This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar.
This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past.
It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Survey for new page patrollers
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Adam Cuerden! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
A tag has been placed on File:Pisa Baptisery.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
File Moved on commons and the usage is replaced here, {{FP}} also added to the correct title
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Shanmugamp7(talk) 16:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for helping with the closure, and especially for the fixes to Goings-on and Template:Announcements, because I wasn't quite sure what to do with those. I think that's everything now - hopefully. It was our lab's Christmas party last night, so I'm still kind of recovering and not quite with it! Julia\talk22:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I didn't take anything personally. I fear you shall be waiting for the next blue moon for the article to be fixed. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 21:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Featured picture sets like the McPhersonville above could probably counted as two. The ones which take the form of an entire team of soccer players, maybe not - but we don't have many contributors on Wikipedia of those. The Tennyson one I'm not sure.
Also, Adam, I've found with FPs that "All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you during the competition to receive additional points." (my emphasis) needs more care than article work, where we have the history of the article. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adam Cuerden, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed1718:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Adam Cuerden, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.
Hello, Adam Cuerden. You have new messages at Talk:Alfred Kidney. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for fixing that problem! I have been wondering how to fix the redlink issue. Would you like to fix the other templates in that family? I would really appreciate it.
So under what file name would you like the new version uploaded? I'm just cropping the excess black border off now, but it downloaded and stitched together without a problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.
This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:
Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.
Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?
Thank you for granting me the barnstar in recognition of my work on portals, I really appreciate the recognition. :) — Cirt (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried that and got some blurry black lines (probably wasn't selecting far out enough) but this ended up decent for the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kewl. I don't think my system could handle the image, and my Photoshop has been gunky for the past few months. Should download GIMP again, that's how I got my "own-work" FPs (including this, which would be fun for April Fools) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey; I'm all for it, and I've been big on FSs in the past, but I'm not keen on bringing in new ways of scoring mid-competition. I'll watch what you're doing with interest, but I don't think we'll be able to offer points until next year, or, at the very least, until it's very much up and running. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're pretty passionate about FSC, and I hope you understand that, like you, I see potential in the project. That said, it's perhaps best if you tone down the rhetoric and aggression a little; it's not going to help your cause. I think more centralised discussion may be beneficial, and certainly getting a few more people on board. From where I'm standing right now, it seems like it's a bit of a one-man-army. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, sorry for missing the restoration credit. BTW, didn't another editor also do restoration efforts? I think that editor should be credited as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about music. I created {{The Tales of Hoffmann}}. It seems to me now that that template should link to Barcarolle (Offenbach) (which should also have a link in {{Jacques Offenbach}} when it gets created) rather than just link to Barcarolle. Is this correct? Should I remove the template from Barcarolle? You might even be knowledgeable to create the needed article given your performing aptitude. Could you create a proper page for these templates to link to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adam, guess you are busy, but will you get a chance to complete the review of the above article? There has been some expansions by me on the article as proposed, will be waiting to hear your thoughts on it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ]11:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature
FYI - you may already be aware of it - on one computer that I'm using your signature is simply bolded, but on another that I need to keep going to for a different project, it's both bolded and (I can't think of the word, where the font is offset slightly to give a 3D appearance). [Shadow.] Both of my computers are using XP, so I don't understand the difference. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is more appropriate for the Infobox in the Scott Allie article in this discussion? You don't need to know anything about Allie; I'm contacting you because you've worked on Featured Pictures. I tried contacting lots of editors who work on comics-related articles, but every time I do so, we wind up with the sentiments split down the middle, and no clear consensus. I'm thinking perhaps that people who work on matters dealing with photography might be able to offer viewpoints that yield a consensus. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You posted the request below to the Illustration Workshop top 4 a while ago. It's been two months and no one has taken it, and we need to update the requests. So I'm copying it here for your reference. You can wait several weeks and then repost it to the shop, although I'd advise you list it in the main workshop page, rather than the top 4, as the top is usually reserved for very simple, obvious files that need no follow up. Cheers! -- Orionist ★ talk22:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redraw as SVG. [N.B. There are several additional issues here: The punctuation is bad, for example, there should be a comma after the second "bells", and "O" should be "O!"; also, the music is written a bit sloppily: the quarter rest at the end of the second line is too far right. One could also question giving the same horizontal space to notes of different length, but that's a stylistic choice, albeit one that would make this far more difficult to use as sheet music.
