Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2011/2

I've withdrawn
Well....with only 2 days to go, it's inevitable that I'll be eliminated at the end of round 1 (despite coming in 4th last year!) So, I did (what I hope to be) the honorable thing to do and withdrew from the Cup. Good luck to everyone this year guys! I'll still keep the Cup watchlisted and help in updating things and other stuff "behind the curtains" like I did last year ;) All the best,-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 02:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup/History/2011/Round 1
I created the WikiCup/History/2011/Round 1 but somebody should check if I was able to count to 64.--Stone (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I admit, I lol'd
Wikipedia talk:Did you know. This entertained me given the kerfuffle last year. Resolute 05:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ugh
Seriously? I'm in 66th place and Round 1 ended 65 minutes ago? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 01:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is rough! I banked on my 12pts getting me through but had a GA listed. I kind of wanted it to happen next round ;) . Best of luck next year. Any chance you counted incorrectly with those withdrawn?Cptnono (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are #65. #64 had 8pts by my count. Nergaal (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. It may be worth hoping that someone decides to withdraw in the next few days, before the start of the next round, as that will likely see people getting bumped up the order. As someone who came close to being eliminated this round (I had carefully calculated that two DYKs would be enough), I'd like to suggest that anyone who is eliminated but still wants to continue submitting stuff that they do throughout the rest of the year, be given the option to go into some general pool. One of the things I dislike about the WikiCup is the way that there is no motivation to continue provided to those who are eliminated. Having a general pool (maybe even a 'plate' competition) would encourage people to continue reviewing GAs for one thing, and that would be good! Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest this next year, but...why can't we just have wildcards? It would give eliminated users the ability to rejoin the competition provided they continue editing substantially throughout the second round and that they exceed the points of another user who decides to withdraw. Ah well, maybe next year. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 12:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Most in each section (round 1)
I'm sure someone else is doing this already, but I was looking at those who came top in this round in the different categories and overall. I see that The Bushranger came top overall (487 points), that Casliber had two FAs (200 points), Hurricanehink had 9 GAs (270 points), that seven people had one FL each (40 points), that two people had one FP each (35 points), that there were no featured sounds, no featured portals, no featured topics, Hurricanehink was the only person to get points from good topics (50 points for 5 articles over 3 topics), The Bushranger had an astonishing 47 DYKs (235 points), The Candlewicke had three ITNs (30 points), and Racepacket had an impressive total of 25 good article reviews (50 points). The totals for each section are: 6 FAs, 70 GAs, 7 FLs, 2 FPs, 0 FSs, 0 FPOs, 0 articles in FTs, 5 articles in GTs, 257 DYKs, 9 ITNs, 182 GARs (this doesn't take into account any shared nominations). Maybe the bot could keep a running total in each category both round-by-round and a running total over all rounds for the whole year? The difficulty might be including withdrawn totals. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm exceptionally pleased that we marked more GAReviews than GANominations. -- Pres N  04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth: The bot is keeping a list of submissions so no data is lost at WikiCup/History/2011/Running_totals, it would be trivial to reparse that data into any desired presentation. If you can tell me exactly what you'd like, I could probably get it done later this week. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 10:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How many double-point multpliers were there...there was a tally somewhere..? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just linked to it :) I claimed one DYK and one GA multiplier; User:Grandiose claimed a GA multiplier. And considering we're related I think maybe the message hasn't got home, or people are still sticking to idiosyncratic articles in the first rounds when the competition isn't so fierce. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 10:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, nice to see Potemkin reach the ranks of the Anointed Audited...:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made a nice table available at . - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that will go on the newsletter :) Just a thought- does this account for the possibility that two people are claiming for the same thing? Two people claiming for the same FA, for instance? J Milburn (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If two or more people claim the same article for the same category, it will only be counted once. At some point I shall also get it to list the highest category scorer in each round. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 15:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant, thanks so much. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And done. What a productive use of my time. Still, I've written the title of my essay... - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 17:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Stupid law school, I barely kept up my pace from last year/season of holding at least a share of the lead for most FLs each round! :) Staxringold talkcontribs 14:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Round 2
Will the pools/groupings for the next round be posted as soon as it hits March 1? (Pardon me, just excited !) -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just settling down to do it now... two and a quarter hours... Things that need to be done:
 * Pools
 * Submission page blankings
 * Newsletter (anything anyone thinks should be on it?)
