Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jarry1250 (talk | contribs) at 15:26, 31 December 2022 (→‎Rules and scoring for 2023: missing word). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiCup content needing review
view • edit

Featured content

Good topic candidates

Featured pictures

DYK

GAN

PR

WikiCup (WP:CUP)

Points for next year

With this year's WikiCup coming to an end, I think now is the appropriate time to discuss if we want to make any changes to the points system for next year. As a reminder, here's our scoring system at present:

2022 points
Featured article Featured list Featured picture Featured topic Featured article candidate review Featured list candidate review Good article Good topic Good article nomination review Did you know? In the news
200 45 30 15 per article 5 5 35 5 per article 5 5 or 10 12

We are continuing with the pre-2012 bonus points system with a cap for bonus points at 3×. For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia) on which an article appears as of 31 December 2021, the article 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, or featured list. (Note that this does not apply to in the news, featured picture, good topics, featured topics, good article nomination reviews, featured article candidate reviews or featured list candidate 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 10 bonus points.

5 bonus points will be awarded to any DYK article which has existed since 2016 or earlier. In addition, older articles will be awarded 1 point for each year created before 2016. For example, an article begun in 2011 will receive 5 additional points for a total of 10. The bot will calculate this, but any mistakes can be reported on the WikiCup talk page. Articles which were previously redirects or disambiguation pages are not eligible. Articles which have been moved during the time are eligible. This bonus can be claimed in addition to any other applicable bonus; however, it is added after multiplication. For instance, a 6 kb DYK article of a topic with an article on 25 Wikipedias which has existed since 2010 would be worth 30 points — (10×2)+10. The bot will calculate this. This is the only content which will score more points. Other than this distinction, all content is equal.

