Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/3

Points while reviewing
I am reviewing Kate Winslet at WP:GAC. I have found myself making significant edits. I do not know how much I will be involved in editing as this proceeds, but is it possible to earn points for editting as a reviewer?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. We discussed the possibility of points for reviews, but it came to nothing. It is certainly something to consider for next year. I suppose if you were to review something at GAC, then work on the article yourself, dragging it to FA status, you could gain points for the FA, but if you were to only start work on something after it had already been nominated, I don't think it's consistent for you to be gaining points for it. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about 1pt? Nergaal (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not going to change the rules now that the competition has begun. In any case, awarding points for reviews will change the feel of the game somewhat. I agree this would be a nice change for the future, but there are several things to be considered. (FAC, GAC, FXC, PR, T:TDYK, XPR... What gets points, what doesn't, what counts as a review, do they all get the same points... All discussions for when we work out next year's rules.) J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I support J in this, but I also want to warn about too much creepiness entering the rules; they are complicated enough as it is. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about table formatting
Is there any way to either add a column that is non-sortable, labeled 1 to 64, or a shading of the top 64 slots, that would indicate where the cutoff line for round 2 qualification is? Unit Anode  18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC) originally posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/History/2010 ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara  ​​Don't give up the ship 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this was raised last year, and the bot doesn't really like that for some reason... GARDEN  19:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't the boxes get shaded yellow or something? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that was only after the round had finished. A separate table could be created alongside the current one, but I'm not personally up to coding that. J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Plus two things. First, at least for the first round, I'd say pretty much if you score points you've got a decent chance of getting through. But beyond that, the newsletter keeps you up-to-date for the most part anyways. Worst case maybe add a note about the cut-off in/out score at the time of issuing each newsletter? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

GA then FA
Would it be possible to get directly 140 pts for non-GA articles promoted to FA? Right now everybody is squeezing the 40 pts from getting the GA first, even though they plan to get them to FA right after. Asides from increased the GAN backlog, the present situation also forces the user to risk waiting a huge amount of time before getting to FAC, for those articles that may appear less interesting to review. Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Most people use GA as a step towards FA. For one, it's a way to get someone to carefully review an article, which makes it better-prepared for the FAC process.  It's also a way to get a review of something that isn't quite FAC-ready.  Almost everyone benefits if they leave their own work alone for a while, and then look over it with fresh eyes.  Going through GAN almost always means that the article you submit to FAC will be better.
 * Yes, you pay a penalty in time. That in itself is a reason to award extra points. (If you skip GAN you save a week or several, but you pay a penalty in points).  But, perhaps more importantly, it also reduces the burden the Cup places on FA reviewers.  Guettarda (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We discussed this a while back. The response from J Milburn and Ed was that they saw no reason not to give points in that circumstance, but that FAC would take a very dim view of an article being nominated "to save time", unless it was clearly at or near FA standard. WFCforLife (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We didn't really come to a final decision concerning the issue- there were both advantages and disadvantages to skipping GA. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A what if
Just wondering what the procedure would be in the event that fewer than 64 contests actually accrue points by the end of the first round. Useight (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fight to the death? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  05:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I second. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 05:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dueling. Appoint seconds, walk ten paces.  Epistles at dawn.  Durova  401 05:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clever. J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That'd be quite a shootout if there is going to be a few dozen editors with 0 points at the end of the round. I'm bringing the popcorn. Gary King  ( talk ) 06:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 37 users have points after 2 weeks. My bet is that the threshold for getting into the next round will be around 100 pts. Nergaal (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be very very surprised if it's that high. I imagine quite a few people will crawl in with just a DYK or two. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect probably some are like me...waiting for it to get reviewed because poor DYK is seriously backlogged. :-P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you get to keep the points between rounds this year? Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any change? J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, you don't. :) GARDEN  09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking this is a real possibility... Although I imagine at least 64 will be able to sneak a DYK in. GARDEN 09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just bagged my first 40 points (subject to the judges okaying it ;) ). To be honest I don't think that leaves me safe. Everyone who scored points before the 13th was either prolific at DYK, or got unusually fast reviews at GA (they have to have been nominated in 2010, right?). When the points start to trickle through for slower reviews, I'm sure the bar will be higher than a couple of DYKs. WFCforLife (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Time until points show up
Hi, Does anybody know what the time delay between the addition of new stuff to the submission page and when the points are counted in the list? For me its now 24 hours an no points show up in the list. --Stone (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We just have to wait for the bot to update. It seems to want to update every six hours, but misses a lot... It updated last at 12:45, 13 January 2010. J Milburn (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to kick the bot into action? Or has sombody to restart it? --Stone (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask, but he is sadly not too active at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I contacted him, but there is only a little chance that he will answer in the near future.--Stone (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Interround promotions
Between each round there seems to be about two days that are excluded. What is the point eligibility of articles promoted in the two days that are between rounds and articles that appear on DYK and ITN between rounds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to say they're eligible for the round after. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Round after, indeed. :) GARDEN  09:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Joining late?
