![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:
Other notable performances were put in by
Sammi Brie,
Thebiguglyalien,
MyCatIsAChonk,
PCN02WPS, and
AirshipJungleman29.
So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
After discussion, elsewhere, it looks like I should have started by asking you, as the AfD closer:
Oh, BTW, I did thoroughly document a different 'fictional micronation'; please see Most Serene Federal Republic of Montmartre. – .Raven .talk 06:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 23:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The article
Stay Up Late you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Stay Up Late and
Talk:Stay Up Late/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Golden --
Golden (
talk)
19:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The article
Stay Up Late you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Stay Up Late for comments about the article, and
Talk:Stay Up Late/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Golden --
Golden (
talk)
14:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for filing that SPI about Cioppino123 .... Judging from the editors behavior my sock sense was tingling but I wasn't sure who the sockmaster was. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 18:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
hello, Guerillero! i had two questions regarding this article and the associated blurb.
dying ( talk) 06:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | |
my story today |
---|
Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Marriage License is a painting that pushes on the standard assumptions about the limits of art and who it is for. You are more likely to see it on the walls of a midwestern grandmother's house rather than at MOMA. The man or woman on the street would call this painting art without skipping a beat, but art historians and philosophers of art would be more likely to disagree. To add a curve ball, MAD Magazine, yes that MAD Magazine, published a parody of the painting in 2004 that accurately predicted how the winds would shift on LGBTQ rights in American Culture."! - How do you feel about an infobox for it? ( Sorrow) - Hope you had a good time with your guests, - I did with mine. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:
Other notable performances were put in by
Sammi Brie,
Thebiguglyalien,
MyCatIsAChonk,
PCN02WPS, and
AirshipJungleman29.
So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
After discussion, elsewhere, it looks like I should have started by asking you, as the AfD closer:
Oh, BTW, I did thoroughly document a different 'fictional micronation'; please see Most Serene Federal Republic of Montmartre. – .Raven .talk 06:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 23:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The article
Stay Up Late you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Stay Up Late and
Talk:Stay Up Late/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Golden --
Golden (
talk)
19:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The article
Stay Up Late you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Stay Up Late for comments about the article, and
Talk:Stay Up Late/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Golden --
Golden (
talk)
14:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for filing that SPI about Cioppino123 .... Judging from the editors behavior my sock sense was tingling but I wasn't sure who the sockmaster was. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 18:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
hello, Guerillero! i had two questions regarding this article and the associated blurb.
dying ( talk) 06:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | |
my story today |
---|
Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Marriage License is a painting that pushes on the standard assumptions about the limits of art and who it is for. You are more likely to see it on the walls of a midwestern grandmother's house rather than at MOMA. The man or woman on the street would call this painting art without skipping a beat, but art historians and philosophers of art would be more likely to disagree. To add a curve ball, MAD Magazine, yes that MAD Magazine, published a parody of the painting in 2004 that accurately predicted how the winds would shift on LGBTQ rights in American Culture."! - How do you feel about an infobox for it? ( Sorrow) - Hope you had a good time with your guests, - I did with mine. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)