Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiCup articles needing reviews
Pavel Nedvěd (FAC) Carl Lewis (GAN) Burrow Mump (GAN) Vratislav Lokvenc (GAN) Quinceañera (film) (GAN) Life's Shop Window (GAN) List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande (DYK, FLC)
J. Gordon Edwards filmography (FLC) St. Elmo (1914 film) (FAC) Embassy of the United States, Mogadishu (GAN) Joint Agency Coordination Centre (GAN) Analysis of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 satellite communications (GAN) Enough Said (film) (GAN) Samuel J. Randall (GAN)
Dunster (GAN) The Priest's House, Muchelney (GAN) Sand Point and Middle Hope (GAN) SS Great Britain (GAN) Bristol Cathedral (GAN) Stembridge Mill, High Ham (GAN) Holnicote Estate (GAN)
Crook Peak to Shute Shelve Hill (GAN) St Mary Redcliffe (GAN) Prior Park Landscape Garden (GAN) Treasurer's House (GAN) List of scheduled monuments in Mendip (FLC) English Heritage properties in Somerset (GT nom)
 History (WP:WC/HIS) 
Frequeries (WP:WC/FAQ)
Discussion (WT:CUP)
Contestants (WP:WC/CON)
Scoring (WP:WC/SCO)
Submissions (WP:WC/SUB)
Reviews (WP:WC/REV)

DYK points[edit]

I wonder why I only got 5 points for S.A.S. v. France which is a very long article. Could it be because I forgot to link to the article when I added it to my competition page (I only added the DYK template). Iselilja (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That was probably it. Now you've added the article itself, the bot should update it. Miyagawa (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It hasn't though. I added the article almost yesterday, but still no more points. Iselilja (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
When you removed the bonus calculation and forced the bot to re-evaluate, it fixed it. You've now got the addition 5 base points for length. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Temporary solution to FP Bonus issue[edit]

@Godot13: @The Herald: I think we finally have a temporary solution to the issue of the bot not calculating the bonus points for the Featured Pictures. So, could I ask you to replicate what I've done on Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2015/Submissions/Godot13 under the DYK section - adding the same article multiple times to generate the relevant number of bonus points. Admittedly it'll come up in the DYK column of the table, but it's better than not appearing at all. Also, if you could add comment tags like this: <!-- this type of comment --> to each batch of additions so that we can keep track of what points are linked to which picture. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Miyagawa:- Will do, thanks for figuring out the temporary solution. Just to clarify-each time the code is entered counts as 5 points?--Godot13 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If I change the multiplier from none, will the value of the bonus change? That way one entry could account for a single image with a bonus of either 5, 10, or 15 points...--Godot13 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the solution. I don't think I have any bonuses to claim this time. ;) -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 23:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Godot, that's a good idea. Give it a go - if it works, then stick with it. Miyagawa (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Attempt submitted, we'll see when the bot updates...--Godot13 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems like it didn't work - it only picked up five points from the first article. Miyagawa (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I made a formatting error- an extra unattached multiplier script was inserted after the first entry. Let's try one more bot update and if that doesn't work, I'll do it longhand...--Godot13 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Miyagawa- Not caught by the bot, re-submitted without multiplier combinations.--Godot13 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It ran, but it only picked up the first one, not the rest...--Godot13 (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Its probably programmed in the bot to avoid duplicates. @Jarry1250: Jarry, do you have any ideas about what we could do in the short term? Miyagawa (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Desperately seeking points[edit]

Is there anyone who would be kind enough to review one or more of my DYKs. I need some more points to be sure to advance, and I have worked so hard the last weeks, but All my DYKs have stalled (exept one which was reviewed at my reqquest); a GA review I worked so hard with turned have some problems I had overlooked so I may need to turn it over to another reviewer and a PR I was preparing turned out to have been requested by a sockpuppet. So, I really would appreciate if someone would very soon review one or two of my four pending DYK nominations, so maybe one can get on the main page within the 28th. They are listed here. Thanks, Iselilja (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that DYK is very slow recently. For example, I've had Template:Did you know nominations/The Airfield ticked since 7 April and it still hasn't run. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
DYK is very slow because it has a backlog of reviewed and unreviewed articles, with 75 currently reviewed and waiting to be moved into the Prep areas. However, take heart, as this unofficial tool indicates that if the current positions are maintained, you will qualify for the next round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing Good888[edit]

I think I am already outside the top 16 users, but regardless if I am or not, would you mind withdrawing me from the cup? I am quite busy now and when I do edit, it's mainly on Eastern Counties Football League articles, something of which won't be helping in scoring points in this competition! I look forward to the next cup by the way! Good888 (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I'll withdraw you now. See you again next year, I hope! Miyagawa (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How about a couple of points for new stubs?[edit]

I apologize if this has already been discussed, but how about a point or two for new stubs? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the whole idea of this competition is to improve content—and adding lots of stubby little articles certainly wouldn't do that. You can already get DYK points for new stubs; they only have to be 1500 characters long, after all. I'd be loathe to see any points at all given to an article that couldn't reach at least that length! MeegsC (talk)
You may be interested to know that back when we still had points for edit count, one of the people who was able to acquire the most points via this method was involved in mass stub creation (literally thousands of articles). These were, as it happens, excellent stubs- impeccably sourced and on clearly encyclopedic/notable topics, but stubs nonetheless. Since then, the focus of the WikiCup has been on audited content- the introduction of bonus points and review points then added a further dimension. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I can see that the focus of the Wikicup is on content expansion, and stubs don't really fit that bill. I guess there is already a stub contest anyway. Thanks for the comments! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Current round[edit]

Hi all, I'm a bit confused: is the second round still going on? More to the point, does the round end at the beginning of the 28th or the end of the 28th? If it's the end, shouldn't the layout say "March 1 through April 28" rather than "March 1 to April 28"? Thank you! MJ94 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is for three more hours. As we can see in the edit history, the first round (to February 26) was finalised at 00:24 UTC on February 27. Regarding the through comment, only in American English. C679 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A thank you[edit]

I want to extend my thanks and gratitude to all of you who help make the WikiCup happen, from the contestants to the judges (Figureskatingfan, Miyagawa, Sturmvogel 66). This year's WikiCup was the first time I really ventured into content creation or reviewing and I had a great time. Unfortunately, this round brings my elimination, as the final peer review I was working on was not suitable for submission after I lost half of it minutes before the round finished. That being said, the ultimate winner of the WikiCup is indeed Wikipedia, and I now have the confidence and familiarity to venture out on my own content editing endeavors thanks to the Cup. I wish you all the best of luck. Have fun editing and I'll be back again next year. MJ94 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hope to see you next year! Miyagawa (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Claims after 0:00 UTC on deadline day[edit]

I noticed one of the competitors got an article to FA on 24 April, but didn't claim it until the deadline had passed, at 01:34 29 April. In spite of this, the user was able to make around 100 edits during this time. It doesn't seem very sporting to claim points after the deadline; what is the rule on this? Last year's verdict was "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)". Thanks, C679 04:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I used the bot update from 00:13 to base the qualification into the third round on. Because of that we actually have a extra person going through to the next round as three scores were tied at 55 at the bottom. Miyagawa (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Correction - that FA has gone through as it was agreed with one of the other judges. I just didn't spot the note. It has had little effect other than to add the nominator to the next round as in fairness all three competitors on 55 points are still going through. Miyagawa (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me, given the circumstances. Thanks, C679 14:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstood the conversation from last year. There never was a requirement that the claims be posted by 23:59 on the cut off date, just that the event earning the points be completed by then. It was not at all uncommon for claims to be posted up to 24 hours after the cut off. Indeed, that possibility was the original reason why there was a two day gap between the end of one round and the start of another. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Part of the reason, yeah- the other was to give the judges time to check the submissions and do the necessary prep work for the following round. There was never a rule that people had to claim before the end of the round, but we do now have a rule that "contestants have two weeks to nominate their work after promotion or appearance on the main page". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Round 2 Ended[edit]

