Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2009/6

Maintenance
I've "borrowed" the layout of a new WikiCupbox from ITN (also to be found at DYK) and begun a process of categorisation at Category:Wikipedia WikiCup. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  09:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice! Thanks, Candlewicke!  GARDEN  09:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  10:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Thank you for all of this!  iMatthew //  talk  //  12:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

NEW POOLS!
See the main page. (/me waits to be trampled by eager competitors).  iMatthew //  talk  //  22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting set of pools, which is the group of death this time? BTW Its somehow appropriate that everyone starts with 10 DYK points, nice touch.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's great. That's more points than I got the entire last round from non-mainspace edits. Useight (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake. Heh, sorry. Fixed now.  iMatthew //  talk  //  22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I approve these pools. Gary King  ( talk ) 22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the group of death, I'd put my money on Pool D. They averaged 597 points each during Round 1. After Pool D, Pool C averaged 532, Pool A averaged 510.4, Pool E averaged 484 (taking Durova's handicap into account), Pool F averaged 474.6, and Pool B averaged 449.8. Useight (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * – Juliancolton  | Talk 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Group of death? Pool D? :( -- can  dle &bull; wicke  02:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh noes the DYK King! Oh double noes Gary King! Why me lord? Couldn't you move Durova and Mitchazenia into pool D as well? Then I might at least win the sympathy vote! Paxse (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

...I lost out of second to Bedford by one point? Saaaaad. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, well, you still did enough. Well done!  GARDEN  21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DYK king?! -- can  dle &bull; wicke  20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you sir (or madam as the case may be). Did you or did you not submit a 14 article hook in the first round? That's incredible, it's almost obscenely good - DKY King is an understatement if anything! Paxse (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, better clear that up – sir would be correct – yes sir (or madam, perhaps?). Ah yes, I'm currently attempting to construct a suitable and worthy sequel. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Round 1
Shouldn't there be a link to the round 1 results and submissions somewhere on the page? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the navbox at the bottom of the page- that has history links. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Which don't actually include the history. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It has a link to the points and results from the first round. No submission history, I agree that that should be added somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. -- Scorpion 0422  02:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Scorpion, your bad reviews have been solicited at the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have recieved your emailed example of a bad review. I view that as a quickpass by a reviewer who cheated the Drive system with a bunch of quickpasses of high quality articles.  I have gone through the regular GAC process and there are some reviewers who don't give substantive feedback.  Given the number of reviewers in the Drive, it is only reasonable to expect one or two such persons in the Drive.  The review was deficient,  but not incompetent.  Incompetence is a review that says a bad article is good for stupid reasons or that a good article is bad for stupid reasons.  A review that says a good article is good with very limited reasons is not incompetent.  GAC is not PR although we all hope for help improving our articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, saying a bad article is bad for reasons that aren't true is an incompetent review as well because it does not help make it good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Future scoring changes
I have been encouraged to re-present my thoughts here. I just noticed the existence of the WikiCup. After getting over the fact that the leading DYK and GA content creators seem to have been overlooked in the invitation process, I started thinking about whether the process could be improved. I felt that there should be a better scoring system that rewards adding value to wikipedia.

