Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Bonus points

Is there a public list of articles that qualify for the many interwiki links bonuses? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:CUPSUGGEST. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A full list is provided in the ensuing discussion, just so that's clear. I don't think a suitable way of categorising the suggestions was found. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which - shouldn't the modifier here be something? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it should. I've noted it. J Milburn (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review points

It seems there is a total dearth of GA reviewers right now, which might well impact this competition. I know it is mid-season, so unlikely, but would it be possible to consider an increase in GA review points beginning in round 3 (perhaps to 5?) in a possible bid to help that process get back on track? Full disclosure, I will probably end up as one of the leaders in reviews for this round, and if my sudden urge to review continues, would benefit from this change. Resolute 01:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's really going to be possible. The points for a GA review are very deliberately token- we don't really want a possibility of "farming" them. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think so either, but it never hurts to ask. ;) Resolute 13:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles that appeared between rounds

Just to be sure - for an article that appeared on April 29, can I claim in Round 3? Yngvadottir (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as you didn't also claim for it in Round 2, you should be fine, yes :) (I'm merely quoting from the page itself here.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's about the time that the content was "promoted". If it was promoted after the end of round 2 but before round 3, you may claim in round 3. This means what it says in the case of featured/good content- for DYK and ITN, it's about when it was added to the main page. For GAC, it's about when the review was completed. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK nominations

If you nominate an article for DYK that you did not create/expand, can you count the points for it? I just did this for the first time, and I wasn't planning on trying to score them, but I don't want to leave points on the table either. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, points are only awarded for the writing aspect of DYK. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I assumed. Just clarifying. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just to confirm that Thaddeus is correct. Same thing applies to other processes- "drive-by" nominations are particularly common at FPC, for instance. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Changes for next year?

Ok, it's that time again- how have you found the competition this year? What would you like to see? Is there anything that didn't work? Are the scores fair? Any other comments? This is something of a brainstorming session- hash out a few thoughts and ideas, see what the general mood is and see what needs further discussion before opening some more focussed discussions/polls later. J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olympics have shown that our scoring system is not idiosyncratic enough. There should be at least one repechage, a bonus group, positions for those who are eliminated by eventual finalists, and an opportunity to deliberately lose. No, seriously, I don't think any changes are necessary. We've had very few FPs as I recall but I don't see this as a particular problem because it doesn't quite suit itself to the cup. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that the balance is about right. The multipliers do produce an incentive but the extra work makes up for the points so one could have done double or triple other content in the meantime. All good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than perhaps a hockey player multiplier to help me out, I got nothing. I agree the points are good. We're also doing good in that we are scoring as many GAR entries as we are GAs, so aren't burdening that process. I'm not sure if a mild increase in GAR points would be desirable from a contest perspective or help encourage a few more reviews to help that processes backlogs. Resolute 22:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I think it was a fair run. Few thoughts:

• drop Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It. Does. Not. Work. At least for me, listing anything there was a waste of time, not a single reviewer I got identified themselves as coming from that page.
  • a suggestion how to fix it: offer a multiplier for GAR reviews done for articles listed there?
• a properly done GAR takes about as much time as writing a simple DYK. I'd suggest changing 2 to 5 for next year.
• After a few years of CUP running, I would like to see a study about what kind of contributions, both type (GA, FA) and content wise (areas) score high and contribute to high ranking. It would make for a nice Signpost article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'd be interested to see that - especially given the bonus points over the last two years and the impact that will have had on higher importance articles being worked on. Miyagawa (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see points given for articles "saved" at Wikipedia:Featured article review and Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. Albacore (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

And Good Article Reviews. Perhaps those should be worth half of a regular nomination? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that increasing GAR or DYK would help; I think they are at the right level to not produce problems that the cup has seen in the past. GAR, FARC, and FLRC should be 1/3 of the actual points (a FARC is pretty much a GAN). I would be ok with even higher multipliers, but a good vote should be done based on what percentage of articles/points did or did not receive multiplier bumps. Nergaal (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a repercharge system could work, but might be too complicated to be worth. Maybe give make the next 1/4 of the people below the line in round A fight during round A+1 for one of the spots in round A+2? Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it'd be overly complicated to do a repercharge. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be good idea to give more points for featured articles, if they were not made from good articles. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 10:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll time

Ok, I'm going to open some straw polls to see how people feel about some of the suggestions which were thrown out above. I do not feel up to designing a reperchange, and it sounds like more trouble than it is worth. If people are keen, they're welcome to discuss it or offer some suggestions below.

Should the points offered for good article reviews be increased?

Yes- GARs are not awarded enough points

1. I wouldn't mind a slight increase (1 or 2 points more), with the proviso that the judges keep a close eye on the submitted reviews to ensure they're up to snuff (sorry, more work for the judges, but you've done a fine job this year!) Sasata (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Agreed with above. We have done a good job of ensuring we have collectively reviewed as many articles as we've nominated, so we're not negatively impacting the backlog. However, it would be interesting to see if even a 1-2 point increase could lead to more reviews. Resolute 22:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Also agree with Sasata. 1-2 more points would hopefully provide enough of an incentive that the Cup could actually reduce the backlog by a(t least) a small amount, rather than keeping even or increasing it slightly, as it has this year. More points = more temptation for gaming however, so the judges would need to be ever watchful (though I again agree with Sasata that they did a fine job this year). Dana boomer (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Yes as per Sasata. The present 2 points is a disincentive to doing a review, each of which involves a considerable expenditure of time. You could have a rule that for every GA, a competitor needed to have undertaken one acceptable standard GAR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   The GAN regulars are often concerned with improper reviews. I can't see such a rule making us very popular there, so it is best not to set up any QPQ requirements. Though it wouldn't hurt to encourage those of us who are comfortable making GAR reviews to try and offer a review for each nomination we make. Resolute 13:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, encouragement is good, making it a requirement is bad. AIRcorn (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Couldn't hurt to help promote GARs. Looking at the current state of it, it's in need of reviews and a few extra points would help promote reviews and help clear that substansive backlog. I know I have 1 GA thats been waiting for review since June so anything that could be a good incentive. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
2. 5 points would be fine. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes I was thinking along these lines. I thought 4 points was good (double the initial but not particularly high). I think GAR has been good overall but the fact that the numbers of GAs needing review is creeping upwards suggests tweaking a little might be beneficial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
4. A proper GA review may take as much time as writing a DYK. With a stress on a proper; this is something judges need to consider. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
5. 4 or 5 points seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
6. Yes, to 10. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
7. Wizardman 19:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No- GAR points are fine how they are