 * Update the participants list (could some helpful soul help me out with that?)
 * Which list do you mean?--Stone (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You've already done it. Very impressive :P J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When I read your comment I thought I missed the real list.--Stone (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Work out how hard I caned Ed in the judge competition (see User:J Milburn/Mock WikiCup submissions' page)
 * Oops, I might want to create my own page (now done)! If Almirante Latorre-class battleship counts, I beat you. If it doesn't, I lose by 31 points. :P Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything else?
 * Should be able to manage :P J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How did you guys create groups? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's completely random. J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pools
I'm in Pool A - is that good or bad? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Dude! Pool A stands for Pool "Awesome" ;-) Lord Roem (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Darn, I'm in Pool H, with CycloneBiskit and Hurricanehink (at least it isn't Bushranger and Hurricanhink :D) Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 20:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, I got you on top of the tropical storm guys. Not an easy pool. Better start finding time to get back in the DYK habit. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not much of a threat. It's just I'm gonna submit a FAC soon. 100pts! Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 21:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Guessing I should take that as a compliment :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, you should. Hopefully, you're done with your GA mini-cyclone, and I'll survive a little longer. (Please, don't set a real live hurricane on me!) Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 02:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Six hockey project regulars still alive, and we're all in different pools. Not sure if that is good or bad! Resolute 23:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that will depend if any of us move on to the next round, of course this way we aren't in direct competition with each other for the top spots in our pools.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 04:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Submission
Is Grammy Award for Best Rap Album eligible for points? Much of the work was completed in 2010, but subsequent edits and the FLC process took place this year. Just thought I'd ask. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you are all good according to the rules. On the level if it is good form or not: You made improvements this year (not too many, though) and went through the FL process (it was not too challenging since you already got it in good shape). I personally think that you should be proud of the work done and deserve the points. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The improvements you've made this year are pretty minor. If you in good conscience can say that you have done "significant work" on the article this year (preferably before nominating it for FLC) then go for it, I guess. If not, don't. J Milburn (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll hold off. Thanks for the replies. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot
Is the bot still updating? Everybody still only has 0 points. I know I should have at least 4. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave it a poke. It's updated :) J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I forgot to switch it back on after the hiatus. Should all be fine now. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 20:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for fun, as the Cup is supposed to be fun...
Am I seriously the only MILHIST regular around now? You gotta be kidding. If so, am I responsible for keeping the project's representative[s] alive? Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 04:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reputation of your project rests on your shoulders. Don;t crack under the pressure. :P Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PSYCH. PSYCH! Don't get PSYCHED out. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This Milhist regular is a judge, so I'll always be around. :P Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aww, great. The judge doesn't count. Re to Cptnono: crack... cRaCk... CrAcK... CRaCK... CRACK!!! :P RfA Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 05:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

2x multipliers!
I was just wondering why there were only two submitted articles in the first round that had multipliers and went through the running totals and found: That should have gotten double the points - and there might be a few more. Anyways, I think participants are not aware very well of these bonuses, if even when the deserve them they do not request them. Nergaal (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Boeing 767
 * Hold It Against Me
 * Final Fantasy XIII
 * Airbus A330
 * Note that "Any article which exists on at least 20 Wikipedias, as of 31 December 2010" is eligible for double points. "Hold It Against Me" was created this year, and therefore was ineligible. But yes, maybe in the next newsletter we should let people know about the double points. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting finds- I'll add a note on the next newsletter. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is fascinating to see what articles actually have equivalents on >20 wikis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did know that FF13 had the 2x multiplier, but I held off because I didn't want a video game to be one of the first to get it- since it's meant to incentivize people to work on the important articles. -- Pres N  02:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree to that. But don't worry, it is probably more important that most of the non-multipliers articles that got submitted. Nergaal (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct in reading this as giving 4 pts for writing a GA review of an article on 20 Wikipedias? Racepacket (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "...scores twice as many points if it appears on did you know, or is promoted to good article, featured article or featured list [or] promoted to featured portal status....This is the only content which will score more points." - WikiCup/Scoring -- Pres N  23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter...
