Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring
| WikiCup (WP:CUP) |
|---|
This page explains the rules for the 2024 WikiCup. Having the rules codified like this should prevent any confusion or the need for mid-competition clarification. However, the judges reserve the right to adjudicate in the spirit of the rules, rather than to their letter.
The most important rule is that the WikiCup is just a bit of fun – at the end of the day, we're all here to improve Wikipedia. The second most important rule is to treat Wikipedia and other users with respect. If through the WikiCup any participants are hurting the encyclopedia (whether through abusing the rules/systems, creating a negative atmosphere, or whatever else), they will be removed from the Cup. To quote Durova, winner of the 2009 Cup, "Wikipedia is the real winner". Let's hope we can keep it that way.
If in doubt, ask. You shouldn't need to worry too much – the bot will do all the difficult calculations, and is usually very accurate. The rules will not change mid-competition, though clarifications will occasionally be added to this page.
Scores
[edit]| Featured article | Featured list | Featured picture | Featured topic | Featured article candidate review | Featured list candidate review | Good article | Good topic | Good article nomination review or peer review | Did you know? | In the news |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 | 45 | 30 | 15 per article | 5 | 5 | 35 | 5 per article | 5 | 5 or 10 | 12 |
General rules
[edit]- Submit your content to your submissions page including all necessary links. See this page for more information.
- You may usually only score points in a round for content which has been promoted, or reviews which have been completed, in that round.
- An exception exists for content promoted or reviews completed after the end of a round, but before the start of the next. In these cases, points may be awarded for the following round, though submissions' pages should not be updated until the start of that round.
- This exception usually does not apply for content promoted or reviews completed between WikiCups. Contact the judges if you have any questions.
- An exception exists for content promoted or reviews completed after the end of a round, but before the start of the next. In these cases, points may be awarded for the following round, though submissions' pages should not be updated until the start of that round.
- All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you to receive points. "Drive by" nominations are not permitted. This does not mean that you have to be the primary author, though it is preferable. Merely copyediting or wikifying an article does not constitute "significant work", but if you are one name on a joint nomination, you may claim points. If this is abused, the judges reserve the right to not award points.
- In the spirit of fair play, contestants have 14 days to submit their work after promotion (for good and featured content), appearance on the main page (for did you knows and in the news articles) or the completion of good or featured article reviews and featured list reviews, by entering it on their submissions page. However, work qualifying in a particular round must be nominated and claimed within 24 hours of the end of the round. Nominations submitted more than 14 days after the points were earned, or more than 24 hours after the end of a round, will not be eligible. Please contact the judges if you have a question regarding the submission of articles.
Specific rules
[edit]Featured articles
[edit]- An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time at FAC; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them.
Featured pictures
[edit]- Generally, the picture should have been created by you (either photographed, drawn, or created in some other way) or been given significant restoration work by you or been released under a free license because of your efforts. Merely uploading a file you have found elsewhere does not constitute "significantly working on" the image.
Featured and good topics
[edit]- Points are awarded only for articles in the topic where you were a significant contributor. If you would have a right to claim points for the promotion of the article to good or featured status, you have the right to claim points for its promotion as part of the topic, even if you did not nominate the topic.
- Promoting an article that is already within a featured or good topic does not get additional points for the topic. Adding articles to a topic does gain points, but only points for the article added. You do not get points for articles already in a topic when a new article is added.
Featured article candidate reviews & Featured list candidate reviews
[edit]- These rules are for when you are claiming points for a featured article candidate review or a featured list candidate review in which you review a candidate using the featured article or featured list criteria.
- You may claim points upon the completion of your review, you do not need to wait until the candidate is promoted or the nomination archived.
- Only high-quality reviews will be accepted. If the judges feel your review is substandard or too short, you will not be awarded points for the review.
Good article nomination reviews
[edit]- These rules are for when you are claiming points for performing a good article nomination review, not for when you are claiming points for writing a good article.
- You may claim points upon the completion of a review, that is, when the article is passed, failed or closed.
- Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to decline other short reviews. This is not to say that such short reviews are not worthwhile, it is merely to say that they will not be recognised in this competition.
- Except for quick fails, all reviews must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article, in accordance with WP:GAN/I#R3.
- Third opinions will generally not be eligible for points. In the event that you take over a review from someone else for whatever reason, points may be claimed, provided a full review is given as usual.
- Attempts to game good article nomination reviews will be looked upon particularly harshly, and, more so than with any other process, people abusing the system will be removed from the Cup.
