Wikipedia talk:Stub Contest/2015 archive

Running again
Righto, I am looking to run this again once I sort out vouchers etc. I thought the scoring was not too bad last time. The only scoring rule I was thinking of tweaking was:


 * For the purposes of the competition, a stub will be shorter than 150 words or 4 sentences. If the stub has zero inline references, then this can be doubled (300 words or 8 sentences).

to


 * *For the purposes of the competition, a stub will be shorter than 200 words or 5 sentences. If the stub has zero inline references, then this can be doubled (400 words or 10 sentences).

As I was thinking some articles that could have really benefitted were ineligible last time. Thoughts appreciated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Looking forward to participating! 1bandsaw (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (belatedly) just trying to find a few examples of articles around this size, like this to think some more on how I feel about this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have always thought that a stub is generally an article with 1,500 bytes of prose or less. Having to count the number of sentences is a tad harder to check.  Schwede 66  21:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, when I made up that I was thinking more about some unstructured and unreferenced articles I'd seen (will try to find some). It becomes tricky with some concise well-structured articles, like this for instance. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone ponders this, I've left the rules as-is for this running. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiWork factors
I've posted something about WikiWork factors that is of relevance to editors interested in tackling stubs. Have a look, and if you have an opinion, please chip in.  Schwede 66  20:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think the numbers of stubs are such that it will only make a tiny dint but hey...here's trying....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated the proposal description on that page for you so that it's clearer what I mean.  Schwede 66  03:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, we're in business....
Now, first things first...ahoy and ! Either/both of you up for judging again? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Definitely happy to judge again this time round. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, glad that's sorted then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This page is JUST over the limit, can it still count?
Registered Health Information Technician has 184 words and, while it has inline citations, they're from weak sources. The RHIA and the RHIT are similar but RHIA was just under 150 words. If I do one, it makes sense to also take care of the other at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaynestone (talk • contribs) 16:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. A tricky one. I agree it makes sense to do both and did contemplate increasing article sizes for this running of the competition, however decided against it upon looking at a few articles. I think it was worth asking but for consistency I have to rule that the article RHIT article does not fit the criteria, sorry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I totally understand and appreciate the thoughtful reply. It was worth the question. Thank you for the consideration! Alaynestone (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've allowed some wiggle room - a 151-word stub and there's another out there that I think is about 155 which might get through. I'd be unwilling to go beyond this, though - there's a 158 which has been ruled out. Cas, you okay with say five words leeway? Andrew Gray (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disallowed one of 153 words but the nominator is now blocked and the entry wasn't expanded. Umm, need to think about this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, just noticed the 153. Hmm indeed. We have a bit of time to think about it, and at least we haven't ruled a larger one acceptable and ruled a smaller one out! Let me know your preference - we could just leave the 151 as a very edge case.
 * The current status is that everyone except the three high-volume contenders are up to date. I'm knocking off now but will be back on Sunday to clear off another big batch, and hopefully get us caught up. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, will get onto some more soon...just delving into something interesting....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Inline references
Does Manawatu Scottish Pipe Band count as having 1 or 0 inline references? Alternatively, the promotional cruft could be removed to get it below 150 words, if that is allowed. Thanks, Ostrichyearning (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It basically looks like zero references to me right now, or are we supposed to assume that because the "Manawatu Scottish Pipe Band" says its so that everything in the article right now is true? Guy1890 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I'll take as a 'zero' as it is a nothing. No link. No identificating items that allow us to determine anything at all....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you need help with the judging?
Probably not 100% appropriate for a competitor, but as there's no chance of suddenly fixing the system so that I win, would you like any help? There are a terrifying number of entries out there. I could do a partial check, like word count or verifying special points, and the official judges could still do the final sign-off based on the utility. Alaynestone (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah....wow....there are alot to check. The most time consuming-thing I am doing this time is using Earwig's Copyvio Detector to screen for copyvios. Stuff getting mirrored sometimes comes up as a fals positive. Often when I use it it is the rate-limiting step as it can take a while to load. If you check a batch of unticked articles, let me and know, which slab you've checked (and point out any cases that need looking at) and we can come after to check the page sizes, that would make things much quicker.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll test a few tomorrow night and see how it goes. I'll mark any entry I review with either a CV OK or CV [whatever the issue is] so you know which are done without having to jump between screens.  I'll plan on only doing the plagiarism test and let you guys handle the rest to avoid something getting missed.  Drop a note here if you want me to add more checks and I can make up a notation for it. :P
 * Yeah that's great. I still want judges to eyeball all the before/afters but that can be really quick. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy with this, & thanks for offering. Unexpectedly busy the past couple of days but will make sure to get a lot signed off in the next couple. I have a loooong train ride ahead on Thursday... Andrew Gray (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NEARLY THREE THOUSAND ENTRIES. Sorry, just needed to say that. THREE THOUSAND. Wow. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started marking individual competitors off as complete when they're all done (inc. checks on any on-hold ones). This'll avoid checking them over again. When they're all done we can double-check the scoreboard and declare a winner. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A general request....
The stubs are supposed to be now rated start class or higher. If folks can ensure stub tags are removed and articles are re-rated, that'd be great. As far as wiki-etiquette, it's generally considered fine to rate articles up to C or B class without too much controversy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Oddities
Cas, any thoughts on these? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Michael Douglas on stage and screen - technically qualifies due to the prose rule, but it feels a bit odd to be ranking a fairly comprehensive list as a 'stub' needing expansion.
 * HMS C16, C25, C27 - substantially expanded but the detailed career section is uncited (carried over from the original). Not worried about this in the cases where it's only a couple of sentences but feels more borderline when it's detailed enough to have names.


