Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

2016 WikiCup points discussions[edit]

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 Peer Reviews 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. Miyagawa (talk) 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. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 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. Miyagawa (talk) 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) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured pictures[edit]

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. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
How interesting! I wonder what steps the judges took to check that all the FP submissions were eligible? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Miyagawa: @Sturmvogel 66: @Figureskatingfan: It would be interesting to have an answer to that question. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 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.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 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) " Cwmhiraeth (talk) 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 Godot13 did anything with it. 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 Wikipedia (and in this case, Commons), not off-Wiki. Harrias talk 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...--Godot13 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth- On a second reading, try being a good sport. Everyone who participated worked very hard.--Godot13 (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@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. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 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. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Cwmhiraeth - 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 [1] and [2] 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).--Godot13 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A general proposal[edit]

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 Wikipedia (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.

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).

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 Cwmhiraeth 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…--Godot13 (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2015 (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. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
No objection to the above-mentioned suggestion of retirement at the conclusion of the fourth round (provided I haven't already been eliminated).--Godot13 (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I seem to recall that @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. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Straw polls for 2016[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Voting from end of 2015

Featured pictures[edit]

Featured pictures should be worth the same base points (20pts), but with none of the bonuses available [reduction overall][edit]

  • Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, seems about right. Harrias talk 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, having seen Godot13's response, can I clarify what we're !voting on? Are we saying 20 points, with no possibility of bonus? Harrias talk 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Essentially this is lowering the possible score.--Godot13 (talk) 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. Miyagawa (talk) 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. Miyagawa (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - It will ensure more competitive contest. Hanberke (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured pictures should be worth more points[edit]

  • Support if bonus points are being removed, then FPs should have a higher base worth, at least equivalent to GA. Harrias talk 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Harrias talk at least the value of a GA.--Godot13 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I disagree with Harrias, Godot had 253 FPs promoted in the final round this year, a feat impossible to replicate with GAs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 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. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
        • @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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • 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. --Hanberke (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Hanberke: One of the basic principles of Wikipedia 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @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. Hanberke (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @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 Wikipedia history, probably by around a factor of five. He kind of deserves to win. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @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 Godot13'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, Godot13 or Cwmhiraeth. 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! Hanberke (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
        • @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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
          • @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. Hanberke (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured pictures should be worth less points[edit]

Unsure what this means[edit]

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? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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. Miyagawa (talk) 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 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. Miyagawa (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Miyagawa- 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?--Godot13 (talk) 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. Miyagawa (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with what Adam Cuerden says with regard to scoring for featured pictures. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
As do I, with no disrespect to Godot and the value these images bring to Wikipedia. RO(talk) 23:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Disallowing OTRS images[edit]

Courtesy blanked

Godot13 has expressed concern that this resolved discussion may appear on search engines -- I understand the space is supposed is supposed to be noindexed but not all Web crawlers respect that -- and jeopardize the licensing arrangement they have made with the copy right owners. It remains in the edit history, of course, for any one desiring to view it. NE Ent 23:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured pictures should vary in points, based on...[edit]

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.

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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

More points if not in galleries[edit]

Images only used in a gallery of three or more images (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) 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

More points if not in galleries or tables[edit]

E.g. Silver_certificate_(United_States)#Large-size_United_States_silver_certificates_(1878-1923). This is dangerous, though, as such tables can easily make up most of the encyclopedic value of an article.

More points if a non-trivial, non-gallery image within a featured article[edit]

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.

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.

Not claimable after the round the FP was promoted finishes.

