Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2011/1

Logistics of 2011

Ok, I've been having a think, mostly with a view to stress reduction. My main idea is that round one, which will again be one big pool, can be treated effectively as a "qualifier", with the top 64 getting through to round two, or "qualifying for the Cup". We can leave signups open through most of round one (certainly through January), and we needn't make the poster until the start of the Cup proper. I don't want to go through the whole "resignup" thing we did last year, so if someone's name is on Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups, they're going in the pool. I will also do some spamming in the coming days to try and get a few more participants.

Another question is that of judges. I don't think the other judges would mind me saying that I did most of the judge-y stuff last year, and there are even a good few participants who can take some credit too. I'm happy to stay in my role as a judge, but I would also be happy to take part- I doubt I'd hit the final rounds, but, damnit, I'd try :) I think it is important, especially in light of some of the new ideas being discussed (see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring) that the judges reserve the right, first of all, to remove points and/or make "rulings" on what deserves points and what does not, and, secondly, reserve the right to remove anyone causing problems from the competition. In the spirit of friendly competition, I hope we can trust our judges not to abuse this power, and I hope we can trust our participants to respect what the judges say, and attempt to minimise disruption. The last thing we want is to see the Cup on the noticeboards again.

We also have the question of the bot. DeltaQuad has said he would be happy to script us a new bot, but he is not currently about. I intend to contact him soon to arrange a new bot, as our old one had some problems last year.

Other than that, I was thinking that we could run things pretty much as we did last year. Any thoughts? Questions? Admiration? Abuse? J Milburn (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of a qualifier round is a very good idea. Last year, over half of the participants did not score above 10 points in round 1. As for judging, do what you feel like doing. If you want to partake in the competition itself, go ahead! If not, then you're more than welcome to remain a judge next year. I'm sure that we'd all love to see you choose either position.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 14:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to allow the judges the discretion to disallow points or remove troublesome participants. Also, if multipliers are used, one easy way for the bot to read them is to input a 4x article four times in a similar way topics are inputed now (this also allows for easy quick checks). Good job and good luck! Nergaal (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, if JM does wish to join the cup rather than judge it...perhaps we'd need more judges than three as he did about 80% of the work or more last year ;)--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 18:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to script up a bot if things don't resolve themselves. (Oh look, it just erroneously awarded me 1000 points. Gee, shucks :P .) Personally, I don't think our main judge should be competing officially (solely on principle - nothing personal) - why not just pretend-enter yourself, JM? Not quite like the real thing but pretty damn close... - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 18:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I was meaning take part instead of judging, but we could certainly have a separate "judges' competition", just for the fun of it :P I believe we had that in 2009. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Look Mr Milburn, you can't write more than ten words and then expect me to read and understand all of them :) Ah, but who judges the judges? Seriously though, I think the Cup needs you as a judges, other things being equal... - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with everything above, except JM did more like 95% of the work (saying that as a judge myself). J, we should have a judges pool so I can blow you out of the water. ;-)Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's true. Ed's like one of the unofficial leaders of WP:OMT! (nice pun there)--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 20:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I was wondering if anyone would notice that. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Bring it. I've got some aces up my sleeve... :P J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could compete this year but I've simply got too much stuff to do...I'll likely pop in and help out here and there like last year :)--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 21:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's on. Battleships vs. silly bird pics. I think we know who will win this battle. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're muddling me someone else. Battleships versus mushrooms would be more accurate :P J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Same result. Explain your last FPC, then. :P Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

2011 Rules and Start Date

It's 3 days before the start of 2011 I've been under the impression the contest starts on the 1st of January. But there still doesn't appear to be consensus on scoring - at least, nothing's moved from the talk page to the scoring page. The FAQ's also still living in 2010.

I'm new to the cup, so maybe this is the way things always go, but as a new contestant (expecting to fade fast, given the likely drop in DYK points and increase in points for other activities) I would like to know what rules I'll actually be trying to follow.