 * Regarding the first, I agree but it is standard practice to include them - they would be for DYK anyway. So it's a "yes" from me. The others have still some inlined text (half) os it's a "yes" as well. Not optimal I agree but I have to remind myself this isn't min FAC but trying to de-stub great swathes of stubs.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Good - very happy about the last as I wasn't comfortable drawing a line somewhere! Andrew Gray (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a note
The editor on the scoreboard is Glacialfrost and apparently they have an indefinite block so they won't be contributing any more. Just noticed that the name Glacierfrost sounded familiar and thought I'd track them down to find out there is no editor account with that username. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I could see that person was coming up as blocked with a very useful viewy tool, but thanks for alerting us. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Winner announced. Lucky dips pending
Right, I have not counted 1500 bee articles of the genus Megachile as the same information has been cut and pasted to all of them with no information unique to the species except for mention of the name. It would have only taken two sentences to individualise each article to make it germane to the species and a valid expansion...but I find that the pasting of identical text 1500 times to just be gaming the system too much.

Hence that leaves us with the winner of a £50 voucher for Amazon - with 7340 points and 607 stubs expanded - as. wins a £25 voucher for expanding the oldest stub. The other prizes wil be announced after some people from wikimedia UK cut out 1371 pieces of paper with the stubs' names on them and draw them out of a big bowler hat for seven £25 vouchers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

So in sum, a big thanks to the 29 editors that expanded and submitted articles...and watch this space for the lucky dip prizes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Lucky dip winners are:


 * - CCGS Cape Fox, SM U-76, German submarine U-568
 * - Bowtie (sequence analysis)
 * - HMS Narcissus (1886), Japanese submarine I-28, HMS Stonehenge (P232)

So it shows the utility of more entries...thanks all! WMUK will be in contact with the three voucher-winners shortly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anything further about this - is there someone I should contact? Thanks! Amkilpatrick (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hang on. I'll be someone from wikimedia UK getting in touch with you. Will email them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
I'd like to thank the judges for organising and judging this contest. The outcome seems pretty fair to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Look out for a new contest soon..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)