Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2015/2

Vote of no confidence in the scoring system
Be it understood:

We, the undersigned, feel that the judges, acting without consensus, have created a scoring system that does not reflect either the consensus of the voting, nor the good of the Wikicup, nor the Wikicup's long-term survival, due to the intense divisiveness thus produced.

After one week of voting on this proposal, should it be passed (simple majority), all changed aspects of the scoring system will be revoted on, to create an actual consensus.

This new scoring system will be implemented from the start of the second round, or third round, should there be agreement that more time is necessary to come up with an agreement.

Support

 * Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't think consensus was respected and I do think consensus is important. Note: I probably actually benefit from the rule changes, as I am not a regular FP contributor and the articles I work on normally are not eligible for bonuses. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentative Support - Only because I don't think the bonus point change had consensus. I don't mind about the rest.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per ThaddeusB and my own complaint above. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with the understanding that the issue with the scoring system is the end result of a much bigger problem - namely the (Wikicup) community not standing up to enforce its own consensus.--Godot13 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be noted the majority of the support votes (3 of the 4 so far, excluding Adam himself) have been canvassed by Adam Cuerden.   —  Hun  ter   Ka  hn  13:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not really fair. I obviously was going to comment regardless as I've been vocal on the issue since the start.  Same for Godot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it to the people who worked on the ANI, and that alone, as we had been working together on this matter for some time. Anyway, as the AN thread shows, normal Wikipedia rules don't actually apply here, do they? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not canvassed. Withdraw your scurrilous statement. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "3 of the 4 so far, excluding Adam himself", I'm pretty sure you're that one out of the four. The statement's still relevant and correct. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was notified, not canvassed, as it is fairly obvious I would comment in some manner... Perhaps a bit hasty on the accusations.--Godot13 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's of the vote-stacking type, that is, though the message was as neutral as it could be, the audience of his message made it inappropriate. Adam never sent me a message, though I was involved in the earlier discussions. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 22:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You also had also already commented, so there was no reason to notify you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see many others in the oppose section that were notified. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 04:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose, though not reflecting consensus, I believe it was for the good of the WikiCup. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 15:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose along the lines Muboshgu mentioned below. The judges outlined the reasons behind their decision and I will respect that. Let's just focus on having a good year and fulfilling the purpose of this competition: producing great content.  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The new rules are fine. Let's move on, stop whining about it, and get back to working on articles.  Toa   Nidhiki05  16:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose All of this is a distraction from the purpose of the WikiCup: improving content. Who cares who wins? The whole point is that Wikipedia wins, but not if this continues. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't going anywhere. If you don't like the new rules, don't play in the competition. It sounds like such a simple concept, right? Well, that's because it is.  G loss  17:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Couldn't agree with Gloss and Muboshgu more, as I think most of the whining about the rule changes is counterproductive and completely misses the point of the competition. Further, I feel the oft-cited "consensus" for not reducing FP points was hardly a consensus at all, as it was a narrow 5-4 vote (at a discussion where dissenting voters were argued against in bullying big red fonts) and even if it were a blowout, polling is not a substitute for discussion. The judges made their decision based on the discussion, not the poll result, and if you don't like it, don't participate. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, suggest closure per WP:SNOW. For someone who has said you don't want anything further to do with the WikiCup, Adam, you seem to be having a lot further to do with the WikiCup. It's also interesting that you're now trying to initiate a vote of no consensus supposedly because the judges went against consensus, when you previously said you would lose "all respect for" me if I "allowed" FPs to be devalued, presumably regardless of consensus. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment at AN. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I prefer the change. This discussion isn't fun or helpful to the project.Cptnono (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I need to remind everyone that Wiki is not a vote. The judges recognized that, and made some positive changes. YE Pacific Hurricane  22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Really now? This talk page has expended tens of thousands of characters of argumentation over the point system of a voluntary, recreational, largely self-congratulatory system of encouraging quality content creation, mostly at the hands of a single editor who is not even opting to participate. Furthermore, although I'm a first-timer here, I can read through the history as well as anyone; the point system for the Wikicup has never been a matter of precise calibration. From year to year, the arguably-optimal (or at least winning) strategy has varied from emphasis on DYKs to GAs to DYKs (but only those on specifically-rated topics) to Featured Pictures to (in the early days) simple edit counts. Maybe this year's point system makes the optimal strategy different than last year; almost certainly, it will be something else again for 2016 (unless this debacle gets the entire Cup killed at MFD). But the bottom line is, if it concerns you deeply that a Featured Picture is worth 20 points instead of 35, or if the bonus for certain GAs and DYKs is calculated differently than was done in other years, or you feel that any point system that might plausibly be enacted "devalues" or "insults" any form of quality contributions ... then you are missing the point of this whole thing and the attitude it is intended to engender. Now, unless I have to speak in defense of the whole Wikicup idea at an MFD, that is literally all I will say on this topic, because I have quality content to create ... no matter how many points its worth. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A drop to nearly half, against consensus, with a badly thought-out rule that had to be deleted as it was unenforceable has a psychological effect. And all for naught: I'm not the only one boycotting the contest over this. You're not going to find a single FP creator in the contest this year. So the effect of going way, way beyond consensus is entirely offense, with no benefits whatsoever. Perhaps this contest could be salvaged. But the attitude of the people in it shows it probably can't be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "psychological effect", what? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Adam, seriously dude, it's long past time for you to just walk away from this. First, it's just not that important. Second, you clearly don't care for this year's rules, nobody is making you play, and you have no ownership over the game. Let it go. Townlake (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Go do something for the project. Do you even have points on the board?Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I'm not the only person complaining. But I'm sure it makes the narrative a hell of a lot easier to dismiss if you just ignore everyone else, and pretend it's only me having a problem. This started in the ANI thread, which wasn't even started by me, but where quite a few people calling for it to be dismissed talked about me and ignored that ThaddeusB started the thread. nor am I the only FP contributor to be stating that the well-beyond-consensus reduction appears to be an attack on their field of work. I could add at least one more person explicitly stating that, if I was willing to link User talk pages (I am not). FP contributors were always a minority to the Wikicup. They are currently non-existent.
 * In the last two years, using the Wikicup to pace myself, I created over a hundred and forty restorations for Wikipedia, many on extremely important subjects. I still intend to work on images for Wikipedia, but, without the pacing trick of the competition, I don't expect 2015 to be as productive. I'd imagine the same would go for Godot, who worked incredibly hard to be the first FP winner since 2007. What happened? The judges decided to tear him down. Wikipedia is the loser from this excessive, blind stupidity and obstinance.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, I think the number of supports you have here is a good indicator of who's with you, and that's two. And that's after your notification of selected users. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 15:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support the judges disqualifying you from this season's WikiCup under WP:IAR. Your incessant harping on the injustice you perceive here is overall detrimental to Wikipedia. You've made your point. Townlake (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am boycotting the cup. It's fantastic that you think your juvenile threats have any meaning whatsoever. You can't threaten someone by saying they can't do something they'd rather punch themselves in the face than do, and that's a literal statement. You can only insult them.
 * I'm sorry that I actually thought the Wikicup could be brought back to being a force for good on Wikipedia. I probably should have just MFD'd it from the start, three months ago. I shan't. But would encourage anyone interested in doing so to do so. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even the mere suggestion strikes me as WP:POINTY. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per Squeamish Ossifrage. There was a discussion, the judges made a decision and that decision should be accepted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Can we just wait for one attempt to discuss things (AN) to reach some sort of decision before going on to something else? And when do we just get to drop the whole subject so we can concentrate on the encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion was closed at AN. The conclusion of the discussion was that we had to solve our own problems. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that now. Of course there was also this sentence in the close "There doesn't seem to be any obvious solution other than to continue with the cup per the rules in place now they have been established." Perhaps that would be good advice? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Why should we wait an entire year to fix problems? Why should we save up all the resentment another year? Why not get this done with, get good rules in place, and be finished? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What resentment? Please don't assume that everyone feels insulted. The changes affected me, yes. I usually do well by bonus points - and the changes will decrease that for me... but I'm not feeling insulted or marginalized by this - it's just the way things change. Please try to see what others are telling you.. you're not helping by the constant constant drumbeat of complaints. Do you want everyone to be so tired of your complaints that the simple solution is to delete the Cup (which, I might add, you're not even competing in)? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. This thing is meant to be a harmless competition based on promoting content. All of this bickering about the scoring is distracting from the purpose of this contest: improving Wikipedia content. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The judges should have thought about that before shoving in new rules without any discussion. I want to save the Wikicup. But allowing things to fester for a whole year is not going to do that. The end of the first round is a good place to implement changes, because the scoring matters least during the first round, there's generally enough dropouts and such that anyone who does any reasonable amount of work will pass to round two.
 * But to allow another year of arguing over the problems caused? Or letting entire fields of content be insulted for an entire year? May as well wind the Wikicup up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can I just say that my chances of staying in this competition relies on GAs and GARs. This year, points for GAs stayed the same, while points for FAs doubled. When I signed up, GAs were my focus, what was my focus after the change in scoring? GAs. See? A change in points doesn't insult or degrade anyone or their work. The WikiCup was to combine improving Wikipedia with friendly competition. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to comment here, but I'll just note that I'm quite frankly tired of everything and anything related to the cup. Now that I know such pages as this do not rely on consensus, that makes any other activities I do so much easier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we officially close this now, per WP:SNOW? Much of the dialogue being generated is redundant and, I'd argue, nonproductive. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Closing per SNOW is a good way to assure that only the firstcomers get to decide policy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. We'll just wait for that inevitable rush of support votes that are sure to come in the eleventh hour... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