I noticed that my question is being mostly ignored, is it ok to sign up late, even with the disadvantage? I have loads of free time in my hands because of my illness. Thanks Secret account 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * considering the thread directly above this, I'd be in favor of adding you. No harm in IAR'ing every so often. I need to discuss this with another judge first though, not in the least because I am not 100% sure on the procedure to add someone. ;) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It really is a bit late. I hoped we could have drawn our line in the sand, but we have not. I am inclined to say that it would be perhaps best to do away with the flags and poster and such as it simply causes too much bother, and leave people free to join until the end of round one... J Milburn (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to agree. The poster, as a side, has plenty copyright-replaced images for some reason or another.  GARDEN  09:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So I could join now? Secret account 13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're in :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Standings
I created the subpage WikiCup/History/2010/Standings, because the bot which updates the wikicup frontpage is not working since 13.1.2010. Should we point this out above the list or should we substitute the robot list by a manual one? --Stone (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ideally, we'll get the bot fixed, or get a new one coded... I don't like the idea of manual updates. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to code a new bot! I will not do it, because I have not the slightest clue how to do it! My manual update will work for a few days now and what comes after that should be a bot!! I did what I am capabele of and the rest is for the people who now what a bot looks from the inside.--Stone (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sadly also unable to script a bot for this job- my bot does much simpler things... J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The bot just updated, doesn't seem to understand that I have an FP in this round, not an FS.
 * And again, can someone talk to X? I'm getting the correct points, but in the incorrect area. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot does not work and X! is out of business due to hardware problems! If you want to have the right counts go to the manual updated list WikiCup/History/2010/Standings or code a bot or repair the bot of X! or contact X! in a way that he gets the message even without an computer. --Stone (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we'll get by with a bit of lag for now. We've got six weeks before we need to worry about accuracy. WFCforLife (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No urgency. I suppose I could add a note on the front page... J Milburn (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured list participants
I've copied Dabomb's note from here. WFCforLife (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Speaking as a director, I would appreciate it if all nominators would disclose their participation in the WikiCup. Similarly, if reviewers could disclose that they are in the WikiCup when they are reviewing WikiCup nominations that would be nice as well. No obligation, but that would make things a bit easier. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)"
 * Why? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is something that came up last year, as well. I appreciate that this may suggest there is some kind of suspicion, but on the plus side, when the numerous high quality articles are nominated, I'm sure people will be reassured of the positive intentions of Cup participants. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a problem with lack of reviews in general at FLC. I think by asking for reviewers to disclose, they're trying to see if it's a case of wikicup nominators only reviewing wikicup nominations. WFCforLife (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really expect any WikiCup problems, but we did have a minor incident last year, so it's better to address the issue now. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I try to review anything I feel comfortable with the format of, particularly if it's older. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal
I would like to withdraw from the competition. May the best Wikipedian win! --Danger (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I will win, but thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm pulling you out of the list and adding someone else. J Milburn (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dropping out. CJ Miller. (That's my name.Don't wear it out.) 02:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio images in poster?