  • 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

More points if it is the intro/infobox picture[edit]

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. Nergaal (talk) 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Adam, and because it would generate edit-warring; some articles already have enough drama over lead image... Montanabw(talk) 07:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

More points non-raster files[edit]

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. Nergaal (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Having done vector images before, I'd dispute the logic of this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 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 filesNergaal (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nergaal:One of the biggest sets in FP history was the map projection set, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map Projections 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, User:Kelvinsong/solarsystem (of which I believe all the English-language ones are featured). Also, featured SVGs can be very simple: File:Halftoningcolor.svg, File:Conventional 18-wheeler truck diagram.svg. 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not think the truck one is very simple, and the set you discussed above, I really don't think the vectorized version would be either easy to do or of similar quality. Nergaal (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
...First of all, the truck image is a vectorization of a pre-existing image. This is a common enough procedure, and basically amounts to tracing. One takes the extant JPEG/PNG, puts it below a vector layer, and traces out the shapes, adding colours and gradients as needed. It's skilled work, but it's not anywhere near the level of any but the very simplest of restorations. Secondly, for map projections: Here's some instructions for making such things as SVG images: https://public.tableau.com/s/blog/2014/08/fun-alternate-map-projections Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured pictures should be exempt from "newness" requirement[edit]

A few weeks ago I wrote on this page "there is no requirement in WikiCup rules for work having to be done on featured pictures during the course of the competition", but was told that "There is no exception for featured pictures written into the rules in this regard."

I believe featured pictures should be exempt from the requirement for them to have been worked on during the competition. If I created an image in 2015 and nominated it for featured picture during next year's WikiCup I think it should qualify, while under the present rules it would not unless I had "worked on [it] during the competition". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Featured articles[edit]

Featured articles should be worth the same points[edit]

  • Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 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. Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support looking at the overall stats FA: 34; GA: 183; FP: 87; DYK: 887; GAR: 321. Even with the current points, it's not like there is an overabundance of FAs. ONLY 34 FAs from the entire wikicup means ~3 FAs per month when wikipedia is running ~30 TFAs. I would like encourage competitors to put as much work into FAs since they are by far the most time-consuming entries. Nergaal (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: This is last year's voting. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Featured articles should be worth more points[edit]

Featured articles should be worth less points[edit]

  • 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. Harrias talk 17:46, 8 November 2015 (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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: FAC is a huge amount of work, more than anything other than perhaps GA topics. Montanabw(talk) 22:48, 8 November 2015 (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.  — Calvin999 15:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose FAs are IMHO the essential core of wiki content. Hanberke (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As it is now (with the current bonus system) a FA on a marginal topic is worth more than triple of a GA on a core subject. That doesn't reflect the encyclopedic value of these articles. I am all for super high points to FAs as long as it doesn't apply to the most marginal topics which in my opinion make up far to high percentages of Feature Articles in the English Wikipeda. The best way to encourage competitors to focus on topics on genuine encyclopedic value is via the bonus system based on how many other Wikipedias the topic is covered in. And I would like to go back to the old system where bonus starts already when the article exist on 5 other projects because that's in most cases an indication that the topic is of genuine encyclopedic value. Iselilja (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support To make content creation more valuable compared to Featured Pictures in particular. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Featured lists[edit]

Featured lists should be worth the same points[edit]

  • Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the current FL scoring is reasonable. Ruby 2010/2013 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, seems about right. Harrias talk 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured lists should be worth more points[edit]

  • Support Because FLC and FAC are both for Wikipedia's best work, supposedly. Yet there is such a disparity in points between them. 200 vs 45. Should be raised a lot more.  — Calvin999 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe a two-tiered system where complex lists with extensive narrative and images score higher, but the average FL stays the same. Montanabw(talk) 07:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured lists should be worth less points[edit]

Good articles[edit]

Good articles should be worth the same points[edit]

  • 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, seems about right, though see my comment on FA scoring above. Harrias talk 17:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Think the bonus system handles the disparities fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I would rather see 1 FA come out of the cup than 7 GAs. Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Good articles should be worth more points[edit]

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. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2015 (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.  — Calvin999 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 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.  — Calvin999 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.♦ Dr. Blofeld 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. Harrias talk 17:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 30 points for GA is too low. It should be 50-60 points at least. Hanberke (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support two-tiered system, like DYK, consider readable prose. Perhaps shorter articles stay at 30, longer ones (like Frank Sinatra) score 50. Montanabw(talk) 07:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Good articles should be worth less points[edit]

Good articles should have more bonus points[edit]

There should be more bonus points available for GAs based on length, similar to DYKs. However, to prevent abuse, this system should consider the competitor's contribution to the article (eg. a user can't just copyedit and make a few minor adjustments to a long article to bring it to GA and claim a lot of bonus points).

