Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2011/3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Any credit?

Do I receive any points for "Yoü and I" receiving GA status? See Talk:Yoü and I/GA1, # contributions, and the article's talk page for details. GA co-nomination with Legolas2186. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, definitely. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There are similar circumstances in the aviation world, specifically with Saab JAS 39 Gripen. According to [1], I've got more edits than Kyteto, who is the nominator, although I'm not a co-nom. Is there a possibility that I may receive some points as well? Just asking, although I'm truly not planning to take the points, but I may. I expanded the development section and, somewhat, the design section. Kyteto improved the wording and carried out other roles. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can legitimately claim to be a major contributor to the article, you're welcome to claim, whether you're nom or conom. It's an honesty thing, in many ways. Yes, the judges do look, but it's more a question of whether you think you can legitimately call the article "yours". J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

ITN

Quick question. To get credit for ITN, does it have to be on the main page, or can it be on current events? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews

Users may wish to read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#WikiCup GANs. On a somewhat related note, it has been suggested that the number of points gained for a GA review (currently two) be increased. I agree with this, as GA reviews are often long and tedious processes, and can be less attractive than creating an article for DYK (five points). I also believe that double points should also apply to GA reviews, as articles on 20+ Wikipedias and/or on the WP:VITAL list would be longer and more time-consuming to review. Obviously point values cannot be changed for this year, but I am simply making suggestions for the future. Thanks, —Andrew_stalk 09:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've left a reply there. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey there!

I can't believe this is still running, pretty smoothly it seems! I knew I left it in good hands :) iMatthew ^talk at 15:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

*Points at J* Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey iMatthew- I assume you'll be signing up for next year? :P J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely (not). (just kidding) but I'm glad to see it's still looking good around here. iMatthew / talk 22:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Long time no see Matthew. Nice to see you're around again. J & Ed have kept this in pretty good condition for what its worth. Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 06:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey now, gotta set the record straight – J's the one who's behind the scenes stopping fires and writing newsletters. Give him the credit for the success. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but you both are technically the judges so why not give due credit to both anyway? :P Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Scores Update

Just a quick note, I've had a look and the bot doesn't seem to have updated the scores since 8am on the 30th. Is that right, as I thought it updated more frequently than that? Miyagawa (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've given the bot a poke and it has updated- maybe this'll jolt it back into regular updating. Jarry, is there a specific issue with the bot at the moment that we know of? J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've forced another update and contacted Jarry. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Toolserver has been experiencing some pretty heavy problems. Other LivingBot scripts seem to be working, however, so I'm slightly bemused. Unfortunately I'm at work at the moment, but I can have a look when I get back (in about 5 hours' time). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, turns out it was my fault after all (I had, in my wisdom, set it only to run until the end of July?!). Anyway, now set to run until the end of October... - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you muchly. J Milburn (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Jarry needs to be sent to the stocks for a little self-reflection after such a catastrophic mistake... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the stocks are a bit too lenient – I'd prefer it if he gets sent to the guillotine. Bye bye Jarry! LOL Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The British police are a little busy at the moment, I may get a few days' repsite at least *grins* - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

When the few days are up, Jarry should be sent to 45 years in jail.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

@Jarry, hmm, that's true. Hope you got a nice TV or something out of the chaos. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow!

First time seen today, seems to be running pretty good. I would like to transform it a bit and start this game in the German Wikipedia 2012 as a test, if this would work as well as here. Have fun, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool :) I think the only regular complaint here on en.wp is that cup nominations "clog" up review processes by demanding quick reviews, so that might be something to prepare for. Let me know if you want help with coding the update bot (and similar things). You'll still need a programmer who can speak better German than me though, I think :P - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 13:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's great to hear. The WikiCup has also been tried on the Simple English Wikipedia, but it sadly didn't work out there. J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Achim! We met in San Francisco in January! Hope all is well. Good luck starting it up, and feel free to ask any questions as they come bup. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for comments - I think a first try will be without bots and stuff (hope that will work), and I have to fit it to the German system (without topics, sounds etc.). In a first draft I think we can collect points for featured (exzellent) and good (lesenswert) articles and DYK (a bit different from en, only for new articles). I also would like to add a 1 point for any new articles (with a minimum of characters) and special points for winning our writing contest and other stuff - a first draft is present in German in my blog. - Achim Raschka (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A quick comment that I'd have is we give contestants a couple months off (November through December) to recharge and get ready for the next competition. Going right into the next cycle by ending the competition on 28 December and starting the next year's on 1 January might be a bit quick. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that - but there is a difference in my timetable to yours: all sections are 3 months and it is one section less (because I do not think that there will be more than 64 contestants in de). I will think it over again and discuss it, thank you. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cup reviews

