Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/2

Awards for other types of editors
OK, so there are no hard ideas here yet, and I really mean that, note all the links are red. That means that the names aren't set in stone either, feel free to replace them or redirect them, or make any contributions to them you see fit. :) But, in the spirit of inclusiveness, I really think that we should note the contributions of the non-article producers as well. And these might not actually start until the end of January, given the need to set them up, advertise them, and so on. But I do want to see some sort of recognition given to other editors. So, feel free to add any particular specialties you don't see covered in the above. For those who engage in multiple activities, maybe we can arrange the winner get a big hug and kiss from Wikipe-tan or her male equivalent. Any and all suggestions welcome. Thanks for your attention. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User:John Carter/Gnomelord for the Wikignomes (free use images vaguely reminiscent of Elrond and Galadriel are more than welcome)
 * User:John Carter/Guardians of the Wikiverse - countervandalism
 * User:John Carter/Ambassadors - dispute and incident resolution
 * User:John Carter/Critics Circle - reviews, assessment, ane the like
 * I threw out a possibility with my comment here. Hopefully that helps. Useight (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

retire germany and Austria next year
I propose that the Germany and Austria flag would be retired in honor of the WikiCup winners ( Dreamafter and jj137 rspectively). Not for the 2010 WikiCup, but for the 2011 WikiCup and onward. The reason I'm stating this is because seeing that the Mexican flag was retired in honor of WikiCup winner Durova, I thought it was pretty corny we didn't retire that German and Austrian flag too after that announcement. Secret Saturdays  (talk to me) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova retired. Did those two retire? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's about if the winners retired? Well jj137 is planning to compete in 2010, but I don't know about Dreamafter. Secret Saturdays   (talk to me) 00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. We retired the flag, Durova's not retired ;)  But I don't see why we should reitre two two, they won it a long while ago.  GARDEN  17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be cool to retire the flag(s) of the winner(s) -- maybe give people an incentive to pick a flag that actually means something to them. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  (blah?)  ''' 20:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes sense, but I would venture to say that the WikiCup wasn't as well thought out, as serious or as well known when those flags "won". I do agree the idea makes sense, so I would not be opposed to the idea. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, no, I'm not competing next year (changed my mind in the past few weeks), but do whatever you all want :)  JJ (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't suppose it would be possible to contact the winners to let them choose now, when they know it will be retired, the flag of their choice, do you? John Carter (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I've retired from the WikiCup (although not from Wikipedia). Durova  379 23:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter who picks what flag or what flag is available or whether a certain flag should be retired? It's not like it means anything, it's just a bunch of pixels next to somebody's name, yet there seems to be a lot of these discussions about it. -- Scorpion 0422  00:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise what's the point of having a flag in the first place? It seems to me this is more like added incentive, a matter of (nationalistic) pride. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  (blah?)  01:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, potentially, home-town pride. Were it me, I might definitely check to see if my home town flag were available, and use it. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'd stop waffling between micronations. The point is, it's an added prize, something more tangible than just your name on a list. See, the only reason I know that Durova won last year is because her flag has been retired. Previous winners? Beats me. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  (blah?)  02:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, there's something of a precedent in real life -- some sports retire the numbers of the best players (baseball, American football, soccer, hockey, basketball) and some airlines retire fatal flight routes (on second thought, that's a bit morbid) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  (blah?)  08:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not need to have a poll on this. Polls are generally not a good thing. The idea that something turning into a debate suggests the need for a poll shows a strong misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. This is, frankly, not a big deal. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking up a flag
Out of respect, I was wondering if it would be alright if I take up Ottava Rima's flag for the upcoming wikicup as we have been collaborating on several projects together over the past year. Mrathel (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the flag is available, go for it. It's first come, first serve- we don't reserve any flags for anyone. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OR has retired due to a pending Arbcom decision and suggested that I take his flag as I finish the work on articles we have been editing for a period of time. Mrathel (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure- claim it before someone else does! J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination rules for 2010?
