Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Withdrawl: new section
Line 143: Line 143:
:I'm not a judge but I think you would be, especially if you're the one doing the finishing touches and taking it through the GA/FA process. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 20:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not a judge but I think you would be, especially if you're the one doing the finishing touches and taking it through the GA/FA process. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 20:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]], yes, you would be. The major editor requirement does not have a time-related restriction. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 21:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]], yes, you would be. The major editor requirement does not have a time-related restriction. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 21:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

== Withdrawl ==

Hi, was hopeful that I would have time to ramp up content creation again this year but real-life events are making it so I can barely even focus on the regular articles I update. Unfortunately, I'd like to withdraw and look forward to participating next year. [[User:Nomader|<span style="color: #8B4513">Nomader</span>]] ([[User talk:Nomader|<span style="color: #8B4513">talk</span>]]) 20:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:47, 26 February 2024

WikiCup (WP:CUP)
WikiCup content needing review
view • edit

Featured content

Good topic candidates

Featured pictures

DYK

GAN

PR

Exciting

We've got this year the highest participation since 2017 (116 currently, +27 from last year) and 29 people who have scored points in the first four days! Exciting! BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holy cow. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 06:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make it a competitive one! 2022 is the only time in the last 10 years, I believe, where a single point (or the minimum possible of 5) didn't see you through to the second round. — Bilorv (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my count 48 people have scored as of 12 of January. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! - it won't be as easy for me to win it this year! (Not to say winning it last year was easy - it was extremely time-consuming) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll storm to a second title, I'm sure. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of 23rd of January their is one more avalible slot. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now that's gone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
64 people now have 10 points or more. The game is afoot! — Bilorv (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now 15 points is the minimum to progress! — Frostly (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crap crap crap crap crap crap Im done for crap Panini! • 🥪 02:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now 20 points.... Seddon talk 09:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK reviews

Has there ever been discussion of crediting points for DYK reviews. Maybe 2-3 points.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed a bit last year, see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/1. I am opposed at the moment; certainly I would not want to give people more points for reviews without some minimum quality control. Many DYK reviews are too superficial, which causes a lot of problems for DYK. —Kusma (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think DYK reviews are superficial because of the QPQ system, and how DYK reviews are not incentivised in and of themselves. There's no backlog drive, no credit in the WikiCup and typically more hassle than it's worth due to the environment. It should be one thorough review, done correctly the first time. Instead it's several rounds of superficial review (reviewer, prep promoter, admin queuer) plus chaos, with "tweaks" or "fixes" that the original reviewer does not see often adding errors.
A more radical proposal might be to credit prepping or queueing a DYK set, as I gather these are often last-minute and hurried. Queueing is admin-only (I don't know what the expectations are in verifying the hooks/articles are sufficient) and prepping should be for experienced editors only. They need to be incentivised, albeit not for those who don't know what they're doing. — Bilorv (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who does both regularly, I don't think either rewarding reviews or prepping is worthwhile. The former is pointless, because as Bilorv pointed out, nominating articles requires reviews, so you'd be rewarding editors for doing what they're obligated to do. The latter is just asking for trouble, because one of a prep builder's main duties is to not promote the articles they don't feel are ready. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone participating in the cup is planning on getting points from DYK, I encourage you to review DYK hooks now. WP:DYKN has a large backlog, which means there are a lot of topics to choose from. Since QPQs don't expire, your review today can be used in May or July as your DYK nomination's QPQ. This is an excellent way to work ahead so that in later rounds you can spend time writing articles instead to get those cup points. The review guide can be found at WP:DYKRI. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to crediting points for DYK reviews, Kusma linked a previous discussion about this matter. I do not know how likely it is that there will be a consensus to allow editors to claim points for DYK reviews, since literally everyone with more than 5 approved DYK noms has to do a QPQ.
I agree with Z1720 that reviewing hooks now is the best way to get the backlog cleared up, though. Not only is WP:DYKN currently exceeding the post-expand include size (which means noms from ~4 days ago and newer aren't even appearing on that page), but this could also be a way to avoid the hassle of nominating a new DYK and having to write that your QPQ is pending. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For all the admins taking part in the WikiCup, if you could some prep sets and move them to queue (the actual move can be done in a single click with a neat little script called PSHAW) it would be very much appreciated. We have a monstrous backlog and the main bottleneck at the moment is that not enough admins are helping. —Kusma (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus for age of redirect