1. The point of GAR points was to not have a GAN backlog. The cup is about producing content, not reviewing content. Considering that every item in a GT is 3 points, having a GAR anything more than 2 pts would be ridiculous. Nergaal (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
2. GAR is just a brief comment about why a person does not think it meets the criteria. It should be removed together with ITN.--Tomcat (7) 12:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

   Tomcat, I think you have misunderstood. The points are awarded for good article reviews (reviewing something listed at [[WP:GAC|the candidates page); I think you may be thinking of good article reassessments, which is often abbreviated to GAR. Good article reassessments are not eligible for points. However, neither reviews nor reassessments have anything to do with ITN (in the news). J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

Comment Have just left a note at WT:GAN informing them of this discussion. I am not really interested in the wikicup, but very interested in GA's. One problem would be that not all reviews are equal, with some just requiring a simple tick, while others need extensive review. If you really want to help out the GA reviewers I would suggest providing extra points for older reviews (they are usually on the harder side when it comes to reviewing and are the biggest problem with the backlog). One extra point per month it has been in the queue or something similar might help. AIRcorn (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there an easy way to see reviews from wikicup participants? Would be interested to see the quality of the reviews compared to regular reviews (although looking at the above contributors I don't think this would be a major concern). AIRcorn (talk)

Should "saving" good articles, featured articles, featured lists and so forth be awarded points?

Yes- those "saving" articles should be recognised in the Cup

1. Qualified yes. This is something that could potentially be gamed. But, saving a quality article could be considered within our remit. For simplicity's sake, merge such a section with GAR. Call it "content review" or something? Resolute 22:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Yes. Agree with Resolute that this has the potential to be gamed, however, and that there is wide variability in the amount of work needed to save an article at GAR/FAR/FLCR/etc. I'm not sure why we would combine it with GA reviews, however, as saving an article at FAR is much different than undertaking the review of a good article nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   There are differences, but ultimately, the focus is on a review, rather than content creation. Given I can't see any reason why a FARC review/save would score more points than a GAR, I don't see a reason not to set both to equal points and simply list under one heading for convenience. Resolute 00:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   Working on an article (grammar, sourcing, images, completeness) that is listed at WP:GAR, WP:FAR, etc., to the point that the article is "kept" at that process, rather than being delisted, is completely different from reviewing that same article at the same review process. Saving an article, especially at WP:FAR, can take far more time, trips to the library, etc., than reviewing an article listed at WP:GAN. To my reading, you are saying the two actions (working on an article to the point that it is kept at GAR/FAR/etc and reviewing an article listed at GAN) are essentially the same - which I completely disagree with. One is a content editing process while the other is a review process. Reviewing at FAR is far (pardon the pun) different than saving an article there - one requires (on many articles) a "delist - inadequate sources", while the other requires tens of hours, or more, spent on content generation. In many cases, saving an article listed at FAR can be almost as difficult as getting an article up to FAC standards in the first place. Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

3. Saving GARCs and FARCs should be worth 1/2 of the points of a new GA/FA. Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Nergall's half a score argument is good. +1 for it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
5. I agree with Nergaal, but a watchful eye would have to be kept to ensure there wasn't a gaming of the system. After all, it wouldn't be the done thing for an editor to go chasing around looking for FAs to save that really don't require 50points worth of work. Miyagawa (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No- this is outside the Cup's remit, or not desirable at this time

1. No, absolutely not.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
2. It depends what you really mean with "saving". You can "save" an article with just a few edits. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
3. Concerns about the scope (does it include individual or community GARs). They are also much more variable than GAN so don't see how a point based system will really work. AIRcorn (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

• I work extensively at WP:GAR (I am probably the only regular editor there at the moment) and to be honest it is crying out for some more willing editors. I feel the articles brought there are too variable to be applied to a points based system. Some are incorrectly nominated and don't need anything done to them, while others (see the recent Roman Empire) require extensive work. Also the article only has to meet the minimum requirements to be kept at GAR, whereas many reviewers are much stricter at GAN. Will this just apply to community reviews or does it also apply to individual ones? AIRcorn (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Should more points be awarded for featured articles which have not gone through GAC?

Yes- nominators should not lose points merely because they went straight to FAC

No- there is no reason to incentivise skipping the good article stage

1. Not seeing a need. Especially since the two-month wait for many GARs reduces the odds of point stacking being an issue. Resolute 22:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
2. No. I could definitely see this leading to additional unprepared FAC noms, which is definitely something we don't want. Dana boomer (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
3. No, per Dana, the increasing rigour of FAC (a Good Thing IMHO) means that all articles really benefit immensely from extra pairs of eyes, and GAN has become increasingly integral to a (relatively) smooth FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Per Reso and Dana. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
5. I think Dana has a really good point. Miyagawa (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
6. No. All assessment and review processes improve quality; no reason to skip them. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
7. It would lead with many people nominating an article on FAC and ignoring the GAN process.--Tomcat (7) 12:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
8. No, per above. Sasata (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

Anything else?

