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. |
Should the project page be updated with a link to 2019 sign ups? It might attract more attention that way... Argento Surfer ( talk) 17:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Would any of the Cup organizers want my help to create pages for 2019, i have time and could easily help build 2019 contestant pages or anything else I can help with this holiday season? MPJ-DK ( talk) 17:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I try to review other contestants articles, but sometimes I have no interest in the subject (like soccer for example) so I choose not to. Making the point values higher for reviewing other participants articles could help. Also, I wonder if using pageviews instead of total number of wikis that an article appears would be more appropriate for bonus points. I am biased because I work on high traffic articles, and the bonus point system is mostly fine as-is. Kees08 (Talk) 20:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy new year to all. I've just noticed that on our signups we currently have less than 64 participating this year. While I fully understand that signups are still open and we may get more coming later to join, I am mindful of the fact that we could end up in a situation where everyone could progress to the next round without having done anything because we're under 64. Do the judges have a contingency plan just in case this comes to fruition? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I nominated Virgil L. Peterson and Convention of Alessandria for GA before 1 January 2019, but they have yet to be reviewed. If they pass, can I claim points for them? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Sturmvogel 66: If I started something ( User:DannyS712/Snyder) before January 1st, but at this point it still needs a LOT of work before it can be ready for mainspace, can I still work on it for points? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 01:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I was also kind of unclear about this, both in terms of articles and images. First timer, and excited to get going. Related questions: I have a few articles pending at GAN. For a couple of them, I've been meaning to add some material/sources. Is the nomination date what matters for GAs, or does it just matter that some nontrivial (or something a bit more than nontrivial) work has been done to it this year? My presumption is that the latter is the case, but figured I'd check. With images, I often upload images knowing they still need a good amount of post-processing. I presume that a second version of an image is along the same lines (I've seen that e.g. restorations qualify, even when the original image was uploaded beforehand, which makes sense to me). Finally, does the round timing matter? If an image I upload today is promoted to FP in September, is that ok? Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Are we meant to be using templates for the review lists? They aren't documented, but everyone's using them... Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 18:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I have two questions:
Cheers, Zwerg Nase ( talk) 13:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I've done two restorations under File:Abfertigen_einer_Meldung_durch_Brieftauben_-_CH-BAR_-_3240471_-_restoration.jpg, one in 2014, and one that I began January 2nd. After doing the 2014 one, I realised the source file, File:Abfertigen_einer_Meldung_durch_Brieftauben_-_CH-BAR_-_3240471.tif, had in its file history a scan of the actual negative that A. was higher resolution, and B. Had a lot more detail in what would be the light areas on the positive.
This is not a pleasant thing to realise when you've just spent hours and hours on something, and I was a lot slower back then, so I shoved it into the "to do later" pile, and didn't come back to it until now. The image nominated is completely re-restored from scratch. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 03:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I see that some of you have already made submissions but your scores are still to be updated. LivingBot, which keeps the score for the WikiCup, does not seem to be running. I am contacting @ Jarry1250: to see what the problem is, but meanwhile, keep submitting your claims in the normal way. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
In the event of a tie between two or more contestants, how do the judges decide who advances? -- Joshualouie711 talk 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I have some topic work going on right now that could potentially net some points, but I don't want to game the system so I have a couple of questions based on my own ongoing topic work
I want to withdraw from this competition because though I had plans to nominate few articles for GA that I have worked very hard on, there is no significant work on them during the course of the 2019 contest. Yashthepunisher ( talk) 11:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Re what this editor has said to me, within this very half-hour. There is no way that any aspect of my review of either GAN in question was wrong or invalid. I've had this discussion in past years; I was told that what the judges most wanted to see was interaction over the topic between the reviewer and the nominator, which happened in both cases. I would not have submitted those reviews if reason for such interaction had not taken place. I don't know if it is one judge, or all the judges involved, but I can not feel, reading what was said to me, that there is not some element of bias involved, wherever the motive for it may be coming from. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! ( talk) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I was just wondering - has there ever been any thought of including WP:AfC reviewing in this competition? It's one of those areas that tends to be kind of backlogged and could use more TLC and good reviewers. I don't know how we'd assign points to that, but I was thinking that it could be beneficial - especially given the snafu that occurred last year. I figure that more reviewers would make it more likely that people could spend more time on submissions, especially for topics and people who would merit an article. I know that reviewers need to be approved, but it seems like many of the people who go for this tend to be the type that would be approved. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 20:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Wanted to note for the judges that it appears that participant Betour13 is a sockpuppet account and was blocked indefinitely. ceran thor 21:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm clearing out some of my old to-do list, which includes some partially-finished restorations. I think File:Philippe Chaperon - Rigoletto.jpg should be fine, as I spent several additional days working on fixing the scratches and dust spots - and I've been ill, so it's been good chunks of the days - but I figure it's best to toss that forwards now, so it doesn't surprise me later.
