Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2017/4

Cup: nom after 10 days
''This is copied from my talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)''

Hey Cwmhiraeth, this article was promoted to GA on 17 March. It was then nominated for submission on 28 March. If I'm not mistaken, that falls outside the 10 day window to submit. The competitor in question also last updated his submissions page on 18 March (day after GA promotion) but did not add his GA at that time. What do you think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging too. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at his contribution history, the editor made only a single edit between 20 and 28 March, so I'm inclined to think that it was simply overlooked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * – that still left him with 2 full days between promotion and the start of his week-long "break" to do it … —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Until 2014, I think, the cup had no rule about submitting entries within a certain time period. If I remember correctly, the limit was then set at 14 days and has since been tightened up to 10 days. At DYK the rules call for nominations to be made within 7 days of qualifying, but some leeway is usually allowed. In this instance, I do not believe there has been any attempt to game the system. Where significant work has been done on the article during the contest, as it has here, I would not choose to deny someone their points on a technicality such as this, but I will remind the editor in question of his need to make his submissions in a timely fashion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * On looking at the user's talk page, I see that he did not receive any notification that the article had passed at GA, the most recent notification stating that the article was on hold. Under these circumstances, any delay in submitting his claim at the WikiCup is understandable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The reviewer passed the article by updating the talk page banner, but the rest of the steps never got completed (user talk notification, badge on article, added to WP:GA listing). I only found out about the passage when I started looking around to see why it was taking so long.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. That's fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "I will remind the editor in question of his need to make his submissions in a timely fashion" – I don't see any such thing on his talk page. All I see is yet another "Get Out of Jail Free card", confirming what I feared all along – that this rule will never be enforced and is simply ceremonial.  The rule says nothing about leeways, technicalities, or belief that someone is/is not gaming the system.  The scoring rules page simply states: "In the spirit of fair play, contestants have 10 days to nominate their work after promotion … Work submitted after this time is no longer eligible.  Your previous stance was that Cup rules – no matter how harsh they may seem – cannot be changed midway and should be changed/clarified "at the close of the competition".  Why the volte-face in this situation? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to warn him but did not as I could see that he had received no notification that the GA had been successfully completed. I will copy this thread to the WikiCup discussion page for other input. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment, taking away the 35 points would drop the total score down to 25, which would put User:Antony-22 in 31st place overall, aka right on the bubble for not passing the round. A month from now, that 25 points could make the difference between passing or being eliminated. I take the editor at his word that it was because he didn't receive a notification, but I hope he earns some more points and it becomes a non-issue. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the proper procedure wasn't followed for passing the GA, so it could be said that the promotion hadn't been completed at all, until I noticed it and completed the additional steps for the closure. Or we could clarify that the notification date is what starts the 10-day clock.  (I think a bot was supposed to complete those last steps; I'm not sure why it didn't.)  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 12:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You simply can't change the rules mid-competition to suit your needs and situation. Doing so is massively unfair to all the other competitors who have abided by them. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It would really only be unfair to the (potential) editor who gets eliminated going into the next round. If he gets some additional points so that he moves forward regardless of this particular review, it's a moo point. Also, until the rules get bent for one editor but not another, there's not really anything "unfair" about it. Disorganized or mismanaged perhaps, but not unfair. At this time, the whole issue is really very inconsequential. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, no, it would still be unfair to anyone who has disclosed their points in a timely manner. The number of people affected doesn't matter – it's the principle behind the rule.  Hiding points gives that competitor an edge over their rivals, since it misleads them as to the actual number of points he/she intends to claim.  Rules are rules – either you abide by them fully or you don't institute them in the first place.  But so long as they are prescribed, they need to be enforced.  Failing to do so sets a terrible precedent.  Also, if you read the thread in its entirety, Cwmhiraeth only stated that she would let him off the hook.  Nothing mentioned about doing the same for everyone else. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 * These points weren't "hidden" - they were disclosed a full month before the round ended. You're also arguing against yourself here - how can it set a "terrible precedent" if there's "nothing mentioned" about it ever being allowed again? Until one of your unlikely scenarios comes to pass, this is a WP:MOUNTAIN case. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. That was to address your (inaccurate) claim that "there's not really anything "unfair" about" this situation, when the fact of the matter is that he's been given preferential treatment that no one else received.  I was earlier making a separate point about enforcement of current Cup rules in general (not just the 10 day submission window) and that failing to enforce any of the written rules defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I bet you're a super fun guest at parties. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Featured Portals
The Judges and people interested in working on portals to try to get them featured for the WikiCup might want to be aware of this RFC on the Village Pump. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Fishman ITN
Are my contributions to Fishman (wrestler) enough to qualify forITN poi ts? The article was already in great shape before the death so I just added the latest news. Not sure if it is enough?  MPJ  -DK 16:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think they are, and this is confirmed by the fact that you received recognition for your contributions on your talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawal
Hello all. I'd like to withdraw because I haven't really done any editing recently, for various reasons. Thanks. Sn1per (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'll participate again next year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Should I claim a GA when I have not received the bot notification
An article I worked on & nominated at GAN has passed according to the reviewer, but I've not received the bot notification. I am going to be away, on a boat, for the next 10 days with little or no internet access - should I claim it now. The article was called Blaise Castle but, during the review at Talk:Blaise Castle/GA1, was moved to Blaise Castle Estate. This seems to have confused the bot and only later the review was moved to Talk:Blaise Castle Estate/GA1. There was a request at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations for help and advice, but the suggested page history merge has not yet occurred. Is it appropriate to add this to my submission page for the wikicup at the current time?&mdash; Rod talk 16:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say that in the spirit of the rules, given that you've obviously worked on this, and haven't just forgotten to claim them, you should receive the points regardless of when the bot actually does its thing/when you come back online; but there might be pedants around here who disagree with me. Vanamonde (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you submit the claim now. If the bot has any problems with it, we can add the score manually. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Claim added.&mdash; Rod talk 18:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK extra 5 points

