Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiCup/Scoring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:26, 13 November 2015 editGodot13 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,555 edits →Disallowing OTRS images: pathetic← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:35, 14 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,902 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup/Scoring/Archive 9) (bot 
(349 intermediate revisions by 63 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ombox|type=delete|image=]|text=Please try to keep a level head in discussion here.}} {{ombox|type=delete|image=]|text=Please try to keep a level head in discussion here.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(365d) | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup/Scoring/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 9 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 20 }}

{{archivebox|<center>] ] ] ] ] ] ]</center>}} {{archivebox|<center>] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]</center>}}
{{TOC limit|3}} {{TOC limit|3}}


==2016 WikiCup points discussions==
So once again, it's the time of the year that we discuss the possibility of changing the points for the WikiCup. So, what worked this year? What didn't work? Are there new rules/methods of running the competition needed? Feel free to open subsections on different subject matters under this section and I'll add a straw poll section beneath this one.

There are several changes that the judges currently feel strong about however. The first is that ] should no longer generate points. We understand completely that some editors will feel that they are needed to reduce the workload at PRs - however from our experience they are extremely open to sub-par submissions, and from personal experience I can state that for the first few rounds of the 2015 they made up about 90% of the claims that I threw out. It is the only area of the cup where there is no intrinsic oversight built into the system, so it is entirely up to the judges to deem whether or not a PR submission is eligible. As such we simply have to admit that not everything can be included in the cup.

The second change is that the Featured Picture bonus points system we introduced for the 2015 did not work. While in a perfect world, the bot would have been able to calculate it all but we managed to create a system which was far too complicated for it to update. So instead, we would like to move to a non-bonus system for featured pictures - and I specifically remember Adam saying last year that it wasn't right, and I'm not embarrassed to say that he was right. So the first straw poll will be on this subject, specifically about what to do about the scoring level for those. But please keep it civilised; I know such discussions have gotten heated in previous years. ] (]) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
:I am disappointed with PRs planning to be dropped from the cup as I was the one who pushed for it. But I think the problem is that it got lumped in with GARs and had the same points total, which isn't what I proposed as I had said they should be less than GARs. I had proposed a separate scoring system where there had to be a minimum of valid points made in each review and/or a minimum character/word count but that got lost in implementation. I would ask if the judges would be prepared to reconsider and give PRs another go with less points on offer to disincentive mass joke reviews. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 09:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::There was a minimum size required this year, however you wouldn't believe the amount of padding out we saw in some cases. Even if a minimum number of points was mandated in each case, we then have to set what the minimum requirement for those points. We simply don't feel we should have to be the oversight for PR as in every other case where points can be scored in the cup there is an intrinsic means already built into the system for providing that. ] (]) 10:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::The minimum number of points I had initially suggested was 3 but if means are needed to ensure that it is a comprehensive review, then I would suggest a minimum of 9 valid and fully explained points for a PR to be valid and that it be worth around half that of a GAR (ie. 2 points) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 12:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::The judges don't have time to count bullet points and make a call on whether each comment is "valid". I am inclined to say that (regrettably) the removal of PR points is the right decision. ] (]) 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

===Featured pictures===

I find it rather disappointing that, with all the effort I put into the final round of the WikiCup 2015, I was unable to win the competition. I believe that a determined featured picture producer will always be able to beat a determined content creator because the review processes work in favour of featured pictures. I will explain:

Featured article candidates are limited to one solo and one joint nomination at a time. The candidacy process typically takes about four weeks, sometimes a little less and often rather more, and achieving more than 4 FAs in a two-month final round is theoretically possible but unlikely in practice. In common with other content creation categories used for scoring in the WikiCup, you are required to have done significant work on the article during the course of the competition to claim points.

Good articles can be nominated without limit to their number, the problem here being the backlog of articles awaiting review. If your articles do not get reviewed you do not score WikiCup points. DYK has a similar drawback. You can nominate an unlimited number of articles but there is a large backlog of nominations awaiting review and another backlog of reviewed articles awaiting promotion, and no promotion, no WikiCup points.

Featured pictures are different. There is no limit to the number of pictures that can be nominated at one time. There is a fixed period during which voting takes place and, with sufficient support, images are promoted ten days after nomination. There is no requirement for the nominator to have done significant work on the image during the course of the competition.

During the 2015 competition, which Godot13 won on the basis of his featured pictures, one batch of his images in the final round dated back to 2010, and others I checked dated back to 2013 and 2014. Only Godot knows how much effort he put into these images during 2015, but it is irrelevant anyway as there is no requirement in WikiCup rules for work having to be done on featured pictures during the course of the competition. Godot probably has a large supply of images on file from which he can draw if he feels his score needs boosting.


== ] ==
The bonus system in the Wikicup is designed to award more points for work on larger, more important articles, using the number of different language Wikipedias on which an article appears as a proxy for its importance. With featured pictures, it is not relevant whether the image appears in a more important article or a less important one, as no extra effort is needed for the former. I therefore think that there should be no bonuses of any sort for featured pictures and that their score should remain at the current level of 20. ] (]) 10:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:''there is no requirement in WikiCup rules for work having to be done on featured pictures during the course of the competition'' Why do you believe this? There is no exception for featured pictures written into the rules in this regard. ] (]) 11:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::How interesting! I wonder what steps the judges took to check that all the FP submissions were eligible? ] (]) 13:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Miyagawa}} {{replyto|Sturmvogel 66}} {{replyto|Figureskatingfan}} It would be interesting to have an answer to that question. ] (]) 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::I normally checked one picture per set or each singleton. I didn't see anything older than 2015. If you've got specific accusations, please provide the details.--] (]) 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::I am '''not''' accusing anyone of anything, I am making an enquiry as a result of my new understanding of the rules. Have a look at the set "A complete typeset of the Confederate States dollar banknotes (1861–1864)". Scroll to the bottom of the page and click "show extended details" and you will see that the set was digitized on 19 December 2013. The 2010 images I noticed were "France – Winged genius on the sol (1791), écu (1792), livre (1793), and franc (1889) " ] (]) 20:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::My understanding is that the "date digitized" in the EXIF will relate to when the museum (for example the National Museum of American History) digitized the image, not when {{u|Godot13}} did anything with it. {{u|Godot13}} only uploaded it in 2015, so 2015 is the relevant date. At the end of the day, I could spend the next year writing articles in notepad, and then upload them all through 2017 and win with ease. We can only deal with what happens on Misplaced Pages (and in this case, Commons), not off-Wiki. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::A quick comment - Some of the foreign gold coin images were ''taken'' in 2010, but were released under an ongoing OTRS ticket (and a long negotiation) and only uploaded in 2015. Some of the raw files acquired during prior trips to the Smithsonian (2013, 2014) were edited and prepared during 2015 and uploaded during 2015 (i.e., no work was performed on them previously, something that was specifically approved last year). Some people just love drama...--] (]) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::@]- On a second reading, try being a ]. Everyone who participated worked very hard.--] (]) 20:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::{{replyto|Godot13}} Your assurance as to your actions is entirely satisfactory and I congratulate you on your victory. I had no intention of questioning your integrity, but I had certainly misinterpreted the rules as they related to FPs. ] (]) 20:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*Quite apart from the difficult task the judges have of deciding the amount of effort needed to bring an article or image to FA, GA or FP standard, there is another aspect they should consider when considering scoring. Having nominated a FP, little or no further input is required from the nominator, while in the case of a FA candidate or a GA nominee, the review process usually requires considerable further effort that is likely to be measured in hours rather than minutes. ] (]) 06:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
**] - ''First off'', the point you may be missing here is that often times a FPC can be a routine oppose. If it is, that’s it, game over. There is no opportunity to make changes (beyond some perspective, exposure, and/or lighting corrections, outside of restoration work). If the image isn’t there, it’s not going to get there. That is also an important distinction to keep in mind for the judges. FA and GA nominations can be tweaked, massaged, improved, and worked on in ways an FPC never could. ''Second'', there you go putting down (belittling?) the FP process again. Off the top of my head, take a look at and and let me know how many hours of revisions, beyond the several months of initial restoration, were involved in each (hint – it was well over 20-30 hours each, with the title plate in the second set taking over 30 hours alone).--] (]) 22:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


Is it kosher to claim ] for WikiCup. I started the article and co-wrote it with {{u|GreenMeansGo}}. I nominated it for GAR but it passed GA very quickly and I did not participate in the GAR. I had . ---&nbsp;]&amp;]]) 21:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
===A general proposal===
:For the record, by the time we got to GA there was naught but a few minor tweaks here and there. So the fact that I got all the GAN comments was just a measure of who got their coffee first that morning, not that one of us put in a ton of work at review and the other didn't. The work was done before we ever got there. ]] 21:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Based on some of the comments/suggestions during the competition and this discussion I wanted to float an idea. A recent comment by Adam has a great deal of truth to it: I am in a rather unusual position to have access to very large numbers of objects that can be digitized for use on Misplaced Pages (and in the Cup). So far that has only involved numismatics, but there are other avenues to pursue (it is, after all, the Smithsonian). There was some fairly radical point inflation (devaluation) in scoring this year, I suspect in large part due to the FP "issue" of last year. Despite what many thought was a sufficient shift in points, FPs again dominated and now I expect to see another round of point shifting. My access should not negatively influence the future use of FPs in the Cup and the desire of those who may want to rely on them to compete. I have won twice. I am content with that. I would like to compete again, but in a different way.
::Should be fine. ] (]) 14:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


== Two questions ==
I propose returning the scoring values to those used in 2014, for all categories. It already seems like the bonus points will revert back to the same format. I further propose that if I do compete next year, ''I will not be eligible to win''. I would follow all the same rules, and advance or be eliminated based on points. However, ''no one would be "losing their space" based on my advancement'' (i.e., any pool I advance into would have nine competitors).


First, I want to know if I can claim articles like ] if I have not nominated them, but have addressed some comments at the GAN. To which extent must I participate at the GAN to claim articles? Do count toward GAN? Presumably goes for ].
The purpose of this is to ensure that someone else has the opportunity to win, and makes the last factor in this proposal tricky. I would like to invite ] to consider doing the same thing. With all due respect to all the Cup competitors, Cwmhiraeth (the original two-time winner) is a dominant force in this game, and a multi-faceted player. For this to work (i.e., giving a field of players a real chance to win) we would both need to agree to compete in the same manner…--] (]) 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
:In my view, both of these articles are eligible for points as you have played a substantial role in expanding the articles and preparing them for GAN. I don't think it matters how much you participated in the GAR process. ] (]) 18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


Second, I claimed ] as a GAN, but the bot does not seem to be calculating points for interwikis. There are 6 interwikis, so that should've been a 1.2-times multiplier. I did add this article at the same time as another which had a 1.0-times multiplier. ] (]) 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
:I am in general agreement with Godot13's proposal, including FPs scoring 35 points next year as was the case in 2014, however there are some aspects of his proposal with which I do not agree. I suggest instead that if he and I wish to participate in the 2016 WikiCup, we agree together in advance that we will retire from the contest at the end of the fourth round, if not eliminated earlier, leaving the field open for other editors to battle it out in the final round. ] (]) 10:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:I don't know the answer, but I believe the Bot looks at the position at the start of the year and there may have been fewer interwikis then. ] (]) 18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Cwmhiraeth}}, thanks for both of the replies. I'll add these articles to my WikiCup page, then. ] (]) 19:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
::That's exactly right. At the beginning of the year Wikidata only listed one interwiki (Korean). On this particular occasion, I think Wikidata was just a bit behind: from a cursory inspection PT, ES, FR, IT and KO all seem to have had extant articles, they just weren't linked to Wikidata. In such circumstances I think it is open to the judges, upon further inspection, to overrule the bot manually and apply a small multiplier. - ]&nbsp;<sup>] ]'']</sup> 10:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
:::I have done as suggested, and added 7 bonus points to your score. ] (]) 10:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|Cwmhiraeth}}, thanks. This has happened again with ], which had 14 interwikis but I did not receive any bonus points. ] (]) 21:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. I have added 14 bonus points. ] (]) 05:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