Are there other changes that people would like to see in next year's competition? J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Bonus multipliers for articles with interwiki links greater than 20 should be on a gradual scale, not in discrete jumps like they are now. Doesn't make sense for an article with 48 links to be worth so much less than one with 50. This would be easy for the bot to calculate, and would save people from tediously counting iw-links (as an aside, is there a tool to automatically count these?) I think it would be good if the scale kept increasing in value over 4x for articles with 100+ links. Sasata (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Sasata. As long as this would be something easy for the bot to calculate (with the number of wikis at each new year), I would support such a change. Ruby 2010/2013 00:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. At one point I asked a Czech Wikipedian to write a stub, to get to the 20 multiplier :) Did I game the system? I don't think so, and the Czech Wiki benefited from the stub, but I like the gradual point multiplier idea. It should be x+x*0.05, where x is the number of interwikis present (why discriminate against <10 interwikis)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Given the success of the bonus points; no gaming, people getting the bonuses, non-trivial articles being improved, that the multiplier should be linear. For example 20 interwikis x2, 40 interwikis x4, 100 interwikis x10. In fact, why have an arbitrary cutoff at 20? Under a linear system, 0-10 interwikis would have a 1x multipliers, 14 interwikis should have a 1.4 multiplier, 39 interwikis a 3.9 multiplier, etc. As long as the bonuses are rounded down to the nearest whole point, this should work. Speciate (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• 10x (or greater) is a crazy multiplier—but maybe it's not such a bad idea. Those serious about winning will choose a core article early and nurture it throughout the year; then the last round becomes a "heavyweight showdown". I'd support this. Sasata (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• I like the idea of a scale system (like that first proposed by Sasata, above), but think that 10x is way too high. Taking Lettuce, for example, to FA was not that difficult, and receiving 620 points for it would have been way too much. It was almost as hard taking Boulonnais horse to FA, and that received only the normal 100 points. I would suggest keeping the current base bonus system (up to 4x for 100 interwikis), but scaling it as Sasata suggests, and continuing the upward scale for articles with over 100 interwikis. Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Scaling is good - and calibrated to the current multipliers somehow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Somebody very serious about winning should write an FA on Kurów. :-D Double sharp (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that would constitute gaming. How utterly bizarre. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Due to a common problem of backlogs, I'd propose that a point be awarded for every DYK review. This would help cut down backlogs at DYK and also the point award would be small enough so that competitors don't hog all the reviews but people can still pick up pounts from it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • DYK currently strongly recommends that contributors review one hook for each one they submit - it's not compulsory, as there are exceptions, but it's best practice. Rather than adding separate points for reviews, perhaps you could say that points will only be rewarded for DYK nominations which include a review? Andrew Gray (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed, however I was thinking of points being awarded just for stand-alone reviews not contingent on making a DYK as most competitors will be over the exemption threshold. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• I think a rule should be included that points should be claimed within a week (or so). I was quite disappointed by this edit; most of these GANs were completed over a month ago, but not claimed until yesterday. I can't see any reason for having done this other than to "hide" these points from other competitors until they could be claimed at such a time when it would be impossible to match them. Of course, as the rules are now, there's nothing illegal about this, it just seems sneaky and underhanded. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Having a linear interwiki bonus multiplier would be too complicated to be worth the effort. The point is not to reward an article with 50 interwiki links more than one with 49, but to reward articles with 50+ links. However, having a more step-wise function could work better, i.e.: 20+ is 2x, 40+ is 3x, 60+ is 4x, 80+ is 5x, 100+ is 6x. Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• FT and GT items should be +15 and +5 pts each. Quite few items go through the FTC process anyways, while having a GA ga as part of a tipic worth 35 pts instead of 30 pts seems ok to me. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think part of the worry was the fact that promotion to featured/good topic doesn't require any further work beyond featured/good article; it's just an incentive to work on related articles. The points, after the discussion last time, were quite deliberately made "token", much like the GAC points. Of course, by the very nature of a topic, you typically get the score several times over in each promotion. J Milburn (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Honestly, I think the bonus points are out of whack. Right now, the leader has more bonus points than I have points, period. While I get that this is an incentive to work on more vital articles, you're only improving the English language version and still getting a bonus even if the foreign language versions remain untouched. I haven't gotten a single multiplier in this tournament because none of the articles I've worked on have been on 20 wikis, and it seems almost like a penalty. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I hate to be unsympathetic, but maybe you should have worked on articles worth bonus points? If I'd've competed this year, I'd have probably looked for articles already at GA level that would be worth some bonus points when I took them to FAC. That's much harder to do with start class or below articles. In my own specialty of warships, there really aren't that many ships that are heavily enough linked to qualify that aren't already FA-quality so that would have been a problem. Another strategy might have been to add wikilinks yourself, if any exist that haven't already been linked, although that's likely quite a bit of work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    • My interests don't involve articles on other wikis. I edit mostly baseball and American politics, which is understandably not part of many of the other wikis. I have no interest in taxonomy, as meritorious a subject as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
      • While my own interests (American television, Italian cinema) tend not to garner any bonus points, I think on the whole the system works. The articles which offer meaty bonuses are ones we really want to have improved as a project, and the cup offers an incentive for them to be done. Articles like frog are certainly ones which should be at FA class, so offering bonuses for them helps the encyclopaedia while the contest runs. Yeah, I could ask for an overhaul of the system so my own interests aren't "penalised" (I think I made 130pts over the whole year on bonuses just, and all from one article) but looking at it on the whole it's a good idea. GRAPPLE X 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Muboshgu, I worry that you have slightly missed the point. You say "you're only improving the English language version and still getting a bonus even if the foreign language versions remain untouched"; the reason we count interwikis is not because we're interested in foreign language versions per se, but because they provide a useful, quantifiable and (reasonably) fair assessment of importance. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I do understand that, but again this competition is about content improvement, and I'm not sure it should weight some articles more than others, or at least not as much as it currently does. If you want importance for the English wiki, page views might produce something. For instance, my only FA during this year, Derek Jeter, "has been viewed 307185 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 3387 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org". Just food for thought. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
            • Using page views would end up the Cup having a serious case of recentism. Yes, Derek Jeter is a well-known name in American baseball today - and you just missed the cut-off with 18 interwikis. However, just with baseball, you could get bonus points by working on major game topics (Baseball, World Series), teams (San Francisco Giants, Chicago White Sox), or players that had a major, long-term influence on the game (Babe Ruth). All of these have more than 20 interwiki links, and they took me less than five minutes to find. All content being improved is great, but seeing articles like William the Conqueror, Middle Ages, Frog, Amphibian, and a multitude of other top-level science, history and other articles improved to GA or FA status is a good thing. While it's nice to see lower-level articles getting attention, too, these top level articles are where WP really struggles, and if the Cup can do anything to incentivize editors into fixing them up, I'm certainly not going to stand in its way. If you don't have any interest in working on articles that give bonus points, that's fine, but you can't claim that there aren't any in your field of interest, because there are at least a few in every field. Dana boomer (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
              • Page views were discussed and rejected- they're potentially gamable, they're an imprecise science, they favour pop culture, and so on. (I'm here just rehashing arguments that were made a couple of years ago.) There was some opposition to the introduction of any kind of "importance measure" at all, on a more philosophical level, but I think the general feeling is that it is a good thing. I completely agree with Dana; seeing articles of that kind of importance reaching good and featured status is, alone, a fantastic testament to the good work that WikiCup participants are doing. J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• It may have been mentioned elsewhere but I'd like to see FA reviews being given points; even a token amount like 3 or 5. GA reviews take less time and are arguably less important, but are given 2 points, which means if I'm going to spend the evening reviewing articles, I can either make points from GA reviews or make no points off FA reviews, which I'll be doing anyway as I hate nominating an article at FAC without reviewing others. A token amount just so that they're not worth nothing would be nice. GRAPPLE X 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The FAC community has, in the past, been very vocal about how they do not want that to happen, and I have no desire to override them. Further, it's harder to quanitfy what constitutes a FAC review. With GAC reviews, you are the reviewer or you aren't. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that is a good point. I suppose the points for GA reviews helps reduce a backlog too, while FA nominators are generally given an incentive to review other FACs simply so as to smooth over their own nomination anyway. Consider my suggestion retracted. GRAPPLE X 22:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Remind me, did we agree to give more points for 5x DYK expansions? They are not worth the time, when expanding some articles takes about as much time as writing several new 300-or so DYKs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It has not yet been agreed, but there seems to be a good amount of feeling in support of it. I will probably open a poll on that in the coming days. J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it depends on where you start from. Of the 65 DYK's I've submitted in three years of Cup competition, only 12 were new articles, and one of those was a recreation of a deleted copyvio. In my case though, most of my 5x expansions are old hockey players that had barely two or three sentences in some cases. Resolute 14:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    • As I have expanded some rather longer DYKs (because I cared about the subject more than the Cup), I'd appreciate it if that was more recognized; also, this would give the longer stub/start articles more loving from the Cup community, never a bad thing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