I doubt it's going to be the only thing this round; I just don't like leaving content unfinished forever.
One other I haven't even started on continuing is File:Ethel_Smyth.jpg It has a number of black spots over it, quite a few, and I intend to remove them all. Of course, this probably won't even change the thumbnail much, but it's important to get it to top quality. It's about the same amount of work left as there is to start on a lot of new restorations. I'd like to finish it this year, ideally. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 09:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Cwmhiraeth: Should I claim File:Lincoln_assassination_slide_c1900_-_Restoration.jpg? It was a particularly easy restoration (maybe 2 to 4 hours at most?), and I worry it might've been too easy. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 07:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It'll still likely be a few days until I have anything to add to my contributions for scoring purposes, but I couldn't help but notice that it's been awhile since the list of competitors has been updated. It looks like no one on the signups list after Shadychiri (on the 17th) has made it to the contestants table (including YANKAI04, who appears to have added himself out of order...). Probably not urgent (yet), but I thought I'd bring it to the 'Cup's attention in case something is actually vexing the bot. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have a DYK nomination in the prep queue, and I just wanted to know how many points the nomination is likely to be worth, as I'm a little confused (having never done a DYK before). The article in question is Marcus Chamat, which was created in 2007. Acording to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, there is additional points for the article being an older article, however, I just wanted to confirm this. Namely, the guidelines say:
5 bonus points will be awarded to any DYK article which has existed since 2012 or earlier (i.e., 5 years before the start of the 2018 competition). In addition, older articles will be awarded 1 point for each year created before 2012. For example, an article begun in 2008 will receive 4 additional points for a total of 9. The bot will calculate this, but any mistakes can be reported on the WikiCup talk page.
Should this be from 2013, rather than 2012 as this was the former years rules, or am I reading this incorrectly. I apologise if this is a silly question, however, I just wanted to make sure I've not misunderstood the rules for future rounds. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Given that the first round ends in 2 weeks, would it be okay if I / should I send a mass message to the dozens of people who signed up but haven't participated yet, reminding them of the WikiCup? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 06:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 Reminder
. See the bottom of
User talk:DannyS712 test for what this should look like. --
DannyS712 (
talk)
05:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to presume that, while I did help out with fixing all the images in Gioacchino Rossini (including documentation, finding higher-res copies, etc) that that's not the sort of significant work that'd apply to FAs here?
My inclination is "Hell no, Adam" but if I would be eligible, I think we should probably have a discussion about changing the rules to explicitly exclude such coattailing next time. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, this is my first WikiCup and I have a few questions. I submitted a GA nomination a month ago and have started a GA review, but the former hasn't been picked up for a review and I'm not sure if the latter will be done by the 26th. If both of those don't get done by the 26th, may I still put them on my submissions page and retroactively claim points for this round if/when they are finished? And if not, if I end up with 0 points at the end of the round due to such timing, and there are still multiple people with zero points and fewer than 64 contestants having points, what is the tiebreaker between those with zero points as to who gets to go on to the next round? Sorry if this has been answered before! - John M Wolfson ( talk) 00:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear judges, I worked on an ITN item yesterday ( Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde) and it got posted when I was already in bed, so I did not add it to my submissions then. Can I still add it once the new round starts? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I like to try to do a pictoral report of people who passed the roubd, generally down to the first person who has activities that can 't reasonably be illustrated, e.g. It's hard to illustrate someone with a single GAR, though one could use the GAR logo for someone with an impressive number of them. I'm happy to do this, but could i ask the judges not clear the submissions until i can grab them? Ideally, we'd have one submissions page a round so one doesn 't have to dig into page history, but.... Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 13:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Should I send 2 messages, 1 do those who were eliminated, encouraging them to continue contributing to the encyclopedia, and 1 to those who moved on, telling them that they did, indeed, move on, and give basic info about round 2? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This WikiCup is awesome where newbies get encouraged to show their talents. However, I am retiring because apparently, A LOT of people are telling me I shouldn't be doing what I am doing.
Please remove me from this competition. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 13:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I reviewed a GA nom for Ansel Adams, and since one of my core principles is fix it yourself, I made a lot of edits before I passed it. So now 22.7% of the page was contributed by me. What can I take credit for? The GA, the review, or both? RockMagnetist( talk) 01:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I was talking with someone recently about the German WikiCup, and learned that they award points for original images promoted to QI, VI, or FP on Commons and then used on Wikipedia (i.e. promotion on Commons alone isn't enough -- it has to be in the article). Has this ever been discussed here?
A VI on Commons is, by definition, representative of the best we have to offer for a particular subject/scope. Such images are often not right for FP, but have undeniably high EV ("valued" being part of the name). QI isn't about value, but adding a Quality Image to an article can, again, have a marked improvement on the article. It seems like these are things that could easily be encouraged through this contest. (as an aside, I was surprised to see no archives search box on this talk page -- I'd add one, but don't really want to mess with what looks like a manually updated list in the header). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Since we may as well discuss it... problems with each:
An advantage, however, is that en-wiki sometimes goes through random droughts when people are away for a bit. Any holiday, for instance, will likely have a number of nominations on en-wiki fail due to lack of quorum. Commons is more robust. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 01:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this's probably explained somewhere, but how do the groups work? what's the point of them? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't these no longer exist? Why is there still a space for them? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 16:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Nothing major, but you said I had eight featured pictures. Actually, I had nine. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 05:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I decided I would not be comfortable claiming Rossini on the back of image work, even if it was quite heavy, for which I have gotten several FPs anyway. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 08:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't do this for points, but I figured I'd ask about it anyway since it seems like an interesting case study either way.
Someone nominated Katharine Coman for GA. It was reviewed (by a couple people, even), and the nominator stopped editing altogether. Weeks/months later, it was about to be closed as not promoted. I noticed and picked up the nomination, making a bunch of revisions such that it'll likely be passed. Is there a place in the WikiCup for this? Obviously I did far less work than the original nominator, and am not a reviewer, but the work involved is more than that of a typical review, and the result is a GA that wouldn't have otherwise passed. Just curious. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:55, 25 March 2019 (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. |
Should the project page be updated with a link to 2019 sign ups? It might attract more attention that way... Argento Surfer ( talk) 17:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Would any of the Cup organizers want my help to create pages for 2019, i have time and could easily help build 2019 contestant pages or anything else I can help with this holiday season? MPJ-DK ( talk) 17:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I try to review other contestants articles, but sometimes I have no interest in the subject (like soccer for example) so I choose not to. Making the point values higher for reviewing other participants articles could help. Also, I wonder if using pageviews instead of total number of wikis that an article appears would be more appropriate for bonus points. I am biased because I work on high traffic articles, and the bonus point system is mostly fine as-is. Kees08 (Talk) 20:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy new year to all. I've just noticed that on our signups we currently have less than 64 participating this year. While I fully understand that signups are still open and we may get more coming later to join, I am mindful of the fact that we could end up in a situation where everyone could progress to the next round without having done anything because we're under 64. Do the judges have a contingency plan just in case this comes to fruition? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I nominated Virgil L. Peterson and Convention of Alessandria for GA before 1 January 2019, but they have yet to be reviewed. If they pass, can I claim points for them? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Sturmvogel 66: If I started something ( User:DannyS712/Snyder) before January 1st, but at this point it still needs a LOT of work before it can be ready for mainspace, can I still work on it for points? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 01:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I was also kind of unclear about this, both in terms of articles and images. First timer, and excited to get going. Related questions: I have a few articles pending at GAN. For a couple of them, I've been meaning to add some material/sources. Is the nomination date what matters for GAs, or does it just matter that some nontrivial (or something a bit more than nontrivial) work has been done to it this year? My presumption is that the latter is the case, but figured I'd check. With images, I often upload images knowing they still need a good amount of post-processing. I presume that a second version of an image is along the same lines (I've seen that e.g. restorations qualify, even when the original image was uploaded beforehand, which makes sense to me). Finally, does the round timing matter? If an image I upload today is promoted to FP in September, is that ok? Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Are we meant to be using templates for the review lists? They aren't documented, but everyone's using them... Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 18:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I have two questions:
Cheers, Zwerg Nase ( talk) 13:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I've done two restorations under File:Abfertigen_einer_Meldung_durch_Brieftauben_-_CH-BAR_-_3240471_-_restoration.jpg, one in 2014, and one that I began January 2nd. After doing the 2014 one, I realised the source file, File:Abfertigen_einer_Meldung_durch_Brieftauben_-_CH-BAR_-_3240471.tif, had in its file history a scan of the actual negative that A. was higher resolution, and B. Had a lot more detail in what would be the light areas on the positive.
