![]() | 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 will not resonate well probably, but how would people feel about not taking into account the scores of previous winners? By which I mean previous winers can get points and whatever, but are not included in the rankings? There are some real-world competitions that apply such rules.
Feel free to add some more examples of pros and cons (preferably succinct ones). Nergaal ( talk) 15:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've just about completed one round of reviewing one GAN from every contestant and will begin another in a few days. It will make it easier on me if y'all post your requests for reviews in the table at the head of this page. To avoid charges of favoritism, I will review one article from each contestant per round. If you nominate an article in a round where I'm not reviewing one of your articles, ping me directly and I'll add it to that round. Any questions?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Not that it really matters, given I'm not going to win, but I think the bot might have got a borderline case wrong (though I could be mistaken). My recent DYK for Pope Theodore II currently has articles in 53 Wikipedias. However, I know the number on 31 December 2014 is relevant. Given this is on Wikidata, I took a look when I "only" got a 2x multiplier. On 23 December 2014, it had exactly 50 entries: on the next entry on 7 January 2015, it also had 50 entries. Am I missing something, or did the bot miss something? Harrias talk 20:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
$existsOn > 50
should presumably be $existsOn > 49
) with a simple fix, but who knows!
Harrias
talk
21:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 07:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The scoreboard is misleading and gives a false impression as to the order in which the contestants stand. Rationalobserver's full point score is shown but Godot13's is not. Please add an extra column that clearly shows the total points amassed by each competitor. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The scores for the final round are up, and we now know our winner. A big thanks to everyone who was involved and competed in this year's cup. The newsletter will be sent out and next year's points discussions will be set up in the next couple of days (the judges will add a further post here to announce them opening). Miyagawa ( talk) 12:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Table didn't update at 00:13 GMT (13 minutes ago). — Calvin999 00:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Calvin999, I'm really disappointed in your tactic of dumping a bunch of stuff on your submission page from 14 days ago with just 28 minutes before the end ( [2]). RO (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Figureskatingfan, Miyagawa, and Sturmvogel 66, I'm curious why Calvin999 is considered a newcomer to the Wikicup. They participated in 2012, 2013, and 2014. RO (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#General rules
In the spirit of fair play, contestants have two weeks to nominate their work after promotion (for good and featured content), appearance on the main page (for did you knows and in the news articles) or the completion of reviews (in the case of good article reviews and peer reviews). Work submitted after this time is no longer eligible. In case of illness, vacation or real-life issues, please notify a judge on his or her talk page, or by email, and a decision will be made as to its eligibility by the judges.
But Calvin999 added a bunch of submissions just 28 minutes before the end, lots of which were from 10 to 14 days ago ( [3]). I think it's pretty obvious he withheld the submissions as a strategy to get more points than me. Isn't this gaming the system? RO (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
For anyone who still has an urge to expand some articles, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month which runs throughout November. Miyagawa ( talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I notice that Miyagawa removed the DYK nomination of Echinocereus reichenbachii from Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2015/Submissions/Rationalobserver, citing "Removed GAN nomination - these don't qualify for points in the cup" However, if you read my review, Template:Did you know nominations/Echinocereus reichenbachii, you will see that I said "It is also eligible for promotion on the basis of being a 5x expansion (and so is eligible for the WikiCup)." I therefore think that Rationalobserver should have those points reinstated. Harrias talk 17:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Because I will be away from home for a few days from tomorrow (Thursday 29 October) and therefore not able to access my computer, I am seeking a dispensation so that I can submit my final point-scoring submissions on Monday, 2nd November. However, ultimately it does not matter whether I am granted the dispensation or not, because I am not going to win the 2015 WikiCup whatever happens.