By my count, there are still three outstanding GA nominations (without appropriate reviewers), two FACs which are close to promotion, and FL candidate also close to promotion. Hopefully these can be finished off because (me included) it would be a disappointment to go out without. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm doing one of the GANs, leaving two. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. (This next part is by no means aimed at you in particular, Grandiose!) We must, of course, respect the processes and not try to force any kind of early promotion, but reviewers are, of course, a great help. Again, please do not feel obliged to ignroe issues or give over-hasty support; any such effort undermines the entire enterprise. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Broken record. Clearly, based on the statements above, some people on this page do watch FAC, so why the heck do I have to keep asking the same question? Is there any reason you all can't enforce your own rules? I have asked before, and I should just start doing it: shall I just start closing any noms that don't comply? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, closing valid, good faith nominations because of your own obsession with marking out who is involved in the WikiCup wouldn't be WP:POINTy at all. My most recent FAC, I didn't note that it was a WikiCup nomination until about eight days after I created it because I just didn't think of it. I wrote and nominated the article because I wanted it featured, not because I wanted the 100 points. Reso lute 14:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"my own obsession"? It's your rule, and one based on consensus at FAC. How about avoiding personal attacks? The issue is clear; WIKICUP and FAC have a rule, the CUP doesn't enforce it (which means I must???), even though others here clearly review FAC and could note WIKICUP nominations, especially when the list is down as the CUP progresses. Last year it affected DYK-- get it under control before you approach the hysterical end phase here and we find the potential for quid pro quo reviewing and ill-prepared nominations (which I'm seeing now). The point is, if you didn't think of it, others may not, people monitoring the WIKICUP should be, and should be checking-- I didn't fail to AGF, you did, and made a personal attack on top of that. The easiest way for the CUP to enforce its own rules is to disallow any nomination which breaks the rules from gaining points-- all we ask for at FAC is the same thing we ask from ANY such Wiki venture-- members should identify their involvement. The CUP doesn't do that in spite of years of requests, and at this stage, it is *not* hard for you all to enforce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm sorry, but I did the same thing as Resolute. The articles I got featured this year I would've done anyway with or without the cup. It's just supposed to be a little friendly competition. I forgot listing one of my articles earlier this year as being a cup nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you all do it unwittingly (I've never said otherwise in spite of Resolute's uncalled for personal attack and assumption of bad faith); what I'm asking (*again*) is that CUP regulars oversee this so I don't have to. It's not an unreasonable request, particularly since someone above clearly reviewed FAC, and as we approach the final phases, the number of participants are down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have to do this for FLC to? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sandy, we don't monitor every FAC that gets nominated. We don't know about them until they are listed on the submissions page after they pass (assuming that they do), and failing a FAC where they've failed to disclose their involvement – especially when this isn't like disclosing a COI, etc. – is going a bit too far. The best we can do is put a reminder in the next newsletter.
I don't believe it's our rule per se; you asked us to do it, and we've tried to implement it, but people do forget things that seem trivial to them...
Can you provide examples of the "quid pro quo reviewing and ill-prepared nominations" you've seen? I'm not very suspicious of the first, as many of the participants ere are frequent reviewers as well, but the latter would be troubling.
YE - no, only Sandy has requested us to do this for FAC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my run-on sentence above lumped the two together because of my poor prose-- I only meant to say I'm seeing ill-prepared nominations (aviation article) getting support. I said the potential for QPQ reviewing (or other effects) as you move into the final phase. Anyway, either you're going to implement it or you're not, it's not *my* rule (it's a general FAC requirement for any such venture), and if you don't, I'll be forced to. Since you all won't, and since it is not at all hard to simply review the page twice a month and make sure CUP participants are marked, as you come into the final phase, and to avoid these issues in the future, I will be forced to take it upon myself to close any CUP FAC that isn't declared, and enact the two-week wait provision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ill-prepared? There's obviously a big opinion here; 5 supports in MilHist A-class review, what do you want me to do? I think much more preparations have gone into the article than A330. Some of the problems you raised can be quickly rectified. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but why was this rule put in place. I suggest it should be removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I found the article in question (YF-23). It has a support on prose only and a support from someone I've never heard of; neither have any direct connection to the Cup. Forgive me for speaking like this to someone who will know more about this than me, but I've always understood the requirement to be for potential COI. Should I start declaring that I am a WikiCup judge, OMT participant, Milhist coordinator, and online ambassador in all my FACs then? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I think we both know that you closing undeclared WikiCup FACs, and then demanding people wait two weeks, would be disruptive. I have done my best to make the rule clear- to some, I will be sounding like a broken record myself- and I'm not sure how you think something like this should be "enforced". Further, the demand that people declare is very much "your" rule- it was instigated here because you pushed it through, and, though you claim that "it's a general FAC requirement for any such venture", it seems to be the WikiCup in particular that irks you. When I review Sasata's or Casliber's nominations, should I be putting in big bold letters that we're both in WikiProject Fungi? When I review Ucucha's, should I put in big bold letters that we've reviewed each others articles at GAC? When I review Malleus's, should I mention that we both have ties to Lancashire? J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Those other things (like WikiProject memberships) are tracked by Sandy and I. They are easier to keep on top of than the wikicup, at least for me. Karanacs (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Sandy, but