Many people say the Cup is working. I.e., they say that there are no problems at any of the review processes resulting from the competition and that the contestants are enjoying it. However, no one has said, I think the competition is encouraging people to work on the things that need to be worked on. It is very well known that certain articles are more valuable/important to the project than others. We need only look as far as the article scoring for something like Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7. We should probably be encouraging content contributors to increase the quality of our most important articles by giving more points for more important articles. I think the current scoring system should use a factor to adjust the scores. Taking Barack Obama to FA should be considered more valuable than say encouraging someone to take Illinois Centennial Monument to FA. Whereas the former gets about 35,000 page views a day, the latter seems to get about 10 page views a day when it is not on the main page. Maybe someone should get double points for an article like Obama's (factor of 2) and reduced points (factor of .2 or something) for time spent on the latter type. Additionally, the current scoring system gives the same amount of credit for a promotion regardless of what portion of the credit a person deserves. Suppose an article is pretty much a GA and someone comes by and successfully nominates it for GA, FA, or FL promotion without making significant changes. It is not representative of the value added to wikipedia to say that this nominator should get the same credit as a person who has largely created an entire article that he promotes. Also, the current system gives DYK noms the same number of points as DYK creations and expansions. Whereas the latter had to improve the article, the former did nothing but nominate it in many cases. For example, it might make sense to divide WikiCup WP:FP points 1/3 for taking the picture, 1/3 for editing the picture and 1/3 for nominating the picture. Similarly, a DYK might be divided between the page creator, expander and nominator. Maybe a system could be used for GA, FA and FL where the most important editor gets 100% of the designated points, the second most gets a fraction of that amount such as 70%, the third, fourth and fifth get even less credit. These are thoughts for next year.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a participant, but perhaps a bonus might be awarded if an FA promoted during the WikiCup appears on the main page? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had suggested previously that nominator credit be given for TFAs, but forgot to mention that here. I think it is a credit to a nominator whether the article was promoted during the CUP or not. I think an author could take the time to nominate something at WP:TFAR that had previously been promoted and deserve credit.  The TFAR procedure is time consuming.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that our official lists of really important articles aren't very good. For instance, WP:CORE includes House, Recreation, and Tool - which I fail to believe that anyone actually looks at ever. Anyway, getting an article to FA is a major achievement. We shouldn't rob them of points too lightly. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7 relies on WP:CORE. How about a simple system using pageviews to determine value added.  I don't understand your use of the term rob people of points.  There is some sense of entitlement in the choice of words.  Do you think we should encourage people to work as hard on articles like Illinois Centennial Monument that get 10 or 20 page views a day as they do on articles like Barack Obama that get thousands of views a day.  I am just suggesting that we create a WikiCup system where people who do work important to the project get rewarded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So just because Design 1047 battlecruiser gets 40–50 page views a day means that all my hard effort on the article (do you want to imagine how hard it is to find English RS' for a never-built Dutch battlecruiser?) should get less points? Barack Obama may be an important article, but keep in mind that page views aren't the only indication of value; Design 1047 is literally the first comprehensive article about those ships since 1980, I believe. There is no way one would find this information elsewhere without much effort. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My seven FAs range from 36 page views a day to 640 a day based on March stats (except Saxbe fix which uses Feb because it was a March TFA). I think what is important is not how important we feel our own work is.  What matters is the readers.  We are not creating an encyclopedia for ourselves.  Although I would like to say the ones that I worked hardest on are the most important.  I think the ones that are most important to the project are the ones that the readers want to read as exhibited by page views.  More readers want to read Campbell's Soup Cans and South Side (Chicago) than my other articles.  Of course, page views is not the only indicator, it seems to be one of the few that people who know wikipedia importance (the creators of Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7) use.  Do you feel you know more about what is important to the project than the creators of Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, yes: Wikipedia 0.7 really lost me with their recent automated evaluation, which led to a lot of stupidity, followed by A. Their entitlement issues with insisting every Wikiproject drop what they were doing and help them out; and B. Their insistence that a simple automated evaluation was all that was needed, ignoring the Wikiproject's suggestions for improving the automated lists. The promise that all FAs would be individually considered, and thus did not need to be suggested for evaluation, followed by them not evaluating FAs was also rather bad form. If that's supposed to be the best possible evaluation of article importance, then we should not consider article importance. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K. since you consider yourself somewhat of an expert on importance, what do you suggest as measures of article importance?