I was just wondering if a final decision has been made on this. Does content have to be significantly worked on in 2010? Exclusively worked on in 2010? Nominated in 2010? I'm not too fussed either way, but I suspect clarifying it before we start will cut down on the amount of invalid submissions. WFCforLife (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe worked on and nominated during 2010. I think it's a matter of just not abusing it. More important is that it is your work, rather than just a drive-by nomination. J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pool selection
How are the pools going to be selected. I don't know if a procedure has been discussed, but I think if you alphabetize all contestants and sequentially add one to each pool it would probably be fair.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Round 1 has only one pool.  iMatthew  talk  at 01:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And then I would imagine we would pick the pools based on first round scores. That's how they do it in sports (I think). J Milburn (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So would that be that the first 8 (or however many pools there are) get their own pools, and then player #9 goes into pool 8, or pool 1? Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That hasn't been determined yet, but it'll be something like that.  iMatthew  talk  at 18:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll work something out. Don't try to tactically finish eighth or anything... J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I in the competition?
I removed my name from the reconfirmation list as instructed, but now I can't find myself anywhere in the first pool. Am I missing my name somewhere?--Danaman5 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're on the poster, and yes, you've every right to be in the competition. I will ping iMatthew- it's probably just a mistake. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added you to the table :) J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Signing up for the WikiCup
How does one go about signing up to compete in the WikiCup? I have almost 40 articles I've created already, and I'm looking to perhaps work several of them up to GA or FA. I'm also thinking I'm going to get more involved in DYK. I think this would be a good deadline motivator, and it looks like fun. How can I sign up to be part of round 1? Unit Anode  19:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiCup/2010 Signups.  iMatthew  talk  at 19:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Matthew! Unit  Anode  19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
Just a quick question. Can contestant start working on articles now? Or they have to wait until Jan. 1st?— Chris! c / t 20:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can start now, but you have to have worked significantly on the article in 2010 as well. So if you'd like to start today, but continue working on it (preferably do most of the work after January 1st), that's fine.  iMatthew  talk  at 20:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll wait then. Thanks— Chris! c / t 20:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, so even though the DYK on my Sarah Thomas (American football official) article won't be on the mainpage until 2 January 2010, it won't count in the standings? Oh well. Unit  Anode  20:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. The nomination really has to have taken place in 2010. Happy new year! J Milburn (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New Hampshire
I did not notice until now that admin and I were both representing New Hampshire for the WikiCup. What shall be done? Since Jayron technically registered the flag first, I will gladly select a different flag if asked, or withdraw from the WikiCup if another flag cannot be found. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs) 00:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would be glad to help you find another one. New Mexico has a real beauty of a flag.  Could suggest others if needed.  Best regards,  Durova  390 01:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I sorta have a personal attachment to New Hampshire, so I'd prefer to keep it if possible. Is there someplace else you have lived or have some connection to?  -- Jayron  32  01:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would one of the flags at Flag of New England work for you Dylan620? -- Jayron  32  01:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken up New Mexico, per Durova's suggestion. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs) 01:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and best wishes. :) Durova  390 01:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Best wishes to you too, and a Happy New Year. :) -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs) 01:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Difference
The contestant list has 148 names but the table here has 154. Can one of judges fix the difference? 81.170.9.193 (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm looking into this. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed that discrepancy, but there are a couple of other issues that this has raised which I will now look into. Thanks for your note :) J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, hopefully resolved now. Two users have been removed from the main list, and six have been added to both the contestants' list and the poster. If there are any further concerns about this, just leave a note on this talk page. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing other competitors submissions
Do the judges wish to have any official policy about reviewing featured content submissions? I just submitted a FAC candidate, and like all good citizens should (hint hint), will be reviewing several others to keep the wheels turning. Should I avoid reviewing entries of other contestants? Also, should we be putting a disclosure on our submissions to let Sandy (or other delegates) know that we're in the Wikicup? Sasata (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick note in FAC submissions probably wouldn't be amiss. As for reviewing other contestant's submissions, I want to say we should do our best to review submissions from other participants, but this may have the negative effect of creating an "us and them" environment. What I can say is that, as we will collectively be nominating a lot of pages, we should be doing our best to review a lot, too. I'll certainly try to do my bit. J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think reviews of each others content is fine. One couldn't really sink other nominations without cause, as causeless oppose votes carry no real weight in these processes. I would probably say it's better to start off with a header of Comments and not Oppose unless there are serious issues with the content, but that's how I feel about these things in general (Opposing until you get what you want comes off so much more hostile than simply providing useful comments). Staxringold talkcontribs 23:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course- I merely didn't want to give the impression I was saying "Review content from other people in the Cup, ignore everything else" :) J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag Change