Kobnach (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise. I guess it is now time to update. I will look into this this evening. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Question from a newbie

Just a quick question - I read the submissions page that we have to make a new subpage as our collection of submissions, but how is that worded? Wikicup/Lord Roem/Submissions ?? Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

One would assume it shall become clear soon.  狐 FOX  00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I will be creating the submissions' pages soon, and sending out a "welcome to the WikiCup" message, so everyone knows how things work. J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks :) Lord Roem (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Last minute question

Well with only like 2 days left, should I enter (though I won't be able to go as far as last time) or do others think I'm needed as a judge. (We still have not made a decision on that I believe) I'm more than willing to participate or help run the Cup if needed. All the best,--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 03:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and enter; the more the merrier. The judge thing is bouncing around and is something I will look into again tomorrow (/later today, I'm up at a time I rarely am...), though it's not really my top priority. I think "hiring" another judge as and when (perhaps from someone who was eliminated in early rounds) make work best- that's how I joined the team. J Milburn (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Good to know. I'll join this time around again and help out here and there like I did last year ;)--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 05:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef-blocked participants

If a participant is indef-blocked, does their flag become available? If so, I'd like to use the flag for Boston since an... odd... situation is currently developing with DC (talk · contribs) (the flag is currently his). --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 07:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to use any flag you wish; we've removed the "only one user per flag" restriction. See the signup page for the new flag rules (designed to minimise stress). J Milburn (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts it is! --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 07:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I made some adjustments

I set up all the archives for you and changed the submissions list when you're ready to go. Its 2011 in UTC so I went ahead and did it.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 02:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitch. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just want a quick clarification

If work began on an article before the Wikicup began, but I don't finish working on it and nominate it for GA until after the WikiCup begins, would it count (since it was worked during the WikiCup, but not entirely)? Brambleclawx 14:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as you're not trying to abuse the system, you should be fine. We're certainly not saying that any article you have ever worked on before is ineligible :) J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have a similar question. I have an article that was promoted to GA in 2010 (or this could pertain to any year). Would I get credit for FA for that article if it passes FAC, given that the push for FA differs from the push for GA? –MuZemike 02:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you do the push this year. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Signup

How the heck do you signup? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure J'll slot you in when he gets this.  狐 FOX  01:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You're added! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ack lame. Is it too late for me?Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's fine, but what flag would you like? I'm going to sleep (it's 4am and I need to be up by 9...!), but J or I will add you later today as soon as you choose. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Flags

So why are former flags disallowed this year? I wanted to represent the German Confederation again....--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 03:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was a result of this discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh well....perhaps next year they will be allowed again.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 03:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just with a view to stress reduction. The whole flag lark caused a lot of heartache this year- by comparison, it's been relatively stress free so far. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome message

Sorry, I've just realised that the welcome message I sent out didn't actually get sent out. That would explain some of the confusion this morning about various things. Just to clarify, the signups are still open. J Milburn (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

question about something I've been working on

Hi judges, Just wondering... I've been working on the likes of several articles in the last several days just before 2010. These are Hello Good Morning, Coming Home (Diddy-Dirty Money song) and Ass on the Floor. "HGM" was nominated for GA on December 30 and its review is beginning shortly. Will it be eligible for for the wikicup?

With regards to "Coming Home" and "Ass on the Floor" both are WP:RECENT hence I could not/can not nominate them anytime soon for GA but it is my intention to nomination them in the near future. By which time more information will become available and more work will be required to get them upto standard.

Finally there is another article, When Love Takes Over which is also going through a similar process. Having already achieved GA status, it is being peer-reviewed and will then be nominated for FA. Will any of those processes count? Thanks -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The content nominated last year (so, HGM at GAC) cannot be awarded points. Articles that you have worked on last year and will be working on significantly this year that are nominated for good or featured article status (so, any of the others, assuming you are still working on them) are eligible for points. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I worked on Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song) in 2010 and took it to FAC, although it didn't pass (mainly due to lack of reviews). If I renominate it this year, can I count it as one of my submissions? I won't really be editing the article except for a brief cleanup before being nominated and addressing concerns during the FAC. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • No, sorry, you have to do significant work on an article in 2011 for it to count. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

we have one at the lead

2 points might not be enough for the whole cup, but one has to make the start! Congratulations! --Stone (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dropping out