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I don't understand your use of the word entitlement. It seem malplaced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think ranking articles by importance is desirable, and have said so. So why should I be required to provide an alternative when pointing out major flaws in a system for ranking article importance. As for the word entitlement: Without prior notification that anything was going to be happening, they announced on September 15th, 2008 that automatic selection had occurred on the talk page for every single Wikiproject. A few projects I belong to found severe problems with the lists provided, but our comments were met with an "it's already been decided", and outright rudeness. In short: They wanted the Wikiprojects to clean up and select a version for them, but did not want to hear any comments about problems in an automatic selection scheme that might be improved by the actual experts in the fields. They felt they had the right to order all of Wikipedia around, but did not want to listen to suggestions by the people being ordered. If that isn't entitlement, what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, 0.7 selection was about as badly managed as it could be, and the fallout from it is going to make it very hard to bring WikiProjects in for any future work. But we are now way off-topic. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Page views? So I should get more points for the kind of pop-culture stuff I write about some of the time than for the more encyclopedic, complicated articles I write at other times? They're both good articles, but the former is getting perhaps 15 times as many page views, despite being much easier to write, less encyclopedic and of far less lasting significance. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You touch upon an interesting issue. My next WP:GTC will be 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team when  2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team,  John Beilein,  Manny Harris,  DeShawn Sims, and  Michigan Wolverines men's basketball are all approved at GA.  This is a time sensitive GTC.  Unlike my most visited FA Campbell's Soup Cans, it is going to be much less important in the future than it is today. However, if I were analyzing 2009 content contributions I think it would be correct to give it a decent amount of credit.  If Andrew Johnston (singer) is important to readers in 2009, then a competition for 2009 content contributions should evaluate it as such, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) And the fact that you can get a decent bio of Obama in any place whereas there is no better account of USS Nevada (BB-36) or USS Connecticut (BB-18) on the internet nor any other account of Design 1047 battlecruiser anywhere seems kind of odd. Someone looking for Obama could find something everywhere; someone looking for Design 1047 could find nothing else. IMO, the current scoring system is the best compromise possible and your idea is unbelievably complicated and objective. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My current FAC, Fountain of Time has no text books. That is probably because there is not a lot of demand in the marketplace for books about it.  There are topics where WP is the only comprehensive resource.  For example, the biography of my favorite pet and my last girlfriend have no information on the internet.  If I spend a lot of time chronicling details of either of these, I could claim that I have done WP a great service because WP has the only comprehensive source.  However, if no one wants to read about my last girlfriend or my favorite pet have I really spent my time wisely.  How much does it improve WP to create a resource for something that has no viewership interest? Additionally, I think you underestimate the value of a WP Obama biography which has clickable links to all kinds of relevant WP resources on the subject.  Also, you say the change is unbelievably complicated and objective.  It is just the opposite.  It says if more people view it, it is more important and deserves a higher factor.  The other part of the suggestion may be objective, but no one is even arguing about that.  However, we could simply do the objective importance part of the suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you're also making the error of assuming that more readers = more importance for readers. Compare the page views of High School Musical with the page views for David Hume. I think I know which one people doing genuine research would be viewing, as opposed to bored schoolgirls playing with Google. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is you who is making the error. There will be a few exceptions, but in general more readers does mean more importance to readers. Sure many schoolgirls are googling HSM, but there are also many people who have seen the movie that want more details on it  Many popular movies will have high readership in the years near their public release.  The service to the reader is that we have an article.  Of course, we could have a dual scoring system where two winners are declared.  One wins based on scaled points and another based on all articles being equal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Hume gets the proper amount of page views for his relative importance. 2.5 K hits a day is a lot. I just think HSM has a surprisingly high amount of hits.  I would certainly feel good about a system that encouraged people to take either of these to FAC more than a lot of the articles that have been mentioned in this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Importance is objective. Take for example Ice hockey at the Olympic Games. As an ice hockey and Olympics fan, I would argue that it is very important, especially with the 2010 games 10 months away. However someone with no interest in sports whatsoever would argue otherwise. I agree that your proposal is complex and likely would not make much of a difference. Given the choice between doing one large, time-consuming GAC worth 75 points that could take several weeks or 4 or 5 quick easy GACs worth 30 points a piece, I think most people would go with the latter. -- Scorpion 0422  17:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Scorpion. Still looking for a show of faith on the bad reviews above to show you were not Bull$#!tt!ng. As for this matter, I don't buy your argument that incremental changes don't matter.  A WikiCup participant choosing between working on a 75 point article and a 30 point article might choose the 75 point article.  