Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2019/1

2019 sign ups
Should the project page be updated with a link to 2019 sign ups? It might attract more attention that way... Argento Surfer (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. An excellent idea! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Volunteering
Would any of the Cup organizers want my help to create pages for 2019, i have time and could easily help build 2019 contestant pages or anything else I can help with this holiday season? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your offer of help. Setting up the contestant pages is not too arduous, I have reserved a couple of days for preparation and started yesterday. Are there any other aspects of the competition, such as the scoring, on which anyone has strong views? I personally see GARs as being a bit problematic, some contestants seeming to be able to get their GA nominations reviewed promptly while others wait months for reviews. Besides this, the judges have difficulty deciding whether somewhat skimpy GARs qualify or not, but all in all, I thought the 2018 contest went smoothly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a strong view, but I'm not sure separating the later rounds into groups is worth the effort. Looking through the last few years, I couldn't find a single instance where the people moving on weren't the top scorers overall. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have had the same experience on GANs sitting for months, while others speed through - but then I see the same thing for my non-WikiCup submissions and I'm not sure how to address this issue as such. From a competition standpoint I guess giving extra point for reviewing a cup participant article? Acknowledging the fact that any of those GA reviews gives your competitor points. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If we do something like this, there needs to be really strict checking by the organisers to avoid collusion (people giving less rigorous reviews so both participants get points). I would suggest simply a centralised list of all GA submissions by participants, or if this is too much bureaucracy then we could just have a section on this page for people to go "I need this article to be reviewed in the next two weeks" if they're desperate. I'm planning on doing some GA reviews and wouldn't mind reviewing a couple of other people's submissions (depending on the subject, of course). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Or the other way round, I could give an overly strict, nitpicky review and then fail it - I'd get points and they would not. But then again both scenarios exist today since the GA review is still points today, not sure if it's been a problem so far or if people have been good about sticking to the spirit of the Cup? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A centralized list already exists - it's a template on this page. It has to be maintained by contestants though, it's not automatic. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, perfect. I'll try to look at it at various points in the competition. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are still online, I have a problem and could really do with some help with setting up the new WikiCup page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup I am here, tell me what you need either here or on my Talk page and I'll be happy to help. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * MPJ-DK sprang to the rescue and sorted out the problem, so we are ready to go tomorrow with the 2019 contest. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I try to review other contestants articles, but sometimes I have no interest in the subject (like soccer for example) so I choose not to. Making the point values higher for reviewing other participants articles could help. Also, I wonder if using pageviews instead of total number of wikis that an article appears would be more appropriate for bonus points. I am biased because I work on high traffic articles, and the bonus point system is mostly fine as-is.  Kees08  (Talk)   20:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

2019
Happy new year to all. I've just noticed that on our signups we currently have less than 64 participating this year. While I fully understand that signups are still open and we may get more coming later to join, I am mindful of the fact that we could end up in a situation where everyone could progress to the next round without having done anything because we're under 64. Do the judges have a contingency plan just in case this comes to fruition?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I have sent a circular out to 614 people on the messaging list so I expect some other competitors will materialise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * So that problem solved itself it looks like. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * if I am not mistaken last year there was a rule in place that required a certain number of points in order to advance to the next round I think that that should solve the problem. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 05:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At the end of round 1, the top 64 contestants will move on to round 2. If fewer than 64 have scored, as happened in 2018, all those who scored moved on. We currently have over 80 competitors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

creations before 1 January
I nominated Virgil L. Peterson and Convention of Alessandria for GA before 1 January 2019, but they have yet to be reviewed. If they pass, can I claim points for them? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the Cup only accepts stuff that is worked on during the competition. Your articles were done last year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the prompt response. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