I have some opinions of my own, but I'd like to open the floor to thoughts from other editors first. Trainsandotherthings (talk) Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the perennial suggestion (most recently here) is to give 5 points for PR reviews. I think this is a good idea. There was also a lot of points rebalancing discussion in January that is still applicable. — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that PR should give 5 points. I don't see any downside to that. I'd also like to see ITN rebalanced similarly to DYK, rather than a flat 12 points. There should be a smaller baseline level of points, with a larger possible number based on either article size (probably easier to automate for the purposes of the cup) or the effort actually put into the article for ITN (much harder to track). I don't like that it's not in a 5 or 10 point increment like every other category is.
From the January discussion, I believe this excellent summary written by Ktin there is relevant:
  1. FA - consider reducing base points
  2. FA Multiplier - consider doing away with this one in favor of bonus points (add rather than multiply)
  3. GA - consider revising points based on length
  4. FP - consider increasing points
  5. DYK - consider increasing points
  6. Bonus points - currently focuses on length. If alternate measures of significance needs to be considered other than interwiki appearances, consider either of WP:PAGEVIEWS or #WP:VITAL (this idea is not fully fleshed out).
  7. GAR / FAR - have not heard any issues with these.
Returning to November 2022, I believe that the FA multipliers can get out of hand quite easily, and additive bonuses would be better (is 400 points for one article really fair, unless it's an extraordinarily difficult article to make FA like Earth or Human?). I also think we should consider splitting DYK into nominations and reviews, and assigning points separately. If someone wants to go wild and review 30 DYKs, that should be worth some WikiCup points in my book. This should be done so that simply doing your QPQ won't get you any more points than you'd get for a DYK now, but additional reviews beyond that are worth points. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For PRs, I would only like points to be assigned if a PR is reviewing an article based on the GA criteria or the FA criteria. This would prevent editors from scoring from "fly-by" PR reviews with few comments. Using my own PR reviews as examples, my comments at this PR or this PR should not be eligible to score points because they are comments made after a quick skim, and did not consider all of the GA or FA criteria. However, this PR should be eligible to score points because there is evidence of an extensive review of the article in comparison to the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been skeptical of the splitting of DYK in the past, but perhaps we should experiment with it. The DYK nom score itself should continue to be divisible by 5 for our multipliers to work, so I'd just suggest to add 1 or at most 2 points for every DYK review and see whether that helps with the DYK nom backlog or causes issues with not enough noms available for QPQs :) I would object to more than 2 points because a GA review is a lot more work than a DYK review.
For FAs, if we lower the base score to 140 or 150 then the multipliers would become less of an issue. Perhaps they should max out a bit earlier, though. I did love the bonus points for my own articles: it was really nice to be recognised for my 5x expansion DYK plus GA of the 2003 article Ulf Merbold by 99 points total (it is now at FAC but far too late to get me into the final round of the Cup), and expanding old short articles is something where we don't have a lot of other incentives outside the WikiCup. (Vital articles are their own beast and unlikely to be a winner in score gained per time for the Cup, no matter how many points we give). —Kusma (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA still has a huge backlog that we create. I would increase the number of points for GA Reviews to combat the mess we make each year --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are going to increase points for GA reviews, we would need to make sure they're of a minimum quality. And it would follow that points for FA reviews would need to be raised as well. But I think those are surmountable obstacles, and 10 points vs 5 points for each GA review is a huge difference in terms of how incentivized editors are to review. It might also be necessary to increase the GA points as well so there's a fair difference in points between reviewing and making a GA. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This WikiCup produced far more GA reviews than GAs [1], so why do we need to incentivize even more GA reviews? —Kusma (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hmm, I've always found reviews to be OP in terms of points. Considering we did 683 GA reviews, and had 349 items promoted during this year's comp, I don't think we are causing an issue in that way. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Wikicup wants to add points for DYK reviews, I would only want it implemented if DYK also agrees to it, through a discussion at WT:DYK. Z1720 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't want to give some groups of editors veto power over innovations here, but it certainly makes sense to discuss any proposals that would impact other parts of Wikipedia with those affected. —Kusma (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered making this suggestion a few months ago, but it might make sense to make the DYKs themselves 2.5/5 points and the DYK reviews also 2.5/5 points. Since there's a QPQ requirement at DYK, this doesn't reduce the points of content creators, but it does create a positive incentive for editors to do DYK reviews. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say I'm not the biggest fan of monetising DYK reviews. In comparison to reviews at GAN and FAC the process is a lot simpler and labour intensive. Quite often a DYK review is making sure there is no copyvio, running the DYK script to see if it's suitable and checking the hook. It's not the same as reading a whole article and picking out faults and having a dialogue with the nominator. I'd probably want it to be a single point for a DYK review if we retained 5 points for GA and FA reviews. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we not supposed to spot-check sources at DYK reviews? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly opposed to DYK reviews at 2.5 or 5 points, far too easy to do these compared to a GA review, and if someone then does 50 DYK reviews for the Cup, DYK regulars will have problems finding something to review for their QPQs. —Kusma (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that there are some people at DYK (like Theleekycauldron) who review substantially more DYK noms than they make, and I don't think this causes QPQ-related balance issues at DYK. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these people (I also have a few extra reviews, Valereee is another one) would stop reviewing if we get low on unreviewed noms, while a lot of Wikicup points would encourage people to continue reviewing even if we run out. —Kusma (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I've been too busy recently to edit, I've been waiting for this discussion all year. I'll keep my eyes on this one. When ideas were being thrown around I was keeping track of any additions and changes at this sandbox (green indicated the winning consensus), so you all are free to add to that if you like. I focused my attention on including peer reviews, and it looks like we all agreed and settled on 10 points per review. This was probably even my scoring, but regardless I disagree with it now; I think the justification was that an article going through PR is most assuredly of less quality than an FAC or even a GAN, meaning it would be a more exhaustive review. However, I feel peer reviews are looked at with less scrutiny, and rather focus on big and generalized issues, in comparison to an FAC, which has every atom of its being judged. I think is something to keep in mind for balancing peer review points, and it may even warrant balancing the other review categories (mainly FARs) as well. Panini! • 🥪 15:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Peer Review should give more points than a GA Review. At PR, you can just offer helpful comments while you have no responsibility to actually check anything. —Kusma (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly my reasoning. If we still plan to include peer reviews it shouldn't be more than 5 points. Panini! • 🥪 13:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formal proposal: Make peer reviews eligible for 5 points per review

I see general support of the idea that 5 points should be claimable for peer reviews, provided they are done with the intention of preparing an article for GA/FA, and are not drive-by. I'm formally proposing we adopt this change for next year. I am open to revising the exact requirements for the points to be claimable.

