Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Awards for other types of editors

OK, so there are no hard ideas here yet, and I really mean that, note all the links are red. That means that the names aren't set in stone either, feel free to replace them or redirect them, or make any contributions to them you see fit. :) But, in the spirit of inclusiveness, I really think that we should note the contributions of the non-article producers as well. And these might not actually start until the end of January, given the need to set them up, advertise them, and so on. But I do want to see some sort of recognition given to other editors. So,

feel free to add any particular specialties you don't see covered in the above. For those who engage in multiple activities, maybe we can arrange the winner get a big hug and kiss from Wikipe-tan or her male equivalent. Any and all suggestions welcome. Thanks for your attention. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I threw out a possibility with my comment here. Hopefully that helps. Useight (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

retire germany and Austria next year

I propose that the Germany and Austria flag would be retired in honor of the WikiCup winners ( Dreamafter and jj137 rspectively). Not for the 2010 WikiCup, but for the 2011 WikiCup and onward. The reason I'm stating this is because seeing that the Mexican flag was retired in honor of WikiCup winner Durova, I thought it was pretty corny we didn't retire that German and Austrian flag too after that announcement. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Durova retired. Did those two retire? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it's about if the winners retired? Well jj137 is planning to compete in 2010, but I don't know about Dreamafter. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not. We retired the flag, Durova's not retired ;) But I don't see why we should reitre two two, they won it a long while ago.  GARDEN  17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be cool to retire the flag(s) of the winner(s) -- maybe give people an incentive to pick a flag that actually means something to them. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 20:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It makes sense, but I would venture to say that the WikiCup wasn't as well thought out, as serious or as well known when those flags "won". I do agree the idea makes sense, so I would not be opposed to the idea. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Er, no, I'm not competing next year (changed my mind in the past few weeks), but do whatever you all want :)   JJ (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You don't suppose it would be possible to contact the winners to let them choose now, when they know it will be retired, the flag of their choice, do you? John Carter (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Fwiw, I've retired from the WikiCup (although not from Wikipedia). Durova379 23:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter who picks what flag or what flag is available or whether a certain flag should be retired? It's not like it means anything, it's just a bunch of pixels next to somebody's name, yet there seems to be a lot of these discussions about it. -- Scorpion0422 00:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise what's the point of having a flag in the first place? It seems to me this is more like added incentive, a matter of (nationalistic) pride. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Or, potentially, home-town pride. Were it me, I might definitely check to see if my home town flag were available, and use it. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
And I'd stop waffling between micronations. The point is, it's an added prize, something more tangible than just your name on a list. See, the only reason I know that Durova won last year is because her flag has been retired. Previous winners? Beats me. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 02:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, there's something of a precedent in real life -- some sports retire the numbers of the best players (baseball, American football, soccer, hockey, basketball) and some airlines retire fatal flight routes (on second thought, that's a bit morbid) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 08:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
We do not need to have a poll on this. Polls are generally not a good thing. The idea that something turning into a debate suggests the need for a poll shows a strong misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. This is, frankly, not a big deal. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking up a flag

Out of respect, I was wondering if it would be alright if I take up Ottava Rima's flag for the upcoming wikicup as we have been collaborating on several projects together over the past year. Mrathel (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If the flag is available, go for it. It's first come, first serve- we don't reserve any flags for anyone. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
OR has retired due to a pending Arbcom decision and suggested that I take his flag as I finish the work on articles we have been editing for a period of time. Mrathel (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sure- claim it before someone else does! J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination rules for 2010?

I was just wondering if a final decision has been made on this. Does content have to be significantly worked on in 2010? Exclusively worked on in 2010? Nominated in 2010? I'm not too fussed either way, but I suspect clarifying it before we start will cut down on the amount of invalid submissions. WFCforLife (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe worked on and nominated during 2010. I think it's a matter of just not abusing it. More important is that it is your work, rather than just a drive-by nomination. J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pool selection

How are the pools going to be selected. I don't know if a procedure has been discussed, but I think if you alphabetize all contestants and sequentially add one to each pool it would probably be fair.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Round 1 has only one pool. iMatthew talk at 01:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
And then I would imagine we would pick the pools based on first round scores. That's how they do it in sports (I think). J Milburn (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
So would that be that the first 8 (or however many pools there are) get their own pools, and then player #9 goes into pool 8, or pool 1? Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That hasn't been determined yet, but it'll be something like that. iMatthew talk at 18:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
We'll work something out. Don't try to tactically finish eighth or anything... J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I in the competition?

