Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2016/1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How the judges will oversee the points table

Last year, I placed my name in this competition but was inactive throughout contest. This time I will try my best. One thing I want to clear out is how the judges will be able to cope out with the contributions of the participants and establish their positions? Thanks in advance. Ikhtiar H (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a bot which picks up the articles you list on your submission page and then automatically updates the table. The order in which the table is listed doesn't change, but you can sort it by the score as with any sortable table. Miyagawa (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I drastically forgot about bots in the fields of Wiki. Maybe that's because of my terrible silence in this community! Ikhtiar H (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect name

Hello! Would anyone be able to fix my name on the table and move my submission page, please? Both have me listed as YMJ94. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure about the policies around that, so I thought I would let the judges know. Thank you! MJ94 (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was my mistake. Oops. Thank you in advance for fixing it! :) MJ94 (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
MJ94 - Fixed.--Godot13 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Remind me: When can work have started?

There has to be substantial work after Jan 1, right? So I can't claim Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Your Motherland Will Never Forget even though it will close this year, because I finished work on it on the 27th of December, but can claim Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Women of Britain Say - "Go!" as the work on it finished today, and could, in future, claim File:Philippe Chaperon - Rigoletto - Original.jpg, because, while work on that commenced in 2015, substantial work will still be needed this year to finish the restoration.

Is my understanding correct? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That would be my understanding. "Substantial work" within 2016, which allows for some work before 2016 (so you can expand previously existing articles, etc) but if the only work was responding to a previously started nomination, it wouldn't count. (I won't be counting Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monroe Edwards/archive1 because I will not have done "substantial" work on it in 2016 (even though I'll probably be editing it in response to FAC concerns). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds about right, the key being substantial work in 2016...--Godot13 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
So then the submission Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2016/Submissions/SSTflyer should be disallowed as no work was done in 2016? Neekeem (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed two DYK submissions so far which do not qualify for 2016 Wikicup points. Both were nominated in 2015 and promoted either in December or January 1st. DYKs for the 2016 Wikicup probably should be nominated during 2016, unless significant work to satisfy reviewers has occurred in 2016...-Godot13 (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Two questions

I'm new to the WikiCup and am a little confused about what contributions count and how to submit them. Are only new articles allowed to be counted? Where are the submission pages? I would also recommend these be clarified and more links provided as I'm having quite a hard time finding these answers. Thanks for your help and I look forward to participating! Wugapodes (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes; your submission page is next to your name on the main WikiCup table. In order for a page to eligible, you must have done "significant work" on it this year, which does not necessarily mean that you have to have created it, but it does normally mean that you have had to have done work on it and then nominated it (normally in that order!) this year. (This is deliberately vague so that it can't be gamed.) Full details of the rules can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, or you can ask further questions here.

Score table missing?

Where is the score table? It doesn't seem to be working. Yoshi24517Chat Online 17:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed.  — Calvin999 17:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Bonus points bot not working right

Aside from GA reviews, which don't get any bonus points, the bot that awards bonus points has given 3x to all submissions (none of them qualify for that many bonus points, my own submission included). It needs to be fixed. AHeneen (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

First GA

Congratulations to AHeneen for the first good article of the competition, Eckwersheim derailment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Really? I don't see this as being any significant work done in 2016 other than the nomination? And man can you teach me the trick to getting it reviewed so fast? I have had a GAN sitting for MONTHS MPJ-US  02:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wikicup/Reviews. As for work in 2016, ≈3000 bytes were added this year, which seems a decent enough contribution. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct I did not notice that, I apologize. Good work. MPJ-US  03:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Will articles of 2015 be counted?

If one of my articles in 2015 is reviewed as a featured or good article now, will I get any points? And also do can provide the nomination link in my submission page, if not reviewed? Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ikhtiar; articles from previous years can count as long as you have done "significant work" on them this year. Normally, this means working on the page, nominating it and seeing it promoted in this year (though not necessarily all in the same round). I am not sure what you mean in the second part of your post, but you should not add a page to your submission page until it has been promoted (or, in the case of ITN/DYK, until it appears on the main page, or, in the case of good article reviews, until you have closed the review). More details can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, or please feel free to ask further questions here. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Josh Milburn! Your help is sufficient for me. Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

First DYKs

DYKs have been scored by The C of E (Melchior (Magi) and Balthazar (Magi)), and, a few hours later, Worm That Turned got credit for Christian Ramsay. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess that means I'm getting a mention in the monthly newsletter?! ;) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Women in music- editors needed!

Some of you may have seen that the Women in Red project is running a Women in Music World Virtual Edit-a-thon later in this month. This may be a great way to help focus your editing while participating in the WikiCup, especially if you're unsure of the kind of thing you want to write about, or are looking for a supportive atmosphere to help hone your editing skills. I'm always keen to see the WikiCup get involved in this kind of thing, and I commend the judges for already having arranged a link with the Year of Science project! Any interested editors would should take a look at the project pages linked. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Great idea! Thanks for the heads up. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Likewise, always looking for new subject matter to work on. Miyagawa (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Alas, the article I wrote on a female musician known as the "Lady in Red" would have been perfect for that, but I finished that article many moons ago. I'll join in on the edit-a-thon anyways if someone drops me a reminder. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2014

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2014 should be updated to show the winner and finalists.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

ITN question

In the hopes of avoiding potential conflict of interest, I figured I'd ask about ITN nominations. New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany was initially nominated to WP:ITN/C by Banedon and following discussion, I decided to post it on the main page. It was soon removed due to issues that turned out to be more significant than I thought. I took it upon myself to fix the article up a bit (added about 4 kB and gave a modest copyedit). Following additional edits from other editors, it was restored to the main page. First question: does my involvement as the initial posting admin, but not the restoring one after editing it, yield a COI that I should opt to not collect points on this? Second question: were my edits substantial enough to collect points if I'm allowed? Thanks in advance! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I claim GA credit for an article written in 2015 if I added 4000 char. of prose in 2016?

Can I claim Long War (mod)? I added ~4000 characters of prose in 2016 as part of the GA review, but everything else was written in 2015.

I won't be sour one way or the other, because I'm going to have more than enough points to get into the next round, but I figured I'd submit it for consideration anyways.

Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the requirement is that you added substantially to the article (not just a copyedit), not that all of the work to bring it to GA status was done in 2016. AHeneen (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonably significant addition...--Godot13 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


On Hold GAR

If an article review is kept on hold, will it be counted by the bot? Or do I have to wait till the full revision is complete? Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You have to wait until it is complete - if it isn't complete by the end of the round, then you can claim it during the following round. Miyagawa (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this is acceptable

I have had La Sombra (wrestler) listed as a GA candidate for months now, I will do a round of editing now that I've gotten some distance to the article work I did during the GAN prep. I am hoping to list it as part of the Wiki cup with the work I am doing before the review and all work from the review hopefully being "significant" enough. If this is a problem or if I don't think I actually did enough work on the article I will not put it up for GA Cup points if it passes GA. Just wanted to be up front and see if it's a problem. MPJ-US  04:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The judges have the final say. In my opinion, what you've done so far this year is not enough to claim points. You should not count on being able to make more changes to the article in response to the GA review, because the article should be at GA status before nominating it for GA. AHeneen (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
With the caveats that I'm not a judge and the rules probably don't give an exact cutoff on purpose, I think that the minimum for "enough work" should be 1,500 characters (net) of new prose. If 1,500 characters is enough for a DYK, and a DYK is enough work to earn points in this competition, it should be a workable measurement for enough new work on an existing article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The review is way down on the list of spors GANs so I could actually be out of the cup before it gets reviewed, heck at this rate it may be the 2017 cup ;-) While I wait I will be working on the article here and there, keeping it up to date revising sections here and there, source work and so on. If by the time it is actually passed for GA (if it passes) I will assess how much work I have actually done in 2016, if it's past the 1500-2000 k limit I will bring it up then, otherwise just be pleased with having a GA article on Wikipedia. MPJ-US  03:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
There was normally an expectation that you work on an article and then nominate it this year; articles originally nominated last year have normally not been considered eligible, but the rules are deliberately open ended to allow the judges some discretion. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Submissions from an alternate account