  • Support I like the caveats as that will encourage higher quality participation that keeps articles moving towards GA/FA. (t · c) buidhe 20:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a peer review that tells the page author what to do to get the article to GA/FA can be rewarded just like a GA review. —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Cup rules should clarify if and when points for a subsequent GA/FA review can also be claimed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm happy to include peer reviews, but we do need to set some ground work on it. I do worry that the WikiCup might become the whole PR section as it's woefully dead now. Personally, I do think reviews should go back to 4 points as they are a bit OP right now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per buidhe. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not too thrilled with the way this is phrased, though I support the addition of PR credits. To me, the idea should be simple—any thorough review is worth 5 points, whatever the article quality. It's not enforceable that the article must be being prepped for GA/FA, because the responsibility of nominating it for those processes lies with the nominator, not the reviewer. Additionally, you shouldn't be able to double dip and PR and GA/FA ("Support: I had my say at the PR"). However, if you do a substantial PR review and then do a new, thorough GA/FA review then you should be able to claim points on both occasions.
    I think we should just use common sense and treat low-quality submissions on a case-by-case basis, assuming the judges are happy to do this. — Bilorv (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support perhaps wording along the lines of, "5 points are claimable for peer reviews of articles that are indicated for GAN or FAC nomination. Reviews for pre-GAN PRs should cover all of the GA criteria, while reviews for a pre-FAC PR should comment on the prose, sources, and/or image requirements of the FA criteria. If you claim points for a PR, you cannot claim points for the same article for a GA review or FA review." Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Reduce FA points to 150, or some other number

As discussed here, there's been some talk of reducing points for FAs. buidhe said I'd agree with Sandy above, as a FAC coord, I'm not convinced that the extremely high points value for FAs at the wikicup is good for either Wikicup or FAC. I'd support adding points for answering PRs and reduce the number of points for each FA, perhaps to 100 or 150 instead of 200. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this, but I'm going to throw it out there for discussion.

I find it a bit difficult to comment on this - as I do create a lot of FAs; but they rarely pass 300 points. Perhaps the multipliers should be toned down a little? Should we really be giving out 500+ points for one piece of work. 150 might be suitable, but then a high multiplier GA might be worth 105 points which then seems awfully close. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support lowering the FA points to 150. I benefitted from the current scoring system, with a 2x multiplier and a couple of 1.8x multipliers. Lowering the base score would make the multipliers a bit less of an issue. Should we consider some scaling down of base points for joint GA/FA nominations, if this is technically possible? I like to work jointly on an article as it always makes it better, but you can then get two editors scoring heavily for a single article. (Again, I've benefitted from this.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I too am waiting on some additional discussion for this one, but SandyGeorgia was the original user to have the idea of including a vital article bonus in this discussion. While I'm on the opposing side of this one, she did have the idea of using article viewcount as a bonus indicator instead (WP:MILLION); is that an idea that could be considered? Based on how many views an article gets in the past year, they could be given bonus points for reaching either 250k, 500k, 750k, or one million. It sounds like a good idea on paper. Panini! • 🥪 13:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like something rife for issues for current events. Depending on where the cutoff is, you'd either massively overplay new events, or kill the idea of working on something new. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page views might also reinforce English-language topics over other important topics, or perpetuate biases against articles about females and topics from places with smaller populations that have access to the Internet. However, I don't know if languages is the better way to prevent this, or if there is a better method we could use. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the rationale behind FA's being worth 200 (before multipliers) and FL's only 45 (and not getting many multipliers anyway)?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a reduction to 150 points. I am biased as FA isn't my favourite process but I've been through it 3 times and used one in the WikiCup. I think that in general, giving it around 4 times the weight as GA is generous, when often a short-to-medium-length FA is just a GA that needs a little bit of polishing and a lot of effort soliciting reviewers. — Bilorv (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a reduction, but I think it should probably be reduced only to 175 points, or equivalent to the point value of five GAs. I think this is equal to the amount of effort that goes into many FAs (not all of them, granted, given how some people are able to write FAs in a week or less). I agree with other users above that bonus points are more of an issue than the base points. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: New bonus points table

Old table
Bonus points
Number of Wikipedias on which the article appears as of 31 December 2021 Extra points
0–4 0
5–9 20%
10–14 40%
15–19 60%
20–24 80%
25–29 100% (Awarded double points overall)
30–34 120%
35–39 140%
40–44 160%
45–49 180%
50+ 200% (Awarded triple points overall)
New table
Bonus points
Number of Wikipedias on which the article appears as of 31 December 2021 Extra points
0–4 0
5–9 10%
10–14 20%
15–19 30%
20–24 40%
25–29 50%
30–34 60%
35–39 70%
40–44 80%
45–49 90%
50+ 100% (Awarded double points overall)