Sorry, something cropped up, so this one's gonna be a couple of hours late! I'm on it. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And sent. Nothing urgent to be said, really. If anyone has anything that belongs on the next one, you know where I am. J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * is there a merged table (for the extra spots ranking)? Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry? I don't understand the question. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he means is there a way to see everyone ranked from 1 - 64, in order to identify the 16 extra spots. Canada Hky (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick tot up says that as of now there are 30 editors with less than 30 points (and 3 with 30) - should give you an idea of the minimum you need right now. That is likely to change.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Wizardman
Yeah so Wizardman just retired. Can someone take him off of the brackets? GamerPro64 (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since he never formally withdrew from the WikiCup I'd recommend leaving everything alone until the end of the round, in case he changes his mind on retirement. If it looks like he would advance to the next round, we can discuss whether to promote someone else in his place if he doesn't come back. –Grondemar 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a little odd- he may well be back. If not, he will end up eliminated anyway. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more of an indef-wikibreak situation, not sure if/when I'll be back. If I make no further edits this month then I don't need to advance, but hopefully I'll find interest in this site again and be back. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll miss you. You certainly are a wizard at doing so many GARs at once ;)! I never would or could be able to do that. FAC Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 04:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd be sad to see you go. If you aren't back in a couple of weeks, I'll withdraw you. I hope you're ok, and wish you all the best in the real world if you choose to stay away. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you won't be back since your score is intimidating! All kidding aside: Good luck to you.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With all the retirements below I may have to come back at this rate. :P Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 23:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn you for the time being. If you want to stick around, I'm more than happy to put you back in. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw
For personal reasons, I have to withdraw from the WikiCup. Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sad to hear that. I hope all is well, and I hope to see you again next year. I have removed you from the various lists. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Thanks for the memories, Scorpion 0422  23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed you too. I hope all is well, and I hope to see you again next year. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Reminder: quick "who's qualifying" monitor available
...at. Unofficial, obviously. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 10:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SWEET! Nergaal (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is awesome! Miyagawa   (talk)  15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A330 FAC not progressing
Hello, I'm a little bit concerned about the article Airbus A330, which is currently at FAC. It hasn't received a lot of opinions and comments during the last few weeks. If the article is not decided by Friday, does that mean I'm eliminated? Any response is greatly appreciated. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  03:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is correct. We've drawn our line in the sand, and I'm afraid that, in cases like this, we're going to have to stick to it. J Milburn (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not good news, but I have to follow the rules, don't I? Nevertheless, it's pretty unfortunate. Good lucks to the other competitors. :) Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble  09:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unofficially you look fine since it is "32 contestants left – 4 groups of 8, the top two in each pool will progress, as well as the top eight of all remaining users.". In fact, you probably don't want to get it promoted until the next round ;) .Cptnono (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you mean "64 contestants left – 8 groups of 8, the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 16 of all remaining users." but yes. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See "May 1 to June 28" Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Double points
Should I get double points for F-16 Fighting Falcon, since there are more than 30, let alone 21, pages on other languages? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  04:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. just list it twice on your submissions page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Next round?
Will Round 2 be closed soon? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This round finishes at midnight tonight, and I will be dealing with preparation for the third round very soon, though I do have a very busy weekend coming up. I don't want to do anything until the round is completely finished. J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't we run on UTC? Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just realised my mistake. Sorry! :D Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

double points
Would the GAN for Rubidium qualify for double points?--Stone (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the subject was covered on a great number of other Wikipedias at the start of the year. If you can claim at all, you can claim double. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but, I forgot to claim double points for Airbus A330 and Boeing 767 in round one. Is it too late now? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  07:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as we're about done with round 2. You have to claim it in the round it happens. -- Pres N  07:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

April 29
Shall I add my April 29 DYK points to the current round or the next? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The next. Don't add your DYK to your submissions page until after a judge has wiped it, i.e. probably before 1 May. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In preparation for Round 3...