2011 vs 2012

I was curious to see how the much the doubling of points for DYKs this year changed the scoring strategies of the competitors and tallied up the numbers in the final round for both years to see. Strategizing the Cup is a classic min-max problem, albeit with two variables, the time to write the entry and the time to get it reviewed vs. the points awarded.

	2011	2012
FA	5	10
GA	50	55
DYK	49	293
GAR	55*	32

• Skewed because one competitor did 20 GARs all by himself.

Anyone who chose a GA-centric strategy this year has to be kicking him or herself because that strategy blew up in their faces with the current backlog meaning that reviews take several months on average (if this problem had occurred in 2010 I suspect that I would have lost pretty handily to TonytheTiger). And this despite a GAN reduction drive in earlier rounds. I rather expected that doubling the points for DYK from 5 to 10 would cause most contestants to focus on a DYK-centric strategy for several reasons. The primary ones are that getting DYK reviews is far faster than any other type of review and writing a DYK is still pretty easy, even though the DYK project did tighten up on their sourcing requirements to make things a little harder.

Somebody commented above that the Cup wasn't burdening the GAN system, but these numbers prove the opposite, at least for the final round. This year's results show a deficit of 23 reviews vs GANs. And things would have been much the same in last year's final round if one contestant hadn't chosen to make up the deficit by himself. This situation is emphatically not true for DYK as their QPQ rule ensures that most contestants, if not all, will review as many as they submit.

I think that most of us generally considered that the time required to write a submission as the primary basis for points awarded without properly considering the time required to get a review. I believe that both factors need to be considered equally important when deciding the scoring for next year's Cup. The other thing is that I believe that it is imperative that the Cup not place a overall burden on the GAN process and that the contestants be encouraged to review as many as they submit, if not more. The best way is to increase the value give to a GAR; of course, each GAR will have to be manually checked by the judges to see if it meets the criteria already spelled out, but I believe that that burden is worth the cost in the judges' time.