I removed my name from the reconfirmation list as instructed, but now I can't find myself anywhere in the first pool. Am I missing my name somewhere?--Danaman5 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're on the poster, and yes, you've every right to be in the competition. I will ping iMatthew- it's probably just a mistake. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added you to the table :) J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Signing up for the WikiCup

How does one go about signing up to compete in the WikiCup? I have almost 40 articles I've created already, and I'm looking to perhaps work several of them up to GA or FA. I'm also thinking I'm going to get more involved in DYK. I think this would be a good deadline motivator, and it looks like fun. How can I sign up to be part of round 1? UnitAnode 19:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/2010 Signups. iMatthew talk at 19:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Matthew! UnitAnode 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


Just a quick question. Can contestant start working on articles now? Or they have to wait until Jan. 1st?—Chris!c/t 20:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You can start now, but you have to have worked significantly on the article in 2010 as well. So if you'd like to start today, but continue working on it (preferably do most of the work after January 1st), that's fine. iMatthew talk at 20:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll wait then. Thanks—Chris!c/t 20:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, so even though the DYK on my Sarah Thomas (American football official) article won't be on the mainpage until 2 January 2010, it won't count in the standings? Oh well. UnitAnode 20:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid not. The nomination really has to have taken place in 2010. Happy new year! J Milburn (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New Hampshire

I did not notice until now that admin Jayron32 (talk · contribs) and I were both representing New Hampshire for the WikiCup. What shall be done? Since Jayron technically registered the flag first, I will gladly select a different flag if asked, or withdraw from the WikiCup if another flag cannot be found. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 00:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Would be glad to help you find another one. New Mexico has a real beauty of a flag. Could suggest others if needed. Best regards, Durova390 01:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I sorta have a personal attachment to New Hampshire, so I'd prefer to keep it if possible. Is there someplace else you have lived or have some connection to? --Jayron32 01:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Would one of the flags at Flag of New England work for you Dylan620? --Jayron32 01:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I've taken up New Mexico, per Durova's suggestion. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 01:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and best wishes. :) Durova390 01:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Best wishes to you too, and a Happy New Year. :) --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 01:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


The contestant list has 148 names but the table here has 154. Can one of judges fix the difference? (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm looking into this. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed that discrepancy, but there are a couple of other issues that this has raised which I will now look into. Thanks for your note :) J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, hopefully resolved now. Two users have been removed from the main list, and six have been added to both the contestants' list and the poster. If there are any further concerns about this, just leave a note on this talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing other competitors submissions

Do the judges wish to have any official policy about reviewing featured content submissions? I just submitted a FAC candidate, and like all good citizens should (hint hint), will be reviewing several others to keep the wheels turning. Should I avoid reviewing entries of other contestants? Also, should we be putting a disclosure on our submissions to let Sandy (or other delegates) know that we're in the Wikicup? Sasata (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick note in FAC submissions probably wouldn't be amiss. As for reviewing other contestant's submissions, I want to say we should do our best to review submissions from other participants, but this may have the negative effect of creating an "us and them" environment. What I can say is that, as we will collectively be nominating a lot of pages, we should be doing our best to review a lot, too. I'll certainly try to do my bit. J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think reviews of each others content is fine. One couldn't really sink other nominations without cause, as causeless oppose votes carry no real weight in these processes. I would probably say it's better to start off with a header of Comments and not Oppose unless there are serious issues with the content, but that's how I feel about these things in general (Opposing until you get what you want comes off so much more hostile than simply providing useful comments). Staxringold talkcontribs 23:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course- I merely didn't want to give the impression I was saying "Review content from other people in the Cup, ignore everything else" :) J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag Change

Can I have my flag changed to Nepal? The World 21:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, as Res2216firestar is already using Nepal. It's a bit late to be fiddling with flag changes now anyways- the flag doesn't really matter, the content does! J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


I saw last year that users put a dislcaimer in their review requests stating they are in the wiki cup. I also have noticed a few of these this year as well. I have searched the guidelines and do not see any guidance on this. Is it required? If so is there a prefered way to do it? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not required, but you are welcome to do it if you like. Some people are concerned that because people are in the WikiCup, they will be more inclined to abuse the processes; making sure reviewers are aware you're in the Cup just makes the whole thing more transparent. J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


In the rules it states that only articles worked on during the competition can be counted if promoted to GA or FA. What if I wrote an article a few months ago and make a few changes to it now, then nominate it for GA? If promoted, would this count? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah- as long as there's some work this year, it's legit. Just don't abuse it, and don't be a dick, and you should be fine :) J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, when do I note a nomination? After I nominate an article for DYK, or after the article is on the main page? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't claim points until the article has appeared on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