A possible change to the bonus points system which halves the bonus points awarded.— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Instead of keeping the categories as they are and halving the bonus points (which would lead to half points, something sensibly avoided in the current system, where base points are multiples of 5 and the multipliers are multiples of 20%), I would suggest to keep the highest levels of bonus points for the truly widely used articles (say, United States), but make the number of interwikis needed go up faster. Here is one possible suggestion achieving that:
Counterproposal
Bonus points
Number of Wikipedias on which the article appears as of 31 December 2021 Extra points
0–4 0
5–9 20%
10–19 40%
20–34 60%
35–54 80%
55–79 100% (Awarded double points overall)
80–109 120%
110–144 140%
145–184 160%
185–229 180%
230+ 200% (Awarded triple points overall)

In any case, a 25 interwiki article should not score double. —Kusma (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support Kusma's suggestion. A few geographic reference points: United States has 308, Paris has 269, Antwerp has 124 and Royal Tunbridge Wells has 35. Bringing an article on the scope of United States to GA/FA would easily be much more than 3x the effort of a short and niche GA/FA. But we do seem to have issues with the arbitrariness of multipliers for non-vital topics that are still double or triple points.
    I'm not sure what the size of other Wikipedias was when this set of multipliers first came in but it may just be that there are more languages now and more articles in each Wikipedia, so we need to adjust the figures. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bonus points
Number of Wikipedias on which the article appears as of 31 December 2021 Bonus points
0–9 0%
10–19 20%
20–29 40%
etc. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, your proposal is to essentially double the number of interwikis needed for each level from the status quo. This has the advantage of being easier to describe than what I proposed. Articles with at least 100 interwikis would get maximum bonus. Your proposal is a bit less generous to articles with up to about 50 interwikis and more generous for articles with more than about 50. I don't have any hard data that would suggest that either proposal is better, but certainly both would help combat overly generous bonus points. —Kusma (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the original counterproposal, as I feel the linear intervals don't cover the difference between maximum and minimum interwiki-level as appropriately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Raise FL points to 60, or some other number

As I was looking through old discussions on point rebalancing I saw that Adam Cuerden made a good point about featured lists that some other folks agreed with at the time. His reasoning was as follows: "Lists rarely work well with Wikidata, so bonuses, if any, tend to be low. Lists are, as far as I can tell, ineligible for GA. If they're generally accepted for DYK, I see little evidence of this. So a Featured list is probably capped at pretty close to the base 45 points, plus review points."
While I agree that lists are ultimately far easier to make, this is definitely true; a featured article gets a whopping 200, which is justified, but the user also gets up to triple that on bonus points, not to mention any GA, DYK, and other misc. points along the way. Due to FLs only really getting the user the 45 points, it seems to not be worth the effort because strategically, this is all they would be getting for their work.
Users from past discussions threw around raising the points to 60, 70, or 75, with 60 being the majority vote. Do you all still support this idea or are there some second thoughts?

