![]() | 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. |
In order to keep organized, way in advance, we are already opening the Sign Up page for the 2010 WikiCup. Details are all listed here! So go sign up for another fun year. :) iMatthew : Chat 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If my GA doesn't qualify for points this round, please explain? Durova Charge! 18:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Did people move around for a reason? Durova Charge! 19:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This conversation could be of interest to those signing up next year... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
After listing one of his FAs at FAR for misuse of references, I decided to check his many GAs. Here is just a section of what I found which caused major concern and verifies that his involvement with the cup needs to be scrutinized (just putting on source up per each as example of the need for this):
I could go on but I have better things to do. The other pages follow the same problems. Who knows what problems there exist with the offline sources. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a willing to withdraw from the WikiCup if that's what the contestants want. But please, all of you, try to assume good faith, I'm only trying to make the encyclopedia better (which I believe I have). TheLeft orium 08:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Time to put an end to the above. Has it been delivered? -- can dle • wicke 21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[4] Please tell me why I should continue in this competition when users are going to blatantly try to sabotage xTCs? If he left a good set of actionable comments, that would be one thing, but the fact that they are so vague leaves little doubt as to his motives. -- Scorpion 0422 23:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, recently, which I use loosely, the article Armageddon (2008) was nominated at GAN. It is now under a GA review. The one who nominated the thing has went missing. So the nice guy I am, I decided to fix the problems from the review. Turns out the bloody thing is so messed up I almost had to rewrite the entire article plus add third party refs. The reviewer says it looks alot better and since I've wrote a few GA PPVs plus one that is an FA, I can sense it will probably pass, hopefully that is. If it does, though I did not nominate it instead just helped it pass by really rewriting it, does it qualify for inclusion to be submitted on my submissions page? I feel it does, but rather instead get a few opinions because the less drama the better.-- Will C 04:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel like going to the end of October from the beginning of January makes a very long competition. You guys must be getting tired by now. My only thought was to make the following changes:
changed to:
It would now end in September instead of October. That gives us judges three good months to prepare the next Cup, and contestants three months to relax. :)
What d'ya guys and girls think? (I happen to think that 4 users competing in the final round would be more interesting than 2. Especially if say, one of the two contestants suddenly has to take a break from Wikipedia. We would still have 3 editors in the running). iMatthew talk at 20:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain the two proposals (under proposal A and B or whatever and then they can say which is better). I like the idea that there would be more than two at the end as, like was said, something mysterious could happen to one person... -- can dle • wicke 22:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Leave it the way it is. Round 4 will be August (8 contestants). Round 5 will be September (4 contestants). Round 6 will be October (2 contestants). We will end the competition with two users in the final round.
We should combine the last two rounds. Round 4 will be August (8 contestants). Round 5 will be September (4 contestants). We will end the competition in September with 4 users in the final round instead of two.
We should combine the last three rounds. Round 4 will be August through September. We will have 8 contestants. On September 1st, we will eliminate the bottom four contestants, but the top four contestants will continue the round with the same score. Then one person will win out of the remaining four on September 30th.
I see Ed! working hard to clear the backlog in the "War and Military" section of GAN, but no-one has reviewed any of his 9(!) GANs. With respect to this competition, will there be any problem with me reviewing one or two of his GANs? Sasata ( talk) 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm dumb, I just reviewed one of Ed!'s GANs, and then realized that The_ed17 and Ed! are not the same person... Sorry for the confusion, and The_ed17, if you put up another 7 GANs I promise to review one! Sasata ( talk) 18:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Would it be alright if I rejoined? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay.-- Will C 04:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm a little two-minded in this case - we don't let users in from scratch but I guess this is a re-join so... well, what the heck. It makes the groups (which were reshuffled due to the absence) a bit imbalanced but I'm sure nobody minds... :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Just wondering if my nation, Great Britain (not UK - England, Scotland & Wales, not with Northern Ireland), is usable. Garden doesn't know yet and advised me to ask the 'question' here See here!.