yes, I believe you have an obsession with the WikiCup that from my POV borders on an irrational hatred. And frankly, if you start unilaterally shutting down good faith nominations as a result of your personal dislike of this competition, I will call to have you removed as an FAC delegate. Your arguments here are based on bad faith assumptions and irrelevancies. Last year's issues with DYK have been addressed, and frankly, are irrelevant to FAC. You've accused an editor of bringing an "ill-prepared nom" to FAC, also complaining that it has support. Based on your commentary, I am led to believe that you are implying that said editor is attempting to rush through an unfit article, and that others are improperly supporting them (i.e.: quid pro quo). Those are serious allegations, and if the article The_ed17 brought up is the one you are referring to, then you are also clearly wrong. Both supports were independent of the participants in this competition, and while your own review is valid, you have not presented any concerns that are unusual in any FAC that I have been a part of or followed. Indeed, there are several current FACs where a reviewer has suggested a fresh copyedit. The only difference between Sp33dyPhil's FAC and a dozen others currently open is that he is a WikiCup participant. If this is such an issue, why aren't you badgering other nominators who didn't come to FAC with a perfect article? Why are you only casting aspersions against WikiCup participants? Reso lute 15:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This is getting rather sick. First, it would be absurdly easy for you all to enforce, and it you're not going to, then take it out of your instructions and will toss it back to FAC, where the consensus will be clear. Second, no, Resolute, it's not just Wikicup-- we had the same issues with that old Project whose name I forget whose mission was to push through FACs. So knock off the personal attacks now. I'll do whatever I need to do to maintain the integrity of FAC, and if that means tossing this back to WT:FAC before the next round of the CUP, so be it. And yes, I keep up with what editors are members of which Projects and collaborations, to answer that question, but expecting me to keep up with the number of CUP participants that you all start out with is not reasonable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, how do you propose this is "enforced"? J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Threatening to shut down good faith nominations for no valid reason is the exact opposite of "maintaining the integrity of FAC". You have made serious allegations. Back them up or retract. In either case, I think it would be best if you simply left it to your fellow delegates to handle such nominations, as I believe you have lost all objectivity on the matter. Reso lute 16:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I'm seeing is that five FACs got passed this month via the cup, all seemingly from users who would have nommed them anyway. I see 3/4 that were archived as well, but all= appear to be articles that would have been nominated anyway, and were ones that got either support or constructive criticism; none that were entirely torpedoed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up those stats, Wizardman - it is very nice to know that there appear to have been changes in the nomination practices since last year :) The bigger issue for me is the potential for reviewers to try to tilt the FAC comments to help/hurt someone's chances of winning. Having it clearly noted on the nomination that it is part of the WikiCup helps us to keep a better eye on that. Karanacs (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the "hurting" part is something that would be easily policed, as if one participant does try to torpedo another, I would expect the victim of that would be here complaining. And if the judges or community found merit, I expect that the perpetrator(s) would be dumped out of the competition entirely, nevermind any other sanctions for disruption. The helping part... well, I know I've done GAN reviews of other participants, and I know they have reviewed my articles. As I just mentioned on Sandy's talk page, this year's competition seems to have lived up to the spirit of the game, and such reviews I have been a part of have all been honest. I can't speak for the other participants, but if I win, great. If I make the finals, great. If I lose, whatever. As an editor, I am always seeking the highest quality. As a reviewer, I am doing the same. I don't care if anyone else is a Cup participant, and I doubt many others here do either. I think the risks you do present are minimal, but they are legitimate. I also think that if it were happening, people here would be on it. Reso lute 17:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I can second the notion that anyone going out to deliberately derail the nominations of other participants would be removed from the competition immediately. That's one of the few occasions when I would use my "powers" as a judge so... Judiciously. However, I strongly believe that none of those participating at the moment would do such a thing; it remains, of course, something for which we must watch. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably be able to write a bot that adds a notice to FACs from WikiCup people (it'll check the nominators of the FAC, and see whether they are linked on WP:CUP); would that be a good solution? Ucucha (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It would give the judges as a false positive, but if people are genuinely concerned about it, then I suppose "bribing" the judges with supports would be possible. I have absolutely no objection to such a bot; I think that would be a brilliant solution. J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that would be great. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, bribing the judges would be great! So... J.... how much would 500 points cost me? Reso lute 20:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll make sure it doesn't count the judges, and try to write the code. Ucucha (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to write a bot for this, maybe it could end this years-long dispute. I just wish it didn't take another argument to get anything accomplished.Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 2. Ucucha (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody answered my question. Why did Sandy put this rule in place for the FAC? This is not in place for the FLC/FPC/FTC/GTC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot is a grand idea to keep Sandy's and our job easier. Thank you Ucucha. I will also back up J's statement that those caught trying to sabotage competitor's FACs – or any noms at any process, be it GAN/FPC/etc. – will be immediately thrown out of the competition by the judges. I don't expect it to happen now, given the editors who are left, but anything can happen next year. YE, she put this in place because she is very serious about keeping FAC from being gamed. In this case, I do feel that she is going overboard, but overall she does a very good job at this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Brainstorming for next year

I have opened a thread here for brainstorming ideas for next year's competition. Thoughts are very much welcome. I will also be sending out a note about it on this evening's newsletter. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats to the finalists! I have enjoyed participating in the Cup, though little of the work I did was specifically for the Cup and I did not expect to get as far in the competition as I did. My four GA nominations still needing reviews might have pushed me into the final round, but I don't conduct reviews myself and therefore can't complain. I've had a blast, enjoy watching the competition, and look forward to next year's Cup! Again, congratulations finalists! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the Cup; good luck for next year. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Submissions - next year

I've found the submissions process a little bit tiresome. Could a carefully scripted bot take the hard work out? Perhaps you could just claim the article and the bot complete the other fields, for you - finding the diff where the GAN template was added, for example. I'm not a bot operator myself, but we have the advantage of plenty of time before next year to get it sorted. The widest ranging would be to automatically list nominated articles or reviews completely for you. Since a bot that works out if an FAC is by a cup participant is already semi-operational, would it be possible to have one that listed any successfully articles for you? Just wondering. Might help to get some "big names" into the competition, either again or for the first time as relevant. (I don't feel I've put this particularly eloquently, I hope you understand what I'm on about!) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The rather complex syntax predates either of the current judges. As far as I'm concerned, it exists purely to make it easier for people to check claims- not a good reason to make it difficult and tiresome for those taking part. I have absolutely no objection to it being stripped entirely- the current bot is happy to count submissions in the "wrong" syntax anyway. J Milburn (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My question to this proposal is this: Can a bot be able to track all methods of submissions? (Including ITN, GAN-Review, etc) My concern is that the bot needs to be able track the 128 or whatever editors in the Cup 2012 and list all the info on what they've done? I like this idea, considering it will probably work in favor of eliminating most of any system cheating. However, I want to make sure that future bots are a bit spotless.Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 17:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A bot is not going to be able to automatically update scores without a manually updated submission page, if that's what you mean. As an example, it's wholly conceivable that a person may claim for a GA that they did not nominate, while they may not be justified in claiming for a GA that they did nominate. We are going to still need a submissions page, but we can perhaps strip it right back. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I admit my above post was poorly worded, I was having trouble wording it to make sense. Honestly, but if we want less stress on the submissions page, how is a bot going to do the job?Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 21:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Because, as I explained, that is not going to be possible. It will still be up to the individual contestants to judge whether items should be submitted for points, and so some kind of manually updated submissions' page is a necessity. We can cut the formatting currently required, but we are still going to need contestants to place items onto a list for the bot to check. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As an example, I currently have 1981 Canada Cup in the queue at GAN. It is, however, not eligible for the WikiCup because I did no significant work on it this year. A bot that tracks my works would not know this and simply count the points regardless. I could also see bot issues if I create an article and someone else nominates it at DYK (which has also happened this year). The submissions page isn't really a burden as it currently stands anyway, an d simplifying the form would only make that part easier too. Reso lute 23:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Submissions rejected

Hi, user Wizardman had just rejected my GA reviews. According to the third point of Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#General rules, I am able to submit reviews or articles that I have significantly worked on throughout the comp., even if they have taken place during the earlier rounds. Now can someone explain to me what's going on? I'm pretty sure I've got everything sorted. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? "If something was worked on or nominated in an early round, you may still claim points if it is recognised in a later round, but you may not claim points for articles you have not worked on during the competition." And from the GAR section- "You may claim points upon the completion of a review, that is, when the article is passed or failed." These reviews were completed during earlier rounds. You can't just not claim for something in one round and "save" it for the next- that's not how the competition works. Equally, you couldn't choose to "save" a featured article you have had promoted in round one so as to score in round 2. As a minor point, Wizardman should probably have let Ed/myself know about this rather than removing the claims, but his edits seem accurate. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"You may claim points upon the completion of a review implies that I can claim points at that moment or thereafter – it doesn't say I must. Nowhere does it say that I'm not allowed to save. So my 8+ GAs aren't eligible this round? The rules tell me that if an article is worked on and nominated during the competition, I'm allowed to submit them at any time I like/need/want throughout the competition. The rules are a bit confusing, and I think it should be clarified. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 14:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's not said anywhere that it has to be content promoted during that round, though I assumed that that had always been clear. I have updated the rules to try to avoid future confusion. To reiterate: While you don't necessarily have had to have done the work in this round, as long as it was done this year, the article does have to have been promoted/review completed in this round. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll note it here instead of rm'ing them myself next time, sorry about that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

yea, Phil gamed the system. :( I agree that article has to be passed/failed in the same round that points can be claimed. Let's hope it is clear next year. BTW, two of the articles were mine that he reviewed.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