Usually whenever I'm in a public area, I use NFLisAwesome for account security. While it's not often, let's say I create an article, nominate it for DYK and it ends up on the Main Page while using that account. Would it be eligible for my submissions page or do all submissions have to come from the account that I signed up with? Zappa24Mati 23:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly labelled as an alt, so I'd say it should, but I'm not a judge. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is a topic that's come up before, but I share Adam's view. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that the relationship between the accounts is clearly defined, if there is no objection from one of the other judges, I don't see a problem with this...--Godot13 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Dodgy reviews

Already I'm seeing fluffed up and padded out reviews with superfluous sentences. I'm sorry but there needs to be a much stronger policing of reviews because people take advantage and try and make them longer in order to claim. Exact same thing happened in the 2015 cup yet nothing was done about it. Meanwhile, some of us spend a long time giving informed reviews.  — Calvin999 10:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Examples?-Godot13 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I email you instead Godot13 ?  — Calvin999 16:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure.--Godot13 (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I would rather have a superfluously wordy review than one that just says 'This meets all of the requirements, so it passes'. I'm seeing those here as well. That kind of review isn't accepted in DYK (where you have to specifically state that the article meets each of the requirements), and it shouldn't be accepted at GAN. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

TSC (fun username, by the way!): While those very short "rubber stamp" reviews may be acceptable at GAC, they are not eligible for WikiCup points. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Josh.--Godot13 (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:The C of E's bonus points

I think these are still calculated wrong? Or am I missing something? If they're right, that's awesome. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The articles are Melchior (Magi) and Balthazar (Magi); they sound like topics that should be very high scorers, but, for whatever reason, don't look like they've made it onto many Wikipedias. Unless I'm missing something, the bonus points a mistake? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I'd already fixed the bot, but it's not programmed to change existing scores. I've deleted it and the bot has reassesed back to a 1x multiplier i.e. no uplift. I assume that is correct? - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks right to me, but I defer to the judges. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks right Jarry1250 and Josh, thanks!--Godot13 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was a bonus for being the first DYKs in the competition! I do admit my first thought on seeing it was "I'm not sure that's correct" so I am not surprised that it has been changed back. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Prizing

What will be the prizes for the winners< not that I'm going to win.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelockedoctor (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 January 2016‎

I think the only prizes are the pride in a job well done, and a place of honor in the Wikipedia:WikiCup/History. Don't forget that the encyclopedia is the real winner, as we all work to make it better! 1bandsaw (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Broken contestant entry, other flag related issues

There are a couple of issues with contestant flags:

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Damn. Okay, back to the NYC flag for me then. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

How to challenge points?

How can one challenge the points taken by some editor? Do we post those cases over here and maybe successfully add one more WP:WikiEnemy? Or do we trust that judges have looked into it and approved of it? Or do we through email notify judges? Or is it too early yet to ask all this and by the end of round 1 everything would be alright? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's just the bot screwing up, just be polite about it. =) Otherwise, try emailing the judges using the button on the left side of their user talk pages. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
If it's a bot error in calculation, be patient, the bot is being tweaked and it/we will make the necessary adjustments. If it is a concern over writing quality or any other such issues, send one/all of us an email if you don't want to post publicly and we will look into it.--Godot13 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