Thoughts, opinions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree -another thought. You only get points for your GA if you can match it with a GAR? i.e. sort of like QPQ but only in regards to scoring for the wikicup? All extra GARs after that then get 4 points each? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That could work, so long as we keep it informal (although it might be a bit of PITA to track on the submission pages). And I would encourage the current finalists to do some more GARs to help cut down the backlog, even if they've already reviewed more than they submitted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I would support an increase of points to GAR, but I an adamantly opposed to a QPQ system. I say that because I know for a fact that I lack the grammatical skills to do what I would call a solid review. I used to try and do a review for every GA I submitted (Cup or no Cup), but I have come to realize that I was really on comfortable reviewing editors I knew (from past interactions)would have well written articles. The problem with that strategy was that these users got shorted a better review to tighten up the article, instead of fixing minor issues. When I finish an article that I will submit for GA I have a friend check the grammar so it will be ready when someone finally reviews it. I enjoy the Cup because it puts external motivation on work I want to do here, forcing a QPQ would detract from the enjoyment of the cup and in all likelihood lead to sub par reviews, even if people aren't trying to game the system. Sorry for the rant. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty. So maybe just double the GAR points to 4 or 5.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to produce 6 times more DYKs than GAs? This is a blatant evidence that DYKs are over-compensated. I think DYK should be 10 pts iff an existing article is expanded. Somebody not working on DYKs has absolutely no chance of winning the cup, which I think defeats the spirit of the cup, which is to produce high quality content. Nergaal (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

FTR, I nearly won the Cup in 2011, and I had 4 DYK's and 0 FA's, so it is possible to win the cup without DYK with an FA or two (which almost every finalist, sans myself has done). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the DYKs were worth half the amount of this year's. Nergaal (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point about the GAN backlog; I still have unreviewed articles from the Cup time sitting in the unreviewed queue. Increasing the GAR points may alleviate the issue somewhat. Regarding QPQ, I'll just note that I have reviewed many GANs, although I also consider myself lacking the skills in the English prose quality area. I used to announce that at GAN page, asking for a second reviewer for prose, but I rarely got any, so I stopped bothering. And seeing a variable in the reviewers I get for my articles, I don't think that's major issue. Sometimes you'll get a prose expert who never bothers looking at images copyrights; another reviewer will ignore poorly formatted references; and even if you get a GAR old hand who will do a proper review of all points, and is a prose and MoS expert, it's very unlikely he will be a subject expert (we may have good amateurs for some fields, but my sociology articles never attracted a professional sociologist...). So I wouldn't worry too much that one is unable to address all issues, as it is common for GA reviewers to be not addressing all of them anyway. I gave up at thinking this is a failure of the system, this is simply what we can do with one person peer reviews; to be frank - it is no different in academic peer reviews, one person can only do so much. If you want a comprehensive review, go for FA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The GAN backlog is something that kills me too. Especially since they moved Sports and rec down to the bottom of the page, out of the way. Perhaps we might consider incentivizing participants to review competitors' works. Say, 3 points for a standard GAR, x2 bonus if you review an active competitor, and x3 if you review an active competitor within your own pool? As far as requiring QPQ goes, I would certainly encourage it, but not make it mandatory. The GAN project just went through a backlog drive with a lot of problems from reviewers who didn't know what they were doing. I wouldn't want to force anyone who isn't confident of their reviewing abilities into it. Resolute 14:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be cautious against QPQ for the cup participants. It could lead to problems, as in participant A thinking that participant B treated them unfairly, or annoyed that they got a much more "difficult" reviewer than participant C. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Strongly recommend reducing points for DYKs