Clyde1998 ( talk) 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"All scores are accurate as of iMatthew talk at 18:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)"
I meant to do 5 ~'s instead of 4. Oops! :D iMatthew talk at 18:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I simply don't have enough time to continue to participate in the cup, and while I might have enough points to make it to the next round, I don't want to steal the spot of someone who will be active. I'll be back next year (although I'll likely be forced to withdrawe in the summer again). -- Scorpion 0422 01:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I won't be on Wikipedia at all during the first two weeks of August, and possibly a few days more on each side of that. I'll try to help organise the end of round administration but I can't promise anything... weburiedour drama inthegarden 10:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
a really teeny tiny minor point - but is the word 'registered' really necessary in this sentence? "Entry is available for any registered user" Would it hurt your cup to remove that word? (Not now, but ready for next round?) 87.113.86.207 ( talk) 02:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Dropping by with a word about the handicap. It looked like above the other participants had agreed to un-handicap my featured pictures. Yet the subsequent FP promotions are still being counted at the handicapped rate. If the handicap remains it is unlikely that I will progress to the next round. Currently am working on a series of images like the one at right, all by the same artist. That's part of a larger endeavor, most of which is considerably more labor than the average featured picture. In the aftermath of the National Portrait Gallery legal threat am doing greater offsite outreach (per the open letter from this week's Signpost). So posting here to get fellow Cup participants' opinions on how to handle the scoring. I'd have a shot at the next round as an alternate if the handicap is removed for this round. Otherwise, best wishes to those who progress. Durova 279 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 17:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Please allow using two flags for the WikiCup. It'll allow more of a distinct feel and that on some sports, they allow it so can you please allow it. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, if y'all are going to argue about it, I'll just stick with the Palestine Flag. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 18:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
iMatthew talk at 10:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikivoices' next episode will be a special article creation episode: The goal: A strong Did-You-Know-length article on one of Aesop's fables. This will happen sometime next week.
We've done this before, although it has been a while, and it should be a lot of fun. Anyone from the WikiCup interested in participating may sign up on WP:Wikivoices. You will need a copy of Skype, and preferably a microphone, although text chat is also possible.
So, come along if you're interested, join the fun, and pick up a few extra WikiCup points! Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, several of the Cup participants are also WikiVoices regulars. It's only five points plus mainspace edits, but we thought it would be fair to invite everyone. Durova 285 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Post-episode update: we couldn't find enough third party sourcing for the planned Aesop article, so went with Mother Goose instead. Shoemaker insisted upon " The Queen of Hearts" because Lewis Carroll referenced it in Alice in Wonderland, so at the last minute I did three new restorations. all of which are now at FPC Durova 285 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, so what exactly happens after today? Could we please get a recap?
Durova 285 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought there was a week by week elimination of the participant with the lowest total, but it's changed so many times. Just not sure anymore. Durova 285 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
... and I've highlighted those likely to go through here. Note that this is in no way final and you still have two hours (although the number of points you can humanly make in that time is probably limited). Good luck all... :) GARDEN 22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I know this round is over but I was out of town yesterday so I'm out of the loop, were we doing any GA review things like we did last round? I'm just wondering.-- Will C 14:55, 30 July 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. |
In order to keep organized, way in advance, we are already opening the Sign Up page for the 2010 WikiCup. Details are all listed here! So go sign up for another fun year. :) iMatthew : Chat 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If my GA doesn't qualify for points this round, please explain? Durova Charge! 18:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Did people move around for a reason? Durova Charge! 19:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This conversation could be of interest to those signing up next year... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
After listing one of his FAs at FAR for misuse of references, I decided to check his many GAs. Here is just a section of what I found which caused major concern and verifies that his involvement with the cup needs to be scrutinized (just putting on source up per each as example of the need for this):
I could go on but I have better things to do. The other pages follow the same problems. Who knows what problems there exist with the offline sources. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a willing to withdraw from the WikiCup if that's what the contestants want. But please, all of you, try to assume good faith, I'm only trying to make the encyclopedia better (which I believe I have). TheLeft orium 08:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Time to put an end to the above. Has it been delivered? -- can dle • wicke 21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[4] Please tell me why I should continue in this competition when users are going to blatantly try to sabotage xTCs? If he left a good set of actionable comments, that would be one thing, but the fact that they are so vague leaves little doubt as to his motives. -- Scorpion 0422 23:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, recently, which I use loosely, the article Armageddon (2008) was nominated at GAN. It is now under a GA review. The one who nominated the thing has went missing. So the nice guy I am, I decided to fix the problems from the review. Turns out the bloody thing is so messed up I almost had to rewrite the entire article plus add third party refs. The reviewer says it looks alot better and since I've wrote a few GA PPVs plus one that is an FA, I can sense it will probably pass, hopefully that is. If it does, though I did not nominate it instead just helped it pass by really rewriting it, does it qualify for inclusion to be submitted on my submissions page? I feel it does, but rather instead get a few opinions because the less drama the better.-- Will C 04:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel like going to the end of October from the beginning of January makes a very long competition. You guys must be getting tired by now. My only thought was to make the following changes:
changed to:
It would now end in September instead of October. That gives us judges three good months to prepare the next Cup, and contestants three months to relax. :)
What d'ya guys and girls think? (I happen to think that 4 users competing in the final round would be more interesting than 2. Especially if say, one of the two contestants suddenly has to take a break from Wikipedia. We would still have 3 editors in the running). iMatthew talk at 20:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain the two proposals (under proposal A and B or whatever and then they can say which is better). I like the idea that there would be more than two at the end as, like was said, something mysterious could happen to one person... -- can dle • wicke 22:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Leave it the way it is. Round 4 will be August (8 contestants). Round 5 will be September (4 contestants). Round 6 will be October (2 contestants). We will end the competition with two users in the final round.