Why are there 2 copyvio images in the poster? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There were, they have been removed by a bot. This is a little irritating. I was sure I'd checked them all. I think next year it may be worth doing away with the flags. I will look into solving this. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do away with the flags? But I liked having the US flag two years running. Useight (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's one thing when you have 54 flags (2009). It's another when you have 152 (2010). — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  18:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The flags are pretty, but they have certainly caused a lot of drama this year- free and non-free, real locations and not real locations, already taken, inconvenient shapes wholly inappropriate choices... The constant rejigging of the poster was also rather irritating from the judges' point of view. This is something we can discuss closer to the time, I suppose (or we could babble on about it here a little longer...). Back on topic, I'm switching out the non-free flags, and have contacted the users. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Just thinking about this (while I should be thinking about Shiva...) and a thought occurred to me- allow people to use the same flag as another contestant. This would cut down on a lot of drama, as the majority of people would probably happily choose the flag of their home nation. Yes, we'd probably get a lot of US and UK flags, but perhaps that would help stop us taking the flag issue so seriously... Something to think about. And now, back to Shiva... J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The League? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problems with letting multiple people use the same flag, multiple people compete in the olympics, or any other competition, under the same flag... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A good point. J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am personally offended by the flag of New Brunswick sitting higher than the Canadian flag. Can this be addressed? &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 22:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SA
Was there ever any discussion of including WP:SA selections in the scoring?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there wasn't. GARDEN  14:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Something that can be discussed next year. My initial reaction is that I don't like it. Perhaps I should create a list somewhere of topics raised so that they can be discussed for next year later on in the competition? J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear like mmuch content building, but something like 1pt could work. Nergaal (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made this point before in relation to another segment of scoring, and was largely ignored. But why overly reward getting an article onto the main page? It's very much a reward unto itself. WFCforLife (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed- equally, I'm not wild about ITN points. For ITN and SA, it's very much the subject of the article that is recognised, rather than the article itself. With good and featured content, as well as VP and DYK, it's much more down to the quality of the article, picture, topic or whatever itself. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of DYK, I was slightly surprised to discover that this wasn't a wikicup nomination. WFCforLife (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ITN articles are required to be at main-page quality, too. They are not just posted because they simply happen to be in the news.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, but I can't just write a new article and say "I guess I'll nominate this for ITN" in the same way I can for DYK, GA or FA. Do you not see where I'm coming from here? J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can, although what you possibly mean is that you are limited by what is happening at ITN but can submit what you wish to DYK? However, a good quality article is also needed at ITN and if not properly updated with the recent new information someone will also find a way to object. So the same amount of work applies, if anything you have more freedom with DYK and can plan in advance whereas you have to apply your work at random with ITN. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Any article can become a DYK, GA or FA, but only very specific articles can ever hit ITN. It shares some aspects with DYK (both have to be worked on at speed, in many ways) but it is by no means part of the ordinary process. In any case, there's no need to turn this thread into a discussion about ITN, I was merely trying to use it to illustrate a point- the rules concerning them certainly won't be changing this year but, as with anything else, it is a possible topic of discussion before next year's Cup. J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

serious proposal
I think some points from the previous round should be carried into the next round, or otherwise this round will end up pretty crappy. Possibilities: I know it is kind of late, but it is pretty stupid for somebody who does 10 FAs in the first round to get removed in the next round because of RW issues preventing steady contributions. Any thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) keep 1/2 of the previous round points
 * 2) keep all points from the last month of the previous round
 * 3) either of those, capping the amount to whatever amount gained during the running round (so it won't more than double the points); alternatively cap to a % of the points during the current month.
