings are eligible for DYK if 5x expansion was necessary. Perhaps the issue should be revisted before next year. (Incidentally, the accusation that editors ignore other opinions on RD discussions is false and the importance of ALL stories, not just RDs, is subjective.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, I've updated the rules page to clarify what I think was already the unwritten rule. This is certainly something we can revisit for next year's competition; any interested party is invited to remind us all when we start brainstorming for next year. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Just noticed this section. We're saying that this isn't an "article improvement"? In some cases, yes, an RD post is just the addition of a couple sentences, but this nominated article has improved greatly since his death. I think it should be a case-by-case basis. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Confused about rounds

So are our points wiped out each round and we start from zero, or do points carry over from round to round? I see my submissions list was wiped clean. So I am confused, is there any reason to accrue more than the minimum needed to advance if we lose them all, or are they stored somewhere for the end? I'm confused. Montanabw^(talk) 07:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Points are not carried forward from round to round, they are wiped out at the end each time. Miyagawa (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Then could someone explain why DarthBotto's points from round 1 are being carried over here? —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

He joined the round late after another contestant dropped out. I assume his submissions weren't cleaned because he originally wasn't going to be in this round; I'm sure they will be now the issue has been raised. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies: Sam got this right. DarthBotto was added to the round late and so his submission page was not cleared. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about DYK points

I just have a quick question about redeeming points for possible DYKs. I recently brought Drive (Miley Cyrus song) up to Good Article status; shortly after, another editor successfully nominated it for DYK, and was included in the DYK section today. Even though I did not nominate the article myself, am I eligible for any points as the main editor of its content? (I've never really dealt with DYKs before, and I just wanted to check in first!) Thanks in advance, WikiRedactor (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's not eligible for points, not because of the nomination situation, but according to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Did you know?.. "Only articles eligible for DYK through being newly created or newly expanded fivefold (not newly promoted to GA status) are eligible for WikiCup DYK points." Gloss • talk 17:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what Gloss said - it would be eligible for points based on creation or expansion even if it was nominated by someone else. But it isn't eligible on the basis of GA promotion. Miyagawa (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2014/Submissions/QatarStarsLeague

Hi, QatarStarsLeague has listed Template:Did you know nominations/Zingiber Barbatum as one of his DYKs, but it hasn't yet been on the main page and needs issues addressing before it does. Should it be removed from his submissions? Thanks, Matty.007 13:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the article and left QSL a note. J Milburn (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiplier error?

My DYK for Girl with a Pearl Earring (film)‎ didn't include a multiplier, and I'm not sure why (it's on 29 different wikis, by my count). Thanks very much for any attention given to fix the problem. Ruby 2010/2013 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Great work on the expansion. As for the multiplier: How odd. I see an article on 28 Wikipedias at the start of the year, which gives a 2.0 multiplier. I've updated this; I don't think I've missed anything... @Jarry1250:, any idea what caused this one? I note that there was a recent deletion/restoration... J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. It's much appreciated! Ruby 2010/2013 21:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Ruby2010:. Not sure how you're doing it, but you keep inserting unicode control characters (specifically left-to-right marks) in the links you post to the WikiCup page, and it's confusing the bot. Not much I can do really. Any idea what might be causing this? - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 22:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't see anything odd about this edit. What exactly do you mean by "unicode control characters"? Ruby 2010/2013 23:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm also mystified? J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem with Japanese battleship Nagato; it's giving me credit for the FAC, but reports 0 for the multiplier despite 15 wikis. Now Voxelbot has been having problems completely closing FACs for the last 6 months or so and that may be a factor here, but I don't know. I'll manually finish closing it in a couple of days and we can see if that makes any difference.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed a space- let's see if the bot gets it now... J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have, but I've only just now manually updated article history, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've told the bot to change it, and it listened. Do keep an eye on future promotions... J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's only a rare, occasional issue, can't the judges just manually update the template that gives multipliers? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not actually clear what the problem here is; in any case, manual updates only work if every error is noticed and reported by the user in question- we don't really have the time or inclination to check every article to see if the multiplier is right... J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the problems are essentially unrelated. I could potentially solve the problem re: spaces but Unicode control characters -- invisible (zero-width) characters that you can't actually type on a keyboard -- are a whole other kettle of fish. Ruby2010: What interface language do you use? Do you regularly copy and paste titles into the editor? Do you use wikEd? The VisualEditor? Somewhere along the line these untypeable, invisible characters are being inserted, but it's not clear when or how... - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 22:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have usually been copying article titles. I can stop if that is causing the problem. I don't use VE or wikEd, and edit with a Firefox browser. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 15:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ruby2010: sorry for the late reply. What interface language to you use? English? I have to say I'm thoroughly bemused. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 14:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is part of the conversation where I've met my wall of comprehension... :) I'm not sure what interface language I use (but I edit WP with English, alternating between American and British). I guess I'll just avoid copying article titles and we'll see if that helps avoid further problems. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 16:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Can the bot simply edit out the control characters? Run a regex search removing them? -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Error in the most recent newsletter