FA/GA...nominations
Does anyone know FA/GA...nominations's points rules? --333-blue 01:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean for nominating an article that you haven't worked on yourself? Miyagawa (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you get FA points from? Reviewing candidates or actually working on them yourself? Also, any points for moving Stub-class to Start or C-class? Aneditor (talk tome) 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You get FA/GA points for working on articles and taking them through the appropriate review processes. You can also get points for conducting GA reviews, but not from FA Reviews - however you can get points for Peer Reviews. There are no points given from moving articles from one class to another below GA. However, if in the process you get the article to meet the requirements for Did You Know, then you can claim points through that once the article has appeared on the main page. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally FPs
Hi all,

Can anyone explain me what is meant by Generally in FP scoring sections? Can the nominator (like me) of an FP nom who have not done anything on the image will get any point though he deserve nothing but the nominator's name? - The Herald (here I am) 13:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Further on in the description, it states the requirement for the person claiming the points to have "significantly work[ed] on" the image. Simply uploading/nominating won't meet this requirement. Miyagawa (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about bonus multipliers
I tried to find something but I couldn't find something concrete why a FA on Jesus is worth ONLY 3x the points of some [insert obscure category article] which gets veery few views even when on the main page. Personally, I do think a GA on sea is more valuable that such an FA. What is the intended "purpose" of the "simplification" of the bonus system. Nergaal (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't recall there being any consensus to change the bonus points system aside of adding accumulators for older DYKs.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should be supporting the above proposal? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The multiplier change (which was voted against 3-2 even in a vague form) is "justified" for the same reason as the other disputed changes: the judges decided the various point change discussions were really all about the same thing (increasing parity between different categories of content) and took it upon themselves to find a balance. In order to make a balance possible (at least by their simulation), they had to significantly change the bonus system, and ignore the specific point changes suggested by the discussion participants.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what I am asking: what is this "balance" intending? Have someone win the competition with articles on [insert obscure category] instead of high impact ones? Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably to have an elite FA writer win the cup. YE Pacific Hurricane  23:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the judges' defence, this is just rolling back the bonus point system to something between what we had for the 2011 competition and for the 2012 competition; not the most radical change in the world. On the other hand, I do think an explanation for this change would be beneficial; as far as I saw (though I may have been looking through rose-tinted glasses...) people were pretty supportive of the linear model that we had for 2013 and 2014 competition. J Milburn (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been away with work without access without anything that could edit Wiki properly. Essentially, for better or worse we wanted all competitors to be able to compete on even ground no matter their category of specialisation, which meant one of the things we had to take into account just how quickly things can be reviewed - remembering that there is only a two month window for each round. So for example, you can have as many Good Articles nominated as you like - but you have to keep in mind that some subjects can take an age to get a review. However, for FA you can nominate one at a time - potentially this might suck up the entire two month period (in fact, on highly contentious and important subjects, I'd expect that it would). Feasibly though, if an editor wanted to ensure that their articles got reviewed at GA then they could simply review every other article in the category, whereas doing that at FA won't make any difference to the speed of progression of their own article (and they wouldn't get any points for FA reviews either). So a highly important subject could get through GA rather quickly, and in my opinion, the more important the subject there, the quicker it tends to get reviewed because people will see it as being within their realm of knowledge. Seeing Sea going first GA and then featured was the absolute highlight of the 2013 cup for me, and almost certainly one of the handful of the most important outputs of any year. The previous bonus system can be pointed to as encouraging that for sure, and while I won't say that the old system will never re-appear, we wanted to see if we could balance the potential GA vs FA output, and one part of that was removing bonuses of over 3x. You can also repeat what I've just said but consider the differences between DYKs and GAs as well - in some cases you were getting DYKs scoring more than a GA because of the bonus points. It was a very tough decision to rollback the bonus points, because I know they were popular (even with me!). Miyagawa (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do think that the old bonuses were fun because it made the competition unpredictable. I still do not recall there being a consensus to change it but we have it. I suspect I won't be making the semis as I did last year though.