How often are the submissions checked, and what are they checked for? Just a quick look and I noticed that the submission for Zesh Rahman, for example, doesn't show any work in this calendar year that's of any consequence (changing date formats and changing 1 or 2 lines doesn't seem enough - I was under the impression that copy editing/small edits as the result of a GAR weren't enough to claim significant work). I don't want to be here annoying people asking for things to be checked if it'll happen in due course, anyway, but as a person who isn't competing and just follows with interest, I'm unbiased and don't care about making a WP:WikiEnemy or 10, so happy to speak up. Neekeem (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally, at the end of each round, unless someone specifically mentions a submission during the round for checking. But last year loads of submissions slipped through the net which shouldn't have been allowed despite them being raised as concerns.  — Calvin999 12:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Its good to see @Neekeem: pointing out things despite not participating. But we should prefer emailing the three judges @Figureskatingfan, Sturmvogel 66, and Godot13: unless they personally have objections for spamming their mailbox with complaints. It would be better for the three to frequently keep checking their mails if this is put in the procedure itself.
In case you are in very good terms with the nominator and you feel that scores can be challenged without much ado about it, then you may use this forum/user talk pages/or whatever suits you to get it sorted. Am sure that judges would check it out at the end of each round like @Calvin999: says; but he also mentions how some entries slip in for overlooking. Just to not let that happen, and as other editors are already noticing it, lets keep check from start itself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Zesh Rehman was nominated on 1 June 2015 for GA, which itself is a declaration that it was worked upon before this date and hence does not qualify in this year's round. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Dharmadhyaksha: That's actually incorrect. In order to claim points, substantial work has to be done in 2016. When the article was actually nominated is irrelevant. For example, I had two GAs passed recently, Long War (mod) and Golem Arcana. Both were nominated in 2015 and both were promoted this month. I claimed points in the CUP for Long War because I added 4,000 characters of new prose in 2016 (almost three times the DYK minimum of 1,500, which is what I feel is good benchmark for "substantial work"). I did not claim points for Golem Arcana, though, because I did not do much to it in 2016. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Not everyone is going to be honest or rule-conscious (assuming AGF) like you. Maybe we can ask for more information on the submissions page to be filled by nominators themselves. So if they are unaware of rule they would not fill up nominations that don't qualify. Like maybe ask them date of nomination and when the work was actually carried out. Or something such... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a need for any changes. Most years, anyone that does any amount of work makes it out of the first round, so there's little to no risk that a serious competitor is going to lose a spot to someone that's gaming for points. By the second round the judges will only have 64 people to worry about watching, so they can watch closer. Still though, most serious competitors will make it out of the round easily; 32 is a lot of places compared to the number of people that are willing and able to put in the work to make a deep run. By round three, if you're not doing legit work at a high volume, you're going to be caught out, and you're going to fall out of contention. At that point, work in "Featured" processes becomes a virtual must, especially with how unpredictable GA review wait times can be, and you can't bullshit your way into claiming credit in a Featured process because all of the ones that are still running have strong self-governance. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

First FP

Women of Britain Say - "Go!"

...Yeah, this one's me. But I've been trying to announce the rest of the firsts, so...

Probably won't be the last. I'm always most productive near the start of the year. This is less than ideal for Wikicup rounds. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Congrats! (good work too) Miyagawa (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the point of even posting this here? Announcing that one has been the first to claim for a particular category comes across a bit superior IMO.  — Calvin999 22:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I quite like it, as long as Adam (or someone else) keeps an eye out for any other "firsts". It's think it's interesting to keep track of these things. For some of the less well-frequented recognised content types (good topics, featured topics and featured portals are the best examples this year) we've not seen any submission until the later rounds in previous competitions. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It's inevitable that someone will have to be first for each of the categories, but I don't really see why emphasis has to be placed on that person for being first; it doesn't really mean anything. Topics etc. will always be the latter rounds, because the majority of the content for them have to be in this calendar year, and they can take months to get pushed through the reviewing process as a collective.  — Calvin999 23:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm only human- I find that firsts, 100ths, lasts etc. have a certain appeal. (Also, not quite- topics are NEARLY an exception to the "this year" rule, as is explained on the Scoring page.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fine - I personally just don't see the need to place emphasis on who got an FA promoted etc. first. I find it a bit 'showy-offy.'  — Calvin999 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Adam has been mentioning the firsts for over a week now. Considering these are generally mentioned in the newsletter, I fail to see how this is a problem. Yes, he posted "First!" for himself. But he's done it for three other editors as well. Seriously though, what else would you expect? There's nobody else in the current WikiCup batch who works with FPs (well, Godot, but he's not formally competing). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It would seem strange to report everything except FPs on here... Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that, Adam. I mean in general. I don't really see the point of saying who has done what first. Does anyone really care that much? Someone's got to be first from each category eventually, why emphasis needs to be placed on that editor I don't know. If you want to keep a record of it somewhere else, then go ahead. I don't think we need an update on this talk page for every time someone is first to do something though.  — Calvin999 09:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I personally find it interesting. It also gives us data for analysis: if people are getting the first DYKs just a few days after the cup starts, it may mean that the process is too simple/easy to receive a high number of points (just an example). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so, because that is quite possible. Some DYK's are pushed through quite quickly. It's the luck of the draw with that.  — Calvin999 10:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "May" mean. The possibility of something meaning one thing does not eliminate the possibility of something meaning something else. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It's harmless trivia which some find interesting. There are far more exciting things to argue over! Harrias talk 10:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
No one is arguing over it. I'm just saying I don't see the need to create a new thread every time someone is the first to claim for a category. Keep a note of it somewhere else and then include it in the newsletter if necessary. That's all.  — Calvin999 10:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, "a bit superior IMO" could've been more diplomatic. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree. Despite your claims otherwise, the initial complain read as if it was about Adam "tooting his own horn". If "Announcing that one has been the first to claim for a particular category comes across a bit superior IMO." had been directed at someone else, or meant in general, the word "someone" would have been most appropriate. The word "one" in this context implies that the "one" is the same person doing the announcing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Are people going to start getting offended at things which are not offensive. How would you propose I say it, Adam? "A bit superior" is more diplomatic than "showing off and being flash," no? "Tooting his own horn" isn't exactly diplomatic, either. I just talk straight. It's like a doctor trying to tell an overweight person they are fat. How do you say it diplomatically? "You need to lose a bit of weight" or "You're morbidly obese". People interpret things how they wish to interpret it, no one can help that. It's my opinion and people should respect that: I don't see the point of posting a new thread with a "first to do X". I don't see what it achieves. Save it for the end of round newsletter which is usually how it is done anyway and is more than enough. I'm not going to keep coming back here to look at replies. If anyone wishes to discuss it with me further, please post on my user talk. If not, then lets leave it at this is  — Calvin999 10:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This conversation has long since lost its usefulness.--Godot13 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Request