Can I have my flag changed to Nepal? The Wo  rld  21:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as Res2216firestar is already using Nepal. It's a bit late to be fiddling with flag changes now anyways- the flag doesn't really matter, the content does! J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer
I saw last year that users put a dislcaimer in their review requests stating they are in the wiki cup. I also have noticed a few of these this year as well. I have searched the guidelines and do not see any guidance on this. Is it required? If so is there a prefered way to do it? &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 03:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not required, but you are welcome to do it if you like. Some people are concerned that because people are in the WikiCup, they will be more inclined to abuse the processes; making sure reviewers are aware you're in the Cup just makes the whole thing more transparent. J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Question
In the rules it states that only articles worked on during the competition can be counted if promoted to GA or FA. What if I wrote an article a few months ago and make a few changes to it now, then nominate it for GA? If promoted, would this count? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah- as long as there's some work this year, it's legit. Just don't abuse it, and don't be a dick, and you should be fine :) J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, when do I note a nomination? After I nominate an article for DYK, or after the article is on the main page? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't claim points until the article has appeared on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed?
So, is it closed for submissions for this year already? I wasn't planning to join anyway, but it should be mentioned somewhere on this page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The competition has started, you had to sign up before it began, really. I suppose a note on the main page wouldn't go amiss- thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any chance I could have a late entry? It was only seeing the galvanising effect of the competition on my brother that made me want to do it, and it did only begin three days ago, out of at least a couple of months. Hopefully you won't mind since there's one big pool and if I do badly I just won't qualify. Thanks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

...How is this happening? We opened sign-ups in October, and three people so far have asked for late entry? GARDEN 11:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't October, it was actually July.  iMatthew  talk  at 11:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it? That's even worse! D: GARDEN  12:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you make an exception for late entries until the first points are scored?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose many don't plan things like this months in advance. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The winner will have planned for months but many of us are like the Finnish team in the summer Olympics or the Nigerian team in the winter Olympics, just playing for team spirit and trying not to embarass one's self, not playing to win gold (which is nearly impossible).


 * How about a 6 day grace period (practically 5 days for Hawaii and other islands near the international date line)? We are not Citibank imposing a late charge fee of $99 nor the Stasi imposing a jail sentence. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that sentiment, but it is bloody annoying from my point of view. We've been working on getting this up and running for ages, and now more people are just jumping in. I'll see what can be done... J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about it until very late but I did sign up before the deadline and even got my first choice of flag. Perhaps as a compromise, grace period of 6 days or the first 6 users who tried to enter after the cutoff, whichever comes first. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You spent a lot of time working on it. Others never heard of it until now. That's life. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I made every reasonable effort to spread the word, as did other judges. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just explaining why the judges may seem to react in odd ways to these requests. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Grandiose, I'm seeing what I can do. Could you choose a flag of a real or historical that has not already been taken? J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Grandiose is now in the competition. We (the judges) accepted that there would be some fiddling for the first few days (anyone watching the various pages closely will have noticed iMatthew and I knocking various things back and forth) but we are very much going to put a lid on this soon. J Milburn (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No scoring yet
What is up with all you ITN guys. At DYK we have to wait a week, but some of you guys should have scored by now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a proper ITN since November. It has become tougher... -- can  dle &bull; wicke  20:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just signed up days ago, don't quite understand the scoring, and have no game strategy yet. So I will lose.  Those who planned could have written 25 articles in advance, 10 DYK's that would be published January 2nd, and have 2500 points or more by February 1.  I will be lucky to have 10 points by February.  I feel like Senegal competing in the winter Olympics.  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is to have fun. And maybe, if you're lucky, someone will make a movie about your exploits :) Guettarda (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ITNs aren't as easy as everyone thinks... And I've been beyond busy with other projects.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 02:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry Suomi. My strategy depends entirely on 2 FLs and one GA being enough to get me into the second round, and if that does work I should actually be competitive. If I get eliminated, heck, I've still written 2 FLs and a GA, with lots more content to come! Win win really. WFCforLife (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Now scoring!