 * I am not keen on changing the rules mid-competition. The trouble with carrying points is that it means that the second round results are already pretty much predetermined- this way, everyone is in with a shot, making it more fun and encouraging people to work on more content. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a good idea, because of the other side of that same coin... Editor A, who does a whole ton of work in round 1, can do absolutely nothing in round 2 without concerns of being dropped... whereas, Editor B, who barely squeaked by in round 1 still has to work their butt off to try to keep up with Editor A who does nothing in round 2... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why having some sort of capping process (say up to 50% of the current round's points) would be appropriate. Say an editor gets 10 FAs in the first round, he would still have to get 4 FAs in the second round to beat somebody who barely passed with a GA in the first round but got 6 FAs in the second. Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be like saying that teams making it out of the Group Stage in the World Cup, who won their group, would start with a lead in their second round games. That's just not how competitions work. Unit  Anode  23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the WC does NOT have four rounds of groups stages. There is one, followed by elimination games. If this would have perhaps even two such group spates then it would be similar, but instead every round is two months and each GAN takes on average way more than one month. Technically it means that all of the work needs to be done in the previous round anyways. Nergaal (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you nominate in a previous round (even if most of the work is done in a previous round) you can still claim points. Don't let the WikiCup dictate when you should and should not be nominating. If there are outstanding GA nominations that require immediate reviews, I'd be happy to lend my services. J Milburn (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am trying not to talk about myself. As about dictating the nominations, I cannot possibly agree with this reasoning. For example last year, the cup itself was essentially decided based on how many nominations were withheld from the third round into the fourth one. In the last part of the third round essentially nobody was still nominating as the spots were pretty much decided, while once the fourth month began a ton of nominations suddenly appeared. While these were the rules last year  I still think we should find some that do enforce a less ridiculous behavior and favor contributions over a specific pattern of editing. Right now, there is absolutely no incentive to get more than 3 DYKs in the first round, while I bet that some of the top editors now will burn out in the second or third, even though they would be among the highest contributors overall. Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And if points were carried over, there would be no motivation for the final round, as the places would still be "pretty much decided". As for the lack of motivation to get more than 3 DYKs- I suppose that's true, if getting through to the second round of the WikiCup is your sole motivation for editing Wikipedia... Plenty of people seem quite content to continue to layer on nominations. J Milburn (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But what is the difference between starting the last round with 1000 points versus starting the last round with 10 FACs? Even if apparently everybody starts from zero, a huge amount of work is done before the scores are set to zero, so in practice there is no difference. The only thing that happens is that it clogs the FAC, etc at set periods in time with multiple nominations instead of having a continuous, healthy flow of nominations. Right now the ultimate wp:cup player is NOT the player who contributes the most but the one who piles on nominations into the last round while squeezing in with the least points allowed by the other group members. It is foolish to believe that the cup will be won by somebody who would have started the last round with zero points and zero amount of previous work. Nergaal (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The practical results belie your claim. Durova, last years champion, was a constant and great source of content creation as were all of the final competitors. And discount Ottava (banned) and Shoemaker (Wikibreak) many of the Final 8 are right in the front again here in the 2010 first round (Sasata, Leftorium, Candlewicke, Julian, Mitch all have 50 or more points, Sasata/Left/JC all above 100). If the Cup is, by your claim, won by conniving strategists and not by consistent content creators, how do you explain these users? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * and to go back to your World Cup comparison to see how completely unrelated the two cups are: when was the last time an elimination-phase game started with 10 penalty kicks for one of the sides? At the present state, this cup is setup that instead of starting such a game with 10 goals for one team, the game is started with 10 penalty kicks for that one, while the other team is not allowed a goalie. Nergaal (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know little about sport so I'm not following the analogy that well, I'm afraid. I can't really comment on this. J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me try again: any user can develop an article in their own userspace, or even offline. The system now rewards WHEN the users nominate not when the users actually do the work. You are saying that it is fair that everybody starts from 0 pts in the second round, but I am arguing that that is not technically true because by the beginning of that round over half of the participants will have already finished "FAing" several articles in their own userspace/offline space. Users who should have benefited from the reset and restart with equal chances won't actually because people can nominate 100 GANs the first day of the second round and that would be equivalent with not reseting the counter at the beginning of the round. So arguing that all the counts be reset at 0pts, in the end only penalizes users that naively have submitted their stuff and does not help those the present rule would have wanted to. In the end this competition should reward those that would have contributed the most, not those who would have taken advantage the best from the loopholes in the (otherwise well-intended) rules. Nergaal (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So, what you're saying is that, if we assume bad faith, restarting does not start people on a level playing field- some people will be ahead, while the majority will be level. If we assume good faith, restarting reward those that would have contributed the most does start people on a level playing field. When we do not restart, whether we assume good faith or not, people are not started on a level playing field. I don't think you need to be an expert in game theory to see which we should go with... It seems to me that if you take your argument to its logical conclusion, we should do away with rounds altogether. This would mean the competition would be pretty much over already, which would hardly encourage contribution. It is encouraging quality contribution, not a plan to "reward those that would have contributed the most" that is this competition's real aim. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to go into game theory, but to look at what happened in the past. Have you been around last year? If yes, then you definitely remember the quietness at GAN/FLC/FPC when the rounds were close to the end, and the sudden (incredibly suspicious) outburst of noms right after the new rounds were started. What I am saying is that in the end, the people that will be at the top (those that really care) will have figured out how to optimize their perspective (i.e. points in the long run) based INCLUDING on circumventing the rules. I want contributions to be encouraged, but what this format only rewards best planners. And giving names is not the best idea but I think in this case would clarify my argument: in the 3rd round (2 full months) Durova submitted 8 FPs, while one week into the fourth one she already had 10 FPs; I am sure she wasn't the only one with this pattern, but in the end she won by doing this. Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's get to the nitty gritty. In what way do you feel your format is better? J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all the winner will be more clearly deserving. Secondly, if one group ends up by accident being verry competitive, while another one gets somehow very relaxed, people from the first group won't have to be penalized for having to burn out their list of contributions just to remain in the competition while the winners in the other one start with an automatic bonus of unused noms. Thirdly it creates a more continuous flow of noms that I believe will produce less "rush hour" periods at GAN, etc. Fourthly, people like AnmaFinotera and probably even me won't have to decide to withhold nominations for later if timing constraints would make it better to take care of the nom sooner just to not feel penalized that others were more willing to wait. Finally, if one is actually interested in contributing, having say one FAC at a time one after another, rather than cramming them after a specific deadline, ought to actually produce more articles sent to FAC/GANs in the long run as mixing article building while fixing some comments, I find (for me at least) to be more productive than building articles, then just concentrating on fixing comments due to multiple GANs/FACs/FLCs opened at the same time due to timetable constraints. Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, sorry, you're also proposing doing away with groups? You may have noticed I am having a hard time following your suggestions. Could you possibly start a new subsection and clearly lay out what you are proposing here? J Milburn (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neah, I am not against groups, but against people who contribute more during the first round to start leveled with those that barely passed. Nergaal (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The fundamental problem with this is that when someone who has already demonstrated capability starts with an advantage, that hardly motivates the people who finished lower. "They beat me first time round, and now they already have an advantage?" J Milburn (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

<- Why not just keep the rules as they are this year, and have an extra, equally shiny award for most points accumulated for the whole competition? Sasata (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We discussed lots of different awards at the end of last year- the problem with that is that it's pretty much guaranteed to go to one of the final 8/4. I imagine we will be giving awards for "most points in round X" though. Frankly, I don't think the awards matter so much- I certainly didn't mind not winning one last year, I enjoyed taking part and was proud of what I achieved. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The more I think of this, the more I realize that a truly fair system would become a wp:creep set of rules. The simplest fix I guess is to give some sort of token of appreciation (barnstar or something) for the top player or the top three in each round and another for what Sasata suggested. Nergaal (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Garden, one of the judges, is pretty good with image editing software, so we designed lots of pretty barnstar-esque things for various categories last year. We'll be doing the same this year- it is by no means a winner-takes-all situation. Even if it was, I don't think there are gonna be many people who are looking to abuse the system in order to get a pretty picture to put on their userpage. J Milburn (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Semi-neutral two cents here, as this is my first year participating. When I signed up, I presumed the points carried all year round and never even noticed that they reset with each round. As such, I was aiming to get a lot of good stuff done earlier in the year, knowing I'd be pretty much DoA for editing towards the end of the year. Knowing now that the points will reset, I've wondered/debated with myself if I should do much as Nergaal said, hold off releasing stuff from my sandbox into the wild until the next round to ensure I get some points then, since I'll lose what I already have. To go with a more common, if less fitting example, its kind of like if every week, your grade in school reset. In the end, you just need to get passing to keep going, then in the last week would be the only time you really have to push to work. Having the points reset seems to me to encourage that sort of spirit. Don't worry too much beyond keeping in the game most rounds, then for the last round throw out everything you've had time to cultivate over a year. I'd see not resetting the points as encouraging all participants to do their best the whole event, rather than just getting by until it counts. For myself, I'll probably just keep going along like I would have if the points were not reset, because it just works best for me and this is just a bit of fun (if I "win", awesome", if not, the articles I worked on still benefit), but I suspect not all participants have such a view. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal
Please remove me from the competition, thanks. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're out. J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot ignored my FT
