![]() | 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. |
User:Garden/WikiCup/Jumps Something's goofy about the numbers this week. Durova Charge! 22:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am not a participant in the WikiCup, but I did notice some errors. In the 'Biggest Jumps' section in the newsletter, 3 out of 10 are wrong. It says Climie.ca jumped 503 points, when it was only a jump of 100. It also says Durova jumped 462 points, but it was only 212 (ha, only :) ). The last one is Spencer, who it says jumped 188 points, when it was only 88. Just a head's up. Thanks, Little Mountain 5 22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Safe to say we've screwed up pretty bad. You could probably safely ignore the newsletter this week - unless you guys want another issuing? I reckon it's to do with the fact that the Jumps page - which I don't use - was used by THO, meaning the numbers are almost a month out. GARDEN 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Am I mistaken or is Paxse, from Pool J, left out of this issue? Useight ( talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure most of you know, but this newsletter has a lot of mistakes. If you'd like the newsletter to be re-sent to you, feel free to sign here and let us know, and we can send you a new one that is all fixed up. iMatthew // talk // 02:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
{{ trout}} for bad grammar: "...not far off from 100 GA's..." – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Even though the judges don't always get it perfect (who does?), the WikiCup is a lot of fun and good for the site and most of the time it runs quite well. Thank you very much for your hard work.
Is this not being applied? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Right now, the bot's not running. I don't know why, but I'm trying to catch ST47 on IRC. Anyway - I don't know if you guys know, but the bot also updates User:Garden/WikiCup/2009/Full <-- a full list of the contestants and their scores. I think this could be included in the newsletter, but I was just wondering, which would you like in the newsletter more...The Jumps? or the Top 10 Contestants?
I'd personally prefer the top 10's, but lets see what you guys think. iMatthew // talk // 13:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
If by "top ten", you mean wildcards, then wildcards. If by top ten, you mean "overall top ten", I have no opinion either way. J Milburn ( talk) 17:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see this all move to Wikipedia space. I'm sure Garden wouldn't mind having more than half of his userspace cleaned out. This content-drive (in a competition form) has proven to be very successful, seeing the amount of content formed from our contestants. It may be challenged, but I believe it's worth a shot, because it's no longer become a quiet userspace "contest" (thanks to all of you).
What do you guys think about moving it? iMatthew // talk // 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
OMFGWTFYOUDOING... but no, I don't mind. :) GARDEN 22:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
For the WC logo with the flags and trophy, wasn't it supposed to make the flags of nations that withdrew/were eliminated lighter? Spencer T♦ Nominate! 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the fading out is good enough. It will probably look better when more people are out of the competition, making the remaining flags stand out even more. J Milburn ( talk) 20:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm calling it quits. I pretty much have no chance of moving on IMO in my pool. It was fun, I'll give you that. :-) Sam Blab 20:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey everyone, the newsletter is going to be a little late this week. I started working on it this morning, but got a call to go to today's New York Islanders game (which they won 3-2, good game!) Anyway, Garden and THO didn't seem to be around to finish it today, so I'll have to pick it up again and hopefully have it delivered tomorrow. Sorry for any inconvenience. ;) iMatthew // talk // 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently the submission criteria says "media raised to any other status (featured or good) must have also been nominated and passed/promoted during the individual round." For future rounds, I don't think a requirement of having to be nominated within that round is a good idea. This would effectively mean anything nominated for featured status within the last week of March would be ineligible for both rounds, as it would be nominated in one and passed in the other. If the criteria are kept like this it could cause a dip (late March) and then a spike (early April) in featured content nominations which would not be good for reviewers (of FLC and FAC especially). I suggest that content just has to be promoted within the round to be eligible. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
On the score page, there is already a link to the full list of contestants, but a link to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2009/Full would also be nice. I'd add it myself, but I'd be scared of screwing up the bot. J Milburn ( talk) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