== Question regarding scoring of a DYK submission ==
::No objection to the above-mentioned suggestion of retirement at the conclusion of the fourth round (provided I haven't already been eliminated).--] (]) 12:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I seem to recall that {{ping|Nergaal}} made a similar suggestion earlier. I will say that I think this is a good idea because it means that the big hitters in the competition can still compete while giving others a target to aim while not feeling threatened that they might miss out. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 13:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


I recently submitted ] to my nominations page as ]. The page is currently 37 KB in prose size. I noticed that the bot has awarded me a 2x multiplier with 16 bonus points, but did not add 5 extra base points for the size bonus. Is this an error, or else is there something I'm missing? Thanks. ] (]) 17:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
==Straw polls for 2016==
:Perhaps the bot was overawed by the massive expansion! I have adjusted your score. ] (]) 09:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
===Featured pictures===
::{{u|Cwmhiraeth}}, thanks for the response. I'm not sure what happened but the score was reverted with by the bot. ] (]) 15:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
====Featured pictures should be worth the same base points (20pts), but with none of the bonuses available ====
:::I'm genuinely not sure what happened with Singer Building -- I thought it might be because you claimed extremely promptly (while it was still on the front page) but since the bot had no trouble with ] in the same situation I'm flummoxed. What I can say, though, is that to overrule the bot a judge has to change the multipler template on the submissions page -- if you don't do that, then it will overwrite any manual changes to the main table (this is intentional so as to keep the two sets of pages mutually consistent). Hope that helps, - ]&nbsp;<sup>] ]'']</sup> 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I am fine with most aspects of scoring. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::{{u|Jarry1250}}, that is very strange indeed. Thanks for the helpful response and for the debug. ] (]) 16:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
*'''<s>Support</s>''', seems about right. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
**Sorry, having seen {{u|Godot13}}'s response, can I clarify what we're !voting on? Are we saying 20 points, with no possibility of bonus? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Essentially this is lowering the possible score.--] (]) 20:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Note''' - this is based on FPs base score this year of 20 points. I've added that to the subsection header for clarity. ] (]) 20:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
**'''Further note''' - Also to add that the bonus system cannot be supported by the bot and so FPs are moving back to a base score only system for 2016. Please vote based on that. ] (]) 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - It will ensure more competitive contest. ] (]) 06:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


== Questions regarding nominations ==
====Featured pictures should be worth more points====
* '''Support''' if bonus points are being removed, then FPs should have a higher base worth, at least equivalent to GA. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' though the amount of increase should probably be a lot more if the old bonus system for articles is reverted to: the 2015 bonuses reduced the possible value of all article types quite a bit compared to the old system, so returning to the old system would penalize all non-multiplied content types. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 21:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ] <sup>]</sup> ''at least'' the value of a GA.--] (]) 21:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''. I disagree with ], Godot had 253 FPs promoted in the final round this year, a feat impossible to replicate with GAs.</s> ] (]) 06:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
**{{ping|Cwmhiraeth}} However, thanks to the removal of FP bonus points, and the likely increase in GA bonuses by the revert to the 2013 bonus system, a vote for it not to be increased is actually a vote for decrease. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 05:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
*** Indeed, and that was the intention because in 2015 Godot romped away and keeping the points the same would give him less chance of repeating this. However on reflection, FP points should not be allocated on this basis but rather on their merits, and I have struck my oppose. ] (]) 06:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
****{{ping|Cwmhiraeth}} One problem is that the bonus system last year, meant to encourage high-value images, was quite badly implemented. What should have been an experiment to try and encourage high-value images was handled in a manner to cause maximum disruption, and only the most prolific featured picture contributor Misplaced Pages has ever had, by a long margin, actually bothered to try and compete under the revised rules. If everything's based on Godot alone, we're likely to get a situation where noone who works in featured pictures that isn't Godot ever bothers to join. I know that in previous years, I found it incredibly frustrating: Working in the field of FP I do, I have, even in my most productive years, never broken 100 FPs. That leads to a very, very frustrating competition where there was nothing I could do; I might just scrape into the last round, but even the year I literally worked myself to such burnout that I pretty much stopped editing Misplaced Pages for the next three months, I couldn't even come close to placing in the last round (all the while hearing complaints about how "easy" FPs were while I damaged my health in order to try and keep up). I can't imagine anyone from FPs besides Godot joining the Wikicup without some major rule changes. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 15:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''. Some balancing is required btw article and picture scoring. This way content-(creating)promoting users will be highly discouraged against a vast collection of photos (though they are also so valuable). Otherwise, two separate categories might be a solution.</s> --] (]) 07:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
**{{ping|Hanberke}} One of the basic principles of Misplaced Pages is you don't get to tell people where they should be working, though. The idea that we should force people who are good at image work to do article work is kind of odd. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 05:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
**{{ping|Adam Cuerden}} I'm quite surprised how you got the notion of "forcing" the people (image workers) to article work. I just suggested "some" "balancing" in the scoring in order to keep both image workers and article workers in the competition. With current way of scoring, Godot13 will surely (if he wishes of course) get all the trophies for 5 years in success, and that might mean decrease in the amount of featured and good articles. As for creating two separate categories (ex. Wikicup Picture 2016 vs Wikicup Article 2016), it can attract more image and article workers to the corresponding categories. Current system is sth like comparing apple and pear. ] (]) 06:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
***{{Ping|Hanberke}} I'm not sure what you mean by "This way content-(creating)promoting users will be highly discouraged against a vast collection of photos" - it kind of sounds like you want to push people away from images and towards articles, since, y'know, if vast collections are discouraged by keeping their points low, and the points for an image in a collection are the same as a single image, single images are '''far more discouraged''' than collections, as collections are the only way to get any substantial number of points. So... it rather seems you are trying to "highly discourage" work on images, or I'm missing something. Godot13 has been more productive, at least in number of images, than any other image content creator in Misplaced Pages history, probably by around a factor of five. He kind of deserves to win. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 15:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
***{{Ping|Adam Cuerden}} Why to beat around the bush? I clearly explained my suggestion to keep the contest more competitive. You probably seem to favor and admire image creating, that's very good. I also admire (as I had indicated earlier) valuable photos from distant past. I know and appreciate that editing is a hard work, too. I never intended to discourage and impede ]'s success. On the contrary, I wish him to go on vigorously with his contributions. Besides, he was the only image worker in the final stage. I've been constantly following his contributions. It is nothing to do with who is more productive and who wins, ] or ]. What matters is 1) contestants will enjoy and be proud of their works and 2) is to ensure quality wiki content (both articles and photos) for entire community. Sorry, but can't you see that, technically, Godot13 can beat all his opponents as long as his institution archive is not depleted? Why not creating two categories: Picture and Article? '''Mine was just a suggestion worth to be discussed'''. Cheers! ] (]) 04:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
****{{ping|Hanberke}} Understood, but the problem is that, if we're not careful, we're going to make the competition impossible for anyone not as productive as he, and he is, by quite a bit, uniquely productive. I can't imagine your purpose is to exclude all non-Godot FP creators, but '''that is exactly what will happen''', and, indeed, exactly what did happen after the rule changes last year. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 11:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
*****{{Ping|Adam Cuerden}} Now I got the point. While trying to fine tune the balance btw Godot and Cwm, other image content creators will exactly shy away from the contest. That's why I've removed my oppose vote. ] (]) 12:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


Hey there! I initially chose to just predict whatever the writers are implying, but felt like asking is the best way of knowing.
====Featured pictures should be worth less points====


* On FA, FL, and GA, can nominations nominated before January 1 but closed during or after January 1 accepted?
====Unsure what this means====
* On ITN, are Ongoings eligible?
We're moving off (I think) of a complicated bonus system, where there were, in theory, multiple values for FPs. What, exactly, is this straw poll voting on? Keeping the base points (which were probably very rarely the actual value, so an effective drop?) Keeping the FP points and bonus system? Can this poll say what it actually means? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 20:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
* "For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Misplaced Pages) on which an article appears" on their Main Page?
:The poll discussion above would be based on the base score for FPs, eliminating the bonus points. So that would be 20 points per image. ] (]) 20:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::So the bonus points aren't up for discussion? That's fair enough, but it could screw things over after some of the other voting. I'd also like to point out that I can't imagine that anyone not in Godot's situation could get beyond a couple rounds of the competition working in FPs as it stands. Institutional access to unique objects that do not need their initial scans substantially edited is ''incredibly valuable'', but it's not likely to be repeated by anyone else, and using that as the baseline level of FP production needed for serious competition is probably going to screw over anyone not in that unique situation. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 20:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I think the bonus points were so universally unpopular both by those doing FPs and those trying to see how many points that FPs were worth, and the lack of bot support for it means that it isn't worth the discussion. They didn't work, and the bot couldn't do them meaning that in the run up (specifically in the final round) you didn't have complete clarity about the scores. ] (]) 20:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::@]- Eliminating the FP bonus and keeping the base score the same is in essence reducing the value (yet again) of FP. Do we need to go over this all over again?--] (]) 21:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::We're not saying anything. Bonus points are gone. The points score has to be set somewhere so that straw polls can be made. That is all. ] (]) 21:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::I absolutely agree with what ] says with regard to scoring for featured pictures. ] (]) 07:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::As do I, with no disrespect to Godot and the value these images bring to Misplaced Pages. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


Would appreciate answers. Not that I won't be watching this, so you gotta ping me. Thanks, ''']]''' 13:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
===Disallowing OTRS images===
:{{Ping|Gerald Waldo Luis}} Answering your questions in order below.
I mean no disrespect to Godot and his ability to get images released to Misplaced Pages via OTRS, but I wonder if it's really in the true spirit of the Wikicup to allow content that wasn't created by a Wikipedian to win over participants that submit only their own content. I suggest that we disallow OTRS images from earning Wikicup points, and only accept images or scans created by a participant. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
# These are eligible.
# Any bold-linked article in the ''In the news'' section can be claimed for, irrespective of whether it first appeared there in 2020 or in 2021. Not the main COVID articles in the box at the top, however.
# This refers to the interlanguage links at the bottom of the sidebar on the left. As an example, the article ] is present in 10 Wikipedias, 9 foreign language ones plus the English language version. ] (]) 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


== Bonus points system ==
Per Sturmvogel, we should also allow restorations that entailed significant work. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