I believe here that the bot has wrongly given 11 bonus points for the age of Coriolanus Snow as a redirect (discounted per the rules); the DYK credit was for the new article that I created in 2024. If my understanding is correct could these 11 bonus points please be removed (leaving 5 points for the DYK + 5 bonus for its length)? It may also be worth looking at whether the bot is doing this elsewhere. — Bilorv (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, essentially the bot has difficulty telling the difference between a redirect with categories and a short stub. The bot maintainer can't easily find a solution, so the Cup judges just have to pay attention, and rely on competitors' good faith. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove the bonus points for you shortly Bilorv. As Airship says, it is extremely difficult for the bot to differentiate between 5x expansions, and DYKs converted from a redirect when the redirect has categories on it already. I appreciate your honesty nonetheless. Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the adjustment and your work with the bot. — Bilorv (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv, you're welcome. I'm actually not the bot's maintainer, though; Jarry1250 is. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FL scoring rules

Hi there—I noticed that there isn't a separate section for featured list rules on the scoring page. Do the same rules that apply to FA/FAC also apply to FL/FLC? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620, FLC reviews and FAC reviews are treated the same way. FAs receive 200 points before multipliers are applied, while FLs receive 45 points before multipliers; both are otherwise subject to the same rules (e.g. you have to be a main contributor). Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Sorry, I should've been more specific. The rules you have mentioned in your reply were already clear to me. I currently have a listicle at FLC, which I co-nominated with another user, and was considering submitting another within the next couple weeks or so. Does the FAC stipulation on this apply to FLCs, i.e. would I be allowed to submit the second FLC while the co-nominated FLC was ongoing? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620, yes, you may go ahead with a second FLC. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym on submissions page

The submissions page uses "GAR"/"FAR" in reference to reviews, but those acronyms are usually for Reassessment (WP:GAR/WP:FAR), not Reviews. I would suggest using a different nomenclature, perhaps "GA Review" and "FA Review" instead. czar 23:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar, I was thinking "GANR" (GAN review) and "FACR" (FAC review) might be good options for new acronyms. I'm going to ping the other judges (Frostly and Cwmhiraeth) for their opinion on this matter, and I'm also going to ping the bot maintainer (Jarry1250) to make sure this doesn't break anything. Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Epicgenius' proposal. Thanks for catching this! — Frostly (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I will wait for Jarry1250's feedback, though. It seems like his WikiCup bot actively looks for the text "FAR"/"GAR" while updating these tables. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow reply, been busy IRL. The bot doesn't check the acronym, so you should be okay to change it to whatever you want (touch wood!). - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 16:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. That sounds great, thanks; I'll change the header now. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cutoff

What has the highest cutoff point total been in prior years.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger, per Bilorv above, 2022 is the only time in the last 10 years, I believe, where a single point (or the minimum possible of 5) didn't see you through to the second round.— ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: I actually collected this information recently and made a table at User:Hey man im josh/Wikicup stats. Keep in mind that the scoring system has not been the same throughout the WikiCup's history, so the points there may not accurately compare to the point values now. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FACs

On a different theme, the number of FACs a competitor can have at a time is limited by the FA candidate rules. These limit editors to one FAC at a time and one (or more?) joint FAC nomination. An FAC nomination takes several weeks to process, and those of editors with few or no previous nominations may be slower to be completed as addition checks are made on sourcing etc. Similarly, experienced FAC editors may have their nominations processed more speedily. I have observed editors request that they may be permitted to start a new FAC before the previous one is completed. I believe these varying factors give an advantage to frequent FAC-ers and a disadvantage to FAC novices, a fact that is perhaps only likely to be of importance in the final round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that too.
Incidentally, I think we should consider amending the FAC rule to match what the FAC coordinators allow (i.e. an editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them, or if a second nomination is approved by a FAC coordinator). In practice, during the past few years, we have seen several contestants nominate a solo FAC before their previous solo FAC has been promoted. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could amend the rules accordingly, limiting open FACs to one solo nomination and one joint nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that this might add even more restrictions to the already-restrictive FAC process. As written, the rules technically allow people to nominate 2 FACs simultaneously, where they are co-nominators on both. This might worsen the inequality between FAC novices and regulars, as novices are encouraged to seek a FAC mentor (who may end up being a co-nominator for the article) and so technically could no longer co-nominate a second article if they wished. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that overall, consistency with existing precedent/rules is a positive goal. — Frostly (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about withdrawing

Like User:Chaotic Enby did, can I request to be withdrawn? Considering how inexperienced I am with Wikipedia, the zero time I have left, and the number of late nights I stay up, I really don't feel like I can get very far. If there's one thing that's certain, it's that I'm not the first person to be eliminated. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 19:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula, I've now withdrawn you from the competition. The contest does get tough, especially in later rounds, but I can sympathize with your withdrawal. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your GA reviews, @TrademarkedTWOrantula! Hope to see you around next year; nonetheless, please prioritize your mental health. — Frostly (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vami_IV

As some of you may know, one of this year's contestants, Vami_IV, unfortunately passed away recently. At the time of his death, he had the second-highest number of points. In light of this, I am considering a tribute to him in the upcoming March 2024 WikiCup newsletter. Any and all suggestions are appreciated.

Since Vami has never formally withdrawn, he will remain in the competition and will likely advance to round 2. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think a "highlight reel" of sorts, featuring his most recent work, would be a good idea. including some of the things he's well-known for, like the Completionism essay & Simon Bolivar, would be nice as well. :) sawyer * he/they * talk 21:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that we should implement a system where dead people are considered withdrawn for the purposes of scoring? It would make sense, considering that they can't exactly compete anymore. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, Vami had two ongoing FACs which if successful, could likely see him through to round 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but after that he has no chance at success, since he cannot make any more nominations on account of being dead. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joint nominations are a thing. For example, he had written several GA's which could potentially be taken to FA-class. At the end of the day, a person's work on Wikipedia lives on after they do not, and I don't think this cup should be any different. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also thinking about if we have an unfortunate incident like this again in a future year. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus points: From number of interwikis

Just wanted confirmation that December 31, 2022 was still accurate for bonus points based on the number of interwikis the article is on. I think it should be 2023, right? I didn't want to change it incase I missed some memo or something. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Yes, that would be correct. I've fixed it; thanks for the heads up. Epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing some strategizing here. Wikipedia:Featured topics/Paper Mario, one of my works, is by coincidence on FA away from being a featured topic. If I were to promote this from a good topic to a featured topic, would I still be allowed to cash this in for featured topic points? This was promoted to GA during the 2021 WikiCup. Panini! • 🥪 04:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to quickly note that I said the following to Panini! on Discord: From my reading of WP:WC/SCO, I don't think so (before I realized I misread Panini's question). After Panini clarified, I said: It seems like it's unclear what happens when you promote GTs to FTs. If you're nominating this as an FT, I think you'd be eligible for points. But if you merely upgraded an article from GA to FA, the topic wouldn't automatically be eligible for points, you'd have to nominate the topic to be upgraded (or nominate another article to the topic) first.
In any case, if there is agreement that the good topic should become a featured topic, I would award 15 points for each article you worked on significantly, as if it were a brand-new featured topic. I am not sure what the process is for upgrading good topics to featured topics, though—you would need to ask @FGTC coordinators: about that. Epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Panini! and @Epicgenius, we are working on streamlining processes like this. For now, I'd simply nominate it like a normal "brand new" featured topic and we'll take care of the template updating so it makes sense. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Boot (medicine)  5 and Walking boot

