Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2019/4

Signpost report
Hey, everyone! I just wanted to run the report I came up with past everyone, in case I've allowed errors to slip in. So, the draft is at Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Wikicup Report; let me know of any issues with it ASAP; trying to summarise the wealth of work being done by all of you into a single image and a short description is something that can go wrong rather easily, so if I managed to trivialise anything, I apologise. That definitely is not the intent.

There'll be some header text, but my plan is to either abridge the last newsletter, or badger Cwmhiraeth to do it. That might sound bad, but she asked me to do the gallery, so...

By the way, a really impressive run this year. I don't know if rules have changed, but last year I won with 962 points. This year, I'd have been in fifth place, and Lee Vilenski and Gog the Mild both scored almost three times my winning score. Congratulations to everyone, because you've genuinely done something super impressive. And as for the winners... How do you even GET four featured articles in two months?! I mean, what the hell!? And The Rambling Man did it as well, and Gog has three. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 06:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the report! Looks good overall – there were only a few minor errors that I've taken the liberty to correct myself.  Feel free to revert if I've got it wrong. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All look like good calls. Thanks! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 09:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Adam, I have corrected a couple of points on my blurb; you may want to recheck it for flow. No, the rules haven't changed - last year the contestants weren't really trying . Overall we did well for FAs. I managed 14 over the five rounds, and TRM and Lee got, I think, 12 each. We were held back by only scoring one each in the opening round - I think we were all keeping our powder dry. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you may have oversold my FA creating abilities a tad. Aside from aditional points for GARs, and FACRs, everything had the same points. Up and down the order, there was so much competition, so it isn't surprising that the points scored are that bit higher. FWIW, after you beat me into second last year, there was no way I wouldn't be winning this year! As for the write-up, good job. I don't write always about snooker... but it is the majority of my content. Next year I have my eyes set on working on a wider range of articles, so I may crash and burn in round 3! Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye, as I said, if you're trying to summarise a lot of contributions in one image, there's a certain amount of simplifying required, unfortunately. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 18:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviews
The WikiCup rule requiring FAC reviewers to state that they intend to claim points in the WikiCup was initiated this year. It was very largely adhered to during the contest, and I did not get the impression that anyone was attempting to game the system by undertaking shoddy reviews. I reminded some contestants of this rule when they forgot, but I did not actually disallow any FAC reviews (15 points) because the information on the contestant's participation in the Cup was omitted, and I would be very unhappy having to disallow an FA (200 points) if there was an FAC rule requiring such a disclosure and the candidate had gone through the slog of a FAC but failed to mention their participation in the Cup. As a result, I am proposing that the rule is scrapped, and that there is no need to mention WikiCup participation when either nominating or reviewing an FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds sensible to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with dropping the rule—if there's no recent abuse then it's not a good rule. Any behavioural issues are likely to be new editors acting in good faith and the solution will always be to talk to the person in the first incident and actions by the judges limited to that contestant if absolutely necessary. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Rule clarification
WikiCup/Scoring says The rule that required content to have been worked on and nominated during the course of the competition has been removed (I think this was added for the 2020 competition). Instead the rules read: You may usually only score points in a round for content which has been promoted, or reviews which have been completed, in that round. To clarify: if an article is created from scratch and submitted and reviewed for DYK today and the hook is featured on 1 January, is that an eligible entry? Or if it's submitted for GA today and the review passes on 1 January? Answer probably won't affect what I work on in the next 11 days but it might affect what points I can claim. ;) — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think both of your examples would qualify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

dyk points
Hey, Cwmhiraeth! Apologies if this has been suggested/tried and discarded, but would it be possible to give points for building a prep set? I feel like it might be really helpful at DYK, especially during the first few rounds when we get dozens of wikicup noms and can be in two-a-days for months. —valereee (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So, I think creating prep sets are a really great thing to do, but I have reservations as to how this would be implemented. What defines "building a set?" - is that the whole set? What happens if someone finds issues with the built set, does this get reduced points? There's also only 7 sets, so someone could easily hog the points from this (I see the chances of a lot of edit conflicts if people were to game this.) It's a solid idea, but would need some logistics Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the idea has been discussed before, but Lee Vilenski makes some good points and I am dubious about the idea. Building prep sets is fine for experienced DYK editors, but some of the contestants are less experienced, and I can visualise the sort of problems that might arise. Also, the main objective of the WikiCup is to encourage content creation and improvement, and building prep sets is neither of these. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get it, building a prep is a skill. I'm not so worried about people hogging them; it's not only seven, it's one or two a day, so over the course of Wikicup it's hundreds. Reviewing GA/FA take experience, too; I'm sure many contestants didn't start out experienced at that, and those reviews aren't content creation, either, they're part of the process for improving content/recognizing content creation, too. How do we deal with a sloppy or incompetent FA or GA review? Not trying to be argumentative, just hoping there's something we can do to help with the crush we get. If not, no worries. —valereee (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)