An articles viewership is not necessarily indicative of the time it would consume to create. My two most time consuming GAs (Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Jack Kemp) only get about 250 page views a day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to single anyone out because my personal policy is to never criticize reviewers unless I absolutely have to becaquse far too many good reviewers have been chased away by arrogant jerks who complain that their GAC was unfairly failed or yada yada yada. Unlike you, I take what I can get for reviews without ranting about reviewers. I was simply saying that I got some rushed reviews that were rather unsatisfactory, certainly nothing worth kicking a fuss up about. -- Scorpion 0422  18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean unlike me when it is you who is ranting about phantom bad reviews. It certainly sound to me like you are making something up. spot checked dozens and dozens of reviews (about 20% of the drive reviews) and they all passed as competent reviews. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall a certain user who was always complaining at WT:GAC because he felt his GACs were being quickly and unfairly failed... Can't remember who though... And I'm not "ranting" about bad reviews (and if I was it wasn't my intention), I simply stated that a reviewers wikicup would encourage quick half-assed reviews, and I said I had some unsatisfactory reviews recently. -- Scorpion 0422  18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * About 200 GAC ago, when I was learning the process, I did make complaints about quick fails before I understood WP:WIAGA. In my 250 or so GACs, I have only taken about 5 to WP:GAR and only one time did I complain about the competence of the reviewer, as I recall. I am not talking about 2 years or 200 GACs ago, I am talking about last month. I don't believe there were any significant incompetent reviews. And if there were it was just the general 1% or so of really bad reviews not a function of the drive. However, If you have a list with even two personal terrible reviews I am all ears. Otherwise, I assume you are just making up an argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How many people have clicked on my links above? I'm sure plenty will have done. That bumps readership. I certainly clicked your example of an "unvisited" article. Not everyone who visits an article is reading it, by any means. Earlier tonight, I was recategorising- articles got a view based solely on the fact that they were in a category they should not have been. If you seriously believe that, because HSM is getting more views than Hume, it is currently more important, then yes, we fundamentally disagree. It's difficult to find any way of weighting the importance of articles that is not subjective; you believe you have found one in page views, but judging based on page views is an imprecise science at best, barking up the wrong tree at worst. (Also, yes, I realise that Hume does get a good amount of page views, I just looked on my bookshelf for someone significant and he jumped out at me. I'm sure I could find a better example of a hyper-important figure from history who isn't actually read about much, but for whom most readers would be interested in reading, rather than looking for pictures or gossip.) To further Scorpion's point, I couldn't care less about ice hockey, and I didn't realise there was an Olympic Games in 2010. On the flip side, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people in this coversation who had never heard of David Hume, existentialism, utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill, or any number of things on my bookshelf. J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument. Hume at 2.5K hits per day is truly more important than Paris Hilton who gets 9k per day. My point is that switching to a system that ranks 90% of the articles in terms of relative importance would be better than a system where editors are not really encouraged to improve the project.  Clearly, all pop culture gets over rated by page views. That is a minor problem, IMO.  Aside from a consistent bias toward pop culture, I don't see much wrong with the page view factor.  Maybe page views could be used with a pop culture override that reverts to a factor of one for pop culture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you are just trying to make a lot of complicated changes that would cause a lot of work for iMatthew, Garden and THO so that you will have a better chance at winning next year. Why don't you start your own competition, then you can run it however you want. -- Scorpion 0422  18:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, the changes would help put me ahead of my rival Mitch because may pages get more page views than his. I said my FA page views are between 36 and 640. I don't think he has any FAs that get 36 page views a day. However, the stuff I do is not that important compared to the rest of the WP world.  I don't know if I even have a GA that gets 1k page views a day.  The spirit of the changes is much like DYK.  Now that DYK has a showcase of articles that get the most page views, I have found articles that have both gotten me on that list and gotten me into ITN.  I think the articles that I spend time on now are of more importance to the project now that page views are in the back of my mind.  I think many editors might start to think about topics in their areas of interest that others would like to read about a little more if we had a page view perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Both of my ITN credits (Inauguration of Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich corruption charges) are articles that I would not have started had DYK not started emphasizing page views. This emphasis helped me to think about how I could help the project by creating articles that a lot of people would want to read.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