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand your rationale. You are saying that we do not have enough [insert boring, overrepresented category at GA or FA] which because of their lack of interest don't raise the interest even of reviewers, but we have too many [insert interesting, important articles that rarely get up at FA GA] which immediately attract the interest of reviewers? So you are trying to say we should incentivize more of the same-old stuff and push it down the throat of reviewers so they get even more sick of it, and disincentivize interesting articles that even reviewers seem to actually enjoy working on? You want more of the stuff at WP:FANMP? If that is what you are saying, how come this feels exactly the opposite to what happened to FPs? If I understand your rationale on that well, we had a "spam" of "uninteresting" FPs so the changes disincentivized them. What am I missing? Wasn't the whole point of the points system to encourage a higher variation of the more interesting or impactful content? I feel confused. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't the deliberate effect that we're seeking. It is a potential unfortunate side effect of trying to change the system so that there is a balance between types of content produced at different levels based on the speed of how quickly they might be reviewed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is why people do some brainstorming on ideas BEFORE changes are chosen and set in stone - to foresee potential unintentional side-effects. I still don't understand what is gained by having a GA of sea be worth only 90 pts and an FAs on SMS Scharnhorst or 1995 Pacific hurricane season be 200 pts each. Do you think the work into putting sea at GA is less than half of the work put for bringing either of those two at FA? Nergaal (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We were aware of the side effect and took it into account. Hence why I said that it was a very tough choice to change the multipliers. Miyagawa (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't we go back to the old multiplier system for FA's only? YE Pacific Hurricane  17:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What about DYKs and GAs? You can't have one and not the other.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think this rule change will actually achieve its intended purpose? If not, consider rollbacking this change. Nergaal (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If we didn't think that the change would be beneficial overall then we would never have implemented it. Miyagawa (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So... are you going to answer any of the other questions raised? Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Adam, we've already said our piece about the points changes in the statement further up the page. Miyagawa (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about the testing that you say justifies it. Could you explain your tests? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Right.... tests indefensible. Good to know. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Seek official ruling
For claiming DYK, I want to be sure the judges view my contributions to Bleu Horses as significant enough; I was not the article creator, but I took it past the minimum size threshold and added a fair bit of content. Just checking. Montanabw (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your contributions to the article more than meet the criteria. Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Issues with some points claims
Colleagues, I've been doing a little reviewing of some of the claims for the first round and have had to reject several from a number of users. I thought I should highlight a couple of issues with claims in order to provide some clarity. Sorry to be pedantic, but the last thing I want is to revert someone's claims that they're relying on to get through to the next round. Right now it's OK, because everyone still has another month to gather some replacement points but as we get closer and closer to the end of the round it feels a bit uncivil to run in like the points Nazi and steal them away. :) Miyagawa (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominations for anything need to be within the current WikiCup. This means on or after the 1st January of this year.
 * Only significant work during the course of 2015 will be counted.
 * You can only claim points for articles once they have reached the status that you're claiming the points for. In the case of Did You Knows, this means a front page appearance.