Good articles
[edit]- Points will only be awarded for articles that have been properly reviewed against the GA criteria, in accordance with WP:GAN/I#R3. These reviews must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article. If your reviewer has not reviewed the nomination against the good article criteria, or if they have not have done a spot check, please ask them to do so, or request a third opinion or a new review at WT:GAN.
Peer reviews
[edit]- These rules are for when you are claiming points for performing a peer review of an article.
- You may claim points upon the completion of your review.
- Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted. There are no set criteria, but the article must be sufficiently studied to enable you to make suggestions on how it might be improved. The judges reserve the right to decline inadequate reviews.
Did you know?
[edit]- Articles with at least 5 KB (that is, 5120 bytes) "readable prose size", whether expansions or new articles, are worth 10 points. Shorter DYKs are worth 5 points. The bot will calculate which category the article falls into, but there is also a tool to help judge. Please report any mistakes on the WikiCup talk page. Attempts to game this will not be looked upon favourably.
- Points cannot be granted until the article has actually been featured on the main page. Merely being approved by a reviewer does not count. If a hook is being held for a specific date after the end of the round and you need to claim the points, talk to the judges.
- For hooks with multiple articles, every article is eligible to score points independently, provided each meets the Did you know? criteria. This does not mean you can claim for articles in the hook that you yourself did not work on.
- Points are awarded for created or expanded articles appearing at DYK. No points are given for nominating an article at DYK that has been created, expanded or improved by someone else.
- Only articles eligible for DYK through being newly created—including through being converted from a redirect or moved to mainspace—or expanded fivefold (not newly promoted to GA status) are eligible for WikiCup DYK points. It does not matter if the article becomes a GA before being featured on the main page; what matters is that it is eligible to appear on the main page due to being newly created or expanded fivefold.
In the news
[edit]- Articles appearing on recent deaths are eligible for in the news points, subject to the normal requirement for substantial work on the article.
Bonus points
[edit]These are the only cases where content may score additional points. Other than these distinctions, all content is equal. Bonus points will generally be calculated and awarded by the bot. Any mistakes or issues in the awarding of bonus points should be reported on the WikiCup talk page.
From number of interwikis
[edit]- DYK appearances and promotions to good article, featured article, or featured list are awarded an additional 0.2× scoring bonus for every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia) on which the article appeared as of 31 December 2023, up to a cap of 3.0×. For example, a featured article (normally 200 points) appearing on 21 Wikipedias is awarded 1.8 × 200 = 360 points. A short DYK (normally 5 points) appearing on 65 Wikipedias is awarded 3.0 × 5 = 15 points.
- This does not apply to ITN, featured pictures, good topics, featured topics, good article nomination reviews, peer reviews, featured article candidate reviews or featured list candidate reviews.
- The bot uses Wikidata to calculate the number of wikis on which an article appears. If an article is not linked to Wikidata, or was not correctly linked by the start of the contest, the bot may miscalculate the correct number of bonus points to award. Please report any such incidents on the WikiCup talk page.
The table below shows the bonuses:
| No. Wikipedias (as of 31 December 2023) | Multiplier (bonus%) |
|---|---|
| 0–4 | 1.0× (+0%) |
| 5–9 | 1.2× (+20%) |
| 10–14 | 1.4× (+40%) |
| 15–19 | 1.6× (+60%) |
| 20–24 | 1.8× (+80%) |
| 25–29 | 2.0× (+100%) |
| 30–34 | 2.2× (+120%) |
| 35–39 | 2.4× (+140%) |
| 40–44 | 2.6× (+160%) |
| 45–49 | 2.8× (+180%) |
| 50+ | 3.0× (+200%) |
- You can request (or run yourself) a query on Wikidata to generate lists of high sitelink items by topic.
From DYK age
[edit]- In addition, DYK appearances for articles that were created during or before 2019 will be awarded at least 5 bonus points. For each additional year prior to 2019, the bonus increases by 1. For example, a DYK for an article started in 2014 will receive 10 bonus points for age.
- The age bonus does not consider any period during which an article was only a redirect, draft, or disambiguation page.
- Articles that have been moved are eligible for the bonus as long as they would have been eligible for DYK as a fivefold expansion.
- The age bonus may be claimed in addition to the aforementioned interwiki bonus. However, it is not added to the base used to calculate that bonus. For example, a DYK for a 6kB article on 25 Wikipedias that has existed since 2014 would be worth (2.0 × 10) + 10 = 30 points.
What's changed from last year?
[edit]- The bonus years have been advanced by one year.