If there's a problem that doesn't reflect on the person, e.g. "The bot appears to be screwing up", that's probably fine to discuss as much as we want in public. However, before this competition falls into sniping, can I ask that other concerns are raised by private e-mail message to the judges? This page is taking a distinctively negative turn... Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I will do that if I see anything else. MPJ-US  15:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Same here. Thanks Adam. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Adam, this is quite obviously about me. If you feel I have sniped at you, please contact me directly.  — Calvin999 20:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
        • There's been four or five threads. It's not about you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Early judgement needed

Thanks for my late understanding. I removed some short GAR points from my submission. That's because they were very short reviews who met immediate failure according to the GA criteria. I also removed Stuart Scott and Sheamus because I did only some minor edits to meet the GA criteria. I did not expect this kind of logical display from me. Therefore, I keep my fate in the hands of the judges whether I should be disqualified for my sins in this competition. Ikhtiar H (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good faith misunderstanding of the rules. I'm not a judge, but I'd hate to see you ejected from the competition for eagerness. WormTT(talk) 11:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
That is a very mature move on your part, I have no problems with you remaining in the tournament. MPJ-US  12:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a judge either, but given that you've quickly amended mistakes and apologized for them I see no reason to not let you keep enjoying the WikiCup ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A point here is that WikiCup is widely promoted through the watchlist, and everyone is encouraged to sign up regardless of experience. We shouldn't then be upset that some people will not fully understand all the rules if they take on things they haven't been involved in before (Ikhtiar has made 905 edits). If WikiCup leads to a lot of this, it will of course be problematic for the encyclopedia/community, but more a systemic problem with the Cup and how it is advertised, than necessarily a very blameworthy fault by the individual newcomer. Iselilja (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Points for GA Review