 * Unarchiving, Sorry for the slow reply. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 15:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Corious why is my submission for Plered not given the 5 extra base point by the bot? Its prose size is 5708 bytes (larger than 5k needed for the extra points). Not complaining, just trying to see if there's a gotcha I'm not aware of. HaEr48 (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Without knowing the precise answer to your question for which we would need to ask the bot operator, I think this may be because, at the time the hook was promoted the article was 3755 bytes, and then in the next few days you expanded it to 5708 bytes, before it appeared on the main page and you received the DYK credit. can probably explain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly that. The bot consciously calculates the prose size at time of promotion and not when it is displayed on the main page -- and, interestingly, has done since the bonus was introduced for the 2013 Cup. Do we want to change that to mainpage day? The does not shed much light on what made me choose one over the other. Happy to change it over! - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 15:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging . - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 15:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Implemented in ab024206. It's still possible to think up edge cases -- in theory an article may flit between 4500 and 5500 bytes repeatedly -- but I think it'll keep 99% of cases covered. The bot's gone ahead and awarded Plered an extra five points accordingly. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 19:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for next cup
People generally do not seem to be taking reviews from the 'needs to be reviewed' column. I reckon if you offered double points for those reviews (8 points instead of 4), people would probably take them up. Some have been sitting for months. Just an idea for next time. Kees08 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is an issue of points. The fact is that the reviews listed here tend to fall into a small number of specific categories, which the vast majority of us have no experience with. I think I have done 8-10 reviews since January, and only one of them from this list; because I have no experience with wrestling articles, nor those on Latin American pop music, which have been two of our largest categories. I wouldn't pick up a review from these categories for 8 points, either. Now I'm of the opinion that the points for reviews should be hiked, but that's a separate discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad idea suggestion in general, I do agree with Vanamonde that some of the subjects are just too far from my general knowledge that I'm hesitant to tackle them. But then again last year I led in DYK reviews, this year I've not been as active on that front so what do I know?  MPJ  -DK 20:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that a small bonus should be given for reviewing the nominations of other participants, eg. a 2-point bonus for reviewing a GA nominee listed in the "WikiCup content needing review" template. AHeneen (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean yeah. I get why most wouldn't be willing to review articles that out of their depths (mainly the aforementioned Latin pop articles I've been working). On the other hand, the lack of reviews would discourage me from participating from WikiCups because it gives me no incentive to join if those articles are my forte and no one reviews. It makes me feel like my time wasn't worth spent on the competition and did those articles for nothing. Erick (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Featured portals process is now historical
Not that it will make any difference to anyone in this year's competition, since the FPo process has been effectively dead for a long time, but the whole process has been marked historical and so is no longer a points option for the WikiCup. BencherliteTalk 12:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

