Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Points for next year

Latest comment: 1 year ago81 comments19 people in discussion

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

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

We are continuing with the pre-2012 bonus points system with a cap for bonus points at 3×. For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia) on which an article appears as of 31 December 2021, the article is awarded an extra 0.2 times as many points if it appears on did you know, or is promoted to good article, featured article, or featured list. (Note that this does not apply to in the news, featured picture, good topics, featured topics, good article nomination reviews, featured article candidate reviews or featured list candidate reviews.) For instance, a featured article (normally 200 points) appearing on 21 Wikipedias is awarded 160 bonus points (an extra 80%). A short DYK (normally 5 points) appearing on 65 Wikipedias is awarded 10 bonus points.

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

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

I think the perennial suggestion (most recently here) is to give 5 points for PR reviews. I think this is a good idea. There was also a lot of points rebalancing discussion in January that is still applicable. — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that PR should give 5 points. I don't see any downside to that. I'd also like to see ITN rebalanced similarly to DYK, rather than a flat 12 points. There should be a smaller baseline level of points, with a larger possible number based on either article size (probably easier to automate for the purposes of the cup) or the effort actually put into the article for ITN (much harder to track). I don't like that it's not in a 5 or 10 point increment like every other category is.

From the January discussion, I believe this excellent summary written by Ktin there is relevant:

FA - consider reducing base points
FA Multiplier - consider doing away with this one in favor of bonus points (add rather than multiply)
GA - consider revising points based on length
FP - consider increasing points
DYK - consider increasing points
Bonus points - currently focuses on length. If alternate measures of significance needs to be considered other than interwiki appearances, consider either of WP:PAGEVIEWS or #WP:VITAL (this idea is not fully fleshed out).
GAR / FAR - have not heard any issues with these.

Returning to November 2022, I believe that the FA multipliers can get out of hand quite easily, and additive bonuses would be better (is 400 points for one article really fair, unless it's an extraordinarily difficult article to make FA like Earth or Human?). I also think we should consider splitting DYK into nominations and reviews, and assigning points separately. If someone wants to go wild and review 30 DYKs, that should be worth some WikiCup points in my book. This should be done so that simply doing your QPQ won't get you any more points than you'd get for a DYK now, but additional reviews beyond that are worth points. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

For PRs, I would only like points to be assigned if a PR is reviewing an article based on the GA criteria or the FA criteria. This would prevent editors from scoring from "fly-by" PR reviews with few comments. Using my own PR reviews as examples, my comments at this PR or this PR should not be eligible to score points because they are comments made after a quick skim, and did not consider all of the GA or FA criteria. However, this PR should be eligible to score points because there is evidence of an extensive review of the article in comparison to the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I've been skeptical of the splitting of DYK in the past, but perhaps we should experiment with it. The DYK nom score itself should continue to be divisible by 5 for our multipliers to work, so I'd just suggest to add 1 or at most 2 points for every DYK review and see whether that helps with the DYK nom backlog or causes issues with not enough noms available for QPQs :) I would object to more than 2 points because a GA review is a lot more work than a DYK review.

For FAs, if we lower the base score to 140 or 150 then the multipliers would become less of an issue. Perhaps they should max out a bit earlier, though. I did love the bonus points for my own articles: it was really nice to be recognised for my 5x expansion DYK plus GA of the 2003 article Ulf Merbold by 99 points total (it is now at FAC but far too late to get me into the final round of the Cup), and expanding old short articles is something where we don't have a lot of other incentives outside the WikiCup. (Vital articles are their own beast and unlikely to be a winner in score gained per time for the Cup, no matter how many points we give). —Kusma (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

