Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/2010 Signups

Archives...

One question. I have added my name and my flag from this year (Julian stole the one I wanted again). May I change my flag at a later date if the flag I choose is still available? --candle•wicke 18:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course :)  iMatthew :  Chat  18:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you can have it. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ;) --candle•wicke 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish I could use this flag. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turn your flag into a link... FLAG Scorpion0422. Like so. --candle•wicke 17:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For folks who are looking for flags, a few of my favorites. Selections are based purely upon esthetics of the graphic design. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who uses This flag would be my hero. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone use Panama's. I really like that one! :)  iMatthew :  Chat  22:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Anything that has a flag, you can use it. "

This stipulation is a little vague, and I was wondering if I could politely request further elabouration? Obviously copyrighted flags are right out (WP:NFCC#9), but what about proposed or fictional flags that don't meet the threshold of originality for copyrighting? What about the contents of Commons:Category:Special or fictional flags? Alternate history fictional entities (Socialist CSA, Soviet USA, etc.), historical real-world entities (the Republic of Texas, the Republic of Venice, or the USSR), straight-up fictional entities (the Klingon Empire or Erusea), or proposed real-world entities (the North American Union)?

I ask, not to be annoying or request special dispensation, but because the one flag I feel would represent me isn't available so I next would rather go for something unique or akin to my interests. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, any flag that is not under copyright can be used, whether of a fictional state, a historical one, or a real world one. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! Would some lovely code monkey please write up a flagicon template for this sailor? :) Durova^Charge! 22:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I don't know what Garden is saying. :\ - Let us talk first. I didn't know we were allowing random flags?  iMatthew :  Chat  22:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? We're not? Well I suppose considering this is supposed to be reminiscent of a sporting competition I suppose flags of places is a wide enough scope. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we never made a decision to change that, so I didn't know. :\  iMatthew :  Chat  22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, flags of places. While culling flags of organizations or groups (the Jolly Roger and the Klingon Empire are out), that really doesn't trim it down a lot, though. Real places, specifically; or are fictional places good too? Historical? Proposed? Again, I'm not trying to be that guy; I just want to know what boundaries are expected, so I don't pick something inappropriate prematurely and get chastised for it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's not illegal to ask questions ;) I would have thought historical places would be okay, although it should probably be done on a case-by-case basis. Just pick something, and if it's not desirable we can always ask you to change it. It's only a flag after all. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there was at least one actual historical ship that did sail under the Jolly Roger... Durova^Charge! 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nudge? Durova is an actual former sailor and would really rather sail under the Jolly Roger, which was in fact the actual flag of pirate Edward England Durova^Charge! 19:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I dunno. You can use it for now until the clouds have cleared as it were... to be fair all of these flags aren't looking to make a sports-like contest... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this supposed to be based on a sporting competition? I see flags for a media franchise, catchphrase and the POTUS. Shouldn't we actually require flags to be that of a place? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 01:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people were requesting different flags. Now we're getting even arguments about it. Err, let me talk to THO and Garden later on. :( (iMatthew - talk) at 01:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people probably think that certain catchphrases, media franchises, and positions represent who they are and their origins better than place flags. Me, for instance. I primarily chose the Sailor Moon flag for two reasons: 1. My original choice (Japan's national flag) was taken, and 2. It represents me (an anime fan, especially one who was raised on Sailor Moon) better than the state I'm in (Pennsylvania) and FAR better than my birth city (Pittsburgh). I say the latter because I almost never (and I do mean NEVER) give any obvious clues about that fact. Finally, while I do see city flags (Toronto, for instance), the city I'm living in right now (I withhold this information) has no flag. I'm not justifying it, but I am pointing out that if it's about sporting, it feels more right to be a competitor under a flag or banner that makes you feel good about it. All team sporting is about teamwork, but in terms of single person competition under a flag, it's about morale. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people have chosen random flags if they don't have one that fits. It's not really that much of a big deal, a TV show just seems a little out of place in a "World Cup". Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 12:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← It's a damn game, stop focusing on the flags everybody. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love Juliancolton now. :3 weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love Newyorkbrad now. :3  iMatthew :  Chat  22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like some flags = favouritism... --candle•wicke 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, about those extra points... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deducting half his current points for even suggesting that... --candle•wicke 21:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take whatever flag you want! It doesn't really matter, and it's just fun. So you can take whatever flag you want, as long as it's appropriate. :)  iMatthew :  Chat  19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But make sure it's actually a flag... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we expand the WikiCup to 128 users. The next round will be at 64 users, then 32 users, then 16 users. Once we are do to 8 we can start a knockout tournament. The next round will be with 4 users, then 2 users. Each round lasts a month. That's a total of six months. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , Sandbox