Fetchcomms has claimed the first points for Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri), a did you know. Well done, Fetchcomms! J Milburn (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hooty Hoo!!!! We're off and running.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Article eligibility
As I read the rules, it has come to my attention that Red Tail Project (nominated for DYK on December 30 and nominated for GAC December 28) is ineligible for points. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is correct. Articles must have been worked on, nominated and promoted during 2010. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do only articles we created or expanded 5x count? Or can we nominate an eligible article that we didn't work on (but came up with the hook, worked on the DYK nom, etc. etc.) and count that DYK toward our points? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  01:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that would constitute a "drive-by" nomination. You have to have worked significantly on the article. See the page listing the rules if you haven't already. J Milburn (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't sure what a "drive-by" nomination meant. Thanks for the clarification! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  02:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Scoring for ITN
I just had my first article placed on the front page of Wikinews. Does this score points, or how does that work exactly? Unit Anode  05:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Wikinews is separate. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  09:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, you can only claim points for content recognised on Wikipedia. As such, in the news is awarded points, Wikinews is not. Wikipedia's featured pictures are awarded points, Commons's FPs are not. J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lots of technicalities to remember. Thanks. Unit  Anode  15:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * However, there is an upcoming contest on Wikinews you might be interested in checking out. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I´m out
I´m not in the contestants list, I´m missing even when I deleted my name from the reconfirmation list before the deadline... I was wondering if somebody can tell me why? P.S. I´ll be able to use my true account very soon, in a matter of days. - Woglinde 02 (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking into it. Sorry, this is probably out fault. J Milburn (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added you to the various lists. Interestingly, a submissions page had already been created. This was a problem at our end because you removed your name from the reconfirmation list after we had dealt with most of the lists, and nobody noticed. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation of potentially stored articles

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * No further need for discussion. Go write articles. Thanks :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at the scoring chart and sorted by score,  was in first place. I wanted to see how so many points were accumulated so fast. I noticed that the first point scoring credit is for an article that was plopped into the main space as a nearly complete article. How is such an article determined to have been worked on this year? It seems conceivable that people could have articles stored up in user space and other wiki provinces.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could look through his contributions. I do that as well with the articles I work on, but it's plain as day in my sandbox. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, this is a possibility, but I'm not sure accusations are a great idea. However, as someone who has worked closely with Sasata on fungi related content, I can assure you that he's always been doing this, sometimes creating several articles of the same quality in only a matter of edits in the same day. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's sad to see this conversation. Last year I was accused of making too many edits, this year, too few. I suppose if I had saved after every few additions then everything would be alright, no? FWIW, I wrote all of that article in the few hours before I "plopped" it, and I intend to do that with all of the articles I write this year. I like the clean edit history, and the practice of checking and double-checking before it goes "live" just means there's less work for others to do. Sasata (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems patently unfair that people can write articles offline during 2009 (which is pretty clearly being done), and yet I have had 2 or 3 DYKs on the mainpage since 1 January, yet those don't count, since I was above-board, and posted my work as I finished it, in late December. That doesn't seem fair or equitable at all. Unit  Anode  16:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you claiming that people have written articles offline? J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at it for yourself, J. There are numerous hard-copy references used, as well as an extensive article. It's difficult to fathom that this article wasn't written -- at least in large part -- in 2009. With that said, it seems to be a really solid article. If the rules are such that they can be used in that way (save the work you're doing offline for posting at the beginning of the year) that's fine. My only comment was that it doesn't seem fair. But life isn't "fair", so I'll certainly get over it. My only question would be if that is acceptable by rule. Unit  Anode  16:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't track everyone and their actions. And in fairness to Sasata, I've figured how to write that much in one afternoon - its not that hard to write something in one afternoon, especially