Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2021/1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Scoring improvements for 2021

Hi all, just wanted to kick start any concerns anyone might have with the scoring for next years competition. I'd like to suggest improving the amount of points offered for good and featured topics. Currently, a Good Topic is worth 5 points per article. This doesn't seem all that much to me. Baring in mind that a 4 article Good Topic, which isn't all that easy to make, is worth just 20 points. By this, you'd need a Seven article topic to have the same points as a regular GA with no bonus points.

Might I suggest that we double the points for a GT (10 points per article), or have a base amount (say 30) for having a good topic? I realise the loophole is to find a series of articles that have already been to GA, and then fill in the blanks to make a large GT, but I feel doubling the points would make the GT process a lot more viable. Similarly for Featured Topics), improve the points to 20 per article. These topics are big achevements, so should score pretty heavy. Let me know if this is a sensible idea, or if you have others. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO the WikiCup already gives a big advantage to people who work on articles that overlap, use overlapping sources, have a similar structure, include repeatable tasks, etc. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I don't think we need to give an even greater incentive to work on such projects. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Not a judge any more, so I'm not going to be making any decisions about this, but I did spend a fair bit of time considering this question two years ago, and came to the conclusion that no change was necessary. It feels like a small number of points, true, but you've to remember that these points are over and above what you'd get for GA and GA promotions; and if someone's written a GT/FT on a prominent set of subjects, the number of points they've got can be pretty substantial. If you've got a five-article GT, and you promoted two of those during the competition, that's a minimum of 70 points plus 25 for nominating the GT. I think that's a reasonable reward for the level of extra work involved. Lest someone decide this is because I've never completed a GT, I came to this conclusion after considering the effort required to finish a set of articles I'd started working on. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd be interested to know how many GTs/FTs have made it through via WikiCup over the past few years? I mean I know where Lee is coming from, with many, many snooker tournaments there's a good option for several GT/FTs. I myself have been looking at The Boat Race and the English Football League play-offs as GTs with something like 160 and 100 sub-articles respectively. And yes, it does encourage articles of a similar nature to be created, but what is the problem with that? Incentive should be provided to anyone prepared to improve Wikipedia. If we need to get snobbish about it and demand some ulterior quality threshold, then cancel the cup. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • When I was a contestant I decided that the scores for good and featured topics were not worth the effort required and therefore were not worth pursuing. That implies that the scoring is too low. From a judge's point of view, good and featured topics are problematic. This year MPJ-DK had several overlapping good topics and I tried to figure out whether they had been correctly scored by the bot and eventually gave up. Another problem is when a good topic is converted into a featured topic. If say a four item good topic is submitted in one round and qualifies as a featured topic in a subsequent round because one of the good articles becomes a featured article, how should that be scored? And what happens if it becomes a good topic and then a featured topic in the same round? Should both be scored? and is it automatic that a good topic becomes a featured topic if it now qualifies, or must it be renominated? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    Those examples all seem straightforward enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    TRM, not many GTs and FTs have been submitted during the past few years. Taking the example I gave above, if a topic consists of 1 FA and 3 GAs, it will be a good topic and score 20 points. If one of the GAs becomes an FA, the topic consists of 2 FAs and 2 GAs, so it includes 50% featured content and automatically becomes a featured topic (as I have now discovered). The nominator has 200 points for the new featured article, but what should they get for the featured topic? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    Well then it's an FT and all four articles qualify for 15 points. Don't overthink it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    Perhaps we should have a note on adding articles to a Good Topic. So you get a certain amount of points for adding a GA to a Topic, and some for Featured. Then there isn't so much of an issue over a topic becoming featured, but more on the articles in the topic itself. I'm open for suggestions, but with 5 points per article, it still doesn't seem particularly worth it; as you'd be better off working on articles with higher multipliers. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I would oppose any increase. As Vanamonde93 alludes to, most likely the nominator has already earned the points for promoting the GAs/FAs. As a token nod, what we have is fine; more than that distracts from the primary (in my view) purpose of the WikiCup, which is direct content creation and improvement. GT/FTs are slightly tangential to content creation really. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    I would agree to an extent but making GTs and FTs more attractive, we're encouraging great bodies of work to be created. As I said, I have the Boat Race stuff where I just need to get the main article up to snuff and then add in literally 160 GAs. That's a great piece of work and I should be knighted or given a place in heaven or something. People are probably already selling my compendium on eBay. Where's the paper??! But I take the point that it might be a case of double-accounting. I'm definitely not down with the idea of artificially penalising people who work in a specific area though. That's just snobbish bullshit. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    When/if you get that main article up to snuff, I'll do my best to reserve you a place in heaven Oh Mighty One! But maybe you should be content with the... what... ~905 points that would earn you?!! In seriousness, that is part of my concern with it; if the points are increased, it can be heavily manipulated to award points in (say) the final round, for work that was mostly done previously. Obviously, most GTs and FTs are much smaller, and so have less of an impact, but hopefully it gets my points across, at least. (And very seriously, I have nothing but respect for your work on the Boat Race articles, as hopefully you know.) Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I'll again bring up counting Commons FPs like the German WikiCup does, in case that's something people want to talk about. See here and here for the most recent threads about this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to again register my opposition to this. The WikiCup has always been a competition about the English Wikipedia; Wikimedia Commons is a different project, just as Wiktionary is a different project, and other-language Wikipedias are different projects. Lots of FPs on Wikimedia Commons aren't used on the English Wikipedia, or are used in ways that don't add all that much to the project. We have our own featured picture process -- I'm not sure what's wrong to sticking with that. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Off hand J Milburn's approach would seem to be the logically appropriate one. I could be convinced by a good argument I suppose, but I can't imagine what it might be. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, Commons is not Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
If the scores are going to be as high as this year, a few more points for FPs might be appropriate, but I suppose there's an option of playing more tactically - Work on a big set nomination over the year and drop it in the last session. I don't like holding things back, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 07:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Deadlines