Why change something that already works? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 15:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would actually be seven months: one with 128 users, one with 64 users, 32 users, 16, 8, 4, and 2. Useight (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One month is too short IMO. It usually takes over a month for a GAN to be reviewed. TheLeftorium 17:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably agree with the above, one month would be way too short, the current system is probably the best way to go.--Giants27 (t|c) 17:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current system has the last three rounds at a one month length. (iMatthew - talk) at 17:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably wouldn't be feasible to include more rounds, but there doesn't seem to be any inherent bar to making the first round as large as needed: if more people want to sign up, then great. But only 32 would progress to round 2. Fair enough? Durova^Charge! 21:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably agree with that; I can't imagine for a second that many of the users who will sign up will be able to score the kind of points that some this year have scored - I imagine several will be on 0 after round 1... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fun (and motivating) to keep an open door. If a few extra GAs result then everybody wins. :) Durova^Charge! 16:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely- I think a very open first round is a great idea. It may get to the point where you'll have to list available flags! J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure iMatthew thought about this at some point during the organisation of this year's contest, but I'm brining it up to the community: what would be the reaction to a league-type contest? For example, if 100 people sign up, we bung them into one massive league and the top 32 go through (or whatever) to a pool stage or another league. I'm saying this because, with the pool system so twisted already with wildcards and what-have-you I really don't see the point in letting users with 50 points go through as the winner of an inactive group and someone with 100 missing out of the wildcards due to very active groups - it seems like pure luck to me. So, what do you think? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my original idea for this year, as you said. I picture us getting a lot of contestants this year though, so it's probably a better idea for this year. We'd 6 have rounds again. (? -> 32 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4 -> 2). – iMatthew • talk at 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps four rounds (? -> 32 -> 16 -> 8) might be better to get GANs etc in in time. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) So you're saying the final 8 would compete in the title round? Useight (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's no good. I'd rather do 5 rounds with the final 4 competing for the title. – (iMatthew • talk) at 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps we should start offering contestants points for reviewing other contestants' GANs. We could off something like 5 points per review. We'd have to trust they will make a good review, the same way we have to trust they will mark edits as minor when appropriate. – (iMatthew • talk) at 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bad idea- that sort of "please review for other contestants" sounds very cliquey. Further, offering points for reviewing moves the contest further away from actual content editing. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh true. We should just get rid of the GAN backlog and by next year it will be gone. We should also let pigs take over the world.......unless that's already happened. :-\ – (iMatthew • talk) at 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...but please can we stick to flags of places... I know I'm contradicting something I said maybe a week ago but the flags we're getting are very inconsistent and out of place in a sporting-spoof contest like this. In my opinion the most exotic you should go is cities (like, for example, flags of Tokyo or Toronto), because with no limits this turning into a bit of a mick-take... sorry people :( weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the rules on the main page. :| – (iMatthew • talk) at 22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As a rule of thumb - if the {{flagicon}} fits... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention Tokyo for no reason by the way. Look at it! It's amazing! :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact ANY flag in Japan would be amazing... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um? Please restore. Am sailing the WikiCup under the flag of Edward England aboard The Pearl. Am also a former rl sailor who served on two deployments during wartime, and did ask in advance before adopting that flag. This is not a fictional flag. Durova^Charge! 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a game. Let people use whatever flag they want, within reason. There's no reason to be so picky, IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly please do not use "IMO" (God I hate that acronym :( ). Also, there is a reason to be picky - this is supposed to be a parody of a sporting contest and having flags of God-only-knows makes it rather inconsistent. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore Durova's because "Edward Seegar" was born here apparently and that's fine with me. Also, in a new proposal, remove all the flags of the US states and let everyone fight over the one flag of the United States. The US already has an unfair advantage with its seemingly endless supply of flags - please force everyone to choose real countries so that this can be a world contest rather than roughly 50/50 US versus Them Outsiders Across the Oceans in League with the Canadians and Mexicans. When it gets to the stage where people can't find any more countries they get a special prize of a 10 point head start if it is proven that no more countries exist. --candle•wicke 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! I already have the US flag. Maybe I could sell it...Useight (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)And no discussion is a discussion without claims of American bias.....:)--Giants27 (t|c) 00:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL great choice, Durova. I don't see problems with state flags though...but perhaps I'll choose a different flag for next year. Maybe I'll go with The Netherlands or Brazil and work on all of the warships I can find from whichever I pick... ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the US thing - you don't have to be from the US to use a state flag. Some just look nice. Also, the US states are larger than most countries to be fair... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Provisionally switching to the Corsican corsair. Also provisionally reconsidering the voluntary handicap. Thoughts? Durova^Charge! 03:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you take off the voluntary handicap, I may be forced to ask Bellhalla (talk · contribs) to join ;-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to ask anyone you want to join. Am waiting for a reply from the judges. Durova^Charge! 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make a light-hearted joke...apparently that didn't come across how I wanted it. Apologies, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it would be fair to give you the jolly roger as a flag as it's a sporting-esque contest as I have re-iterated before. About your handicap - it was only voluntary so if you want it removed next time around then you are free to do so in my opinion. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same opinion as Garden. You may remove the handicap if you wish. I'm sorry that I originally told you one thing, then it changed. However, we're still hammering out all of the details. I feel like you're taking this way too seriously, and making a big deal out of nothing, really. It's a flag. I'm sorry if you're upset that it kept changing, but the rule is standing as it is. – (iMatthew • talk) at 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to use Jolly Roger, but... why isn't it allowed? It is a genuine flag! Nergaal (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, as you may or may not know, at DYK we have recently been experiencing a shortage of new hooks being submitted for approval (which has forced us the lower the number of hooks per update to the Main Page), so for next year I would like to propose that a next scoring category (Maybe 2-3 points) be added for any successful DYK noms that a user makes, these noms would be from articles that the nominating user had not largely contributed to and could be pulled from Special:NewPages, from User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult, or from anywhere else a contestant could think of. This in my opinion could really help to ease the lack of new hooks being submitted at T:TDYK and it could also add a new layer of competition to the Cup for users who like to search for promising new content and showcase it, almost like the users who get points for successful FP noms in this years cup for searching for promising images locally and on Commons and nomming them for FP status ;). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? It's just that I was under the impression that the hooks aren't being reviewed very quickly and that there are loads over there at the moment. But I wonder how allowing points for those who nominate work carried out by others is reflective of building content... --candle•wicke 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candlewicke is right, currently there are 192 nommed hooks and only 29 verified.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was still working under some old information from a few weeks ago when DYK was still in a huge hook shortage which we seem to have come out of ;), although as has been pointed out on the DYK talk page, DYK does tend to go through trends and periods of very few incoming hooks and then periods of large numbers of hooks so I still think that this could be good even if it gave very few points because when DYK is going through hook shortages any hook noms would be useful. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following are for users who wanted a United States flag but are too late to get the Main US Flag.