So, is it closed for submissions for this year already? I wasn't planning to join anyway, but it should be mentioned somewhere on this page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The competition has started, you had to sign up before it began, really. I suppose a note on the main page wouldn't go amiss- thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there any chance I could have a late entry? It was only seeing the galvanising effect of the competition on my brother that made me want to do it, and it did only begin three days ago, out of at least a couple of months. Hopefully you won't mind since there's one big pool and if I do badly I just won't qualify. Thanks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

...How is this happening? We opened sign-ups in October, and three people so far have asked for late entry?  GARDEN  11:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't October, it was actually July. iMatthew talk at 11:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Was it? That's even worse! D:  GARDEN  12:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you make an exception for late entries until the first points are scored?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose many don't plan things like this months in advance. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The winner will have planned for months but many of us are like the Finnish team in the summer Olympics or the Nigerian team in the winter Olympics, just playing for team spirit and trying not to embarass one's self, not playing to win gold (which is nearly impossible).
How about a 6 day grace period (practically 5 days for Hawaii and other islands near the international date line)? We are not Citibank imposing a late charge fee of $99 nor the Stasi imposing a jail sentence. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I can appreciate that sentiment, but it is bloody annoying from my point of view. We've been working on getting this up and running for ages, and now more people are just jumping in. I'll see what can be done... J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know about it until very late but I did sign up before the deadline and even got my first choice of flag. Perhaps as a compromise, grace period of 6 days or the first 6 users who tried to enter after the cutoff, whichever comes first. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You spent a lot of time working on it. Others never heard of it until now. That's life. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I made every reasonable effort to spread the word, as did other judges. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just explaining why the judges may seem to react in odd ways to these requests. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Grandiose, I'm seeing what I can do. Could you choose a flag of a real or historical that has not already been taken? J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Grandiose is now in the competition. We (the judges) accepted that there would be some fiddling for the first few days (anyone watching the various pages closely will have noticed iMatthew and I knocking various things back and forth) but we are very much going to put a lid on this soon. J Milburn (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No scoring yet

What is up with all you ITN guys. At DYK we have to wait a week, but some of you guys should have scored by now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a proper ITN since November. It has become tougher... --candlewicke 20:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I just signed up days ago, don't quite understand the scoring, and have no game strategy yet. So I will lose. Those who planned could have written 25 articles in advance, 10 DYK's that would be published January 2nd, and have 2500 points or more by February 1. I will be lucky to have 10 points by February. I feel like Senegal competing in the winter Olympics. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The point is to have fun. And maybe, if you're lucky, someone will make a movie about your exploits :) Guettarda (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
ITNs aren't as easy as everyone thinks... And I've been beyond busy with other projects. SpencerT♦Nominate! 02:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry Suomi. My strategy depends entirely on 2 FLs and one GA being enough to get me into the second round, and if that does work I should actually be competitive. If I get eliminated, heck, I've still written 2 FLs and a GA, with lots more content to come! Win win really. WFCforLife (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Now scoring!

Fetchcomms has claimed the first points for Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri), a did you know. Well done, Fetchcomms! J Milburn (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hooty Hoo!!!! We're off and running.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Article eligibility

As I read the rules, it has come to my attention that Red Tail Project (nominated for DYK on December 30 and nominated for GAC December 28) is ineligible for points. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is correct. Articles must have been worked on, nominated and promoted during 2010. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Do only articles we created or expanded 5x count? Or can we nominate an eligible article that we didn't work on (but came up with the hook, worked on the DYK nom, etc. etc.) and count that DYK toward our points? — Hunter Kahn 01:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No, that would constitute a "drive-by" nomination. You have to have worked significantly on the article. See the page listing the rules if you haven't already. J Milburn (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I wasn't sure what a "drive-by" nomination meant. Thanks for the clarification! — Hunter Kahn 02:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Scoring for ITN

I just had my first article placed on the front page of Wikinews. Does this score points, or how does that work exactly? UnitAnode 05:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikinews is separate. --candlewicke 09:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, you can only claim points for content recognised on Wikipedia. As such, in the news is awarded points, Wikinews is not. Wikipedia's featured pictures are awarded points, Commons's FPs are not. J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Lots of technicalities to remember. Thanks. UnitAnode 15:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • However, there is an upcoming contest on Wikinews you might be interested in checking out. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I´m out

I´m not in the contestants list, I´m missing even when I deleted my name from the reconfirmation list before the deadline... I was wondering if somebody can tell me why?
P.S. I´ll be able to use my true account very soon, in a matter of days. - Woglinde 02 (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it. Sorry, this is probably out fault. J Milburn (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've added you to the various lists. Interestingly, a submissions page had already been created. This was a problem at our end because you removed your name from the reconfirmation list after we had dealt with most of the lists, and nobody noticed. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation of potentially stored articles

A few words from The Great Mountain of Wiki Wisdom in Tibet

There's a wonderful scene from a film called Chariots of Fire about Olympic track runners. Early in it one of them loses the lead in a race because he looks over his shoulder to see how the other guy is doing. That distraction slows his step and he finishes second. Afterward he learns to focus his concentration better and he becomes a gold medalist.

