Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2012/2

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.

Not sure if this is enough work this year to count

This is the work I've done in 2012 on List of accolades received by David Lynch. I wasn't going to count it because I had created it last year, but I had a look at the extra material that's been added and thought it might be worth looking into whether it's enough. If you asked me I'd probably say no, but sure it can't hurt asking. GRAPPLE X 12:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from experience from formatting tables using the rowspan etc type things for FL, I would say absolutely. Table formatting is a bloody tricky thing and quite time consuming. Miyagawa (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on the contribution history, it certainly looks like you have significantly contributed to the article this year. And table formatting can indeed be headache-inducing :-/ Ruby 2010/2013 20:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Help editing articles

Randomly going to plug here. I'm working on a number of articles I am planning to take to WP:DYK on my user space. They are linked on my user page. I'm waiting to nominate them until I can attend a match and get a picture to accompany many of the articles. If anyone is looking to pick up some Wikicup points, it would be great to get some of these articles copy edited a bit, the infoboxes including all medals, a few more sources added to the articles, etc. Articles are mostly about Australian field hockey (40 or so) or Australian softball. (about 20 or so.) I'm hoping to get them nominated in the next two weeks. (Need to get another 20 or so DYKs reviewed first.) --LauraHale (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup Records

After being inspired by GrappleX's tally so far this round, I thought people might be interested in seeing the WikiCup records of all time in any one round. If I've missed out someone's score, feel free to edit of course. Miyagawa (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall score: Sturmvogel_66 4300 (2010 Round 5)

Good articles: Sturmvogel_66 3320 (2010 Round 5)

Featured articles: Casliber 500 (2010 Round 4)

Featured lists: Staxringold 240 (2010 Round 1)

Featured pictures: Durova 1715 (2009 Round 4)

Featured portals: Sunderland06 25 (2009 Round 1)

Did you know?: TonyTheTiger 1020 (2010 Round 5)

In the news: Candlewicke 180 (2009 Round 4)

Featured topic: TonyTheTiger 225 (2010 Round 1)

Good topic: Sturmvogel_66 470 (2010 Round 5)

Ah, but the points systems change over time - surely the "all time" list should be by number of articles not points gained from them? (But the, multipliers?) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I totally need to step things up. GRAPPLE X 15:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My little place in WikiCup history is nowhere near as set as Durova or Sturmvogel's massive rounds, but still, *teary eyes* I'd like to thank the Academy... Staxringold _talk^contribs 12:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam access

Competitors (and editors in general) may be interested in seeing this: Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Gemma McCluskie DYK

Resolved

– No action necessary. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Gemma McCluskie. Given the gross error of judgement shown by User:Miyagawa in submitting this nomination, I ask that he be disqualified from the competition. Wikipedia policy and reputation should not be disregarded in this way, and if contributors can't understand this, the competition should be abandoned - I can see little benefit in such trivialing nonsense anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You're just running everywhere looking for a public hanging, aren't you? I certainly think the points for this DYK entry should be canceled since it was pulled and never should have been approved in the first place. But lacking a shown pattern of problems/abuse, I think your demands everywhere to topic ban users and shut down various processes are well over the top. Looking at Miyagawa's other submissions, I personally think your demand that they be disqualified is without merit. Hopefully the judges feel the same. Reso lute 17:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't say much more than Resolute here, but I'll defer to J if he has a different opinion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the McCluskie DYK from my submissions page based on the fact that it was pulled from the front page and therefore ineligible for the points in the spirit of the rules. Miyagawa (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Miyagawa, I think that's all we would have asked you for anyway. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, even though there were a few questionable judgement calls here, everything was done in good faith. Further, there is no history of disruption from Miyagawa; quite the opposite. The user in question has a long history of high-quality contributions and good sportsmanship. I don't think this needs to go any further. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it content improvement to post bad biology on main page

Nominator may have made a mistake -- oh well -- let's remember we're all friends here. IP, you need to assume better faith of people. Sarcasm and nastiness tend to undermine your points. Anyway, we're done here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Did you know ... that individual cellular slime mould cells are of two distinct mating types?"[1]

The most well-studied cellular slime mould has 3 mating types. It's not even known from the sources provided that Polysphondylium pallidum has 2 mating types.

