Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring

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^talk 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 ^{[Vacation needed]} 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 ^{[Vacation needed]} 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 Wikipedia) 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 ^{[Vacation needed]} 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)

• @Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  • 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. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 05:41, 18 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 ^{(he/him) • talk} 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 ^{(he/him) • talk} 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 Wikipedia: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 ^{(he/him) • talk} 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)

Wikipedia: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)