This is my first time in the cup. As a new participant, I want to provide feedback regarding this system. I feel like this bonus system is unfair. It requires minimum of 5 Wikipedias on which the article has appeared. Now, someone one who contributes to movies, TV shows, or anything related to Westen world etc has an advantage, because these things are more popular. And someone who contributes to like Indian articles (like me) is unable to taste the bonus. Minimum 5 GA, FA, DYK in other Wikipedias are very distant things, articles in other Wikipedias don't even exist. So, there's no scope of bonus.
*'''Support''' Disallowing the submission of OTRS images that were not scanned or photographed by a participant. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
**Not going to happen as that would disallow most image restorations.--] (]) 04:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
***Well, I guess we could include image restorations that involved significant work. My point here is that to claim points for an image that you didn't take, restore, or scan is not in the spirt of the Wikicup. Yes. It's great to get those images on Commons, but you should not be able to win this competition with content you did not create, scan, or restore. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
****]- Could you clarify which you are talking about? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your premise, but some of my OTRS files not photographed by me were significantly created by me. Thanks. --] (]) 23:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
::::*{{u|Godot13}}, okay, these are right off the top of last round's submissions, and I freely admit that I don't understand all the licensing and author attribution stuff, so I may be just confused, but it looks like some of the images you claimed are not in any way attributed to you. Such as these: ]. If you restored or scanned this it's not obvious. With these: ] and ], the permission says: "Image use outside of Misplaced Pages should clearly give photographic credit to Heritage Auctions", and you are not the author or the source, so what exactly did you do beside file the OTRS? I'm not trying to be a complainer here, but I am concerned if many of your submissions were not photographed, scanned, or restored by you. I may well be wrong about this, as I said I don't understand everything about the permissions and licensing stuff, so I apologize in advance if I'm way off base here. I would like to ask you though, how many images did you submit that you didn't either take, scan, or restore? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::*{{u|Rationalobserver}} - Even though OTRS images are scorable without discriminating level of involvement (something I do not agree with), your questions are fair and I'm happy to answer them. 1) The linked 1,000 Lithuanian German ostmark note I had nothing to do with, but it also wasn’t the one that got featured... I offered ], scanned by me at the Smithsonian, as an alternative image which was then promoted to FP. Unless I am overlooking something, ''all banknote images I have submitted'' as FPC (and for the Cup) were originally selected, handled, scanned, sized, color corrected, and/or level adjusted by me. The multiple sets of U.S. gold coins were part of a photoshoot at the Smithsonian. I scheduled and coordinated the shoot. I spent four days selecting the specific examples to be photographed, I arranged for the photographer, and all the equipment. I was present for the week-long shoot, and placed and arranged the coins. I did extensive work on sizing, lighting/exposure, and color correction from the raw files, and creating the two-sided images. The only thing I did not do was press the capture button or run the photo stacking software program. Despite not taking photo credit (or making a note regarding production credit), I feel fairly confident that my level of involvement with this group removes it from the general OTRS category. 2) All of the ] are courtesy of Heritage Actions through an OTRS ticket. If you go to any of the images and look at the source field and click on the linked lot number you can see the original images. There was some work required to get these into presentable shape (and the non-circular medallions required more work). 3) The "least" amount of original work on a category of OTRS items was probably the world coins (with a 2010 image date). They still required some work for sizing (matching both sides), exposure/lighting, smoothing/evening the background, etc., but this was probably only between 30-60 minutes per image (for less than 20 images). 4) To the best of my knowledge, I have never (for the purposes of the Cup) taken an OTRS image that required no work to FPC and then submitted points. Even though it is permitted by the rules, I am against the concept myself. I hope this answers your questions.--] (]) 15:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::*{{u|Godot13}}, thanks for the detailed reply. I guess my follow-up questions are 1) did you pay for the creation of any of these images?, and 2) were you paid to create any of these images? I.e., were you on the clock of an employer when you were creating images? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::*] - Again, happy to answer questions. Could you explain the relevance of the last question?--] (]) 21:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::*Sure, {{u|Godot13}}. My thinking is that this is a competition between amateur volunteers, so if you're being paid to create the images that you later submit for Wikicup points you are essentially a professional competing against amateurs, which is typically considered poor form. They took ]'s Olympic medals away after they found out he had once been paid to play baseball. Most of us edit ''around'' our work schedules, but if you are being paid you can do both. So, are you double-dipping in the sense that you are being financially compensated for the files you create? I'm going to go ahead and ping {{u|Miyagawa}}, {{u|Sturmvogel 66}}, {{u|Adam Cuerden}}, and {{u|J Milburn}} to this discussion, since they can shed some light on the relative appropriateness of professionals using their work to compete against amateurs in the Wikicup. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::*I've just got to ask. What on earth does this have to do with anything? ] (]) 21:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::*I assume this question is rhetorical, but it has to do with professionals competing against amateurs, which is considered inappropriate in most places around the world. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::*(edit conflict) ] - If you wanted to discuss this we could have, but when you ping the present and former judges to join in, I think you've crossed a line in assuming bad faith. You have no idea what I get paid for in real life and what I don't. But that's enough from me...--] (]) 21:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::*I pinged them because I don't know if this is a problem, as it sounds like you are indeed being paid to create images you then use to compete in the Wikicup. I think that's unethical, but if the judges are fine with it lets establish that here, so the issue can be put to rest. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::*You have now inferred that I am acting unethically... --] (]) 21:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::*Well, yes. It's considered unethical for a professional to compete against amateurs. I didn't formulate this expectation; it's nearly universal in all competitions. If this is the case, which it seems it is, I'd really like to hear from the judges as to the appropriateness. If they say it's allowable I won't mention it again. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::*What do you think of this, {{u|Cwmhiraeth}}? Apparently some of Godot's submissions were merely color adjusted or tweaked for esthetics, but not scanned, taken, or restored. Also, what is your stance on Godot using images in the Wikicup that he was paid to create? It makes me wonder, if these were discounted, if you'd have been out high scorer. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}You're piling assumptions upon assumptions from facts not in evidence. You would do well to check your assumptions at the door; they have no place here.--] (]) 23:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:I said right off the bat that I might be wrong, so that's not assuming, but after reading Godot's response, I don't think I am wrong. After all, he could easily so, "no, I didn't get paid to make any of the images I submitted", and the discussion would be over and clear-cut. Can you answer? Is it okay for me or anybody else to submit Wikicup entries we were paid to create? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:*]- You do not do justice to your username but rather reinforce its ]. You asked a question, I asked the relevance of your question, and based on my caution ni responding (now supported) you made accusations. If you had ever bothered to check my user page you might have noticed that I am a psychologist and have an interest in numismatics. Last I checked, it is not within the job description of psychologists to scan currency at the Smithsonian. I have also stated (in numerous past talk page discussions) that I am a Research Associate (volunteer) at the Smithsonian in DC. As such, I have never been paid in any way to produce images of paper currency or coins. Out of respect for professional psychology ethics, I will keep my opinions of your behavior to myself. If you continue to make unfounded accusations this will become an issue for AN/I (not a threat, simply a matter of fact).--] (]) 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


I have a suggestion. Instead of having a bonus point system like this, we can do this thing: Some percentage of points from the previous round will be added to the next round. Like someone has 1000+ points in Round 1. He/she will get 25% of that in the next.
===Featured pictures should vary in points, based on...===
* 100+ points - 5%
All of these would be self-reported, by splitting the FP lists. For example, the first option might mean that you listed FPs under "Individual FPs" or "Gallery FPs" on your submissions page.
* 250+ points - 10%
* 500+ points - 15%
* 750+ points - 20%
* 1000+ points - 25%
The point system will have slabs like this. <b style="border:1px solid black">&nbsp;]&nbsp;❯❯❯&nbsp;<b style="color:#0043AF"><small><small>Stay safe</small></small></b>&nbsp;</b> 20:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
:What you say is true and we can discuss your suggestion at the end of the contest. The bonus system is meant to be an incentive to encourage the improvement of important topics, and because you can't actually measure "importance", it uses the number of other language Wikipedias as a proxy. However, you can work with the rule to your advantage in the WikiCup by selecting articles to work on that do appear on multiple Wikipedias. When I was a contestant, I used to search out aged stubs for articles that appeared on multiple Wikipedias and expand them for DYKs, and I scored a great many bonus points! ] (]) 06:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


== DYK points ==
Phrasing is generally "more points if not..." as opposed to "less points if" given the removal of this year's bonus system basically dropped FP points already before voting on points even began. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 08:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Can I get the DYK points for an article that I created and improved to GA? <b style="border:1px solid black">&nbsp;]&nbsp;❯❯❯&nbsp;<b style="color:#0043AF"><small><small>Stay safe</small></small></b>&nbsp;</b> 08:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
====More points if not in galleries====
:No. No DYK points for GAs. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 08:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Images only used in a gallery of three or more images <small>(one image "galleries" are a decent way to handle panoramas, and there's templates for double images, hence "three or more images" is probably a good way to avoid arguments later)</small> should get slightly fewer points than those outside of galleries. This would NOT include tables, unless the following passes.
*'''Support''' Something around 25 or even 20 points in galleries, with 30-35 points outside of galleries seems reasonable. Emphasises images that have enough uses to stand on their own somewhere. Of course, if the bonus point system for articles goes back to the higher-scoring one of last year, we should probably add another 5-10 points onto both of those suggestions. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 09:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{Ping|ArnabSaha}} It depends on whether it qualified for DYK as a newly created or 5x expanded article, and was nominated for DYK on that basis. If that is the case, it can be claimed for. However, if it qualified for DYK on the basis of being a newly-promoted GA, then the DYK cannot be claimed for because no extra work is needed above fulfilling the GA criteria. Which article are we talking about? ] (]) 08:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
:::] this article. Just completed the article. GA review was done under QPQ and nominated for DYK. <b style="border:1px solid black">&nbsp;]&nbsp;❯❯❯&nbsp;<b style="color:#0043AF"><small><small>Stay safe</small></small></b>&nbsp;</b> 11:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
::::Then the answer is no. If it was nominated for DYK before the GA nomination it would have been OK. But since it hasn't been created or expanded in the last wek as the grounds for the DYK and is relying on the GA status for it, then I am afraid you can't get any DYK points for it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 11:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
:::::I see. Thanks for the info. <b style="border:1px solid black">&nbsp;]&nbsp;❯❯❯&nbsp;<b style="color:#0043AF"><small><small>Stay safe</small></small></b>&nbsp;</b> 12:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


== "Substantial work" and ITN ==
====More points if not in galleries or tables====
E.g. ]. This is dangerous, though, as such tables can easily make up most of the encyclopedic value of an article.
*'''Neutral''' <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 08:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Although Amakuru was kind enough to include me in ], I don't ''think'' my contributions to the ] article are substantial enough to claim credit, but I was curious whether it met the barest minimum standard. ] (]) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
====More points if a non-trivial, non-gallery image within a featured article====
:Borderline, I should say. Most "In the news" submissions are rather more substantial. ] (]) 19:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Again, would need to be self-reported (and failure to self-report should result in not getting the points. But I could see, say, a 20 point bonus to encourage collaboration with article writers.
::{{re|Cwmhiraeth}} thanks! Since I don't do ITN, it was something I was trying to get a sense of. ] (]) 19:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


== "worked on significantly" ==
Reasoning: FAs are generally well-curated, so getting an image into them shows high value. Trivial images would include being used in a template at the bottom of the page, or, for example, a detailed flag SVG... which is only used as a 20px thumbnail. Generally speaking, anything that's actually shown in the article, illustrating text, would be non-trivial.


Is there any existing published guideline or precedent (e.g. authorship percentage) used in assessing whether a nominator has done enough work on a GA-nominated article to satisfy the condition that "All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you to receive points", or is it left to the judges' discretion on a case-by-case basis? I'm planning to work at some point on ], which was nominated for GA last year and which I reviewed at the time. I don't foresee me having a particularly large authorship percentage on it to get it to what I think would be close to GA standard. (Maybe 15% as a ballpark estimate.) That leads to a second question, which is: is there any time or other restriction on nominating an article which one has previously reviewed? Regards, ] (]) 21:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Not claimable after the round the FP was promoted finishes.
:To answer your first question, it's on a case-by-case basis, but looking at the article you mentioned, you have already done sufficient work for it to qualify were it to become a GA. As for your second question, I think there are no restrictions. ] (]) 06:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks for your prompt response, {{u|Cwmhiraeth}} - I'll ask the judges if I'm not sure about a specific article. Regards, ] (]) 11:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


== FAC review vs FLC review vs GA review ==
* '''Support''' presuming the self-reporting template isn't too difficult. I'd imagine a template similar to the one that adds bonus points to article submissions, but added by the user. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 09:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Maybe it's just the way I do things, but I've noticed that a typical FA review from me is large (like ], at 21,260 bytes) while I see a GA review of my own nomination weighing in at 855 bytes ( ]). Both reviews are scored as 5 points in the current regime. I'm not sure these reviews should be given an equivalent amount of points. I'm not suggesting it should change this year of course, but it's certainly something that I think needs reflection before next year's WikiCup. Perhaps like the current GAN drive, some consideration needs to be given to the volume of text being reviewed at the very least, or somehow a quantitative measure of the effort being expended. I'm not suggesting that the GAN review was less onerous or complete than the FAC review, but one was around '''25 times''' lengthier than the other yet both attracted 5 points. And certainly, from my point of view, FLC reviews are somewhere in between FA reviews and GA reviews... Interested to hear the opinions of others. ] <small>(])</small> 22:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
====More points if it is the intro/infobox picture====
:It's an interesting point. A GAN review should be more onerous, as it requires a consideration of all the criteria and should be thorough enough to determine whether they are all met. The reviewer liaises with the nominator and checks that all necessary improvements are made. Reviewing at FAC is different, it does not need to cover all aspects of the criteria, and whether the article gets promoted or not is a sum of all the reviews it has received. So a GAN reviewer has a responsibility whereas a FAC reviewer makes a contribution. ] (]) 08:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
This would be tricky to enforce/judge, but the spirit would be if the image is truly representative of the article, then it should receive more points. And there would be a single such image in an article. ] (]) 16:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' I don't think this is a particularly reliable guide to value, and encourages inappropriate swapping out of lead images. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 22:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


