WikiCup articles needing reviews view • |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Portal:Bristol (FPo nom) | Bristol (FAC) | Glastonbury Canal (GAN) | Craig Kieswetter (GAN) | Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia) (FAC) |
Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Merry Christmas II You/archive1 (GAT) | National Trust properties in Somerset (GT nom) | Template:Did you know nominations/Up Out My Face (DYK) | Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga/archive1 (FLC) | Template:Did you know nominations/Thunder (Leona Lewis song) |
Louse (GAN) | Eurasian bittern (GAN) | Template:Did you know nominations/Angels Cry (song) |
WikiCup (WP:CUP) |
---|
History (WP:WC/HIS) |
Frequeries (WP:WC/FAQ) |
Discussion (WT:CUP) |
Contestants (WP:WC/CON) |
Scoring (WP:WC/SCO) |
Submissions (WP:WC/SUB) |
Reviews (WP:WC/REV) |
Contents
Points query
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)
- I don't know if this is the explanation, but I seem to remember that the bot sometimes wouldn't count the English Wikipedia, only "other" Wikipedias. It does look to me that this should have had 3x multiplier. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll flag it up with the bot owner as it should have had a 3x multiplier. Miyagawa (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Should I manually change the template to show a 3x multiplier, if we're all agreed it should have been? I don't want it to look like I'm fiddling the figures! Harrias talk 18:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you do, the bot will only change it back on the next pass, I'm afraid. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I hadn't really twigged that there wasn't a place-holder the bot scanned for. Looking at the bot's source code, it looks a reasonable obvious problem (
$existsOn > 50
should presumably be$existsOn > 49
) with a simple fix, but who knows! Harrias talk 21:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)- I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the bot would not change templates back when manually overridden. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I hadn't really twigged that there wasn't a place-holder the bot scanned for. Looking at the bot's source code, it looks a reasonable obvious problem (
- If you do, the bot will only change it back on the next pass, I'm afraid. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Should I manually change the template to show a 3x multiplier, if we're all agreed it should have been? I don't want it to look like I'm fiddling the figures! Harrias talk 18:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll flag it up with the bot owner as it should have had a 3x multiplier. Miyagawa (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Harrias: You are precisely right, thank you! I've updated the code exactly as you suggested (incidentally if you're good with Github you also issue a pull request). As Josh says, the bot is programmed not to override a human amendment, a switch which has yet again proven its value. Apologies for any inconvenience. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Reminder about WikiCup articles needing reviews
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)
- This is a good idea, Sturmvogel 66. Thanks for doing this! RO(talk) 16:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
PLEASE increase the points for Good Article Reviews
- Note: I am not a WikiCup participant myself, I have no vested interest in this except helping Wikipedia clear the backlogs.
- PLEASE increase the points for Good Article Reviews.
- Something like half (50%) of the points for an actual Good Article.
- So if a Good Article is thirty (30) points, then a Good Article Review of someone else's Good Article nomination would be fifteen (15) and not four points.
- Otherwise, Wikicup is (most unfortunately) helping through token economies to actually contribute to the GA Review backlog -- which is at least six (6) months !!!
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The end of the contest
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)
- RO's FPs are only on two article pages and so don't qualify for any bonus. We'll take your request under advisement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- RO is also female, at least according to her user page. Harrias talk 16:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yup. I'm a woman, but no worries, Cwmhiraeth. Sturmvogel 66, I'm not sure if it matters, but both of my FPs are in two articles a piece. RO(talk) 16:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I meant, but failed to make clear. Sorry for the confusion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that was what you meant. No worries. RO(talk) 16:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Have I misunderstood the rules then? "Featured pictures used in articles which exist on at least 5 Wikipedias, as of 31 December 2014, score 5 additional points." Mammillaria spinosissima seems to be in 10 languages and Echinocereus reichenbachii in 8. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- <Chagrined> No, you're quite right, she does get bonus points for her pics. Give us some time to fix them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Rather than create a subpage as with Godot's points, because (I presume) there isn't going to be additional FP bonus points from RO, I've added them as straight text in the same place as Godot's page is linked to. Miyagawa (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally, Miyagawa, Mammillaria is in 23 languages and Echinocereus is in 20. So do I get bonus points for those too? RO(talk) 20:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Rather than create a subpage as with Godot's points, because (I presume) there isn't going to be additional FP bonus points from RO, I've added them as straight text in the same place as Godot's page is linked to. Miyagawa (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- <Chagrined> No, you're quite right, she does get bonus points for her pics. Give us some time to fix them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Have I misunderstood the rules then? "Featured pictures used in articles which exist on at least 5 Wikipedias, as of 31 December 2014, score 5 additional points." Mammillaria spinosissima seems to be in 10 languages and Echinocereus reichenbachii in 8. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that was what you meant. No worries. RO(talk) 16:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I meant, but failed to make clear. Sorry for the confusion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 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)
- Incidentally, unless I'm missing something, the rules only state "contestants have two weeks to nominate their work after promotion" they don't mention that this doesn't apply at the end of the round too. Obviously it makes sense that it should be different at the end of the round, but I must say that it seems slightly harsh not to allow two days grace. Harrias talk 19:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Particularly as a blanket denial, as opposed to, say, agreement to check Cwmhiraeth's talk page and copy over anything worth points for him. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- No one is saying that someone else couldn't copy the points over. In fact, that's probably the solution if people are content with it. I'm happy to go onto Cwm's talk page when closing down the round and copy over any DYKs that aren't already on her submissions page. Miyagawa (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thank you, Miyagawa. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- With regard to Rationalobserver's point above, each of her featured pictures should gain ten featured pictured bonus points, not five. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've corrected that to a total of 20 points. Miyagawa (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- The main point I was making above seems to have been overlooked, so I will start a new section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've corrected that to a total of 20 points. Miyagawa (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- No one is saying that someone else couldn't copy the points over. In fact, that's probably the solution if people are content with it. I'm happy to go onto Cwm's talk page when closing down the round and copy over any DYKs that aren't already on her submissions page. Miyagawa (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Particularly as a blanket denial, as opposed to, say, agreement to check Cwmhiraeth's talk page and copy over anything worth points for him. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The scoreboard
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)
- RO's does not shown her total points. It said 332 before her 20 bonus points were added, the bot just hasn't worked this out. That's why it says +20. If it had been added already, it wouldn't have a side note. So neither are true impressions. — Calvin999 12:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- We can't add an extra column because it could very well cause the bot to break the table (I'm not sure if the bot goes by column title or number, so it very well might inserting scores into the wrong column). Even if we could add the column, it'd have to be manually adjusted and so depending on the bot update times, the scores will still be wrong as either the bonuses will have been added early or haven't been updated. Furthermore, the bot might very well blank out any modifications we make so every time it updates, it could zero out the new column. For the remaining two days of this year's cup it isn't worthwhile playing around with this and risking causing something else in the bot to break. We are taking very seriously the issues (it's my #1) with the display of the FP Bonus points this year and it will be one of the major themes raised when the points discussions start up. Miyagawa (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)