The wrong DYKs are not corrected, either; the error reports are ignored. And, now, this hook has received main page exposure and is forever on the article talk page as a template because its originator is too busy creating more to correct this one.

Now, I have to battle the same WikiCup-hungry editor to drop this hook:

"Did you know ... that the male common midwife toad (pictured) carries his eggs around with him until they hatch?"[2]

Well, yes, he does, but so do all members of his genus--it's not a specific trait and should not be stated as one. It is a defining characteristic of the genus, maybe the subfamily.

This is bad biology.

How is bad biology "content improvement"? That's a rhetorical question. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The first hook has not been claimed for cup points, the second is not even eligible for cup points yet; as such I fail to see why this was brought up here and not somewhere more pertinent. GRAPPLE X 16:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

User page points list for DYK. and WikiCup totals for Pool H.

DYK isn't responsible and doesn't care about the error. Administrators monitoring main page errors don't care about the error. The editor who created the error, and the editor who approvied it don't care about it. In fact, it seems no one cares that Wikipedia is sending bad biology into cyberspace. So, I assume the pertinent place to bring it up is nowhere. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I used the "what links here" function for the nomination page; forgot that submissions use URLS instead of internal links. Is the problem with the article content or how the DYK hooks reflect the content? If it's the latter then it definitely is a DYK issue, if it's the former then I guess it's down to the cup runners to decide what to do here; though if there does seem to be any problem with the articles themselves then fixing that would seem a higher priority. I saw "slime mould" and Davd St. Hubbinsed out, so forgive me if I seem a bit circular. GRAPPLE X 17:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This would be something best brought up on the nominating users' talk page first, followed by here and possibly DYK, depending on how disillusioned you are with them (or not). Why, you ask? Because mistakes can happen. I once nominated an article for TFA thinking it was the ship's commissioning date, but it was actually the completion date – a fine distinction, but still a major mistake. No one noticed that one; maybe the outcome can be different here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Been there, tried that while the first article was on main page. The editor ignored me. Main page errors administrators ignored me. I'm now trying it with the second article to keep it off of the main page. I posted on the template. The editor dismissed my protestations. I've posted on his talk page. I assume he will ignore me there. He's combative about maintaining his mistakes in article space and getting his bad hooks kept, scored, and maintained after the fact. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the article, battling its promoter to do so. I posted on his talk page, on the main page errors page, on the article talk page, but no one would remove the wrong hook. Now, when I go to the article, or when any reader goes to the article, then clicks on the talk page, there is the bad biology. When you go to the DYK archives, there is the bad biology throughout--it should be removed from the archives. It should be removed from Wikipedia. But it's not--it's everywhere.

Every time WikiCup comes up the number of just wrong facts (and plagiarisms) posted on the main page skyrockets. And no one on Wikipedia ever bothers to correct the wrong facts.

This hook was created fast for WikiCup competition. It should have been corrected fast. The articles are not being corrected except by IP editors who are being ignored and who cannot remove bad biology from the main page. When the sources say something other than what is on the main page, this is an urgent problem. Someone has to stop passing this off to anyone else, anyplace else. Bad biology belongs no where on Wikipedia. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The article writer hasn't been online since you posted all this, and it appears that there is a bit of ambiguity in how many mating types there are. The toad has a correct fact in it, and I don't read it as a defining characteristic, just something interesting about them. You're making a storm out of a teakettle here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is used in the hook to describe the species, and this does not describe the species, it describes the genus. A description of a species is not just a random fact that looks good on the main page, it differentiates the species from other members of the genus. I offered an alternative that uses the information correctly to describe the genus. This was dismissed because Cwm could not find the information.

Yes, of course it's a storm out of a teakettle to have everywhere on templates in archives on user pages on article talk pages that slime moulds have two mating types, after all, as you correctly point out, there is ambiguity in the number of mating types in this one species, so there might be ambiguity in the number of mating types in other cellular slime moulds, and there might be two mating types in some cellular slime moulds. There might also be three as is common in other cellular slime moulds. And the hook said there are two mating types in cellular slime moulds, not in this species, but well, there might be two mating types in some species of cellular slime moulds, and the number in this species is ambiguous, so calling it a random number is fine, as it could possibly be true.... Reliable sources? Random guesses at possibilities? What's the difference.his

68.107.141.42 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

But the species is a member of the genus, and therefore an accurate description of a property of the genus is an accurate description of a property of the species. It's only "wrong" if we include your implicit assumption that a given taxon must be described solely in terms of its synapomorphies. That might be appropriate in a specialist context, but I don't think it's appropriate for a generalist encyclopedia. (The slime molds are overgeneralization, which is a different story.) Choess (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, once more, while striving to obtain the mundane (and succeeding), Wikipedia WikiCup-DYK again produces a species article and accompanying hook that misses the most interesting and unique aspect of the organism, or rather its genus, as the fact is about the genus, not the species. What is it about Wikipedia, this protection, this fight, this battle for mediocrity? And the main page announcements of it? And, still, Wikipedia continues to spew throughout cyberspace the information it created out of nothing, news to the world, but not for long as Wiki mirrors continue to help the truly original research of Cwm into cellular slime mould mating types, many of which will find their mating choices eliminated from the horizon. I tried this time, after a couple of years of watching main page garbage, to correct something, and administrators ignored the problem, editors who created the problem ignored it, and now, I'm going to be Wikilawyered to death about it. On the plus side, you can use the same hook for all 5 or so species and the genus! Once more, this is why experts don't edit Wikipedia, because facts are not wanted. I will continue to share and post and enjoy Wikipedia's ridiculous biology on my bulletin board, for that I thank WikiCup. But, enough, however, whatever. Whatever. 17:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit overwhelmed by this unjustified attack. I have been submitting a number of species accounts to DYK because I am trying to earn points for the WikiCup. I source each article carefully and the articles and their hooks are scrutinised before being approved for DYK. In the above instances, the study on slime moulds that I used mentioned that there were 2 mating types and I used that fact in the hook. If a later study found there were 3, I was unaware of it at the time. I thought it remarkable that such a simple organism had more than one mating type. With regard to the midwife toad, the hook fact is correct and not "bad biology". Please stop attacking me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Your hook says cellular slime moulds have two mating types. But you Wikilink to Polysphondylium pallidum, the article you improved. P. pallidum is one type of cellular slime mould. It's like saying "Big cats have mane." Lions have manes, not all big cats have manes. You wrote an article about P. pallidum and your hook should have been about P. pallidum (although it would have been wrong, then, also--at least according to your sources). Instead, you posted a hook about cellular slime moulds--which don't have two mating types, it depends upon the species. Did you research anything about cellular slime moulds? Do you even know the difference between a cellular slime mould and Polysphondylium pallidum?

And, it's also a toad. How about that as a hook? Why not just use the hook I offered? Oh, yeah, we have to make up biology on Wikipedia in order to score points for WikiCup. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you don't know what a mating type is. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And you didn't use a study on slime moulds. You used one study on Polysphondylium pallidum and another on a couple of species of Polysphondylium. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

March Newsletter

Just wanted to point out a slight error in that the newsletter states that File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg was mine. It's not entirely true. It was based on a map drawn by User:Grandiose, and I edited it to meet the WPMAP conventions, fixed a few things, and in the process ended up uploading a couple of different variations. One of which was eventually promoted. So congrats to Grandiose also. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I really should have noticed that. I'll mention it in the next newsletter. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Review request

Hi everyone. I posted an article (2007 Monte Carlo Rally) at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews for DYK/GA review yesterday, but I'm a but worried that it still won't get reviewed in time for me to collect points by the 28th. If there's a kind soul willing to review it I'd appreciate it. Without it I'm out but with it, I'm still in with a chance. Thanks :) Matthewedwards : Chat 14:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Pwetty pwease? :) Matthewedwards : Chat 05:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dropping out