 * To clarify this, if there is an article I worked on before the cup started (or even before I knew of the cup), but since the cup started I've entered it for GA, would the GA process mean that it would count or not? I've not put an article through the GA process, so I'm not sure how much work it is to know whether or not I should deserve credit.  I am glad that the cup is here to encourage me to try new things like this, though!  1bandsaw (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Only if you made significant improvement to the article since 1 January. AHeneen (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I've seen cases where it's met the criteria and cases where it hasn't depending on the volume of work conducted in 2015. Miyagawa (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

points and other questions
i dont get it. do u score by editing or making an article? also, i signed up already and i dont see my name on the list of competitors. Awesomeninja1589 (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You gain points by working on an article and successfully taking it through did you know or in the news, or by bringing it to good article, featured article or featured list status. You can also gain points by producing featured pictures or featured portals, or by completing good article reviews or peer reviews. The full rules can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. The judges will get around to signing you up shortly- they will create a submission page, where you can list the articles/images/etc. you have worked on and add your name to the main list. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated the table, so you're now there and you have a submission page set up. Don't worry about the contestants list - I'm going to update that after the close of the signups. Miyagawa (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

FAC nominations
The bot that used to mark WP:FAC nominations from WikiCup participants is no longer active. Consequently, it would be appreciated if contestants who nominate an intended WikiCup entry at WP:FAC would explicitly state this in their nomination. Additionally, please remember that the WikiCup rules indicate that contestants must declare their WikiCup participation when reviewing other contestants' FAC nominations. Thanks, all. Maralia (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder at Featured article candidates/2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final/archive1. I intentionally did not submit Featured list candidates/List of Seattle bridges/archive1 since it was almost all done before the competition.Cptnono (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK Submission
Hello! This is my first time competing in the WikiCup (worth mentioning, at least) and I have an DYK nomination that was accepted less than a week ago and I haven't seen it appear on the scoreboard list yet. Is it not official until it actually appears on the Main Page or did I make a mistake in how I entered in the submissions list on the WikiCup page. Respond when you get the chance, and thanks for reading!

Whoops, almost forgot the link :.