End of round
Round 2 finishes today. All claims for this round need to be submitted by 23.59 UTC on 28 April 2017. Do not make any further submissions after that until the pools for Round 3 are posted on 1 May 2017. Any points accruing in the interim can be claimed when the next round starts and will be included in the scores for Round 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The Core Contest
The Core Contest is being run from 15th May to 30th June and may suit WikiCup competitors. You need to choose an important topic in your area of interest and work on it during the six week period. You can hopefully get it to GA or even FA standard, then or later, and enter it in the WikiCup if it achieves either. Most suitable topics are on multi-language Wikipedias so you should be able to gain some useful bonus points too, and you may earn yourself some Amazon vouchers in the Core Contest as well. Don't start improving the article you choose before the start date though! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please withdraw me from the contest
Please could one of the judges withdraw me from the contest. Whether I would get through to the next round of not I will be able to spend much time on wp for a while - I have just spent the last 3 days in hospital with my youngest daughter who has a spinal injury which is going to take a lot of rehabilitation and wp, let alone the wikicup, is no longer one of my priorities.&mdash; Rod talk 21:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear about your daughter and hope that all goes well with her. I will mark your participation in the WikiCup as "withdrawn". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

GA reviews
I know there's a page for this, but I've gotten little movement there. Could someone consider reviewing some of the following GA noms of mine, some of which date from the beginning of the WikiCup and all from before March?


 * Michael Allen (Canadian football)
 * Wayne Allison (Canadian football)
 * Buddy Alliston
 * Taurean Allen
 * Jeff Almon
 * Gerald Alphin
 * Charles Alston (gridiron football)