::I’m fully aware of the roles at GAN and FAC, but that’s not really the point at all. This competition is about effort expended to improve Misplaced Pages and as noted, it makes no sense at all that one review which is 30 times the size of the other, which includes a much higher level of scrutiny and far greater attention to detail is worth the same as a quick GAN review. There should be some consideration given to the size of the reviews as a minimum and probably some level of acceptance that reviewing a FAC is a much more onerous task than simply plopping in a GAN review template with half a dozen comma fixes. ] <small>(])</small> 09:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
====More points non-raster files====
Basically if it involves more than just a camera or a scanner and photoshop. Yes, restorations are tricky, but putting together a svg diagram of the internal organs of a snail, or a diagram of a truck is more tricky IMO. Perhaps have tier 1) as all raster formats; 2) all vector formats and other media types like gif or avi. ] (]) 16:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:Having done vector images before, I'd dispute the logic of this. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 16:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
::So you think getting a FP from an .svg file is easier than from a .jpg/.png? Even if that is the case, I am having a hard time imagining situations where somebody would get FP sets of .svg files] (]) 18:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Nergaal}}One of the biggest sets in FP history was the map projection set, ]. That was JPEG, but would be fairly trivial to auto-generate maps as a set of SVGs, at least in theory, as projections are mathematical transforms Other examples of possible sets include, say, ] (of which I believe all the English-language ones are featured). Also, featured SVGs can be very simple: ], ]. Obviously, both re valuable, but you're making an argument based on complexity and amount of difficulty, and, as such, I ''really'' don't think you're thinking this through. '''Oppose.''' <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 22:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


::I guess I'll have to bring this up before next year's competition. Just a quick glimpse at something like ] where I've contributed 9KB of review in a day should not be considered equal to a GAN review of less than a KB. It's pretty clear there needs to be consideration given to review size, or even size of article reviewed. ] <small>(])</small> 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
===Featured articles===
====Featured articles should be worth the same points====
*'''Support''' I am fine with most aspects of scoring. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. ] (]) 11:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the points were massively increased from 2014, but I think there were still a relatively small number of FA entires throughout the 2015 cup. ] (]) 18:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


== ] ==
====Featured articles should be worth more points====


I claimed this as a DYK because I expanded it fivefold to about 29 kb of readable prose size (it was approved as a GA before running on the main page, but I believe this is fine since I expanded it 5x for DYK before the GA promotion). For some reason, I did not get 5 bonus points when I put it in ], which I would've normally gotten for an article above 5 kb of prose. I'm not sure what happened there, because I got the two other bonuses, for interwikis and for the article having existed for about 14 years. ] (]) 19:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
====Featured articles should be worth less points====
:I agree that it should have the extra 5 base points, as awarded to your other expansions. I have adjusted your submission accordingly and I think the bot will adjust the points. ] (]) 07:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support''', but only slightly, probably to something like 180. They are definitely worth significantly more than a GA or FL, but I think the gap is just slightly too big at the moment, and rather than increase GA and FL, which seem about right in proportion to each other, I think dropping FA very slightly seems to make more sense. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{re|Cwmhiraeth}} For some reason, it has happened again with ], where both ] and ] were given 5 points rather than 10, despite both pages being in excess of 5120 bytes of prose. I'm not looking to get the extra 5 points for either article, as that would be petty (both pages having been claimed weeks ago), but it may be something to bring up with {{u|Jarry1250}}. ] (]) 17:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
* '''Conditional support''' Only if the old bonus point system is added back in without some reasonable caps for FAs. The possibility of an 1800 point FA would be ridiculous. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': FAC is a huge amount of work, more than anything other than perhaps GA topics. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC) :::I have not found Jarry1250 easy to contact. For example, his last edit was in November. ] (]) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
::::I don't think I will fiddle around with the score now, but let me know in future if it happens again and I will make adjustments. ] (]) 20:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''': 200 is excessive; combined with possible bonuses it makes it even more excessive. 100 points was fine and it keeps it fairer across the board like that. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 15:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' FAs are IMHO the essential core of wiki content. ] (]) 06:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


::::Yep -- I'm not really editing much at the moment -- it's probably best to email about Cup stuff. In these cases I think it must be something to do with multiple DYKnoms, but I can't see anything obvious. Let me know if it's a recurrent problem. - ]&nbsp;<sup>] ]'']</sup> 22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
===Featured lists===
====Featured lists should be worth the same points====
*'''Support''' I am fine with most aspects of scoring. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. ] (]) 11:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I think the current FL scoring is reasonable. ''']''' ]] 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''', seems about right. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


== Edge case FA promotions ==
====Featured lists should be worth more points====
*'''Support''' Because FLC and FAC are both for Misplaced Pages's best work, supposedly. Yet there is such a disparity in points between them. 200 vs 45. Should be raised a lot more. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Conditional support''' If the scoring system from 2013 is restored, I could see the fact that lists almost never are eligible for bonus points as sufficient reason to raise base points. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 09:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


So, on 29 August (the last day of the penultimate round) I had an FA promoted worth 280 points. Those points were ''mandated'' to go into the penultimate round of scoring. Within the next two days, another finalist had two FAs promoted in "no-mans land", worth 800 points, which count to the final score. The cut-off for when points can be claimed seems like it needs some discussion because this is very disappointing indeed. ] <small>(])</small> 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
====Featured lists should be worth less points====
:The WikiCup rules on cut-off dates have been in place for years. The FAC review process takes a varying amount of time, typically 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 weeks. The choice of date on which to nominate the article for FAC is up to the nominator, so the best way of avoiding the article being promoted too soon is to delay its nomination. Similarly, if you need the points for a FAC in the current round, don't leave the nomination too late! ] (]) 08:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
::As I suspected. ] <small>(])</small> 09:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


== Invalidated GA review ==
===Good articles===
====Good articles should be worth the same points====
*'''Support''' I am fine with most aspects of scoring. I could almost support the QPQ for GAs, but think linking them might be too restrictive. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''', seems about right, though see my comment on FA scoring above. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Think the bonus system handles the disparities fine. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 05:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I would rather see 1 FA come out of the cup than 7 GAs. ] (]) 18:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


I claimed ] as a GA during . Recently, it was brought to my attention that the editor who reviewed this GA is a sockpuppet of a blocked user, and the original review page for that article was deleted. As a result, the article's GA status has been invalidated, and it is still sitting at GAN.
====Good articles should be worth more points====
Now that an FA scores 200 points, I thing that the score for a GA should be raised to 50 points rather than the present 30. The effort needed to achieve a GA is not less than a sixth of the effort required to achieve an FA. ] (]) 10:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


I have two questions. First, would my score for Round 1 have to be decreased by 35 points, since the review was not valid in the first place? Second, can I claim this as a GA again once a legitimate review of this article is conducted? &ndash; ] (]) 14:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
* '''Support''' There's too much of a gap between 30 for GA and 200 for FA. Preparing, writing and researching an article for GAN can take just as long as tweaking an article for FAC. Good articles should be worth 50 points. As it stands, editors would have to make seven articles GA in order to similarly match one FA points wise. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Articles can, in theory, "triple dip" - claim points for DYK, GA, '''and''' FA. No other content type can claim multiple times, except maybe lists could sometimes get DYK points. Further, articles have a bonus system, which no other content type really has. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 09:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
** That can be an extremely long process though Adam and there's no guarantee of passing first time for GAN or FAC. It's not uncommon for an article to have three or four FACs. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 09:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
***Perhaps, but there's DYK and - come to think of it - GT/FT (so ''quadruple'' or even quintuple dipping?) - so I suspect that a fairly decent proportion of GAs get at least ''some'' other points in the cup. 09:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I can't believe it's 200 points for FA and only 30 for GA. It should be between 50 and 100 points for GA, I say 75. Often the difference between a really good article at GA and FA is nitpicking and polish only.♦ ] 17:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, but the difference between the worst article that would pass as an FA, and the worst article that would pass as a GA is huge. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' 30 points for GA is too low. It should be 50-60 points at least. ] (]) 06:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


:Note that the sock's reviews weren't deleted just because they were a sock. This sock's reviews were deleted because there's no evidence that they reviewed the article. They created several review pages and checked everything off without actually completing the review. ] <small>(])</small> 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
====Good articles should be worth less points====
::Based on the deletion rationale for ], I thought the deletion was because they were a sock. My impression of the review was that, while it was light on commentary, it technically did review the article against the criteria. I wasn't sure if I could request a new review just because the reviewer found nothing to criticize, since that has happened to me several times (even with experienced reviewers), so I left it alone. &ndash; ] (]) 13:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


== Reform on ITN scoring points? ==
===Good article reviews===
====GARs should be worth the same points====
*'''Tentative Support''' I am all in favour of GARs getting points but I strongly feel that the points for GARs should never be greater than the base points for DYK due to the effort needed for DYK compared with GARs. All GARs require is analysing an article along the GA checklist and making comments on how to improve then saying yes or no. DYKs on the other hand require writing and rewriting articles, searching hard for sources and pulling it all together which takes a lot more time than a GAR. If base points for DYK go up on the other hand, I am more than happy to switch this !vote to support increase in GAR points. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 12:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
**Sorry to be blunt, but it seems that, unless you're exaggerating, you are not putting enough effort into your GA reviews. ] (]) 12:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
***Am I? When you get GAs from others that only make 3 points or often want it changed to their visions or even state a picture is a requirement when it isn't, which I have had, it does suggest to me that the effort in GARs is not the same as in DYKs. When you try to piece together enough of a scarce amount of sources to make a coherent article which meets DYK requirements, it is time-consuming and requires a lot of dedication to do which is why I strongly feel that GARs shouldn't be worth more than DYKs. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


ITN articles in recent deaths are worth 12 points... ok. I am not sure what ''subject to the normal requirement for substantial work on the article'' means, but some of the listed did not require major updates to merit the points. To me this 12 points seem easy points to get, compared to a GA, DYK or a FA review where there is really quite some time and energy involved in achieving them.
====GARs should be worth more points====
*'''Support''' I am fine with most aspects of scoring, but maybe this could be worth a few more points. Am thinking 5 or 6 points. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' But only to 5 points. Having 6 points is an odd number (I know it's an even number, before anyone corrects me!) &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I too would support a very small increase in GAC points, especially as we are dropping PR points <small>(which I think, regrettably, is the right move given the difficulty in practice)</small>. Like Aaron/Calvin, I am strongly opposed to bundling GA reviews and GA nominations together. ] (]) 11:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''', 5 points seems appropriate. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''': I think this area gets "gamed". I'd suggest using the GA cup standard and, akin with what is done with DYK, giving longer, more complex reviews more points, and minimally-qualifying ones staying the same. Encourage people to not just check the boxes. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
** Minimal reviews shouldn't be allowed. Multiple editors in this years cup did reviews which were less than 5 bullet points long and the judges failed to remove them as drive-by and they got to keep the points. It's not fair. I've always given lengthy reviews which take a lot longer yet I still only ended up getting the same as the editors who did 4 or five brief bullet points. You could score more points from doing short reviews in less time than you could score more points from doing lengthier ones. And how would you distinguish between what reviews get how many points? You could get someone get 10 points for writing two paragraphs, or 15 points from 20 bullet points, and the one who did two paragraphs would say he/she wrote more but got less points. It wouldn't work. The judges need to be more scrupulous when it comes to what constitutes a drive-by and disallowing those who carry them out. You could do three short reviews in one hour while another editor does one long review in one hour. Yet the one who does the shorter, less helpful ones would get more points. I'm against DYKs getting more points if they are longer articles; it doesn't make the hook any longer or better. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 23:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