At the original suggestion (cursed time zones!) I'd give you an instantaneous no. I for one am not willing to punish editors purely for where their interests lie. However you raise a fair point, just not one I feel should be implemented in a competition such as this. GARDEN 18:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed to the instantaneous no. No reason to continue discussion. Anybody is welcome to close it. iMatthew : Chat  18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've resolved it but it's a shame to archive a discussion after only a few hours. GARDEN  18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems like some sort of power play or some crude attempt to pick a fight by telling a guy to shut up while a lot of discussion is going back and forth about his topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there is no point in continuing a discussion when the judges are giving you immediate "no"s. It's become evident that you really need to make your own competition, and quit trolling this talk page because I inadvertently skipped over your name while inviting users. iMatthew : Chat  19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just wait till next year and then try to promote a lot of articles interesting to me that no one reads.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that your attitude can get you banned from the WikiCup. You have no right to make an unfriendly environment, and if you do (as you've been) while you are competing, any judge will easily ban you from the Cup. iMatthew : Chat  21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Tony, I think that's a valid point. This is just a bit of fun- no one is out to abuse it, no one is desperate to win- if someone is at a slight advantage for whatever reason, then so be it. It doesn't really matter- it's just a way to help us to focus our content contributions. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. I doubt anybody gives a crap about winning or loosing (well very little). The point is to get more users more active in content creation and expansion. If you plan on coming here next year, with the goal of coming in first and getting the top score, you have the wrong intentions. iMatthew : Chat  21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Content creation has been my whole point. I think the scoring system could be altered to encourage more important content creation.  However, I will play by any rule book you write.  I do enjoy competition and attempt to win when I compete.  I also enjoy humanitarian service like I do every day here on WP.  The two do not conflict.  Many of the article that I will submit are articles that I would not take the time to polish without the contest.  If the contest can motivate me to polish them then you should be happy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, people resolving to hold off on easy FAs until the next contest begins isn't going to attract new entrants. If anything people will say "what's the point in participating when someone so desperate to win is basically cheating?" -- Scorpion 0422  22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All I am saying is that I have known about these articles long before I knew about the contest and have not been motivated to polish them. The contest could motivate me to do so. I stopped working with  after his work got too good to need my help.  So for maybe a year and a half he has been creating stuff I have not been polishing up for even GA.  During a contests I might look at what stuff he has done that is worth polishing.  I would not otherwise.  I will be continuing to nominate other work normally.  I just nominated one GA earlier today.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
Why is it that on this page I am under a second list? PXK   T  /C  18:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you were eliminated in round 1, so you are in the "Eliminated Round 1" section. Gary King  ( talk ) 18:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well actually I just fixed that, but before it was because you accidentally had two hashes (#) next to your name. Sorry!  GARDEN  18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks garden. PXK    T  /C  18:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, my bad (probably) :P GARDEN  18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about scoring
This has probably already been answered but I'm drawing a blank about it anyway. Do you only get points for articles you've nominated in round two that have passed? Or do you also get points for articles that you nominated during round one but passed during round two?-- Will C  19:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is yes, unless I've been misinformed? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing like answering a question with another question... -- can  dle &bull; wicke  19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes- stuff nominated in round one is alright for round two, as long as it passes in round two. Or, it better be, as I nominated a load of stuff just a couple of days ago... J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be used for any round you are in. I believe I made that rule, or was it Garden? iMatthew : Chat  19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, because I nominated a few articles for GAN during round one and was wondering if I were to still get points for them during round two.-- Will C  19:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Credits during the Interregnum
A slightly tricky question: I received a DYK credit in the interregnum (30/3 dammit!) between round 1 (ended 27/3) and round 2 (started 1/4). May I submit the DYK for credit in this round or nay? I'm happy with answers and opinions from either competitors or judges on this one. Basically, if anyone in the Cup thinks it would be wrong or unfair - no drama, I won't submit it. If folks think it is fine, then 5 points to me! Then I can say I'm beating Candlewicke on DYKs (briefly). Cheers, Paxse (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have exactly the same question... Sasata (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This question has been answered multiple times on this talk page. It can be submitted. :-\ iMatthew : Chat  09:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really?!! I thought it was just GA/Featured content, i.e. long-term nominations which needed reviewing... I've been doing myself out of DYKs and ITNs!!! So I'm in the lead then... I should've been in double figures within hours of the second round actually... please clarify all this as I was informed that there was some exception or other for DYKs in the first round and had some removed that were too early then... so anything definitely goes for the second round? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  13:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, not that I know of. I think that, if a FAC/GAN/DYK/ITN/Whatever nomination passes at any time in the contest it will count for either the current round or in the case of the "no-man's land" for administrative work, the round immediately following.  If you're knocked out of the round then unfortunately I wouldn't count them, myself.   GARDEN  21:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is alright?