If I started something (User:DannyS712/Snyder) before January 1st, but at this point it still needs a LOT of work before it can be ready for mainspace, can I still work on it for points? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How about something like Fabian Ware that I intend to dramatically expand after 1 January, but already wrote a big chunk of? Eddie891 Talk Work 01:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I was also kind of unclear about this, both in terms of articles and images. First timer, and excited to get going. Related questions: I have a few articles pending at GAN. For a couple of them, I've been meaning to add some material/sources. Is the nomination date what matters for GAs, or does it just matter that some nontrivial (or something a bit more than nontrivial) work has been done to it this year? My presumption is that the latter is the case, but figured I'd check. With images, I often upload images knowing they still need a good amount of post-processing. I presume that a second version of an image is along the same lines (I've seen that e.g. restorations qualify, even when the original image was uploaded beforehand, which makes sense to me). Finally, does the round timing matter? If an image I upload today is promoted to FP in September, is that ok? Thanks. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The details are at WikiCup/Scoring, but in essence, you need to have done substantive work on and article during this calendar year to claim points for it. Vanamonde (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've read that. It just didn't seem entirely clear. That's alright. I'll just run with what I sense is the spirit of the rules and deal with whatever comes up if anything comes up. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviews
Are we meant to be using templates for the review lists? They aren't documented, but everyone's using them... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 18:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's recommended so the judges can see that all the criteria have been checked, but not required. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's right. It's a good discipline for the reviewer too, reminding them of the different criteria they should be considering before passing or failing a nominated article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm referring specifically to WikiCup/Reviews Needed if that isn't clear, because I'm not sure you're answering the same question I meant to ask. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 18:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean WikiCup/Reviews Needed. I don't know if they're required, but they're much easier than trying it longhand. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to use a template when reviewing an article in the WikiCup. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry to be difficult. Hoping to have some points in the cup soon, but, well, lead times, what? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 20:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Two questions
I have two questions:
 * Why are there only Newsletters until 2015 on WikiCup/Newsletters? As far as I know, the newsletter is still ongoing? It would be helpful if all editions could be accessed there.
 * Are there prizes this year? I cannot find any information on that, not even on the FAQs (where this information should definitely be included).

Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * as an answer to your first question, the newsletter is ongoing and you can sign up for the newsletter at WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 13:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, I have signed up to it. I am just wondering why the newer editions are not collectively on that page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They've only given prizes for in 2017. There were none last year, and I suspect any prize this year would be advertised by now. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the prizes were a one off in 2017. As for the newsletters, I will see what I can do about making past newsletters accessible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answers :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Just as a pre-emptive heads up....
I've done two restorations under File:Abfertigen_einer_Meldung_durch_Brieftauben_-_CH-BAR_-_3240471_-_restoration.jpg, one in 2014, and one that I began January 2nd. After doing the 2014 one, I realised the source file, File:Abfertigen_einer_Meldung_durch_Brieftauben_-_CH-BAR_-_3240471.tif, had in its file history a scan of the actual negative that A. was higher resolution, and B. Had a lot more detail in what would be the light areas on the positive.

This is not a pleasant thing to realise when you've just spent hours and hours on something, and I was a lot slower back then, so I shoved it into the "to do later" pile, and didn't come back to it until now. The image nominated is completely re-restored from scratch. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 03:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 WikiCup
I see that some of you have already made submissions but your scores are still to be updated. LivingBot, which keeps the score for the WikiCup, does not seem to be running. I am contacting to see what the problem is, but meanwhile, keep submitting your claims in the normal way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. Sorry everyone! - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 17:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Tie?
In the event of a tie between two or more contestants, how do the judges decide who advances? --Joshualouie711talk 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Each case would be considered on its merits, but basically we usually allow both contestants to move forward to the next round even if that means one of the pools having an extra contestant. It happened a year or two ago, in 2017 I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The rancour produced before that rule was implemented was unpleasant. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 23:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Topic point scoring question
I have some topic work going on right now that could potentially net some points, but I don't want to game the system so I have a couple of questions based on my own ongoing topic work
 * 1) Article gets added to a current topic - None of the article work was done this year, it was simply just approved this year I assume no points
 * 2) New topic - Nominated in 2018, the majority of the work done in 2018. If approved in 2019 I assume this is not eligible unless major work is done on at least one article this year? All articles promoted before 2019, topic itself was not though.
 * I don' want to submit anything that doesn' count and I figure I'd ask first. If you are curious #1 was just approved #2 will hopefully happen sometime this year. Thanks. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is quite a timely question as there are a couple of instances relating to topics that have occurred in the past few days. The relevant rules are here.