Proposal: Bonus points for certain GA reviews

The GAN page now shows the number of GAs a nominator has had promoted as well as the number of GA reviews they have performed. (The number of GAs is based on WP:WBGAN, and the number of reviews comes from User:GA bot/Stats; both probably have some minor errors, FYI.) The reviews are now logged by ChristieBot, which means it would be possible to run a report showing what bonus points might be applied to the reviews performed for the WikiCup. For example, bonus points could be awarded for reviews of older nominations, or for reviews of articles by nominators with more reviews than GAs, or for reviews over a certain length, or anything else that could be determined programmatically. I don't compete in the WikiCup myself, but the idea came up today at WT:GAN and I thought I would post the idea here in case there's interest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't such a bonus apply to PR and FAC reviews too? Age might be the simplest to work with across all three: perhaps for GANs and PRs more than 90 days old, and for FACs from the "older nominations" list. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are very different and should be treated differently. GAs never time out, while FACs do. —Kusma (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about a 90-day threshold for all review venues? I forgot to mention FLCs before, which don't time out as quickly as FACs do. (I remember seeing some 6-month-old FLCs earlier this year). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There have only ever been two FACs older than four months, and only a handful older than three months -- see here and press "submit" for details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps 60 days would be better. (Not tied to a specific number; 90 was simply from the rules for the last GAN backlog drive). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "bonus points for reviewing a GA nominated by a prolific reviewer" option because it rewards behaviour that reduces the backlog. Currently one gets nothing but kudos for being a GA reviewer who reviews a lot (unless one participates in the WikiCup or backlog drives, which many don't). If reviewing a lot means you are in turn more likely to get your nominations reviewed I think that would be a positive feedback loop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like the idea of reviewing the older ones getting more points. The only question is how do you categorise that for points? It seems a bit complicated to write a code for the bot so you'd probably have to ask the judges to manually add your bonus. Also, how long would they have to be waiting for? A month or longer? A few minor details I know but I certainly support the principle. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike's bot would ideally tell the WikiCup bot which reviews score extra points. I would suggest to give 3 bonus points for nominations over 60 days old; this also has a good correlation with reviews of very long articles. —Kusma (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this idea would be beneficial, especially as the GA backlog is pretty terrifying at the moment. Perhaps 1 bonus point for nominations over 30 days old, 3 for nominations over 60 days old, and 5 for nominations over 90 days old? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of what the bot can produce. This list shows all reviews started in the first week of December of articles that had been waiting at least thirty days at the time the review started. The list includes all reviews, whether completed or not; it could be filtered to exclude reviews still in progress if necessary. I could also make it produce a summarized version that listed just reviewer names and the bonus points to be added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example bot report on reviews of old nominations
Reviewer Article Nomination date Review started Age of nomination when review started
AirshipJungleman29                       Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire 2022-11-06 06:32:00 2022-12-07 12:13:37 31
Amitchell125                             Thomas Penn                                             2022-10-09 22:00:00 2022-12-02 20:40:32 54
An anonymous username, not my real name Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Nasafi                           2022-10-01 20:32:00 2022-12-01 23:25:18 61
Chiswick Chap                           Public school (United Kingdom)                         2022-09-15 23:03:00 2022-12-03 20:22:51 79
Eewilson                                 Eucalyptus rhodantha                                   2022-10-06 06:02:00 2022-12-01 09:20:42 56
Floydian                                 Tennessee State Route 396                               2022-10-23 07:56:00 2022-12-01 02:04:56 39
Kosack                                   Soony Saad                                             2022-08-01 12:41:00 2022-12-06 13:11:17 127
Kyle Peake                               Keith (song)                                           2022-09-22 23:00:00 2022-12-06 08:28:57 75
Kyle Peake                               Out of This Club                                       2022-09-13 02:06:00 2022-12-04 09:38:38 82
Kyle Peake                               Signals (Regard and Kwabs song)                         2022-09-20 14:02:00 2022-12-05 08:09:32 76
Kyle Peake                               You're No Good (Jesse Fuller song)                     2022-08-22 17:57:00 2022-12-07 08:45:11 107
Marshelec                               Shipyard Railway                                       2022-08-04 07:17:00 2022-12-05 23:00:43 123
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy                 Little Secrets (2001 film)                             2022-08-23 05:21:00 2022-12-02 09:01:25 101
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy                 Rang (1993 film)                                       2022-08-22 03:19:00 2022-12-03 06:42:13 103
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy                 Shin Ultraman                                           2022-07-06 14:01:00 2022-12-03 15:57:25 150
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy                 Wedding Crashers                                       2022-10-18 00:58:00 2022-12-01 09:21:23 44
Ovinus                                   East Timor                                             2022-10-24 15:00:00 2022-12-07 05:54:13 44
Phlsph7                                 Purdue University                                       2022-08-12 20:00:00 2022-12-01 08:34:15 111
Pichemist                               Maltese nationality law                                 2022-08-19 09:12:00 2022-12-06 21:01:11 109
Sturmvogel 66                           Breaking Bad                                           2022-07-19 09:08:00 2022-12-01 02:02:21 135
Although theoretically, a difference in the length of time an article has been awaiting review might be taken into account, in practice I don't think Jarry, who runs the bot, would be likely to make the change as he is so seldom available. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue I have with basing this off the items that have been waiting a specific length of time, is that we would not be rewarding those who do lots of reviews, but simply waiting out the clock. Sometimes those waiting a long time for reviews are simply because they do no reviews in return. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: If this is unfeasible to do for next year, maybe this will have to wait for the 2024 Cup? But do you think there is consensus on any of the other changes and will it be possible to implement those for the contest starting in two weeks? —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ughhhhh...

Oh no, not the Vital article multipliers again... Shitty proposal - banish Cacti to ANI! Jokes aside, this is my feeling when reading previous Vital article incentive proposals, it seems that people don't really like the list or don't even care about improving vital articles in general. In my opinion, the Vital list need not be perfect to do the job, it just need to be good enough list of "articles that people will always care about" to become useful. Demanding the list to be more "clean" has wasted the project a decade worth of time. So, here's my proposal for integrating VAs to WikiCup:

  1. 5x multiplier for level 3 (175 pt GA, 1000 pt FA), 7x for level 2 (245 pt GA, 1400 pt FA) and 10x for level 1 (350 pt GA, 2000 pt FA), without bonuses from lang multipliers. The multipliers here are honestly extremely tame by lang multipliers standard – most if not all VAs have +50 languages and are topics of inherent importance. Level 4 and 5 are not counted as they are not as vital and includes topics often seen in WikiCup.
  2. Special recognition for those actually tackle these articles.
  3. Add smaller multipliers for reviewing/checking these articles.
  4. Encourage collaboration by allowing sharing points – if both main contributors work on the same article, they may each get all the points.