All the Best, Mifter (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One I found which caught my eye. --candle•wicke 10:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my favorite flags. Just because I'm suggesting my flag doesn't automatically make me a narcissist. Secret Saturdays (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only flags of actual places are allowed. Shappy ^talk 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that in some sports, an athlete can represent two nations depending where they're from, so can I use two flags for mine (because I really want to use this one and also this one, and possibly My Official Flag)? Please respond A.S.A.P. Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only one you can use is Palestine; the decision has been made that only flags of actual places are allowed. Shappy ^talk 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should announce signups in WP:POST.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could be an idea. I can't however see them looking fondly at the prospect.  GARDEN  18:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it known how many editors will actually be in the competition. Is it the same number as this year?--Giants27 (c|s) 00:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no limit on the number - if it is a weird number as a consequence the pools will look a little odd, but there is no reason to cap the number of editors in the contest.  GARDEN  18:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very interested in joining next year's WikiCup but I'm not too clear about the rules yet. If I join this Cup, does it mean that I'll have to use the flag of the country that I'm living in? And if I have to, the flag of my country is not here yet, can I still use it? BejinhanTalk 14:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to use your own country's flag. I compete as Mexico and don't live there (although close enough that if I threw a baseball hard enough and broke a window, I might have to pay for the damage in pesos). Durova³⁰⁶ 15:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks!But since my country's flag is not here can I still compete under that flag? BejinhanTalk 01:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if no-one else has already taken your countries flag it is available for you to compete under in this contest. ϢereSpielChequers 12:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks! BejinhanTalk 10:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if somebody were to write a bunch of GA-quality articles in advance and then puts them up on Wikipedia during the contest. Would it count?