Everything is now ready for the next round- I've cleared the submissions' pages and sent out the newsletter a little earlier than normal, as I will be away this weekend. All I need now is for some kind soul to update WikiCup/History/2011 with User:J Milburn/Notes2 (the new pools) come the start of the next round. It'd also be great if someone added a page showing round 2's scores to Template:WikiCup. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Curses, did I really miss out by 1 point? I thought I was through by the skin of my teeth. Ah well such is life - Good luck to the other competitors.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 19:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad. I missed by 1 point last year. –MuZemike 22:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's my own fault. I got myself involved elsewhere in the project and just haven't been writing articles. I knew it could happen and will enjoy watching the rest of the cup.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 23:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Last round
When someone reaches the last round, do all their accumulated points throughout the tournament get included in the final round? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  06:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They do not, although that is an an interesting idea. J Milburn (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a look at last year's competition, and the winner acquired more than 4,000 points in the last round. How on earth do you acquire that many points? Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble  12:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strategy. There is no rule stating that one cannot nominate most of the material they have been working on all year for points during the last round... Hopefully there is an award presented to the contributor with the most points overall, not just the most points during the last round. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not overall, as that would just be won by someone in the last round anyway. There were a number of factors that contributed to such massive scores in the final round, not least of which was simple mass article creation/improvement. Strategic nominations are discouraged, though there is little that can be done to stop them. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble  05:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just remembered- part of the reason the scores look so massive is that DYK and GA were awarded more points last year. J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No wonder, GA = 40 points. Sp33dyphil</b>  Ready • to • Rumble  11:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahem
Since we are approaching That Time of Year Again, I note that Wikicup participants have not been declaring at FAC, and ask that you remind them to do so, per WikiCup/Scoring. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ginger/archive1
 * 2) Featured article candidates/Banksia marginata/archive1
 * 3) Featured article candidates/Livonian War/archive2
 * 4) Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive3
 * 5) Featured article candidates/Thatgamecompany/archive1

That's just a quick glance-- there may be more. I am not going to see FAC go through this again, where nominators are in a rush to get their CUP points, and will begin to archive CUP FACs aggressively if y'all don't follow your rules. Please police, since participants are not complying. It should not be difficult for you all to police this, and it should not be up to FAC to check-- I suggest that if a participant did not follow the rules, they don't get their points-- you all can check that when rewarding the points. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I wasn't aware of this requirement (it is on the Scoring page), and so I didn't declare, even though I had no intention to deceive. Perhaps this note itself will help alert ignorant editors such as myself. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No apology needed, since clearly you aren't the only one and it was your statement that brought my attention to the wider problem-- that the CUP is not policing this issue, in spite of numerous discussions over several years about the problem of flooding review processes.  If y'all don't do something about it this year, I will :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry, I will mention it on the next newsletter, which will be going out in a couple of days. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Luke Schenn should be on that list as well.  I completely spaced on it.  Canada Hky (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't 'spose anyone does it intentionally ... but I'd wager that if the Cup declined to award points when rules weren't followed, we'd not see the kinds of problems we've seen in past years. For anyone who remembers the flooding of DYK and FAC last year towards the end of the Cup, you may understand why I say now is the time to get on this.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot as well, although that's more because my nominating is more part of my usual workload, as opposed to doing something special for the cup. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem-- I imagined that to be the case, but experienced FAC nominators like you and Cas should lead the others by example :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the rule, and I would certainly have declared my participation. The problem is, can anyway explain why someone's devised that rule? <b style="background:HotPink;color:white;">Sp33dyphil</b>  Vote! 21:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I sure could, but I don't have time to write a book. Peruse the archives here, at DYK, at GAN, and at FAC for all of the past problems over multiple years related to CUP participants flooding review processes with unprepared articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about FAC, but I know last year at GAN they wanted it so reviewers who didn't like the wikicup could easily skip reviewing those articles; it was never implemented. For FAC I imagine it's more so that if participants start nominating a bunch of unready articles, the FAC delegates/regulars know who to complain to/about rather than mistakenly seeing it as a general trend. FAC has capped nominations at one per editor since January 2010, and I don't see how marking cup nominations in any way affects the flow rate. -- Pres N  01:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that a few contestants began nominating articles at FAC where they were not significant contributors, and there was a worry that people would nominate articles that were clearly not ready for FA in a desperation for points. That's my memory of it, at least (feel free to check the early-ish 2009 archives). Let's make sure people are doing this, as I'd rather not give Sandy any more headaches from FAC-related stuff. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick Question
