Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest/2015 archive

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

2015 Contest?
Any word, or interest, in this contest having a run in 2015? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I was just thinking about this. Have pinged WMUK to see if they want to supply vouchers again. Maybe March or April.....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

RIght then, March 2015 it is...
Ok folks, next running will be from 00:01 1st March 2015 to 23:59 31st March 2015 - Greenwich Mean Time......now, first up, who wants to help me judge it? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great news, but frankly that seems a bit soon. I think the contest needs much better publicity, which means a longer run up. WMUK may be able to help. At the least a watchlist notice ahead of the launch, a signpost feature, a WMF blog and postings to mailing lists. You won't do that in 36 hours. I don't think I will be participating this year, so would be available to judge. Running it in April (as in 2013 and 2014), or say 15 Mar-15 April would be better. This page is only on 145 watchlists, and as always many of those will have ceased editing by now. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. I presume WMUK are stumping up again? Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The latest message I had was a presumptive yes and got the go-ahead on that basis. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NB: Thanks for alerting the signpost, I'd forgotten about them. Have alerted vital article, good article, FAC talk pages and village pump. As well as central alert template. Any other places? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with John this sounds remarkably quick off the mark, but good luck! I'll get a watchlist notice up for you now. Running until say 5 March, to allow for late signups?
 * I'd offer to help out as a judge, but I'm away on holiday first week of April and I don't think escaping as soon as the decisions need made would be very useful ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (a) great/sounds good, and (b) no dramas. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Up and running. Good luck! Andrew Gray (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Drive-by comment, but Secret has been indefinitely blocked, but is still listed as a judge. --Rschen7754 05:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Aah forgot about that. I will ping others and ask if they want to judge next round: .....calling, , ....any y'all innerested? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Expanding redirect?
Spanish conquest of Mexico is on the list, but is a redirect to Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire; it is certainly valid for an article in its own right. Considering how much time I have recently put into describing the Spanish conquest of southeastern Mexico, I could probably knock up an article covering the whole country. Would this be valid, or should the work go into Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire? Simon Burchell (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there are two issues here. The vital topic is the conquest of the Aztec empire. But I do think we need an overview article summarizing the process of Spanish conquest of New Spain - including subsections for Chiapas, Yucatan, Guatemala, Central Mexico, Oaxaca, Nuev Galicia, Panuco etc.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That was almost my thinking - the conquest of the territory now incorporated into Mexico...along the lines of Spanish conquest of Guatemala. But the conquest of the Aztec Empire is fine too. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time there was no geopolitical entity called Mexico. I would recommend digging into the Aztec Empire article rather than creating a parallel article under a similar name. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was. It was the capital city of the Aztec empire. And we certainly need a standalone article on the conquest of that city.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep - all in order. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Contest title
Why isn't this at WP:Core Contest? See WP:THE for my reason; while naming conventions don't apply to project pages, it seems (at least to me) that the spirit of the convention should be followed here. As far as I can tell, only 72 project pages begin with "The" (if we exclude redirects and subpages), and most of them are essays and the like. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * TheTrueSora's UBX Proposal
 * The 24 commandments of the Wiki
 * The British Officers' Cricket Club
 * The CIA World Factbook
 * The Committee
 * The Core Contest
 * The Cure for WikiBoredom
 * The Devil's Wiktionary
 * The Dumbledore principle
 * The End
 * The Environmental Industry
 * The Five Pillars of Untruth
 * Wikipedia:The Football League: Season-By-Season/Members
 * The Free Encyclopedia
 * The GNG and notability for actors
 * The Great Wikipedia Dramaonly
 * The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
 * The Hellboy2hell's guide to RfAs
 * The Heymann Standard
 * The Importance of Brevity
 * The International Skateboarding Hall of Fame and Museum
 * The Internet is not Serious Business
 * The Last Word
 * The Most Important Thing Possible
 * The Musical
 * The No Asshole Rule
 * The Parable of the Ants
 * The Pope is Catholic
 * The Prince of Venice Beach
 * The Problem with Projects
 * The Rules of Polite Discourse
 * The Tabula Rasa of the Internet
 * The Truth
 * The Wiki-proofers
 * The WikiDoctor
 * The WikiMaster
 * The WikiRani
 * The Wikipedia Adventure
 * The Wikipedia Library
 * The Wikipedian's Prayer
 * The Wrong Venue
 * The Zen of Wikipedia
 * The answer to life, the universe, and everything
 * The astatine way of reverting vandalism
 * The benefits of not requiring account creation on Wikipedia
 * The benefits of requiring account creation on Wikipedia
 * The best way to avoid ever being blocked
 * The blank page
 * The community
 * The controversial page
 * The deadline is now
 * The difference between policies, guidelines and essays
 * The duck test
 * The end of Wikipedia
 * The first rule of Wikipedia
 * The future of Wikipedia
 * The grey zone
 * The logic behind Wikipedia policy
 * The merit dilemma
 * The motivation of a vandal
 * The need for coordination
 * The newcomer's manual
 * The overuse of anonymity at Wikipedia and a proposal
 * The perfect article
 * The role of policies in collaborative anarchy
 * The rules are principles
 * The solution to all of Wikipedia's problems
 * The squint test
 * The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of humans
 * The truth sandbox
 * The value of essays
 * The world will not end tomorrow