 * If a topic existed before the start of the 2019 contest, the only points that can be awarded now are for adding one or more articles to the topic.
 * If a topic candidate is promoted during the 2019 contest, points can be awarded to contestants for any included article that has been worked on significantly by them, whether this year or previously, as long as at least one of the articles has been worked on significantly in the current year.
 * I think your example number 1 would not be eligible, and your example number 2 would be eligible as long as one of the articles has been worked on significantly this year. The judges will look at each case on its merits. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawal
I want to withdraw from this competition because though I had plans to nominate few articles for GA that I have worked very hard on, there is no significant work on them during the course of the 2019 contest. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems a pity. It should be possible to polish such articles up a bit more so that they qualified for points, I would have thought.There is another six weeks till the end of the round, so you have enough time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And normally anyone that scores points move on from the first round, even if it's just 4 points. Which would give you more time to do article improvements. This is a marathon, not a sprints so it's not won in the first round. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * MPJ-DK is exactly right. I find this competition more about perseverance and strategy rather than a race. As long as it's quality work, there's a healthy contest.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 02:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

At best, this sounds way too arbitrary.
Re what this editor has said to me, within this very half-hour. There is no way that any aspect of my review of either GAN in question was wrong or invalid. I've had this discussion in past years; I was told that what the judges most wanted to see was interaction over the topic between the reviewer and the nominator, which happened in both cases. I would not have submitted those reviews if reason for such interaction had not taken place. I don't know if it is one judge, or all the judges involved, but I can not feel, reading what was said to me, that there is not some element of bias involved, wherever the motive for it may be coming from. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How is just one or two comments' not' a short review? MPJ-DK (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have addressed this point as much as I wish to, as well as the below comment, here. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted a reply on Wilhelmina Will's talk page, but I think this bears repeating here for anyone not watching the conversation there. Some articles nominated at GAN are either good enough that they can be passed with minimal effort, or bad enough that they can be failed with minimal effort. Such reviews are not worthless; they are simply not present in our points structure. This isn't a function of the diligence of the reviewer, but of the nature of the article. This is an issue the judges have discussed a fair bit, because it keeps coming up, and our conclusion remains the same; very short reviews do not merit points. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Question
I was just wondering - has there ever been any thought of including WP:AfC reviewing in this competition? It's one of those areas that tends to be kind of backlogged and could use more TLC and good reviewers. I don't know how we'd assign points to that, but I was thinking that it could be beneficial - especially given the snafu that occurred last year. I figure that more reviewers would make it more likely that people could spend more time on submissions, especially for topics and people who would merit an article. I know that reviewers need to be approved, but it seems like many of the people who go for this tend to be the type that would be approved. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We could consider it, but that would be as part of any review we have on scoring at the end of the contest with a view to 2020. You wouldn't want to have people inappropriately passing AfCs, and it would be limited to people with the appropriate permission, whereas anyone can work on a FA! Further discussion needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I figure that it would be a long while before it could be added, since there's so much to work out here (assuming it can be added). I thought that it could be worth maybe a point or half point per review. Enough to where it could be worthwhile if that's someone's jam, but low enough that if someone didn't have access to AfC it wouldn't make a huge deal. People accepting faulty AfCs would be an issue, but the low point amount may deter that. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  01:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Participant blocked
Wanted to note for the judges that it appears that participant Betour13 is a sockpuppet account and was blocked indefinitely.  ceran  thor 21:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed them from the table, and disposed of the submissions page. Thanks, Ceranthor. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Pre-review
I'm clearing out some of my old to-do list, which includes some partially-finished restorations. I think File:Philippe Chaperon - Rigoletto.jpg should be fine, as I spent several additional days working on fixing the scratches and dust spots - and I've been ill, so it's been good chunks of the days - but I figure it's best to toss that forwards now, so it doesn't surprise me later.