 * File:Gasshukoku_suishi_teitoku_k%C5%8Dj%C5%8Dgaki_(Oral_statement_by_the_American_Navy_admiral).png (delist/replace nom)

It was a brand new restoration, and quite labourious. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes, it's okay. GARDEN  15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wildcards
Maybe we should add one wildcard into the June 1st to July 31st competition. It shouldn't affect the length of the final round too much. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perdone?  GARDEN  10:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It just means that the last round will go on for a week longer- in round three, we have "12 users left – 4 groups of 3, top one progresses." Why not make that "12 users left – 4 groups of 3, top one progresses, as well as the top one of all remaining users." There could even be a couple of wildcards. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. So you're proposing adding a wildcard space into Round 3?  GARDEN  10:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or maybe even a couple. There's room in the last round for some more, I reckon. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add a few.  Actually, it might even be better to have one large table instead of groups when we have so few and evenly matched contestants?  It might make things fairer in the long run.  GARDEN  10:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably best. I suppose an alternative might be two groups of 6 and two wildcards (to try and foster a little more competition in the groups) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as long as I get one of those wildcard slots automatically. I don't think its possible for me to get by in any other manner. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the club. I don't foresee me getting past the second round. Useight (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With that kind of attitude you won't. Chin up, start working. I was the top of my pool and second in the entire cup for like two days, now I'm the sixth wildcard. Things can change with a blink of an eye. You can do it.-- Will C  05:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not attitude, it's time. My schedule is packed. However, it turns out it will open up quite a bit in May, so I have a shot. Useight (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Changes made to the main page. iMatthew : Chat  13:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I much prefer the new system. J Milburn (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured Picture Sets
Did we ever decide how these work? I'm about to start on one. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really... I think we just count them as individual pictures. We'd have to discuss this again I reckon.  GARDEN  08:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What I got was regular credit. Never was asking for any more than that; just wondered whether they'd make the bot hiccup.  Durova Charge! 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regular points for each picture, or regular points for the whole nomination? J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For each. Did a Canadian restoration.  Durn bilingualism: had to do two of 'em. ;)  Durova Charge! 15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes- something about potatoes, wasn't it? :) J Milburn (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, it's Featured_picture_candidates/Kronheim%27s_Illustrations_to_Foxe%27s_Book_of_Martyrs. I didn't do this to win a contest (though that may be a nice bonus =P), I did it because I thought we were a bit light in our coverage of this sort of thing, so, you know. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, be aware that I'm going to try and get hold of a Wyeth Treasure Island, so do not expect this to be a one-off =) On the other hand, I think most people will agree that Wyeth's illustrations to Treasure Island are well worth having. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
I propose that anyone whose user name happens to have the same initials as those of a wikishortcut will be given 5 points per day because of their pure awesomeness. Also, anyone in the same section as Durova be given 5 points per day to counteract her pure awesomeness, but only if the person receiving the 5 points would have the same initials as a wikishortcut. I suggest this proposal go into effect immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, Durova is in the same pool as Durova, and WP:D is a wikishortcut. For that matter, WP:S, WP:U, and (bizarrely) WP:9 are all shortcuts. Have you actually thought this through? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently not well enough!!! : ( Even WP:SH works. :( This is really not fair. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support thought the user was already a bureaucr... Whoops! Absolutely brilliant idea. And I'll have 5 X 2 points per day per WP:P and WP:Pa Cheers, Paxse (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we can cut it down a bit. We could say that policy shortcuts don't count, because everyone has to follow policy, getting rid of initials like WP:N, WP:V, WP:C and WP:OR. This would allow for differences within the pools. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * !!! :( !!! Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mwahaha! Even WP:G exists! :D GARDEN  15:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IM too! :) iMatthew : Chat  15:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:JC ftw. – Juliancolton  | Talk 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:U. Useight (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if we're going to start tweaking the rules, might I suggest that Featured Redirects get 1 point each and Featured Graphs get 3.141592653589793238 points?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ED? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, someone could just start a ProposalCup. Let's see who can get the most successful proposals in a month. jj137 (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, I'm beginning to dislike these constant tweaking proposals. Usually one enters a competition in good faith and accepts the rules as they stand.  If there are lessons to be learned or changes to be made one implements them the following year, not making new rules up as the thing goes along.  And unfortunately, many of these proposals take a shape that would serve the interests of the proposer.  I voluntarily handicapped my own score in an effort to set a tone of sportsmanship and discourage that sort of thing, and tried to go along in good humor, and Ottava Rima seems to flatter--but even as humor it's wearing thin.  If this carries on much longer I will request the judges end the handicap.  Let's get back to what this WikiCup is supposed to be about: contributing content.  Durova Charge! 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, Durova: This entire thread was started by Ottava as a joke. :| iMatthew : Chat  11:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How many times have we changed the rules in the middle of this WikiCup? When the second round opened I realized I didn't even understand the rules anymore; so much had changed--and even more proposed changes to keep track of to double check whether they were implemented.  Now there are 'jokes' about a competition to propose the most scoring changes?  Thanks but no thanks; I could have done another restoration in the time it's taken to keep track of this stuff.  And the traditional norm of playing by the rules as given seems to have been completely abandoned.  It's left a bad taste in my mouth all along, it's fundamentally not funny, and I just can't grimace at it any longer.  I'm on the verge of either unhandicapping myself or quitting, frankly.  Durova Charge! 15:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I take full credit for the changes made during the round, and I apologize for that. Since last year, we have rebuilt this thing from the bottom up, and we're learning as we go. I hope you decide to stay with us, because this is all about the content, and as you've said before, the competition encourages users featuring content. iMatthew : Chat  15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hope I'm not too late to claim points for WP:C. Double points for WP:CA as well. And I'll have some more for WP:CAN. Thank you Australia! :) -- can  dle &bull; wicke  20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot WP:CW! I really love this proposal! -- can  dle &bull; wicke  00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I take full credit for the changes made during the round" Oh, so it's YOUR fault I'm not in round 2. GRR. Lol, WP:SEP works too. XD PXK    T  /C  17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose that we should add extra points for new article creations also --  Tinu  Cherian  - 05:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...next year? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not make a list of these proposals and consult it next year? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  21:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to discuss this suggestion, and it's not because I think it's either a good one or a bad one, it's just that there's been too many proposals already.
 * Could we please keep the discussion here on topic for this years contest and create a subpage to discuss any proposals, which should only be implemented next year? It seems like each time there was a proposal it was implemented and the goalposts have been moved so many times already during this contest that the spirit of the game began to weaken. I know Ottava's proposal was made as a joke and that's fine, but this one appears to be a serious proposal intended to be put into effect ASAP, and like Durova I'm getting a bit sick of it. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing the game, but lets play it out using the rules as they are now, with no more changes. Matthewedwards' : Chat  03:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  04:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that would be wise. However, this year seems to have been full of teething problems and we're simply trying to iron them out.  I understand we've been doing more than just moving the goalposts; we've ripped them in two and made triangles out of them.  For this, as I have done in the past, I apologise.  Gawd, I feel like the Labours here, trying to get off with everything with a "sorry" but that is hoestly not the case; I have attempted to the best of my ability to keep major changes to an absolute minimum, but when something is blatantly not working that isn't always an option.  GARDEN  12:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter cockup #234
Sorry, I forgot to put "Paxse" next to the flag of Cambodia in the "Pool leaders" section. My bad. GARDEN 15:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to say something about that. It was nice being in joint lead with such a beautiful view – see above. :) -- can  dle &bull; wicke  15:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is :D I can't imagine it will be a tie for too long though, but then, it's a funny old game... GARDEN  15:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment Candlewicke, thanks for the "name dropping" Garden :P That's twice I've been left out of the newsletter - I smell a cabal! Paxse (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * :O GARDEN  15:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)