ST47 hasn't updated the score since 3 days ? -- Tinu Cherian - 07:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing the newsletter this week. Ping me on Sunday night (preferably after 5 and before 10 UTC) and I'll get to't. Ta. GARDEN 23:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Will be March 27th, 2009. We need time to put everything together and make sure all is ready for round two, which will begin on April 1st (and that wouldn't be a joke :D). Thanks, iMatthew // talk // 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
must be written and nominated during the individual round. It's the 23rd of March now (or 24th depending on where you are) it takes a good five to eight days for DYKs to make their way from the top of the nominations page to the main page. I've been off wiki for a bit and now want to get back to DYK writing. Do I need to wait until after the 27th to start writing and nominating? Or can I claim credit for stuff that I write and nom now that appears on the main page after the 27th? Cheers,
Paxse (
talk)
16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest (for future WikiCups) that reviewing Good Articles nominations be considered for WikiCup points. There's always a backlog at GAC, and although the process doesn't directly generate new content, it helps existing content be improved, and improves Wikipedia. Personally, I find the reviews enjoyable to do, but they take 1–2 hours to do properly (well, for me at least), so I'll have to curtail this activity to be competitive in future rounds. If they were awarded even a nominal amount of points (5 or 10?) I would (and others, I imagine) be more inclined to contribute in this fashion. Enjoying the Cup so far! Cheers, Sasata ( talk) 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I had considered raising this issue before. However, it's a matter of where to draw the line- theoretically, everything we do here should be improving the encyclopedia in some way. Though I think more reviews are needed (also, at peer review, and, to a lesser extent, FAC/FAR) I don't think offering points here is the way to do it. J Milburn ( talk) 21:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to withdraw, please. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
We currently have some tight spots, two days left. The only way I see pulling ahead at this point would be editing in the mainspace often over the next 48 hours (of course remembering to mark your minor edits appropriately). So those of you fighting for the final wildcard spot, keep working hard!
It's almost done everyone :D iMatthew // talk // 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(And it could be a stupid one.) Are points cumulative through the entire contest? That is, if I had 150 points at the end of Round 1 and I got through to Round 2, would my score return to 0 at the beginning of Round 2 or would I accumulate more points on top of my 150? Sorry if it's been answered somewhere else or if I'm just missing something! — 97198 ( talk) 07:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it goes back to 0 ever round. :) iMatthew // talk // 10:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm extending the round to end tomorrow at 23:59 (UTC). Sorry for the inconvenience, but I will not be home for the next 18 hours or so, so I need some more time. Sorry again! iMatthew // talk // 20:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Will the bot be counting edits points in the "in-between" zone between the end of this round and the "official" start of the next one? Thanks Sasata ( talk) 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a new page to assist editors get started with image restorations: Commons:Potential restorations. No guarantees regarding FPC reviewer tastes, of course, but it's likely quite a few featured pictures await there. All the best, Durova Charge! 18:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a lot of the final scores for Round 1 have been messed up. Apparently I have 1180 points, mostly from a bunch of GAs, but I should have 700-800 points from a variety of featured content. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 19:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
...is a bunch of double redirects. PXK T /C 20:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've gotten countless complaints of others not marking edits as minor appropriately. I simply can't come up with a good solution to fix this, other than moving the decimal back again to 0.01 for regular edits, and 0.001 for minor edits. Or just remove mainspace points all the time. Many people are also getting by on mainly editing mainspace while others are working hard on getting content featured. I've run out of ideas. What are your opinions? iMatthew // talk // 14:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I see the points by all editors, but my two cents is sometimes mainspace edits help ones who don't work on Good/Featured content. Either they've never worked to get one to GA, FA, etc. Mainspace edits also help editors who don't have alot of time to get an article to GA or FA. Like me, I'll be inactive once again come this next week unless things change like they keep doing. Plus, the backlog for articles is really long these days on FLC, FAC, GAN, etc. I've had an article on GAN for over a month. Making where you only get points for articles will be harder for others and cause the backlog for both pages to increase. I'm for decreasing the point value for mainspace edits, just not removing them. I try to remember to mark my edits minor as much as I can. Even though I hardly ever did before the cup began.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 15:55, 28 March 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. |
User:Garden/WikiCup/Jumps Something's goofy about the numbers this week. Durova Charge! 22:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am not a participant in the WikiCup, but I did notice some errors. In the 'Biggest Jumps' section in the newsletter, 3 out of 10 are wrong. It says Climie.ca jumped 503 points, when it was only a jump of 100. It also says Durova jumped 462 points, but it was only 212 (ha, only :) ). The last one is Spencer, who it says jumped 188 points, when it was only 88. Just a head's up. Thanks, Little Mountain 5 22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Safe to say we've screwed up pretty bad. You could probably safely ignore the newsletter this week - unless you guys want another issuing? I reckon it's to do with the fact that the Jumps page - which I don't use - was used by THO, meaning the numbers are almost a month out. GARDEN 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Am I mistaken or is Paxse, from Pool J, left out of this issue? Useight ( talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure most of you know, but this newsletter has a lot of mistakes. If you'd like the newsletter to be re-sent to you, feel free to sign here and let us know, and we can send you a new one that is all fixed up. iMatthew // talk // 02:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
{{ trout}} for bad grammar: "...not far off from 100 GA's..." – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Even though the judges don't always get it perfect (who does?), the WikiCup is a lot of fun and good for the site and most of the time it runs quite well. Thank you very much for your hard work.
Is this not being applied? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Right now, the bot's not running. I don't know why, but I'm trying to catch ST47 on IRC. Anyway - I don't know if you guys know, but the bot also updates User:Garden/WikiCup/2009/Full <-- a full list of the contestants and their scores. I think this could be included in the newsletter, but I was just wondering, which would you like in the newsletter more...The Jumps? or the Top 10 Contestants?
I'd personally prefer the top 10's, but lets see what you guys think. iMatthew // talk // 13:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
If by "top ten", you mean wildcards, then wildcards. If by top ten, you mean "overall top ten", I have no opinion either way. J Milburn ( talk) 17:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see this all move to Wikipedia space. I'm sure Garden wouldn't mind having more than half of his userspace cleaned out. This content-drive (in a competition form) has proven to be very successful, seeing the amount of content formed from our contestants. It may be challenged, but I believe it's worth a shot, because it's no longer become a quiet userspace "contest" (thanks to all of you).
What do you guys think about moving it? iMatthew // talk // 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
OMFGWTFYOUDOING... but no, I don't mind. :) GARDEN 22:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
For the WC logo with the flags and trophy, wasn't it supposed to make the flags of nations that withdrew/were eliminated lighter? Spencer T♦ Nominate! 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the fading out is good enough. It will probably look better when more people are out of the competition, making the remaining flags stand out even more. J Milburn ( talk) 20:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm calling it quits. I pretty much have no chance of moving on IMO in my pool. It was fun, I'll give you that. :-) Sam Blab 20:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey everyone, the newsletter is going to be a little late this week. I started working on it this morning, but got a call to go to today's New York Islanders game (which they won 3-2, good game!) Anyway, Garden and THO didn't seem to be around to finish it today, so I'll have to pick it up again and hopefully have it delivered tomorrow. Sorry for any inconvenience. ;) iMatthew // talk // 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently the submission criteria says "media raised to any other status (featured or good) must have also been nominated and passed/promoted during the individual round." For future rounds, I don't think a requirement of having to be nominated within that round is a good idea. This would effectively mean anything nominated for featured status within the last week of March would be ineligible for both rounds, as it would be nominated in one and passed in the other. If the criteria are kept like this it could cause a dip (late March) and then a spike (early April) in featured content nominations which would not be good for reviewers (of FLC and FAC especially). I suggest that content just has to be promoted within the round to be eligible. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
On the score page, there is already a link to the full list of contestants, but a link to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2009/Full would also be nice. I'd add it myself, but I'd be scared of screwing up the bot. J Milburn ( talk) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