We should combine the last two rounds. Round 4 will be August (8 contestants). Round 5 will be September (4 contestants). We will end the competition in September with 4 users in the final round instead of two.
We should combine the last three rounds. Round 4 will be August through September. We will have 8 contestants. On September 1st, we will eliminate the bottom four contestants, but the top four contestants will continue the round with the same score. Then one person will win out of the remaining four on September 30th.
I see Ed! working hard to clear the backlog in the "War and Military" section of GAN, but no-one has reviewed any of his 9(!) GANs. With respect to this competition, will there be any problem with me reviewing one or two of his GANs? Sasata ( talk) 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm dumb, I just reviewed one of Ed!'s GANs, and then realized that The_ed17 and Ed! are not the same person... Sorry for the confusion, and The_ed17, if you put up another 7 GANs I promise to review one! Sasata ( talk) 18:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Would it be alright if I rejoined? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay.-- Will C 04:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm a little two-minded in this case - we don't let users in from scratch but I guess this is a re-join so... well, what the heck. It makes the groups (which were reshuffled due to the absence) a bit imbalanced but I'm sure nobody minds... :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Just wondering if my nation, Great Britain (not UK - England, Scotland & Wales, not with Northern Ireland), is usable. Garden doesn't know yet and advised me to ask the 'question' here See here!.
Clyde1998 ( talk) 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"All scores are accurate as of iMatthew talk at 18:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)"
I meant to do 5 ~'s instead of 4. Oops! :D iMatthew talk at 18:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I simply don't have enough time to continue to participate in the cup, and while I might have enough points to make it to the next round, I don't want to steal the spot of someone who will be active. I'll be back next year (although I'll likely be forced to withdrawe in the summer again). -- Scorpion 0422 01:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I won't be on Wikipedia at all during the first two weeks of August, and possibly a few days more on each side of that. I'll try to help organise the end of round administration but I can't promise anything... weburiedour drama inthegarden 10:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
a really teeny tiny minor point - but is the word 'registered' really necessary in this sentence? "Entry is available for any registered user" Would it hurt your cup to remove that word? (Not now, but ready for next round?) 87.113.86.207 ( talk) 02:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Dropping by with a word about the handicap. It looked like above the other participants had agreed to un-handicap my featured pictures. Yet the subsequent FP promotions are still being counted at the handicapped rate. If the handicap remains it is unlikely that I will progress to the next round. Currently am working on a series of images like the one at right, all by the same artist. That's part of a larger endeavor, most of which is considerably more labor than the average featured picture. In the aftermath of the National Portrait Gallery legal threat am doing greater offsite outreach (per the open letter from this week's Signpost). So posting here to get fellow Cup participants' opinions on how to handle the scoring. I'd have a shot at the next round as an alternate if the handicap is removed for this round. Otherwise, best wishes to those who progress. Durova 279 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 17:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Please allow using two flags for the WikiCup. It'll allow more of a distinct feel and that on some sports, they allow it so can you please allow it. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, if y'all are going to argue about it, I'll just stick with the Palestine Flag. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 18:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
iMatthew talk at 10:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikivoices' next episode will be a special article creation episode: The goal: A strong Did-You-Know-length article on one of Aesop's fables. This will happen sometime next week.
We've done this before, although it has been a while, and it should be a lot of fun. Anyone from the WikiCup interested in participating may sign up on WP:Wikivoices. You will need a copy of Skype, and preferably a microphone, although text chat is also possible.
So, come along if you're interested, join the fun, and pick up a few extra WikiCup points! Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, several of the Cup participants are also WikiVoices regulars. It's only five points plus mainspace edits, but we thought it would be fair to invite everyone. Durova 285 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Post-episode update: we couldn't find enough third party sourcing for the planned Aesop article, so went with Mother Goose instead. Shoemaker insisted upon " The Queen of Hearts" because Lewis Carroll referenced it in Alice in Wonderland, so at the last minute I did three new restorations. all of which are now at FPC Durova 285 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, so what exactly happens after today? Could we please get a recap?
Durova 285 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought there was a week by week elimination of the participant with the lowest total, but it's changed so many times. Just not sure anymore. Durova 285 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
... and I've highlighted those likely to go through here. Note that this is in no way final and you still have two hours (although the number of points you can humanly make in that time is probably limited). Good luck all... :) GARDEN 22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I know this round is over but I was out of town yesterday so I'm out of the loop, were we doing any GA review things like we did last round? I'm just wondering.-- Will C 14:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)