Midterms are coming up and I can't participate this year. Good luck to everyone else! –CG^Talk 03:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for playing for 1 day ;) Good luck with the midterms and hopefully we'll see you next year. All the best,--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 03:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for handling that White Shadows. Hopefully see you next year, ComputerGuy! J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

namechange

I've changed my username from "pd_THOR" to "Fourthords"; does this completely gum up the works? — Fourthords ^{| =/\=} | 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I changed my name in the middle of the Wikicup last year.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 04:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There, I think I've updated everything. J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, kind sir! — Fourthords ^{| =/\=} | 19:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Score Updating

Resolved

Is there a set time when the bot update the scores? It doesn't seem to have updated it for a while. I think I should have 2 points since I reviewed a GA nomination, but It still shows a zero. Any clarification on this? Sumsum2010·T·C 05:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The general answer: the bot updates at midnight, 4am, 8am, 12am, 4pm and 8pm every day. This means that yes, you could be waiting for three hours and 59 minutes, but no longer. I might bump change to more updates per day for the last few days of the round if things get tight.

The specific answer: looks to me like there's a technical issue with the bot. I can't see anything obviously wrong with your submission, so I'm going to check the logs and get back to you. The good news is that your submission will never have been lost, as soon as I fix the bot it'll make your points correctly. With apologies for any inconvenience, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it was merely that a judge had created your Submissions page at slightly the wrong URL, which threw the ultra-logical bot completely. I've moved it for consistency, and run a special update of the bot. As you can see, you now have your 2 points :). Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My fault. Sorry. Thanks for dealing with that Jarry, you're the one keeping this thing ticking over so neatly. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Who? Me or you? You, I should think... :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!Sumsum2010·T·C 17:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. There are always going to be little things we need to get fixed early on in the competition, and it's nice to have timely bug reports. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't make it in time...

Resolved

So hello again Ladies and Gentlemen, after being so busy I finally got some time out of my busy schedule to work out a bot (aka it's done). Is there already one working on this, or is it temporary? (I would be hosting off the toolserver. Just want to know before I file my BRFA. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Jarry1250 is running a scoring bot for us now... I'm sorry :/ Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, you hadn't edited in a few days when I was sorting the whole thing out, and so I contacted Jarry about it. I really wanted the bot to be ready for the start of the competition. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, no problem, sorry for not having it ready in time. Let me know if you guys ever need one. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DYKs?

Resolved

Who can get the points for a Did You Know -- the article creator/expander, the nominator, or both? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The former. WP:WC/SCO: "All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you to receive additional points. "Drive by" nominations are not permitted." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Signups

Resolved

I am stuggling to sign up can some tell me where to do so (the sign-up page does not help). If you are going to respond please do so on my talk page. Thank you in advance. Intoronto1125 (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

FACR/FLRC

Resolved

Are there any rules governing FARC and FLRC nominations? I've made some major updates to a list currently at FLRC that if they had not been done would likely see it demoted (the nomination is still open). To have allowed the demotion to go through and then implemented changes and nominated it at FLC smacks of gaming the system. Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about something like that, but then I realized if a rule is spelled out, I predict a few people abusing GARCs for example. I am a bit weary of having a rule explicitly allowing/encouraging it, but I think that a case-by-case basis could be fine. Nergaal (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule at this time, so no, you can't claim. Nergaal, I think having any kind of "case by case basis" rule like that would prove problematic. J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So ...

Resolved

 – Rule added & apologies to Sandy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We had a lot of discussion last October about the flooding of content review processes due to WikiCup entries, and I don't recall what conclusions were made, but I don't see any mention here that nominations at FAC should declare if they are WikiCup participants, and reviewers should also indicate if they are WikiCup participants reviewing another WikiCup member's nomination? I sorta thought we had discussed that, but we may not have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't have occurred to me to mention it when commenting on reviews, but it seems like a good idea. Canada Hky (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In my recollection we got as far as saying "well, some people did it" – in any case, I'll add it now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that almost certainly should have been mentioned in the rules. I'm sorry it wasn't. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Diff of nomination"