  • Support as nom In general, a GA takes more effort than one-sixth of an FA. However, I also realize that the amount of work put into a GA can be a lot less than that put into an FA. Therefore, I think there should be bonus points for longer GAs. A basic GA would be worth 30 points. If the GA is more than 30kB of "readable prose size", it would get 10 bonus points (eg. a 32kb article would be worth 40 points). An additional 10 points would be awarded for a 40kb article (eg. a 42kb article would be worth 50 points), 20 points for a 50kb article (eg. a 52kb article would be worth 60 points), and 30 points for a 60kb article (eg. a 62kb article would be worth 70 points). I think 60kb is a reasonable cutoff for awarding bonus points because most articles shouldn't expand beyond 70kb without being split (WP:SIZERULE). These points would be awarded before any multipliers. So an article with 55kb readable prose size on 35 Wikipedias would be worth 120 points (55*2). To claim the bonus points for length, the competitor needs to have contributed or substantially rewritten/improved at least 10kb "readable prose size" of the article. Again, the contributions criteria is needed to prevent abuse and serve as a somewhat objective guideline for the competitors & judges. AHeneen (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Good article reviews[edit]

GARs should be worth the same points[edit]

  • 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. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 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. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

GARs should be worth more points[edit]

  • 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 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!)  — Calvin999 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 (which I think, regrettably, is the right move given the difficulty in practice). Like Aaron/Calvin, I am strongly opposed to bundling GA reviews and GA nominations together. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, 5 points seems appropriate. Harrias talk 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. Montanabw(talk) 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.  — Calvin999 23:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

GARs should be worth less points[edit]

GARs should be wrapped into a GA nomination[edit]

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. Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • 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.  — Calvin999 10:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in part A major problem with the contest is that some GA nominations can wait months (2+ rounds) before they're reviewed. This is biased against GA noms that are longer or more technical because such articles are less likely to be easy to review. I think that for every GA nomination, there should be a QPQ review of another WikiCup participant's GA nomination...if there are any GA noms awaiting review in the "WikiCup articles needing reviews" template on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. The criteria would be waived if there are no GA noms in that template at the time a competitor makes a GA nomination. AHeneen (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

GARs should use a tiered system[edit]

These numbers are only hypothetical suggestions. Base points: 3 points for an article with prose size (based on WP:DYKCHECK) under 10KB, 5 points for an article with prose size between 10KB and 25KB, 7 points for articles with prose size between 25KB and 50KB; 10 points for articles with prose size above 50KB. No points for any review shorter than 1KB; 1x multiplier for reviews between 1KB and 5KB; 1.5x multiplier for reviews between 5KB and 20KB; 2x multiplier for reviews above 20KB. There is nothing wrong with a (valid) short GA review if the article has few issues to begin with, and a longer review should be warranted for nominees with more pre-existing issues. As an example, these three reviews are all valid: Talk:Sonam Kapoor/GA1, Talk:Clitoris/GA1, and Talk:Photograph (Ed Sheeran song)/GA1. Should they score the same points? sst✈discuss 14:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No they're not valid: "As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews." Under the current rules, the GAR review must be long enough to claim points in the competition. Because of the great degree of variability (how much interaction with the GA nom you have), I don't think a bonus for review length is needed. However, for article length, I do agree that bonus points should be given for longer articles. To keep things simple, how about 3 points for <20kb readable prose size and 6 points for ≥20kb readable prose size. AHeneen (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
By "valid" I did not mean valid as in eligible for WikiCup points; I meant reviews that are compliant with GA policy. sst✈(discuss) 05:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Did You Knows[edit]

DYKs should be worth the same points[edit]

  • Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support But DYKs as a result of GA should 100% be allowed.  — Calvin999 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. Harrias talk 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.  — Calvin999 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 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. Harrias talk 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.  — Calvin999 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. —Bloom6132 (talk) 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".  — Calvin999 23:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and be offended – your problem not mine. Your "spen[ding] 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. —Bloom6132 (talk) 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.  — Calvin999 09:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "I didn't know that DYKs as a result of GA passing were not allowed" – well Einstein, the WikiCup scoring page is there for a reason. It's mind-blowing how anyone would enter a competition without looking over the rules first. "How can you say I didn't add content for the DYK after GAN?" – um, because you're not required to under DYK rules, 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. "[E]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. —Bloom6132 (talk) 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?  — Calvin999 10:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

DYKs should be worth more points[edit]

Support if GARs become more valuable, then DYKs should be worth more too for reasons I explained above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DYKs should be worth less points[edit]

  • 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 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.  — Calvin999 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Me too.  — Calvin999 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. --Hanberke (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK points should be available after GA promotion if (and only if) the DYK would have qualified for DYK without the GA.[edit]

  • 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This does seem like a way to double up GA points through the back door to me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 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.  — Calvin999 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?  — Calvin999 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 Adam Cuerden (talk) 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. —Bloom6132 (talk) 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!  — Calvin999 10:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
      • If there isn't enough to do a 5x expansion, then it isn't eligible for DYK The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 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.  — Calvin999 10:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Calvin999 Think of it like this: basically the WikiCup is designed to help improve Wikipedia. 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. Harrias talk 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.  — Calvin999 10:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
              • Yes, but that improvement was reflected in the points score for the GA. Harrias talk 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.  — Calvin999 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. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @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? —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't expect me to respect yours when you clearly don't respect mine, or me for that matter.  — Calvin999 10:50, 9 November 2015 (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 prima donna 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? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2015 (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. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2015 (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. Harrias talk 10:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Good/Featured topics[edit]

Good/Featured topics should be worth the same points[edit]

  • Support I am fine with most aspects of scoring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's not like topics, in and of themselves, add anything to Wikipedia, though completion of a set can be valuable, so it's right to offer some points. It all multiplies together and adds up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Good/Featured topics should be worth more points[edit]

  • Support At the moment the points from these are so meagre as to make pursuing such objectives not worth the effort. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Same as Cwmhiraeth. At the moment, there's such no incentive mainly for GAT. FAT seems fine to me though.  — Calvin999 15:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Good/Featured topics should be worth less points[edit]

Article bonus system[edit]

Article bonus system should remain the same[edit]

Article bonus system should revert to the 2012/13 scheme[edit]

For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia) 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. Miyagawa (talk) 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. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support' I liked this idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It worked so much better like this and was so much fairer.  — Calvin999 10:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @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? Adam Cuerden (talk) 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.  — Calvin999 09:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 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? Ruby 2010/2013 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? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • FAs were always 100 points until this year. —Bloom6132 (talk) 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. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Upon clear explanation by Calvin999. Hanberke (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if Jesus 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. Nergaal (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Though for me the most import part is that the bonus points should start already when a topic is covered in at least 5 other projects. That's in most cases a good indication that the topic has genuine encyclopedic value; at the same time because the number of "big" Wikipedia projects are relatively few, you can have quite important topics that are not covered in as many as 20 projects. Otherwise, I am open to simplification of the 2013/13 system (fewer levels), and also to modifications based on changes in the base points (especially if FAs remain at 200 base points). Iselilja (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Article bonus system should revert to the 2012/13 scheme but have a cap[edit]

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. Miyagawa (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2015 (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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 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 Adam Cuerden's point. Harrias talk 20:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The cap should be at 10x, or something like 1k pts. Nergaal (talk) 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. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Then you will have more spamming of borderline afd material like it happened until 2012 or 2011. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Article bonus system should revert to the 2012/13 scheme, with a tweak to make the point increase match the 2012/13 results[edit]

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.