I'm very busy just now, I fear. I'll try to do it if I get a chance, but I'm a chorister in The Yeomen of the Guard and we're on next week, costume pickup is tomorrow, band call Saturday, positioning Sunday, and dress Monday, then performances every day. Adam Cuerden(talk)04:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Mather Brown was typically credited as 'M. Browne' in England and 'M. Brown' in the U.S. Could there really be two M. Brownes that did commercial illustration in London during the 19th Century? If so, why is one of them famous and the other completely unknown? Kaldari (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing to members of WikiProject Opera who have been active on the talk page over the last year. We currently have a proposal to add infoboxes about individual operas to their articles. As this would involve a fairly major change from our current practice, and lead to a potentially lengthy transition, it would be helpful to hear the views from as many project members as possible. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Opera infoboxes. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam! I'm awarding you this Barnstar for your tireless works and effort in WP:FPC especially in the nomination involving this image. For me, I know that Wikipedia will be better as best it can be with you in it because of your exceptional FP works. Keep it up! Thanks and enjoy! :) Mediran (t • c) 05:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don Quichotte
A result to an unrelated search of mine (such is the web), I came across this large image of a Gustave Doré plate for Don Quichotte here. It's JPG, but it's larger (6456x8352) than the PNG version (6276 × 7,892), so I thought I'd run it by you. (I haven't downloaded the PNG or compared them.) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, nevermind. I didn't even see the jpg link (I did, but it didn't register). I need to stop working so late into the night, I tend to make myself look like a fool :) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies16:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone seriously put a pushpin in that picture? And not do anything about the pushpin before putting the image online? You know, like remove it? Wow... Sven ManguardWha?18:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration suggestion
USS Oriskany has a nice photo but it seems to have been restored from the original by an unknown person, and it's slightly smaller than the original scan size referenced here. Would you like to do one of your famous restoration jobs on the original? I think it would be suitable for FPC. --Pine✉20:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.
Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr (Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John (Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.
Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.
A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Please see the Ruddigore talk page. Also, in the blue-highlighted quote, can you add the page number on which the review appeared? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, heh, a DYK section for the portal. Sure, I can set one up for others to then fill out additional entries, no problem. :) — Cirt (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.
The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.
A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put on the licensing tag as you suggested, but I leave it to you if you can substitute a copy with better resolution. I think it is a very useful image, because this album cover has a lot of historical interest to G&S fans. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, I'm writing to members who participated in the March 2013 discussions about the possibility of developing an opera infobox. We now have a reasonably stable and usable box with examples of how it would look in articles at Template:Infobox opera and a new discussion re its potential addition to the project's Article Guide as an option for opera articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Opera Infobox update. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging these as something worth checking- I'm sorry, but they're not really ideal. We're keen on avoiding quick-fails and rubber-stamp reviews- while, obviously, they are sometimes appropriate and completely reasonable reviews, they're generally not eligible for WikiCup points. The quick-fail, Wulfheld and Athelm fall under the line in the sand given on the scoring page (at 286, 775 and 744 bytes respectively) and the Offenbach review isn't closed yet- you're only able to claim once the review is closed (though I suspect it will be eligible when closed). Please note that I am making no comment on the appropriateness of the reviews- I have no doubt the reviews were thorough, though I haven't looked at that. Based on what I've removed all four. J Milburn (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the review is the guide we use. Again, I'm certainly not trying to say that the reviews you completed were bad ones. The new ones look better- basically, in order for a a GAC to be eligible, it has to have some detailed pointers on what needs to be improved. If the article is already very much at GAC status, you can point at what may need to be improved for FAC. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Offenbach
Thanks for the GA review. I'm waiting for Tim riley to take a look at your review before I respond. He should get to it soon. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you submit the points before the end of the round (that is, before the 29th, Wikipedia time) you should be fine. J Milburn (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.
