Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

WikiCup content needing review view •

Featured content Peter Capaldi filmography (nom) List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine episodes (nom) Ghost in the Machine (song) (nom) MLS Cup 2022 (nom) List of Seattle Reign FC seasons (nom) Susanna Hoffs (nom) Detroit Lions draft picks (1936–1969) (nom) 1924 Summer Olympics medal table (nom) Good topic candidates 1993 Atlantic hurricane season Featured pictures DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Lilia Cosman GAN Ecco2K (start) Evita Griskenas (nom) United States' Telegraph (start) Laurie Hernandez (start) Madison Kocian (start) Bothell, Washington (start) IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (start) Path (album) (start) E (Ecco2K album) (start) 73 Yards (nom) Dot and Bubble (start) Quannnic (start) Legends of Tomorrow season 3 (start) Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (song) (start) Geoffrey Cuming (start) Ludwell–Paradise House (start) Carlos Yulo (start) Celestica (song) (start) Not in Love (Crystal Castles song) (start) Sport in Vatican City (start) Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics (start) Emotional Consequences of Broadcast Television (start) Haiti at the 1924 Summer Olympics (nom) PR William L. Breckinridge (rev) Not Strong Enough (Boygenius song) (rev) Majed Abu Maraheel (rev)

Archiving

The bot is moving current discussions to the 2016 archive 3. I'm not sure how to correct this, but wanted to point it out. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, I do believe. I will move the erroneous archives to the correct location soon. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

They're saving to 2017 archive 3 now. archives 1 and 2 do not exist yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The round breaks

Why is there a two day gap between each round? If a DYK or article promotion occurs during the gap, would it not count for points? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It would count towards the next round: see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#General_rules. A break is presumably needed to organize pools, etc, for the next round. Vanamonde (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure how I missed that. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As Vanamonde states, the gap is needed for setting up the pools for the next round. Doing this will be much easier if the bot is not busy adding points to people's scores at the same time. Anything that qualifies during the gap can be submitted in the usual way as soon as the next round starts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK scoring

I just took a look at the scoring process, and it looks like this is not actually eligible for points here: and I wanted to both confirm this and ask why this was the case, as it seems rather odd to exclude a specific DYK criterion. Vanamonde (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Because, theoretically at least, you already earn the points for the promotion to GA. If GA-promotion DYKs were allowed, it would essentially just be equivalent to making GAs worth more. Harrias ^talk 07:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

As Harrias says, because no extra work is needed for it pass the DYK criteria. However, if you were to expand a short GA five-fold and subsequently nominate it for DYK, that would be a different matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You are the judges, but I respectfully disagree;

1. Not every GA has facts that are new to Wikipedia, not earlier described and sourced before in another article (the 7-day limit for new info)
2. There is "extra work" for a DYK; it goes through a second set of eyes and needs to fit new criteria in order to pass as DYK
3. For a DYK to pass, at least that's what I understand from the process, the other hooks in the DYK need to be more than just stubs. So if for instance you write an article about a Spanish colonel, like the example, it passes to GA and your DYK is like "DYK... that <main hook>Jacobo Árbenz</hook> was born in <hook2>municipality X in Spain</hook2>" and that mun article is just like one of the so many stubs we have, that hook 2 needs expansion to get the DYK approved, so extra effort

What I've seen some weeks ago, didn't check right now, is that quite some of the approved GAs that produced 35 points for the participants were of a far less standard than this extensive article by Vanamonde. GA is GA, but not every GA is equally GA, if you get what I am saying. A good GA + DYK according to the judges now is worth 35 points, while a mediocre GA is also worth 35 points. Apart from the contribution to Wikipedia in general which is good and a joy, the WikiCup motivation is then less for more effort (DYK work and review), which doesn't sound really fair. Also because it's just 5 points. It is also a loss for the DYKs, this motivational slack; if WikiCup scoring is a major motive, the writer (in this case Vanamonde), then would just focus his/her energy on other things and the DYK gets lost after the 7 day period while it could have been there if the mere 5 points would be awarded. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that it is essentially that the Cup stands against a principle of "double-dipping" whereby a once an article is made a GA, it can equally be taken to DYK with no work being done on it to claim even more points for free (including the double bonus points that could come as a result.). Such an activity is viewed as unfair and unsporting thus that is why consensus was against allowing GA DYK points. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Increase participation

Is there a good way to get the 60 ish people that signed up but haven't submitted anything some experience? I was thinking of offering help to a couple of them, but there is no way I could do all 60 ish. Kees08 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A reminder may be helpful for those who haven't submitted anything yet. Perhaps a reminder can be put on the talk pages of those who haven't submitted anything reminding them that they signed up for the WikiCup competition and that there's just two weeks remaining to submit content. Because that may not be enough time to get any content promoted, the reminder could mention that GA reviews are worth 4 points. AHeneen (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kees08: You could offer a few of them to work jointly on a new article or an expansion/improvement, particularly if you knew that any of them had similar interests to yours, but time is limited before the end of the round. Co-operating with an experienced editor is a great way of learning the ropes, and both can score points in the WikiCup that way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Multiplier

I have some questions about the multiple languages multiplier Scoring#Bonus points. Does any other-language article count, or does it have to have the same status, e.g. does it have to be GA in order to claim GA bonus? From the context it seems likely that they don't have to be, then my next question is: what is the motivation of this multiplier? HaEr48 (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The status of the article on other Wikipedias does not matter; the original idea was that the existence of an article on multiple Wikipedias was a good metric for the significance of a topic (and, it was suggested, was a better measure than an appearance on one of the the "vital" lists). Some articles chosen at random: Americium has an article on over 100 Wikipedias; Atlanta Falcons has one on over 30; Family Guy (season 1) has fewer than 15 and Overly Attached Girlfriend has an article on fewer than five. While there are inevitably aberrant cases, the system does generally work well. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominations outstanding at round's end?

Hello, I was wondering what would happen if an audited content nomination (such as FAC, FLC, or GAN) was still open at the end of the round? Would the nomination still be considered as part of the round, and be eligible for points should it be passed; or would the article(s) in question be ineligible for points? --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 00:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dylan! Content is eligible for points in the round it which it is promoted as long as you have done significant work on the content this year. If it is promoted between rounds, you can claim for it in the following round. Does that answer your question? Josh Milburn (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Josh! Sort of. Say a user nominated content a little over a week ago, or perhaps even earlier. At the time the round finishes, the user does not have enough points to proceed to round 2... but after round 1 has closed, the content is promoted, and the points that the user would have earned from the content would have been enough to keep the user in the Cup. Would the user be retroactively eligible for round 2, or would it be too late by then? --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 02:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be too late by then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was late!

Can I sign in? I was late...! --Mhhossein ^talk 17:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sign-ups closed on February 5th. Was there any special reason you were unable to sign up before? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I just did not see that, although it's banners had probably been almost every where. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: IMO we should let him participate, I just passed one of his GA's which means we will have more participants for next round, based on our participation this round. Kees08 (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)