I'm pretty sure only 32 advance to Round 3, not 64. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 09:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, my apologies. Do you think I should send a note to all remaining competitors notifying them of the mistake? J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be wise, on the whole. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sent! J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

May I commend you on your manual update, well done! Matty.007 19:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Scoring lag

It seems the bot is not updating the scores at the moment. Its updates of the recently promoted GAs are lagging too. C679 07:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume this is a Toolserver problem. I tried to manually force an update and it didn't work. @Jarry1250: Any ideas? J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

An unexpected and breaking change in the software library I use. Should be fixed now. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Standings tool down

The Wikicup standings tool is down. Hopefully it can be fixed, but if not the link should be removed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Down as in not there when you looked, or down as in not updating? Thanks, Matty.007 08:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It was briefly broken (there was a proxy update on Wikimedia Labs that had some unintended side effects). - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 09:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks down to me too, as in "The URI you have requested, /wikicup, appears to be non-functional at this time"; thanks, C679 10:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to clear your browser cache? Thanks, Matty.007 10:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK Safari doesn't need such a thing, but I tried it on Chrome and got the same result. C679 10:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Working for me on Firefox. Matty.007 10:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not working for me in either Chrome or Firefox. Same message as above. Go Phightins! 19:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Worked for me earlier, but now down again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing

Hello all. Due to ongoing examinations I currently have very little time to put into enwp - I will be resuming normal editing activity after a month or two, but at that point it will be 'too late' from a WikiCup point of view. Anyway, I very much enjoyed the first round and will hopefully participate again next year, but now I think it makes sense to withdraw. Good luck to the current competitors and judges - you're all doing the project a great service by both spurring content creation/curation/improvement and rewarding those who already do it! Regards, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note- I'll withdraw you now. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Scoring question

I am guessing the answer is probably no, but will this review count for WikiCup credit? I handled the minor quibbles by myself rather than list them ... Go Phightins! 20:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I personally think it should count, for if GP were to have listed all of the copyedit fixes rather than doing them himself, this review likely would have qualified. -Newyorkadam (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

If in doubt, don't include, I'd say. That said, I'm seeing mistakes in the first paragraph, to be honest. "nicknamed "MadBum,"[1]" violates MOS:LQ, "with the San Francisco Giants of Major League Baseball, who played key" is comma abuse and "He features" strikes me as a completely inappropriate phrase (though I know nothing about baseball). J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In general, "he features" is appropriate nomenclature for describing a pitcher's repertoire (e.g., what type of pitches he throws). In all honesty, I was unaware of that MOS guideline ... so the comma should be outside the quotes? That's probably how I would have written it, but I didn't notice it in this article. Let me ping Sanfranciscogiants17 to those comments. All right, well I can remove; by the way, I think the scoring tool might not be working ... I have no idea if I need to start review begging for a few outstanding GANs. Go Phightins! 22:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Almost the entire MOS is explicitly not part of the GA criteria, so failing to flag a LQ violation is hardly a concern. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I also have a question. I nominated Quod scripsi, scripsi for points, however I wasn't aware of other articles on other wikipedias so I didn't link any. I've just discovered that it was on other wikipedias as another editor kindly linked them. Can I ask if it is eligible for the 1.2 multiplier? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally, that would be OK, but the enwp article did not exist at the start of the year, so even if all four interwikis did, it's below the five article line needed for the lowest multiplier.

Technically it did exist since 2011 but I suppose that's just nit picking. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Another question. I nominated Thine Be the Glory for DTK but the bot didn't give me the multiplier. Is there a problem with it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviews backlog

With less than two weeks remaining in this round, the Reviews backlog could prove problematic for some competitors. I have 4 GANs awaiting review, which is virtually my entire entry, and some other editors have a significant work there as well. James^x12345 22:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there an appropriate way for those of us with GAN's lingering to flag them? Is it OK to trade reviews if we do a solid job on them? I would not mind picking up some review points and have one GAN that has yet to be reviewed. Montanabw^(talk) 05:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think review-trading is acceptable as long as the reviews are of a high standard. It's sadly just part of Wikipedia/the WikiCup that articles will sometimes linger. One year, I did aim to review as many as possible myself, but that's not really something I feel up to. J Milburn (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Gulp