I'd be especially appreciative because my time is very limited this month, so I'm unable to work on much content. Prelims are a bitch. Thanks! ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I feel your pain since I've had articles sitting in GAN since January and you're not in my block I'll take a look at a couple. And this way if we both advance and end up in the same group I'd have less potential GA points to deal with ;-)  MPJ  -DK 21:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! In June, I hope to help greatly reduce the Sports category. It's getting out of control. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any one in particular you'd like to get out of the way? I have some time the next few weeks to review. Carbrera (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC).
 * None in particular, just any/all. I removed one from the list above because I realized it wouldn't qualify for WikiCup points and removed two others because they've been done. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The backlog increases, unfortunately. Any help reviewing these would again be appreciated. It would be a shame to depart the WikiCup because I have 490 points worth of GAs sitting in the queue! ~ Rob 13 Talk 07:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Richard Alston (gridiron football)
 * Ronnie Amadi
 * Zock Allen
 * Jeff Allen (gridiron football)
 * Randy Ambrosie
 * Archie Amerson
 * Jon Anabo
 * My productivity should greatly increase in the next few weeks. I have one more exam tomorrow and then I'm done high school! Graduation is Saturday, and after that I can really start devoting more time to this WikiCup. I could use some more points myself so I'll gladly look at a couple of these once my school schedule disappears. Feel free to pester me if I forget :) --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawing
Hello I'd like to withdraw from the competition. I don't think I have a hope of advancing due to the back log of GAN's in the category I edit. I would like to thank everyone for the opportunity to compete. Thanks to this contest I not only got my first GA but ended up with 7 GAs and a Good Topic. :D Wish you all the best good luck! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll hold off actually and see if I can't get some of my stuff reviewed... --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect bot character calculation
I've put forward 2017 FA Cup Final for DYK points but the bot appears to miss the 5000+ character bonus. By my last count, the page had 5,424 characters and should have been awarded the full 10 points. Is there something up with the bot?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This article appeared on DYK on 27th May 2017, so the size of article is calculated for what it was at the last edit on 26th May. At that time it was 4383 characters, ie fewer than the 5000 odd required to gain 10 points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's the same issue with Dennis Coralluzzo, by my count the page has 5,191 characters at last edit prior to running but the bot didn't give the extra points.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree with you; the requirement according to the rules is 5120 bytes of readable prose for a 10-point DYK, and this one seems to have been 5185 bytes, according to the page size tool. Let's ask the expert. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can quite believe the bot is off by 65 bytes. Happy to check properly when I get a moment, but for the moment you can just override the bot's calculation. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 22:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmm, seemed to be quite a few problems with that bit of code. I've updated the relevant code . I note you hadn't overriden the bot in the meantime though? Was there a particular reason you chose not to? - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 18:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen your response! Also, I am not sure how the bot works. Does it recalculate the score every time it makes a pass? When I have removed a couple of non-qualifying submissions, the scores seem to adjust appropriately. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. It recalculates editor totals every time, but it only places the multiplier template on the first pass. So you (as a judge) can manually adjust the multiplier templates and it will defer to your judgement. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 08:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I will know what to do on another occasion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The Time in Between bonus point calculation
Hi Judges. The Time in Between appeared on the main page as one of three DYK articles. It received 8 points per bot calculation. However, its 2001 article and should be eligible for more points. Not sure if the bot got confused with the article moves in 2007 and 2009. Can you please confirm? - Vivvt ( Talk ) 07:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging judges; - Vivvt  ( Talk ) 04:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that bonus points are due. I calculate they come to 15 bonus points, 5 for being an expansion of a stub created before 2011, and 10 because the article was created in 2001. Do you agree with this calculation? I have added the points and the bot should add them in to your total score soon.


 * I should also mention that of the six DYKs you submitted on behalf of another contestant, I approved four but rejected two because they were submitted too late (15 and 16 days instead of a maximum of 10) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both. I hadnt noticed their date so just assumed good faith with those. Thanks for the correction. - Vivvt ( Talk ) 16:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reporting. The bot was indeed confused by the page move (well, the fact that the article temporarily became a redirect). I have now fixed this (dcbc85de). While I was there, I also made it possible for the judges to leave comments (even a simple stray space) with the bot slapping on another template (3c10d2f5). - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 21:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot keeps assessing multiplier due?
Seems the bot won't stop "assessing multiplier due", even though I didn't add new submissions and the submissions being assessed was already assessed before? . HaEr48 (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen some of this, too, like it wants to make absolutely sure that I received my bonus points or something...hardly a major issue, only a question of whether this quirk is the result of a larger bug. Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's run four times on one of mine, which is weird. Although, as Vanamonde93 says, it isn't a biggie unless it is bugging other things as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it must be due to a change made to the bot by Jarry yesterday. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, it isn't messing up the scores or things like that.. it's just bloating the submission page. HaEr48 (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's really gotten excited over the last day or so...Vanamonde (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've posted on LivingBot's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely a bug, and one which should be able to be quickly fixed. It was running fine previously, so it should just be reverted to the old version. ~ Rob 13 Talk 11:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would we be allowed to remove the excess multipliers or should we just sit tight? I don't want to confuse the bot or anything. Carbrera (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC).
 * I removed the extra ones, mostly as an experiment, and the bot replaced them and them kept going :) Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We are just waiting for Jarry to fix it when he next logs in. Meanwhile, it is having no effect on the score and you can just ignore it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys - bot malfunction. It should be fixed now. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 08:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)