What exactly is the "diff of nomination" we need to give for the submissions? What if one did not nominate the ITN/DYK article himself? Why is the ITN nomination diff so important - most of the nominations are usually rejected. Wouldn't it be better to mention the diff where an admin says it has been posted on main page? Nanobear (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It was originally the diff whereby the article was nominated; this makes more sense for DYKs than ITNs, to be fair. If I'm honest, I'm on the fence about you claiming that article; I've already said to another editor that it's probably best not to claim. The nomination was made before the article was created, and it was the work of many people. I can see you've definitely contributed your share... J Milburn (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I probably contributed to this more than one would when working updating an ITN article alone, although much of my edits have been already undone because newer information became available. I don't know when exactly an ITN contribution is sufficient, since there's nothing about ITN yet at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Nanobear (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be honest, it's a process I know nothing about. Ed? J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a tool which calculates how many bytes of text an editor has inserted to an article? Perhaps that could be a good objective criteria. You said that "the nomination was made before the article was created" - but that's almost always the case with ITN articles. Also, most of the articles about major events are worked on by a large number of people. I don't know whether I should get the points for my contribution on 2011 Tucson shooting, and I won't complain if I don't. But it would be nice if there was some kind of criteria for ITN at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, so participants know when to ask for points and when not to. I don't want to look like I'm trying to cheat :) Nanobear (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I certainly wasn't trying to accuse you of cheating. As I say, I don't really know ITN that well, and I've never been particularly keen on it being available for points. I'll leave this one to Ed to call, I guess. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me diffs of some significant content additions? Also, please be sure these diffs point to the article you are claiming. I'll get to writing up a bit of ITN info at WP:WC/SCO as soon as I can. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with you claiming points for this. Both yours and his are borderline, but without clearer rules already written up, I'm not going to oppose. Again, I'm going to try to write up more defined rules asap, but I won't take these away ex post facto. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I had earlier said WS couldn't claim for this article- though he made more edits, I think he contributed a little less. Please see here; do you feel my answer was appropriate? J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if he didn't add much/any content, credit should not be given. I'm assuming by your answer that WS only had copyediting/minor edits? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So far as I could see, yeah. J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

ThinkBlue's GT

Not to sound like a Grinch, but I doubt those GAs were promoted all in this month. :D  狐 FOX  14:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone else pointed this out to me- I have contacted ThinkBlue about it. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Announcing new multiplier syntax

Hey all. I have reconfigured the bot to accept usage of a new template I just created, WP:WikiCup/Multiplier, on submissions pages. You put it on the same line as a submission, and it takes the form {{WP:WikiCup/Multiplier|MULTIPLER|REASON|OPTIONAL REASON}} where MULTIPLIER is 2 or 4, and the reason fields are "coverage" or "vital", equating to the two double-scoring categories available in the first round of 2011 WikiCup.

The old syntax (duplicating entries) remains technically available - for backwards compatibility - though this new syntax is better IMHO, especially as it gives clarity viz. under which category you are claiming. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, however, x4 multipliers do not exist. Multipliers do not stack. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. *goes and tweaks template*. FYI, the bot itself will believe you whatever multiplier you claim, so it is just the template that needs to be changed in future (which anybody can do), if new categories of multiplier emerge. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 18:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jarry! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this page in a little while, but I wonder if keeping a log of what submissions qualified for multipliers is prudent. I'd be intrigued to see whether and how it makes a difference to folks submitting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2011/log logs everything that is claimed, including noting the multiplier, though entries are removed once a judge has checked them. J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I get the "not logging 1x multiplier" issue fixed (no idea why it's being so funny on such a trivial issue), I'll make it duplicate the log (of all new items, not just multipliers, that is) to a new page. That page can be used to generate running totals and other cool stuff like that too :). - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

cool...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Score updating, again