Not a scoring improvement, but could we have some clarification? The rules state "contestants have 14 days to nominate their work". Except we don't. We have 14 days for the first 6 or 7 weeks of a round with a cut off at the end. There seems to be some flexibility around the cliff edge nature of this, but I can't find any clarity on just how much. I had a discussion with Cwmhiraeth just over 36 hours after the end of the final round, where, in passing, it seemed to be taken as read that nomination time was over. I don't have a problem with this, and I assume that a similar timescale applies at the end of each round, but it would be helpful to be clear to everyone just what the time limit for round-end nominations is. (I am assuming that the judges have at least a custom and practice idea of what works for them.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be a cut-off point to allow the next round to be set up. Perhaps we could just make the rule "contestants have 14 days to nominate their work but must do so by the end of the round". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth: which raises the prospect of an article qualifying at 23:59, being immediately nominated, being timestamped at 00:01 and not counted despite it being not physically possible to act any faster. Not to mention time zones where articles qualify in the middle of the night, or contestants without the free time to hover over Wikipedia as 24:00 UTC approaches. The judges usually have three days to set up each new round. Is 36 hours to allow the occasionally unavoidably delayed nomination going to upset anything? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not aware that this has been a problem, but it could be important in borderline elimination cases I suppose. Each newsletter states "Remember that any content promoted after the end of the round ... can be claimed in the next round", which certainly implies that submissions must be made in the correct time period. However, I would be prepared to be flexible if the circumstances warranted it. It would not be fair if one person were to be given a special dispensation to submit late and that meant another person was eliminated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth "any content promoted after the end of the round" - then by all means let the rules explicitly say the same thing. Currently the rules allow 14 days, with nothing said about round-ends, whatever may be informally understood. What I am concerned about is your having to decide, possibly in an elimination case, just how many minutes or hours you are prepared to be "flexible", or just what constitutes "circumstances". It seems better to give a deadline and enforce it. My second argument was that a deadline some time after 00:00 at the end of each round would be better than 00:00, but any certainty would seem better than the current situation. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Gog's point; I think 24 hours should be allowed after the end of each round for submissions. Otherwise anyone on the edge of elimination (or anyone at all in the final round) may be disadvantaged by their time zone, or by missing something like an FA being promoted at 23:33 on the final day of the round. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Am I confused? I thought the final round ended on 31 October and there was no grace period for anything promoted up to 14 days later? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The question isn't about when it is promoted, but when it is submitted. But as the rules stand, I agree with your understanding that there is no leeway. But I think there should be for submissions, as I mention above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man: You may well be correct. As a first time competitor I would have appreciated the rules stating that. Assuming that it is the case. I have a preference for a little time to log your achievements; it seems unfair not to allow some and iniquitous to leave it to the judges' decision after the event. But I greater preference for "what everyone knows" to actually be in the rules. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Harrias, a 24-hour leeway could be given for submissions after the end of the round. Perhaps @Gog the Mild: could suggest a suitable change to the wording of the rule. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, sure. I am out today. I will write a draft as soon as I can. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Based on what Vanamonde93 said here at the end of Round 3 ("not especially concerned about the time at which points are claimed … so much as the time at which they are earned"), I think the 36 hours should only apply to claiming the points. If the points are earned after 23:59 UTC the day the round ends, they can be counted for the next round (per the current general rules). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Bloom6132, I don't believe that anyone holds a contrary view to that, although I stand ready to be corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. If it is promoted after the deadline, that's not in the round (or, we should move the deadline!) I do however, agree that we should have a day or so leeway on people claiming points that they have already won, or there is issues around timezones, and simply not being on the PC at 11PM GMT! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Draft amendment to deadlines rule