If we see Wikipedia:Good article nominations there are hundreds of articles awaiting review since ages. These article should be reviewed as soon as possible. Delay in GA review discourages nominator and his/her interest in editing or improving articles. So, I think to encourage other editors to review their nominations, there should be at least 10 points given for a GA review. 4 points seems very minor. At least 10 points should be given for detailed GA review, so that more and more editors will review GA nominations. "Quick fail" or "quick pass" reviews can be given 4 points. --Human3015 It will rain  04:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Quick fails/pass should not be considered at all for points. We have few sock groups who nominate any random article for GA which are quite easily failed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, but detailed review should have 10 points.--Human3015 It will rain  06:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
There has been a lot of discussion which has led up to points. I too would be open to a few more, but the number is not going to change mid-competition, so we're stick with it for now. Shorter reviews (and, almost invariably, quick-fails) are not eligible for points, but precisely where we draw the line is a matter of the judges' discretion. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring: "Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews. This is not to say that such short reviews are not worthwhile, it is merely to say that they will not be recognised in this competition." Josh Milburn (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Just tossing in my $0.02 here, I think 4 points is a fair deal here. It encourages users to review substantial articles, but it doesn't necessarily promote drive-by reviews (which are done easily enough). The points are there as a slight incentive, but the greater incentive is, to be cheesy, the improvement of Wikipedia. I think the hope by giving some points, but not many, is to have users provide a standard review with a little "money under the table" so that there's no loss of integrity with a review. That's not to say that the intent to review is not a bad thing, though. Of course, we certainly want to see the backlog be cut down substantially, but as is the case with writing articles, reviews are most often done by those interested in the subject in the first place. Speaking as someone from WP:WPTC, our GANs are almost entirely handled by our own members. In our case, reviewing a hurricane season article can take several hours due to the volume of content that needs to be checked over so it's a bit of a commitment to do them. The 4 points I'd get for the cup provide that little extra incentive for me to spend my time reviewing an article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I just want to say that, GA review is very hectic job. One have to read entire article and have to read all references. Detailed review can take as long as 7 days. It depends on how receptive is nominator to reviewer's comments/suggestions. After doing so much of work, if reviewer is getting just 4 points is nothing but the disrespect of the reviewer. Judges should think over it. I myself never reviewed any GA but my first GA recently got reviewed thats why I know how tough is reviewing a GA nomination. Our aim is not how much points someone gets but overall aim of this WikiCup is to improve quality of Wikipedia. I don't think that there is any problem for giving 10 points for GA review. It will encourage many editors to review GA nominations and it will decrease backlog at WP:GAN. 10 points for GA review are really worth, it is equivalent to one ITN or one long DYK.--Human3015 It will rain  13:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've said it before and I'll say it again. GAR points should never be worth more than the base DYK points because DYK requires more work than going along the GA requirements and saying "Do this, do that" and looking at the sources. DYK requires you to find the sources, create/alter an article and word it to Wikipedia standards with sufficient quality and quantity. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to have this discussion again. The judges should not, and almost certainly will not, change the points awarded mid-competition. Perhaps the topic can be revisited at the end of the year. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) I've done my fair share of GA reviews. I think 4 points is actually a rather fair base amount of points for the WikiCup. The purpose is to improve the encyclopedia, and while GA reviews are a part of that (reviewers provide good copy editing to writers), they aren't as big a part as actually writing and improving articles. We have the WP:GACUP for reducing the GA backlog. That being said, I think maybe the GAR points could take a page from that. With the GA Cup, you got bonus points for how old the nomination was to encourage reducing the backlog and for how long the article was since long articles tend to sit longer than short ones. I think we could also give an extra point or two for reviewing nominations by WikiCup participants to encourage reciprocity since WikiCup noms are a little more time sensitive than most. Wugapodes (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sometimes the nominators take advantage of the reviewers. They nominate articles without really making a first hand review, just because the article looks clean and nourishing. Right after the review is kept on hold, they start fixing per the review. I am saying this because reviewers have to spend a while picking up the errors which the editors find it really easy to fix as they are highlighted. Ikhtiar H (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Help my FLC not die on the vine

I have had a FL candidate listed for a couple of weeks at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mexican National Lightweight Championship/archive1 and I've gotten a couple of reviews so far, I am just worried that this may die on the vine from lack of input. With FL and FA it's all about multiple reviews, not just one so please if you can help out. Honestly I would rather this fails on it's merits that get closed for lack of input with the effort I've put into this article over the years, of course getting it passed is better :-) I am hoping to drum up a little interest even if the FLC reviews do not give us any points.  MPJ-US  03:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The best way to get more reviews, and prevent your nomination dying on the vine is to engage in some reviews yourself, and ask editors to review your nomination in return. Since you nominated this list, you've not reviewed any other Featured list candidates; it would definitely be worth doing! Harrias talk 07:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That is a good point, I will do that. Thanks  MPJ-US  12:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Gaming the points system