I still see a row of zeros by my name, but a day and a half ago I attempted to add my DYK for La Jana (actress) at my submissions page. It's quite possible I messed it up somehow - I am not a techie and find templates difficult - but I note that someone else reported a problem about a week ago (now archived). Is it possibly because I'm out of alphabetical order in the list? Or if some other problem, I'm a bit concerned that others may run into a problem and not be as loudmouthed as me, so if it isn't my ineptitude/my username, I think someone had better check that everybody's submissions are getting through or are going to - or consider putting an announcement in the newsletter that we should check that we haven't fallen prey to a bug. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The # was missing from the row, so the bot didn't notice there was something there. That's fixed now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And I alphabetized you, because I do stuff like that. Useight (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both! This is why I hate to use citation templates. I have just enough ability with computers to get in trouble. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I am withdrawing. I edit, but I have greater interests at this point (mostly video games, interestingly), so do not edit voraciously. Us441(talk)(contribs) 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Good to have you playing. We look forward to seeing you next year! All the best,--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 01:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've lost all enthusiasm for Wikipedia, please remove me from the list. Cavie78 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Rejoining

I withdrew from the WikiCup citing cleanstart, but I prefer to use this account for article writing and my CLEANSTART account for everything else. Mainly because if I edit the same subjects under CLEANSTART I would be exposed and I have some articles I want to finish, I will expose my other account to one of the coordinators via email (ArbCom knows). Can I rejoin? Thanks Secret ^account 22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine- do you want to come back under "Secret", or should I sign "Secretalt" up separately? J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Secret Secret ^account 16:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've put you back in. Welcome back. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tiebreakers?

I know that last year, there was some concern about how ties would be broken because the rules didn't specify that. How are they going to be broken this year? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

All the people tied should get a grace period to get extra points. ps: there are 48 ppl with points already. Nergaal (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Give it time, I'm sure some of us will pop up in the near future. Nomader ^(Talk) 06:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There'll be no grace period- we don't really have the time (as it would impact on the next round) and "racing" for points is not a good thing. Last year, we broke ties by looking at participation in review processes (things like FAC, FLC, PR and so on). These are things which are very much in the spirit of the Cup, but which are not currently awarded points. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Running totals list

I've written a quick script to generate "running total" listings for content created during this year's WikiCup. You can find the output here. It's pretty simple to then work out how many there are in each category, and which those are.

Note to judges: the table is updated manually by running [1] - it only needs to be done once every couple of weeks. I can handle that myself, but the script relies on content being on the submissions pages, so before you blank the submissions pages at the end of a round, please run the script to tally up. You can then do what you like to the pages. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for letting us know. J Milburn (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot (but it is self-evident) - anyone doing a newsletter, etc, can run the script whenever they need to. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 12:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about FL

Hey, I was a co-nominator for the featured list List of X-Men video games (nomination). I didn't list it though, because it was originally nominated last year, but it was promoted mid-January of 2011. Should I submit the X-Men list as an FL because it was promoted this year? I'm not really too worried either way, but I figure it's something that should be cleared up. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it needs to have been nominated this year. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is not that the nomination was done this year, but that the bulk of the work was done this year. So a Jan 1 nomination likely has the work done last year. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I kind of figured, it's why I didn't nominate it in the first place. I saw though that some other featured content was being submitted like that so I figured I'd ask. Thanks for clearing it up. Nomader ^(Talk) 09:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, I have a featured list which has been nigh-on ready for some time, but was failed in its first FLC due to redlinks. Would that be eligible for Wikicup 2011? The way I see it I'll need to do significant work to get the list to pass the redlink criteria (and therefore FL quality), but on the other hand the significant work generally won't be on the list itself. Thanks in advance, —WFC— 13:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'd be inclined to say that that is legit, but I will have a think on it. J Milburn (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Timing

Does the submission of an article need to happen in the round that it was promoted/listed/accepted, or can it be "saved" until the next round? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure there's no saving. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, no saving please. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Eligible for points?

The article Sako Chivitchian was nominated for GA status last year by user:Paralympiakos, but the review did not begin until earlier in January. Looking into the history, Paralympiakos and I are the two major editors of the earlier drafts. Paralympiakos has stated at the GA review that he does not have time to do the work necessary to get the article to GA standard, and I have taken over the nomination and am working on the article. This will involve significant editing of the article during the period of the Cup. Assuming the article reaches GA level, will I be able to claim cup-points for my work? I am unsure how situations like this might be viewed under the rules. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would probably easier for the judges if it were a fait accompli, with measurable contributions rather than hypothetically speaking. But as I understand it, the rules are quite simple: if you've worked on an article during the qualifying period to a measurable standard, you get points. Other dates (e.g. nom' date) are entirely superfluous. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 14:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, nominated this year is also generally required. J Milburn (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Timing of GA review points?