I'm sorry, but I have to drop out. I was hoping to do as well in the cup this year if not better than last year, but sadly, that is not the case. as I have not felt like editing much the past few months. However, I plan to be back next year. Good luck to other WPTC participants. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've withdrawn you- see you again next year! J Milburn (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bonus points

For the past two months I have been collaborating with Casliber on improving Western Jackdaw. It has just been passed as a GA and is now a FA candidate. We both submitted the article for WikiCup points at least two days ago. Casliber has been awarded the bonus points and I have not. Could someone please investigate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

He's almost certainly watching this page but it may be worth bringing this to the attention of User:Jarry1250. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see! It's a sort of manually operated bot is it? I'm not worried about the points, I have sufficient to progress to the next round, but more the principle of the thing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it's all automatic, but bots are only as intelligent as their authors (in this case me) make them :P Here, it was baffled by the page move (if you'd have claimed under Jackdaw it would have given you the full complement of points). I don't think it'll be worth coding for that, rather, we need to rely here on the bot's stupidity getout clause: it won't overrule a human editor. Thus it's possible to modify your own multiplier to fix any bot error. Admittedly that looks a bit dodgy, so it would be better to appeal here (as you did in fact do) and wait for someone else to verify the bot's error. (Incidentally, JMilburn fixed Casliber's multiplier for him a couple of days ago - the bot doesn't do favouritism, don't worry :) - if it did I'd probably do better in this competition...) Sorry for the mixup, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that, I modified Casliber's bonus thanks to a comment he left on the Scoring talk page- I didn't notice that you were claiming for it as well. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Western Jackdaw is now a Featured Article, put forward by Casliber and myself, and the multiplier has not been added to my submissions by your bot. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- How odd that this has happened again. Perhaps the bot doesn't like it when two people are claiming bonus points... I've updated it manually- let's see if that works. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is because the name of the article was changed from "Jackdaw" to "Western Jackdaw" a few months ago and the bot, quite correctly, does not think "Western Jackdaw" was present on other Wikipedias at the start of the year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right. As I say, I could code for this eventuality, but it hardly seems worth the bother. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Rules for allowed flags

Can somebody point me to where the rules for which flags the participants can chose for themselves are posted? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

They were on the signup page, visible here. They were written because, amazingly, the much more liberal approach adopted previously led to drama. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. That's what I recall. But I see at least two participants using flags that I'd like to receive a clarification on whether they are appropriate (Byzantine Empire, Cherokee Nation). For the record, I have no problem with those flags, but and I preferred the old liberal rules, but I'd like to understand why those two are fine under the rules as cited? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm using the flag of a political movement, which has never been a nation; so that would probably be more problematic than a former nation and a cultural nation. However, I'd say that "political entity" would definitely cover the Cherokee Nation, and the Byzantine Empire would probably fall under the "and so on" category. I think the rules are really meant to just clarify the earlier liberal approach rather than to be hard and fast constraints. GRAPPLE X 17:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the word "extant" from the instructions, I think, sadly forbids historical entities. I guess Cherokee Nation is a valid flag, as it still exists, but as far as know, Byzantine Empire does not. I don't see how it would be controversial, but as I am aware that similar flags were forbade in the past, I am curious if the interpretation has changed (and if so, I'd like my flag to be changed to that of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as I originally intended). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I took "extant" to be mean "real" or "having existed" as opposed to "currently active"; in that it advises against creating your own flag or using something from fiction. I'd see no issue with you using the Polish-Lithuanian flag. GRAPPLE X 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really pay attention to which flags were and were not being used, assuming that what I had written was unambiguous. Why this inevitably leads to upset is beyond me. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For reference, if you strongly feel that you would rather have that flag than your current one, and you, in good faith, do not believe that it is a flag that might reasonably upset anyone (I really have no idea) then I have no great objection to you making the change. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad to hear that I might have simply misunderstood the meaning of the word "extant". In how many places would I have to change the flag icon? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally meant "extant" in the way you did. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3 would probably be the only place. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Tables for Round 2

I created a few lists and hope I did not count anything wrong.