Rolling 5 year bonus retained?[edit]

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. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

What is that?  — Calvin999 09:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Currently it is for every article that has been on Wikipedia 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). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 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  — Calvin999 10:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it can safely be increased in value. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I also think one could consider increasing this value as it is a relatively good indication of genuine encyclopedic value; though this must of course be seen in relation to what is decided about bonus points as many of these articles will typically appear on multiple projects. Iselilja (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Iselilja, the 5 year bonus has no relationship to the multiple wikis bonus. Ruby 2010/2013 17:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. What I meant is that articles that typically qualify for bonus point for being over 5 years will also often qualify for bonus points as articles appearing on many Wikipedia projects as both these bonus systems are good, though far from perfect, measures of encyclopedic value of an article. So, it may be reasonable to consider the cumulative effect of these two bonus programs. The assumption that older articles typically have above average importance will be most true for the oldest of them, and may not hold up for articles created in 2009/2010 when English Wikipedia already had been around for quite a while and many of the most important topics already were covered Iselilja (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I too would like the 5 year bonus to stay, and I also advocate increasing it as a means of encouraging the expansion of older content. But would we still have it go back 5 years, or keep it for articles created in 2010 and older? I'm torn on either option. Ruby 2010/2013 17:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This year, it applied to those created in 2010; next year it will apply to those created in 2011 and before. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Suggestion[edit]

Hey everyone! I guess with just two weeks to go it is probably too late for 2016, but I'd like to make a suggestion on scoring nonetheless. I sympathise very much with the sentiment of placing attention on Wikipedia's important articles. I would therefore like to suggest that the WikiCup embraces this goal as well by giving extra points to promoted articles that are considered vital. So far, this is being done by counting the number of other Wikipedia's where the article appears on. I find that strange for two reasons:

1. By promoting an article on the English Wikipedia, you do not really contribute much to the other language Wikipedias, so the connection does not really seem to make to much sense.
2. Just because an article appears on many Wikipedias does not automatically make it vital and promoting it not a greater feat. Promoting, let's say, the article of a footballer might score you three times as many points with not that much work.

My alternative suggestion would be:

This might seem a lot, but bear in mind that working on a level-2 or even level-1 article will not only need an immense amount of work in its own right, but will also include a major level of concensus finding on talk pages, since it is likely that a lot of editors will discuss with you over content. Much more so than on many articles that just have a lot of equivalents on other Wikipedias. Promoting, let's say History of the world to GA would be a so much greater achievement than doing the same to, say, 2015 Italian Grand Prix (currently under review), that triple points is even a conservative bonus for the amount of work needed to go into it. At the current scoring system, you would get double points for the F1 race but just triple for History of the world. That just seems strange to me. Let's promote promoting our most important articles!

Please discuss! Regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
We already have and the consensus was that the vital system was flawed and arbitrary and thus should receive no special treatment in the cup. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Taking a look at that discussion, I am not entirely convinced. Back then, Sven Manguard rightly pointed out that the current approach heavily favours pop subjects. Going with the notion of how bad the vital lists are, to me sounds like the typical WP-phenomenon of "I think something is bad but I rather complain than contribute to making it better". Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The bad thing about vitals is that is something a single editor can simply put wherever the feels like, so it is really hard to judge objectively if something merits vital lvl x, and therefore it is very easy to game. With multiple languages, pretty much the same is achieved, but since nobody can sensibly write in more than 10 languages, it is really hard to game. Nergaal (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Last minute idea...possibly for 2017 now[edit]

I was looking at the page Wikipedia:Former featured articles and thinking, "gee it'd be good to shrink this page!"....and it struck me that something like a 5 or 10% bonus for getting a FFA back to featured status...or maybe even former GA back to Good status, would be a good place to start. Nothing big but a bit of a nudge. Thoughts? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that this is an excellent idea, though perhaps specifying that you could not have been involved in the promotion/demotion in any significant way would allow us to avoid potential gaming. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Easy to word that I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

If we're capping bonus points at 3x...[edit]