LeftAire (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't get credit for a DYK until it actually appears on the main page. So it's only a matter of time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Bot
The unofficial bot has stopped working, how am I to tell if I made the top 40 or not? Also, can judges please not award points to people who submit them all on the last day on the grounds of not playing by the sprit of the rules. Aneditor (talk tome) 10:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The round doesn't end until towards the end of February, so we don't need to worry about a little bit of bot downtime. Unreasonable last-minute updates are explicitly against the rules this year: "In the spirit of fair play, contestants have two weeks to nominate their work after promotion or appearance on the main page. Work submitted after this time is no longer eligible. In case of illness, vacation or real-life issues, please notify a judge on his or her talk page, or by email, and a decision will be made as to its eligibility by the judges." J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks J. I've dropped the bot owner an email to see if he can bring it back to life. Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's alive! Alive! The bot that is. Not Frankenstein's monster. Miyagawa (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * LivingBot seems to be updating GA noms, but not WikiCup, is there a problem? Harrias talk 08:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Already emailed the owner last night, haven't heard back yet. Miyagawa (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bot just ran - please note I've already removed all the submissions from the user currently leading according to the table. Miyagawa (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So is this bot supposed to update all our scores, or only certain categories? I've got 2 submissions I think meet the criteria, but my score is still showing as 0.  Should I just be patient?  1bandsaw (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to follow the formatting exactly. I've corrected your entries on your submission page, so the bot should now pick them up on the next pass. Miyagawa (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Flags
Can we have a crackdown on United States Flags? To be honest it's a little hard to distinguish contestants when 10 of them are flying the same flag!! It's also unoriginal, and the state flags are annoying too. That's just my opinion, however I feel that some contestants may have a different view. Aneditor (talk tome) 10:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: 35 US Stae/city flags and 22 flying the United States Flag, it's actually annoying. Aneditor (talk tome) 10:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If people want to fly their own flag or a flag they feel close to, what's the harm? We used to have a rule that only one person could fly each flag, but this meant that lots of people were flying a flag they didn't want to fly. Further, a "crackdown" is really more trouble than it's worth- people do not appreciate being told to pick a different flag, and I'm sure the judges could find better ways to spend their time. Also, think about the Olympics (the kind of competition which inspired the flags)- you'll often see a swathe of US flags in certain sports, just as you see lots of Jamaican flags in the sprinting and lots of Chinese flags in the gymnastics. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You could possibly do the same with the UK and India flags popping up (my Union Jack is exempt though as I'm using British Empire, not UK!) It seems pointless and a bit of a killjoy if people cant have their first choice flag.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 16:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The repetition of American flags I can understand, but why the singling out of state flags? I don't understand your reasoning. (Mine, for instance, is Minnesota's – only one other contestant has that flag).  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to state that there's going to be no "crackdown". Competitors are free to chose whatever flag they wish, basically as long as it isn't offensive. We've only had two people who didn't have a flag, for one I put in the flag they had last year (Portugal), and for the other I chose something unusual (Lombardy). Of course people are free to change their flag if they wish to, and so if we select a flag for a competitor who doesn't then they can change it afterwards. Miyagawa (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let your freak flag fly. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to all competitors
Colleagues, I just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone who has signed for this year's cup. As far as I can tell, we now have more than 150 people competing, making this the biggest field in the cup's history. Good job everyone! :) Miyagawa (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess that this is something to do with the watchlist notice- whoever's idea that was deserves a pat on the back! J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a further note - we just hit the colossal 200 mark some 24 hours before the signups close. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and we ended up finishing on 201 competitors. Miyagawa (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Feature Picture bonuses
I see we now have a few FP credits claimed. I also see that the bot isn't adding a bonus template the way it does for DYK/GA/FA. I didn't check if any of the pictures in question are eligible for bonuses, but at one point one surely will be. How does one claim the FP bonus points? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware the bot is working with the FPs, as we double checked a week or two ago when the bot kept going down that FPs were working. I'll manually check the FP noms for the foreseeable future until we get one that qualifies and we can be assured that it is working. Miyagawa (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The bot is not calculating FP bonuses. I have submitted 6 FPs, each of which qualifies for a bonus...--Godot13 (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll chase it up - if it isn't settled by the end of the round then I'll manually add it at the end of the round (if I do it now, the bot will automatically remove it the next time it updates). Miyagawa (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions page
I've just noticed that when the bot visits your submission page it leaves an edit summary "(Bot: Assessing multipliers due. (Stuck for what to work on?) (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8)))" and if you click on "Stuck for what to work on" (which I'm not) it takes you to WikiCup/Suggestions. This looks like a really good idea for anyone who wants to pick articles which would get bonus points in later rounds; however I think there are a few problems with it: Is there a way to automatically generate a list of articles that aren't FA and have articles on multiple wikis - possibly through some clever catscan type thing? If so it may be better to point participants to this.&mdash; Rod talk 20:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The bonus system has changed so the 11.4x multiplier etc can't apply
 * I don't know how it was generated (or when) but doesn't seem to be dynamically updated - therefore:
 * several articles are already FA
 * or are redirects
 * or point to dab pages (which presumably couldn't attract points).