ST47 hasn't updated the score since 3 days ? -- Tinu Cherian - 07:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing the newsletter this week. Ping me on Sunday night (preferably after 5 and before 10 UTC) and I'll get to't. Ta. GARDEN 23:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Will be March 27th, 2009. We need time to put everything together and make sure all is ready for round two, which will begin on April 1st (and that wouldn't be a joke :D). Thanks, iMatthew // talk // 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
must be written and nominated during the individual round. It's the 23rd of March now (or 24th depending on where you are) it takes a good five to eight days for DYKs to make their way from the top of the nominations page to the main page. I've been off wiki for a bit and now want to get back to DYK writing. Do I need to wait until after the 27th to start writing and nominating? Or can I claim credit for stuff that I write and nom now that appears on the main page after the 27th? Cheers,
Paxse (
talk)
16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest (for future WikiCups) that reviewing Good Articles nominations be considered for WikiCup points. There's always a backlog at GAC, and although the process doesn't directly generate new content, it helps existing content be improved, and improves Wikipedia. Personally, I find the reviews enjoyable to do, but they take 1–2 hours to do properly (well, for me at least), so I'll have to curtail this activity to be competitive in future rounds. If they were awarded even a nominal amount of points (5 or 10?) I would (and others, I imagine) be more inclined to contribute in this fashion. Enjoying the Cup so far! Cheers, Sasata ( talk) 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I had considered raising this issue before. However, it's a matter of where to draw the line- theoretically, everything we do here should be improving the encyclopedia in some way. Though I think more reviews are needed (also, at peer review, and, to a lesser extent, FAC/FAR) I don't think offering points here is the way to do it. J Milburn ( talk) 21:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to withdraw, please. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
We currently have some tight spots, two days left. The only way I see pulling ahead at this point would be editing in the mainspace often over the next 48 hours (of course remembering to mark your minor edits appropriately). So those of you fighting for the final wildcard spot, keep working hard!
It's almost done everyone :D iMatthew // talk // 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(And it could be a stupid one.) Are points cumulative through the entire contest? That is, if I had 150 points at the end of Round 1 and I got through to Round 2, would my score return to 0 at the beginning of Round 2 or would I accumulate more points on top of my 150? Sorry if it's been answered somewhere else or if I'm just missing something! — 97198 ( talk) 07:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it goes back to 0 ever round. :) iMatthew // talk // 10:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm extending the round to end tomorrow at 23:59 (UTC). Sorry for the inconvenience, but I will not be home for the next 18 hours or so, so I need some more time. Sorry again! iMatthew // talk // 20:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Will the bot be counting edits points in the "in-between" zone between the end of this round and the "official" start of the next one? Thanks Sasata ( talk) 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a new page to assist editors get started with image restorations: Commons:Potential restorations. No guarantees regarding FPC reviewer tastes, of course, but it's likely quite a few featured pictures await there. All the best, Durova Charge! 18:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a lot of the final scores for Round 1 have been messed up. Apparently I have 1180 points, mostly from a bunch of GAs, but I should have 700-800 points from a variety of featured content. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 19:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
...is a bunch of double redirects. PXK T /C 20:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've gotten countless complaints of others not marking edits as minor appropriately. I simply can't come up with a good solution to fix this, other than moving the decimal back again to 0.01 for regular edits, and 0.001 for minor edits. Or just remove mainspace points all the time. Many people are also getting by on mainly editing mainspace while others are working hard on getting content featured. I've run out of ideas. What are your opinions? iMatthew // talk // 14:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I see the points by all editors, but my two cents is sometimes mainspace edits help ones who don't work on Good/Featured content. Either they've never worked to get one to GA, FA, etc. Mainspace edits also help editors who don't have alot of time to get an article to GA or FA. Like me, I'll be inactive once again come this next week unless things change like they keep doing. Plus, the backlog for articles is really long these days on FLC, FAC, GAN, etc. I've had an article on GAN for over a month. Making where you only get points for articles will be harder for others and cause the backlog for both pages to increase. I'm for decreasing the point value for mainspace edits, just not removing them. I try to remember to mark my edits minor as much as I can. Even though I hardly ever did before the cup began.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 15:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)