I knew right from the start that I would have no chance whatsoever, I just wanted to go out on a bang. If my GA reviews aren't accepted, how come my ITN is? Can I at least submit all my work and be eliminated? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@YE, how did I game the system? There were no explicit rules which say I cannot wait for the next round. J assumed that I would have done otherwise, but there were no rules regarding that. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that would be following the "spirit of the rules" rather than the letter of the rules. Borderline stuff that doesn't get submitted on the last day or two of a round is one thing. Deliberately saving stuff isn't cool, and I am sure you can see how if everyone did this - it would be a huge mess. Canada Hky (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A huge mess indeed. However, while my interpretation of the rules might differ from that of yours, it does not mean I am wrong. I am a law-abiding citizen, and same with the Cup; I have not cheated in anyway, but I have to admit my interpretation is not what expected of some of you. Nevertheless, I suggest YE retract his comment of my gaming the system – I take a lot of offence out of that. I will not win, but is there some way for me to register my work? I'd hate to leave the comp with a "0" next to my name. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Phil, I honestly believe that claiming for those was contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the rule- though I admit that the rules could probably have been clearer in this regard. That said, I most certainly do not believe that you tried to "cheat", nor that your actions have done any kind of damage. This isn't really a big deal- I'm sorry that there's been a misunderstanding, and good luck with the competition- as I'm sure you saw on the newsletter, by my count, you're top in at least one regard! J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel like a pariah now. I can't believe a comp can become like this. I just want to submit my work, under the condition that these GAs will not be taken into account at the end of October. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This was a misunderstanding- there'll be no hard feelings. That said, you've hit the final 8- further than I ever managed. Sadly, no, I don't think that those will be able to be taken into account as regards the competition. J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, no hard feeling. XD If you want easy points do a GA review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

2012 signups?

When do the signups for the 2012 WikiCup begin? HurricaneFan 25 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Next year- signups and straw polls open!

Ok everyone- the signups for next year are open, and I have started some straw polls on how the scoring should work. All welcome! J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Note- I've fixed the link above. See Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Time for some straw polls. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Some stats for final round

Most FAs: 2 (tied - Hurricanehink and Sp33dyphil)
Most GAs: 13 (Yellow Evan)
Most FLs: 2 (Miyagawa)
Most FTs contributed: 1 (Hurricanehink)
Most GTs contributed: 1 (Hurricanehink)
Most DYKs: 25 (Casliber)
Most ITNs: 1 (Sp33dyphil)
Most GARs: 18 (Wizardman)
Most FPs, FSs, FPOs: None

HurricaneFan 25 14:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've only got the one FL, it was just a double. Although I do have another nearing the end of it's nomination period at WP:FLC but I don't think it'll finish in time. Miyagawa (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that means four editors tie on one each.

As ever, cumulative tables for each category are also available. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 23:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course after saying that, the other FLN was successfully promoted to FL within the window after all, so I have promoted two FLs this period. Miyagawa (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot changes for next year

Hey all. How does everyone think the bot work went this year? There were a few errors by me at points, but I think other than that it went fairly well. I'm going to be improving the bot to understand unofficial multipliers better (this only affects the display page on the Toolserver rather than the scoring), and I'm hoping to add in an admin module that means my code can be used as-is for all future competitions - whatever rule changes there are, no code should need to be changed by anybody. But apart from that, what changes would people like to see? There was talk of making the format of submissions simpler, but that's already coded in. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

e.g. the bot could also handle the blanking of submissions pages? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

I have a question. When an article get's delisted for GA, do you lose the points? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be wise for it not to count for points if it was one that you got points for in the current round. After all, it's now not a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There's technically no rule for it, but I would be inclined to say that, if it was delisted in the same round, we would remove the points. For instance, it sometimes happens that a hasty or inexperienced reviewer promotes something with obvious problems, and then it is demoted. If the points were gained in a previous round, we aren't going to "punish" you by removing points from something else (perhaps even putting you into minus numbers!) but, at the same time, I doubt strongly that we would allow you to claim points for promoting the article for a second time. I guess we'd have to play it by ear. Is there something in particular that has prompted this? J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality of GA Review problems

I need to bring this up because this does jeopardize who wins 2nd place in this competition. Reading the reviews of 1949 Pacific hurricane season, Hurricane Huko and most recently Tropical Storm Hazel (1965), all written by currently second place User:Yellow Evan, I've noticed very unsuitable reviews as none analyzed much of the GA criteria and were just a list of problems to fix (not all of which were). I remember back when I competed in the Cup in 2009, I was penalized in the first round for a similar situation when User:Dough4872 was half-assing reviews on my GANs. All of my GANs done by him were demoted to 20 points (at the time it seemed unfair to me, but now I understand it). I only feel these really bad reviews to articles which really don't meet the GAN criteria really deserve Yellow Evan 2nd place at all, shouldn't go unpunished to be honest. I think some of these article aren't even B-class standards in some places and the reviews don't really come up to snuff. I would have brought this up earlier, but these reviews have only come in the last few days. This needs, personally, to be checked out, since if changes happen it may get User:Sp33dyphil, who has worked his ass off all season, the second place he really deserves. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 03:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ohh, thanks for the praise Mitch. I have been working my ass off, but the praise should be directed at Hurricanehink -- he's at the top for a reason! As for YE, I hope you had a fun time, I do think that your articles are really good (I did review one of his GANs, although I haven't had a look at them all), and that you don't feel discouraged if people think your articles aren't up to GA standards yet. Whatever are the outcomes, only Wikipedia can win. --Sp33dyphil © • © 04:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take in the criticism as, well, constructive criticism. If you have any advice on how to improve my GA reviews further, just post it! And there's no requirement that I have to go "1a: Blah. 2b: Blah blibbity blah. 3a: Blah blibbity blah blah." HurricaneFan 25 12:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I removed all three articles from my submissions page, so now Sp33gyphil can get 2nd and I can get 3rd. I agree myself that those three article where not the best GA reviewed,. And to Sp33dyphil, the article your reviewed was probably my best article I'v ever done. Yes, I did have a fun time, and don't worry I'm not that discouraged. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Evan, thank you, that was very diplomatic of you, and solves this issue neatly. Hopefully, the remaining issues with the articles can be fixed up and they can be nominated for review outside of the Cup. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!

To both HurricaneHink for winning, and to the competitors and judges! Looking forward to next year. Reso lute 01:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It was a great time, and I was thrilled to work with so many great editors. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Congrats, HurricaneHink! Well done! And a huge THANK YOU to judges for their hard work. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cooperation with WP:NARA

Available titles

BIG!: Big Records, Big Events, and Big Ideas in American History, 2009

School House to White House: The Education of the Presidents, 2007

The Public Vaults Unlocked: Discovering American History in the National Archives Exhibition Catalogue, 2005

Hello all, I'm the Wikipedian in Residence at the US National Archives. Since the WikiCup is such a success, I was wondering if there is any way we can work together to help recognize the work of editors who would like to improve content related to NARA's holdings in the 2012 WikiCup. Obviously, I don't want to compromise the integrity of the competition by asking that anyone get extra points for working on NARA-related content, but I would like to offer additional rewards to editors who choose to improve content related to the National Archives. I am very flexible about what form this could take, but I'm imagining a grand prize for whoever gets the most points for NARA-related content, and/or prizes for any editor who writes a GA/FA-level article. Available prizes include several of the glossy, hardcover books (priced at ~$30) from the gift shop, along with other goodies like reproduction parchment Constitutions, National Archives chocolates and temporary tattoos, and pencils and tote bags branded with the Archival Research Catalog logo.

I interpret "NARA-related content" broadly, meaning essentially anything that requires documents, especially images, from the National Archives to write. As part of the ongoing collaboration, the National Archives is uploading media to Wikimedia Commons, which includes over 100,000 images so far, on a range of topics—not just military and politics, but images related to the environment and daily life, indigenous people, science, civil rights, and art. You can see files uploaded so far at Category:Media contributed by the National Archives and Records Administration, or search the catalog.

How do people feel about this idea? Dominic·t 21:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I love the idea. Speaking as a WikiCup judge, I love the idea. It's a great incentive to offer that won't, as you say, compromise the integrity of the competition. I'm all for it. How long will you remain a WP-in-Residence? (the 2012 competition starts in Jan and goes to October).Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. :-) My time here ends in a couple of months, as I will return to school in the spring, though I may stay on in some capacity (as in, not on-site or full-time). Logistically speaking, though, I can take care of any needed preparation before I leave and NARA staff in the social media team can send the prizes once I am gone, so that's no problem. Dominic·t 14:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be open to the possibility of a special NARA prize. Just for reference, it would perhaps be best to give the prize to the person who works on the most NARA stuff in a single round, so as not to give those who last until the later rounds an unfair advantage. That's how we work many of our prizes. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Statistics?

Thanks again to all participants and judges. I was hoping the final newsletter would reveal the total number of GAs, DYKs, FAs, etc. generated by the competition. Can I request a newsletter with this information, or at least be directed to a page that might contain these details? I'd love to know the results of our collective hard work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

How about [2]? (Note that the "Multipliers" column refers only to official and not unofficial syntax, so is considerably off.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Great--thanks! I had not seen this link in a while. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

some analysis of Wikicup

See here: PowerPoint: Wikipedia's poor treatment of its most important articles

Main topic was not the Cup, but I did do a section on it. FYI. 69.255.27.249 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This does not work for me. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It did for me. There is a fair bit of discussion at WT:FAC on the report. A quick summary of this slideshow is that it argues Wikipedia is too focused on getting obscure topics to FA/GA at the expense of vital topics (defined as either that on WP:VITAL or those with high page views). TCO's argument was that WikiCup does not actually encourage greater coverage of trivial topics. Our promotion rates of "trivial" articles (as he defines them) is actually proportional to the overall rates. He does lament that while some efforts were made to increase interest in vital articles last year, the bonus multiplier had negligible effect.

To respond to one of your specific Cup comments, TCO - "Interestingly, WCers were vastly more likely to work on GAs than FAs" - while a FA was valued at 100pts, and a GA at 30, you overlooked the fact that multiple nominations are permitted at GAN, but not at FAC. If I sat down and focused, I could probably bang off 10 GA nominations on Hockey Hall of Famers in the same time that a single FAC on one would take. Reso lute 21:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes,that is a difference of GA and FA. The queue is one of the inherent brakes on produciton of FAs (not the only one). Interesting how it interacts with a timed competition as well. I was assuming it was the actual work required, but maybe it is just this aspect of the unlimited or limited queue. One other thing to consider though is that while WC did come out with a similar pattern of article popularity GA to GA, FA to FA; by concentrating on GAs, WC is favoring low relevance topics...since GA has a much lower average (or media) popularity than FA.TCO (reviews needed) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it goes without saying that writing a GA is easier than an FA, so your assumption is not without merit. Also, the backlog in some areas of GAN is currently running at two months - but that is mitigated by the fact that multiple noms are allowed. And I would agree in general that GA tends to focus more on specialized (or "low relevance, if you prefer) topics, but that is not a flaw with the Cup so much as it is a reflection on the fact that there is less incentive to work on general ("high relevance") topics on Wikipedia/GAN/FAC as a whole. Reso lute 21:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My views and responses on the subject are here. Much easier for me to make this a link than to cross-post same text to multiple areas! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree. You can get Science to FA, it's just very difficult. FARC #1b and #1c could apply to it, because the article should be a detailed survey of Science in general, not everything that comprises science. So, if we had a larger multiplier, more vital articles [appended: by which I don't mean WP:VITAL per se, but whatever metric you wish to use] we do create actionable incentives to improve tricky articles, at least in the later rounds where progressing is difficult, whilst avoiding much of the criticism of TCO's slides viz. that they tell contributors their contributions aren't welcome and they should be working on something else. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Edited 13:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, the anti-TCO backlash on this one illustrates that it is possible to set the multiplier too high and make people less interested in competing at all, I guess. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 13:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant impossible to get the breadth and depth of coverage suggested, within the length of an acceptable FA. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

... a lot of people, I think, myself included, aren't actually motivated by cups. Maybe I'm getting too old? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I took you to mean. My point was, just because Science as a category is broad, the article science is not necessarily unmanageable. You just look for sources which address science as a whole. And yes, not everyone is motivated by competitions with only honour on offer. But the general consensus is that some people are. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Similar to what I discussed last year as a potential multiplier for super high page views (though I think the current one for # of Wikis the article is on works also). I put it a little more bluntly (saying even relatively unimportant articles like Miley Cyrus are worth improving if many people see them because that's a face of Wikipedia that a great many people see). It's a "tree falls in the woods, no one there to hear it" kind of problem. If Wikipedia has the best ever coverage of trains, roads, hurricanes, and mushrooms but terrible articles on the broader subjects people read, will the project survive? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- yeah, but we already multiply Miley Cyrus. That's why I really like our interwiki metric: it captures both "(academic) importance" and "popular appeal". - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I didn't mean to sound like I was taking a position on the Cup, I was just agreeing with the general tone of the OP article. Importance/appeal of the subject matters. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

An interesting counterpoint someone brought up at WT:FAC, Staxringold - if you're looking for information on some obscure hurricane, the wikipedia article not only has everything you need, but is probably the only comprehensive resource that exists. If you're looking for information on Miley Cyrus, WP is just one of a million different websites that will tell you what you need to know. More obscure articles may be objectively unimportant, but relatively crucial. --Pres N 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

One concern about that is there are bazillion of those obscure topics. It's really not like you're choosing to take the entire class of them to FA, but only just a tiny amount of them. And the vast amount of people searching on obscure topics are still going to come to non-quality articles (you're not really impacting the overall reader experience).TCO (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Readers are not a homogeneous group however, J Milburn has some salient points below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, but if that were actually how Wikipedia was used the view count would reflect it. All that matters towards the point I'm making is hundreds of thousands of pairs of eyes see our Miley Cyrus article while only a few hundred see one of those hurricanes in a month. So even though other sources provide the same information you're still improving the project's image to a greater # of people by making Miley Cyrus look better. It's like spending money making the lobby of your building look nice as opposed to a broom closet, fix what people see. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Page views really aren't the measure people like to pretend they are. If 500 13 year olds look up The Girl Group's latest song "I Luv U" because this was the top Google result when they were looking for an MP3, while 50 undergrad students look up the 1312 Battle of Bobbin Hill because they know Wikipedia will provide a good overview from which they can find more specific sources, I think I know which article is more important to the encyclopedia, and it's not the one with ten times more page views. J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, not talking about importance to the project, talking about the image of the project. Showing a FA/GA quality article to 500,000 people impacts more minds than showing a FA/GA quality article to 500. It may impact those 500 more deeply on average (depending on subject), but still. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, "but still"? Is that some catch all meaning "you make a good point but let's ignore it for some reason"? 5,000 13 year olds are going to be upset with our article on Justin Bieber because there aren't enough pictures and MP3 downloads- if you're really concerned about impressing the kids, get some MP3s up, and cut out all that boring writing with the long words. I'd wager that a great number of those who find themselves reading that article are not actually looking for an encyclopedia article as we understand it. Page views may be a useful indication of some things (for instance, they're clearly quite helpful with regards to judging the interest generated by DYK hooks) but this claim, whatever it actually is (as it seems to change an awful lot) is really not the Holy Grail some people (TCO) think it is (but, of course, I'm in arbitrary group x based on arbitrary criterion y, so fuck my opinion. It also means I can be quoted without attribution. Any decent person would have attributed a quote, "but still"). J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this is a bit of a rationalization from writers of trivia. Step back and ask yourself if you could spend money to get articles written, which you would do. Would it really be more low pri hurricanes and mushrooms? Or if you had to lose an FA at FAR, does the loss feel like it hurts more if Lion dies or the some mouse that we've never heard of, that has been reported on by one researcher

(1) Are the readers of Frank Bladin 1000 times more worthwhile than the readers of Queen Victoria (see new slide in deck)? In the abscense of such knowledge, I think going off of page views and assuming readers equally importance makes more sense...IOW, you have not really proved your proposition, just said "maybe it is so". Also, I think the "reader importance" is really covered by the aspect of subjective importance (Einstein over Gaga) which is already in our Vital lists or even project importance rankings. And we can easily think of comparisons (hobbyist train stations versus Ernest Hemingway) where the "our readers are more important" is the opposite.
(2) Again, you are not getting ALL the obscure topics to FA/GA. There are still a VAST, VAST number that are not. Much more so than with big topics. So the average reader coming here is not suddenly having an exerience of all his small topics being to FA. It's very unlikely that he finds one. The let's have something is really an argument for having a mass of stubs, not for polishing a very tiny fraction of the obscure topics. You really are not making the readers have their experience of trivial be excellent...but doing something for the writer to have won some awards.
(3) I would not be so sanguine about readers finding easy information on the big topics. Yes, good treatments exist in books, but on the net, we probably don't find a long, well-referenced bio of a notable person anywhere but here. Yeah, you can get a bit from some hobbyist page, but it lacks notes and probably has about a Start class amount of info. And even for the obscure, you can often find good treatment in books as well (buying Ernst would give me a several hundred page book on turtles that blows away Wiki). Or if you look at Uca's FAs, many of them are almost all from a single paper (you could just go read that paper, it exists).

TCO (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO, you responded to my anger about your labelling by labelling me. Shame on you. Have you considered doing something more productive with your time? I've no doubt that a lot of what I write is trivia; pop culture crap and obscure species. Note that the following examples are all my own articles. Despite the lack of page views, I've no doubt that Auricularia auricula-judae (sadly currently only a GA) or Fomitiporia ellipsoidea (FA) are subjects that are more important than Connie Talbot (FA). However, Talbot gets more page views than the other two combined. Ask yourself, which is most important- a fungal species which has a long history of medicinal and food use that is a recognisable regular in many woodlands, a fungal species noted for being the biggest in the world (placing it alongside blue whales and redwoods) or a 10 year old who appeared in a TV talent show and now releases albums that don't chart? (This is a rhetorical question; I've no doubt you'd not answer it anyway, or the fact I'd ask it would prove that I'm a Champion Star-Hunter MegaNerd, but, regardless, this has fuck all to do with the WikiCup. Go away. Write some more articles about turtles- I'd be happy to offer some reviews, if you like. Rest assured that I thought you were a decent guy before all this shit, and I'd be happy to get back to that.) J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO, you'd make a lot more progress by avoiding digs at other people and being more prospective rather than retrospective. Really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/December 2011

You've probably all seen it, but just in case you're missing your competition fix- there is currently a competative GAN backlog elimination drive, which will be running throughout December. Signup, help out and have a bit of fun. If backlogs are cut down now, we may well get quicker reviews in WikiCup 2012 round 1. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)