one of that length. Mitch 32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 16:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can do it that quickly as well -- if most or all of the sources are available online. If not, such an extensively referenced article (with so many offline sources) would take me quite awhile to write. Unit  Anode  16:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Actually, the only hard copy references I used were the books on the shelf next to me (for which I have already made a text file of completed citation templates, so all I have to fill in is the page #); the other refs are either websites, or obtained from academic databases, and I have access to all of them. I've been doing this for a while now, so I'm optimized for speed and efficiency. I suppose if you still don't believe, you could pick a random mushroom, and I'll write a GA-quality article about it in less than a day.... but you'd have to make it worth my while :) Sasata (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not accusing you. :) Just trying to see that if people do extensive research. I have about 400 sandboxes of articles, most with no writing, but I got the sources beforehand, it still counts, because I have written much of anything, but I found the sources beforehand. There shouldn't be a problem. Mitch 32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 16:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * UnitAnode- Sasata has access to online databases of journal articles and owns numerous books on fungi. I could find a comparable number of sources on many mushrooms- a combination of books I own, JSTOR access and Google Books. Additionally, as I said earlier, I have seen him create fully formed articles like this many times- it's the way he writes. I can see no reason to believe that Sasata is attempting to cheat the system in any way. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think he was trying to cheat the system, I was just questioning if it was fair that the system allowed such things. Apparently, the perception that I had about how it must have had substantial work done in 09 was completely wrong. For that, I apologize. I do still wonder, however, if it would be acceptable to write an entire article offline in late 2009, and simply hold it offline until the first of the year, for use in the WikiCup. Note that I don't believe this is what Sasata did, I'm just wondering if that's acceptable, in principle. Unit  Anode  18:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a touchy subject. While it's preferred that you don't do this, we certainly don't want to penalize people for actually writing it, and taking (for example) a 2009 GA to a 2010 FA is in the spirit as this. Speaking as a judge, I believe that it's allowed so long as you don't abuse it. If you've written a full article before the round, I don't think many will complain, but if you did five there is cause for concern from both competitors and judges. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally find it curious that an entire article could and would be formulated with one edit. I have lost content intended to be saved by not saving large pieces as I have assembled them. Thus, I thought an experienced editor like Sasata would save every so often to avoid losing content. If you back him up because this is consistent with how he researches, please just show me a couple of other similar articles that were almost completely formed in the first edit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not going to go hunting for diffs, but I have written full articles in one edit when I have had the time to do it. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , , and I could find many more, but shouldn't I be wasting my time writing articles instead? Sasata (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if you are writing fungi articles. ;) Now, warship articles, those would be a good use of your time! :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that mass content addition is your style. I am a one sentence at a time guy. I guess it is a good thing that they don't use edit counts this year.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am well-versed in that technique as well. I created several thousand fungus stubs that I hope to bring to start-class, one sentence at a time. After all, it makes me very popular with the ladies. Sasata (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that we, as judges, have been removing contributions where the work has taken place before 2010. I've no interest in naming names, but I have absolutely no doubt that no abuse has taken place in any of the cases I have dealt with. Further, as Sasata has fully explained the situation, I think it's clear that no abuse has taken place in this case. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While I see no reason to doubt Sasata here, if articles are brought out of sandboxes, it would probably be a good idea to move the sandbox, rather than do a cut-and-paste. That way the judges can clearly see what was done when.  Guettarda (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a good practice generally, regardless of the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops! I sandboxed List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks and just copy/pasted. I'm doing List of Houston Astros first-round draft picks now, I'll be sure to move it. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to perform a history merge, if you like. Moving rather than copy-pasting is almost essential for copyright reasons when there are multiple authors of the draft. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the sole author, and it was a while ago in edit terms. If you want I can find the diffs, but I don't think it's a huge deal. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In some cases it may be useful to ask an admin to do a history de-merge, especially if you've used the sandbox for a lot of other things in the past. (I'd be happy to do that for anyone who asks.) Guettarda (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't, as I have no idea how to. Have we a guide somewhere? J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea. But as long as there aren't too many versions in the history, it's pretty easy: delete the article, select the desired revisions, restore just them. move the page, and then go back to the old page and restore the versions you left behind.  And then your browser may tell you the article doesn't exist, but that's fixed by clearing your cache.  Guettarda (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy enough. Thanks. I assumed deleted revisions moved with the rest... J Milburn (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue with moving a sandbox is I use the same sandbox for loads of things, so I'll end up moving like 15 articles worth of history. I'm going to copy/paste this Astros article, but I'll start using specific boxes after that. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Section break
I am just realizing that all ten of the examples submitted above were from the perversely-incented WP:CUP 2009 final round. I was asking for clarification that this is how you edit outside of the CUP. Prior to competing in the cup did your work take the form where complete articles were added to WP in one edit. I am still finding it hard to fathom this type of editing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only been really active on Wikipedia since about November, 2008. Wikicup 2009 started Jan 1, 2009. I don't have much editing or article contributions outside the context of the Wikicup. Sasata (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, barring the discovery of a secret article-writing machine buried underground somewhere in the arctic north, I don't see any reason to believe Sasata's articles aren't genuine. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely... Tony, could you please drop this now? J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this whole moving not copy/pasting thing though. Now that my sandbox has a clean history I'll definitely do that. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I a trying to understand how the rules apply. So I was asking questions.  They have been answered as well as possible all things considered.  I just wonder how someone with no CUP experience got invited to the cup last year and I didn't hear about it.  It seems like there is no answer that will really satisfy me.  I would prefer if all contestants made a reasonable amount of intermediate edits so that questions like this were not necessary.  If it would not trouble Sasata, it would make the issue easier if going forward he would make more intermediate edits. It is like a quiz where an instructor would be well advised to require students show their work so that derivation is not questioned.  If people do not show there work, it could open the door to fraud even if none exists here.  In order that everything be above board and others not be tempted I would encourage more display of intermediate work. It would be better for all concerned.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Man, just end it. I write in 1 or 2 edits (including full rewrites) when I can, because my mind is focused and I know I can full way through. I work alone, I always work alone, and I never try to fraud work. People are fully allowed to do it. Proposing that people must edit more than once to justify that fraud hasn't been committed is not a WikiCup issue. Mitch 32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 19:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, since you are neither my boss, nor my high-school teacher, I won't be complying. For me, intermediate edits are a time-waster: one has make to make an edit summary (a few seconds), save the page (a few more seconds), and then reload the editor (a few more seconds). Cumulatively, this would have the effects of wasting minutes of my valuable, limited editing time :) Plus, the fact that it vexes you so makes we want to do it even more ;)
 * (p.s. I wasn't "invited" to the cup last year, I was surfing around and happened to see it somehwere and was intruiged. BTW, Here is an example of a "plopped" article that wasn't for the Wikicup. Sasata (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) I see no reason editors should have to do this purely for WikiCup. I also do some complete article rewrites as a cut/paste out of my sandbox or I'll take in use then do a massive amount of edits at once, just depends on my mood. And I really don't see how it would indicate "no fraud" as one could easily just copy/paste a bit at a time instead. Unless someone has given a reason not too (and Sasata clearly has not in this case), assuming in good faith that he is following the rules is what I think would be better for all concerned. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, how did I get pulled into this? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cause I'm tired and was in a hurry and copied the wrong name cause I can't spell? :-P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A few words from The Great Mountain of Wiki Wisdom in Tibet
There's a wonderful scene from a film called Chariots of Fire about Olympic track runners. Early in it one of them loses the lead in a race because he looks over his shoulder to see how the other guy is doing. That distraction slows his step and he finishes second. Afterward he learns to focus his concentration better and he becomes a gold medalist.

It's surprising to see how many people care about off season editing because the first round is the easiest part to pass. Plenty of people who register don't do much editing at all, and a fair number of people who get through the early rounds have schedule changes or burn out. The way to avoid burnout is to enjoy the Cup.

