Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiCup content needing review
viewedit

Featured content

DYK

GAN

WikiCup
WP:CUP)
History (WP:WC/HIS)
Frequeries (WP:WC/FAQ)
Discussion (WT:CUP)
Contestants (WP:WC/CON)
Scoring (WP:WC/SCO)
Submissions (WP:WC/SUB)
Reviews (WP:WC/REV)


Withdrawal request[edit]

Hello. I would like to be withdrawn from the WikiCup as I will be limiting my Wikipedia time and activity. The work done by all of the editors is very inspiring though. It will be cool to see how it all turns out. Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this post. See you next year, perhaps? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawal[edit]

With a heavy heart, I am requesting to withdraw from this year's WikiCup. I love this competition and think that it is exactly what Wikipedia needs. Unfortunately, I must find that my way of editing does not allow me to be competitive. I focus on few, long articles and bringing them to FA status. If it takes three months for a GA review to be picked up and then the FA review fails simply because no one chips in, I find that I cannot acquire enough points to continue. The length of the articles that I work on apparently scares away potential reviewers. This is very frustrating to me, but I cannot help it. I wish all competitors the very best for the coming rounds, you are all awesome! <3 Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase - Do you have any outstanding reviews? I don't mind taking a look (I need them points.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the offer, but no outstanding reviews at the moment. I need to re-admit my FA reviews, but I am quite discouraged at the moment to do so... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Zwerg Nase - Thats a shame! I like your content. I'd review some F1 GAs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I've run into this before myself. I suggested adding points for FA reviews to increase participation, but it didn't gain any traction. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Yeah, I don't really know what to do about that as well. I am very much unsure wether adding FAR to the WikiCup would be any help. I can see in myself, that when I do a lot of editing, I hardly find the time to do FA reviews too. @Lee Vilenski: Thank you for your kind words! I am sure I will have something to review quite soon, 1998 Tour de France is on a good way towards a GA review, if you are interested in cycling as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
FAR/FAC reviews could do with being a thing. Hardly any editor really chime in there (especially outside of subject area), and could do with additional eyes. Points given once review is of certain length, on digression of judges. I'll review whatever. I have a load of outsanding GAs (and an FAC) which I don't want to add to much more to the backlog right now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll chuck FLC reviews in the mix as well if that discussion is starting. Kosack (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It is certainly unfortunate that Zwerg Nase is withdrawing because of lack of reviewers at FAC. I am hesitant to do any reviewing of contestant's articles because it might be viewed as reducing my impartiality as a judge. ZN, I hope you will have better luck next year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Header[edit]

My changes to the archive box were reverted with the subject line "Nothing wrong with the old one." Yes, there was something wrong - it wasn't searchable. I wanted to find old discussions about credits for FAR/FAC and couldn't. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Not that I care how it looks, but you can search archives by putting prefix:Wikipedia Talk:WikiCup/Archive in the search bar, prefixed by the search term. Hope that helps. (Although, it would be good to have an actual search bar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It was at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Good Article Reviews, so you wouldn't have found it in the archives here anyway. It wasn't much of a discussion - the only response was "Points for chiming in at FACs? Yikes, that's a slippery slope if ever I've read one." by User:DarthBotto. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for the information. I see that @Lee Vilenski favors a search bar. @Argento Surfer, what do you think? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't like it aesthetically because it centers a few characters and leaves lots of dead space, but maybe that's adjustable with some more code? Even if it's not, it seems like a helpful function to include and I don't see any reason to oppose it. I played with it and realized that it does search through subpages as well, so the discussion I linked would have come up in the results (if you search it right). Argento Surfer (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The existing header doesn't look great either with that huge, nearly empty white box. The formatting could be improved by some variation on removing the bullets. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm used to that :) Argento Surfer (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A search box has been added to Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Header while retaining the existing formatting, although I'll need to fix the width of the right panel. SounderBruce 19:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
That solves the basic problem, but just to illustrate an alternative I have substituted a compact archivebox. If the consensus is to keep the other version, fine. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It needs to be better formatted, and retain the links found in the old box (namely, the FAQ and user submissions lists). SounderBruce 23:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't have the time to solve those problems, so I have restored the other version. RockMagnetist(talk) 14:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK on 29 June[edit]

Hi, Birjis Qadr, an article nominated by me for DYK has been promoted on 29 June, one day after the latest round has been completed. Am I eligible to claim points for it in the next round, provided I qualify ? RRD (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe they go for the next round. Kosack (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed, it will get you off to a flying start in the next round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ineligible submissions[edit]

Certain contestants have made submissions for points outside the allowed time frame. The rule states "In the spirit of fair play, 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 article reviews. Work submitted after this time is no longer eligible." I am removing the ineligible submissions, and this will affect which contestants move on to the next round. If any contestant were to put forward a valid reason for a late submission, this decision could be reconsidered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth, my submission of Template:Did you know nominations/2018 European Pool Championship was actually submitted the day it was on DYK, (2 June), but when I put my next DYK on, I realised that I had only put the template on the submission page, and not the link to the article. It looks like this was the reason it was pulled, but this was more of an oversight, as I had already been awarded the points.
Is this a problem? I can provide diffs if this is an issue. Thank you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I have looked into the course of events and I agree that your explanation is reasonable, so I have reinstated your DYK submission. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The bot seemed to have missed some of my points...[edit]

I added Chesma to my FPs early this morning when it passed, but the bot's run at 8, and didn't add the points for it. Is this a minor blip, or did I do something wrong? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 12:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And now (after another passed) it's updated my points as if I had three FPs, not four... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 16:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure what the problem is, but the one that has not gone through is Chesma. I suggest you try submitting it again, and if your score is updated this time, we can delete the original submission. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I have done so. I believe the bot runs in about an hour and a half? If I end up with double points, my apologies. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs
Right. It gave points for the second one. I'm going to delete the first Chesma and hope for the best. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 22:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Good! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)