No, only articles worked on after Jan 1st are counted. iMatthew ^talk at 13:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean if an article was created/editing prior to January 1, it's automatically disqualified? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be. Otherwise you could prepare loads of articles before 1 January and then just shove them through GAN or FAC afterwards. Spiderone 15:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Julian, same deal as this year. :P iMatthew ^talk at 15:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if I were to expand Hurricane Gordon (2000) (which has been around for years) it would be disqualified? You sure...? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to being working on it prior to 2010, it would be DQ'ed. Correct. iMatthew ^talk at 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?! That's a tad harsh... I mean, the stuff gets to FA in the end anyway, so if they work on it earlier (even like minor edits) I don't think you should completely discount it... if they nom it after they still have to go through the pain of FAC so it probably should count... maybe some IRC deliberation is needed here...  GARDEN  22:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what we did last year though, and nobody had a big problem with it .... iMatthew ^talk at 22:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was hardly enforced. I think it's fairly clear when there's abuse. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit counterproductive to the purpose of this event to disqualify existing articles from being improved. I thought the idea was to improve content on Wikipedia through this contest. If that is the stated goal then why in the world disqualify existing articles? Just have a caveat that if it's clear you "stockpiled" articles to push through at the beginning of the season then those articles will be disqualified. But for articles that you may of touched last year or years ago a bit and decided to get around to actually improving this year during the competition would be silly to disqualify. You can't police people stockpiling images for FP, those are easy to do, just not upload them until after the competition begins. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flag I was originally using has been deleted so I need to choose a new one. I would like to know if I have to choose a flag from a country, state etc. I was thinking of using a flag that was associated with a particular movement/organisation. ISD (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the directions at the top of the page. iMatthew ^talk at 13:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the first round be simpler, fairer and possibly more competitive if it was done as one enormous pool? That way the number of participants in the first round is irrelevant, and every participant is likely to have competitors who they could potentially catch up with or be overtaken by. The second round could then be calculated putting the highest scores from round one into different pools. ϢereSpielChequers 21:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I'd definetely support its addition.--Giants27 (c|s) 21:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was the original plan, I believe. I think we were planning to go XXX --> 32 --> 16 --> 4. iMatthew ^talk at 21:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were we? :P Well I think slimming it from 100+ to 32 is a bit steep? Unless of course that's not including earlier rounds...  GARDEN  22:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps wait until we have a good idea of how many people are going to be taking part before we plan how many will go through to the second round? J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best idea, as it seems a possibility we could have a 128 member Cup.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 18:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably best. I'm anticipating a spike in applicants if we get the Signpost article out.  GARDEN  19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm been thinking, can I enroll my IP for the WikiCup signup list, or will it violate the rules? Please respond ASAP. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)

No. iMatthew ^talk at 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two accounts signed up today as their only edit. ????? Durova³¹⁹ 17:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well. Rather odd. I'd let it slide if they started editing soonish though.  GARDEN  17:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last four actually all have a combined total of maybe 20 edits. Maybe get a CU on em or something.  GARDEN  17:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking, I've welcomed them since they edits they've made have no problems but still a CU would make sense.--Giants27(c|s) 18:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they subsequently start reviewing each others GAs I'd agree that a checkuser request would be in order. But I fail to see what benefit a potential competitor gains by splitting their editing between multiple accounts, if anything it should be a hindrance. So though I accept it is bizarre I suggest that CU would be inappropriate without reason to suspect double !voting or other abusive behaviour. ϢereSpielChequers 19:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. AGF and all but this really does feel like a disruption attempt.  GARDEN  19:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it was a sockpuppetry ring. Makes sense.--Giants27(c|s) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What were the accounts? Maybe I could talk tyo them about this issue and help resolve this problem Secret Saturdays (talk to me)

The last three or four on the Signups page.  GARDEN  21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it wise to allow just anyone to signup? Would it not be better to ensure they have circa 500 edits or something to ensure they won't simple lull at the bottom of the pools?  GARDEN  20:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going with the "big pool to start with" idea, surely it doesn't matter? J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry guys. I spoke to them not long ago and I reached a verdict. Mr. Game 'n Watch and Bee-Maar don not want to withdraw but I will let them participate as long as they at least make a DYK, create a new article or expand an article and Reborn American decided that he'll pull out of the competition. I hope this will ease the controversy. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)

You will let them? iMatthew ^talk at 23:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I checked their records again and out of all of them, it seems like only Mr. Game 'n Watch can participate. I realized the others had a bad history on Wikipedia, so I'm planning to take Bee-Maar's and Reborn American's submissions down. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)

My point is that you are not a judge. If you'd like to participate, that's fine. But if participants start trying to handle these kinds of things, it makes the Cup look bad. People will begin to think that the contestants run things, and the judges don't do anything, which will cause them to not take this competition seriously. Please don't do anything else with these accounts, we have it covered. Thanks, iMatthew ^talk at 00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out SS was operating all of those accounts. Come on now... I've removed SS, and the rest of the accounts. If SS isn't blocked, we'll talk before adding him back in (with of course, one account). iMatthew ^talk at 00:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think I am the cause of this?? I'm the one who is the ringleader? This is the work of something wicked (I'm not calling iMatthews wicked, but I'm saying that whoever has framed me is) I'm horribly shocked and saddened. Due to his and the ongoing criticisms of my talkpage, I'm considering going on leave. Secret Saturdays (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be best. J Milburn (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess after that revelation this point is now moot. Moving on...  GARDEN  13:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was curious, as someone who's been vaguely following the competition and am signed up for next year, whether there might be any changes to the scoring rules before the new competition starts in January. Here's why I ask - it makes sense to me that FA should be worth significantly more than other types of content recognition, since it is both more time-consuming and more difficult to get an FA through. But it isn't clear to me why featured sounds and pictures are weighted more heavily than featured lists and GAs. Geraldk (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely I will be working on gaining a firm consensus on how each item should be scored before the next Cup starts. iMatthew ^talk at 18:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, although I must say I'm disappointed that it took you so long to respond. Four minutes is an eternity... Geraldk (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to allow VP (Valued Pictures) to have points. The ratio of points from Good article to Featured article is 70%, so 70% of the 35 points for a featured picture is 24.5, so a VP could be 25 points? That project seriously needs some life back into it and this may be one way to do that. And what about featured pictures on other wikipedias? Does this bot count other language sites? Does it count Commons? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove User:Law, as he is still on this list, on #58... and was recently banned as a sock of User:The_undertow... and will still be banned when the Cup starts... Until It Sleeps ^{T • C} 00:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did ask him. I'll just remove him; if the situation changes he can easily be added back.  GARDEN  06:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extending thanks to the judges and 2009 participants. If anyone wants to compete as Mexico, the flag's available now. Been good luck this year; maybe it'll serve someone well. Best wishes all for 2010; Wikipedia is the real winner. Durova³⁵¹ 01:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 