Why did the bot ignore my WP:FT?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Try formatting it like this. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it works. Sweet topic though! Depending on how long it takes me to finish up List of American League pennant winners and for that and the NL list to get through FLC you might be the only person with a topic this round. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes it is the second most popular tourist attraction in Chicago. I am please that I was able tofind co-authors who shared my vision for the topic. Unfortunately, first round topics like this are a waste.  The points will be lost.  I will be struggling to keep it featured on September 1, because the threshold goes from 1/3 to 1/2 of the articles needing to be featured. This means I need to improve three more articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, that's still 300 points out there within this topic (and assumedly GA->FA shouldn't be too bad). Don't think of it as a waste. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But this topic was promoted a veery long time ago. Nergaal (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, yeah, Tony, you can only claim credit on things worked on and promoted from Jan 1, 2010 onwards. So like if you worked on upping GA to FA articles in there you can claim FA credit, and I guess if you added stuff could claim FT credit, but you definitely don't get ALL that credit. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems legit- the topic has been promoted from a good topic to a featured topic. As long as there was some work on the topic as a whole this year, he's allowed to claim point for every article within that is "his"- this is a wholly legitimate way to claim 150 points (or whatever it is)- a featured topic is hardly a light undertaking. J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So wait, you can promote an entire topic to good topic status, then improve the one or two articles you currently need to push it to FT, and claim the points again? Staxringold talkcontribs 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit unreasonable. So I can take credit for WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive/season 2 when it passes its GTC, even though only 3/24 articles passed this year?  The left orium  16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can claim 15 points for every article within the topic which is "yours", yes, providing you've done some work on the topic this year, which, with three passes, you clearly have. A featured topic is clearly an achievement. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (Outdent) I mean I asked earlier if I could lay claim to topic credit for a couple other articles in the MLB awards topic which were written pre-Jan. 1, but the topic itself hadn't seen promotion yet. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can, providing they're your work. Take a look at the rules page. J Milburn (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely my issue here. This topic of Tony's wasn't nominated in 2010. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no nomination when a topic goes from good to featured. It was promoted yesterday, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AFD
SitNGo Wizard has been delisted. Do I lose DYK points? If I recreate the article later this year is it eligible for DYK points again?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you recreated the article later this year, it would probably be speedy-deleted, as a substantially similar recreation of a previously deleted article. Unit  Anode  23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, I know the rules on recreation. See my best creations for detail. When I recreate it, it will be a keeper.  The question is how is the scoring for the cup affected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did the judges see this question?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to fathom how a non-notable SNG poker gadget will ever merit an article, but if you can do it, more power to you. My opinion on your main question is that the points should be removed, and if you are able to recreate an article that will stick, you should earn points then. Unit  Anode  19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought I'd actually already answered this question. Here's my thoughts- the points should be removed for now, in the same way that a delisted/deleted GA would be removed. We're not really awarding points here for it appearing on DYK, but for it being recognised as "DYK worthy". However, if you do recreate the article and it again appears on the MP (or is specfically refused the main page because it has already appeared) then you may reclaim the points later. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried to comment out the DYK, but the bot is still counting it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot ignored my FT (day 2)
I thought I had reformatted my topic correctly. My points did not accumulate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as long as we're discussing bot flaws, it still thinks I have a FS not a FP. Staxringold talkcontribs 08:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)R
 * X! is not active at the moment. I will contact him regarding these issues. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't do the technical side, but I believe you are still formatting the entry contrary to how our submissions page requires it. J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66

 * J, will you look at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/Sturmvogel 66 please? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of questionable legitimacy... The only real work on any of those this year was the addition of a small paragraph. It is telling that none of the GACs were this year, I see no reason to assume that this could not have been promoted last year. I would be inclined to say congratulations for the nice topic, but that points cannot be claimed. I will notify Sturmvogel of this thread. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I wasn't talking about that, I was asking why the bot wasn't picking it up. :/ I actually did not look to see when work had been done. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not formatted in the standard way, but I'll be buggered if I know how the bot works. I believe it's the same build as last year, with a few points changes. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Day 3) If anyone knows how to format a FT that was promoted from GT without a new discussion, I would appreciate assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'll repeat basically what J already said, but this time I will spell it out for you. (1) go to WikiCup/Submissions and observe the formatting. (2) go to WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/TonyTheTiger and convert your entry into the formatting you saw in step one (1). Thank you. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If that doesn't work, I'll poke X! again. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Submission
Is it OK to add the DYK-, GA- and FAC-points I got at the last day of the round to my submission page? I would think this makes it hard for the others to follow my ways and it might trick somebody to think he is in front, but at the last day I put in the 100 points for a FAC I got weeks ago, but fully compliant with the rules, in that round.--Stone (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, I'd rather you didn't... It would be best if you could update your submissions page as soon as the content is promoted. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is up to date for a long time! I used my self as an example, because I noticed somebody having several DYK but no points. This person will overtake several others in the final of this round. I see from your reaction that this is a questinable, but not forbidden method in the Cup.