A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bonus points are currently used on articles/lists (DYK, GAC, FAC and FLC) and portals (FLC). Extending this to images is something that can be discussed later this year, but it strikes me that "number of Wikipedias on which an image is used" is not really a very good representation of the importance of the image. Just thinking aloud now, "lead image on a featured article" or "lead image on an article that exists on many Wikipedias" may be a better judge. I don't think there's going to be any easy way to judge this. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this link for how to start an RFC that a bot will add to the RFC categories that you pick. I mostly add RFCs to the Signpost DR that have been picked up by the bot. I moved the link that you provided in the DR to the Technical Issues and Templates section and formatted it to show that it's a new item in the report. --Pine✉18:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Main Page is not a centralized discussion page. "This page is for the community of Wikipedia editors to discuss the organization and layout of the main page." Throwing this at every possible wall you can find is not helpful...for anyone. --Onorem (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Adam Cuerden. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 17:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
This photograph touched me. Do you think there's any way that the photograph can be FP? We can crop the bottom subtitles and enlarge and darken it? What's the best avenue to take before I nominate it? I just wanted to hear your advice. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the controversies surrounding close paraphrasing there have been at FAC, I certainly don't. That's a legitimate fail for a legitimate concern. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dowse Sod House
Thanks for doing the GA review on Dowse Sod House. I appreciate your efforts. For what it's worth, I'm plannning to try to do some GA reviews myself once I've been through the process a time or two more with articles of my own—I want to get a feel for how various reviewers handle it before I try it.
I was a little worried about the OR thing myself, especially the date on the tornado. Note that I used "early 1940s" in the article, which is consistent with sources. I thought it important to put a footnote in, lest someone notice the (possible incorrect) 1941 date in some sources and insert that, thinking that they're being more precise: the footnote is there to warn editors about that.
I'll take your suggestion and move some of the statements regarding the historic significance of the house to the lead. I've got them in the very last paragraph, but it'd probably be good to put them in a more conspicuous position as well.
I suspect it might have been a good idea to contact the Wikinews community about this to notify them of the problem, at n:WN:WC, instead of the nomination, and see how willing they would be to approach the issues; and even if you choose to skip that step originally, still would have been a good idea to notify them of your nomination when you make it. Even so, as we're seeing community reaction to the nomination, I feel it would be useful of you to do the former as a follow-up. Thanks for your acute attention to detail! Cheers, --Gryllida08:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boccaccio (operetta), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Play (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
This appears to have been a drive-by nomination by Robert EA Harvey, who assessed it at B and thought it should be a GA, but who hadn't ever edited the article himself, and hasn't done so since your initial review on June 21. Other editors have made minor changes, but none of the "citation needed" templates have been addressed, and there's at least one bare url reference. It's probably time to close the nomination, unless the nominator is willing to take an active role in fixing the issues the review uncovers. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox image
Hello, Adam
I've been looking at this edit of yours and I have question: What was your purpose? Because {{infobox image}} is created to have an image but you enable code that defeats its sole purpose. If you wanted a title and text caption, there is whole fleet of other templates available. Perhaps we can best settle this if you tell me what you mean to do.
.jpg)
,_full_restoration.jpg)
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (
Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 
12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.
Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.
The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?
_-_March_17,_1924.jpg)
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with 
Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
Muboshgu (submissions) and 
Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (
Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.
.jpg)
Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: 
Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted 
Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, 
.jpg)