I strongly recommend reducing the points awarded for DYKs. It should be reduced back to 5 points or preferably fewer. Giving participants these easy points provides strong incentive to create quick articles which are barely more than stubs, just enough to satisfy the puny DYK minimum. Participants tend to create many many many very similar articles all on the same subject. This is something which DYK constantly gets complaints about. Please please please discontinue this practice which is one of the factors working to destroy DYK. Look at the statistics in the section above. It seems obvious that people are turning out cookie-cutter articles to rack up these easy points. This competition is supposed to be about creating high quality content, not turning participants into stub-making factories. Agolib 22:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think 10 pts would be ok for the 5x expansions, while 10 pts for new articles would be fairly ok. Nergaal (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So, you're advocating no change from the existing system?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Agolib; could you please provide some concrete evidence here? The DYK points were at five in 2011, but were moved up to 10 for 2012 as there was little evidence of abuse, people felt that five did not accurately represent the work, and there was a belief that DYK was lagging (and so may actually benefit from increased numbers from the Cup). Evidence of discussions concerned about low-quality DYKs, statistics showing that Cup DYKs are low quality or something akin would be helpful here. What you're saying is reasonable, but, without some evidence, is just empty hypothesising. I did my own not-so-scientific test; I picked some articles at random- one from each of the highest DYK producers in the final round. Carpathian brook lamprey from Cwmhiraeth, Tuber microspermum from Sasata and list of three Michelin starred restaurants in the United Kingdom from Miyagawa. Frankly, looking through them, these seem like three exemplary DYK articles. None of them are super-long, no, but they're all clearly more than stubs, and they're all well-written and well-referenced, with decent formatting and good amounts of care taken. The shortest in terms of prose-size is the list, at 1828b, and the main substance of the article isn't actually counted in that calculation (list entries in tables are not counted for prose size). Compare them to the 1591b Kafr Takharim, or the 1847b Masters of Money, both on the main page as I type this, and I don't think the WikiCup is the villain if short DYKs are the disaster. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Agolib's complaint about "stubby DYKs" has merit, but I also think it is systemic to DYK itself rather than the Cup, as you note with those examples. Toa Nidhiki05, for example, put some exceptional content through DYK during this year's competition - most of which is now GA or FL class. For my part, I only submitted six DYKs this year - one is a list (2200kb prose), but the other five are 3 GAs and articles of 7k and 10k prose (both expansions). On the other hand, I did find some with prolific DYK submissions, of which many articles in the 1500-2000 range, but also with sizes of 5000k and more. In my view - as a supporter of both DYK and the Cup - the Cup is probably not contributing to the problem more than anything else, but we're likely not helping it either. However, I think this complaint is more easily solved by upping the minimum prose requirement to 2000 or 2500 at the DYK end. Or, we could consider what I think Nergaal meant to say, and that was 5 points for a new article and 10 for a 5x. Or perhaps more fairly, 5 points if <2500k prose and 10 if greater. The bot could track that as a multiplier. The complaint about repetitive content is much stronger, especially if someone like Muboshgu or myself as sports bio editors really get on a run. I'm not really certain how to alleviate that problem, however. I don't think a point cut would help. Resolute 14:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining about the length of the articles. I only mentioned that because the small size required is a powerful incentive for people to easily create a whole bunch of articles as a very fast way to accumulate a lot of points. What I was commenting on was that "whole bunch of articles" that people create are usually all on the same subject. Users frequently complain about seeing DYKs over and over and over and over all on the subject. The front page gives us the opportunity to show the diversity of articles on Wikipedia. When DYK looks exactly the same for every set because participants have submitted tons of articles on the same subject because it's an easy way to earn points, it's not surprising in the least that people complain. It does a disservice to Wikipedia to plaster the front page with such uniformity. When people complain on the DYK talk page, someone usually replies "if you want more diversity, go write some aritlces on something else". That's easy to say, but when you've got wikicup participants submitting their same-subjected articles in such quantity, it's hard for others to keep up and provide the desired diversity. Agolib 22:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether reducing the number of points offered would solve that issue. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As a submitter of more DYKs in the final round than I felt comfortable with, I think 5 points too few and 10 points too generous. I would suggest 7 points as a compromise that would more fairly relate the amount of work required to that of a GA at 30 (or perhaps better 35) points. As for Agolib's comment, I tried to maintain a high standard and vary the subject of my DYKs which in the final month included frogs, salamanders, fish, starfish, sea urchins, corals, a feather star and a tree. As regards expansion v. creation, I found many useful, bot-created stub articles of less than 50 words which I expanded without the necessity of starting afresh and creating a taxobox. They didn't merit higher points than a new article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from the DYK side of things, it was a bit overwhelming to have so many fauna articles from Cwmhiraeth and fungus articles from Sasata flooding in. It seems clear to me, just looking at the numbers of DYKs this year vs. last year, that the point incentive is too high for DYKs versus the other categories, and having written both, I know it takes well over three times as long to craft and refine a GA compared to a DYK. As someone assembling the sets of DYK hooks, I was conscious of the competition, of the numbers of reviewed articles stacking up for both competitors, and the need to include a hook by one or both in just about every set. The proposals to reduce the points for a shorter DYK (under 5000 prose characters) to 5 points while retaining 10 points for a 5000+ article sounds reasonable, as does a single-tier reduction the DYK points so they're approximately 20% of the GA points (7 points vs. 35 or 6 points vs. 30) if you want to avoid introducing a two-tier approach. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you knows- expansions versus new articles

Ok, there seems to be a few people who are keen on the idea of DYKs from expansions of existing articles warranting more points than did you knows of new articles. I'm wondering how people feel about this; good idea, bad idea? Justifiable? Gamable? How many points should we be talking here? It's certainly an idea that could potentially work, but I don't want to start trying to implement it if there are concerns about it. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I would rather judge a multiplier on the basis of article size at conclusion, not article state at the start. 80% of my DYKs are expansions, many of which began with no more than three or four sentences. In those cases, it is no more difficult to achieve a 5x expansion than it is to create a DYK eligible article from scratch. I think we'd be better to pick a size threshold at conclusion - despite my confused numbers above, I would suggest 5000 characters of prose - as our point. Say 5 points for small articles, 10 for large. In a lot of cases, that would still break down between new and expansion, but at least that doesn't punish people who take a new topic to a well developed state. Resolute 16:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies a problem, what if an article is created and nominated and then 5x expanded a couple of days after before recieving a review? I know I've had this issue before but the question I'd make is if we split the points, which one would we take? Giving them points for just the new article when they've done the 5x expansion as well would make them feel short-changed. That is why I oppose ths two-tier points system that's beng proposed. Leave it as it is. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My 2c. Keep it simple: the DYK has to be 5000 char of prose in the submitted diff in order to qualify for 10 pts, otherwise it's worth 5. Doesn't matter if it's new or expanded. Those who wish to extract the maximum points for their DYK submissions will then probably use a sandbox and develop the article more fully before going "live". It seems by implementing this, we'd be encouraging good practices, and increasing the quality of DYK submissions. Sasata (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea although sometimes there is a problem with limited reliable sources on some issues which makes it almost impossible currently to be able to make it to 5000 characters. Examples, Michael Le Bourgeois and Admiral-Lord Mountevans rules. Should we really (essentially) penalise contributors for taking on a hard topic and just managing to squeeze out 1500 characters with limited sources avaliable? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

But is this such a big deal? If one wants the extra 5 points, one will select a more source-rich topic from the 100's of thousands available. Don't think of it as a penalty for shorter articles, but as a bonus for more fleshed-out DYK submissions. Sasata (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My idea would be 5 points plus one for every 12 months the article has existed. I really like the idea of cleaning up some of our older stubs that have been rudimentary for ever. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sasata's suggestion of 5 points for a standard DYK and 10 points for a 5000+ character DYK seems sensible to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To keep things more simple, give 10 pts only to articles that exist on January 1 (similarly to how vital article bonus is/was implemented). Nergaal (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