If this round ended today, would I be in the next round? YE <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical  <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As of right now, it would appear not. You have 34 points showing, which would put you in 9th place out of the contestants who are not first or second in their pool.  8th place has only one more point, however. Resolute 17:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right on the cusp, but you'd miss out by one point. Hang in there! J Milburn (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter
Somebody should redirect WikiCup/Newsletter to wherever it is now. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've created WikiCup/Newsletters with the newseletters I've written over this year and last. If you want to split that page, or include older newsletters, or whatever, be my guest. J Milburn (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Vital articles
Given that take up has been poor (I got weak interaction to GA, I'm not aware of any more), might be worth thinking about the way they are scored or taken into account (for next year)? I'd post this as and when next year's scoring is decided, except solution might be wider than just that. Upping the multiplier is the most obvious suggestion, but there may be cleverer ones. In any case, those people in the cup are reminded that Vital-3 articles (WP:VITAL) are double-pointed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we just don't want the WikiCup to become "my articles are better than yours". A longer list of eligible articles may be worthwhile, but I'm not cetain that multiplying the points claimed is such a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll have a look at how things have gone once the competition is over and decide then - Was I more prompted to work on White Stork? Possibly...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I likely wouldn't have spent as much time on the Nobel-winning chemists (Henry Taube & John Bennett Fenn) as I did without the incentive. I think Wikipedia is better off with good bios for these scientists, and I likely wouldn't have worked on them without the incentive of double points.  I found it tough to judge what was widely covered until I saw someone scoring double points for it.  It was quite eye-opening.Canada Hky (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the vital articles are quite likely to be doubled pointed anyway from being featured in 20+ Wikipedias anyway. Miyagawa   (talk)  11:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw
I am withdrawing from this year's Wikicup. I have too many real-life matters to deal with and I am going to go on a wikibreak for a few weeks. Regards, Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn you- good luck with your real-life matters. Hopefully we'll be seeing you again next year. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw
Starting tomorrow, I will not be at the computer for over a week, and will not be able to compete. So instead of working my butt off now to go to the next round, I am going to withdraw because I just can't gain enough points in the time I have left. Even at the monument, I need at least 19 points, and that is not accounting for if the competitors in my pol gain score some more points.--12george1 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well; thanks for taking part, hope to see you again next year. J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to ignor or remove my article
I just added an article to the WikiCup/Reviews hoping to make a last minute push. After looking at the scores I don't think that even if this passed in the next few days that I could make it to the next round. This is now more of a vanity move I suppose, I had a lot of real world things going on in this round and wasn't able to focus on writing. I feel kinda bad that I got through to this round while other editors may have been eliminated in the previous round that could have accomplished more in this round. I was hoping to look a bit more competitive than the 7 points I have now and the potential 5 more points I have sitting in the DYK but I don't think I'll be able to finish another DYK and get it to the main page in time to get another 5 points. Meaning at best I'll finish the round with 42 points. I don't want an editor who has the potential to move on not get a review because my article is being reviewed. So I'll leave it up to the judges discretion if they want to review the article, simply ignore the article and clear it off at the end of the round or just remove it now, I'm fine with any of the three options.

I'd also like to mention a couple of things. (start rant) I know that during the point discussion prior to the start of this years tournament some one stated that they thought the Cup should be eliminated since it was causing more problems than benefits. Since the articles competitors were working on were what they would normally work on anyway and the competition was flooding GAN, DYK, and others processes with additional work. Out of curiosity I kept track of what I worked on specifically for the Cup and what was something I was going to work on regardless. Out of the 9 DYKs I did only two of them were on pages I wouldn't have worked on outside of the competition. But the fact that points were awarded encouraged me to expand several articles I wanted to "eventually" do, but had been put on the back burner so long I'm not sure I would have come back to them. Of the 3 GAs that I got promoted during the Cup 1 of them I guarantee you I wouldn't have touched at all and 1 of them I might have only made minor changes to. So in that respect the Cup has been very beatifically to the Encyclopedia, especially with the awarding of points for GAN and the new rules regarding DYK noms, alleviating some of the stress of the regular contributes to those projects.(end rant)--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts, it's always nice to hear opinions on the WikiCup. I'll leave your article on the review page, though I don't know how much traffic it gets; I'll admit that I haven't been doing as much reviewing from the page as I perhaps should have done. If you're looking to bag a few extra points but don't feel up to writing articles, offering reviews at GAC may be something to try, though of course we strongly look down on over-hasty reviews. I don't know if it's an area you've worked in before. Anyways, whether you make it through or not, it's been good to have you, and I'm pleased to hear that both you and the encyclopedia have benefitted from your participation. J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Casliber was kind enough to review the article so much thanks to him. Now when I get eliminated I'll at least feel like I had a kick at the can. Thanks again its been fun.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 14:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup/Reviews