GA still has a huge backlog that we create. I would increase the number of points for GA Reviews to combat the mess we make each year --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
If we are going to increase points for GA reviews, we would need to make sure they're of a minimum quality. And it would follow that points for FA reviews would need to be raised as well. But I think those are surmountable obstacles, and 10 points vs 5 points for each GA review is a huge difference in terms of how incentivized editors are to review. It might also be necessary to increase the GA points as well so there's a fair difference in points between reviewing and making a GA. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This WikiCup produced far more GA reviews than GAs [1], so why do we need to incentivize even more GA reviews? —Kusma (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm, I've always found reviews to be OP in terms of points. Considering we did 683 GA reviews, and had 349 items promoted during this year's comp, I don't think we are causing an issue in that way. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
If Wikicup wants to add points for DYK reviews, I would only want it implemented if DYK also agrees to it, through a discussion at WT:DYK. Z1720 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to give some groups of editors veto power over innovations here, but it certainly makes sense to discuss any proposals that would impact other parts of Wikipedia with those affected. —Kusma (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I considered making this suggestion a few months ago, but it might make sense to make the DYKs themselves 2.5/5 points and the DYK reviews also 2.5/5 points. Since there's a QPQ requirement at DYK, this doesn't reduce the points of content creators, but it does create a positive incentive for editors to do DYK reviews. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I must say I'm not the biggest fan of monetising DYK reviews. In comparison to reviews at GAN and FAC the process is a lot simpler and labour intensive. Quite often a DYK review is making sure there is no copyvio, running the DYK script to see if it's suitable and checking the hook. It's not the same as reading a whole article and picking out faults and having a dialogue with the nominator. I'd probably want it to be a single point for a DYK review if we retained 5 points for GA and FA reviews. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Are we not supposed to spot-check sources at DYK reviews? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to DYK reviews at 2.5 or 5 points, far too easy to do these compared to a GA review, and if someone then does 50 DYK reviews for the Cup, DYK regulars will have problems finding something to review for their QPQs. —Kusma (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that there are some people at DYK (like Theleekycauldron) who review substantially more DYK noms than they make, and I don't think this causes QPQ-related balance issues at DYK. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
All of these people (I also have a few extra reviews, Valereee is another one) would stop reviewing if we get low on unreviewed noms, while a lot of Wikicup points would encourage people to continue reviewing even if we run out. —Kusma (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Although I've been too busy recently to edit, I've been waiting for this discussion all year. I'll keep my eyes on this one. When ideas were being thrown around I was keeping track of any additions and changes at this sandbox (green indicated the winning consensus), so you all are free to add to that if you like. I focused my attention on including peer reviews, and it looks like we all agreed and settled on 10 points per review. This was probably even my scoring, but regardless I disagree with it now; I think the justification was that an article going through PR is most assuredly of less quality than an FAC or even a GAN, meaning it would be a more exhaustive review. However, I feel peer reviews are looked at with less scrutiny, and rather focus on big and generalized issues, in comparison to an FAC, which has every atom of its being judged. I think is something to keep in mind for balancing peer review points, and it may even warrant balancing the other review categories (mainly FARs) as well. Panini! • 🥪 15:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Peer Review should give more points than a GA Review. At PR, you can just offer helpful comments while you have no responsibility to actually check anything. —Kusma (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Exactly my reasoning. If we still plan to include peer reviews it shouldn't be more than 5 points. Panini! • 🥪 13:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Support as proposer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Support as the actual proposer. Panini! • 🥪 18:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

On a side note, my original proposal also included the ability to add peer reviews to the Reviews Needed side table. I still stand by that idea. Panini! • 🥪 18:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

~~Neutral~~ as proposer. I might support this, but I'd like to see more discussion of it first. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Support lowering FA point to 150. Based on discussion here, I am convinced that a reduction is in order. Bonus points should also be addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Support lowering the FA points to 150 or lower. IMO a FA about a many topics are a lot easier to write than its points suggest. I must have spent 10x the time on my FA Armenian genocide compared to International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide—the latter FA should be worth about 50 points honestly—but this isn't reflected in the scoring. I also think that diversifying WikiCup efforts to other venues is likely to benefit both WikiCup and FAC. (t · c) buidhe 20:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I would like to hear from some of the people who contributed FAs to the Cup, but I think 150 is a good suggestion. I would oppose lowering further at this point (halving down to 100 is a rather drastic change, and I don't see evidence that the Cup is so unbalanced that a drastic change is needed). —Kusma (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I contributed 2 FAs this year while I was in the running. Cedar Hill Yard definitely felt like something worth 200 points, while I'd say Branford Steam Railroad really feels like something worth closer to 150 points (Cedar Hill Yard is twice the length of Branford Steam Railroad in word count). Just my two cents. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If the proposal to reduce bonus points passes, I'd support (in order) 175 points or 150 points or leaving as is. —Kusma (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I did not contribute FAs this year, but I did last year. I think the amount of points at 200 is correct, but I think the 600 points for articles on lots of Wikis makes it difficult to compete in the final round. I would be more interested in capping the bonus points. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the multipliers getting out of control on FAs is a problem. 600 points is just unreasonable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I find it a bit difficult to comment on this - as I do create a lot of FAs; but they rarely pass 300 points. Perhaps the multipliers should be toned down a little? Should we really be giving out 500+ points for one piece of work. 150 might be suitable, but then a high multiplier GA might be worth 105 points which then seems awfully close. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Support lowering the FA points to 150. I benefitted from the current scoring system, with a 2x multiplier and a couple of 1.8x multipliers. Lowering the base score would make the multipliers a bit less of an issue. Should we consider some scaling down of base points for joint GA/FA nominations, if this is technically possible? I like to work jointly on an article as it always makes it better, but you can then get two editors scoring heavily for a single article. (Again, I've benefitted from this.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
~~Comment~~, I too am waiting on some additional discussion for this one, but SandyGeorgia was the original user to have the idea of including a vital article bonus in this discussion. While I'm on the opposing side of this one, she did have the idea of using article viewcount as a bonus indicator instead (WP:MILLION); is that an idea that could be considered? Based on how many views an article gets in the past year, they could be given bonus points for reaching either 250k, 500k, 750k, or one million. It sounds like a good idea on paper. Panini! • 🥪 13:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Seems like something rife for issues for current events. Depending on where the cutoff is, you'd either massively overplay new events, or kill the idea of working on something new. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Page views might also reinforce English-language topics over other important topics, or perpetuate biases against articles about females and topics from places with smaller populations that have access to the Internet. However, I don't know if languages is the better way to prevent this, or if there is a better method we could use. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Support the reduction, per others. Panini! • 🥪 14:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

What's the rationale behind FA's being worth 200 (before multipliers) and FL's only 45 (and not getting many multipliers anyway)?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- FLs are significantly easier to make, realistically. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Support a reduction to 150 points. I am biased as FA isn't my favourite process but I've been through it 3 times and used one in the WikiCup. I think that in general, giving it around 4 times the weight as GA is generous, when often a short-to-medium-length FA is just a GA that needs a little bit of polishing and a lot of effort soliciting reviewers. — Bilorv (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Support a reduction, but I think it should probably be reduced only to 175 points, or equivalent to the point value of five GAs. I think this is equal to the amount of effort that goes into many FAs (not all of them, granted, given how some people are able to write FAs in a week or less). I agree with other users above that bonus points are more of an issue than the base points. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: New bonus points table

Old table

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

New table

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

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

Instead of keeping the categories as they are and halving the bonus points (which would lead to half points, something sensibly avoided in the current system, where base points are multiples of 5 and the multipliers are multiples of 20%), I would suggest to keep the highest levels of bonus points for the truly widely used articles (say, United States), but make the number of interwikis needed go up faster. Here is one possible suggestion achieving that:

Counterproposal

**Bonus points**
Number of Wikipedias on which the article appears as of 31 December 2021	Extra points
0–4	0
5–9	20%
10–19	40%
20–34	60%
35–54	80%
55–79	100% (Awarded double points overall)
80–109	120%
110–144	140%
145–184	160%
185–229	180%
230+	200% (Awarded triple points overall)