But this is gamable – one can just start stubs for all the DYKs one wants to write next year, and it doesn't solve the issue of short articles being created and cycled through DYK. Sasata (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sasata makes a good point. I'd prefer not to do that as I'm not all that concerned about well-aged stubs. I do like the 5000-character bonus, though. I did review one of Cwmhiraeth's DYKs; it seemed fairly complete and was a good introduction to the species. But it was pretty short and it seemed kind of formulaic and probably did not require that much work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point Sasata - happy to drop my idea....or just maybe a bonus two points for a stub greater than (let's say) 5 years of age? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I think a 5-year age limit could work, perhaps the judges will put it up as a !voting option. Maybe even more than 2 points, depending on how important others think it is to work on old stubs. If this were implemented, it would be nice if there was a way to identify these old stubs (filtered by WikiProject or category). Sasata (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor query - what about articles which exist on other language Wikipedias but not the English one? Would they count as new articles or expansions (as in theory, you'd be basing the article off the (hopefully) referenced other language version). Miyagawa (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That could get rather complicated.....(chuckle)...possible but checking several languages could be tricky. Good if a bot could do it.Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well unless they go around making articles on foreign language wikipedias, it shouldn't be too much of a concern (especially considering how the French Wikipedia will blank and block you from making the same article again for the slightest mistranslation). The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with people claiming points from good expansions. I'd say that they'd have to count as new articles, if they're new to this Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Increase points for featured pictures?

I noticed there were maybe 5 total pictures awarded points in the latest competition. Can we increase the points awarded from 35 to 40, 45, or 50? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

And why not give 1, 2, 3, 5, or 8 points for uploaded pictures that do not require significant effort? Biosthmors (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

We won't be awarding points merely for uploading pictures, and I'm not seeing any particular reason to increase the points for featured pictures. J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't se the need for uploading pictures, too easy to game. Certainly 5 FPs is not many. The question has to be whether that's a problem. Well, as the contributor of 2 (or 3?) this year, I don't think so. FPC is filled with our top photographers, not article writers - I'm in a minority. The Cup is about content creation, so participants are biased towards article writing. Or put it another way, if we got the FPC regulars involved, we'd be flooded with people who based the vast majority of their points on it. We'd split Cup contributors into camps. I think the status quo works fine; FP regulars don't seem disincentivised. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. But (from me looking at FPC) there has to be encyclopedic value, so why not even award 2 points, 1 point, or less for the added encyclopedic value of uploaded featured images? In general, we struggle to offer good images here. Why not encourage it some? Biosthmors (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"We struggle to offer good images here" - you mean across the 'pedia? I think if you thought we had a general problem getting good images, that would be something to take up at say VPM and implement some other solution. Also the first part, do you mean dropping the 35 points to 2 or 1? Well we decided that 35 represented the value to the 'pedia of a Featured Picture (paints a thousand words and all that). It's been hovering around GA points. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, across the 'pedia, in my opinion. I did create WP:Pictures for medical articles yesterday, but I don't know if I have anything intelligent to say at VPM at the moment (feel free to improve upon the essay, or contact me at talk, by the way). Nope, not from 35. I'm talking about awarding something meager rather than nothing for uploading a featured picture that doesn't require much work. Biosthmors (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Reboot

Why not award something (even if it is 1 point or less) for those who upload a featured picture that does not require significant effort? Biosthmors (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The competition is about content creation and improvement. Merely uploading images is not really something that fits in with that aim, even if they're high-quality images. Points are already awarded for creating images, significantly modifying images, restoring images and securing the free release of images- finding and uploading images isn't quite in the same category, and opening up a subcategory of such an underused method (that is, featured pictures in the Cup) sounds like rule creep, especially when we're already probably splitting DYK this year. That's the way I see this. If others support the notion, I'll see what can be done. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

ITN question

In The News has recently instituted the "recent deaths" ticker, which is sort of subordinate to actual news items. Having just gotten my first "recent death" posted today, I wonder how it should be scored. It seems potentially different than getting an actual blurb up there (it just lists the individual's name). Will nominating a "recent death" article be 10 points, or less? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This definitely needs discussion. Unless something resembling a consensus can be reached quickly, I think it's going to have to be outside of next year's competition. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Was wondering about this too. Doesn't really change anything though. Still would require a substantial update for it to be included in any form. So while name-only is listed, appearances can be deceptive. The ticker just seems to prevent death dominating the agenda. In other words, while the content is not as prominent it still requires the same effort as other ITNs and DYKs. "The article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria) and the article as a whole must be B-class and/or be satisfactorily filled out with no major omissions of the person's life and effect" would still apply.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some final(?) decisions

OK- With two weeks to go until the start of the next competition, I'm going to try and draw some conclusions from the discussions above. I'm going to be conservative with regards to judging these discussions; by that, I mean that a simple majority in a vote will not necessarily constitute consensus, and the status quo will always be given precedent. With that caveat, as I see it, the following changes seem to be warranted:

• Good article reviews will now be offered 4 points, up from the previous 2. There is a clear consensus for a slight increase, with 4 explicitly mentioned by several voters. There certainly is not the consensus for a very high increase as mentioned by Hahc21, and Nergaal's concern about the purpose of the WikiCup as a whole definitely seems to be a minority voice.
• DYKs will now be split; 10 points for articles of 5k or longer, 5 points for articles shorter. There seemed to be a lot of support for a notion like this from a variety of people with a variety of concerns. A two-tier system isn't ideal, but, as there is support for it, we can give it a try. There are legitimate concerns about splitting between expansions and new articles, and thus the split based on length.
• Though there was not a great amount of discussion about it, a 2 point bonus for DYKs of articles created in 2007 or earlier (IE, 5 years before 2013) seems reasonable and uncontroversial. There was general support for favouring older articles, and this also helps favour expansions, which many were in favour of.
• A slight adjustment of the bonus point system which will hopefully serve as a compromise between the competing positions: Though this wasn't suggested by anyone directly, I hope that it will be ameniable. For every 5 Wikipedias on which the article exists as of 1 January 2013, a bonus of 0.2*the points will be awarded. So, a featured article on 5 Wikipedias will be worth 120 points, one on 25 will be worth 200, and one on 100 Wikipedias will be worth 500. This allows it to be more linear, without utterly huge bonuses, and with whole numbers as bonuses.

