Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/2012 signups

Extant
I'm not exactly sure why we're bothering with "extant political entity" here. If it's a free flag, has a Flagicon template, and it isn't inappropriate, then it should be useable. Is a micronation an "extant political entity"? Sealand has been in use at the cup for a few years now, and it's certainly not recognized as a sovereign governing body. I think I've also seen Mars used too.

We should change the first paragraph to:


 * You must choose a flag to fly. You may choose any freely licensed flag that is already legitimately used in the article space (be it an extant political entity, historical entity, micronation, etc.). You may choose a flag that has already been chosen by another participant or a new flag altogether. The judges reserve the right to remove any flag deemed inappropriate. If you do not choose a flag, one will be randomly assigned by the judges at the beginning of the competition.

Thoughts?  S ven M anguard  Wha?  15:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget cities, especially if it's NYC. Ditto Sven, I completely agree :) I don't see any problems with it. HurricaneFan25  &#124;  talk  15:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sven that we should not bother with "extant political entity" here, but I think that contestant should be free not to wave any flag.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We're relying too much on people having common sense here. Sven, you say that a flag should be allowed if it "isn't inappropriate". Precisely what is meant by that isn't clear, and we have had a ridiculous number of controversies over flags for precisely that reason. The whole point of "extant political entity" is that it cuts out a whole lot of stuff which is inappropriate, without having to list them (or let people choose them and wait until someone complains, then watching the fireworks). Ideally, I think everyone would just fly their country's/locality's flag, but that's unlikely to be. (And yes, Sealand is pretty clearly an extant political entity, in the same way New York City, Basque Country or Scananavia are "extant political entities". Mars, on the other hand, is not, and would not be allowed here). J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I'd be willing to do away with the flags altogether; no matter how we say it should work, it's going to cause drama. J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is no purpose of using flags of political entities in Wikicup then let us continue without flags. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, flags are just a fun little gimmick. I'm flying the flag of the Republic of Rose Island, which I really, really hope means that at least one person will click on the flag and read the story of the Republic of Rose Island (it's hilarious). Issue is that the Republic isn't exactly extant. Mind you, I doubt anyone would care, and if they did, I'd switch to the Conch Republic which is extant... kinda. The point, I guess, is that we should maybe open it up a bit. Maybe just a "If you really want to fly a non extant flag, ask a coordinator" kind of deal. (I'd ask to fly the Qing Dynasty flag, actually, scratch that, there's a flag for the Mongolian Empire which I'd choose.) Flags are supposed to be fun, we should make it reflect that. I'd love to see a round where I'm up against a user flying the flag of a micronation, another user flying a flag used in Russia in the 1800s, a third flying a 13 star Betsy Ross U.S. flag, etc.. We should have fun with the whole thing.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I use the flag of the Cherokee Nation, myself. ;) I don't agree that we're relying "too much" on WP:COMMONSENSE; we should always assume WP:CLUE. Perhaps wording like this might work? You must choose a flag to fly. You may choose any freely licensed flag image that is already legitimately used in the article space, provided that it is not a flag that could be reasonably expected to be disruptive or offensive to other users. You may choose a flag that has already been chosen by another participant or a new flag altogether. The judges reserve the right to remove any flag deemed inappropriate. If you do not choose a flag, one will be randomly assigned by the judges at the beginning of the competition.. That clears up what "isn't appropriate" and allows for more latitude - and fun. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That does sound reasonable. What I'm worried about is a flag being removed, and then someone saying "well, if THEY can use flag x, I should be allowed that flag..." J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The WP:OTHERCRAP argument would be a concern, but as long as nobody got the bright idea to use some flags I won't mention by name but should be obvious, it should be coolio all around. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, look at what Secret is flying. Totally inappropriate. :D  S ven M anguard   Wha?  11:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we send the Miami Mice to take it away? ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop picking on Miami! The Dolphins are giving them enough pain.....Buggie111 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the Dolphins are no longer in danger of a winless season, can I go back to fake-mocking Miami?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  11:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't be able to stop you. I'm too happy Luck won't be in the AFC East. Buggie111 (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

click
Can we use click instead of flagicon? Albacore (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say no, that template takes up too much space. There is, however, nothing preventing you from creating a flagicon for Argentine Antarctica, seeing as it's a legitimate body with a free flag. It's not difficult to create a flagicon setup at all. Create one of these, then use a flagicon as normal to make it work.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to create - Country data Argentine Antarctica already exists. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Eligible candidates
I have now seen two users with almost no editing background sign up, and I was wondering if we could have a "minimum number of edits" qualifier (such as 20 edits or so) to remove obvious non-competitors. Thoughts?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  23:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why - it could be seen as biting the newbies, and if somebody wants to have some WikiCup fun while learning the ropes, why not? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)