@Ikhtiar H: - so i will gladly be "that guy". This user is gaming the points sytem. His GA points for Sheamus is ridiculous, he did less than 1000k of work, minor stuff and claims credit for other peoples work. He put GA reviews for quick fails as well, i read like fice of the links and they were all quick fails. How is that in the spirit of the competition when others work hard on actually contributing to Wikipedia through this tournament? He put up Roman Reigns yet did the equivalent of 10 minutes of work before the nomination.  MPJ-US  19:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been reassured that it will be dealt with by end of round; hopefully the points will be removed soon ツStacey (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel that First first-class cricket match in Australia is good enough article, even I approved DYK nomination of that article. But I see Ikhtiar gave GA status to article very easily. I am not saying that article is "bad" but there should have been detailed review as per GA Criteria before giving article a GA status. --Human3015Let It Go  23:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
That is not a valid review at all, whether he's claiming cup points or not. I think that the article should be delisted and put back into the review pool. As with the DYK process, the bare minimum in a valid review is to state that the article meets each individual requirement (meets criteria A, meets criteria B, meets criteria C, etc.). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
That's the problem to be in the lead: you get substantial stalking! I haven't heard anything that to earn GA points, you have to do more than 1000k. These are my early days so I went for the easy ones. Sheamus was indeed a ready-made article where I did some minor edits as it just drop short to be GA. And I thought it is also a part of contribution to fairly open the promotion door of an article. The next time I go for GA, I will try to pick up that page is in a bad stage where I need to undertake huge number of edits. If my points do not clarify in this competition, certainly I will acquire assimilation and make sure this doesn't happen any further.
Speaking of my First first-class cricket match in Australia review, this isn't the correct place to negotiate. Instead I prefer either the article's or my talk page. Thanks in advance! Ikhtiar H (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
No it's the problem when you so obviously do not follow the rules to get in the lead. Having multiple GA credits in your name and more reviews requested in 15 days made me curious, that is a ton of effort in a short time, which if you had done the actual improvement effort would have been awesome. This contest is supposed to reward YOUR efforts, not other people's efforts. it's not about getting the "GA" stamp on an article but actually improving it. It would be different if ONE of your entries was questionable, but this seems like most of them are. You listed Damian Sandow and claim credit but the review is not complete, failing to see how the rules on that are not clear in that regard. Failing to see how the rules on significant work is not clear.  MPJ-US  12:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: you seems to be a good informant. I did not know that as a reviewer when I fully go through the article and keep it on hold, it isn't right to place it in the submission page. I am removing it as you say but will place it again after I finalize the review. To be honest, I was on a real life holiday until today which provoked me to work on Wikipedia as much as possible. Please check this article which I started editing today, Mustafizur Rahman, now don't say I did nothing. You have got a good energy to stalk. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ikhtiar H:, basically I read the rules, that is all it took. MPJ-US  12:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: what's your final call? Should I remove my on hold reviews? Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ikhtiar H: - So I am not a judge in the competition, asking me is not the way to go. Looking at my comments so far I would say you should remove most everything you put on to get credit for, but again I am no authority, I am just point out when I see something I believe is unfair. MPJ-US  13:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Reviews that are on hold are not eligible for points. You can claim for them when the reviews are closed, no matter what round that is in. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
J Milburn thanks for noting that. I am blessed to have a leeway for a turnaround time! Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 problem?