• • Durova's right. Wikipedia is the real winner. In Durova's honor, we are retiring the Mexico flag. So, I'm sorry to say that it cannot be used in the future by anybody but Durova. Congratulations again, Durova! :) iMatthew ^talk at 01:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 13:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because, we felt it would be a cool idea (the judges). Considering there isn't a whole load of prizes for the winner, we felt retiring their flag from future competitions in there honor was a nice reward for winning. iMatthew ^talk at 13:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that keep narrowing down the list(if Wikipedia continues for 100 years or so.)Abce2|This isnot a test 01:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but seriously, Wikipedia is going to die sooner rather than later.  GARDEN  11:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More likely, the WikiCup will die. If we're running out of flags, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Sure, if I'm still sitting here a judge in my fifties, I can see myself opening up the old flags... J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that people are signing up under flags that range from Leinster to Mars, the Cup is probably safe for a century. ;) Durova³⁵⁵ 17:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting ready to remove the Mars flag, but when I saw the explanation on the image page, it seems valid... I think that may well win the "best flag award" as far as locations go. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of old, but there is no chance of running out of flags. Even if you only go by UN recognized countries, that is still about 194 flags. Add in un-recognized/poorly recognized countries, territories, states, counties, cities, old flags not used anymore, and there are thousands of flags to choose. I don't agree with retiring the flag though. TJ Spyke 21:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God knows I generate few if any real substantive mainspace contributions, so you all could, reasonably, tell me to, basically, STFU. But I think it might be valuable, and possibly beneficial to the project, if it were possible to maybe make it the case that more points could be gotten with improvements to some of the more important articles. Main articles relating to ountries and territories, major cities, some philosophy-related articles, and some other topics whose articles are comparatively broad will be harder to improve than othes. I think it would probably be in the best interests of wikipedia in general if there were additional incentive for working on these more difficult articles, which are often also among the more important ones. Anyway, just an outsider thought. John Carter (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The points from edits are generated by a bot. We've had discussions on this kind of subject before, but even before we discuss whether it is a good idea, how would something like this be implemented? J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if nothing else, maybe an additional X (maybe 20?) points every time an editor brought an article selected by WP:1.0 up to GA or FA might be useful. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could work by if you improve an article that is exceedingly difficult you could bring it up to the judges on a case-by-case basis and they can decide if that article is worth more than standard points. Keeping it simple though, like say 25% or 50% more points for the article if they decide it does qualify as a important or more difficult article to improve. Just a thought on how to implement John Carter's idea. Would of course be manual review from the judges. Not EVERYTHING can be done by bots, if so do we really need judges then? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider such a thing very dubious. In a lot of those cases, there will already be substantial articles in the place, with a number of regular editors. Further, this turns the contest into "you win because you write about things someone has deemed to be important. You don't win, because we don't like what you write about". Should we have a similar thing for our FP contributors? If your FP is used on an "important" article, you get more points? There is the additional problem that many people don't like those slections, and prefer WikiProject selections. I don't think there's really a fair way to work this, though I am open to suggestions. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very valid points. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first concern noted by J Milburn could be addressed by taking into account the article's state before the Wikicup participant begins work. For example, improving an article from Stub class to GA would earn more points than improving an article from B class to GA. With regard to Milburn's second concern -- that weighting scores based on an article's importance rating is subjective -- I agree. However, I think those subjective ratings of article importance are mostly reasonable. Extending John Carter's proposal, an article's importance could be more robustly evaluated using something similar to the method described at WP:MBOT.