Maybe to expand and source an article to a certain point for ITN will get more points than just to nominate? And maybe also the expansion of an article at RD that exists in multiple other wikis will also get more points. Silvio Berlusconi for example could have needed some help at the time of his death, so could ], a Balon d'Or winner and ] a former italian prime minister now as well. ] (]) 01:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
====GARs should be worth less points====


:I agree, this one definitely stands out. 12 points is probably a bit too much, and it might be best to lower that in the 2024 WikiCup. Also, small changes or updates should ''not'' be sufficient. My understanding of "subject to the normal requirement" is that in the page stats you should probably be one of the top two or three contributors to the article, just like with DYK or GA. Every ITN submission I've gotten points for has been an article I wrote from scratch. ] <small>(])</small> 02:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
====GARs should be wrapped into a GA nomination====
By this we mean that GARs on their own would be scrapped - but in order to claim points for a Good Article, a Good Article Review would have to be conducted alongside it effectively as a QPQ review similar to the DYK system. This is an idea that has been thrown around by a couple of competitors and this shouldn't be seen as an endorsement by the judges - we have an entirely open mind regarding this. ] (]) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


== Vital Articles ==
*'''Oppose''' strongly. This is complicating it way too much. I don't even fully understand what is being proposed here. I already review way more reviews than I submit nominations. I've made over 80 articles a GA in 5 years, and reviewed more than 240 nominations. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 05:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


Have you ever tried bonus points for ]s?-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 02:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
===Did You Knows===
*{{ping|Sturmvogel 66|Cwmhiraeth}}-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 05:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
====DYKs should be worth the same points====
**We did discuss it in previous years and I think consensus was that it was a bit of an arbitrary list so we decided not to treat them any differently to any other article. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 05:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I am fine with most aspects of scoring. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' But DYKs as a result of GA should 100% be allowed. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''', but DYKs as a result of GA should continue not to be allowed, as it's just two lots of points for the same thing. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
** But you've still worked hard on expanding the article, Harrias. You either get points for all DYKs, or none at all. You can't cherry pick which ones you do and which ones you don't get points for. It's a non-starter because look at how many bonus points you can scored from multi-wiki nominations for GAs and FAs. They work out at an awful lot more points than getting 5 or 10 for a DYK GA. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 12:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
***Calvin, I think you need to rethink your position, or at least your argument. What you have said makes very little sense. Of course "cherry picking" is possible- there's a coherent difference between DYKs which require a particular level of work and DYKs which simply require promotion to GA (something we ''already'' reward). One of them, to draw an imperfect analogy, is a prize for work done. The other is a prize for winning a prize. And I fail to see what bonus points have to do with this issue. ] (]) 12:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
****If you've worked hard, and expanded an article 5x, then nominate it for DYK as such, and then separately score points for a GA. If you've expanded it less than that, then you get the points you deserve from your work for the GA. The DYK nomination doesn't involve any further substantial work on the article, and therefore should not add any additional points. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
***** I disagree with both of you. You can't say some DYKs are eligible and others are not. We can now nominate DYKs which have recently passed as a GA but can't submit any of them to our submissions? You can still wait weeks, if not months, for a GAN to be reviewed, and only when it is passed can it be nominated at DYK. Even then the wait for a reviewer and sent to prep can be very lengthy. So it's hardly a quick process. What's the difference from creating or expanding an article 5x, then nominating for GAN? You would still get the same points if you do it the other way round, so it's not fair to disallow a DYK as a result of a GAN. Meanwhile, multiple editors did drive-by GAR and PR reviews and got away with it. My position does not need rethinking. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 23:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – but no points for DYKs as a result of GA promotion. One should not get incidental points for doing nothing; for GA→DYK, you merely have to nominate the article, while you have to do significantly more work from DYK→GA. —] (]) 21:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
** Doing nothing? Are you being serious? I had three DYK submissions removed as a result of them being nominated out of becoming a GA, and I'll have you know that I spent a lot of time improving those three articles. I'm offended by your implication of sitting and kicking back "doing nothing". &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 23:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::*Go ahead and be offended – your problem not mine. Your "spen a lot of time improving those three articles" was towards getting points for GA. The removal of those DYK submissions is due to the fact that you insisted on submitting these new GAs as DYKs for points when the current rules stipulated otherwise. You got your 30+ points for each GA and that's all you should get. You merely had to nominate them to DYK after GA promotion (i.e. doing nothing with regards to adding content). Conversely, going from DYK to GA requires significant improvement to the article in question. —] (]) 05:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::* No, you're just being downright rude. I didn't know that DYKs as a result of GA passing were not allowed. Someone else had a submission removed as well. How can you say I didn't add content for the DYK after GAN? I expanded the article and improved it in the first place, hence adding a lot of info. I expanded the articles say 3x or 4x but there wasn't enough info to make them more than 5x. I didn't get + anything for '''any''' GA nomination of mine in this years cup at all, because none of them were on 20+ Wikis. I got 30 points only for each and every submission. Your concept is flawed because everyone who were claiming points from GANs which were on 20+ or 50+ Wikis were getting a darn sight more points in GA bonuses than me getting an extra 5 or 10 for a DYK. Think about it. Saying points for a DYK as a result from GAN is two lots of points for the same thing is superfluous. What about all the extra bonuses and base points the highest scorers got? Isn't that technically two lots or three lots of points from ''one'' thing? I think you will find it is. Also, what is the difference between this or creating the DYK first as an expansion/creation then 2 weeks alter nominating for GAN, you would still get more than 30 points. Think about it. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 09:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::*{{tq|"I didn't know that DYKs as a result of GA passing were not allowed"}} – well Einstein, the ] page is there for a reason. It's mind-blowing how anyone would enter a competition without looking over the rules first. {{tq|"How can you say I didn't add content for the DYK after GAN?"}} – um, because you're not required to under ], which state that the article only has to have been "designated as GA within the past seven days". Any additional information you choose to add after GA promotion is at your discretion. But that does raise the question of why you need to add such (seemingly) vital info ''after'' GA designation – perhaps your article should not have been promoted in the first place. {{tq|"veryone who were claiming points from GANs which were on 20+ or 50+ Wikis were getting a darn sight more points in GA bonuses than me getting an extra 5 or 10 for a DYK"}} – thought about it, and no, I don't buy that BS, not one bit. If you're sulking and complaining about not getting bonus points, then maybe you should try submitting articles that are featured on more wikis, instead of trying to change the rules for your benefit in order to suit your editing style. —] (]) 10:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::* You're completely not listening to or getting what I am saying. I never said I was adding "vital info" or any info for that matter ''after'' GA promotion in order to obtain DYK so don't you dare accuse me of that. The info was already in the article prior to my GA and DYK nominations. Get it? My point is that anyone can create or expand an article, nominated it for DYK, get the points for it, and then improve it to GAN and it be passed, and then get points for that too. So why are you/others proposing that it not be allowed the other way around, i.e. that you improve an article to GA standard and claim points, and then nominate it for DYK upon GA promotion (because the article couldn't be expanded up to 5x in the first place, but perhaps 3x or 4x) and claim points for the DYK too? &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


== Deliberately delaying completion of GANs/GARs for the WikiCup ==
====DYKs should be worth more points====
'''Support''' if GARs become more valuable, then DYKs should be worth more too for reasons I explained above. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 12:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


{{re|Cwmhiraeth|Frostly}} Is it okay for people to "hold over" already-open GA reviews (either as nominator or as reviewer) for the WikiCup? I'm referring to cases where contestants deliberately won't address an open GAN that they nominated, or they won't complete a GA review that they started, for several weeks to save up points for the WikiCup. As seen ], one user has that this could be considered gaming the rules to gain an advantage in the Cup.
====DYKs should be worth less points====
*'''Conditional support''' If the old, larger multipliers are being brought back, I'd say DYKs should be reduced a little bit, as they're more "gameable" multiplier-wise than other content, as the bar to getting an article up to DYK level is substantially lower, since you don't need completeness. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
** Actually, you do need completeness. I had DYK nominations which were held up because of the articles not being complete enough. DYK's are not worth much anyway. 5 points is fine. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 23:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
****Some degree, sure, but not nearly so much as even GA. And I've had articles rejected at FA because additional sources MIGHT exist, even though ''no examples were given of a missed source''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 11:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
***** Me too. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 11:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Current points are fine to create new complete article from long-forgotten stubs. It is also a fact that some other language wikis create new articles from main page DYKs. --] (]) 07:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


DYK, ITN, FAC/FACR, and FLC all either have deadlines or expire after a certain time, so it's unlikely that this sort of situation would apply to either of these processes. I wanted to bring this up because GAN/GAR do not have deadlines or expiry dates, only a recommendation that a review be completed in several days. &ndash; ] (]) 18:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
====DYK points should be available after GA promotion if (and only if) the DYK would have qualified for DYK without the GA.====
:This seems more of a GA issue, insofar as those reviews should really have been closed as inactive by now. Over two months with no action does seem excessive from a WikiCup point of view, particularly as it takes it into a new year. That said, it generally only takes a few points to get out of the first round, so unless they plan to keep delaying until the second or third round, there seems no significant advantage to be gained here. In the general case though, it doesn't seem right that a participant can significantly delay a nomination to gain points in a different round. Doing it by a few days, sure. Beyond that, for me, it does feel like excessive gaming of the system. ] <sup><span style="color:#009933">(he/him) •</span> ]</sup> 18:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::@], thanks for the feedback. I do agree that it's probably not kosher to just not respond to a GA review for 2 months for the sake of a WikiCup. This could have a larger impact in later rounds, so I'm wondering if this should be codified. &ndash; ] (]) 18:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::It doesn't have to be: "the judges reserve the right to adjudicate in the spirit of the rules, rather than to their letter." ] (]) 18:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Thanks Airship—I totally missed that. (Cwm asked Frostly and me to help judge the competition last month, but I'm still pretty new at this, hence why I asked for clarification,) &ndash; ] (]) 18:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Concur with Airship's interpretation.<span id="Frostly:1703564949648:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiCup/Scoring" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 04:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)</span>
: I apologize if that is considered gaming - I just was admittedly tired of GAN from how many I did at the end of the last competition, forgot about them for awhile, and only recently did I realize / get notified that I still had a bunch left - it made sense in my mind to wait two or three more weeks from the notification so I could get some WikiCup points at the start of the next competition rather than do it right before the round started and get no points from them - but anyway they've been withdrawn. ] (]) 21:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::No problem @], and thank you for your honesty. Sorry if it seemed like I was calling you out; I was asking for clarification on this matter in general, as I expect competitors will try to do this intentionally in the future. &ndash; ] (]) 22:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


== ] ommission from scoring ==
*'''Support''' The case in the last round where a 5x expanded article didn't get points for ''no other reason'' than it also getting GA, and mentioning it in the DYKnom seems to require a minor rules tweak. The spirit should matter more than what box you ticked. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 09:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This does seem like a way to double up GA points through the back door to me. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 09:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
** It's not really doubling up though. A GA is worth 30 points, and getting a DYK for it would only increase it either 5 or 10 points. You can double/triple your points from bonuses for older articles on 20 or 50+ Wiki's so I don't see why this is a problem. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Being able to nominated for DYK after GA promotion, because you've still already worked on it to improve/expand the article. But I'm guessing the title of this subsection means that it also has to be 5x expansion or more? &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
** Or be a new article. Basically, this is housekeeping. Keep the ruling as it stands, but handle the side cases in a way that's a bit more fair <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 10:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – per C. The simple solution would be to nominate the DYK as a 5× expansion instead of a newly-promoted GA. Nothing's stopping you from doing so, so ''why'' are you not doing so in the first place? The rules are not here to stop people from suffering the consequences of their poor choices. —] (]) 10:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
** Because they can't always be more than 5x expanded if there isn't quite enough info to do so! Which is what I was saying above but you chose to ignore every single time! &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
***If there isn't enough to do a 5x expansion, then it isn't eligible for DYK <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 10:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
**** But it should be eligible if the article becomes a GA. We allow GA DYKs on the main page now, but can't add them to our cup submissions? It's not fair. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*****{{u|Calvin999}} Think of it like this: basically the WikiCup is designed to help improve Misplaced Pages. We get points for carrying out various things that help to improve the encyclopaedia. Creating, or expanding an article to make it eligible for DYK is improving the site. Improving an article to GA status, is improving the site. Nominating an article that is already a GA for DYK does not require any further improvements to be made. So, given there is no further improvement needed to be made, it isn't eligible for any ''extra'' points. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
****** {{edit conflict}} But I've still improved the article for GAN by researching and expanding it as much as possible, even if it's not quite 5x. So I'm in favour of being able to claim for the DYK as a result of GA promotion. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*******Yes, but that improvement was reflected in the points score for the GA. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
******** But what is to stop someone from creating/expanding an article pretty much complete and nominating for DYK and claiming points for it, and then a few weeks later nominating for GAN and claiming points for that as well? It's basically the reverse situation, yet the rules allow that. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::*No it's not the reverse. It's possible to have simultaneous DYK and GA nominations for creations/5× expansions, and that's perfectly fine. But can the same be said about a DYK that's being nominated solely because of GA promotion? Afraid not. —] (]) 11:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


] is a project whose primary focus is to assess and prioritize those subjects that are most vital in terms of worthiness for editorial attention. ] is the most important project on WP in terms of promoting editorial efforts. There may be controversy regarding the exact contents of the list and whether it correctly enumerates the subjects most worthy of editorial attention, but it is directionally correct on the most worthy subjects and getting better all the time. I think the problem with past proposals is that there have been attempts to seek too high of a Vital article premium. What if we simply introduced a 10%/20%/30%/40%/50% multiplier for ]/]/]/]/] content. At ], we have been kicking around ways to actually begin motivating editorial improvement rather than just list what should be improved. ] actually mentioned this more modest premium very recently (01:36, 25 January 2024) and ] was the person who opened the discussion. Both are entered in this years CUP. I also argue that since this proposal is being made before the January 31 cutoff for the contest that it be considered for the 2024 contest.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 15:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::*@{{u|Calvin999}} – But the majority of users are ''not'' in favour. Get over it! Consensus has already decided against giving points for DYKs from GA promotion, so ''why'' are you so unwilling to respect the views of the majority? ''Why'' must this be all about what ''you'' want? —] (]) 10:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|TonyTheTiger}}, this was discussed before this year's cup on the main talk page. There was no consensus to implement such a proposal (alternate proposals include view count and changing the interwiki totals) and additionally it would be more difficult for the bot's maintainer, who is now semi-retired. WikiCup rules have rarely been changed mid-competition, and never in such a big way as this, so I think a mid-year implementation is very unlikely to happen. As for me, I prefer improving articles because I like to improve them, not because they're on a semi-arbitrary, biased list of 61,110 articles. ] (]) 18:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::* Don't expect me to respect yours when you clearly don't respect mine, or me for that matter. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::Interwikis are included in some way, which is basically all that we want for VA. All of the point categories are semi-arbitrary. ITN, and DYK are especially arbitrary, with the latter making a major rule change a few days ago. Even GA and FA are arbitrary. By the way, each level contains all articles in the lists that are smaller than it. I.e., the list aims to be about 50k total. I'll have a look at the latest discussion. I was familiar with ] this one which looks like it was started in November 2022 so it must be a different one.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::*Well, my view is in line with the wishes of the majority. And since decisions here are made based on consensus (and not a '']'' whine fest), you'll have to respect it whether you like it or not. But you're correct on the second point – what is there to respect? —] (]) 11:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Potentially worth more discussion for 2025, but just too late for 2024. ] <sup><span style="color:#009933">(he/him) •</span> ]</sup> 18:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::*Calvin, I note that it looks like GARs are going to be given more points than base DYKs. I do not like that and I have given my reasons why they shouldn't but I am not complaining about it, plus I know there is time for more people to contribute and I know that people may change their minds so maybe be a bit patient here and it could pay off. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 11:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I see ], which shows it got a lot of consideration. So each of the last two years has seen significant discussion and it seems there were several discussions in earlier years too. Still would like to see it incorporated in some way. Admittedly ILL bonuses are somewhat correlated with the intent of VA.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 19:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
* '''Irrelevant''', DYK points currently can be scored after GA promotion, as the GA process is often quicker than the DYK process. However, the key fact is that the article needs to be nominated in time to qualify as "new" or "newly expanded". If the qualification is as a "new GA", then no DYK points should be scored. In the case of the nomination that RO made, it was a little naive on her part (in terms of WikiCup scoring) that she put GA as the reason, rather than 5x expansion. I flagged up that it qualified as a 5x expansion, but I don't think the judges can be expected to check that each time, and it would make it too confusing to tell candidates that some GA DYKs can be scored and not others. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Yeah, this has been brought up several times, but in neither of the above-linked discussions was there actually a consensus to change anything. However, I think this could be discussed again, but I do not think it is necessary to change the rules ''while'' this year's Cup is ongoing; as Airship said, it would be extremely tedious. Not only would the judges have to update the rules and notify competitors, but competitors themselves may be taken unawares by this rule change, and Jarry, who maintains the WikiCup bot, would have to fix the bot mid-competition. To simplify things, any change would have to take place after the 2024 Cup ends. &ndash; ] (]) 01:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'll be back around once I am eliminated, but the CUP is starting to make my editorial juices start flowing. I don't expect to make the finals, but you never know.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 05:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
::@] I think I was the one who suggested it. I agree this is for 2025, which will give us a lot of time to discuss. I just want to say I disagre with calling it "a semi-arbitrary, biased list". I've been involved in this for the last few months and there are rules, voting, and many people working to eliminate bias. If you think stuff needs adjustment, join the voting and discussion. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 09:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
:::], I did note it was your idea at 15:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC) above.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 02:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC) ] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 02:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
::I have {{u|Piotrus}}—see the VA3 talk page. The thing is, most people there seem far more interested in making the lists perfect, than improving any articles on them. It's hard to take claime such as "the VA process prioritizes editorial attention on the vital subjects" when it seems like all the process does is prioritize attention on the lists themselves. ] (]) 12:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
:::@] I agree - in fact I am suprised, since I always assumed vital project was just about making a list. Improving articles is something we do as Wikipedians, not Vital project members. Hence the idea of collaborating with WikiCup, which is about improving articles. I think it makes perfect sense to encourage folks to imporove 'important' articles. And while Vital list is not perfect, it is better than any other measure I can think of. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 02:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
:::] Do you think it is fair to state that the lists are problematic ("semi-arbitrary, biased") and that a lot of people are focusing on improving them (" interested in making the lists perfect")? My peak performance time on WP was back in the 2007-09 era, by the time I finished 2nd in the 2010 CUP, I was past my peak. I could spend a lot of time on editing as I have in the past. At times in the past I have had 30 nominees at ] simultaneously. Last year I believe I had over a dozen at one time. I could spend a lot more time editing, but how me and other editors balance their time between helping others find the most pressing articles for improvement and actually improving articles is just a matter of taste.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 02:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


===Good/Featured topics=== == Good Article reassessments ==
====Good/Featured topics should be worth the same points====
*'''Support''' I am fine with most aspects of scoring. ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. ] (]) 11:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's not like topics, in and of themselves, add anything to Misplaced Pages, though completion of a set can be valuable, so it's right to offer some points. It all multiplies together and adds up. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 05:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


How do Good article reassments count? Do they count like Good Article reviews?-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
====Good/Featured topics should be worth more points====
*'''Support''' At the moment the points from these are so meagre as to make pursuing such objectives not worth the effort. ] (]) 09:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC) :No, same as with FARs. It is too difficult to quantify what a GAR or FAR is worth. ] (]) 19:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, as of now GA and FA reassessments do not receive points. I'm not a hundred percent sure what the reasoning behind it is, as this decision was made before I became a judge, but Airship's explanation—that a GAR/FAR review is too complex to be expressed as a numeric point value—seems plausible. In any cases, GAR/FAR processes often end up in demotion, so they often would not really be eligible for points regardless, as these processes are not directly related to improving or promoting an article. ] (]) 03:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Same as Cwmhiraeth. At the moment, there's such no incentive mainly for GAT. FAT seems fine to me though. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 15:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Take e.g. the currently ongoing ]. If the article remains a GA, what does each participant get? What if it doesn't? ] (]) 04:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above. ] (]) 18:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


== FLC reviews ==
====Good/Featured topics should be worth less points====


Do FLC reviews count for points? The ] does not list them and the submissions pages have nowhere to submit them, but this scoring page still says they are eligible. No worries either way. – ]''']''' ] 11:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
===Article bonus system===
:Yes, they just score in the FAC section. ] <sup><span style="color:#009933">(he/him) •</span> ]</sup> 12:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
====Article bonus system should remain the same====
::Cheers! – ]''']''' ] 13:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


== ITN scoring ==
====Article bonus system should revert to the 2012/13 scheme====
For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Misplaced Pages) on which an article or portal appears as of 31 December 2015, the article or portal is awarded an extra 0.2 times as many points if it appears on did you know, or is promoted to good article, featured article, featured list or featured portal. (Note that this does not apply to in the news, featured picture, good topics, featured topics or good article reviews.) For instance, a featured article (normally 200 points) appearing on 21 Wikipedias is awarded 160 bonus points (an extra 80%). A short DYK (normally 5 points) appearing on 65 Wikipedias is awarded 13 bonus points. ] (]) 23:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''': There was no consensus for the 2015 change and the old system made the competition much more exciting as it was unpredictable and people had to work through the whole round rather than sitting on points earned at the start. Though I assume the pre-2010 article bonus points will stay. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 09:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''' I liked this idea. ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It worked so much better like this and was so much fairer. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
**{{ping|Calvin999}} Fairer? There were seven-fold disparities in the values of any article. DYKs could be worth as much as a GA. Do you know exactly what you're voting on? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 05:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
*** Yes. In 2013 I got bonuses. This year I got 0 bonus at all. The articles I edit haven't changed, yet my points have. I had to work so much harder this year to still come pretty much last in each round. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 09:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. ] (]) 11:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. As C said above, there was no consensus for this year's change (and I don't believe it would ever have been reached had it been up for discussion). Also, I would like FAs to go back down to a base point value of 100, otherwise a bonus on top of 200 points may become excessive. But I'm willing to listen to arguments for keeping FAs the same – what do others think? ''']''' ]] 15:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
**I'd say that we'd have to cap FAs or drop their points a lot. I think the max multiplier was round x7 to x9, so GAs could probably stay uncapped without breaking things, but FAs would need a cap around, say, x3, or at least, a reduced multiplier. FAs were worth, what, 50 points in 2013? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 20:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::*FAs were always 100 points until this year. —] (]) 21:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – per C and Ruby. Bonus increases for every 5 wikis are more fair than the arbitrary jumps of 20 wikis currently in place. —] (]) 21:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Upon clear explanation by Calvin999. ] (]) 07:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' if ] becomes a FA under this system, then it gets 200/5*(0.2)=8x bonus, which would be worth 1800 pts. Having a cap at say 1000 points (that is 4x bonus, or 100 wikis would work for me, or alternatively, have the 0.2x bonus for 10 wikis. ] (]) 18:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


If I nominate an article at ITN that does need editing, would I get point? What if it needed editing and I was only involved as the nominator?-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 19:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
====Article bonus system should revert to the 2012/13 scheme but have a cap====
:]. ] (]) 20:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
This would be as with the 2012/13 version of the bonus system explained above, but capped at a specific number of Wikipedias for a maximum bonus level. ] (]) 23:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
::It depends on the type of edits you make, as ITN points are subject to the normal requirement for substantial work on the article. If you were merely a nominator, you would not be eligible for points. {{pb}}On the other hand, if you added a not-insignificant amount of prose (say, a paragraph), or if XTools shows that you're among the top contributors, then you would be eligible for points. If an ITN candidate is in bad shape and you add to it substantially, you would be eligible for points. &ndash; ] (]) 21:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' There were, as I recall, 7x multipliers. With the higher FA point value, a single high-multiplier FA could dominate the competition to excess. FAs are valuable, but I can't see a 1400 points from one FA being fair. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 20:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''', this seems a better approach, offering a more incremental range of bonuses that probably reflect "importance" more. That said, there should be spotchecks that users haven't created very basic stubs in other languages this year to boost articles they will promote next year. (I've seen it before...) ''NB: Switched from above after reading {{u|Adam Cuerden}}'s point.'' ] <sup>]</sup> 20:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
*The cap should be at 10x, or something like 1k pts. ] (]) 08:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
**Honestly, I'd rather see the values for articles doubled or tripled, but lose the bonus points system. I like the idea of people working on what they want to, without worrying about what some arbitrary system asks them to do. But that's me. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 09:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
***Then you will have more spamming of borderline afd material like it happened until 2012 or 2011. ] (]) 18:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


== Points for reviews ==
====Article bonus system should revert to the 2012/13 scheme, with a tweak to make the point increase match the 2012/13 results====
FAs were worth 100 points in 2012/13. I think the higher base points (200) are certainly justified, but think that the multipliers could result in somewhat silly point values. Why not keep the bonus points the same instead of the percentages? Since the base points have been doubled, so if we halve the bonus point multipliers for FAs, it works out to the same bonus points as 2012/13.
* '''Support'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 12:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


I see that the points for FACR, FLCR, PR and GANR are 5 points each, which seems kind of low for some of the reviews- as bigger or more technical articles are usually harder to review. In addition, they do not get any bonus point on any basis, so easier articles are more incentivised- which means the backlog in reviewing bigger articles increases. So, perhaps we can add a way for some reviews to get more points- maybe by number of words in the review or the article, or those more vital- by number of interwikis or something like that. ] (]) 07:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
====Rolling 5 year bonus retained?====
just checking, are we going to retain the rolling 5 year article bonus points for improving articles 5 years old or more? I hope that we are. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 09:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
: What is that? &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 09:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::Currently it is for every article that has been on Misplaced Pages since 2010 (will go to 2011 next year), 5 bonus points are awarded with 1 extra bonus for each additional year before 2010 (or 2011 when the cup starts again). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 09:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
::: Ah right okay. Didn't affect me because none of my submissions were articles older than five years lol &nbsp;—&nbsp;] 10:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
*I think it can safely be increased in value. ] (]) 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:35, 14 December 2024

Please try to keep a level head in discussion here.

Archiving icon
Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 20 sections are present.


Elizabeth Willing Powel

Is it kosher to claim Elizabeth Willing Powel for WikiCup. I started the article and co-wrote it with GreenMeansGo. I nominated it for GAR but it passed GA very quickly and I did not participate in the GAR. I had a majority share (or near plurarity share) in the authorship depending on how you look at it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

For the record, by the time we got to GA there was naught but a few minor tweaks here and there. So the fact that I got all the GAN comments was just a measure of who got their coffee first that morning, not that one of us put in a ton of work at review and the other didn't. The work was done before we ever got there. GMG 21:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Should be fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Two questions

First, I want to know if I can claim articles like Church Avenue station (IND Culver Line) if I have not nominated them, but have addressed some comments at the GAN. To which extent must I participate at the GAN to claim articles? Do previous edits/additions count toward GAN? Presumably the same thing goes for Nostrand Avenue station (IND Fulton Street Line).

In my view, both of these articles are eligible for points as you have played a substantial role in expanding the articles and preparing them for GAN. I don't think it matters how much you participated in the GAR process. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Second, I claimed Hudson Yards (development) as a GAN, but the bot does not seem to be calculating points for interwikis. There are 6 interwikis, so that should've been a 1.2-times multiplier. I did add this article at the same time as another which had a 1.0-times multiplier. epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but I believe the Bot looks at the position at the start of the year and there may have been fewer interwikis then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thanks for both of the replies. I'll add these articles to my WikiCup page, then. epicgenius (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly right. At the beginning of the year Wikidata only listed one interwiki (Korean). On this particular occasion, I think Wikidata was just a bit behind: from a cursory inspection PT, ES, FR, IT and KO all seem to have had extant articles, they just weren't linked to Wikidata. In such circumstances I think it is open to the judges, upon further inspection, to overrule the bot manually and apply a small multiplier. - Jarry1250  10:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I have done as suggested, and added 7 bonus points to your score. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thanks. This has happened again with Morningside Heights, Manhattan, which had 14 interwikis but I did not receive any bonus points. epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I have added 14 bonus points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding scoring of a DYK submission

I recently submitted Singer Building to my nominations page as a recently expanded DYK. The page is currently 37 KB in prose size. I noticed that the bot has awarded me a 2x multiplier with 16 bonus points, but did not add 5 extra base points for the size bonus. Is this an error, or else is there something I'm missing? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the bot was overawed by the massive expansion! I have adjusted your score. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thanks for the response. I'm not sure what happened but the score was reverted with this edit by the bot. epicgenius (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm genuinely not sure what happened with Singer Building -- I thought it might be because you claimed extremely promptly (while it was still on the front page) but since the bot had no trouble with Broadway–Chambers Building in the same situation I'm flummoxed. What I can say, though, is that to overrule the bot a judge has to change the multipler template on the submissions page -- if you don't do that, then it will overwrite any manual changes to the main table (this is intentional so as to keep the two sets of pages mutually consistent). Hope that helps, - Jarry1250  15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Jarry1250, that is very strange indeed. Thanks for the helpful response and for the debug. epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions regarding nominations

Hey there! I initially chose to just predict whatever the writers are implying, but felt like asking is the best way of knowing.

  • On FA, FL, and GA, can nominations nominated before January 1 but closed during or after January 1 accepted?
  • On ITN, are Ongoings eligible?
  • "For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Misplaced Pages) on which an article appears" on their Main Page?

Would appreciate answers. Not that I won't be watching this, so you gotta ping me. Thanks, GeraldWL 13:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Answering your questions in order below.
  1. These are eligible.
  2. Any bold-linked article in the In the news section can be claimed for, irrespective of whether it first appeared there in 2020 or in 2021. Not the main COVID articles in the box at the top, however.
  3. This refers to the interlanguage links at the bottom of the sidebar on the left. As an example, the article Pierre Daumesnil is present in 10 Wikipedias, 9 foreign language ones plus the English language version. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Bonus points system

This is my first time in the cup. As a new participant, I want to provide feedback regarding this system. I feel like this bonus system is unfair. It requires minimum of 5 Wikipedias on which the article has appeared. Now, someone one who contributes to movies, TV shows, or anything related to Westen world etc has an advantage, because these things are more popular. And someone who contributes to like Indian articles (like me) is unable to taste the bonus. Minimum 5 GA, FA, DYK in other Wikipedias are very distant things, articles in other Wikipedias don't even exist. So, there's no scope of bonus.

I have a suggestion. Instead of having a bonus point system like this, we can do this thing: Some percentage of points from the previous round will be added to the next round. Like someone has 1000+ points in Round 1. He/she will get 25% of that in the next.

  • 100+ points - 5%
  • 250+ points - 10%
  • 500+ points - 15%
  • 750+ points - 20%
  • 1000+ points - 25%

The point system will have slabs like this.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  20:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What you say is true and we can discuss your suggestion at the end of the contest. The bonus system is meant to be an incentive to encourage the improvement of important topics, and because you can't actually measure "importance", it uses the number of other language Wikipedias as a proxy. However, you can work with the rule to your advantage in the WikiCup by selecting articles to work on that do appear on multiple Wikipedias. When I was a contestant, I used to search out aged stubs for articles that appeared on multiple Wikipedias and expand them for DYKs, and I scored a great many bonus points! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK points

Can I get the DYK points for an article that I created and improved to GA?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No. No DYK points for GAs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@ArnabSaha: It depends on whether it qualified for DYK as a newly created or 5x expanded article, and was nominated for DYK on that basis. If that is the case, it can be claimed for. However, if it qualified for DYK on the basis of being a newly-promoted GA, then the DYK cannot be claimed for because no extra work is needed above fulfilling the GA criteria. Which article are we talking about? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2020-21 SC East Bengal season this article. Just completed the article. GA review was done under QPQ and nominated for DYK.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Then the answer is no. If it was nominated for DYK before the GA nomination it would have been OK. But since it hasn't been created or expanded in the last wek as the grounds for the DYK and is relying on the GA status for it, then I am afraid you can't get any DYK points for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the info.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  12:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"Substantial work" and ITN

Although Amakuru was kind enough to include me in this ITN nom, I don't think my contributions to the Courtenay Bartholomew article are substantial enough to claim credit, but I was curious whether it met the barest minimum standard. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Borderline, I should say. Most "In the news" submissions are rather more substantial. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: thanks! Since I don't do ITN, it was something I was trying to get a sense of. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"worked on significantly"

Is there any existing published guideline or precedent (e.g. authorship percentage) used in assessing whether a nominator has done enough work on a GA-nominated article to satisfy the condition that "All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you to receive points", or is it left to the judges' discretion on a case-by-case basis? I'm planning to work at some point on Atul Gawande, which was nominated for GA last year and which I reviewed at the time. I don't foresee me having a particularly large authorship percentage on it to get it to what I think would be close to GA standard. (Maybe 15% as a ballpark estimate.) That leads to a second question, which is: is there any time or other restriction on nominating an article which one has previously reviewed? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

To answer your first question, it's on a case-by-case basis, but looking at the article you mentioned, you have already done sufficient work for it to qualify were it to become a GA. As for your second question, I think there are no restrictions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response, Cwmhiraeth - I'll ask the judges if I'm not sure about a specific article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

FAC review vs FLC review vs GA review

Maybe it's just the way I do things, but I've noticed that a typical FA review from me is large (like Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/John McGraw/archive1, at 21,260 bytes) while I see a GA review of my own nomination weighing in at 855 bytes ( Talk:2003 Football League Third Division play-off Final/GA1). Both reviews are scored as 5 points in the current regime. I'm not sure these reviews should be given an equivalent amount of points. I'm not suggesting it should change this year of course, but it's certainly something that I think needs reflection before next year's WikiCup. Perhaps like the current GAN drive, some consideration needs to be given to the volume of text being reviewed at the very least, or somehow a quantitative measure of the effort being expended. I'm not suggesting that the GAN review was less onerous or complete than the FAC review, but one was around 25 times lengthier than the other yet both attracted 5 points. And certainly, from my point of view, FLC reviews are somewhere in between FA reviews and GA reviews... Interested to hear the opinions of others. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. A GAN review should be more onerous, as it requires a consideration of all the criteria and should be thorough enough to determine whether they are all met. The reviewer liaises with the nominator and checks that all necessary improvements are made. Reviewing at FAC is different, it does not need to cover all aspects of the criteria, and whether the article gets promoted or not is a sum of all the reviews it has received. So a GAN reviewer has a responsibility whereas a FAC reviewer makes a contribution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I’m fully aware of the roles at GAN and FAC, but that’s not really the point at all. This competition is about effort expended to improve Misplaced Pages and as noted, it makes no sense at all that one review which is 30 times the size of the other, which includes a much higher level of scrutiny and far greater attention to detail is worth the same as a quick GAN review. There should be some consideration given to the size of the reviews as a minimum and probably some level of acceptance that reviewing a FAC is a much more onerous task than simply plopping in a GAN review template with half a dozen comma fixes. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I guess I'll have to bring this up before next year's competition. Just a quick glimpse at something like Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/History of Burnley F.C./archive1 where I've contributed 9KB of review in a day should not be considered equal to a GAN review of less than a KB. It's pretty clear there needs to be consideration given to review size, or even size of article reviewed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