This is not a pleasant thing to realise when you've just spent hours and hours on something, and I was a lot slower back then, so I shoved it into the "to do later" pile, and didn't come back to it until now. The image nominated is completely re-restored from scratch. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 03:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I see that some of you have already made submissions but your scores are still to be updated. LivingBot, which keeps the score for the WikiCup, does not seem to be running. I am contacting @ Jarry1250: to see what the problem is, but meanwhile, keep submitting your claims in the normal way. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
In the event of a tie between two or more contestants, how do the judges decide who advances? -- Joshualouie711 talk 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I have some topic work going on right now that could potentially net some points, but I don't want to game the system so I have a couple of questions based on my own ongoing topic work
I want to withdraw from this competition because though I had plans to nominate few articles for GA that I have worked very hard on, there is no significant work on them during the course of the 2019 contest. Yashthepunisher ( talk) 11:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Re what this editor has said to me, within this very half-hour. There is no way that any aspect of my review of either GAN in question was wrong or invalid. I've had this discussion in past years; I was told that what the judges most wanted to see was interaction over the topic between the reviewer and the nominator, which happened in both cases. I would not have submitted those reviews if reason for such interaction had not taken place. I don't know if it is one judge, or all the judges involved, but I can not feel, reading what was said to me, that there is not some element of bias involved, wherever the motive for it may be coming from. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! ( talk) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I was just wondering - has there ever been any thought of including WP:AfC reviewing in this competition? It's one of those areas that tends to be kind of backlogged and could use more TLC and good reviewers. I don't know how we'd assign points to that, but I was thinking that it could be beneficial - especially given the snafu that occurred last year. I figure that more reviewers would make it more likely that people could spend more time on submissions, especially for topics and people who would merit an article. I know that reviewers need to be approved, but it seems like many of the people who go for this tend to be the type that would be approved. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 20:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Wanted to note for the judges that it appears that participant Betour13 is a sockpuppet account and was blocked indefinitely. ceran thor 21:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm clearing out some of my old to-do list, which includes some partially-finished restorations. I think File:Philippe Chaperon - Rigoletto.jpg should be fine, as I spent several additional days working on fixing the scratches and dust spots - and I've been ill, so it's been good chunks of the days - but I figure it's best to toss that forwards now, so it doesn't surprise me later.
I doubt it's going to be the only thing this round; I just don't like leaving content unfinished forever.
One other I haven't even started on continuing is File:Ethel_Smyth.jpg It has a number of black spots over it, quite a few, and I intend to remove them all. Of course, this probably won't even change the thumbnail much, but it's important to get it to top quality. It's about the same amount of work left as there is to start on a lot of new restorations. I'd like to finish it this year, ideally. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 09:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Cwmhiraeth: Should I claim File:Lincoln_assassination_slide_c1900_-_Restoration.jpg? It was a particularly easy restoration (maybe 2 to 4 hours at most?), and I worry it might've been too easy. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 07:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It'll still likely be a few days until I have anything to add to my contributions for scoring purposes, but I couldn't help but notice that it's been awhile since the list of competitors has been updated. It looks like no one on the signups list after Shadychiri (on the 17th) has made it to the contestants table (including YANKAI04, who appears to have added himself out of order...). Probably not urgent (yet), but I thought I'd bring it to the 'Cup's attention in case something is actually vexing the bot. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have a DYK nomination in the prep queue, and I just wanted to know how many points the nomination is likely to be worth, as I'm a little confused (having never done a DYK before). The article in question is Marcus Chamat, which was created in 2007. Acording to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, there is additional points for the article being an older article, however, I just wanted to confirm this. Namely, the guidelines say:
5 bonus points will be awarded to any DYK article which has existed since 2012 or earlier (i.e., 5 years before the start of the 2018 competition). In addition, older articles will be awarded 1 point for each year created before 2012. For example, an article begun in 2008 will receive 4 additional points for a total of 9. The bot will calculate this, but any mistakes can be reported on the WikiCup talk page.