--Stone (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm making a couple of quick checks as we speak- some of those points may be changed ever so slightly. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just one- if you could update your lists, that'd be great. As ever, thanks for doing this! J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The five Wrestlinglover, Albacore, Cyclonebiskit, Khanassassin, Gobonobo should get a closer look, they were all very close at the boarder of getting in or being eliminated.--Stone (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about points from round to round

If, hypothetically, in Round 1 a participant got a 1,000 points, but they got 0 in round, would they had passed? In other words, do points carry from round to round, or are they wiped each round? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

They're wiped; the consensus was that keeping them over would mean that it would be possible to rack up an insurmountable lead by March, which wouldn't be good for the competition. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so that explains the flood of content swamping GANs and FANs come the latter rounds. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless you believe that the content is substandard, then that's hardly a bad thing. "Oh no, there's so much quality content, we can't handle it." J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty certain the statistics don't bear that out; this year, for which I can be certain, GANs declined slightly between rounds 1 and 2 - mitigated by the fact that round 1 includes several inactive or very lowscoring editors. In previous years I'm certain that nominations go down; half as many editors can't keep doubling their output. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Table isn't updating

It hasn't updated since 9pm on the 19th June, and it's not 11pm on the 20th June. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oddities

hello,

I just looked at the subpages for fun until I found an error in Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2012/Round 2: I think the bot confused the columns, as I had two DYKs and no GTs. Also I hope it calculated everything correctly... Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 10:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It put my DYKs into the GT column (and for many other people as well) and I know I had more points than that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a mistake made by the bot, as can be seen here; there must have been some kind of mistake while copying it across. I'll correct it. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated; the DYK issue has been solved. Muboshgu, this doesn't fix the score concern, but, comparing to your submissions page at the time, that seems accurate 612 seems accurate. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh duh, I was thinking of Round 3. Yes that's right for Round 2. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

May I...

Request a pool next time that doesn't have everyone but one person advancing to the next round? Gees... talk about tough competition! (Very much meant this as humorous ... I'm enjoying myself greatly...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry...

...about the comparative lateness of the update this time round. We should be good to go now! J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

How about a WikiGnome cup?

For those of us who aren't writers of fantastic articles, but are the ones who go around spellchecking them.

Have a cup where the only thing that counts is actual edits, say:

1 point for a major edit
0.1 points for a minor edit
0.01 points for a huggle-assisted edit.

Essentially, something that's the irect inverse of the main cup right now, but could potentially run alongside it. Crisis.E X E 18:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This is essentially what the WikiCup was in 2007-8; edit counts were still eligible for points come 2009, but they were removed prior to the 2010 competition (here's the straw poll, if you're interested- there was a lot of discussion prior to this). It's something that's proposed for this competition occasionally, but the general consensus is that it's not wanted. Now, for your proposal, I fear that such a competition would come under more fire than the WikiCup does currently for encouraging editcountitis; at least with the WikiCup, we're encouraging content creation. I also worry that not so many would choose to take part. If you do choose to go ahead with it, I warn you that the various WikiCup spin-offs, even WikiCups on other Wikipedias, have generally not amounted to much. J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, there'd be monitoring of the users to make sure that they're doing actually useful edits, and not blatant dickery (like what I, admittedly, tried in the 2009 cup by fixing 180 redirects from "prog rock" to go to "progressive rock") Crisis.E X E 05:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a huge amount of work. But my primary objection has always been that it would directly affect my edit system, which is annoying. Sometimes I do single edits with a lot of work in; sometimes short. But if we were scoring them in the back of my mind that I should be doing the latter, at the risk of going out the Cup (which means a little something to me). I already consider proposing work on articles, normally I can fight it off - but it's really annoying. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

2013 Signups

Is there even going to be a 2013 WikiCup? If the answer is yes, any news about signups? Sorry for my rudeness. Us441 (talk to me) (My piece) 17:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm, it's still August. Signups wouldn't be until something like November. --Pres N 18:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