Contestants have 14 days to nominate their work after promotion (for good and featured content), appearance on the main page (for did you knows and in the news articles) or the completion of good or featured article reviews and featured list reviews by entering it on their submissions page. However, work relating to a particular round must also be nominated and claimed within 24 hours of the end of the round. Nominations submitted more than 14 days after the points were earned or more than 24 hours after the end of a round are no longer eligible. Please contact the judges if you have a question regarding the submission of articles.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternative wording: "Contestants have 14 days to nominate their work after promotion (for good and featured content), appearance on the main page (for did you knows and in the news articles) or the completion of good or featured article reviews and featured list reviews by entering it on their submissions page. However, work qualifying in a particular round must be nominated and claimed within 24 hours of the end of the round. Nominations submitted more than 14 days after the points were earned, or more than 24 hours after the end of a round, will not be eligible. Please contact the judges if you have a question regarding the submission of articles." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Content submission pages for each candidate change each round

As it is, the only way to see what a candidate did in, say, Round 2 is to know when round 2 ended, then go into the file history, and each candidate will show a different round on the final page depending on when they are eliminated. Something like "Wikipedia:WikiCup/2021/Round 2/Submissions/Adam Cuerden" would make things far easier to follow, and mean that reporting on the WikiCup round by round could easily link to a page with the final results for the round, instead of needing to use diffs as it does now (not that anyone does half the time, unless I'm there to fix it), and going back to, say, Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2020/Round 2 wouldn't - unlike now - link to submission pages that were completely inaccurate for anyone who passed the round. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 21:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

What you say is correct, with a contestant's submissions for any particular round only being available to inspect via the history of their submissions page. However, this information seldom needs to be accessed, and the simplicity of the present arrangement, where the submissions page is wiped at the end of each round for those contestants moving into the next round, means that the bot does not need to change parameters between rounds. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I read these back quite a bit. Maybe it's worth copying the submissions to a subpage after each round? I know it's a lot of work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It might be some work to set up, but it's a permanent benefit. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 04:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Round 1/2

