The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:
So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Hi @5225C,
I came across Draft:Factions of the Liberal Party of Australia, and I see that you added Template:Promising draft to it. However, it seems that you are the creator of the draft. According to the template's page this template should be placed on drafts by editors other than the original draft creator (emphasis added).
I suspect you simply didn't realise this, so I just thought I'd let you know. I'd recommend removing it, simply so someone doesn't misinterpret it as poorly intentioned. Thank you for your edits! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were evidently unconstructive. You provided no justification for removing statistics from the infobox, where they are included virtually without exception across Wikipedia, other than "favouritism". What's with that? 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did provide justification, as you have noted. Whether or not you agree with the justification is a separate matter. The infobox only told half the story, giving the impression that there were only 3 candidates contesting the election. By including a picture for only the Greens candidate, it was even further favouritism.
The full results were already present; all information was still present somewhere on the page, after my edit.
You need excuses for undoing people's work − your reversion included no explanation at all. Wikipedia relies on people willingly contributing, and such actions break the social harmony. Owen214 (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really the line you want to take? Were there only three parties in the 2022 Australian federal election? Were there only two parties in the 2020 Eden-Monaro by-election or the 2020 Groom by-election? No, of course not, and as you've noted the information is available elsewhere for readers who desire a full breakdown of results. The infobox, as is plainly apparent to any reader, is a summary of the article listing key details. That is not misrepresentation of any kind. "Favouritism" is a frankly absurd complaint: there are no public domain images of the other two key candidates available. If you would like to supply Wikipedia with some, that would be great. You are the one who needs an excuse for undoing people's work – you are the one deleting content for incomprehensible reasons. My reversion restored it. Do not try and grandstand to me about "social harmony". 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are public domain images for all the candidates. Defining who is a "key" candidate is favouritism. People vote for who they're told is a candidate. By giving the Greens candidate more exposure than the other candidates, you're influencing the result for the next election.
Even if you feel your edits were justified, you owe your fellow contributors an explanation, if Wikipedia is ever to be harmonious and sustainable. Owen214 (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two pictures of Doyle on Commons, neither of which are suitable for the election article. There are no pictures of Campbell on the Commons. Your allegation that Wikipedia infoboxes influence election results is patently absurd. Last I checked, the AEC was not removing candidates from the ballot paper because Wikipedia didn't have them all in the infobox. I have already been extremely clear with my explanation and I do not intend to continue discussing this with you. Either escalate it to another forum, and I will contest it there, or drop the stick. You're going against extremely long-standing practices not just within Australian politics but amongst all election articles on Wikipedia, and you're not armed with a very convincing argument. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