It's surprising to see how many people care about off season editing because the first round is the easiest part to pass. Plenty of people who register don't do much editing at all, and a fair number of people who get through the early rounds have schedule changes or burn out. The way to avoid burnout is to enjoy the Cup.

The WikiCup is about helping the encyclopedia. Its payoff is trivial, and if you work your hindquarters off for ten months to earn that little wikitrinket there are people who will snark at you for having it. So if you're here, do it for the fun of friendly motivation. Durova394 21:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wise words. Thank you for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking something along those lines myself (although none so wise nor well-spoken). There are a heck of a lot of people in this contest. I'd be very surprised if most of them crossed 100 points (10 dyks, to put it in simple terms). Having watched the contest last year, I feel pretty confident that unless he drops out, Sasata is almost certain to get through to Round 2. As is Tony. And they're not going to scrape in. So the more than gets done, the more the encyclopaedia benefits.
There's another thing too - unless I misread things, points don't carry over from one round to the next. So actually you should aim to come in at the bottom of the weakest group - that way, you put the least effort in, and you are up against the weakest players that made it to Round 2.  :) Guettarda (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Also note that no one gets rich or famous from this contest, and there are no endorsement deals waiting for the winners. Guettarda (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Thank you both. If it helps to know this, I actually never aimed submissions at particular rounds and the only featured article didn't count because it had gone to FAC in late December. To the extent there was any strategy at all it was mostly a belief that the best approach was to stay optimistic and keep editing. It wasn't easy to maintain that attitude and there were moments I wish I could take back. The important thing is to recover from occasional stumbles and remember what this is really about. Durova394 21:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(after ec) No endorsement deals? Dang, no wonder Nike hasn't returned the calls. ;) Durova394 21:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


When will the first newletter come out? Could you please emphasize that contestants should really be reviewing other articles at WP:GAN, WP:FLC, and WP:FAC, recommending at least one review per article submitted? There are now well over four hundred articles nominated for GA, as well as 49 FLs and 61 FAs. I don't know how many are from Cup participants, but this is higher than lately. Of course we can't require it, but if each contestant reviewed just two or three GAs, the backlog would nearly disappear. In addition, by reviewing others, it shortens the queue for one's own article to be reviewed. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 02:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I've never really reviewed GAs, but I'm trying to pump out reviews for FLC. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The newsletter will come out when one of us arranges it- I've written part of it, but it needs to be "put together", as it were. Myself and iMatthew, who were the more active of the judges just prior to the Cup beginning, are currently busy in the real world. We will get a newsletter out soon, I promise. I the mean time, yes, we need more reviewers. Despite those apparent backlogs, I've heard that DYK is running more smoothly than usual, so that's at least one piece of good news. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


Can we remind posters not to update their submissions page with things not yet promoted? It doesn't matter now, but it will make the end of rounds wildly more confusing. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Some users are also adding the necessary information but <!- commenting it out -> until until on the main page, but the box ignores that and counts them anyway. Reywas92Talk 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


I'm going to ask if they want to sponsor the contest, like give gift cards to the winners in order to get more research material. Thanks Secret account 00:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now, that would be nice. I'm a frequent browser/occasional use of Amazon myself. Thanks a lot, Secret; it's much appreciated! 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting idea. The idea of a year's subscription to a journal database or some such was considered as a "prize" last year. However, consider that there is no way we could start plastering "SPONSORED BY AMAZON" all over everything... J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Existing articles

I'm having trouble distinguishing the issue with existing articles; if I take an existing article (Cerebral shunt is my specific example, but imagine one better, or one worse) and bring it to GA or FA status - do I still get the points even though dozens of other contributors have already done the grunt work of making it a "respectable article" first? Do I have to have created the article for it to count? Expanded a stub? Just done an obvious amount of work? My work on Hypatia and Willem Barentsz for example for the Core Contest...both articles already existed, I just greatly improved them (thus winning second place </brag. How does it work for WC? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 06:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding, you must do a considerable amount of work on the article in 2010. You can't, for example, take a GA-level article, correct a typo or two, do the nom and then get the points. If, however, you do the work needed to take it from say B to GA, such as sourcing, expansion, etc. Then you could get the points. You do not have to be the initial creator. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera's understanding is accurate. We don't have a line in sand of what counts as "significant work", so it's a judgement call, but as long as you have genuinely done some real work and you're not abusing the system, it should be fine :) J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)