One year, signups for the next years WikCup were opened in May, so they are should be started ASAP IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There will be a 2013 WikiCup, but we're only two thirds of the way through 2012. I'll put it on my mental to-do list; I'll try to have some bits and pieces started for the next newsletter. J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This year's sign-ups began last October, shouldn't be too much hassle to stick to that timetable I guess. GRAPPLE X 21:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Could the WikiCup be better publicised? I didn't know it existed until January 2012 when it came to my attention from a chance remark on the DYK discussion page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be in favour of placing a note on the main page, like the German Wikipedia often does. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no way it'd go on the main page, but I am completely open to any suggestions of where to advertise. I generally try to publicise it through userpages (userboxes and the like)/user talk pages (newsletters and the like), on the talk pages of processes like FAC and through the Signpost. In the past, IRC and noticeboards have also been used. I'm honestly not sure where else there is, short of mass-spamming of WikiProjects/usertalk pages. J Milburn (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(undent) We get enough people competing, I think. A more usual complaint is that we're stepping on people's toes. I think JM's on the right path. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Flag Proposal

To counter systematic bias, I propose that all American competitors' flags be changed to the flag of the United States, and that all those in the United Kingdom have their flags changed to the flag of the United Kingdom. Using the territorial flags is completely unnecessary. Pokajanje|Talk 19:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is it biased to let American or British contributors use their state/country flag, exactly? Toa Nidhiki05 (iPod) (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't do it for any other nations. Sasata doesn't have the flag of his province/territory. Piotrus doesn't have the flag of his Voivodeship—<sarcasm>after all, that might be confusing to our readers, so it's out of the question!</sarcasm> Furthermore, national flags are more easily recognizable than state flags, and let the average viewer know that all but one of our still-competing contributors are American or British. Pokajanje|Talk 19:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That nobody chose to do it does not mean nobody is allowed to do it. I used the Flag of Alberta the first year I competed as they had a rule then that required each participant's flag be unique. I shifted up to the Canadian flag when that rule was dropped. Maybe next year, I'll use the City of Calgary's flag. Dunno yet. The flag icons are just an avatar. There is not necessarily any real meaning behind them. Particularly, don't assume that the flag used represents the nationality or location of the participant. Reso lute 19:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Sasata and Piotrus choose to use their country flag, just as I prefer to use the flag of the UK rather than any subnational entity (have you asked them?). We deregulated this all in the hope of avoiding disputes, which took up like half the discussion about all the cup. Somehow you've managed to make it controversial again. There's no rule you have to from or in any way related to the country, I competed under the German flag for no real reason. I am saddened that this is an issue. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even using a territorial flag. Just let each user pick any flag they want to represent themselves and be done with it. GRAPPLE X 21:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's up the individual and no one has the right to say which flag they can and cannot use. I live in England, and I am English, so I used the St. George Flag. Using the Union Jack categorises someone from England along with Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and some people may not like that. AARON• ^TALK 21:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If the flag were meant to be a representation of the user's location, then our current practice would indeed be biased. Now I see it is not, but perhaps this should be made clearer to prevent other, similar mistakes? Pokajanje|Talk 15:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this really being made an issue? The bias here is that the average English Wikipedian is "(1) male, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) aged 15–49, (6) from a majority-Christian country, (7) from a developed nation, (8) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (9) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than employed as a labourer." Banning subnational flags from the US and UK is not going to change that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A few points: Firstly, those who are not in the US or UK are free to use regional flags from their respective regions, just as some of those from the US or UK do. That would seemingly quash the idea that we are currently biased. Secondly, you claim that "national flags ... let the average viewer know that all but one of our still-competing contributors are American or British." TWO of our remaining competitors are flying flags that are neither American nor British (Grapple X's flag is for an organisation/league based in Ireland and Sasata is flying a Canadian flag). Despite that, there is nothing preventing people flying flags of nations/entities with which they are not affiliated; I flew a Manx flag when I competed, and I have never visited the Isle of Man. There is not even any requirement that we identify our nationality when editing- it is known that I am British/English, for instance, only because I have chosen to reveal that fact. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to admit I overlooked Sasata or I'd have jumped on that point earlier; Sasata is, according to their userpage, Canadian, while I'm an Irishman. If the person pushing for national flags doesn't understand nationalities well enough to count them then I'm not sure they're putting forward the best possible case. GRAPPLE X 17:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sasata is a he, but, on the note of systemic bias, we do have multiple female finalists this year, while last year the final eight were all male. J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already conceded my proposal as flawed. Please stop refuting me and answer the question in my previous comment. Pokajanje|Talk 21:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean to the person signing up? Or somebody chancing upon the competition in general? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