A casual observer looking at the scoreboard might think that I was in the lead. The board currently states that I have 6,020 points, Godot13 has 4,705 and Cas Liber 2,379. However, the scoreboard is misleading and that observer would be mistaken. Godot13 has a current total of 1,550 featured picture bonus points which need to be added to his apparent score, giving a total of 6,255 which put him in the lead. To add to that, he has nineteen featured picture candidates still under review (the last ones nominated just 97 minutes before the deadline for use in the WikiCup) all currently with 100% support, so I think we may be pretty certain those will give him another 380+ points and an unassailable lead. Meanwhile, I have three GAN nominations awaiting review, and can expect a small number of my DYKs to reach the front page in time. So the 2015 WikiCup will be a victory for Featured Pictures for the second year running.
One final point, Rationalobserver has two featured pictures in this final round. Where are his featured picture bonus points? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I regret to inform you, Cwmhiraeth, that your request is denied. If you have suggestions for revising the scoring, please bring them up for discussion on the scoring talk page.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I know that there's been a bit of upset in the last few days, but I just wanted to say that I have personally really enjoyed taking part in and watching the competition. I'm in awe of the incredible work completed by our finalists and congratulate them all. Thanks to the judges for taking on a difficult and, dare I say, almost thankless task. Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to look at a matter discussed on this page in September 2015 but there are no links in the archive box at the top of this page to the 2015 archives 4, 5 and 6. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
We were going to announce the opening of the discussions in the newsletter going around later today, but a couple of competitors have already noticed and posted - so feel free to head on over to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for discussions around the points for next year's cup. I'll be sending around the barnstars/awards after the newsletter goes out for the 2015 competitors. Miyagawa ( talk) 10:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I think first time participant award given to to all participants. What do you think about awarding 1st round winner award, 2nd round winner award, etc for the upcoming WikiCup? -- Antan O 04:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I am pleased to announce that Godot13 has agreed to serve as a judge for this year's WikiCup.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
By my calculations, we have a little over two weeks until the start of the next WikiCup, and I was just wondering where we stand. Has Miyagawa been replaced, or will we be moving forward with only two judges? I note that we do not have too many signups; is there going to be an advertising drive? Some discussions are still on-going on the WikiCup scoring page; is someone keeping an eye on these? Apologies if this is all under control and I'm worried about nothing, but I think it'd be good for everyone if we all knew where we stand. Josh Milburn ( talk) 15:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
So after two years as a WikiCup judge, I've decided to stand down. It's been a fun ride, and I've very much enjoyed the work that the competitors from this year and last have put out. So a big thank you to J and Ed, as well as Sturm and Figureskatingfan for being a joy to work with, as well as Jarry for keeping that bot going (I don't know where we'd be without it). But as well, a big thank you to all the competitors, without whom there wouldn't be a cup. Miyagawa ( talk) 21:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It appears the latest edit to remove Peer Reviews from the score table on the main wikicup page also removed the fact that the last column is 4 points for GA reviews. Right now it seems to indicate that GAs are both worth 35 points and 4 points. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, I as a contestant, don't feel like I should be changing the score table this close to the start of the competition. Could one of the judges please correct this minor issue? Thanks 1bandsaw ( talk) 21:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Just had a look at the 2016 table and I noticed that I am not on it. I am fairly sure I had put myself down to take part (in fact I was the 4th person to sign up!) so can I ask why am I not on the board? Am I suddenly a judge and not been told? ;) The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 00:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Based on a mutual understanding (and in consultation with the judges), Cwmhiraeth and I have agreed to compete in the 2016 Wikicup and retire at the end of the fourth round (if either or both of us are still in the game). In addition, any advancement during the first three rounds of the competition will not effectively take a spot from another player. To make this very clear: 1) we would compete and are subject to elimination if we are not among any given pool’s top eight players. If we score in the top eight for a given pool, the ninth place finisher would advance as well. If we do not score in the top eight for a given pool, only eight will advance. 2) At the end of the fourth round (provided either or both of us passed through round three), we will retire from the 2016 Cup, regardless of score.-- Godot13 ( talk) 17:13, 20 December 2015 (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 will not resonate well probably, but how would people feel about not taking into account the scores of previous winners? By which I mean previous winers can get points and whatever, but are not included in the rankings? There are some real-world competitions that apply such rules.