I know that this proposal has been here over and over again, but I hope that you guys seriously consider it. Just 10 VA each year could mean a massive improvement to this encyclopedia for the readers. Remember, it doesn't have to be perfect, WikiCup after all is just a highly addictive game. Regards, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To give a sense of how difficult improving Vital article is: United States, Israel, Emotion, Land, and Euclid. What's the multipliers for all of these articles? Poultry 5x. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: centralized discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too experienced with CD or the WikiCup, but is this really that important? Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think so. There has been many, many discussion about this in the past. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, people should not be able to win the WikiCup with a single Level 1 VA FA. Level 1 and 2 are not significantly more important/difficult than Level 3. Level 4 contains many countries and world cities that are equally as worthy as some other articles. A FA for a high-profile article is too much of a game of chance to make sense as a WikiCup entry, as it will likely take a very long time, preventing the nominator from scoring on other FAs. Just no.
Vital articles should have their own improvement drives (as they do) and have nothing to do with the WikiCup. —Kusma (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do have one, called WP:TCC. The only small problem is that it is ineffective at producing GAs. And yes, I firmly believe that a Vital 1 FA worths a hundred times more than a random FA, due to its impact and extreme difficulties. One article requires you to run a marathon, another requires you to run on hot lava. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it has a side benefit of pushing people out of the comfort zone and conquer and chewing these articles. I think this is not an unreasonable proposal, given that User:Vami IV have drilled Simon Bolívar constantly, a Vital level 3 article, for a year now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the designation of "Vital article" is too subjective to use for the Wikicup. I think page count, number of foreign languages the article exists in, and age of the article are more objective and should be considered first. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All importance lists are subjective. They are not meant to be objective as they reflect what values do we consider important, in this case it is the object's or people's effect through history, its relevance and broadness. Sure, we can make another list that solely based on statistics, but I don't think it would yield good result. Do try it though – I and many others would love to see it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people should be encouraged to waste their time on super broad concept articles like most Level 1 Vital articles. Where Wikipedia shines is in specialised knowledge, not on hopeless tasks like summarising the arts. Level 3 and 4 are typically more worthwhile to work on, but as I said before, not necessarily a good choice for a WikiCup participant because of FA nomination limits that together with the two-months rounds turn VA improvement in the Cup into a high risk strategy. —Kusma (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's good to have a jackpot prize... People can aim for smaller prizes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1000 or even 2000 points for an FA? Hell no. That's absolutely unfair to everyone else. WikiCup is not a lottery. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is unfair for those working at climate change FA and Hurricane Nicole (2022) FA to get the same 200 pts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the current interwiki based bonus system, climate change is worth about 3 times as much as that hurricane, so it seems the concern in your example is already addressed by the rules. —Kusma (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that people don't even care about improving vital articles in general. I think that can mostly be attributed to the lack of approbation given to Vital Articles within the community. I won't rehash some of the old arguments again, as I think some of the above comments speak for themselves, but I will say that it seems highly unlikely this proposal will gain traction. WikiCup already has clearly defined standards that work just fine for the purpose of building an encyclopedia (and rewarding those who build it).--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiCup is not working fine. Plenty of people stopped participating due to drama, GA and FA reviewers complaining that WikiCup reviews are of low quality, and of course, the articles often nominated would not see the light of day after the WikiCup. Stuff is not "fine" right now. I do agree however that many parts of the proposal needs adjustment before integrating them to the cup. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found the VA list to be pretty arbitrary. I don't always agree that they are the most important articles to work on. There's also only a small amount of items that can be worked on. I'd be against doing this specific proposal. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with at least bonuses for Level 3 articles. This is where I think the sweet spot of the Vital articles project is: it's not got too much popular culture or celebrity clutter, but it's not trying to square the circle of finding the "10 most important... things". The WikiCup hugely incentivises obscure and cookie cutter GAs and FAs—I say this as someone whose contributions fall mostly under this description. Rebalancing the points distribution towards our most-viewed and most important articles, even if we go over the top with it, has a huge potential to make a big difference to readers.
I don't see why it would be wrong to win the WikiCup by improving United States to FA rather than improving 100 boilerplate TV episode articles to GA and 10 to FA. — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5x is too much though. If -- If you're going to institute bonuses for Vital Articles, the bonus needs to be something more reasonable like 1.5x. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Using my own work as an example, bringing Black Mirror to GA was 5x the effort of bringing one of its episode articles to GA. That's just a level 5 vital article, and I'm doubtful it should be on that list. — Bilorv (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I disagree with including Vitals. I'd want to repeat what I said the last time. Vital is a flawed and arbitrary system of articles. Not to mention its incomplete for what one would consider "vital". And 1000 points for one article is far too much. You could win a round on just one article with that. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, what is vital is arbitrary. But so do our language multipliers, GA review pts, image FA pts, and so on. I'm sure that out of 1000 articles listed as "vital", most are worthy of further expansion as a broad-topic article. I do agree however that the multiplier is a bit too OP. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I don't think most of the Level 1 and 2 articles are actually useful, I would support if it was for level 3 and downwards. I do feel that these, if taken to GA or FA status, would significantly improve the project. Multipliers of x2, x1.5, and x1.25 for the respective tiers seems fair to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, but I think that keeping Level 1 and 2 prizes for anyone dare to do it. I think they should have a x2.5 and x3, without language bonus. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not persuaded by any of the above to support such a change. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why so? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For a start, lack of evidence to support the points being made. Some of the articles I've worked on are getting as many or more views over 90 days than some of the level one vital articles, so I think readers are being served by improvements to the non-"vital" articles. (Often helped by peaks; see chart here - e.g. Fatima Whitbread had 226,323 views in 90 days; the arts had 104,192 in the same period.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If my two cents are of note (well, SandyGeorgia's, I'm just bringing it to light), her original idea was to have an additive of 15-25 points depending on what level the article was at. A base article is worth 75, level 5 vital articles 100, level 4 125, level 3 150, level 2 175, and level 1s 200. This idea specifically I'm opposed to, because 75 is definitely too low, and I don't think this big of a point gap between is encouraging. Every article on Wikipedia is worth 75 points then, and only 10,000 or less are worth anything above that. However, we could potentially do something small with it (a 5-25 point bonus on top of the base points depending on vitality, just to encourage users to shoot for something bigger since they're already going through FA). I think we should just save multipliers for the other languages thing, and just treat ideas like these as a "you did a backflip instead of a frontflip, so that's a 5 point bonus". In short, my stance is "something small or not at all." Panini! • 🥪 17:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the reactions here, I think I'm just gonna make a separate competition to WikiCup instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning from first principles