To anyone. Pokajanje|Talk 21:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not that confusing at all. Pick a flag to use as a representative icon; like a forum avatar, etc; and that's the start and end of it. GRAPPLE X 21:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair on the OP, I think they meant someone who stumbles on the cup. OK, so I might not be German or JM Manx, but a visitor's not going to know that. So the question is whether if they assumed that they were strictly tied to the competitor's nationality, would that matter? In response, I think probably not. But it is a different question. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I still doubt that it would, especially as not all of the flags are of national or subnational entities; I'm using the flag of a language league and I'm pretty sure the flags of Mars Byzantines have been bandied about too. GRAPPLE X 21:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Pokajanje, I'm afraid I can't answer your question, as I am not completely sure what you perceived our current practice to be, or what would make it biased. You pick a flag, you fly under it. The flag has absolutely no bearing on the way the competition progresses, the content you work on, the pool's you're placed in, anything. What is unclear? (As an aside, I've put forward the suggestion before that we do away with the flags altogether- it seems that, however we do it, there is some upset. It just feels like more trouble than it's worth, sometime.) J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Replace them with free images, with the disclaimer that they will be used at a tiny size and so should look okay at that scale; but with no actual rule about that bit. GRAPPLE X 12:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Potential trademark issues? I don't think we could have someone competing under the Coca Cola logo... J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless some of us are in for a pleasant surprise, I don't believe there's any profitability in competing in the cup, using a logo like that would be just as kosher as using it in an article. Not an expert here, mind, but I had assumed trademarks only applied in actual trade. GRAPPLE X 19:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Pyrenean Desman

Can someone double check the multiplier on Pyrenean Desman? I make it that it's in more than 20 different languages but didn't get a multiple bonus on my submission page. I double checked the most recent edit from last year, and it was still in 20 languages then too. Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've done that- apologies for the delay. It's possible it wasn't counted because there were 20 Wikipedias including the English, as opposed to 20 interwiki links. Either way, it's definitely eligible for double points. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, that's a good point. I've updated the script to recognise 19/49/99 interwikis as a qualifying score, but I can't think of a really easy way to backdate the change. Do you think anyone will have been incorrectly scored as a result of this? I'd have expected them to query it, really, as is the case here (sorry!). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd hope they would have noticed it/mentioned it- there'd be no point backdating for earlier rounds anyway. I suppose the wording on the scoring page is a little ambiguous. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for the historical record, I always understood the rules correctly, I just didn't program the bot correctly...! Thus, I'm happy to go back and look at/fix things retroactively, but I can't see anything that would be gained at this point in time really. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Bot down

Hi all. You may have noticed that the bot isn't updating scores as it should be; I am trying to resolve the issue but in the meantime given where we are in this year's competition, you may want to use this link to trigger the bot manually if it hasn't run in a while. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

DYKs held until November

Hello, I have some DYKs that either are approved (Template:Did you know nominations/Michelle Lujan Grisham, Template:Did you know nominations/Shelli Yoder, and Template:Did you know nominations/Luke Messer) or should soon be approved (Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Kildee) that won't run until after November 6, since the articles are on active candidates in the US elections. There's also Template:Did you know nominations/Innocence of Muslims, which is being held indefinitely due to the highly charged nature of the two contained articles. All of them are in DYKs special holding area, and I'd like them to count to my final round score. What's the process here? Thanks for running the competition. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Takano and Template:Did you know nominations/Val Demings. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If they've been reviewed and held then I'd see no problem awarding points; frankly I don't like that the points are only claimed when the hook hits the main page rather than being reviewed or added to a queue; weeks can pass between review and main page appearance through absolutely no one's fault. GRAPPLE X 14:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. The cup rules say these should be okay given the circumstances. I'm just wondering if I should put through the ones with the check marks now or wait for J Milburn or The Ed to check them over first. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I haven't gotten any response from them, here or on their talk pages, I'm just gonna go ahead and put them through now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Cup