I doubt it's going to be the only thing this round; I just don't like leaving content unfinished forever.

One other I haven't even started on continuing is File:Ethel_Smyth.jpg It has a number of black spots over it, quite a few, and I intend to remove them all. Of course, this probably won't even change the thumbnail much, but it's important to get it to top quality. It's about the same amount of work left as there is to start on a lot of new restorations. I'd like to finish it this year, ideally. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 09:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as you have done significant work on the images during the course of the contest, they should be eligible to score points in the round in which they become featured pictures. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright! Just figure it's better to bring these things up myself, not have someone else bring them up. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 20:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Should I claim File:Lincoln_assassination_slide_c1900_-_Restoration.jpg? It was a particularly easy restoration (maybe 2 to 4 hours at most?), and I worry it might've been too easy. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 07:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Several hours work sounds like a significant amount of work to me and I would say it certainly qualifies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright then, thank you. Forgive me for an abundance of caution, I just think it's better to bring things up before they're problems. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 07:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I notice you have submitted some high quality restorations as featured pictures. However, in future, don't actually submit them until they have been promoted. As far as I can see, two of the four you have currently submitted have been promoted while the other two look as if they are well on their way there. You need take no action now, but just wait for promotion next time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be quite honest: That one-week rule makes me panic a bit, so I keep jumping the gun. Also, it's a pain to document them singly, but if I wait... Well, I'll try, anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about % of all FPs 09:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Participant list updates
It'll still likely be a few days until I have anything to add to my contributions for scoring purposes, but I couldn't help but notice that it's been awhile since the list of competitors has been updated. It looks like no one on the signups list after Shadychiri (on the 17th) has made it to the contestants table (including YANKAI04, who appears to have added himself out of order...). Probably not urgent (yet), but I thought I'd bring it to the 'Cup's attention in case something is actually vexing the bot. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me about this, it had slipped my mind. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK points
Hi, I have a DYK nomination in the prep queue, and I just wanted to know how many points the nomination is likely to be worth, as I'm a little confused (having never done a DYK before). The article in question is Marcus Chamat, which was created in 2007. Acording to WikiCup/Scoring, there is additional points for the article being an older article, however, I just wanted to confirm this. Namely, the guidelines say:

5 bonus points will be awarded to any DYK article which has existed since 2012 or earlier (i.e., 5 years before the start of the 2018 competition). In addition, older articles will be awarded 1 point for each year created before 2012. For example, an article begun in 2008 will receive 4 additional points for a total of 9. The bot will calculate this, but any mistakes can be reported on the WikiCup talk page.

Should this be from 2013, rather than 2012 as this was the former years rules, or am I reading this incorrectly. I apologise if this is a silly question, however, I just wanted to make sure I've not misunderstood the rules for future rounds.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have updated the scoring page because, as you point out, 2013 should now be the basis year for DYK bonuses. This particular article was created in 2007 and qualified for DYK as a fivefold expansion. It is shorter than 5kb so I reckon it should receive 5 points + 11 bonus points for its age, if I have worked it out correctly. We will see what the bot thinks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It doesn't matter too much, but I wanted to understand the points. I'll wait and see what happens when it's posted  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * you were bang on the money. 11 points is right. Thanks for the info!  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Message to users with no points
Hi. Given that the first round ends in 2 weeks, would it be okay if I / should I send a mass message to the dozens of people who signed up but haven't participated yet, reminding them of the WikiCup? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are always some editors who sign up on a whim and then forget all about the WikiCup. There are currently 42 competitors who have scored and 64 slots in the second round. I don't think it would do any harm to contact contestants on their talk page who have not scored yet, and it might remind some editors that hadn't remembered to submit eligible claims. There is still time for them to do a GA review if they wish. However, I don't think you should "mass message" all the 600+ people on the WikiCup mailing list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant sending a mass message just to the people listed as competitors for this year, not the entire list. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, I think that would be acceptable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to review it before I send it, I plan to deliver User talk:DannyS712/WikiCup reminder to User:DannyS712/WikiCup reminder with the subject of . See the bottom of User talk:DannyS712 test for what this should look like. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you sent a mass message before? It may be difficult to test your "here" in the sentence "See your page: here."? You could just make the message go to the WikiCup main page rather than the individual submission pages. Or you could try it on yourself and a sample of a couple more recipients before sending to the whole list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've sent a few before. See User talk:DannyS712 test for how this appears - the format is standard (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2019/) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, carry on then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --DannyS712 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Stupid question
I'm going to presume that, while I did help out with fixing all the images in Gioacchino Rossini (including documentation, finding higher-res copies, etc) that that's not the sort of significant work that'd apply to FAs here?