Why does the chart still show points up to 5x? Am I missing something? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No, not at all. Our mistake. Thanks for catching that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Umh, why only 3x? Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Because that's what it was last year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
THat is a lame reason, but if the cap is at 2x then make that for 100+ articles. The cap should not come at only 50 wikis. Nergaal (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Then that ruins the incremental bonus system that we're reintroducing from earlier competitions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I mean have the +10% bonus for each 10 wikis instead of 5. Nergaal (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Most people preferred the bonus for every 5 wikis. Scroll up and read it for yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

How did AHeneen get 3x points for his GA?[edit]

He got 35 points for making an article GA, but it's only on 6 other wikis. How did he get the 3x multiplier? -- numbermaniac (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We're looking into it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
...All the DYKs are getting x3 as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
FYI...Before this discussion was started, I raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Bonus points bot not working right. AHeneen (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Scoring[edit]

What will happen if an user's GAN's review complete at the end of the round, but before the start of the next round, and he/she can't get to the next round without those points? 111.250.71.103 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That user will have created a Good article, and contributed to the improvement of the encyclopaedia. And got knocked out of the WikiCup. There has to be a cut-off somewhere. Harrias talk 08:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

On scoring[edit]

We had this huge discussion and vote from 2015 at the top of the page which was attracting votes. I've marked it as old, but, of course, if we're going to discuss scoring, we do need to start soon. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the judges were assuming that the points regime from 2016 would continue into 2017. If changes are to be made in the scoring for the 2017 competition, a decision to this effect is needed within the next fortnight, so If anyone wants to make any proposals for change, this is the time and here is the place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it might be wise to at least discuss Recent Deaths. It feels a little overvalued. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Is the DYK bonus rule going to roll forward a year so that the year is now 2011 instead of 2010? Since it stated "five years" for the 2016  MPJ-DK  02:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent deaths[edit]

Should these get the full 10 ITN points? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to judge actually. Sometimes creating a new article for a blurb is quite simple like August 2016 Quetta attacks passed easily for a decent standard size because there were deaths involved and finding material was easy too due to recentism. However, taking Mahasweta Devi from here to here with addition of around 20 references was 10-points worthy work. So what I want to say is that RD or blurb is no gauge to set point. If somehow work-done can be gauged; which seems impossible to do, then points can be different. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it's tricky to gauge, but we do have the "significant work" criterion, meaning that without some not-quite-defined level of involvement in the article, a recent death can't be claimed. I think it's worth keeping recent deaths rolled in with ITN for instruction creep reasons, and feel that there such a small element of the competition, they're not worth worrying about too much; thus, I'd support either the status quo or removing them altogether, though I lean slightly towards the status quo. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The status quo seems good to me. The judges will have to decide whether sufficient work has been done for the RD to qualify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Created vs. submitted[edit]

I am sure the idea is already discuss or included here. If I create or expand the article before WikiCup started and featured during the WikiCup, could be eligible for score? Eg: Article created in Dec 2016, and featured in Jan 2017. --AntanO 02:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The criteria is "significant work" so you would have had to have done significant work on it in 2017 before it qualifies, the definition of "significant work" is a bit of a judgment call.  MPJ-DK  02:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Normally, this is interpreted as significant work, followed by a nomination in the year of the competition. So you couldn't nominate an article now and then do some work on it in January before it is promoted, and nor could you do some work now, nominate it as soon as the competition starts and then do some work on it. Basically: Don't try to game the system and no one will mind, even if you make a few mistakes! Josh Milburn (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Besides, typically in the first round you don't need to score all that highly to get through to the second round. In previous years a single GA would easily have done it every time pretty much. Miyagawa (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
        • In 2016 the first round only really eliminated those that had zero points, so signed up but did not actually get anything completed. There really is no need to try to get something in early to ensure a pass to the next round - heck I made it through one round based to a large degree on GAs I nominated in the prior round, there is no rush.  MPJ-DK  22:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Bonus points[edit]

For scoring bonus points on articles, the page says that "For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia) 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." Should this read "31 December 2016", or is 2015 correct? Joshualouie711talk 22:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly assume that that should be updated to 2016; pinging Godot13, Cwmhiraeth and Sturmvogel 66. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thanks Josh.--Godot13 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)