![]() | 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) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
hello. I just submitted my first article about someone notable yet I received a message from Drmies that my article could be deleted, how can i tell? Also, I don't believe I broke any rules or code -- JesushandsLA ( talk) 05:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
Hi! Came across your content and wanted to ask you some questions regarding an article I am creating. You offer great advice and seem nice about it. :) My article was declined because of the refs but I wasn't sure which ref and for which quality the refs were lacking (ie in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent) so I can find better refs next time. Thanks Evan0019 ( talk) 11:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Ixtal! Nice to meet you. I have retired, and I've always wished that my field was better represented in Wikipedia. I'm not sure yet, but I think the best approach might be to do a few small edits first. If it turns out that this is a satisfying activity, however, I'll want to find an organized approach--like starting with a wish list of articles and creating over time. What is my best strategy for discovering like-minded editors? -- LeggyLettuce ( talk) 20:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Greetings,
You recently changed the section at Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies into an RFC and closed it. It was long past due to be closed, so I thank you for that. However, I find myself disagreeing on multiple points with your summation of the discussion and your conclusion that there was a consensus, and I believe your summation was almost entirely one-sided. Even more important than my belief that your summation was one-sided is that I don't believe you correctly applied WP:DETCON. The summation I got from the discussion is that there is no consensus. You talked about it being a clutter issue and not relevant to establishing who a person is but yet in the discussion the supporters couldn't explain how it was any more cluttering or important for establishing than middle names, full birthdates, or nationalities (2 of those points I notice are currently being discussed on the same talk page). As for the WP:ENGVAR, I'd remind you that multiple editors independently brought up ENGVAR (Gusfriend's post of 10 March is particularly interesting in this regard) and tcr25's post of 11 March in particular explained why whereas the support camp seemed to simply dismiss it (I suspect perhaps due to bias blindness from their own ENGVAR but didn't want to mention such at the discussion for fear of the discussion devolving since editors are human and humans tend to get angry when you point out their unconscious biases, even though it's not anything to be defensive about).
I understand that as I was one of the most outspoken opponents I may be biased so I would like to ask how to you came to the conclusion that the support camp made better arguments when they couldn't answer the points brought up by the oppose camp, and their examples given were repeatedly shown to be problematic.
If this goes through as a new policy it is going to result in necessitating a lot of future discussions about how to apply it. If they are not to be in the lead, and not solely in the infobox (which I agree with), then where does it belong? Having a separate "style" section has proved problematic (ie here for just one example), and if it's anywhere outside of the lead then the first a reader would encounter it would be in the Infobox, which as discussed would be more confusing not less - so does this now lead to the slippery slope where it ends up getting removed from the infobox, or even from the article entirely? And there's going to have to be separate discussions on which postnominals ARE defining enough to be included (ie VC would probably pass), but now the lines just becoming more and more "swerving and squiggly", looping around to randomly exclude and include various things and makes it even more confusing to try to write articles for editors who haven't been part of these discussions. There's also going to have to be discussions about if past articles that met high status levels all need to be modified and/or reassessed in light of this. If this was a topic where I simply disagreed, I would simply drop it and move on, but this is a trifecta: I strongly disagree, I believe it was done improperly, and it's going to open up several cans of worms.
Thank you for your time,
Gecko G ( talk) 17:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
divided the community. However, when closing we do not look at the number of votes on either side but rather the strength of arguments on either side.
vocabulary, [...] spelling, [...] and grammar. American or Indian or South African English all treat postnominals the same way as British English does. Therefore, I found no compelling argument being made that the ENGVAR guideline supports British postnominals being inherently due inclusion in the lead sentence under MOS:FIRSTBIO.
there was no overall agreement by the RFC participants.. Obviously.
...when closing we do not look at the number of votes on either side...true, though this wasn't a landslide either,
...but rather the strength of arguments on either side.It's that last part I am absolutely stumped by. Can you explain what you found so convincing about the support camp's arguments? In particular that they are strong enough to constitute a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS? To me it seemed like some of the weakest arguments I've ever seen in a long wikipedia discussion. Usually long wikipedia discussions help me to see the other sides argument and by the end my final position shifts more towards the middle. This discussion was the first time I ever became more convinced of my initial position from the debate, not less.