Hey- to anyone watching this page, current participant or otherwise, it'd be great if we could get some reviews for the articles listed at WikiCup/Reviews. There are only four there now, but it's possible others could pop up in the next couple of days (though nominators would be cutting it very fine!) Of course, a fair review is necessary, but it'd be great if everyone feels like they've had a fair chance to get into the next round. Remember that GA reviews are also worth points. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do Jimena, since I know hurricane articles. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did one and will take a look at some others, though they are way different to articles I'm used to....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Cap-in-hand request
Unfortunately, I'm going away tomorrow. The GA nomination that I started at the beginning of the month, German involvement in the Spanish Civil War (talk) was not attracted a reviewer. It could well be critical to whether I go through, which leaves a dilemma: find a reviewer who either manages to lay out their review today, so I can alter the article accordingly in the next ten hours, or who acts a little of their own accord whilst I'm away; or leave the article to wallow (I may be able to edit whilst away, but I doubt it). Obviously, some special assistance might annoy some people if I go through because of it and someone doesn't. That's why the article I'm focussing on is the one I put up at the start of the month [Edit: I've checked, it was the 4 July.] and not another I put up more recently. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber's started a review at Talk:Spanish general election, 1936/GA1. Note that the reviews page, listed above, exists for this kind of thing, though you'd be lucky to get reviews there at such short notice. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see now you did take advantage of the reviews page, and no one took the articles up. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unofficially, you'll be fine. See Wikicup. <b style="background:HotPink;color:white;">Sp33dyphil</b>  "Ad astra" 12:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was aware of that tool, since Jarry1250 is, er, my brother. I expect a last minute surge. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm notified Calisber of my predicament on the review itself. If the article should pass, then could someone please add it to my tally? (Well, hypothetically either article.) Thanks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha! I thought it a funny coincidence you were both gone at the same time! J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, that tool is TOTALLY going on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What is meant with "fastest loser" in the tool? Eisfbnore  talk 19:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 16 people will make it to the next round- the two highest in each pool, and the next eight highest overall. The "fastest losers" are those who make it through in the second category. It's not strictly accurate- they were neither "fastest" nor "losers", but it continues the ongoing sports metaphor which exists in the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Perhaps it should be called "slowest winners" instead! :p Eisfbnore  talk 21:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sillly question
What time does the round end? And, if it ended right now would I be in it. YE <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical  <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone ould U be in it?
 * At the very end of the day- midnight June 28/29. You would make it through, just, if the round ended right now. You would be the lowest scorer through, with 68, but there are a few others not far behind you right now (another in the 60s, a couple in the 40s). J Milburn (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sad that the real world managed to knock me out. Oh well. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That happened to me last year, feel no worries. Mitch 32(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?) 03:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Example
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * This degenerated quickly. The Cup had nothing to do with what happened in the Airbus article, so there's nothing more to discuss here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

... of the issues the CUP causes at FAC. You've got one CUP participant destabilizing the FAC of another cup participant, by changing the citation style mid-stream. Twice. What do you 'spose I'm supposed to do with that kind of mess. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eisfbnore is in no way threatened by Sp33dyphil in the WikiCup; if you're suggesting that this is some kind of sabotage, then I would say that there is no WikiCup-based motive. I don't actually see Eisfbnore's actions as all that problematic, but, with all due respect, if they are, your problem is with him or her, not with the WikiCup. Apart from the fact that the two people concerned are in the WikiCup, what does this actually have to do with the Cup? J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, looking this over I think you're (undeservingly) making us guilty by association. It looks like he did it simply because he thought it would improve the article. I do see a problem in that article writers don't normally like to have their citation style changed by someone else mid-FAC, no matter how well-meaning they are. :-) Anyway, this was ten days ago, so I hope he's stopped by now. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that I provided a link to user talk:Fnlayson in the edit summary, where my full explanation was given. I thought that the article would profit from using the vcite family of citation templates rather than the cite family, as the former is less load time expensive than the latter (or at least so I'm told). Also note that SG never noticed me on my talk page about this. -- Eisfbnore talk 19:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also quite confused- Eisfbnore and Sp33dyphil are in to the next round no matter what happens to that FAC, so there's no motive. I don't see why Sandy would come here to accuse Eis of sabotaging Sp33dy, when she has raised no such allegations on the FAC, WT:FAC, or either editor's talk page. -- Pres N  19:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No one gets it, no one wants to get it, no one tried to get it ??? Normally, a FAC demonstrating instability (citation style changing twice during the FAC without consensus) would be closed. So, I have to dig around and see who is changing citation style during an ongoing FAC, and why, with no talk page or FAC consensus. After wasting a lot of time on that, I discover the person changing the citation style is another CUP participant, meaning I have to go figure out if they're competitors as part of my decision whether to let the FAC ride longer as it gets sorted out. And because they might be competitors, I have to let it ride in spite of instability, and then I'm supposed to waste my time sorting out who may or may not have whatever points to advance-- no, not my job. So, no, it's not a matter of one competitor trying to sabotage another, rather just an apparent big waste of time caused by edits that never should have occurred, complicating the FAC closure decision because both are CUP participants, one reviewing and working on the article apparently without declaring CUP pariticipation. The whole thing is uncomfortable-- of course, I don't expect all of you to understand, recognize, or agree. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself obviously, but I think the issue here is that nobody cares. This just feels like you are searching for a reason to complain, and your assumptions of bad faith do you no credit.  What are you supposed to do with this apparent mess? I dunno, do what you normally do?  If this is something that normally results in the closure of a FAC, then follow your own process.   That being said, if this is something that causes such drama at FAC, then I really have to question what exactly you are doing over there.  That looks like a relatively minor change, made in good faith.  It is hardly something that should lead to the closure of a FAC nomination, and even less something to launch into dramatics about. Resolute 02:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lack of publisher info leading to an inability to determine (easily) if sources are reliable is not a relatively minor thing, and I'm surprised you don't know that. Nor is destabilizing an article so that its sources have to be reviewed and re-reviewed for citation consistency.  Nor is changing established citation style, twice, without consensus (see WP:CITE), much less during a FAC, and when I discovered it was done by another CUP participant, I felt it only fair to let the FAC ride in spite of the instability. Anyway, I'm wasting my time trying to give an example to adherents of the reward culture the sorts of problems introduced when disclosures aren't made about competitors reviewing or nominating articles.  Carry on-- as usual.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am quite aware that lack of publisher info is a problem at FAC. But you are wildly overreacting to such a small issue. An editor made a change in good faith that they thought would benefit the article.  Another editor reverted it, noting the problem with the template not displaying publisher info.  And you call that instability?  That is no more "instability" than an American editor removing the u in "honour" because they think it is a typo, only to be reverted. You are also blatantly misrepresenting the facts here, as your first cited change occurred a day before the FAC was created, and the second was made following a discussion with, and gaining agreement of, one of the article's primary contributors.  I am also rather amused at how you are complaining about "reward culture" being a problem when  you  work  in  an  area  that  is  the  pinnacle  of  Wikipedia's  reward  culture.  I think we all know you hate the Wikicup, but you are reaching here, and reaching badly. Resolute 03:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolute, the goal isn't to make you laugh-- it's to help you get the point and get your facts straight. At that I'm failing, and failing badly ... Or is it just that you are having a terribly hard time seeing the point because your AGF-ometer is busted as all hell?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help if you got your own facts straight first. As already noted, you are misrepresenting the timing and nature of the changes Eisfbnore made, a problem which is undermining your arguments.  That said, yes, I know what your point is.  You want anyone participating in the Cup to wear a Scarlet Letter any time we encroach on your territory. Resolute 03:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, you're not helping your goal either. Was there something extremely wrong with someone fixing something that in his opinion was right and just because both are WikiCup participants. I know you're not a fan of this period, but picking a fight by association is definitely assuming bad faith (and yet you accuse someone of failing at assuming good faith) and causing more drama then actually needed. I would really suggest that someone lock this thread before it spirals further out of control, cause this is unnecessary, and very spiteful based on the original post. It's a fact that I haven't nominated an FAC in 18 months, but its not just because I have nothing to nominate, its because the atmosphere at FAC has become unbearable. You're taking this way too far. Mitch 32(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?) 03:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If the article was instable and should have been closed than this should have happened, but it did not. So there was no instability big enough to do so. To blame the wikicup for wasting time on searching the bad faith behind a good faith edit is fore sure not the fault of the wikicup. There was always the call that the wikicup participants should help with reviews and in DYK to minimize the workload on the memebers of the related projects, but this lokks like this is not the case for FAC anymore.--Stone (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.