And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:
Other competitors of note include:
After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
News for February from your Wikipedia Library.
Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers
Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement
American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia
Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th
Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
You just moved the page on the Nezamozhnik at the same time I was making an edit! Looks like my note on the talk page worked! -- Noha307 ( talk) 04:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Except for FP descriptions FCR is done for this week including a WikiCup update. -- Pine ✉ 05:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, you removed my edit at the Ukrainian page.
So what happened is that I got a message from some Ukrainian editors who knew they guy. They got a WMF grant to cover the Olympics in Sochi and now they are scared to go there. They asked me if I knew anyone who would interview them about being a Wikipedian for Ukrainian Wikipedia. They also profess to have been friends with the deceased. Their English is not good. I hardly talked with them. I told them I would post their message around. I suppose there is no reason to think they are in danger but I have no idea.
Of course I felt strange posting a message there but for the sake of people who die in the course of doing Wikipedia I was persuaded. I have no problems with you removing the message and taking responsibility for this. Just getting the request to do something freaked me out a lot. I hate to be callous to people whose friend just got shot but I do not know what to do with a request like that and I do not like the thought of that boy dying even to be in my head. I apologize for dropping this on you but that Wikipedia article was an obvious place to put a comment, and I felt like I had little power to put a message anywhere else that the right people could find it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
|
|
I'm busy enough this week that I probably won't have time to write FC. Can you ask Herald or Crisco to do it? -- Pine ✉ 05:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I have an idea for a featured content April 1st, but it *could* go horribly wrong if we don't write it very carefully. The joke is that I'd write it as someone who works in featured pictures, and show ridiculous, over the top bias towards that, like I'd talk solely about the images in the articles, and so on. If done right, it'll be funny, if done wrong, it'll annoy people.
Of course, the week after, we might want to cover the same material again, properly. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 03:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I didnt agree with your closing so I made a DRV. Beerest 2 Talk page 14:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Your close on this article was blatantly improper. To claim that the opinion of a small minority is "consensus" is such a distortion of language, policy, and logic that you should reverse the decision, and if not you have no business being an admin. Everyking ( talk) 01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
for a courageous close. Spartaz Humbug! 21:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC) |
Should be fairly easy this week. I've already set it up, and there's a lot less to describe than normal. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, obviously I haven't been around much, but I'm interested in getting back into the swing of things. I've been a lot more busy and probably couldn't actually work on the featured content, but I could look over things and do tidying up. ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 21:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-04-02/Featured content
You know, this might be controversial, but I'm tempted to do an opinion piece on it. It has a tendency to exclude large classes of content, and the finalists, many times, are only vaguely usable to illustrate an encyclopedia - take this year's, in which a smoking lightbulb was photoshopped to remove the lampholder, leaving a visually striking - yet probably encyclopedically worthless - image. The one year I was involved, images were divided up into categories, and the category winners competed in the finals, I don't know why they dropped it, but if this is the result, methinks it should come back. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I know you are very active in ship articles, would you mind giving the article a once over before I mainspace it please? Also, is there anything I can say about it being the namesake (I think) of the Algerine-class minesweeper? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 15:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 ( submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden ( submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian ( submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.
With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:
Other competitors of note include:
After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
News for February from your Wikipedia Library.
Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers
Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement
American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia
Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th
Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
You just moved the page on the Nezamozhnik at the same time I was making an edit! Looks like my note on the talk page worked! -- Noha307 ( talk) 04:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Except for FP descriptions FCR is done for this week including a WikiCup update. -- Pine ✉ 05:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, you removed my edit at the Ukrainian page.
So what happened is that I got a message from some Ukrainian editors who knew they guy. They got a WMF grant to cover the Olympics in Sochi and now they are scared to go there. They asked me if I knew anyone who would interview them about being a Wikipedian for Ukrainian Wikipedia. They also profess to have been friends with the deceased. Their English is not good. I hardly talked with them. I told them I would post their message around. I suppose there is no reason to think they are in danger but I have no idea.
Of course I felt strange posting a message there but for the sake of people who die in the course of doing Wikipedia I was persuaded. I have no problems with you removing the message and taking responsibility for this. Just getting the request to do something freaked me out a lot. I hate to be callous to people whose friend just got shot but I do not know what to do with a request like that and I do not like the thought of that boy dying even to be in my head. I apologize for dropping this on you but that Wikipedia article was an obvious place to put a comment, and I felt like I had little power to put a message anywhere else that the right people could find it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
|
|
I'm busy enough this week that I probably won't have time to write FC. Can you ask Herald or Crisco to do it? -- Pine ✉ 05:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I have an idea for a featured content April 1st, but it *could* go horribly wrong if we don't write it very carefully. The joke is that I'd write it as someone who works in featured pictures, and show ridiculous, over the top bias towards that, like I'd talk solely about the images in the articles, and so on. If done right, it'll be funny, if done wrong, it'll annoy people.
Of course, the week after, we might want to cover the same material again, properly. =) Adam Cuerden ( talk) 03:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I didnt agree with your closing so I made a DRV. Beerest 2 Talk page 14:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Your close on this article was blatantly improper. To claim that the opinion of a small minority is "consensus" is such a distortion of language, policy, and logic that you should reverse the decision, and if not you have no business being an admin. Everyking ( talk) 01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
for a courageous close. Spartaz Humbug! 21:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC) |
Should be fairly easy this week. I've already set it up, and there's a lot less to describe than normal. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, obviously I haven't been around much, but I'm interested in getting back into the swing of things. I've been a lot more busy and probably couldn't actually work on the featured content, but I could look over things and do tidying up. ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 21:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 11:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-04-02/Featured content
You know, this might be controversial, but I'm tempted to do an opinion piece on it. It has a tendency to exclude large classes of content, and the finalists, many times, are only vaguely usable to illustrate an encyclopedia - take this year's, in which a smoking lightbulb was photoshopped to remove the lampholder, leaving a visually striking - yet probably encyclopedically worthless - image. The one year I was involved, images were divided up into categories, and the category winners competed in the finals, I don't know why they dropped it, but if this is the result, methinks it should come back. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I know you are very active in ship articles, would you mind giving the article a once over before I mainspace it please? Also, is there anything I can say about it being the namesake (I think) of the Algerine-class minesweeper? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 15:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 ( submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden ( submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian ( submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.
With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)