Today, I dropped by the Chicago Public Library to see if they could help me research Boot (medicine), which is a stub-class article, so I could get some WP:CUP points. The research librarian came upon the Walking boot article, which is a start-class article. It seems to me that Boot (medicine) only started getting pageview since it became a WP:VA. Walking boot seems to be getting the pageviews and incoming links for this subject and seems to have the encyclopedic content. I am WP:COI for the merger process. Walking boot was created in User space on 22:29, October 24, 2012‎, moved to WP:AFC space on 01:10, October 25, 2012‎ and moved to main space 03:12, August 10, 2015‎. Boot (medicine) was created by me in main space 03:33, November 25, 2012‎. Please advise on appropriate merger process and point eligibility.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise figuring out the best course of action for a merge/redirect (perhaps ask WT:MED). WikiCup points considerations are secondary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you are COI on the articles in question unless you produce medical boots. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that I don't want to prescribe how the merge should happen/what histories should be kept because I put the article in the main space first, but while the more prominent version seems to have been in user space and AFC space. Where do merger discussion happen?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger, merge discussions typically occur on the talk page of the article to which you're merging the content, i.e. the target of the merge. Please see Wikipedia:Merging#Step 1: Create a discussion. You can propose merging the contents of the Boot (medicine) page to Walking boot, since the Walking booth page is more substantial. Even though you theoretically can propose a merge into the Boot (medicine) page because that page is older and is a vital article, it's much less substantial. Accordingly, I'd open a merge discussion at Talk:Walking boot and tag both of the pages with {{merge}}.
You can still claim WikiCup points for a successful DYK/GA/FA subject to the typical restrictions that you are a significant contributor to the article. For DYK, that means you need to have expanded one of the articles fivefold (the articles are both too old to qualify as new creations or mainspace moves). – Epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Epicgenius, if someone walked by you on the street and you felt compelled to look search the item on wikipedia or google, what search term would you enter "boot" or "walking boot". I have personally never heard of the latter term. It might be the case that some medical professionals might use the latter term. I think the common term for the subject is simply boot. My quandry is less based on being first in main space and being vital and more on actually having the name of the common term. Thoughts? Or maybe this should be the subject of the merge discussion. Will await feedback here before I act for a little while.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the articles should be merged, but what the correct merge direction is and what title the merged article should have are questions that are offtopic here and should go to the merge discussion. Neither of the articles currently qualifies for Wikicup points; in my opinion any expansion should start from the merged article. —Kusma (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyTheTiger, Kusma said what I wanted to say. This isn't a WikiCup issue; any merger needs to be discussed on the talk page, and it is possible that someone might support merging "Walking boot" to "Boot (medicine)". – Epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Boot_(medicine)#Merger_discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Backlog drive beginning March 1st!

I thought this may be of interest to the Wikicup contestants; over at WP:GAN, we have a backlog drive beginning March 1st! Please feel free to sign up here and carry out reviews. In addition to scoring points for WikiCup, there's a fine array of barnstars and medals to be won, as well as the intrinsic satisfaction in seeing a big backlog get smaller. Hope to see you there! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old article

If I stumble upon an old article that I contributed a lot to several years ago that has since been edited by other editors and is now ready for GA or FA nomination, am I eligible for points? I think there may be many such articles at User:TonyTheTiger/DYK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a judge but I think you would be, especially if you're the one doing the finishing touches and taking it through the GA/FA process. — Bilorv (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger, yes, you would be. The major editor requirement does not have a time-related restriction. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl

Hi, was hopeful that I would have time to ramp up content creation again this year but real-life events are making it so I can barely even focus on the regular articles I update. Unfortunately, I'd like to withdraw and look forward to participating next year. Nomader (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup&oldid=1210479944"