Uh... Miyagawa, Round 2 has ended. When are you going to fix the leaderboards? Yoshi24517Chat Online 05:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Be patient...He'll do his job..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 06:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The boards are updated, I'll do the draw tonight for round 3 using the pot system once again and then put those up around 18:00 GMT tomorrow. Miyagawa (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bonus points for creating an article and improving it to GA[edit]

I can see why stubs ought not earn points, but how about awarding bonus points for creating an article and improving it to GA or FA? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice idea but I think its a bit late to add that into the Cup. Maybe next year. I would support that because I would have got more points for Sunday football in Northern Ireland. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't trying to change the rules for this year; I just wanted to float that out for next year. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver: I'm curious as to why you think that creating a stub and getting it to GA/FA should be worth more than taking an existing stub and getting it there. Right now, you can get points for a stub (submit it to DYK), points for getting a stub to GA, and points for getting an article to FA. I guess I don't understand what else you're hoping for! :) MeegsC (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I was merely brainstorming a way that the Wikicup could encourage article creation and not just expansion. If I went to a fairly well-established article that wasn't GA, but had lots of good content, it would be much easier for me to get that article to GA then it would one that I started from scratch. I wasn't thinking about double or triple points or anything, maybe just 5 or 10 extra for creating an article and also getting it to GA or FA. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, if you create an article from scratch, then you have the DYK route to get a few extra points. This works for expansion too, but I would say that the two are as valuable as each other to the encyclopedia, so bonus points for having created an article, rather than expanded a stub doesn't seem a worthwhile move to me. Harrias talk 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bonus points for articles on 100 or more Wikis[edit]

As an idea for next year, I see that we have double points for being on 20 Wikis and triple points for being on 50, but how about quadruple points for being on 100 Wikis? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally i'd prefer they bring back last year's bonus system. It was much better and made the competition much more entertaining and interesting. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Were there less bonus points? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the bonus system from last year. (Like C of E, I prefer that system to the one we have now, and will probably end up suggesting we put it back during the suggestions period).That's not to say I'm not enjoying this year's contest though! Ruby 2010/2013 01:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the new system is much fairer. It doesn't actually take much more effort to make a really general topic a GA than it does to make a pretty general one a GA. Reducing the multipliers also allowed FAs to be worth more this year and FPs be worth less (both things people wanted), which wouldn't have been feasible with the old multipliers. (Either making a single FA win the whole thing or making FPs basically worthless respectively.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessarily only about effort, though. For what it's worth, I think I prefer the old system, too, despite the fact I don't think it would help me personally. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Round 3 is up![edit]

The groups for the third round are now up - please hold off entering in submissions for today and yesterday until after midnight tonight (server time) when the round officially begins. A newsletter will be following in the next day or so. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Will there be a signpost article like last year? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Should be, yes. I've just posted on the Signpost submissions page about it. Miyagawa (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review points[edit]

I note that the current rules for PRs/GARs state that "You may claim points upon the completion of a review, that is, when the article is passed or failed or closed.", but I have been claiming for peer reviews once I'd completed my review. As such, I have two questions- first, are we obliged to wait until peer reviews are formally closed before claiming points for them (if so, my apologies for claiming for things I probably shouldn't have...), and, second, might it be better to split the rules for peer reviews and good articles on the scoring page? The current arrangement strikes me as a little convoluted. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is you can't (easily) formally close a PR until the time expires. And that takes two weeks which is a bit excessive for 4 points. As the original proponent for Peer Reviews to be included, I had proposed a separate ruleset for PR points but that seems to have got lost in implementation and lumped in with GANs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
And the last thing we want to be doing is encouraging people to prematurely close PRs... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I would presume that you could claim PRs immediately upon posting them. You're right - they've been lumped in with the GARs at the moment and this needs to be clarified. Miyagawa (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)