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

I support Kusma's suggestion. A few geographic reference points: United States has 308, Paris has 269, Antwerp has 124 and Royal Tunbridge Wells has 35. Bringing an article on the scope of United States to GA/FA would easily be much more than 3x the effort of a short and niche GA/FA. But we do seem to have issues with the arbitrariness of multipliers for non-vital topics that are still double or triple points.
I'm not sure what the size of other Wikipedias was when this set of multipliers first came in but it may just be that there are more languages now and more articles in each Wikipedia, so we need to adjust the figures. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Kusma's suggestion seems better than mine (and better thought out), so I will support it as well. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The counterproposal is outlined persuasively. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Support counterproposal, as I feel this is a brilliant way to give higher value to the core articles. With this, I would go as far as to say that we don't need to introduce a new method of bonus points as this should fix the problem. Panini! • 🥪 17:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd combine the 20% increments of the counterproposal with the linear intervals of the original proposal. For instance,

Bonus points
Number of Wikipedias on which the article appears as of 31 December 2021	Bonus points
0–9	0%
10–19	20%
20–29	40%

etc. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, your proposal is to essentially double the number of interwikis needed for each level from the status quo. This has the advantage of being easier to describe than what I proposed. Articles with at least 100 interwikis would get maximum bonus. Your proposal is a bit less generous to articles with up to about 50 interwikis and more generous for articles with more than about 50. I don't have any hard data that would suggest that either proposal is better, but certainly both would help combat overly generous bonus points. —Kusma (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the original counterproposal, as I feel the linear intervals don't cover the difference between maximum and minimum interwiki-level as appropriately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Support both counterproposals. For next next year, I'd like to discuss more bonus points in the 100+ interwikilinks category, up to 5x for 250+ links. It would be really cool if it was worth it to fix up an article like China or abortion for the Wikicup. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Support raising the points to 60. Panini! • 🥪 17:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Support 60 points. I think the others are too high as an FL isn't necessarily much more work than a GA (of course both vary hugely in amount of labour from scope to scope), but the point about FLs rarely getting bonuses or "two-for-one" DYK/GA/FA combos is very true. — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, decreasing the value of FA and the multipliers automatically makes FLs worth more. The exception this year was List of presidents of the United States with a 3x multiplier, but there were not many FLs in the Cup, and many of them did not appear to have been a huge effort, more comparable to one GA than to two. —Kusma (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment - I've made a handful of FLs and it depends on the subject and the state of the article. I've seen some really simple items become FL, as the criteria is pretty cut and dry, and I've also spent weeks working on an FL that barely passed. I kinda feel like them being slightly more than the baseline for a GA is fair. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Another option would be varying points based on length. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I think this could work, similar to what we already do with DYKs above/below 5120 bytes of prose. So a list with 20 or more entries, for example, could get more points than a list with fewer than 20 entries. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Is it the number of entries or the length of the prose bit that is a better indicator of how much work the list is? —Kusma (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, in line with Kusma's reasoning. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Support with modification along the lines of what TAOT and Epicgenius have outlined above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Bonus points for certain GA reviews

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

Shouldn't such a bonus apply to PR and FAC reviews too? Age might be the simplest to work with across all three: perhaps for GANs and PRs more than 90 days old, and for FACs from the "older nominations" list. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think those are very different and should be treated differently. GAs never time out, while FACs do. —Kusma (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

How about a 90-day threshold for all review venues? I forgot to mention FLCs before, which don't time out as quickly as FACs do. (I remember seeing some 6-month-old FLCs earlier this year). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

There have only ever been two FACs older than four months, and only a handful older than three months -- see here and press "submit" for details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps 60 days would be better. (Not tied to a specific number; 90 was simply from the rules for the last GAN backlog drive). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

I think that this idea would be beneficial, especially as the GA backlog is pretty terrifying at the moment. Perhaps 1 bonus point for nominations over 30 days old, 3 for nominations over 60 days old, and 5 for nominations over 90 days old? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Example bot report on reviews of old nominations