My inclination is "Hell no, Adam" but if I would be eligible, I think we should probably have a discussion about changing the rules to explicitly exclude such coattailing next time. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ideally, you would have liaised with the nominator and been listed as a co-nominator. Failing that, the only thing the judges have to go on is your actual edits, and in this case I see you have been participating in the review process. I see you also played a part in preparing the article for nomination and I would probably look favourably on your submission if you claimed for it. Other judges might think differently, however. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

What happens with multiple users with no points at end of round?
Hello, this is my first WikiCup and I have a few questions. I submitted a GA nomination a month ago and have started a GA review, but the former hasn't been picked up for a review and I'm not sure if the latter will be done by the 26th. If both of those don't get done by the 26th, may I still put them on my submissions page and retroactively claim points for this round if/when they are finished? And if not, if I end up with 0 points at the end of the round due to such timing, and there are still multiple people with zero points and fewer than 64 contestants having points, what is the tiebreaker between those with zero points as to who gets to go on to the next round? Sorry if this has been answered before! -John M Wolfson (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the answer to your first question is "no"; GAs are award points when passed as such, and reviews are avoided points when they are completed. I don't believe we have had a situation before with fewer than 64 people scoring points, but (speaking at the moment for myself, and not the judges as a whole) the logical thing to do at that point would be to eliminate everyone who hadn't scored any points. That doesn't necessarily eliminate you, though; it's quite possible to complete a (different) GA review within 5 days. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which GA? I'll review it tomorrow. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 06:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is 1927 Chicago mayoral election, and here is the link to start review  Kees08  (Talk)   06:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty clear pass (with the exception of an image no-no that I fixed), so I have passed it. And added it to Wolfson's review page, because I'm helpful like that. Y'know, in that meddling way. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 15:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! -John M Wolfson (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Only 53 people moved on to the second round in 2018. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If fewer than 64 people have scored, we just have smaller pools in round 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there might've been a year where a whole round got deleted because not enough people passed round 1, so we skipped ahead to 32 in the round, and halved from there. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN - does it still count?
Dear judges, I worked on an ITN item yesterday (Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde) and it got posted when I was already in bed, so I did not add it to my submissions then. Can I still add it once the new round starts? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I co not know at what time it reached the front page, but it would be unreasonable to expect you to stay up late just in case it did. I suggest you submit it in the next round and I expect the judges will look with sympathy at your submission. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Signpost
I like to try to do a pictoral report of people who passed the roubd, generally down to the first person who has activities that can 't reasonably be illustrated, e.g. It's hard to illustrate someone with a single GAR, though one could use the GAR logo for someone with an impressive number of them. I'm happy to do this, but could i ask the judges not clear the submissions until i can grab them? Ideally, we'd have one submissions page a round so one doesn 't have to dig into page history, but.... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 13:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I will not clear the submissions page till early on March 1st, when the new round officially starts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Round 1 -> 2
Should I send 2 messages, 1 do those who were eliminated, encouraging them to continue contributing to the encyclopedia, and 1 to those who moved on, telling them that they did, indeed, move on, and give basic info about round 2? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a newsletter coming soon so I think that'll be redundant.  Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  22:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is? Oh, then nevermind --DannyS712 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawal
This WikiCup is awesome where newbies get encouraged to show their talents. However, I am retiring because apparently, A LOT of people are telling me I shouldn't be doing what I am doing.