Should we claim the point on the date that we generate a GA review for posting or on the date that the GA review is concluded? Some people are doing it each way. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to claim the points on the day you create the review, since it's difficult to determine how long reviews go for. Of course, you still have to complete the review, though, even if it's going to take a while. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't claim points for a review until you complete it. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good topics

So I just got this to good topic, and I was wondering if any of that would count toward my points for this year. All of the articles but one were promoted to GA last year, and the one that was promoted was nominated last year. Would none of it go toward this year's points? I'm just curious. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that that would still count towards your points, as long as the GTC was nominated in this round. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

K, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you would get no points for the topic described above. You only get points in a GT/FT if you would be eligible for the points for the GA/FA/FL itself- since none of the articles are eligible (as you worked on them/nominated them last year) then the topic isn't eligible either. --PresN 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good article reviews?

Two points are awarded to every "Good article reviews" – does that mean if I review a GAC article, and it gets promoted to GA, two points will be allocated to me? Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 22:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Good_article_reviews Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It means that if you review a good article nomination in depth (1,000 bytes min) then you will be awarded two points. It does not matter whether the article passes or not, so conduct the review fairly and in line with the criteria. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the article that is already GA and review is written within reassessment?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reassessments are not, at this time, eligible for points. Of course, that is not to say that they are not worthwhile or commendable. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I propose to include all this issues in the scoring rules before next wiki cup.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Future rounds

This is just a proposal: there should be a side-pool for people not going through the future rounds that would still want to score points. I am guessing there will be quite a few users wanting to do GARs during the rounds when only 16 users will compete. These users would get bragging rights, but they would still be outside of the competition. Nergaal (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that it is quite a heavy workload for the cup directors to review all the submissions, and they would enjoy it as the year progresses and there are less competitors. But if they feel up to it, it could be a good way of keeping interest in the cup and improving WP. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK counting?

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2011 says I have 32 points, but I'm supposed to have 37 because I added a DYK at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2011/Submissions/Fetchcomms some time ago. Just wondering if the DYK wasn't eligible, accidentally missed, or will be counted later? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm, the bot seems to have counted it now. Seems to be right now! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's every four hours, so you can be waiting up to 3 hours and 59 minutes, though I'm happy to turn the rate up on the last day of each round or whatever. Just to clarify for competitors generally, the bot does not - nor would I want it to - check articles for eligibility before counting them. It trusts humans and will mark them regardless. If you've waited more than 4 hours, and still not got your marks, then feel free to send me death threats. But not a second before :P - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem now—I added the article one week ago but it was counter until two days ago after Wizardman made this helpful edit; I had placed italics around a link without realizing it might mess with the bot's readings. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm waiting like crazy for my two new submitted GARs to show up... Can you turn it up to like approx 8 times every four hours? :D If you don't, I might start suicide bombing your house. :P WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user

The competitor Racepacket, currently with 113 points, has been indefinitely blocked. Just letting you know. Arctic Night 01:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 01:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to help out, please do it properly. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Status

• 30 users have at least 20 pts
• 14 have 10-18 pts
• 20 have 2-8 pts

This excludes blue entries. 64 users have scored at this point. Nergaal (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn user

Mono is listed as withdrawn here, but not here. Can somebody fix this? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 22:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ugly formatting

I've been seeing some ugly formatting of the table recently. The three tables on the left are huge, and the rest are squished up just as small as they can go. Does anybody else have the same problem? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not me. Nomader ^(Talk) 04:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, me neither. Try a different browser. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Good topic?

So, I have three topics this year, and none of them have counted so far. I'm wondering why. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Can you be more specific? --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

From late on February 14 until two hours ago, I didn't remember to turn on the bot, which may account for the non-scoring of points. HH now appears to have his full quota of 50 GT points. Apologies for any inconvenience, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to make a big deal about it, but I'm glad it's resolved now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Many users will be...