What is the WikiCup? I am not good at getting articles featured etc, so maybe a smaller competition, like edits(most amounts, etc).--Lucky102 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The experience of the WikiCup, an annual competition between English Wikipedians, has been that edit count is too easily gamed. Nevertheless, many WikiCup participants (particularly in the early rounds) have never had anything featured, but rely instead on things such as good article reviews, good articles, and DYKs, and can progress through later rounds with some thought and time, so all is not lost if you are considering participating. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 19:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I wonder what country I'll pick. Ireland and Australia are my choices.--Lucky102 (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, how come people don't represent their country, even if they live there, and it was available.--Lucky102 (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Some people just like a pretty flag. Heck, I went with the Principality of Sealand the first time I was in the cup. Miyagawa (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have suggestions for the 2013 WikiCup. If you are a significant contributor of a featured list or article or the nominator of a featured list or article and the featured list or article appears on the main page you get 20 points. --Lucky102 (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What does anyone think of these ideas?--Lucky102 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this was suggested a few years ago. However, the issue is that you don't really have to do anything to get something on the main page- it just happens. In that way, it's unlike passing FAC, or having a DYK appear. These indicate that the article meets certain key criteria. The "appear on the main page" criteria are identical to the FAC criteria. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe only if you nominated it, you get the points.--Lucky102 (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That would no doubt lead to a flood of nominations. Is this something Wikipedia particularly needs? J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you have to be a significant contributor and the nominator to get the points?--Lucky102 (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup

I just wanted to say a big thank you to the organisers of the WikiCup this year, its been extremely well run and I think the bonus points have really come into their own this season and changed (or at least highlighted) the types of articles that are improved because of the cup.

Plus from the looks of things, we're going to have the most exciting finish to a WikiCup yet - with ten days to go, I'm not yet sure who would of the top four is going to take it! Good luck to all! Miyagawa (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

'Organizer' (singular) would probably be more accurate. :-) J Milburn has done a fantastic job, in my opinion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Next year's scoring

Thanks to those who have already contributed; if people get a chance, there are still some polls and discussions open about points next year here. Concerning the ideas in the "other suggestions" section, if you like them, say- if you don't, say. I'm trying to gauge the views of the participants. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's it for another year!

Congratulations to Cwmhiraeth, our thoroughly deserving winner! Great work to all our finalists; this has been a fantastic year, and has seen some stunning achievements. A newsletter is being delivered now, and the other changes (such as prizes being awarded) will be made in the coming days. Hope you all had fun- what were your highlights? Anyone you were impressed by? J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, Cwmhiraeth! And a huge THANK YOU, once again, to the judges! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This was my first year in the Cup, and what an experience it was! Near the start of the final round I knew I wouldn't have much time to edit due to Grad School, but in the wake of Cwmhiraeth's amazing accumulation of points (truly, extraordinary), I wouldn't have stood a chance anyway! :) I will definitely be participating next year with the intent of expanding more "multiplier" articles. Thanks to the judges for the great work they've done so far. It can't be easy to maintain such a complicated process without inciting any major controversies. Ruby 2010/2013 16:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats. This year I am disappointed that I dd not make the finals yet alone win the cup. However, the Cup was still loads of fun. I will be in next year! Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good work everyone! Cup participants contributed a frighteningly large amount of quality content this year. Thank you all.

Can we also have a round of applause for J Milburn, who ran the contest so well this year? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats to Cwmhiraeth, and thanks to the judges and participants for another fine contest! Reso lute 14:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been away (with no internet access) for the last week, relaxing after the gruelling final round! Thank you for your congratulations and many thanks to J Milburn and Ed for an enjoyable and very efficiently run competition. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)