Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2013/4

Next year
We've got three months until the start of the 2014 WikiCup; what would people like to see next year? I've opened a discussion. Thoughts very welcome. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well....
My scanner broke, so looks like I'm not going to win. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Straw polls!
I've opened some straw polls to help gauge the community feeling concerning how the WikiCup should run next year. You're all invited to vote and participate in the discussions. I'll close them in a few weeks' time; I'm not going to put a certain timeframe on them. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
I would like to thank the judges and others involved for another well run WikiCup. I guess it was quite a challenge to get the bonus system up and running yet everything seemed to flow along smoothly, newsleters were published and scoreboards rearranged for subsequent rounds. Thank you on behalf of all the competitors for spending so much time and effort on the Cup. Net result, a great many new, improved, good and featured articles, pictures, topics and reviews that might not otherwise have been tackled. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You would say that! *grins* But I do concur :) - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 15:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Another fine effort this year guys! Resolute 15:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, and I fully expect another well-run Wikicup for 2014! :)  Ruby  2010/  2013  15:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Stub Contest
... just in case any WikiCup participants are going through withdrawals...! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We've also got a GAC drive coming up! WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/December 2013. It's a little different from other drives, as there are some users pledging donations (the more reviews you complete, the more money the Foundation gets) and it's been run on a "say how many you'll do" basis, rather than "how many can you do". J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gah. I can't do either of them with my schedule. I get a few moments here and there to do quick things right now! Sounds good, but just wish it was like in March or April when my schedule should be clear. Seems like fun though, but at my rate, I'd only end up making more stubs. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/December 2013
Hi everyone; if you're not aware, there's a backlog elimination drive going on at the GA project. If you want to satiate your competition bug, or maybe if you want to help clear the ground before the start of the next Cup, this may be something fun to join. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary page, bot tweaks etc.
TL;DR: update your bookmarks

Hi all. As the Toolserver approaches its shutoff date, I've now migrated the "summary" display page to Wikimedia Labs; you can visit it here and bookmark it ahead of next year. I've also made the software compatible with previous years back to 2010, e.g. 2012.

To the judges (User:J Milburn, User:The_ed17): I've also retired the "Running Totals" system for generating those pages, which means we lose a few incidental pieces of information at the edges but the whole process is much quicker.

Thirdly, I'm also in the process of migrating the bot and updating it for 2014. At the moment, the only likely changes I can see scoring wise is that the "old page" bonus is going up to 5 and the dropping of the vital article multiplier criterion, and a possible points tweak for Featured Portals. Have I missed something?

Finally, since all projects on Labs are natively multimaintainer, if someone would like to help me out (even just to improve the bus factor, that would be great. The source code is available.

All the best and festive wishes, - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 15:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know; there is still a good bit to be done on our end, but it should all come together... has also joined the judging team, just so you know! J Milburn (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for letting me know, I haven't been too active recently and have a fair bit to catch up on :) - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 19:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, could you add a link to previous years' results on the Labs page? It would really help. -- !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypnypn (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 December 2013
 * Done :) (scroll down) - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 21:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you (and sorry about my mangled signature above) -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

DYKs
Hi, do nominations of other editors' work for DYK count as points? Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 11:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No; what's important is that the WikiCup participant has made a significant contribution to the article itself. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Mat  ty  .  007  20:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What about DYK articles that have been more or less prepared in usespace in 2013 (I have a few article drafts that I have worked on this year, but that have just stucked in my userspace for various reasons). Iselilja (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The DYK rules say that any article moved into the mainspace is eligible for DYK so I don't see that it is a problem at the Wikicup in my view. Also, if you're doing a large 5x expansion, it's reasonable to assume that one would work on it bit by bit in their userspace rather than doing it all at once.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how I typically work at all. The only things that I generally work on in my sandbox are large lists that take a considerable amount of time to complete. Most everything else is done in mainspace, including my DYKs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just adding a note that the article must have sustained significant contributions the year of the competition, so be careful you don't submit any articles for points that were mainly written in 2013.  Ruby  2010/  2013  23:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ruby is correct here. Only content on which you have completed significant work during the year of the competition is eligible for points. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I submit an article fr DYK now, and it gets through in 2014, will I get points for it? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Only the articles on which you have completed the work to make them a DYK during 2014 are eligible for points. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

New rules for 2014
I have closed the polls and discussions for 2014 and updated the rules page. There will be two changes of (small) consequence, one change of little consequence, and one clarification related to changes outside of the WikiCup.


 * Featured portals are now worth 45, not 35, points.
 * Articles created in 2008 or earlier will be awarded 5, not 2, bonus points if brought to DYK status.
 * Being "vital" no longer makes an article eligible for bonus points, but vital articles will likely still be eligible for bonus points for other reasons.
 * Only articles eligible for DYK through being newly created or newly expanded fivefold (not newly promoted to GA status) are eligible for WikiCup DYK points.

Questions or comments are welcome. J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Did my Peer Review proposal go through as well? No worry if it didn't.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I noted this in my closure on the other page- while there does seem to be something of a consensus that peer reviews should be eligible for points, there didn't seem to be much by way of agreement on how it should work. There was a lot of "We could... It might... I wonder if..." but not really anything that I could just take and slip into the rules. Honestly, if you have an easy, workable and non-gameable way to do it, I'm all ears. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the only way it could be done is if it used the same rules that GAR use at the moment.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that we can't just transpose GAC rules; GAC typically requires a degree of follow up, and has a certain degree of closure. Or do you feel that points would not be awarded until a peer review was closed? J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that PR doesn't really have the same need to carry out the definite closure that they do at GAR as it's more of a case of waiting for the bot to do the honours after a few weeks. I suppose you're right.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Any consensus on ITN recent deaths? I remember that this was brought up in the middle of last year's WikiCup, but the rules weren't changed under the premise that it'd be discussed at the end of the comp. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't changed in the middle of the competition because we don't change the rules mid-competition; that's only fair. Nobody raised it during the discussion period, and so it wasn't discussed. I'm afraid it's really too late to do anything about it now. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So are ITN recent deaths still eligible for points?  Spencer T♦ C 21:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are the requirements for recent deaths the same as the requirements for ITN? As in, do deaths always go in just recent deaths, or do some major deaths go in the main ITN section? As far as I'm concerned, recent deaths has not ever been eligible for ITN points, but I admit that my experience with ITN has been limited to a couple of nominations of my own articles... J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Deaths can go in the main section as well, but it's far less likely. For example, Ronnie Biggs got into the recent deaths section, whereas Nelson Mandela got a proper blurb. Miyagawa (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as ITN is concerned, the update requirements for a RD and a full blurb are the same. In practice some RDs require less work than a typical ITN item; however, some actually require more work - it all depends on the the shape of the article pre-death.   I have successfully run some of the latter type through DYK after RD posting because DYK does not consider the non-bold RD link to be a featured link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured Pictures
Are only images uploaded in 2014 eligible for FP points in this competition? Say I uploaded an image in late 2013, but only nominated it for FP status in 2014, is it ineligible?D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 20:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have to have done significant work on the content in 2014; merely nominating it is not enough. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the clarification. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 22:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)