Reviewer	Article	Nomination date	Review started	Age of nomination when review started
AirshipJungleman29	Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire	2022-11-06 06:32:00	2022-12-07 12:13:37	31
Amitchell125	Thomas Penn	2022-10-09 22:00:00	2022-12-02 20:40:32	54
An anonymous username, not my real name	Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Nasafi	2022-10-01 20:32:00	2022-12-01 23:25:18	61
Chiswick Chap	Public school (United Kingdom)	2022-09-15 23:03:00	2022-12-03 20:22:51	79
Eewilson	Eucalyptus rhodantha	2022-10-06 06:02:00	2022-12-01 09:20:42	56
Floydian	Tennessee State Route 396	2022-10-23 07:56:00	2022-12-01 02:04:56	39
Kosack	Soony Saad	2022-08-01 12:41:00	2022-12-06 13:11:17	127
Kyle Peake	Keith (song)	2022-09-22 23:00:00	2022-12-06 08:28:57	75
Kyle Peake	Out of This Club	2022-09-13 02:06:00	2022-12-04 09:38:38	82
Kyle Peake	Signals (Regard and Kwabs song)	2022-09-20 14:02:00	2022-12-05 08:09:32	76
Kyle Peake	You're No Good (Jesse Fuller song)	2022-08-22 17:57:00	2022-12-07 08:45:11	107
Marshelec	Shipyard Railway	2022-08-04 07:17:00	2022-12-05 23:00:43	123
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy	Little Secrets (2001 film)	2022-08-23 05:21:00	2022-12-02 09:01:25	101
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy	Rang (1993 film)	2022-08-22 03:19:00	2022-12-03 06:42:13	103
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy	Shin Ultraman	2022-07-06 14:01:00	2022-12-03 15:57:25	150
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy	Wedding Crashers	2022-10-18 00:58:00	2022-12-01 09:21:23	44
Ovinus	East Timor	2022-10-24 15:00:00	2022-12-07 05:54:13	44
Phlsph7	Purdue University	2022-08-12 20:00:00	2022-12-01 08:34:15	111
Pichemist	Maltese nationality law	2022-08-19 09:12:00	2022-12-06 21:01:11	109
Sturmvogel 66	Breaking Bad	2022-07-19 09:08:00	2022-12-01 02:02:21	135

Although theoretically, a difference in the length of time an article has been awaiting review might be taken into account, in practice I don't think Jarry, who runs the bot, would be likely to make the change as he is so seldom available. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The only issue I have with basing this off the items that have been waiting a specific length of time, is that we would not be rewarding those who do lots of reviews, but simply waiting out the clock. Sometimes those waiting a long time for reviews are simply because they do no reviews in return. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: If this is unfeasible to do for next year, maybe this will have to wait for the 2024 Cup? But do you think there is consensus on any of the other changes and will it be possible to implement those for the contest starting in two weeks? —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Confirmation of 2023 rules

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Rules and scoring for 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

Is it not possible to find someone else who knows how the bot works and is, as you say, technically competent? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Not this quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Considering this discussion has been ongoing for two months, it really would have been nice to know about this issue a lot sooner. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. What do you need? (Incidentally, for future reference, the source code is here.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 14:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jarry1250: Is it feasible to add peer reviews scoring 5 points? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Sure. Although for simplicity I quite liked your idea of merging PRs into GA reviews, if they are both to count for the same number of points (just change the heading, basically). That would be easier, I think, and avoid the table becoming too unwieldy. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 15:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Good, that's what I'll do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

FA promotion question

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

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

Yes, under the present scoring system, it would count for the WikiCup as long as the article had been worked on significantly by you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth Thank you, and when the page says that points are reset at the end of each round and "8 finalists left; the contestant with the highest score will win", is that referring to the total amount of points accumulated throughout the competition, or just the points you have at the end of the last round? Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The points are reset, so only those scored in the final round count towards the final tally. "Highest score" here refers to the person with the highest in that round. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just jumping on this thread to ask about GANs. A GAN of mine is currently under review. The review started before January. If it gets promoted, does it count for the cup? Many thanks! Pinging @Cwmhiraeth in capacity as judge. Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

And another GAN question: I finished a very lengthy review on 28 December—can that be added under the 14-day rule? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

No, but it would have been allowed if you had finished it on January 1st. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Technical error report

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My submissions page was created at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2023/Submissions/Sammi Briel with an unneeded L at the end. Wanted to let you know so it can be moved to the right spot, @Cwmhiraeth. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I seem to have inadvertently added an "L" to the end of your name when setting things up. I have corrected the error now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)