Open main menu
WikiCup content needing review

Featured content

Featured pictures


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)

Mass MailEdit

Hi all,

As it's only around a week to go before the deadline, would a mass message to the mail-list be a good idea to get some more eyes on the competition? I don't think it's needed to let anyone competing know, but might be good to push one out now, and one before the final round. Thoughts? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think we need a mass message at this point. Scoring has been brisk and the round is quite competitive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Bonus pointsEdit

Hi! I recently submitted a GA article for Daryl Peach, the bot awarded 1.2x multiplier, but I as far as I can tell it's only linked to four other wikis. Is the Initial wiki (the English one) included in the 5 languages multiplier?

Also, just a quick note, I had to change the link for one of my articles so that it showed the correct GAR. As this popped up before, I'd just like to comment that I fixed the link for 2019 Six-red World Championship. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

With regards to your first point, yes, English counts as one of the language versions, so that four other languages gives you a 1.2 multiplier and nine, a 1.4 multiplier. I'm not sure about your second point. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosa ParksEdit

Quite pleased with my newest FP, File:Rosa Parks being fingerprinted by Deputy Sheriff D.H. Lackey after being arrested for refusing to give up her seat for a white passenger on a segregated municipal bus in Montgomery, Alabama.jpg. Though given it took a week to do it, I do worry that FPs might be a little undervalued... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 18:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We'll have a discussion about the scoring after the end of the round. Of course you could choose easier restorations that would take you less long, but I can see you are very conscientious and like the challenge of a difficult task. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
True, but easy ones are kind of exchanging research time for less difficulty. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 23:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Also, isn't it kind of cheating to work under the level you can work for two months? I suppose I could've saved some FPs back from submission in previous rounds, but, again, that felt a little cheaty... Although I'm also pretty sure most contestants do it and I have no problem when they do it, so.. uh... AND for that matter, I kind of did hold back two, because I was trying to get better resolution of some points that apparently no-one but me cares about.
I dunno. Maybe we should put extra points on FPs above a certain number of megapixels. That's generally a good measure of amount of work, or, at least, the fairest non-subjective measurement. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7% of all FPs 20:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor thing, but...Edit

I made a typo when submitting an FP earlier today: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Iris Calderhead instead of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Iris Calderhead. I got the points, but if the bot's meant to be checking anything about nominations, it's not. This may be for the best, though; minor typos probably shouldn't cost points. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 21:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, uh...Edit

Reviewers seem to have dried up at FPC for the moment, which probably ends my run. And, while productive (I have 10 FPCs up at the moment, last I counted), I think I can certainly point to some impressive feats:

Dare you to remove writing that well.

Ach, but, really, it's just depressing. It's the first time I ever even had a chance at winning out of all the, what, ten or so Wikicups I've been in, and I hit reviewer burnout, because the number of FPs required is too high to realistically process. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 16:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a very impressive restoration. But creators and improvers of articles sometimes face similar frustrations when their FACs and GANs go unreviewed, or their DYKs remain unpromoted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the base points are worth slightly more for GAs, and a lot more for FAs, and bonus points can make them worth a lot more. And people on here actually do each others' GA and FA reviews. I get it, it's just frustrating. I'm pretty sure I have more FPs than any other person in the history of Wikipedia, and this is easily my best year ever. And it still looks impossible to make any progress. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 21:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any almost-closed nominations that are lacking votes? Were some recently closed without consensus? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: My experience is if there isn't votes after the first 2-3 days, it won't be able to catch up. The time at the top of the list is crucial. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 06:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiCup".