Jump to content

User talk:Kosack: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 73: Line 73:


Hello, yes, I understand that the season isn't quite over, but Cardiff is mathematically certain to be relegated and will play next season in the Championship. I probably should have added a citation to that effect, but you could also have done that rather than reverting the edit. For instance BBC Sport says "Cardiff City will make an instant return to the Championship after their Premier League relegation was confirmed", which is essentially what I put. I also understand that the standfirst should summarise the most important parts of the article, before running through them chronologically. At the moment, the most important thing in Cardiff City's minds in their relegation. I'm not going to get into an edit war though. Cheers, [[User:Eric Blatant|Eric Blatant]] ([[User talk:Eric Blatant|talk]]) 19:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, yes, I understand that the season isn't quite over, but Cardiff is mathematically certain to be relegated and will play next season in the Championship. I probably should have added a citation to that effect, but you could also have done that rather than reverting the edit. For instance BBC Sport says "Cardiff City will make an instant return to the Championship after their Premier League relegation was confirmed", which is essentially what I put. I also understand that the standfirst should summarise the most important parts of the article, before running through them chronologically. At the moment, the most important thing in Cardiff City's minds in their relegation. I'm not going to get into an edit war though. Cheers, [[User:Eric Blatant|Eric Blatant]] ([[User talk:Eric Blatant|talk]]) 19:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the link you supplied, as the upshot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Season_already_finished? seems to be that you can and should write about mathematical certainties before the season has actually ended. It's talking about champions rather than relegations, but one user says "If there's a reliable source confirming that a club has won the title, I don't see the problem. Obviously there's always the slight theoretical possibility that something could come to light to cause them to be docked points or otherwise get stripped of the title, but that could happen even after the season has ended, so I don't think we really need to consider that an obstacle."

Cardiff's relegation and the fact that they will play in the Championship next season are encyclopaedic facts regardless of whether the 2018/19 season had finished, and headline news for the club right now. The first paragraph is the place for a brief summary of the club's current situation, so it seems odd to remove the important fact from there and hide it deep in the text. Cheers, [[User:Eric Blatant|Eric Blatant]] ([[User talk:Eric Blatant|talk]]) 13:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:12, 13 May 2019


    WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

    And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

    Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

    • United States L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
    • Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
    • Denmark MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
    • United States Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
    • Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
    • Ohio Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

    These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

    Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

    If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

    DYK for Chris Summers (footballer)

    On 22 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chris Summers (footballer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that footballer Chris Summers set a Welsh Premier League record during the 2003–04 season by scoring in 11 consecutive matches? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Summers (footballer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Chris Summers (footballer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

    — Maile (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiCup 2019 Reminder

    Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 2 of this year's WikiCup! There are only a few days until the second round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

    Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 05:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)[reply]

    The Signpost: 30 April 2019

    WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

    The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

    • Scotland Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
    • Wales Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
    • Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
    • Kingdom of Prussia Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

    Other notable performances were put in by Chicago Barkeep49 with six GAs, United States Ceranthor, England Lee Vilenski, and Saskatchewan Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and Denmark MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

    So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

    If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cardiff City relegation

    Hello, I see you've reverted my edit to Cardiff City F.C. Why do we need to wait until the end of the season to say that the team's been relegated and will play 2019/20 in the Championship? Is there any reasonable chance that this will not happen? All reliable news sources have reported it. I actually copied the line from someone else's edit on the Fulham F.C. page, which you have not reverted. Best wishes, Eric Blatant (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, yes, I understand that the season isn't quite over, but Cardiff is mathematically certain to be relegated and will play next season in the Championship. I probably should have added a citation to that effect, but you could also have done that rather than reverting the edit. For instance BBC Sport says "Cardiff City will make an instant return to the Championship after their Premier League relegation was confirmed", which is essentially what I put. I also understand that the standfirst should summarise the most important parts of the article, before running through them chronologically. At the moment, the most important thing in Cardiff City's minds in their relegation. I'm not going to get into an edit war though. Cheers, Eric Blatant (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit confused by the link you supplied, as the upshot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Season_already_finished? seems to be that you can and should write about mathematical certainties before the season has actually ended. It's talking about champions rather than relegations, but one user says "If there's a reliable source confirming that a club has won the title, I don't see the problem. Obviously there's always the slight theoretical possibility that something could come to light to cause them to be docked points or otherwise get stripped of the title, but that could happen even after the season has ended, so I don't think we really need to consider that an obstacle."

    Cardiff's relegation and the fact that they will play in the Championship next season are encyclopaedic facts regardless of whether the 2018/19 season had finished, and headline news for the club right now. The first paragraph is the place for a brief summary of the club's current situation, so it seems odd to remove the important fact from there and hide it deep in the text. Cheers, Eric Blatant (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]