Please remove me from this competition. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 13:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way and will mark you as withdrawn. If you change your mind in the next few weeks, we can reinstate you into the WikiCup. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I will add myself to that withdrawal list as I don't really think I will have the time to do it. I will properly be around after my semi wiki break though but not competing in the cup. Not Homura (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I will mark you as withdrawn, then, and will hope that you will be taking part in the Cup again next year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Proactive review
I reviewed a GA nom for Ansel Adams, and since one of my core principles is fix it yourself, I made a lot of edits before I passed it. So now 22.7% of the page was contributed by me. What can I take credit for? The GA, the review, or both? RockMagnetist(talk) 01:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can claim for the review but not for the GA. For a start, the reviewer should be an independent editor who is not involved with an article. You can't review your own work. But secondarily, to claim for a GA, you would have needed to have done substantial work on the article before the review started. Being proactive during the review is helpful but does not score points! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * O.k., thanks. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons QIs, VIs, FPs used in enwiki articles
I was talking with someone recently about the German WikiCup, and learned that they award points for original images promoted to QI, VI, or FP on Commons and then used on Wikipedia (i.e. promotion on Commons alone isn't enough -- it has to be in the article). Has this ever been discussed here?

A VI on Commons is, by definition, representative of the best we have to offer for a particular subject/scope. Such images are often not right for FP, but have undeniably high EV ("valued" being part of the name). QI isn't about value, but adding a Quality Image to an article can, again, have a marked improvement on the article. It seems like these are things that could easily be encouraged through this contest. (as an aside, I was surprised to see no archives search box on this talk page -- I'd add one, but don't really want to mess with what looks like a manually updated list in the header). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This hasn't been mentioned in the time I have been associated with the WikiCup. We will need to discuss it at after this year's contest has concluded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. I certainly wouldn't try to propose it be added to this year's. I am curious what other WikiCup regulars think, though. Maybe something like a QI used in an article=4 points, VI used in an article=15 points, FP used in an article (regardless of Commons or enwiki FP)=30 points. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * May I suggest discussing it earlier than the conclusion of the wikicup? The outcome of the discussion would be for next year's rules, but we seem to do this annually (decide to discuss things at the end of the cup), and then usually do not for whatever reason. What do you think?  Kees08  (Talk)   00:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reping  Kees08  (Talk)   00:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Points changes mostly get discussed when people don't like the status quo. I think that discussing the scoring after the Cup is finished is a better time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Since we may as well discuss it... problems with each:
 * QI is quite stringent, but is also really intended for photography one, so it's only one class of images, splitting FPs up a bit. For a small number of points, it doesn't matter much.
 * VI honestly might be a little easy to get for that many points, especially if the requirements for what counts as you working on it are set too low. For example, File:William Emmett Dever 1923.jpg would probably get VI, and, as can be seen, I definitely worked on it enough to qualify, but it was well under an hour's work. I could likely churn out a hundred of similarly useful, but not FP-level images, because, frankly, that size of image is small enough that one can get away with being surprisingly slapdash and still have it look good. I make dozens of those sorts of things a year. I don't tend to draw attention to them.
 * FP is arguably a little undervalued, but if we're counting both Commons and en-wiki, I should note I haven't had a single en-wiki FP not pass commons, so that'd presumably double my points for each FP. And if it wouldn't, why? Or, for that matter, could I claim the VI points and stack to either 45 or 75 an image?