Feel free to add some more examples of pros and cons (preferably succinct ones). Nergaal ( talk) 15:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've just about completed one round of reviewing one GAN from every contestant and will begin another in a few days. It will make it easier on me if y'all post your requests for reviews in the table at the head of this page. To avoid charges of favoritism, I will review one article from each contestant per round. If you nominate an article in a round where I'm not reviewing one of your articles, ping me directly and I'll add it to that round. Any questions?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Not that it really matters, given I'm not going to win, but I think the bot might have got a borderline case wrong (though I could be mistaken). My recent DYK for Pope Theodore II currently has articles in 53 Wikipedias. However, I know the number on 31 December 2014 is relevant. Given this is on Wikidata, I took a look when I "only" got a 2x multiplier. On 23 December 2014, it had exactly 50 entries: on the next entry on 7 January 2015, it also had 50 entries. Am I missing something, or did the bot miss something? Harrias talk 20:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
$existsOn > 50
should presumably be $existsOn > 49
) with a simple fix, but who knows!
Harrias
talk
21:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 07:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The scoreboard is misleading and gives a false impression as to the order in which the contestants stand. Rationalobserver's full point score is shown but Godot13's is not. Please add an extra column that clearly shows the total points amassed by each competitor. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The scores for the final round are up, and we now know our winner. A big thanks to everyone who was involved and competed in this year's cup. The newsletter will be sent out and next year's points discussions will be set up in the next couple of days (the judges will add a further post here to announce them opening). Miyagawa ( talk) 12:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Table didn't update at 00:13 GMT (13 minutes ago). — Calvin999 00:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Calvin999, I'm really disappointed in your tactic of dumping a bunch of stuff on your submission page from 14 days ago with just 28 minutes before the end ( [2]). RO (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Figureskatingfan, Miyagawa, and Sturmvogel 66, I'm curious why Calvin999 is considered a newcomer to the Wikicup. They participated in 2012, 2013, and 2014. RO (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#General rules
In the spirit of fair play, contestants have two weeks to nominate their work after promotion (for good and featured content), appearance on the main page (for did you knows and in the news articles) or the completion of reviews (in the case of good article reviews and peer reviews). Work submitted after this time is no longer eligible. In case of illness, vacation or real-life issues, please notify a judge on his or her talk page, or by email, and a decision will be made as to its eligibility by the judges.
But Calvin999 added a bunch of submissions just 28 minutes before the end, lots of which were from 10 to 14 days ago ( [3]). I think it's pretty obvious he withheld the submissions as a strategy to get more points than me. Isn't this gaming the system? RO (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
For anyone who still has an urge to expand some articles, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month which runs throughout November. Miyagawa ( talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I notice that Miyagawa removed the DYK nomination of Echinocereus reichenbachii from Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2015/Submissions/Rationalobserver, citing "Removed GAN nomination - these don't qualify for points in the cup" However, if you read my review, Template:Did you know nominations/Echinocereus reichenbachii, you will see that I said "It is also eligible for promotion on the basis of being a 5x expansion (and so is eligible for the WikiCup)." I therefore think that Rationalobserver should have those points reinstated. Harrias talk 17:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Because I will be away from home for a few days from tomorrow (Thursday 29 October) and therefore not able to access my computer, I am seeking a dispensation so that I can submit my final point-scoring submissions on Monday, 2nd November. However, ultimately it does not matter whether I am granted the dispensation or not, because I am not going to win the 2015 WikiCup whatever happens.