 * It may also be nice to point to WikiCup/Reviews in addition to the suggestions page- the reviews page has always been a little under-utilised, but it has the potential to be a hub of activity! J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the reviews page could be moved to this talk page, similar to the image/source requests at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates? It would likely get a lot more eyes on the nominations needing reviews.  G loss  21:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea - I've added it to the top of the talk page. Miyagawa (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion that led the edit that you keep reverting. Miyagawa (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Miyagawa:  I have self-reverted before you mentioned me here.   Jim  Car  ter  16:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How are points awarded for co-noms?
How are points awarded for GA and/or FAC co-nominations? Do both editors get full points, or do they split the points? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Provided they both meet the "significant work this year" criterion, both editors get full points. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and the WikiCup has always been happy to acknowledge and encourage this! J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Do points carry over into the next round?
I'm a little confused by the system. Is the winner in the end the one with the most total points over the year, or the one with the most points in the last round? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most points in the last round. Points do not carry over from round to the next round. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is worth saying that if points are gained in the gap between rounds then they do carry over to the following round (as they won't be counted against the previous round). Miyagawa (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:WikiCup Medal Gold FX.png
Not to waste anyone's time since there are more important things to worry about, but I noticed File:WikiCup Medal Gold FX.png was deleted and therefore no longer appears in my "trophy case". Was the file renamed or is there a replacement for this file? I earned that gold medal! :p (Seriously, not a big deal, was just curious. It might be helpful if there were a Commons category for images/awards related to the WikiCup.) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I did find commons:Category:Wikicup, but I don't know if this is specific to German Wikipedia like its category suggests. What about commons:Category:Wikipedia WikiCup? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It was deleted because it contained part of a €1 coin without identifying the photographer, according to its deletion discussion. The gold, silver, and bronze medals were deleted on Commons (see this deletion discussion), but a new files were uploaded with the same names in 2014. AHeneen (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll replace with File:Wiki bronze medal.png. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Demotion
I assume that you can't get points for an article that was promoted to GA, then demoted, right? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately I've just lost 90 of my points, unless I correct a big copyright issue with caracal that affects the whole article in 11 days, and I doubt I'll make it to the next round with eight points. Good luck to everyone else though. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the unofficial tool, people with 0 points are still in line to advance. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Commiserations. You could do one or two GARs for some extra points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In times past (in galaxies far, far away!) a single point has been enough to advance out of the first round. So I'll second Cwmhiraeth's suggestion and add that you might be able to get a DYK to the main page as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to see about GAR, I'm not a DYK person. ;) -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, fix the copyright issue ASAP no matter what! If it was GA otherwise getting it back up there should work.   Montanabw (talk)  02:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A kind editor by the name of Biblioworm has already started rewriting it (of course he'll get the credit), and Mkat had found so much wrong with it that (s)he said I've actually yet to find a string of more than two sentences in the article that isn't plagiarized., so nothing was salvageable. But Thanks for the encouragement everybody, I'll get to GAN, and then I'll see if I can get a few more points, and if not, no big deal. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * AG: Plagiarism is a big deal. I think it would be worth your while carefully learning what plagiarism is and isn't, and seeing where you went wrong in the articles in question. It would also then be valuable to check whether you might be accused of plagiarism in other articles you have edited, and fix them as appropriate. It would certainly be best to avoid expanding any further articles until you're sure how to write without problems of this sort. I don't mean to discourage you, but this is potentially a real problem, and it's definitely something you should work to correct. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When I said "no big deal", I meant if I don't get into the next round that it's no big deal, I'll probably be discouraged from making major "improvements" to articles for quite a while. I know it's a big deal, because of me, a high importance cat article is hidden from view. I do plan on looking into the problem and learning more about plagiarism. (I thought I knew enough about it already) -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 13:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I looked into caracal, and it looks that the three examples Mkat gave were in the article before I touched it, I'll ask him/her for a few more examples. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 14:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I've seen what prompted the request, at Talk:Caracal for more examples. AG: I'm quite sure none of the plagiarism in the article is yours. Why I am I sure? Because you only ever made ten edits the article. You arrived at the article on 5 January 2015, when the article was 23KB. You made exactly ten edits and, it seems, nominated it for GA on 10 January, sitting at 25KB. In other words, you did so little to the article that the plagiarism is almost certainly someone else's work. But the fact that you did so little to the article, yet claimed credit for a GA, while missing the obvious fact that just about every word in the thing was plagiarised, is an issue of itself. I'm sorry to be harsh, but Wikipedia is not about a quick chase for points. I would go one step further than J Milbun; I would discourage you - from this method of content creation. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, now I'm just trying to game the rules instead of plagiarizing? Why make me into this evil person that will do anything for a WikiCup title? I will say I'm a cleanup and reffing person, not a writer, I just forgot that I didn't write much in it, but that doesn't mean I didn't work on it. The article was C-class before I touched it, and when I edited it, I did reffing work, added a needed taxonomy section, trimmed down the "in culture" section, and added to the "Ecology and behaviour" section, then your trying to tell me I hardly touched it? I apologize if the article was too good before I started editing it. And I'm new to the GA stuff, I didn't think about checking for plagiarism, and it got past the reviewer too. If you want me gone from this competition, and from GA editing, you'll get your wish, I will withdraw on the 27th, if I make it past this round with the eight points. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that some folks are being rather hard on AmaryllisGardener who is the innocent victim of somebody else's copyright violations. I think it would be a shame if AG thought it necessary to withdraw from the WikiCup because of this and I urge him/her not to do so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After a few e-mails exchanged a while ago, I guess I'll stay in this. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 17:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)