An advantage, however, is that en-wiki sometimes goes through random droughts when people are away for a bit. Any holiday, for instance, will likely have a number of nominations on en-wiki fail due to lack of quorum. Commons is more robust. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 01:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding QI: It is indeed only photography, and it is limited to the output of Wikimedia users (i.e. something copied from Flickr or scanned wouldn't work). That said, there's gray area. I've seen photos of paintings, for example, get promoted, so I'd be curious what would happen with a Wikimedian-restored image. Have you ever sent one of your restorations through QIC? Regardless, I don't think that it's a problem that it's only photography. Photography is going to be the primary medium of our images in articles, and as far as editors producing images, it's far and away more likely that someone will take a picture than make an illustration, video, sound file, or restore an image (present company excluded :) ). The number I threw out for it (4 points) was based on the idea that it has the least to do with encyclopedic value, but if used in an article the technical ability/time necessary to create the image combined with it being used in an article merits a few points.
 * Regarding VI, it is indeed a lower threshold. Well, lower than enwiki FPC. The relationship to Commons FPC is more complicated (more "wow" required for Commons FPC, less EV needed). Regardless, the focus of VI is value, so insofar as we want to add encyclopedic value, I think it makes tons of sense to include it in the WikiCup. Point value up for debate, of course. I don't find FPCs to add a very great amount more encyclopedic value than VI.
 * Regarding FP, I think the dual FP on Commons and enwiki would make them redundant, so only count once. The points are for improvements to articles, and no additional improvement is made. Kind of like how a DYK after GA doesn't count for points but a DYK for a new article does. Or maybe some bonus points would be in order? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know; I do think FPs can be a bit undervalued on the Wikicup, as they don't have bonus points. Having Commons act as a bonus point system wouldnae hurt. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 16:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Groups
I'm sorry, this's probably explained somewhere, but how do the groups work? what's the point of them? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In this round, the top two from each group advance, as do the next best 16. Round three has four groups, with the top two advancing and the next best 8. The rounds/groups thing is outlined on the main WP:CUP page. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , tks for the reply, but I was asking why there are groups, and the top X number of contestants don't just move on every round. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much just to be a bit more interesting, as far as I can tell. This way, you do only have to be in the top two in your 7 person group to progress. If you are in a hard group, you still have a good chance of progressing anyway. You could do it either way, but this is at least more interesting Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking through the archives, it's been at least four years since a second place finisher in a group wasn't also in the top 32/16/8/4 that moved forward. Are they seeded somehow, or just randomly assigned? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it's random. To be fair, the early rounds don't seem to have a high threshold of points for progression. Last year, the cut off was at 10 points (So, potentially one DYK, or a couple reviews). At least with the groups, there's something to play for. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I alweays thought it was 1st place in Group A, 2nd place in B, and so on until you loop round to the top, say, 9th in A, 10th in B... — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * I agree there's not much point, but personally I don't mind it to make things more fun. It's very boring to see yourself in the 29th place of a 64-user round, for example, but more interesting when you see youself in top 3 of your group even though it's actually just the same :) HaEr48 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

FPO
Don't these no longer exist? Why is there still a space for them? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 16:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , this was asked last year. The discussion is archived here. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a particularly good argument; It's not like FS is still a column too, despite being a part of the first few Wikicups. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 16:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I was asking more about why I can submit FPOs on my page. WikiCup/History/2019/Submissions/Adam Cuerden - they even have a point value given. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 03:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Newsletter error
Nothing major, but you said I had eight featured pictures. Actually, I had nine. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 05:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 11:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record
I decided I would not be comfortable claiming Rossini on the back of image work, even if it was quite heavy, for which I have gotten several FPs anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 08:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Rescued GAN?
I didn't do this for points, but I figured I'd ask about it anyway since it seems like an interesting case study either way.

Someone nominated Katharine Coman for GA. It was reviewed (by a couple people, even), and the nominator stopped editing altogether. Weeks/months later, it was about to be closed as not promoted. I noticed and picked up the nomination, making a bunch of revisions such that it'll likely be passed. Is there a place in the WikiCup for this? Obviously I did far less work than the original nominator, and am not a reviewer, but the work involved is more than that of a typical review, and the result is a GA that wouldn't have otherwise passed. Just curious. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at the article and the GAR, and I see you have done a lot of work on the article, even if you did not nominate it in the first place. I think that under the circumstances, if it passes it would be reasonable for you to claim it as a GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. Was just passed, so I submitted it. Thanks. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)