A casual observer looking at the scoreboard might think that I was in the lead. The board currently states that I have 6,020 points, Godot13 has 4,705 and Cas Liber 2,379. However, the scoreboard is misleading and that observer would be mistaken. Godot13 has a current total of 1,550 featured picture bonus points which need to be added to his apparent score, giving a total of 6,255 which put him in the lead. To add to that, he has nineteen featured picture candidates still under review (the last ones nominated just 97 minutes before the deadline for use in the WikiCup) all currently with 100% support, so I think we may be pretty certain those will give him another 380+ points and an unassailable lead. Meanwhile, I have three GAN nominations awaiting review, and can expect a small number of my DYKs to reach the front page in time. So the 2015 WikiCup will be a victory for Featured Pictures for the second year running.
One final point, Rationalobserver has two featured pictures in this final round. Where are his featured picture bonus points? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I regret to inform you, Cwmhiraeth, that your request is denied. If you have suggestions for revising the scoring, please bring them up for discussion on the scoring talk page.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I know that there's been a bit of upset in the last few days, but I just wanted to say that I have personally really enjoyed taking part in and watching the competition. I'm in awe of the incredible work completed by our finalists and congratulate them all. Thanks to the judges for taking on a difficult and, dare I say, almost thankless task. Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to look at a matter discussed on this page in September 2015 but there are no links in the archive box at the top of this page to the 2015 archives 4, 5 and 6. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
We were going to announce the opening of the discussions in the newsletter going around later today, but a couple of competitors have already noticed and posted - so feel free to head on over to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for discussions around the points for next year's cup. I'll be sending around the barnstars/awards after the newsletter goes out for the 2015 competitors. Miyagawa ( talk) 10:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I think first time participant award given to to all participants. What do you think about awarding 1st round winner award, 2nd round winner award, etc for the upcoming WikiCup? -- Antan O 04:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I am pleased to announce that Godot13 has agreed to serve as a judge for this year's WikiCup.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
By my calculations, we have a little over two weeks until the start of the next WikiCup, and I was just wondering where we stand. Has Miyagawa been replaced, or will we be moving forward with only two judges? I note that we do not have too many signups; is there going to be an advertising drive? Some discussions are still on-going on the WikiCup scoring page; is someone keeping an eye on these? Apologies if this is all under control and I'm worried about nothing, but I think it'd be good for everyone if we all knew where we stand. Josh Milburn ( talk) 15:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
So after two years as a WikiCup judge, I've decided to stand down. It's been a fun ride, and I've very much enjoyed the work that the competitors from this year and last have put out. So a big thank you to J and Ed, as well as Sturm and Figureskatingfan for being a joy to work with, as well as Jarry for keeping that bot going (I don't know where we'd be without it). But as well, a big thank you to all the competitors, without whom there wouldn't be a cup. Miyagawa ( talk) 21:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It appears the latest edit to remove Peer Reviews from the score table on the main wikicup page also removed the fact that the last column is 4 points for GA reviews. Right now it seems to indicate that GAs are both worth 35 points and 4 points. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, I as a contestant, don't feel like I should be changing the score table this close to the start of the competition. Could one of the judges please correct this minor issue? Thanks 1bandsaw ( talk) 21:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Just had a look at the 2016 table and I noticed that I am not on it. I am fairly sure I had put myself down to take part (in fact I was the 4th person to sign up!) so can I ask why am I not on the board? Am I suddenly a judge and not been told? ;) The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 00:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Based on a mutual understanding (and in consultation with the judges), Cwmhiraeth and I have agreed to compete in the 2016 Wikicup and retire at the end of the fourth round (if either or both of us are still in the game). In addition, any advancement during the first three rounds of the competition will not effectively take a spot from another player. To make this very clear: 1) we would compete and are subject to elimination if we are not among any given pool’s top eight players. If we score in the top eight for a given pool, the ninth place finisher would advance as well. If we do not score in the top eight for a given pool, only eight will advance. 2) At the end of the fourth round (provided either or both of us passed through round three), we will retire from the 2016 Cup, regardless of score.-- Godot13 ( talk) 17:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)