Here's the full list, if anyone's interested. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, no actually. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "No actually". What do you mean by "no"?  I didn't request anything or ask a yes-no question.  Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not interested. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay; I wasn't sure if you meant "not interested" or "opposed to moving" or something else. Thanks for the clarification.  Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was who started the page - I just carried on with it. Not sure how finicky he is, might not have given it a second thought. I certainly didn't until I saw this thread and have no problem with the "the" removed, so have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Extending deadline by 2 weeks to April 14 - so total running is ~ 6 weeks?
Just throwing this out there - I have been musing on the idea of extending the deadline into mid-April - partly as my piece in the signpost is being bumped and I was hoping more folks might join if they saw it, but also to give everyone time to really buff stuff that might then be on the cusp of a GA/FA nomination maybe (maybe go to library etc.). How do folks feel? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The point of the contest is to improve content - winning any prizes or accolades should be secondary. So if it might bring more people in and give them a reasonable chance to contribute, why not? The only downside I see is that it might be harder to stay motivated for six weeks - the longer the window, the more real life can intrude. Guettarda (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As a judge, I'm okay with it, but I don't speak for the contestants. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with it, it will allow me a bit more time for some catch up reading. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me—I could definitely make use of the time. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. The longer the time the better the product.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The 30 day concept, one month is good. And there's no need to stop after 30 days, surely. 42 days don't have the same appeal .Rwood128 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whaddaya mean? 42 is the meaning of life and all that!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * seems fine to me. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An extra two weeks is fine by me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine by me too. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect, I could really use the extra time. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Right - let's do it - am extending time by two weeks to 23:59 of April 14. Mainly as I'd hate it if folks tail off after the contest and stuff is short of a GAN or FAC. Go for it, folks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This sounds good to me. I had it in my mind that the event lasted a calendar month.  I was checking back today to report that I'd not found any time yet in March so another fortnight will help.  My personal feeling is that this time in early Spring is not a good time of year for me as the UK's emergence from winter tends to get me out of the house or doing chores like gardening and spring cleaning.  And I plan to go away for Easter soon. Andrew D. (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Motivation
I find that the contest format is not very motivating, as compared with the DYK process, say. The prize isn't much of an incentive as I don't expect to win and there isn't much in the way of process to engage with. Perhaps we could establish some KPIs and then update them every day or week to build some race atmosphere. I'm not sure if there any standard tools which measure article size/quality but we could count stats like:


 * word count
 * citations
 * images
 * readership
 * incoming links
 * readability, e.g. Flesch–Kincaid

Ideally, someone would build a tool like DYK-check to report these stats for easy compilation and charting. At Wikimania, I had a talk with a foundation staffer who was working on some great ideas for measuring authorship. That was EpochFail – perhaps he can advise ... Andrew D. (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Would be difficult if not impossible - we've had entries improved by reduction of flabby prose. Citations is good and can be counted easily. Incoming links? Interesting concept.....like idea of readability, though maybe more a change in readability as some articles are going to be innately easier to write more simply than others....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

winners announced
At The_Core_Contest/Winners. Thanks all for competing! Sorry for the delay in announcing this...I'll get WMUK to get in touch with the winners. Not sure if Amazon does fractions, so I hope WMUK can spare the extra pound to make it 22 quid each for the three co-workers on English language - great work all! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

2016
So there's no contest this year? Disappointing. Rwood128 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If we start up a 2016 contest I think I will have to bow out as part of the judging panel. I have been busier than usual in real life. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A contest has been announced, but nobody's signed up for it yet. I'm considering it, but not much point if I'm on my own! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Always a bit slow to begin with Amakuru, I'll get something in teh signpost soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that the winners have been announced, many thanks to the organiser and judge, and to WMUK for the prizes. I thought the entries were strong this time, and once agauin the competition has benefited the project. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I second that. Well done to the winners and all participants, there's some great content been created, benefiting the encyclopedia. And a hearty thanks to the organisers and judges! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Note about the prizes
Thank you everyone for taking part, and of course to the organisers for making it possible. Karla Marte from Wikimedia UK will be in touch with the winners to get the prizes sorted out. What with it being the holiday season, this might not happen until the week beginning 8th August so please bear with us :-) Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Right then....
Have been given approval to run this again (yippee!) so that's 250 quid's worth pf amazon vouchers to be shared among the editors of the best-improved articles. We'll do it May 15 to June 30 (from 1 minute past midnight UTC). So folks can start listing their desired articles to work on at The Core Contest/Entries. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

NB: There'll be three judges, who I will announce once they have confirmed and are cool with being announced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Great news, Cas! Thanks for your efforts organizing this. Are Wikimedia UK the sponsors again? Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm... good news. Now if I can summon the energy to work on any of the projects... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Imagine me making you a strong coffee....like this one. Coffe time.jpg Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't drink coffee. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Improvement Suggestions
Government and Old World are the two worst articles I've found; they're both linked from many high-profile pages and are stub-level quality. I'm not interested in improving them for this contest, but somebody else may be interested. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Anything?
Any word on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely not - it's only been 4 months! Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering, but don't want to rush things! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * we had some problems with one judge being very very busy....aaaand ultimately being unavailable. Then have spent some time getting a third judge. Have one now. Should see an announcement in 24 hours....sorry about delay...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have announced them now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Core Contest 2018?
Hi all

Anyone know roughly when the Core Contest will take place next year? I unfortunately forgot about it this year and didn't enter, so would like to set myself a calendar reminder to enter next year! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)