Closures will rarely be changed by the closing editor, but can be challenged in a closure review:
1. if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion
Hey, 👋 Please help, I would like to know how can I change / update my user name / page title. -- Galourz47 ( talk) 12:00, 28 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) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
hello. I just submitted my first article about someone notable yet I received a message from Drmies that my article could be deleted, how can i tell? Also, I don't believe I broke any rules or code -- JesushandsLA ( talk) 05:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
Hi! Came across your content and wanted to ask you some questions regarding an article I am creating. You offer great advice and seem nice about it. :) My article was declined because of the refs but I wasn't sure which ref and for which quality the refs were lacking (ie in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent) so I can find better refs next time. Thanks Evan0019 ( talk) 11:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Ixtal! Nice to meet you. I have retired, and I've always wished that my field was better represented in Wikipedia. I'm not sure yet, but I think the best approach might be to do a few small edits first. If it turns out that this is a satisfying activity, however, I'll want to find an organized approach--like starting with a wish list of articles and creating over time. What is my best strategy for discovering like-minded editors? -- LeggyLettuce ( talk) 20:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Greetings,
You recently changed the section at Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies into an RFC and closed it. It was long past due to be closed, so I thank you for that. However, I find myself disagreeing on multiple points with your summation of the discussion and your conclusion that there was a consensus, and I believe your summation was almost entirely one-sided. Even more important than my belief that your summation was one-sided is that I don't believe you correctly applied WP:DETCON. The summation I got from the discussion is that there is no consensus. You talked about it being a clutter issue and not relevant to establishing who a person is but yet in the discussion the supporters couldn't explain how it was any more cluttering or important for establishing than middle names, full birthdates, or nationalities (2 of those points I notice are currently being discussed on the same talk page). As for the WP:ENGVAR, I'd remind you that multiple editors independently brought up ENGVAR (Gusfriend's post of 10 March is particularly interesting in this regard) and tcr25's post of 11 March in particular explained why whereas the support camp seemed to simply dismiss it (I suspect perhaps due to bias blindness from their own ENGVAR but didn't want to mention such at the discussion for fear of the discussion devolving since editors are human and humans tend to get angry when you point out their unconscious biases, even though it's not anything to be defensive about).
I understand that as I was one of the most outspoken opponents I may be biased so I would like to ask how to you came to the conclusion that the support camp made better arguments when they couldn't answer the points brought up by the oppose camp, and their examples given were repeatedly shown to be problematic.
If this goes through as a new policy it is going to result in necessitating a lot of future discussions about how to apply it. If they are not to be in the lead, and not solely in the infobox (which I agree with), then where does it belong? Having a separate "style" section has proved problematic (ie here for just one example), and if it's anywhere outside of the lead then the first a reader would encounter it would be in the Infobox, which as discussed would be more confusing not less - so does this now lead to the slippery slope where it ends up getting removed from the infobox, or even from the article entirely? And there's going to have to be separate discussions on which postnominals ARE defining enough to be included (ie VC would probably pass), but now the lines just becoming more and more "swerving and squiggly", looping around to randomly exclude and include various things and makes it even more confusing to try to write articles for editors who haven't been part of these discussions. There's also going to have to be discussions about if past articles that met high status levels all need to be modified and/or reassessed in light of this. If this was a topic where I simply disagreed, I would simply drop it and move on, but this is a trifecta: I strongly disagree, I believe it was done improperly, and it's going to open up several cans of worms.
Thank you for your time,
Gecko G ( talk) 17:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
divided the community. However, when closing we do not look at the number of votes on either side but rather the strength of arguments on either side.
vocabulary, [...] spelling, [...] and grammar. American or Indian or South African English all treat postnominals the same way as British English does. Therefore, I found no compelling argument being made that the ENGVAR guideline supports British postnominals being inherently due inclusion in the lead sentence under MOS:FIRSTBIO.
there was no overall agreement by the RFC participants.. Obviously.
...when closing we do not look at the number of votes on either side...true, though this wasn't a landslide either,
...but rather the strength of arguments on either side.It's that last part I am absolutely stumped by. Can you explain what you found so convincing about the support camp's arguments? In particular that they are strong enough to constitute a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS? To me it seemed like some of the weakest arguments I've ever seen in a long wikipedia discussion. Usually long wikipedia discussions help me to see the other sides argument and by the end my final position shifts more towards the middle. This discussion was the first time I ever became more convinced of my initial position from the debate, not less.
Closures will rarely be changed by the closing editor, but can be challenged in a closure review:
1. if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion
Hey, 👋 Please help, I would like to know how can I change / update my user name / page title. -- Galourz47 ( talk) 12:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)