CBS Building

I claimed this as a DYK because I expanded it fivefold to about 29 kb of readable prose size (it was approved as a GA before running on the main page, but I believe this is fine since I expanded it 5x for DYK before the GA promotion). For some reason, I did not get 5 bonus points when I put it in my submissions page, which I would've normally gotten for an article above 5 kb of prose. I'm not sure what happened there, because I got the two other bonuses, for interwikis and for the article having existed for about 14 years. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should have the extra 5 base points, as awarded to your other expansions. I have adjusted your submission accordingly and I think the bot will adjust the points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: For some reason, it has happened again with Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2022/Submissions/Epicgenius, where both Broadhurst Theatre and Paramount Hotel were given 5 points rather than 10, despite both pages being in excess of 5120 bytes of prose. I'm not looking to get the extra 5 points for either article, as that would be petty (both pages having been claimed weeks ago), but it may be something to bring up with Jarry1250. Epicgenius (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I have not found Jarry1250 easy to contact. For example, his last edit was in November. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I will fiddle around with the score now, but let me know in future if it happens again and I will make adjustments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Yep -- I'm not really editing much at the moment -- it's probably best to email about Cup stuff. In these cases I think it must be something to do with multiple DYKnoms, but I can't see anything obvious. Let me know if it's a recurrent problem. - Jarry1250  22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Edge case FA promotions

So, on 29 August (the last day of the penultimate round) I had an FA promoted worth 280 points. Those points were mandated to go into the penultimate round of scoring. Within the next two days, another finalist had two FAs promoted in "no-mans land", worth 800 points, which count to the final score. The cut-off for when points can be claimed seems like it needs some discussion because this is very disappointing indeed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The WikiCup rules on cut-off dates have been in place for years. The FAC review process takes a varying amount of time, typically 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 weeks. The choice of date on which to nominate the article for FAC is up to the nominator, so the best way of avoiding the article being promoted too soon is to delay its nomination. Similarly, if you need the points for a FAC in the current round, don't leave the nomination too late! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
As I suspected. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Invalidated GA review

I claimed 108 Leonard as a GA during the first round of the Cup. Recently, it was brought to my attention that the editor who reviewed this GA is a sockpuppet of a blocked user, and the original review page for that article was deleted. As a result, the article's GA status has been invalidated, and it is still sitting at GAN.

I have two questions. First, would my score for Round 1 have to be decreased by 35 points, since the review was not valid in the first place? Second, can I claim this as a GA again once a legitimate review of this article is conducted? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that the sock's reviews weren't deleted just because they were a sock. This sock's reviews were deleted because there's no evidence that they reviewed the article. They created several review pages and checked everything off without actually completing the review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Based on the deletion rationale for Talk:108 Leonard/GA1, I thought the deletion was because they were a sock. My impression of the review was that, while it was light on commentary, it technically did review the article against the criteria. I wasn't sure if I could request a new review just because the reviewer found nothing to criticize, since that has happened to me several times (even with experienced reviewers), so I left it alone. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Reform on ITN scoring points?

ITN articles in recent deaths are worth 12 points... ok. I am not sure what subject to the normal requirement for substantial work on the article means, but some of the listed did not require major updates to merit the points. To me this 12 points seem easy points to get, compared to a GA, DYK or a FA review where there is really quite some time and energy involved in achieving them.

Maybe to expand and source an article to a certain point for ITN will get more points than just to nominate? And maybe also the expansion of an article at RD that exists in multiple other wikis will also get more points. Silvio Berlusconi for example could have needed some help at the time of his death, so could Luis Suarez, a Balon d'Or winner and Arnaldo Forlani a former italian prime minister now as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this one definitely stands out. 12 points is probably a bit too much, and it might be best to lower that in the 2024 WikiCup. Also, small changes or updates should not be sufficient. My understanding of "subject to the normal requirement" is that in the page stats you should probably be one of the top two or three contributors to the article, just like with DYK or GA. Every ITN submission I've gotten points for has been an article I wrote from scratch. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Vital Articles

Have you ever tried bonus points for WP:VAs?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Deliberately delaying completion of GANs/GARs for the WikiCup

@Cwmhiraeth and Frostly: Is it okay for people to "hold over" already-open GA reviews (either as nominator or as reviewer) for the WikiCup? I'm referring to cases where contestants deliberately won't address an open GAN that they nominated, or they won't complete a GA review that they started, for several weeks to save up points for the WikiCup. As seen here, one user has already expressed a concern that this could be considered gaming the rules to gain an advantage in the Cup.

DYK, ITN, FAC/FACR, and FLC all either have deadlines or expire after a certain time, so it's unlikely that this sort of situation would apply to either of these processes. I wanted to bring this up because GAN/GAR do not have deadlines or expiry dates, only a recommendation that a review be completed in several days. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This seems more of a GA issue, insofar as those reviews should really have been closed as inactive by now. Over two months with no action does seem excessive from a WikiCup point of view, particularly as it takes it into a new year. That said, it generally only takes a few points to get out of the first round, so unless they plan to keep delaying until the second or third round, there seems no significant advantage to be gained here. In the general case though, it doesn't seem right that a participant can significantly delay a nomination to gain points in a different round. Doing it by a few days, sure. Beyond that, for me, it does feel like excessive gaming of the system. Harrias 18:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Harrias, thanks for the feedback. I do agree that it's probably not kosher to just not respond to a GA review for 2 months for the sake of a WikiCup. This could have a larger impact in later rounds, so I'm wondering if this should be codified. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be: "the judges reserve the right to adjudicate in the spirit of the rules, rather than to their letter." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Airship—I totally missed that. (Cwm asked Frostly and me to help judge the competition last month, but I'm still pretty new at this, hence why I asked for clarification,) – Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Concur with Airship's interpretation. — Frostly (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I apologize if that is considered gaming - I just was admittedly tired of GAN from how many I did at the end of the last competition, forgot about them for awhile, and only recently did I realize / get notified that I still had a bunch left - it made sense in my mind to wait two or three more weeks from the notification so I could get some WikiCup points at the start of the next competition rather than do it right before the round started and get no points from them - but anyway they've been withdrawn. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
No problem @BeanieFan11, and thank you for your honesty. Sorry if it seemed like I was calling you out; I was asking for clarification on this matter in general, as I expect competitors will try to do this intentionally in the future. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:VA ommission from scoring

WP:VA is a project whose primary focus is to assess and prioritize those subjects that are most vital in terms of worthiness for editorial attention. WP:CUP is the most important project on WP in terms of promoting editorial efforts. There may be controversy regarding the exact contents of the list and whether it correctly enumerates the subjects most worthy of editorial attention, but it is directionally correct on the most worthy subjects and getting better all the time. I think the problem with past proposals is that there have been attempts to seek too high of a Vital article premium. What if we simply introduced a 10%/20%/30%/40%/50% multiplier for VA5/VA4/VA3/VA2/VA1 content. At WT:VA5, we have been kicking around ways to actually begin motivating editorial improvement rather than just list what should be improved. User:Piotrus actually mentioned this more modest premium very recently (01:36, 25 January 2024) and User:The Blue Rider was the person who opened the discussion. Both are entered in this years CUP. I also argue that since this proposal is being made before the January 31 cutoff for the contest that it be considered for the 2024 contest.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, this was discussed before this year's cup on the main talk page. There was no consensus to implement such a proposal (alternate proposals include view count and changing the interwiki totals) and additionally it would be more difficult for the bot's maintainer, who is now semi-retired. WikiCup rules have rarely been changed mid-competition, and never in such a big way as this, so I think a mid-year implementation is very unlikely to happen. As for me, I prefer improving articles because I like to improve them, not because they're on a semi-arbitrary, biased list of 61,110 articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Interwikis are included in some way, which is basically all that we want for VA. All of the point categories are semi-arbitrary. ITN, and DYK are especially arbitrary, with the latter making a major rule change a few days ago. Even GA and FA are arbitrary. By the way, each level contains all articles in the lists that are smaller than it. I.e., the list aims to be about 50k total. I'll have a look at the latest discussion. I was familiar with Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/2#Ughhhhh... this one which looks like it was started in November 2022 so it must be a different one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Potentially worth more discussion for 2025, but just too late for 2024. Harrias 18:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I see Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/2#Bonus_points:_a_continuation_from_last_year, which shows it got a lot of consideration. So each of the last two years has seen significant discussion and it seems there were several discussions in earlier years too. Still would like to see it incorporated in some way. Admittedly ILL bonuses are somewhat correlated with the intent of VA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this has been brought up several times, but in neither of the above-linked discussions was there actually a consensus to change anything. However, I think this could be discussed again, but I do not think it is necessary to change the rules while this year's Cup is ongoing; as Airship said, it would be extremely tedious. Not only would the judges have to update the rules and notify competitors, but competitors themselves may be taken unawares by this rule change, and Jarry, who maintains the WikiCup bot, would have to fix the bot mid-competition. To simplify things, any change would have to take place after the 2024 Cup ends. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll be back around once I am eliminated, but the CUP is starting to make my editorial juices start flowing. I don't expect to make the finals, but you never know.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 I think I was the one who suggested it. I agree this is for 2025, which will give us a lot of time to discuss. I just want to say I disagre with calling it "a semi-arbitrary, biased list". I've been involved in this for the last few months and there are rules, voting, and many people working to eliminate bias. If you think stuff needs adjustment, join the voting and discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Piotrus, I did note it was your idea at 15:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC) above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I have Piotrus—see the VA3 talk page. The thing is, most people there seem far more interested in making the lists perfect, than improving any articles on them. It's hard to take claime such as "the VA process prioritizes editorial attention on the vital subjects" when it seems like all the process does is prioritize attention on the lists themselves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 I agree - in fact I am suprised, since I always assumed vital project was just about making a list. Improving articles is something we do as Wikipedians, not Vital project members. Hence the idea of collaborating with WikiCup, which is about improving articles. I think it makes perfect sense to encourage folks to imporove 'important' articles. And while Vital list is not perfect, it is better than any other measure I can think of. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
User:AirshipJungleman29 Do you think it is fair to state that the lists are problematic ("semi-arbitrary, biased") and that a lot of people are focusing on improving them (" interested in making the lists perfect")? My peak performance time on WP was back in the 2007-09 era, by the time I finished 2nd in the 2010 CUP, I was past my peak. I could spend a lot of time on editing as I have in the past. At times in the past I have had 30 nominees at WP:GAC simultaneously. Last year I believe I had over a dozen at one time. I could spend a lot more time editing, but how me and other editors balance their time between helping others find the most pressing articles for improvement and actually improving articles is just a matter of taste.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Good Article reassessments

How do Good article reassments count? Do they count like Good Article reviews?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No, same as with FARs. It is too difficult to quantify what a GAR or FAR is worth. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, as of now GA and FA reassessments do not receive points. I'm not a hundred percent sure what the reasoning behind it is, as this decision was made before I became a judge, but Airship's explanation—that a GAR/FAR review is too complex to be expressed as a numeric point value—seems plausible. In any cases, GAR/FAR processes often end up in demotion, so they often would not really be eligible for points regardless, as these processes are not directly related to improving or promoting an article. Epicgenius (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Take e.g. the currently ongoing Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Battle of Antietam/1. If the article remains a GA, what does each participant get? What if it doesn't? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

FLC reviews

Do FLC reviews count for points? The main WikiCup page does not list them and the submissions pages have nowhere to submit them, but this scoring page still says they are eligible. No worries either way. – Teratix ₵ 11:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they just score in the FAC section. Harrias 12:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Cheers! – Teratix ₵ 13:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

ITN scoring

If I nominate an article at ITN that does need editing, would I get point? What if it needed editing and I was only involved as the nominator?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring#In the news. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
It depends on the type of edits you make, as ITN points are subject to the normal requirement for substantial work on the article. If you were merely a nominator, you would not be eligible for points. On the other hand, if you added a not-insignificant amount of prose (say, a paragraph), or if XTools shows that you're among the top contributors, then you would be eligible for points. If an ITN candidate is in bad shape and you add to it substantially, you would be eligible for points. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Points for reviews

I see that the points for FACR, FLCR, PR and GANR are 5 points each, which seems kind of low for some of the reviews- as bigger or more technical articles are usually harder to review. In addition, they do not get any bonus point on any basis, so easier articles are more incentivised- which means the backlog in reviewing bigger articles increases. So, perhaps we can add a way for some reviews to get more points- maybe by number of words in the review or the article, or those more vital- by number of interwikis or something like that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup/Scoring: Difference between revisions Add topic