The WikiCup is about helping the encyclopedia. Its payoff is trivial, and if you work your hindquarters off for ten months to earn that little wikitrinket there are people who will snark at you for having it. So if you're here, do it for the fun of friendly motivation. Durova 394 21:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wise words. Thank you for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking something along those lines myself (although none so wise nor well-spoken). There are a heck of a lot of people in this contest.  I'd be very surprised if most of them crossed 100 points (10 dyks, to put it in simple terms).  Having watched the contest last year, I feel pretty confident that unless he drops out, Sasata is almost certain to get through to Round 2.  As is Tony.  And they're not going to scrape in.  So the more than gets done, the more the encyclopaedia benefits.
 * There's another thing too - unless I misread things, points don't carry over from one round to the next. So actually you should aim to come in at the bottom of the weakest group - that way, you put the least effort in, and you are up against the weakest players that made it to Round 2.  :)  Guettarda (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note that no one gets rich or famous from this contest, and there are no endorsement deals waiting for the winners. Guettarda (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thank you both. If it helps to know this, I actually never aimed submissions at particular rounds and the only featured article didn't count because it had gone to FAC in late December. To the extent there was any strategy at all it was mostly a belief that the best approach was to stay optimistic and keep editing.  It wasn't easy to maintain that attitude and there were moments I wish I could take back.  The important thing is to recover from occasional stumbles and remember what this is really about.  Durova  394 21:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (after ec) No endorsement deals? Dang, no wonder Nike hasn't returned the calls. ;)  Durova  394 21:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter
When will the first newletter come out? Could you please emphasize that contestants should really be reviewing other articles at WP:GAN, WP:FLC, and WP:FAC, recommending at least one review per article submitted? There are now well over four hundred articles nominated for GA, as well as 49 FLs and 61 FAs. I don't know how many are from Cup participants, but this is higher than lately. Of course we can't require it, but if each contestant reviewed just two or three GAs, the backlog would nearly disappear. In addition, by reviewing others, it shortens the queue for one's own article to be reviewed. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 02:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never really reviewed GAs, but I'm trying to pump out reviews for FLC. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The newsletter will come out when one of us arranges it- I've written part of it, but it needs to be "put together", as it were. Myself and iMatthew, who were the more active of the judges just prior to the Cup beginning, are currently busy in the real world. We will get a newsletter out soon, I promise. I the mean time, yes, we need more reviewers. Despite those apparent backlogs, I've heard that DYK is running more smoothly than usual, so that's at least one piece of good news. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Question
Can we remind posters not to update their submissions page with things not yet promoted? It doesn't matter now, but it will make the end of rounds wildly more confusing. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some users are also adding the necessary information but <!- commenting it out -> until until on the main page, but the box ignores that and counts them anyway. Reywas92 Talk 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazon
I'm going to ask Amazon.com if they want to sponsor the contest, like give gift cards to the winners in order to get more research material. Thanks Secret account 00:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well now, that would be nice. I'm a frequent browser/occasional use of Amazon myself. Thanks a lot, Secret; it's much appreciated! 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. The idea of a year's subscription to a journal database or some such was considered as a "prize" last year. However, consider that there is no way we could start plastering "SPONSORED BY AMAZON" all over everything... J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Existing articles
I'm having trouble distinguishing the issue with existing articles; if I take an existing article (Cerebral shunt is my specific example, but imagine one better, or one worse) and bring it to GA or FA status - do I still get the points even though dozens of other contributors have already done the grunt work of making it a "respectable article" first? Do I have to have created the article for it to count? Expanded a stub? Just done an obvious amount of work? My work on Hypatia and Willem Barentsz for example for the Core Contest...both articles already existed, I just greatly improved them (thus winning second place </brag . How does it work for WC? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 06:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, you must do a considerable amount of work on the article in 2010. You can't, for example, take a GA-level article, correct a typo or two, do the nom and then get the points. If, however, you do the work needed to take it from say B to GA, such as sourcing, expansion, etc. Then you could get the points. You do not have to be the initial creator. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * AnmaFinotera's understanding is accurate. We don't have a line in sand of what counts as "significant work", so it's a judgement call, but as long as you have genuinely done some real work and you're not abusing the system, it should be fine :) J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)