I've noticed for each of the last 5 years in round 1, one is able to progress just by scoring the minimum of points. Just 1 DYK/GAR and you can sit back and relax for the rest of round 1. Personally I think this isn't really healthy in terms of the spirit of competition because people (and I do count myself in this) hold back on content creation in round 1 because we know we're already safely through. So my suggestion is, if we have less than the 64 who have scored points to go through, we merge rounds 1 and 2 so there is incentive to evenly create through this time. We'll still keep the cut-off at the end of Round 1 but to encourage more editing, I was wondering if this might be worthwhile considering? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an argument to just do away with the first two rounds altogether, as if you make any content you will pass. The other alternative is to re-initiate the pools that we had, which would then give users more incentive to score points. (Want to be top of your pool, rather than 30th in a list?) I'm open to other suggestions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
What about reducing the duration of round 1? That would cut the chaff sooner, and the time could be tacked onto a later round.
Alternatively, introduce a bonus structure that would allow contestants to carry over a fraction of their points from the prior round. As a starting point, I'd suggest 5% of points over 200. If you earn 5 points in round one, you carry over nothing. If you earn 400 in round one, you carry over (400-200)x.05=10. It's not a lot, but it's enough to push someone over the bubble and would be a good motivation to score early and score often. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
What about something in between - let the points carry through to round 2, but cut people at the end of round 1? That way the there's incentive to do real work in round 1, but there's also the incentive of a deadline if you want to keep playing. Guettarda (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
That would probably be a simpler solution, yeah. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
That's my thought too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds workable to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Verdict

With the start just 2 days away, I would like to ask if there is any confirmation on the changes (if any) for 2021 @Sturmvogel 66: and @Cwmhiraeth:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have made some minor adjustment to the scoring page, including rephrasing the rule about the deadline for submissions. Although some of the proposals made above had merit, the discussions were largely inconclusive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Submissions page clarification

Hi judges, I looked at my submissions page and had some questions:

  1. What does "FPO: 45 points" refer to?
  2. There is no heading to put Featured Article Reviews. Will these receive points in 2021?
  3. Some of the points values on the submission page are different from the values listed at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring like GAR and GT. Which value will we use in the cup?

Thanks for setting up and judging this year's cup. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I just left a message for Cwmhiraeth to that exact effect. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I think these were copied from the 2017/18 scores, as FPO is Featured Portals, is it not? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Now that IS a throwback.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I copied a submissions page from 2019, forgetting that various alterations to the scoring were made in 2020. I am about to correct the submissions pages now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Too late?

Is it too late to back out now? I think I changed my mind about signing up (I can be slightly indecisive sometimes).

Thanks, Rosefeather of WindClan (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You can either withdraw now, or you can do nothing, which would mean you would score no points in Round 1 and be eliminated at the end of the round. Remaining in the WikiCup gives you the opportunity to change your mind again! You seem to have changed your username since you first signed up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yerp. 

Thanks, Rosefeather of WindClan (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Claiming points for FA reviews

Last year, when I claimed points separately for a prose review and a source review of an FAC in the same round I was only ever awarded one set of points and it was only recorded once in my totals. I assume that this is/was a bot issue. Has this been sorted? If not, would it be best to flag up such cases here - I don't suppose that there will be many - for hand adjustment?

When the two reviews were claimed in different rounds there was no problem. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The change to the rules on claiming for different types of FAC review was made in the middle of last year's contest after discussion among the judges. As you point out, the new rule did not work properly because the scoring bot could not distinguish between different types of review, and making routine manual adjustments to the score is unsatisfactory. So I removed this provision from the scoring page before this year's competition. Most of the GA reviews done during last year's contest were very thorough, and I am not keen to make single-aspect FAC reviews seem like an easy option. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Header adjustment

Resolved

Not a big deal, but might someone be able to adjust the head at the top of this page to reduce the huge chunk of white space and make the archive links more prominent? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I made a slight change - any better? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, Yes, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about a review

Hi there! I completed a review on January 1, which you can see here. I asked another editor and they said it might be risky to include it in my submissions, and that I should ask here just to be sure. Should I remove it from my Submissions? I should maybe add that I carried out a full-article copy edit as part of the review? Sorry for the silly question (first ever WikiCup). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd expect this to count but a judge will be able to say for certain. — Bilorv (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I consider it permissible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

All time

is it possible to created a all time wikicup table or/and list of wikicup winners and runner up table. Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History lists all of the winners, whilst the results and such also exist at toolforge. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
That said, comparing scores is going to hit issues with changes in scoring, in some cases, quite major changes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 06:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
ok i going to look at it later once I finnish the Draft I am working on I just had a quick look I could do something similar to sports tables and do rank users by wins and running ups Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Good, it will be interesting to see what you can come up with. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Here is the draft, I do what I can anyone wants to help feel free to do so Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's looking good. I made a couple of corrections, but I have not checked it all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am going to move it to main space tomorrow Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

now moved to main space Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Table rankings

Hi all, I previously asked about the chances of having a position on the left hand side of the table to see where each user was at any one time, is this something we could implement? I'd be interested in this, as it would mean users would know where they were without sorting the table, and counting the names until theirs. I'm not sure of the technicalities, as to how we'd make this work (nor if it would break any of the bots), but something like:

Pos User FA FL FP FT FAR GA GT GAR DYK ITN Bonus Score
2 User 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 User 2 0 0 0 0 75 35 0 5 0 0 0 115

Might need someone a bit better at tables/coding to me to make this automate as the bot updates. Anyone know if this is possible? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It would probably be better on the right end of the table rather the left. @Jarry1250: will know if it is feasible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK eligibility question

So, I wrote Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment from scratch last November, it was promoted to GA status in December, and I nominated it for DYK in December after the promotion. It was run on the main page on January 11. So since this ran during the 2021 competition time frame, would it be an eligible submission, or not, since I haven't really worked on it in 2021 besides some ACR stuff. Please ping with response, as I'm not watching this page. Also, while I'm at it, I've got another scenario. I wrote 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate) from scratch in late November, but got busy and couldn't nominate it for DYK until after it got promoted to GA status earlier today. I'm going to do the DYK nomination regardless if I can get points or not, but, incidentally, would it also be submittable? Hog Farm Bacon 03:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure is! From Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring: The time-limiting rule that required content to have been worked on and nominated during the course of the competition was removed last year. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Hog Farm Bacon 04:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Except @Hog Farm:, if it appeared on DYK through GA status (as opposed to created or expanded), you can't get DYK points for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, just 5x, mainspace creation etc. Otherwise we'd have every GA promoted be sent up for DYK for points. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I thought it would be eligible since I could have nominated it for creation. Will remove submission. Hog Farm Bacon 15:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
If you had say, expanded 5x, and GA'd it within the seven days, then yes it would be ok to nominate. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sign-ups not exceeding 64

If we don't get more than 64 sign-ups (I haven't counted but it looks like we have around 40 right now), does everyone qualify for the second round? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

They have to actually score points. And there is signups through January. We should get at least 64, but this is the lowest I've seen before the completion starts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I remember one year, there was a message added to watchlists in the same style as an RfA or Signpost edition. Would that be an option again or were these removed for a reason? Kosack (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, this is all good, but what's the answer to the question? Fewer than 64 entrants -> everyone who scores at least a point qualified for round 2? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
For your information, 64 editors have now signed up, and I expect there will be a good few more over the coming days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Good news. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I still want to know the answer to the question. Now you have me curious. Le Panini [🥪] 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Am I too late?

I put my name on the signup sheet, and was wondering when I'll appear on the list of competitors. Also, how do I access my submission page? Bear with me, first-timer.

And also, Paper Mario: Sticker Star has been around since 2008, and has recently been promoted for DYK and appeared on the front page yesterday. Does that make it eligible for the five point bonus? Le Panini [🥪] 15:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the rules prohibit editors named after Sanskrit sages from joining after 31 December. Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)One of the judges will add the corresponding submissions page soon (signups are available until the end of the month). The article above is not suitable for points at all as DYKs promoted due to GA passing do not count. If the article had been 5x expanded, it would have been worth a lot more than five points though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Not so Gog the Mild, signups run through 31 Jan. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, Ah, I understand. Thank you! Le Panini [🥪] 16:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not sure about list of competitors because a judge does that manually when they get around to it, and the submissions page will be at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2021/Submissions/Le Panini when it exists. You're definitely not too late though. DYKs only count for WikiCup points when they're new/5x expanded (i.e. not GAs) because you can claim for GA points instead, but not in this particular case as I see the review was in December. Hypothetically such an article would be eligible for bonus points based on both length (5 points) and age (5+7 points) but I'm assuming there are not really any Mario games that are not already too long to make 5x expansion impossible... The language bonus points would also apply to GAs—see the "Bonus points" table on the rulepage and notice that there are 14 different languages which have an article on Sticker Star. — Bilorv (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Bilorv, So that is how the language thing works. It was confusing to me. Thanks! Le Panini [🥪] 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Although this is not me, it's still funny to catfish
This has me wondering how it would be if I received points for an expanded DYK and then later received a GA for expanding it more. SL93 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
That is fine. So long as the DYK is for a creation/5x expansion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Le Panini: You have a submissions page now, and the information that others have given above is correct. Gog's comment was a joke and referred to Pāṇini, who was about twenty-five centuries too early to take part in this year's WikiCup! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Does it say too much about me that I only know about the sandwich and the sticker books? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I've never heard of the sticker books, if it helps! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks all, I think I'll be good for the time being. For now, can't wait until Paper Mario: The Origami King is done. Le Panini [🥪] 21:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Panini, et voila! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, Thank you! A thing I noticed while you're here: Your name isn't on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/archiving as one of the coordinators, so that needs to be updated. Panini🥪 14:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Another thing: is there a tool for me to quickly see what other Wikipedias have a certain article? Just for pre-calculation; I know a bot does it. Panini🥪 14:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata is all I know of. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

How do bonus points work?

I noticed I got a multiplier on a DYK I submitted. Just wondering why? starsandwhales (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring starsandwhales. Specifically because the article is on 11 Wikipedias. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Userbox

For those who like this kind of thing, I've made a quick userbox at Template:User WikiCup result after failing to find an existing one (which is a bit surprising). The documentation is hopefully understandable enough to use but ask me if it's confusing. Feel free to make changes or create a derivative version. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Good job with this, I've added mine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Very good! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Round 1 subpage creation

Is it normal for Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2021/Round 1 to have been created during the round? It appears Fanoflionking created it recently. This is making the current stats tool think we're up to Round 2. — Bilorv (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the judges @Cwmhiraeth and Sturmvogel 66: in case they missed this. — Bilorv (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
No. @Fanoflionking: please remove it and wait till the end of the round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Fanoflionking, blanking it doesn't change anything. You need to delete it. The current stats tool still shows us in Round 2. MeegsC (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I have deleted it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
You deletionist. Panini🥪 13:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Reminders?

Hi all,

We currently have 50/93 users who have points from the opening round. Is it worth a quick reminder to those who haven't that they have 10 days to score points to progress? We are 14 people short of the second round right now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

TEN? Wowie, thanks for the reminder! I doub't I'll be able to get responses for my GANs in time. Panini🥪 10:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: You are welcome to issue a reminder if you feel like it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: last year only 57 users scored points and advanced to the second round. Seems like we're on track for that already. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
What happens if, say, 72 contestants score points, with 20 joint bottom on 5? Do all twenty go through? None of them? Or is there a tie breaker mechanism to select 12 of the 20 to progress? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
My inclination would be that they would all go through. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This was exactly why I proposed merging rounds 1 and 2 because this almost always happens year on year. Maybe something to consider for next year? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Competitors who have been indef blocked

Hi all, I noticed that two of the competitors, User:Colonel Hotdog and User:Endymiona19. Have been blocked indefinitely. Are they automatically withdrawn or are they just eliminated at the end of the round? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

