Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring

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)

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)

5. 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)

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)

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

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)

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)
• 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)

• 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)