While I'm not very familiar with previous Wikicups, I would imagine that the current system over-incentivizes participants who work on improving articles to churn out GAs and FAs for low-importance-rated, infrequently viewed articles. Such work is certainly good, but I think the Wikicup could be more of an asset to the encyclopedia if at least importance rating and viewership were taken into account when scoring contributions. Emw (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about awarding 1 point for every article created that someone else has requested at Wikipedia:Articles for creation? ϢereSpielChequers 18:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the increased number of participants this year, I anticipate a large increase in the GAN backlog, as well as other processes that require judging and reviewing (FAC and FLC). Perhaps we should think about ways to proactively prevent this before it becomes an issue and a source of contention and debate in the wider community? Sasata (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having "too many good article candidates" is a good problem. :) Seriously, it might be a good idea to start a recruitment drive for reviewers once the Cup is underway. Durova³⁵⁵ 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has crossed my mind as well. I was wondering about the possibility of points for reviews- I remember I was against this when it was suggested last year... Another alternative would be something like "for every three GANs, you must review one other". I remember that last year we did use a kind of "the judges will review as many as possible in the last couple of weeks", but if there are as many as you're worried about, that may not be possible. Anyone else have any suggestions? J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Durova on this in that lots of GA and also FA nominations is a good thing - though people need to be aware of rules such as no more than one FA nomination per user at a time. However I'd be very uncomfortable with awarding points for reviews, I do a few reviews at FAC, they vary quite a lot in the time I put into them and I'd hate it if anyone thougt I was doing them based on some points based scheme, especially if it incentivised quantity over quality. However we could try to clear the decks before we start, say two weeks before we start the cup send a note round the contestants asking if between us we can review the stuff already sitting at GAN and FAC. It might also help if the judges liaised with SandyGeorgia, Karanacs and discussed this on the talkpages at FAC and maybe the signpost. The more we make non cup participants aware of the process the more likely we are to get non-participants cooperating - perhaps even doing extra reviews in the early stages of the CUP (I'm hoping by the later stages some of those who don't make it through the first stages will be recruited as reviewers). ϢereSpielChequers 18:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really like that idea of asking cup participants to review one or a few a couple of weeks before the event starts. I will certainly be reviewing some to increase my GAN/FAC karma before the event begins :) Sasata (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we clarify this? Not sure a 24 hour 3RR block should disqualify someone. — Jake Wartenberg 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that refers only to indefinite blocking/long term blocking or banning. Note that we removed Law. I wasn't the one who wrote it though. J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine it means blocked in the long term.  GARDEN  11:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to be specific.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 13:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you ignore retirements as its not unknown for them to be temporary. ϢereSpielChequers 13:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just give it some time to see if they come back or not. Maybe 2-3 weeks. --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 17:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this page for discussion of the scoring- hopefully we can have all the necessary discussions before the competition begins. Suggestions/discussion welcome on the talk page. The current rules are on the page as I write this, as understood by myself and iMatthew. They will be subject to change, pending talk page discussion. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we take down flags that are link to the word COUNTRY, as some of them aren't real flags or will give the impression that they aren't real flags? Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand? Could you be more specific? J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the participants would put up a fictional flag, such as this and they don't change the automatic link (which is COUNTRY). I'm afraid that those who have this link would be assumed that they are entirely fictional. and for this type: it's real, but the person that signed up hasn't changed the link, which could be accidentally be assumed as a fictional flag. So should we take down the flags that are linked to COUNTRY as they might be fake? (and by taking them down, I mean changing it from to ). Secret Saturdays (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Fixed? J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it is now fixed, but we should put it in the signup rules to prevent this incident in the future. Thanks for fixing it. Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Around two months before the contest starts (in January 2010), a reminder notice will be sent to all reminding them that they signed up."

Considering its a bit less than a month till January 1 now, should these be going out by now? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My plan was to send it out on Saturday, but thanks for the concern. :) iMatthew ^talk at 11:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a lot of us know, there are little icons we can put at the top of our user pages to indiciate if we are admins, rollbackers, FBI-10-most-wanted-list fugitives, that sort of thing. I might be nice to maybe create something like that for the cup as well. Does anyone know if there is such a thing as a real wikipedia flag? If not, would there be any way to create an unofficial one, which could maybe be rendered into such a smaller format. Maybe having it apparently waving in the wind might be an additional plus, like the flag of Uruguay does in File:Banderauruguaya.gif. For a bigger image, maybe we could have Wikipe-tan standing lower left saluting it or something. Anyway, shutting up now. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely idea- I'd be inclined to use File:Trophy.png, which has been used elsewhere and I have just added to this page. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima, who was runner up in the 2009 WikiCup, has asked me to post a farewell on his behalf to the 2010 participants. Due to matters going on elsewhere at the site he will not be participating in the 2010 Cup. So he sends his best wishes and good luck to the other participants. Judges are welcome to verify this declaration. Durova³⁷⁹ 23:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC) And in case doubt arises, this is the only post I am making per his request.[reply]

Dear iMatthew,I figured something out. I am from Chicago, and I did ((flagicon|Chicago)) [NOTE: ((=}}] and here's how mine turned out:

163. Belugaboy535136 (talk · contribs)

Is it OK that I use it like that, or does it require to be the country?? Warm regards, Belugaboy535136 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be ok, but Chicago is already being used, so you must pick another flag. iMatthew ^talk at 23:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you by any chance have the Chicago suburb Downers Grove flag? Sincerely, Belugaboy535136 (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is one, sorry. If you don't choose a flag, one will be assigned- don't worry, it's not really important. J Milburn (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys, that's cool. I found the Washington State Flag was open, so I went ahead and got it. No harm, no foul, guys! Warm regards, Belugaboy535136 (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found out Vermont was open, so I took it. That's Ok, right, it's available?? Warm regards, Belugaboy535136 (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's great. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Airplaneman, he actually is on vacation. So, I had to change his flag, since he wouldn't be here until Sunday. Sorry, I was just trying to help. Regards, Belugaboy535136 talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you feel he would prefer the Czech flag? J Milburn (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, I'm sorry! I didn't realize he had been assigned that flag. I did some fooling around earlier this morning with the flag articles and found that it had been assigned to him. Again, sorry! I was a clueless goof! Belugaboy His talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Could someone explain why the flag of the Confederate States of America is permitted (#12 and #130)? The Nazi Germany flag isn't allowed, and I'm fine with that, but then to allow the flag of the Confederacy is just hypocrisy. They promoted slavery and suppressed civil liberties (all in their 4 years of existence). And they were the cause of the American Civil War (half a million dead). Aditya Ex Machina 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many modern nations also have horrific human rights records. Many historical nations, even historical nations tied to today's west, comitted atrocities. This is no reason to disallow them. This is meant to be a bit of fun. Is choosing the Nazi flag really consistent with that? I really don't think you can say "X nation did this, so shouldn't be allowed", with Nazi Germany being the obvious exception... That flag is associated with nothing but evil. The Condederate flags have many associations beyond the racial. Not to mention the fact that those flags are often still legitimately flown, while Nazi imagery is outlawed in many nations. There really is no comparison. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Aditya Ex Machina 00:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, per Milburn's reasoned argument above I have no further opposition to the use of the Confederacy flag. FTR. Aditya Ex Machina 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agreee it's problematic. Sure, it has meanings that aren't racist. It also has meanings that are decidedly offensive. Wikipedia is not censored, and in that spirit I think we shouldn't forbid anything that's not illegal. We should expect editors to act in good taste, but we shouldn't mandate it. Guettarda (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that, and I realise that, when under scrutiny, removing the Nazi flag doesn't really stand up. I was simply trying to make a fairly arbitrary decision in the spirit of the Cup as to what is tasteful and acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is due to ignorance of history that some people are taught to hate the CSA. The CSA stood for self-determination, without some outside force telling one what to do. Of course, normally the ignorant hate is directed to the "Battle Flag", not the First National/Star&Bars (which Dixon is using) or the 3rd National (the "current" and one I'm using). Plus, if you want to look at the rmeoval of civil liberties of people, Abraham Lincoln is a far better example.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 14:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies, King Bedford. I was under the impression that the CSA condoned slavery. Obviously, I was wrong about that, or maybe slavery isn't all that bad, judging by your passionate defense of the CSA above. Either way, I'll do my research better next time I accuse a group of such serious charges. Regards, Aditya Ex Machina 20:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder where we drew the like, for instance, the hammer and sickles is another that comes to mind....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, as I said above, you'd struggle to find a nation which hadn't done horrific things, either historical or modern. Without going into our own political views (I'd imagine there are a lot of "extremists" among us...), I just feel that the Nazi flag has the automatic association of evil that no other flag has. This isn't a matter of a solid line; this is a matter of making an abitrary judgement as to what is tasteful and appropriate, and what is not. J Milburn (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that the Nazi flag is actually restricted by law to fairly specific historical and/or commentary purposes in Germany. This puts it into a whole new ballgame. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Belugaboy535136 again. How does the WikiCup work?? I'm just curious to know, considering this is my first time. Warm regards, Belugaboy535136 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Well basically, you work on content, submit it, and if it's recognized as featured/good, you submit it to your submissions page and a bot does the rest. You can work on articles, pictures, sounds, or portals. Improve them to the best of your ability, and submit them at the proper venues (WP:FAC, WP:GAN, WP:FPC, etc). There are eliminations every two months, until we get to October, where we crown our winner. Good luck! iMatthew ^talk at 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you submit the entries to?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belugaboy535136 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You submit your entries to Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/Belugaboy535136, which is linked on your talk page (in the welcome to the WikiCup message) and on Wikipedia:WikiCup next to your name on the table. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]