![]() | 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. |
This is a trivial issue, but I find it strange that the scores are updated at 23:00 UTC and 0:00 UTC? Can the scores update every six hours, so that would mean at 23:00 UTC, since the scores already update at 5:00 UTC and 11:00 UTC? Gary King ( talk) 00:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really a fan of the new look. Gary King ( talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Can there be a table of the top 10 contestants? I'm too lazy to go through all the tables just to see who is in the lead. :P TheLeft orium 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was too lazy today, and nobody else got to it. iMatthew // talk // 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Garden for the extra work on the bot to handicap my score. Seems like it's not quite perfect though. Last night for a while it appeared to un-handicap for a bit and give full credit. Now it's undercounting. 15 points X 18 featured pictures = 270 points. The bot lists 240. Sorry to be trouble; thanks for all your help. Durova Charge! 20:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Update: 3 more promotions. FP point total should be 315 now after handicap. Best regards, Durova Charge! 05:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to withdraw from the cup, please and thank you. -- TRUCO 503 23:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that if we submit an FA, or anything that would earn extra points we need to declare Wiki cup participation. But unless I was reviewing an FA by someone competing in the same group as me, is there any reason why it would be relevant to declare Wiki Cup participation when reviewing articles at wp:FAC, or indeed elsewhere? Were Spiel Chequers 11:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm making a stats page for irregular updates (that is, manual) for some larfs. User:Garden/WikiCup/Stats. Maybe to be updated every day... but don't count on it :P GARDEN 11:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned this to Garden on IRC and he said he thought it was a good idea, but we decided some on-Wiki discussion wouldn't hurt. Basically, as portals are aimed at readers (as opposed to many categories, images and templates, and almost all Wikipedia pages, talk pages, MediaWiki pages and help pages) I feel that they should be considered "content" for the purposes of points, meaning that edits to the portal space would be counted alongside mainspace. It seems to me a little hard-going that all that hours of portal work would earn would be 25 points for the featured portal status. I am working on a portal myself, so maybe I'm a little biased, but note that I am certainly not the only person doing so- Sunderland06 has already had a portal promoted to featured status. J Milburn ( talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it seems fairly clear that people are generally in favour of this addition, so can we have it implemented? J Milburn ( talk) 16:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Quick question: since Wikicup is about providing valuable encyclopedic content, why do we not get points for uploading free images (providing they are used in an article) just like mainspace edits? Text isn't the only kind of valuable content, and images are actually harder to come by. Steven Walling (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You get a fraction of a point for adding an image to an article, which is the same number of points you get for actually creating an article, unless it is recognised in some other way. This is to encourage quality content, not just any old content. However, on that note, I would definitely support points for a valued picture promotion. J Milburn ( talk) 16:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
People who think featured pictures and featured sounds are overrrated may draw solemn pleasure from the knowledge that we get very few mainspace points for contributing them. Imagine what the scores would be if the bot could count a hundredth of a point for every edit made in Photoshop. Durova Charge! 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just read the newsletter and spotted the rule change to 1st, 2nd and ten wild cards, so suddenly I'm back in the race despite probably my lowest weekly points score so far! Neat idea, sorry for all the third places who are no longer in the top thirty, and it now looks like groups I and J could each have 5 go through. One suggestion though, could the newsletter show a couple more than the ten wildcards so we know whose snapping at our heels? Were Spiel Chequers 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hai guaise, really love the short change I just got on this one. After a month and a half of hard battling for third and even spending half my birthday online now I get informed half way through a round that you just screwed over all the WikiGnomes? Thanks!, I [[sarcasm|really appreciate it. PXK T /C 04:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if the judges were planning on randomizing the pools again for Round 2 or already had some mechanism set up, but I was thinking it could potentially be set up something like this: since there are going to be six pools of five with the top two moving on to round three, we'd probably want three more competitive individuals in each Round 2 pool so the top two don't run away with it, both possibly becoming complacent and slowing and/or stopping their content creation, along with discouraging the "bottom three" who potentially give up because they "can't catch up anyway". Hence having three compete for two spots is far better, as I see it. However, we also want to give the competitors in Round 1 a continual motivation, and that motivation could be seeking an advantage in Round 2. The obvious advantage would be seeding higher scoring individuals against lower scoring ones, such as is done in an NCAA tournament, but that would lead to the problems mentioned earlier. Hence, I propose something similar: Seed each of the pool leaders as numbers 1 through 20 based on their final score, then the ten wildcards as seeds 21 through 30, also based on their final scores. I came up with the six pools consisting of:
This would potentially result in maybe one runaway competitor with two others closely competing for that second spot or, in the case of Pool E or F, perhaps all three competing closely. This sort of configuration would keep those who contribute the most content in the competition for a longer period of time, and hence motivated to keep contributing that content for as long as possible. I thought this was a pretty good setup, maybe the judges were already planning on doing that, but any comments, questions, concerns, suggestions, statements, or complaints? Useight ( talk) 21:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I never heard of thiscompetition. I declare that I am invading even though I am nearly a month late and have had no preparations for combat. The open positions are from countries or islands similarly ill-prepared. The countries listed are Liechtenstein, Tristan da Cunha, Timor Leste, The Gambia, Paraguay, and Tonga. Chergles ( talk) 18:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That's why I call it an invasion. However, it's not on the main page, just a side page. I also declare that I cannot be eliminated (but will declare that I cannot be a winner). Chergles ( talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
User | Mnsp | GA | FA | FL | FS | FP | FPO | DYK | ITN | FT | GT | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
21 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 61 |
![]() |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
I has an idea. If we combine the idea before (about people being knocked out in the first round being in one big table) and this, we could make a big table as suggested before, except that the first X contestants after round Y could go into the next round as wildcards. Whatcha think? GARDEN 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Food for thought: as of the 23:09 Jan 27, 2009 update, in 5 of the 10 pools one contestant has over half the points in the pool.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC) What about doing a resort based on edit count so they were all averaged out? — neuro (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
updated my score for February 15. Next update expected March 1. Chergles ( talk) 18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of withdrawing over this. If participating here is going to directly put me under suspicion, and taint my work by forcing me to declare some bogus conflict of interest, I'm not interested in participating. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, how exactly am I supposed to comply with this? I've been thinking of making a simple statement at FPC talk and FSC talk to the effect that I'm a participant, but that whole business seems bureaucratic and silly. Has anyone from either of those processes complained? Does SandyGeorgia's authority now extend over them? Durova Charge! 07:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ack. Perhaps we should just leave it up to whoever closes these FXCs to decide whether COI-voting has taken place. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that you don't drive-by nom, don't review FXCs of those in your group (unless of course you are absolutely unbiased) and basically be neutral. I really, really hate this bureaucracy as much as you all do. I just don't know what to do... GARDEN 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec, this is basically what Ottava said above) How about we make it not necessary to declare participation and just work on a case-by-case basis? I mean, if we spot something that might be COI, bias, whatever, we bring it to this page and deal with it, voiding !votes, whatever. That includes drive-by noms at FXC ( Wall-E anyone). I'm sure the directors are more than capable of spotting bias. Thoughts? (Please?) GARDEN 20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. This looks sensible. And yes, images don't have to be featured to be in a featured portal. Warm wishes, Durova Charge! 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If I was to do an article under User:Bedford/Australia and the American Civil War, and then do a pagemove to Australia and the American Civil War, would the bot eventually count the edits I made while it was in userspace?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 07:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks to the WikiCup organizers and fellow participants for helping provide the motivation that led to a recent discovery mentioned in this week's Signpost News and notes. Best regards, Durova Charge! 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what the issue is here, but, looking at the recent newsletter, we have three users who have submitted good topics (Scorpion0422, Theleftorium and Gary King) but, apparently, no promoted good topics. I'm assuming there's an issue somewhere? J Milburn ( talk) 00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks very much to Garden and the other judges for accommodating a few special requests (such as the handicap). Here's another you might not have anticipated: featured picture sets. I'm planning to nominate a pair soon, and may nominate other larger sets. Not sure how you'd want to work this out, points-wise and bot-wise. Best, Durova Charge! 03:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Following up: the pair have been promoted as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Canadian war bond posters, World War I. Durova Charge! 03:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't look now, but if Round 1 was to end today, all six individuals in Pool J would move on. We should make that our "Pool J goal". Useight ( talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (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. |