In this case, I don't suppose it matters. They both have zero points so far, and if they're indefinitely blocked, they won't be earning points before the end of the round. They'll be eliminated once the round ends. MeegsC (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, just wandering. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, no real reason to worry. Being indeffed isn't always a one-way street either, but if they were in a progressing position at the expense of a non-blocked editor that would be a different matter. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Saving points

I'm about to complete another GA and DYK, and was wondering if I would be able to save them until the next round because I'm already in the safe zone. Panini🥪 15:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you can do that. If you want to "save" them, don't submit them until next month. You're safe with the DYK, as the queues have already been set through most of the first week of March. MeegsC (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Points have to be claimed in the round in which they are earned. This will be when the hook appears on the main page, for a DYK, and when the GA nomination is approved, for a GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I'm pretty I saw somewhere that you have seven days to score an article for points. So, in theory, could I submit it on March 1 with two days to spare? Panini🥪 11:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I altered the rules just before the 2021 contest started to clarify this point. The rules now state "Work qualifying in a particular round must be nominated and claimed within 24 hours of the end of the round. Nominations submitted more than 14 days after the points were earned, or more than 24 hours after the end of a round, will not be eligible." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, it was fourteen, no wonder I couldn't find it. Thanks for the clarification, I have now submitted. Panini🥪 11:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Was this rule change discussed and agreed? It seems unfair, and against the spirit of the cup to force results based on the whims of when DYK and FAC admins happen to decide to promote things. Having a seven-day window, per Panini, makes much more sense to me and would also eliminate the danger of things being caught on the 27th or 28th, which is in between the rounds. What would make sense is if a DYK/GA/FA is promoted/appears within the last week of a round, the contestant has the choice to include it in that round or in the next round. That way you're not reliant on whether the project admins happen to promote the thing today or tomorrow. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we did discuss it. If something is promoted before the deadline, you have an additional 24 hours after the round is up to add it to your score for that round. That's to stop something being promoted at 11 PM and not being claimed because you were asleep at the time. If something is promoted in round 1, it shouldn't count towards round 2. If it is promoted on 27th (after the end of the first round), you can claim it for round 2 within two weeks, which is fair enough as the new round submissions are opened in a day or two after. Having a choice as to when you claim it just makes the rounds even longer, and would be of significant detriment to those who just squeak through a round who would use those points to progress, whereas those that were safe would have an even bigger advantage in the next round. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, Just gonna call the GA by its name now. So I could've onto Paper Mario until the next round? I've already submitted it per Cwmhiraeth. Panini🥪 12:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Panini!, the only way you could have "held onto Paper Mario until the next round" would have been to not submit it to WP:GAN until then. The only things that can go on to Round 2 are DYKs/GAs/FAs/FLs that are awarded on 27-28 Feb. MeegsC (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah well, fair points I guess thanks Lee and Cwm. The whole process is a bit hit and miss re who comes to review things and when, but I can see your point about undue advantage to the "safe". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Name change

Another thing to note, I had my username changed during round one, is it possible to update it here? Panini🥪 15:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have redirected it to Panini!, but am hesitant to do anything more radical. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Because I have started work at a new job, I won't have much time to write articles and contribute to my chances at WikiCup. Basically, Real Life is better than being here on Wikipedia for a contest. Good luck to the rest of the competitors. HawkAussie (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have marked you as withdrawn. Good luck with the new job, and we'll hope to see you again next year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

this unofficial tool

I note that the "unofficial tool" has not recorded contributions to Round 1 correctly. Which, obviously, also throws out the totals. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps @Jarry1250: can help. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
For information, it is still incorrect. Which is not a problem so long as it is not relied upon for anything. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm out, thank you

Withdraw me if you would. After this, the idea of putting six to twenty hours into a restoration is seriously not something I can see myself doing for some time. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 22:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Sorry to see that discussion, Adam Cuerden. The work you do here is much appreciated (by most of us, anyway), and has brought a lot of crappy old pictures back to life. MeegsC (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry you have been discouraged by the RfC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2021/1&oldid=1085477984"