 * It's not forbidden, but it's not smiled upon either. C'mon guys, this is supposed to be a fun game that increases the quality of Wikipedia's articles, not a full-blown competition complete with backstabbing, crying "Havoc!" and blood shedding. Enter all your articles in as you do them, and have fun. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know that one of the over 100 participants is a genetic clingon, with the word today is a good day to die on his lips. It might be the case that the person I have in mind simply has not thought about the underlaying problem of the notsubmitting habit.--Stone (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is not submitting? J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on! Squeal is not an option!--Stone (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to let us know, perhaos you could have a quiet word with them yourself? J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will ask the only one I noticed. But it might be that he is unaware and has lost the Cup slip from his focus and that all happened without aiming for a certain purpose.--Stone (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. I suspect this is more likely than any foul-play. J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Two questions
I am sure the first question has been addressed in the past, but I could not find an answer. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 07:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If an article was written before the competition timeframe, but went through FAC during the competition (sometimes a process that requires hundreds of edits and tweaks), is it possible to get any points at all for the article?
 * 2) Are collaborations on pictures acceptable just like collaborations on articles?

In answer to one- yes, as long as "significant work" has taken place on the article this year, preferably before as well as during the FAC. In answer to the second, yes, but it may well receive more scutiny regarding whether you have a right to claim points. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I collaborated with Durova on the Pittsburgh Pirate image, but I did a load of the work. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If Durova is happy with you claiming some of the points, then so am I. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for participants to review articles at FAC
FAC is sorely lacking in quality reviewers. This competition generates volume at FAC. This is a request for the participants of this competition to review articles at FAC especially if you have one nominated.

A good ratio for one nominated article is three to five reviews of other articles at FAC. Some things to remember:


 * Please do not approach your review of an article as a participant of this contest, supporting or opposing based on where your place is--or your friends' places. Base your review on your knowledge of what constitutes a high-quality article. Review to the best of your ability. You do not have to be an expert on the subject, but you should be familiar with the criteria of a featured article.


 * If you nominate an article as part of the WikiCup, please indicate that in your nomination. If you are a reviewer and a participant in the Wikicup, indicate that as well. I'm AGFing that all of you reading this are decent, honest, and hardworking Wikipedians, who would never ever let the outcome of a competition eclipse your goals of creating and supporting high quality content. Ever. But indicate just in case. It helps the delegates close nominations more proficiently.


 * FAC is not Peer Review. If you are new to FAC, or even have a couple already, please seek a GA or PR before nomination. I cannot give better advice than that; I have a few FAs myself and I always seek GA and PR for each article. If you are reviewing and the problems you find in an article are starting to look like a long list of things to fix, Oppose the article, suggest it be renominated, and help the nominator with the aspects of the article that need improvement on the article talk page. Support the article if you think it would be a good addition and would be pleased to see it on the main page.


 * If you have questions, please ask at WT:FAC. Any one of the hundreds of editors who watch that page would be happy to answer your question, no matter how silly or stupid you are afraid it is.

Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this reminder- these are all points to consider. I freely admit I have not been reviewing myself, instead focussing on GAC. I will do my best to review some in the coming days. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be worth having a periodic reminder both to review, and to disclose in the featured processes. Maybe once a month here, and/or whenever it is that we send wikicup updates? My skills are more suited to helping with comprehensiveness and structure, which is more a GA/PR/FLC thing. But when gently reminded of the backlog at FLC (where I'm becoming a regular) I'm always happy to chip in. WFCforLife (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We (the judges) will hopefully be sending monthly newsletters, and so I will make a note of that on the first newsletter, which will hopefully be very soon. J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)