By my count, only 33 people have any points. This kind of cuts down the amount of actual competition, given 64 people are meant to progress. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the difference is of people who haven't scored will be selected randomly. There's still 4 weeks left of Round 1, so I don't see how this is even an issue at the present moment. Competition is never high in the first round and not everyone goes mad on working on lots of submissions this early on. Some of us have nominations that actually take a while to get promoted or passed.  — Calvin999 13:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It kind of makes the first round meaningless if a single GAR will get you through, and anything else is counterproductive as opposed to saving it for later rounds. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It sorts out those who want to participate and those who don't. Not ideal but what else can be done aside of prompting people without any score with individual messages? The second round is always when the competition hots up and really gets going. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking back and previous years I saw the same thing, round one really is more of a qualifier since it's an open sign up. And true you COULD decide to coast after getting 4-10 points I suppose, but that's not the spirit of the competition. And like mentioned certain work takes longer to get through the process to actually score points. MPJ-US  01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Adam, it's your choice then to continue to bulk nominate featured pictures and rack up a load of points in the first round and be the highest scorer. This is how the cup works. x amount becomes 64, some of those 64 won't be claiming in the first round and will go through by being selected randomly. By the same token, anyone who doesn't claim and is knocked out doesn't have a right to complain because they never set off from 0 in the first place and had 7 weeks to do so. Also, lots of people sign up but don't really have any intention of participating. Round one is how you weed out those people. Round two is when the cup really begins. Just focus on what you're doing.  — Calvin999 10:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing on other languages

Uh, I want to edit on simplewiki. Do I get points for the wikicup? (Lukeisawesome999 (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC))

No. Only work on the English Wikipedia is considered. AHeneen (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bonus point query

Why the bot did not reward me any bonus point for my GA Mustafizur Rahman? I had done a lot of edits to bring up that article from stub. See the article's history log. To have a more precise look, compare the current version with the oldest version preview from where I started editing. Ikhtiar H (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Because the only bonus you get for GAs are if it has been on Wikipedia up to the end of 2011. The expansion bonus is for DYKs only. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@The C of E: Thanks! Bad for me, since I am planing to start more articles. Ikhtiar H (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, if you can start some long articles, that's 10 DYK points (plus more if its already on 5 or more other wikipedias) then you have GAs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK points criteria

Thanks to MPJ-DK for letting me to know that DYK articles with GA status are not eligible. My put a GA status DYK nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Mustafizur Rahman. But I also expanded the article recently. Is there any way I can replace or add that status? Thanks in advance! Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If it also met the 5x expansion criteria and was nominated in time, just put a note on the DYK nomination that this was the case as well. Miyagawa (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems like I am radiating too much affairs in this active atmosphere. That is not eligible in any case to score points. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Bot issue?

I did a DYK for National Wrestling Association which i expanded. It stands at around 12k but the bot only awarded it 5 base points, i thought it waz 10 base points if over 5K? Am i reading the article size wrong or is the bot incorrect?  MPJ-US  13:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The relevant page size is the "readable prose size", as is used in the DYK process already. That article is "4753 B (721 words)", so a small way under the bar. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I have never actually paid attention to that before, glad that the bot is working okay. And at least the 5 point difference is not going to eliminate me from the tournament.  MPJ-US  21:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

5 or 10 for my DYK?

Shouldn't I have got 10 points for List of songs recorded by Little Mix DYK that I just added to my submissions, not 5? As per my test edit in my sandbox when I pasted the prose into it to check the bytes, it's over 14,000, 5893 which is more than the 5,000 approx. 5120 that it says is eligible for 10 points on the rules for scoring page? Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I am interpreting it.  — Calvin999 00:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That prose count was excluding the table content? Because text in tables don't count as far as I thought. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
While I'm not a judge, using User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js, that page comes out with: Prose size (text only): 2955 B (503 words) "readable prose size". Content in tables is usually ignored by such prose counting scripts that I've seen. 1bandsaw (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
No I know that it doesn't include the table because the table isn't prose. That's why I showed the prose only in a test edit in my sandbox which I have given the link to above to see what the byte size was. I removed 5893 bytes from my sandbox in that edit, and the scoring page was "Articles with at least 5 KB (that is, 5120 bytes) "readable prose size", whether expansions or new articles, are worth 10 points." So I should have got 5 more base points.  — Calvin999 09:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Add: Actually, I blanked a sandbox of mine and then added the prose. It's actually over 8,000 bytes. See here.  — Calvin999 12:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That figure includes all the wiki code and references. As 1bandsaw says above, the actual prose count is around 2,900. Harrias talk
Oh right. I don't know how you separate the prose from the coding to work out the byte size.  — Calvin999 16:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, you can use either the tool that 1bandsaw mentioned above, User:Dr pda/prosesize, or the Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck tool. Harrias talk 16:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2016/1&oldid=1137396680"