This is a trivial issue, but I find it strange that the scores are updated at 23:00 UTC and 0:00 UTC? Can the scores update every six hours, so that would mean at 23:00 UTC, since the scores already update at 5:00 UTC and 11:00 UTC? Gary King ( talk) 00:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really a fan of the new look. Gary King ( talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Can there be a table of the top 10 contestants? I'm too lazy to go through all the tables just to see who is in the lead. :P TheLeft orium 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was too lazy today, and nobody else got to it. iMatthew // talk // 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Garden for the extra work on the bot to handicap my score. Seems like it's not quite perfect though. Last night for a while it appeared to un-handicap for a bit and give full credit. Now it's undercounting. 15 points X 18 featured pictures = 270 points. The bot lists 240. Sorry to be trouble; thanks for all your help. Durova Charge! 20:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Update: 3 more promotions. FP point total should be 315 now after handicap. Best regards, Durova Charge! 05:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to withdraw from the cup, please and thank you. -- TRUCO 503 23:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that if we submit an FA, or anything that would earn extra points we need to declare Wiki cup participation. But unless I was reviewing an FA by someone competing in the same group as me, is there any reason why it would be relevant to declare Wiki Cup participation when reviewing articles at wp:FAC, or indeed elsewhere? Were Spiel Chequers 11:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm making a stats page for irregular updates (that is, manual) for some larfs. User:Garden/WikiCup/Stats. Maybe to be updated every day... but don't count on it :P GARDEN 11:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned this to Garden on IRC and he said he thought it was a good idea, but we decided some on-Wiki discussion wouldn't hurt. Basically, as portals are aimed at readers (as opposed to many categories, images and templates, and almost all Wikipedia pages, talk pages, MediaWiki pages and help pages) I feel that they should be considered "content" for the purposes of points, meaning that edits to the portal space would be counted alongside mainspace. It seems to me a little hard-going that all that hours of portal work would earn would be 25 points for the featured portal status. I am working on a portal myself, so maybe I'm a little biased, but note that I am certainly not the only person doing so- Sunderland06 has already had a portal promoted to featured status. J Milburn ( talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it seems fairly clear that people are generally in favour of this addition, so can we have it implemented? J Milburn ( talk) 16:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Quick question: since Wikicup is about providing valuable encyclopedic content, why do we not get points for uploading free images (providing they are used in an article) just like mainspace edits? Text isn't the only kind of valuable content, and images are actually harder to come by. Steven Walling (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You get a fraction of a point for adding an image to an article, which is the same number of points you get for actually creating an article, unless it is recognised in some other way. This is to encourage quality content, not just any old content. However, on that note, I would definitely support points for a valued picture promotion. J Milburn ( talk) 16:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
People who think featured pictures and featured sounds are overrrated may draw solemn pleasure from the knowledge that we get very few mainspace points for contributing them. Imagine what the scores would be if the bot could count a hundredth of a point for every edit made in Photoshop. Durova Charge! 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just read the newsletter and spotted the rule change to 1st, 2nd and ten wild cards, so suddenly I'm back in the race despite probably my lowest weekly points score so far! Neat idea, sorry for all the third places who are no longer in the top thirty, and it now looks like groups I and J could each have 5 go through. One suggestion though, could the newsletter show a couple more than the ten wildcards so we know whose snapping at our heels? Were Spiel Chequers 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hai guaise, really love the short change I just got on this one. After a month and a half of hard battling for third and even spending half my birthday online now I get informed half way through a round that you just screwed over all the WikiGnomes? Thanks!, I [[sarcasm|really appreciate it. PXK T /C 04:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if the judges were planning on randomizing the pools again for Round 2 or already had some mechanism set up, but I was thinking it could potentially be set up something like this: since there are going to be six pools of five with the top two moving on to round three, we'd probably want three more competitive individuals in each Round 2 pool so the top two don't run away with it, both possibly becoming complacent and slowing and/or stopping their content creation, along with discouraging the "bottom three" who potentially give up because they "can't catch up anyway". Hence having three compete for two spots is far better, as I see it. However, we also want to give the competitors in Round 1 a continual motivation, and that motivation could be seeking an advantage in Round 2. The obvious advantage would be seeding higher scoring individuals against lower scoring ones, such as is done in an NCAA tournament, but that would lead to the problems mentioned earlier. Hence, I propose something similar: Seed each of the pool leaders as numbers 1 through 20 based on their final score, then the ten wildcards as seeds 21 through 30, also based on their final scores. I came up with the six pools consisting of:
This would potentially result in maybe one runaway competitor with two others closely competing for that second spot or, in the case of Pool E or F, perhaps all three competing closely. This sort of configuration would keep those who contribute the most content in the competition for a longer period of time, and hence motivated to keep contributing that content for as long as possible. I thought this was a pretty good setup, maybe the judges were already planning on doing that, but any comments, questions, concerns, suggestions, statements, or complaints? Useight ( talk) 21:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I never heard of thiscompetition. I declare that I am invading even though I am nearly a month late and have had no preparations for combat. The open positions are from countries or islands similarly ill-prepared. The countries listed are Liechtenstein, Tristan da Cunha, Timor Leste, The Gambia, Paraguay, and Tonga. Chergles ( talk) 18:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That's why I call it an invasion. However, it's not on the main page, just a side page. I also declare that I cannot be eliminated (but will declare that I cannot be a winner). Chergles ( talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
User | Mnsp | GA | FA | FL | FS | FP | FPO | DYK | ITN | FT | GT | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
21 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 61 |
![]() |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![]() |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
I has an idea. If we combine the idea before (about people being knocked out in the first round being in one big table) and this, we could make a big table as suggested before, except that the first X contestants after round Y could go into the next round as wildcards. Whatcha think? GARDEN 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Food for thought: as of the 23:09 Jan 27, 2009 update, in 5 of the 10 pools one contestant has over half the points in the pool.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC) What about doing a resort based on edit count so they were all averaged out? — neuro (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
updated my score for February 15. Next update expected March 1. Chergles ( talk) 18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of withdrawing over this. If participating here is going to directly put me under suspicion, and taint my work by forcing me to declare some bogus conflict of interest, I'm not interested in participating. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, how exactly am I supposed to comply with this? I've been thinking of making a simple statement at FPC talk and FSC talk to the effect that I'm a participant, but that whole business seems bureaucratic and silly. Has anyone from either of those processes complained? Does SandyGeorgia's authority now extend over them? Durova Charge! 07:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ack. Perhaps we should just leave it up to whoever closes these FXCs to decide whether COI-voting has taken place. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that you don't drive-by nom, don't review FXCs of those in your group (unless of course you are absolutely unbiased) and basically be neutral. I really, really hate this bureaucracy as much as you all do. I just don't know what to do... GARDEN 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec, this is basically what Ottava said above) How about we make it not necessary to declare participation and just work on a case-by-case basis? I mean, if we spot something that might be COI, bias, whatever, we bring it to this page and deal with it, voiding !votes, whatever. That includes drive-by noms at FXC ( Wall-E anyone). I'm sure the directors are more than capable of spotting bias. Thoughts? (Please?) GARDEN 20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. This looks sensible. And yes, images don't have to be featured to be in a featured portal. Warm wishes, Durova Charge! 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If I was to do an article under User:Bedford/Australia and the American Civil War, and then do a pagemove to Australia and the American Civil War, would the bot eventually count the edits I made while it was in userspace?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 07:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks to the WikiCup organizers and fellow participants for helping provide the motivation that led to a recent discovery mentioned in this week's Signpost News and notes. Best regards, Durova Charge! 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what the issue is here, but, looking at the recent newsletter, we have three users who have submitted good topics (Scorpion0422, Theleftorium and Gary King) but, apparently, no promoted good topics. I'm assuming there's an issue somewhere? J Milburn ( talk) 00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks very much to Garden and the other judges for accommodating a few special requests (such as the handicap). Here's another you might not have anticipated: featured picture sets. I'm planning to nominate a pair soon, and may nominate other larger sets. Not sure how you'd want to work this out, points-wise and bot-wise. Best, Durova Charge! 03:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Following up: the pair have been promoted as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Canadian war bond posters, World War I. Durova Charge! 03:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't look now, but if Round 1 was to end today, all six individuals in Pool J would move on. We should make that our "Pool J goal". Useight ( talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)