Should this be from 2013, rather than 2012 as this was the former years rules, or am I reading this incorrectly. I apologise if this is a silly question, however, I just wanted to make sure I've not misunderstood the rules for future rounds. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Given that the first round ends in 2 weeks, would it be okay if I / should I send a mass message to the dozens of people who signed up but haven't participated yet, reminding them of the WikiCup? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 06:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 Reminder
. See the bottom of
User talk:DannyS712 test for what this should look like. --
DannyS712 (
talk)
05:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to presume that, while I did help out with fixing all the images in Gioacchino Rossini (including documentation, finding higher-res copies, etc) that that's not the sort of significant work that'd apply to FAs here?
My inclination is "Hell no, Adam" but if I would be eligible, I think we should probably have a discussion about changing the rules to explicitly exclude such coattailing next time. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, this is my first WikiCup and I have a few questions. I submitted a GA nomination a month ago and have started a GA review, but the former hasn't been picked up for a review and I'm not sure if the latter will be done by the 26th. If both of those don't get done by the 26th, may I still put them on my submissions page and retroactively claim points for this round if/when they are finished? And if not, if I end up with 0 points at the end of the round due to such timing, and there are still multiple people with zero points and fewer than 64 contestants having points, what is the tiebreaker between those with zero points as to who gets to go on to the next round? Sorry if this has been answered before! - John M Wolfson ( talk) 00:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear judges, I worked on an ITN item yesterday ( Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde) and it got posted when I was already in bed, so I did not add it to my submissions then. Can I still add it once the new round starts? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I like to try to do a pictoral report of people who passed the roubd, generally down to the first person who has activities that can 't reasonably be illustrated, e.g. It's hard to illustrate someone with a single GAR, though one could use the GAR logo for someone with an impressive number of them. I'm happy to do this, but could i ask the judges not clear the submissions until i can grab them? Ideally, we'd have one submissions page a round so one doesn 't have to dig into page history, but.... Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 13:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Should I send 2 messages, 1 do those who were eliminated, encouraging them to continue contributing to the encyclopedia, and 1 to those who moved on, telling them that they did, indeed, move on, and give basic info about round 2? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This WikiCup is awesome where newbies get encouraged to show their talents. However, I am retiring because apparently, A LOT of people are telling me I shouldn't be doing what I am doing.
Please remove me from this competition. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 13:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I reviewed a GA nom for Ansel Adams, and since one of my core principles is fix it yourself, I made a lot of edits before I passed it. So now 22.7% of the page was contributed by me. What can I take credit for? The GA, the review, or both? RockMagnetist( talk) 01:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I was talking with someone recently about the German WikiCup, and learned that they award points for original images promoted to QI, VI, or FP on Commons and then used on Wikipedia (i.e. promotion on Commons alone isn't enough -- it has to be in the article). Has this ever been discussed here?
A VI on Commons is, by definition, representative of the best we have to offer for a particular subject/scope. Such images are often not right for FP, but have undeniably high EV ("valued" being part of the name). QI isn't about value, but adding a Quality Image to an article can, again, have a marked improvement on the article. It seems like these are things that could easily be encouraged through this contest. (as an aside, I was surprised to see no archives search box on this talk page -- I'd add one, but don't really want to mess with what looks like a manually updated list in the header). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Since we may as well discuss it... problems with each:
An advantage, however, is that en-wiki sometimes goes through random droughts when people are away for a bit. Any holiday, for instance, will likely have a number of nominations on en-wiki fail due to lack of quorum. Commons is more robust. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 01:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this's probably explained somewhere, but how do the groups work? what's the point of them? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't these no longer exist? Why is there still a space for them? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 16:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Nothing major, but you said I had eight featured pictures. Actually, I had nine. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 05:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I decided I would not be comfortable claiming Rossini on the back of image work, even if it was quite heavy, for which I have gotten several FPs anyway. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 08:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't do this for points, but I figured I'd ask about it anyway since it seems like an interesting case study either way.
Someone nominated Katharine Coman for GA. It was reviewed (by a couple people, even), and the nominator stopped editing altogether. Weeks/months later, it was about to be closed as not promoted. I noticed and picked up the nomination, making a bunch of revisions such that it'll likely be passed. Is there a place in the WikiCup for this? Obviously I did far less work than the original nominator, and am not a reviewer, but the work involved is more than that of a typical review, and the result is a GA that wouldn't have otherwise passed. Just curious. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)