Closing comments on some issues where no change will be made at this time:

• There does seem to be a consensus that "saving" articles (at GAR, FAR and FLR) belongs in the Cup in some way, but this is very tentative, and there does seem to be a number of legitimate concerns, even from those supporting it. Ultimately, I think more discussion would be needed before such a big change was made.
• There is a clear consensus that there is no reason to incentivise nominating articles at FAC which have not been through GAC.
• There seems to be no clear consensus that points should be awarded for DYK reviews.
• Recent deaths will not be eligible for ITN points; there has not been enough discussion about the issue.
• Featured pictures will not be increased in points, and nor will there be a two-tier FP system. There does not seem to be much support for either.
• There will be no reperchange. It is more trouble than it is worth.

I hope I've not missed anything, and I hope these serve as sensible closes. In the next few days, I welcome feedback on the closures; if you feel I am not accurately reading the feeling of the community, please let me know below, and we can see if we can work something out. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

comments

I agree with most changes. The only one I am not sure about is if we want to give any bonuses at all for articles in less than 20 or 25 wikipedias. If an article is in only other 5 wikis I still don't really think it is worth 20 extra points. I would rather start the bonuses from the 200 pts (i.e. FAs are worth either 100, 200, 220, 240, 260, etc). Nergaal (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with all except the DYK thing as I'll re-emphasise my objection that it penalises those who take on hard topics that have limited sources and that there isn't much clarity on what category pages that have been created then expanded (for example) will get. I also feel that newcomers to the WikiCup will also be put off as DYK is a good way for newer contestants to get on the board. But other than that, the rest all seem like reasonable proposals. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• The changes make sense to me. I'll reiterate my feeling that 10 points each is too much if given to all DYK articles no matter how short; if the 10/5 split is reconsidered, then please no more than 6 or 7 points per article. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I like all the changes, and more importantly, think they will all benefit the encyclopedia. Sasata (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the changes are beneficial. I especially like the DYK changes. I have been musing on some way that we can incentivise expanding old stubs (and there are loads...) or some clever expansions of broader topics (bigger cities, rivers, people, whatever). Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who expands old stubs, I like the change.  ;) Resolute 14:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the incentive for pre-2008 DYK and I like the interwiki bonus system as proposed. Chris857 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with all the changes. As with any year, everyone has to abide by the same rules and we can adjust at the end of a tournament. The bonuses are a good thing, it's just taking a couple of years for them to settle in, with the uptake in bonus use this year far outstripping the first year it was introduced. Besides, changing the points about slightly makes us old fogies re-think our strategies rather than churn out the same type of stuff every year. After all, it's not like I'm planning to GA all the Star Trek episodes or something after seeing Grapple X do it to great effect with the X Files and Millennium last year... wait a second, that's a great idea... ;) Miyagawa (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As the sole contributor of featured pictures last year, I'm outraged that points have not gone up for them. Disgusted... oh, no, wait, I suggested that. Never mind. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated

Ok, I've updated the rules page. The bonus points are starting to look a little complex, but, as the bot will do most of it, that shouldn't be a problem. The numbers also look pretty large, but unless we're talking featured articles or many highly important articles, they're not going to be game-changing. Frankly, I don't think someone winning because they've written a hugely important featured article or several highly important good articles and little else is a problem with the system. (Also, apologies, my numbers were off in the post above. They are correct on the scoring page, as far as my not-so-numeric philosopher brain can tell.) Please check my changes, and let me know of any issues. J Milburn (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

For the bonus table, would it be simpler to say that the bonus percentage is $20\lfloor {\frac {wikis}{5}}\rfloor$? (see floor function) Also, for the bonus, is this how many Wikipedias the article is on, or how many are linked to from the article? Chris857 (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

J, I agree - if someone spends the time bring say... Jesus up to FA, then not only do they deserve the points, but to bring such a high profile article up to that standard is great for the Wiki. Miyagawa (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Chris: I don't think anything that requires the use of a floor function is going to be simpler than a long table. J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• During the 2012 competition, a bot (usually) recorded the fact that a FAC was nominated by a wikicup participant. Will that happen again? It is relevant because of the new rule "You must declare your WikiCup participation if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC." Would it be good to have a similar rule for GA reviews, with reviewers stating that they were contestants? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That's not a new rule; it's there at the request of the FAC community/a particular member of the FAC community. No similar request has come up from the GAC community. As far as I'm aware, Ucucha's bot will continue to note WikiCup participation. J Milburn (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Looking at the table, it's not clear whether the number of Wikipedias includes the English one. I guess it doesn't, because otherwise 0 would be impossible. But it could be clearer. YPNYPN ✡ 23:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It does include the English Wikipedia; an article appearing only on the English Wikipedia appears on one Wikipedia. And it certainly would be possible for an article created in (say) February 2013 to exist on no Wikipedias on December 31 2012. J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Does the bonus for articles appearing on other wikis apply to GA reviews as well as to articles created? I can see it either way. - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It does not. I have clarified. J Milburn (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)