Hi, I am currently going through to the next Wikicup round as second worst fastest loser. Is it finalised at midnight UTC? Also, I have a few DYKs and GAs in the works, but if I am a few points below the cut off, what can I do (if anything)? Thanks, Matty.007 16:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The cut-off is at midnight tonight- after that point, the points are pretty much final, unless someone is seen to have submitted something that they shouldn't have or not submitted something they're entitled to (within reason- we won't punish you for not sitting on Wikipedia at the exact time). If you tie with someone, we will look to anything for which you couldn't claim points but which is in the spirit of the WikiCup (eg- participation at PR or FAC). J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I'm walking the rope then... Thanks, Matty.007 16:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Could be worse- I'm 10 slots below the winners bracket, with 145+ points pending in an FA/FL; if they both magically passed today I'd jump at least 22 places and into the next round, but instead I'm going to lose quite handily. (81 -> 226 points) --PresN 17:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've got a feeling I may join you sitting out of the next round! Matty.007 17:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have Sinclair Sovereign and Cruachan Power Station awaiting GA review, which would take me to 204 points if passed tonight. 4 (or 8) points might jump you up more than the single place you need to make it worthwhile for yourself, if you want to play the game. James^x12345 17:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't do many GA reviews, but when I do I like to make sure I know a fair bit about the subject I am reviewing, but I am afraid that given I have only done a couple of GA reviews ever, I think it would be best to stick to topics I know about. Thanks, Matty.007 17:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If somebody else looked at Cruachan Power Station though, I will be able to make fixes in the two and a half hours (hopefully). James^x12345 21:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry everyone- this is just part of the game, as it were. I've personally done more reviewing than I've done nominating over the last few months, but I'd feel uncomfortable reviewing WikiCup competitors' articles just because they're competitors' articles. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel uncomfortable about that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So the cutoff has just happened, but some of my points aren't showing. I'm still at 179, but I should be at 209, from the Alien Spidy GA. I trust that I will still get credit for that (it was submitted several hours ago) even though the bot hasn't processed it yet? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The bot runs about 15 minutes past the hour. It's updated now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan

She is listed twice, under group A and D. Can it be fixed. Thanks Secret ^account 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note- a copy/paste error. Hopefully things should be correct now. J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Also User:Bloom6132 listings haven't been cleared yet. Thanks Secret ^account 00:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Submissions by round

While using the Wikicup newsletter for the Signpost, I had to do some major editing and finding links in order to link to the correct contributions page for the round under discussion. Also, if one does want to see what contributions got someone through, say, Round 2, going back to Wikicup 2014 Round 2 will be useless - the links will be to the last round, only the points will be correct. Can we have a new submissions page every round? Or, at the least, when the page is cleared, can a link to the last diff for the previous round be added at the top? Cheers! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-05-07/WikiCup

In somewhat related news - and this literally affects pretty much everyone - can everyone check they're happy with the bite-sized sample of their content work I've done for the Signpost? The cutoff was 82 points (pretty much because I knew there was no way in hell I'd find a free-licensed image for PresN) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A most impressive WikiCup pictorial summary. Well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I love the new format for the report, and well done to everyone through to the new round (and commiserations for those who didn't make it). I'm looking forward to seeing what articles the editors come up with for the new round. Very impressed. Miyagawa (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Great work, though I must point out that the Sip n Dip mermaids aren't the "waitresses", kind of hard to serve booze underwater while wearing a tail  ;) Montanabw^(talk) 17:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking good; however it might be worth using a different one of mine as, although King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge was promoted to GA, the symbol was removed a few hours later and a new assessment started which remains unconcluded.— Rod ^talk 17:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll replace it with the FP-worthy File:Pumps_at_Dunball_February_2014.jpg

Thanks, probably safest. Interesting FP worthy comment - although I went to a lot of effort to get it I thought it was too dark to nominate.— Rod ^talk 17:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Weather conditions are part of its value, though. Best not to mislead by making it look sunny. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN rule clarification

Hi, please can the rules be clarified on ITN: do you get points for only nominating the article, or have you got to write it as well? Thanks, Matty.007 15:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You have to have completed significant work on the article leading up to its nomination for ITN. If something was nominated at ITN/C and needed significant work before it was ready for a MP appearance and you were the one who carried out the work then that is also acceptable. Merely nominating an article/participating in the nomination in some way is not enough. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That was what I thought, thanks for the reply. Best, Matty.007 18:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: I'd suggest taking a look at the WP:ITN/R list. The articles there are likely to be featured on ITN. Quite often they need to have work done on updating them to get them ready for their star appearance. I have no idea what the judges of this competition would think of that, but I'm sure they'll chip in with comments if it's a problem. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Had a look, but the only upcoming one is Eurovision. I will keep my eyes open there though, thanks for the heads up. Best, Matty.007 18:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawal

I'm withdrawing from the wikicup as my personal life is going to be extremely busy for the next month or so as I'll be moving to a new area. Nothing to do with the protest above. Thanks Secret ^account 15:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note- hope to see you again next year. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)