...eliminated if they don't get reviews! --Perseus8235 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

41 users have at least 30 pts now and another 16 have 10-27pts. Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

So I realize this competition is all in fun and for the benefit of Wikipedia, but I was hoping for clarification about the scoring process. If I have built several lists up to FL standards during this round, but I can only nominate two lists at FLC at a time, am I able to nominate additional lists I worked on this round during the next round? I have no control over the speed of the FLC process (this is not a criticism by any means), and I was just wondering if points earned had to be for work done within the same WikiCup round or if they can be nominated later in the year. (I will continue to nominate lists as soon as possible, but promotion of a list I worked on this round may not occur until the following round.) Thanks for any clarification. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If work is done during the current year but it is promoted later then that's fine. Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

FT question

An article that I worked on (List of WWE Divas Champions) was added to an existing Featured Topic (Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions/archive1). Can I claim 10 points for it being added? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, assuming the dates all check out, you can claim the 10 points for that article. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Featured and good topics. J Milburn (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically was not added, but technically the work is equivalent. I think the instructions should me expanded to allow audited articles (see wp:FT? #3.c). Nergaal (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If it was not added, then points cannot be claimed- "Promoting an article that is already within a featured or good topic does not get additional points for the topic. Adding articles to a topic does gain points, but only points for the article added." I do not think rule changes within the competition are a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not really a rule change. It is in the spirit of the rule: promoting an audited article as part of the topic is equivalent with letting the topic be demoted, then get the topic repormoted with the ex-audited-now-community-approved article in it. I think the article count for a topic promotion should not include audited articles. Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

MiszaBot correction

Greetings, I fixed the config of the MiszaBot archive so that the archives will automatically go to the 2011/1 archive instead of the incorrect 2011/11 archive per comment placed at User talk:Misza13. The reason for this was the config at the top had the counter at 11 instead of having it reset to 1. I corrected this. If you feel this is in error, feel free to revert. Take care! -Pparazorback (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with submission

I recently put up List of Tampa Bay Lightning seasons as an FL in my submissions page about a day or two ago, but the point total hasn't updated yet. Can someone check to see if I did some sort of formatting error that I missed? Nomader ^(Talk) 05:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot not updating

It has been nearly four days since the bot updated the scores. Abductive (reasoning) 13:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting, Jarry! :P Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 16:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCopter is no happy. WikiCopter is notify Jarry now. Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 17:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tarzan, I was about to do the same thing. :-) Someone needs to give Jarry a hug for all the work he's doing with that bot for us. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Jarry is not active right now, but the bot should update any second. Ed, I've sent you an email about this. Sorry everyone, this is partially my fault. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Ed. Yes, Jarry is doing a lot of work (I nominate Ed to go and give him a barnstar or 1,000 right now). I hope that it is updated soon, or some people are not going to be happy... Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 02:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it adds to the drama like any good competition. Will I make it or do people have points not brought over to the table yet? Should I be worried and do more to get to the next round? I don't know! It is all in good fun.Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey all. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused. The bot stopped working a little before I left for Russia (just got back!). The automated script wasn't working; the manual version was. As a precaution, I emailed JM about this, and would have emailed Ed and probably about 15 other people if I'd had the time; unfortunately I didn't. I'm still not quite sure what the problem was. In essence, all my scripts stopped working simultaneously, causing them to spew and massively killing my file-space. Since this was about the time of the 1.17 upgrade, I'm hoping it's gone away, and I can just delete the random output, otherwise I'll debug it tomorrow. Again, my apologies. And yes, exciting :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it was just the one-off diskspace issue. Anyway, it's fixed now, I think. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jarry, and sorry everyone for not updating as much as I should have done. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's ok - um, it hasn't picked up my GA for some reason...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably because you put the article name in italics. It's lucky you forgot to do this when you listed it in the FA section of your submissions page! The judges may want to check all the other submissions pages for this as well, unless the bot can be tweaked to recognise this. Carcharoth (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Easier to just do this I guess and let the judges know..? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I ran the bot again to pick up on it, and will deploy a fix later today before running the bot once more. I don't think it'll be a problem regarding qualification: people normally shout pretty soon if their points haven't been counted :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that proved simple enough. Fix deployed for future rounds (no extra points scored by anyone in this round). - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 11:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)