So let's start from the beginning. Why does WikiCup exists? Well, The purpose of the Cup is to encourage content creation and improvement and make editing on Wikipedia more fun. So, what is the most essential, most dire articles that need improvement? Some would say it is the stubs – they should be improved to fulfill Wikipedia's comprehensiveness. Some would say it is the popular articles that rakes in millions of views per day – we should make a WP:ITN to inform as much people about the truth as possible. Personally, I think that such articles are low-quality articles that are broad in scope, articles that would likely be referenced for decades into the future.

Well, some would say, why do I fixated on these broad-topic articles? These articles usually contain a lot of important and crucial knowledge that is very hard to find anywhere else. Britannica and Encarta does not have the guts to write an article about science – we do. And we want to make the true and fresh knowledge to access as much people as possible, whether you are from Nigeria with dial-up internet or a scientist in Dubai that need a touch-up on your expertise. That's why Wikipedia is a webpage, that's why the New Vector screen has a big font and fixed screen width, that's why Wikipedia don't have ads (to make accessing knowledge easier), and so on. That's thinking from first principles (asking "why?" until you cannot reduce it further).

What does it have to do about WikiCup then? Well, the most effective WikiCup season is one that facilitating all of these things the most. This means encouraging editors to make great, attractive (to the readers) content, correct factual mistakes, and accelerate article quality growth. The most efficient use of editors' time to achieve this goal is to work on broad-topic articles that are perpetually relevant to readers. A GA about particle physics would outweigh 100 GA about each individual fundamental and composite particles. It just so happens that the WP:Vital article list exists that compile these kind of articles, and though it is not perfect it is the best that we got. So why not use the list then? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said for other processes here at Wikicup and Wikipedia. Why do so many editors this year that a lot of them withdrawn? (hint: it's not just IRL stuff). Why does the WikiCup never achieved more than 100 contestants at the same time? Why do people farming points by making cursory articles and reviews? Why isn't the WikiCup more effective at encouraging more quality content? This are issues that I believe can be solved if we just shake up the system and walk outside traditions and the comfort zone. Test, fail, learn, repeat – that's what make a good product. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of content creation and expansion on Wikipedia happens independently of the WikiCup, which is an additional fully optional way to be a bit competitive about content work. Many of our best content editors do not even participate in the WikiCup.
If you want VAs to become better, either do it yourself or find out why people don't work on them and fix that issue. Extrinsic motivation like extra WikiCup points may be the wrong way to approach this. —Kusma (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it seems like you guys aren't enthusiastic about this too. I made the Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/Vital Competition specifically to encourage VA development. Let's see how it goes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I disagree that your assessment. In what way does forcing people to work on specific articles make Wikipedia more fun? I disagree that an article on particle physics would outweigh other articles. I think you view our scientific coverage as being incredibly important for researchers, but we aren't a reliable source on such subjects (or at all). We aren't here to state "facts", we are here to summarise what third party RS state about a subject. The Vital articles list is made up of primarily very broad and expertise led items - ones that are incredibly difficult to improve. Whilst working on them is a great use of your time, putting rewards behind very difficult curtains would completely put me off the competition.
We aren't a product, and if you somehow think that focusing on VA items is somehow going to get hundreds of users involved, you are crazy. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think you are conflating Wikipedias goals with your own. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to work on articles about what I find interesting, regardless of if they are vital articles or not. And most everyone else here will tell you the same thing. We're volunteers, and choose to work on what we enjoy. This vital articles thing is not going to get conflated with WikiCup, nor should it.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know a way to encourage people to work on certain articles... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As well-intentioned as this proposal is, I think it may be trying to conflate the WikiCup and other competitions that focus on Vital Articles, such as The Core Contest. Unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is specifically geared toward improving VAs, and they do give out prizes based on how vital the article is, in proportion to how much the article was improved.
The problem with including a vital multiplier in the WikiCup is that it encourages gaming the system, especially since the Vital Articles list is relatively arbitrary in that anyone could edit many of the VA sub-lists. In addition, vital articles already have substantial interwiki multipliers (many VAs will get at least 2x multipliers anyway). I think coverage in other languages is already a decent measure of how vital a topic is, especially for pages that are not officially listed as VAs. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
anyone could edit many of the VA sub-lists? I can't see how that wouldn't be solved by a simple "as of December 31, (previous year)" or something. I agree with the general idea that the level 1 and level 2 articles are Pretty Bad In Quality, but that's again TCC not WikiCup. The language stuff is a more objective measurement of how much people care about an article/the "global" scope of it, so to speak. casualdejekyll 00:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FA promotion question

Hi, if I nominate an article for FA this year but it gets promoted in 2023, would that count for the WikiCup? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, under the present scoring system, it would count for the WikiCup as long as the article had been worked on significantly by you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth Thank you, and when the page says that points are reset at the end of each round and "8 finalists left; the contestant with the highest score will win", is that referring to the total amount of points accumulated throughout the competition, or just the points you have at the end of the last round? Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The points are reset, so only those scored in the final round count towards the final tally. "Highest score" here refers to the person with the highest in that round. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of 2023 rules

@Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth: In your capacity as Wikicup judges, can you confirm which proposals on which rule additions/changes above have been approved, rejected, or need more input before a decision? I ask because the PR suggestion above seems to have support but has not been added to the Wikicup rules page, and I am curious about the other proposals as well. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy elsewhere but will study the suggestions imminently. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rules and scoring for 2023

In my view, the chief problem with changing the rules and scoring for the WikiCup is that Jarry1250, who wrote and runs the scoring bot, is generally unavailable. For example, he last edited Wikipedia in April 2022. I am not technically competent and am not minded to make any alterations to the scoring.

There seems to be a consensus for inclusion of peer reviews in the WikiCup on the same basis as GAR's. I think we could manage that by including PRs with GARs in a single scoring column, each to score 5 points. I will be looking at each review to ensure that it meets minimum standards. Other than that addition, I propose leaving the rules and scoring unchanged. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible to find someone else who knows how the bot works and is, as you say, technically competent? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not this quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this discussion has been ongoing for two months, it really would have been nice to know about this issue a lot sooner. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. What do you need? (Incidentally, for future reference, the source code is here.) - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 14:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarry1250: Is it feasible to add peer reviews scoring 5 points? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: Sure. Although for simplicity I quite liked your idea of merging PRs into GA reviews, if they are both to count for the same number of points (just change the heading, basically). That would be easier, I think, and avoid the table becoming too unwieldy. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 15:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup&oldid=1130707885"