Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

2018 WikiCup points and rules discussion

So once again, it's the time of the year that we discuss the possibility of changing the points for the WikiCup. So, what worked this year? What didn't work? Is the balance right between FAs and GAs? Should GARs score more? what about the "significant work" criterion? Are there new rules/methods of running the competition needed? Was having cash prizes a worthwhile addition to the competition? Feel free to open subsections on different subject matters under this section.

There were no changes in the scoring system for the 2017 WikiCup but there are now several changes that the judges are considering. One of these is the date that signups close; traditionally it has been part way through February but we are proposing making it the last day of January. We look forward to having your views on this and other matters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I do say that I think it is better to move the closing date for signups earlier. That way you stop the potential for people jump in at the last minute. The WikiCup is known enough in my opinion that we don't need such a wide grace period nowadays. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Scoring table definitely needs revision. There is a lot of variation between FA and FL. Editors almost put in the same effort to develop a FL compared to that they put in for a FA. They must be comparatively given an equal weight. Also the score for a GA must be hiked. Being our project is an encyclopedia, it is not reasonable to give almost equal weight to a picture contribution, which may be given importance when something is done on Wikimedia Commons. It is not same thing here, GA must given a higher score. Standardize the score of 10 for DYK. Hike ITN to 15 or 20, because unlike DYK or any other article, ITN has to be done within the time, before the news fades away. Good article review may be give a score of 10. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there is a disparity between points for FA and FL, and to be honest FL often involves more work because of the formatting on some of them. They are both featured claims at the end of the day, and should be equally weight.  — Calvin999 15:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I disagree. The FA review process is much more in depth than a FL review, and generally the amount of content is vastly different too. I could easily create two or three FL quality lists per week, even with my current work/life/Wikipedia balance. Maybe a small adjustment could be made; 50 points for a FL, 40 for a GA, but I actually think the current ratio is about right. Generally, getting a Featured article is a significant amount of work, and deserves an appropriate reward. Harrias ^talk 16:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

From my experience of FLs, I've waited several months for them to be approved and I've also had a lot of input in the reviews. The reviewing process for FLs may not be as in depth as FAs, but FLs take far longer to format and create, especially the ones I've done.  — Calvin999 23:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• In general, I do believe the current scoring system is sound: it rewards greater quality (FA > GA > DYK) and also rewards the importance of the topic (through the bonus points system). My gut feeling is that GAs should receive a larger number of points, but I'm unwilling to support such a change unless its accompanied by an increase in scrutiny (see below). I also think we need to have a better system for judging the importance of a topic. For instance, during the course of the competition, I brough Paradises Lost to FA status, and received 200 points. I also brought Manual Noriega to GA status, and received 98. I'd say that the latter was both more work on my part, and a greater contribution to the encyclopedia, yet it received ~0.5 as many points. I dunno if there's a good way around this, but I thought I'd bring it up, and see if smarter people than I have a workaround. On a related note, I think it's clearly a result of this points structure that the clear "winning strategy" for five years now has been to expand articles on wildlife. I do not think this is necessarily a problem, as I certainly consider wildlife a "serious" topic, but I do wonder if there's a way to ensure that other equally central topics (history, geography...) do not get neglected. Vanamonde (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Offering cash/vouchers

I only just saw this because of the message left on my talk. I think this was, is, a terrible idea, because people are only doing it for the money. I'm actually quite shocked that this has happened or even put forward as an idea in the first place which got as far as getting the green light. I feel like this really goes against Wikipedia's principles actually. People contribute for free because they care about the topics they edit. This is essentially payment for a select few, as it's always the same names who end up in the final everywhere anyway, so it's not like anyone else ever really has a chance of getting to the final, yet alone winning money or vouchers. Having made it to the final three times, I've always felt the competition has been really good without a monetary incentive. I was happy just get a participation badge! But I've always done it because I really care about the topic I edit. It's making something good or featured that I hope others will enjoy reading that makes me want to do it well.  — Calvin999 14:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea - and have run the Core Contest on that basis. However, the interesting thing would be to look over the years and see if people "gamed" the system harder to gain the vouchers. My gut feeling is probably not as there are controversies of varying degrees most years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think giving money for a friendly competition to improve Wikipedia because they care about it is just wrong. If anything I think it will make the gaming even worse. You could get someone who works on a lot more articles and make lots more contributions compared to someone to does a few FAs with someone bonus points and wins. It's not a fair incentive. Usually you get financial incentives in the real world because you've worked harder, not because you're done less when compared to others. Furthermore, a cash prize is effectively taxable income because you've worked for it, but I doubt the receivers would be declaring it as such. But I don't really expect someone who has profited from it to argue against it.  — Calvin999 22:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Profited"? Really now? I've been out of the loop for a while but if memory serves, the third place winner would have been awarded something like $50... literally cents per hour of editing to promote several FAs. It's absurd to discredit a participant's take on the issue on the grounds that he spent 10 months to earn the equivalent of a tank of gas. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Calvin, give monetary benefits is not a good practice. However, we would change the idea a bit. Instead of gift vouchers, we can give, say 5 books of choice to the winners, 4 to second place, 3 to third. 2 books to category-wise winners. I feel that this would be good because it'll further help to improve their knowledge and contribute to encyclopedia. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That is the point of using vouchers...so people can choose their own books and it isn't cash. It is patronising and wasteful to choose specific books for people you don't know. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I used vouchers won in the Core Contest to get books, including Invertebrate Zoology, a textbook that I find invaluable for writing articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

But that doesn't necessarily say that everybody will buy books from the vouchers. My point is, instead giving them vouchers, let them choose books, and the organizers can directly buy them for the winners. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

My only real objection is that it would put an extra burden on the judges/sponsors and it wouldn't be as quick to get done as if the winner did it themselves. I've been awarded several book grants and it takes longer to get the books that way than if I did it myself. Plus, there's a certain amount of duplication of effort as the awardee has to look up the books wanted versus their price to decide between books and then the judge/sponsor has to look them up again to order them. So I think that the voucher/gift card is the best compromise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I remember a couple of years ago that someone suggested that people who got to a certain stage would be awarded with a T-shirt with WikiCup on it. Personally I think if we offer prizes, we should offer something like this as a token award rather than a monetary award. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm the "doing it for the money" guy. It's why I signed up in 2017, and it motivated me to contribute more new content than I would have otherwise. I'm not sure I understand Calvin's point about how it undermines people contributing for free because they care about a topic. It's not like the WikiCup dictated what subject matter participates could work in... Argento Surfer (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion on financial reward or not, but I do think if we have it, then it should be aimed towards the continued benefit of the encyclopaedia. To that extent, I think t-shirts would be a complete waste of money; whereas Amazon vouchers (or similar) can clearly be spent on books for more research. Harrias ^talk 19:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Reviews

I need to chime in on something that has irked me for several years and it will probably sound like blasphemy... I think we should not award points for GARs. I know this has been where the vast majority of the submissions is from, but that may be the problem- and a problem for Wikipedia as a whole. Because people identify it as the best get-rich-quick scheme, we've had loads of half-assed reviews that are passed prematurely, which only have to be re-reviewed at a later time, because editors got greedy and just wanted points. I understand this will be an unpopular suggestion, so it will likely get struck down immediately, but I see it as more of a detriment than an incentive. I believe people should work for their WikiCup rankings, as the highest-ranking participants typically have done. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I've seen so many who spend half of their review not really reviewing it, just waffling. I had someone tell me how nice an article of mine was written in about 10 different ways bullet pointed, and actually didn't list anything that needed changing. I flagged it but it was ultimately kept (looked over) because the reviewer was presumably too high level to remove it from. But there are a minority who do give good reviews. I'm not for scrapping points, I wouldn't oppose it behind reduced back to 3 points, but I do think there should be a minimum length requirement or something similar. Like 15 bullet points of negatives/things than need improving, correcting, changing etc., without all the positive "wow this is great" waffling to just fluff it up more.  — Calvin999 23:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason I am in favor of completely giving the boot to it is that I feel like having too much leverage with determining the criteria or having too many criteria itself could be a slippery slope. I see any incentive for rewarding reviews as leeway for sloppy GAs. Then again, I think that should be only a single perspective in the face of the overarching theme that something with GARs needs to change. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

After Darth's comment, I feel that GAs must be moved out of the way. Because depending upon the character count or no. of bullet points, you can't judge the quality of the review. I reviewed more than 100 GANs, it is not the same game for every article, even if they are from the same topic. If I want to increase the review size, I can easily do that. For example, instead of writing "Link Vice Admiral, torpedo tubes, allied forces", I can split that into "Link Vice Admiral" "Link torpedo tubes" "Link allied forces", in this way both no.of points and as well the size gets increased significantly and easily. This is just one improvement, the same can be done for many others. So I feel that reviewers may get hurried in mining points, and compromise on the reviews. This'll not only effect the review, but also ultimately the article, which will a GA tag. Also GA Cup is anyways there for this part, I don't think we need to do it here again. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

But the GA backlog is soooooo long. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have frequently judged reviews, told the judges which ones and most of them were removed because they agreed with me. I'd even be happy to take on the role of judging reviews.  — Calvin999 09:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion of GARs encouraged me to educate and involve myself with the process, however this may have led to premature action. I loved being able to take part in an area of Wikipedia I did not previously know about, but I may have taken part before I was ready and fully qualified to. That being said, I have learned a lot about the process from the WikiCup, and without it I would not have known anything about it, but I also wouldn't have been able to improve my skills in being able to judge a 'Good Article'. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The WikiCup adds dramatically to the already huge GA backlog, so if it doesn't in turn help (by providing points) then I suggest that GA points should only be awarded if the nominator also provides a quid pro quo GA review; so in essence GA points are only awarded for 1 GA + 1 GAR. Otherwise the GA backlog is going to get even more out of control than it already is. Harrias ^talk 16:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you should only get points for a GA if you also review a GAR. I've done two and a half times the amount of GARs than I have submitted GAs.  — Calvin999 23:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

One thing about GARs, though, is that it is the only category where you can get points on your own schedule. This was my third year participating and the first two times I was eliminated despite having enough points worth of nominations to get me to the next round (and it wasn't like I nominated them at the last minute). This year I was eliminated under the same circumstances, except that I made a few nominations in the last couple of weeks before the end of a round. And yes, I've included all noms in Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. GARs are a way for many editors to earn their way to the next round, instead of leaving them at the mercy of waiting for reviews.

I would much rather see the abuse of GARs for points addressed, rather than eliminate GARs entirely. Things that can be addressed would include specifying what should be included in a GAR that can receive points (even if a shorter review would pass at GAR) and stop awarding points for quick fails and any fail that doesn't allow a set period of time for the nominator to respond (see this discussion), eg. minimum 7 days and require reviewers to act in good faith to extend that time if issues are being addressed by the nominator. Requirements for passing should include 1) requiring reviewers to use a template to make sure all GA criteria are met 2) capping the length of comments on issues with prose that satisfies the length requirement (current criteria is simply: "As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered") because I find a lot of reviews pad the length with nitpicking the quality of the prose and even addressing issues that are not part of the GA criteria. [Note: I'm busy and may not respond to responses for a few days. Sorry in advance.] AHeneen (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The Cup places a huge burden on the GA review process and without awarding points for GARs, the list of reviews needed would be at least twice as long as it already is, which I would find insupportable. I pushed for points for GARs back in the day because I wanted the problem to go away and I'm pleased that you guys have responded very well as we've reviewed more than we've submitted for at least the past two years.

I'm more concerned about crappy reviews being accepted, but that's on us as the judges. I don't mind people pointing those out to us, but I think it would be more productive for contestants to focus on their own work instead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't say I've looked through a significant amount of other people's reviews, but I do think the concerns about gaming are overblown. Instead of eliminating points for GAR, I'd prefer to see the addition of points for comments on FACs. I've had more than one fail due to lack of participation. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Points for chiming in at FACs? Yikes, that's a slippery slope if ever I've read one. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think encouraging GARs is good to help reducing the GAR backlog. Even during this year when GARs are rewarded, my GA nominations often took months before being looked at. True that GARs are somewhat more prone to abuse than other submission types, so in order to not attract abuse, we should keep the score low like this year. I also believe there should be more scrutiny on GAR submissions, including judge's scrutiny as well as the judges' willingness to act on complaints filed against low quality GARs. HaEr48 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Then, perhaps WikiCup should have one more judge, specifically designated for monitoring the intake of GARs. This is by far the most disruptive side effect of the competition and most of the input on this entire page is about how things with it need to change. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Per this edit below, I don't think the issue is a lack of judges, but a shortage of active judges in 2017. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Judge's discretion

The judges have to look at all submissions to make sure they qualify. The vast majority do, but there are occasions when they do not. One of these concerns whether a GAR is of sufficient quality: the rules state "Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points." As a judge, this is not something I care for deciding. I particularly dislike someone else, perhaps another contestant, coming along and telling me that a GAR is inadequate and should not qualify. I would prefer to accept all GARs, and if people have concern that a contestant is reviewing inadequately, they should bring the matter up at the appropriate (GA) discussion board. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth The problem is in several of the years this did not happen. It definitely got better in recent years though, being patrolled more. I was first aware of it when someone did a review of my nomination and the 15 points weren't actually things for me to change, just commenting on how nicely formatted things were. That shouldn't be allowed, it's just waffle to look like a long review, when you actually read it, nothing was needed to be changed. I then saw that the editor had amassed about 50 GARs he was collecting points for, I went through them and emailed a judge about which ones I felt were being wrongly claimed, and the judge struck off about half of them for claiming reviews which were too short and/or not critically constructive enough to warrant any changes by the nominator. It is a minority thing, most people like me do (did) claim for worthy reviews. I often spent up to an hour reviewing just one nomination, and I'm only online for a matter of single digit hours a week doing editing as well, so it's not really like I can even put the time in to get loads of reviews done, that's why I don't think points should be scrapped because people like me actually work really hard on them. Another reason why it went on was because obviously people don't want to write on a judge's talk page or a GA discussion publicly calling out someone for cheating, email is the only way really.  — Calvin999 15:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm more comfortable reviewing people's reviews than I think Cwmhiraeth is, but it's not one of my favorite things to do as it can be a real time suck trying to decide whether a review is acceptable or not. And sometimes it's a pretty fine line between the two. Maybe we (us judges)'ll have to have an internal discussion about some changes in how we handle them. In my experience, crappy reviews are really only a problem in the first round or two as newbies try to game the system.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

That's why I think it's a good idea to impose conditions beforehand, such a certain length requirement in the form of bullet points where each point is not a continuation of the former, so each one is a different issue that needs improving. Or a certain byte size. Also perhaps no 'positive' bullet points, all points need to be critical and constructive. Highlight any positives in a summary at the end which doesn't count towards the review length etc. I'd be happy to do it, I've done it unofficially in the last few times I competed anyway.  — Calvin999 12:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with a strict "minimum" is that when you honestly come across a well-written article, you would be penalised, and not be able to count that review. I think just muddling along is best. After all, 90% of GANs are 90% of the way to being a GA already. Without feeling overly guilty, I could pass half of the current nominations without any suggestions. Sure, there are improvements that could be made, but most of them already meet the GA criteria, technically. Harrias ^talk 19:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If an article is well-written, then the review you conduct wouldn't be worthy of submitting for points anyway, as there wouldn't be anything or hardly anything to change to write a lengthy review for. With my experience of having reviewed 256 GANs or something, I've actually found that 90% are not ready to be passed without suggestions. It is worrying that you think that such a high percentage is instantly passable. I've issued countless instant fails, but I think only two or three of the 256 I've reviewed have been instant passes, and by instant there have still been about three bullet points for corrections which they've done straight away. There is no nomination that is exempt from at least one point of correction, ever, not even my nominations.  — Calvin999 10:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth I think GARs are different from other types of submissions because no one else is checking whether the GAR is "good", unlike FA, GA, or DYK which has to be checked by other editors before passing. Therefore, I think judges should scrutinize it more than other submission types. It's also easy to abuse, e.g. someone rushing a lot of low-quality reviews to get extra points. I believe there was an example like that at the end of one of the 2017 rounds, someone prematurely failed a GAR so that they got their 4 critical points in time. For this reason, I think "someone else coming along and telling me that a GAR is inadequate" is a good thing, because having to look at so many submissions, it's easy for judge to miss these abuses, and the "people coming along" provide extra eyes. The fact that they're other contestants gives them the right incentive to be critical, although maybe not the incentive to be fair. HaEr48 (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Most GARs were done in good faith and were perfectly satisfactory, but not all decisions on their adequacy are clear cut. That's why a panel of judges is best, and during 2017 that system broke down when real life issues caused two of the judges to be largely unavailable and I had to make decisions on my own. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Weightage to FPOs

Since we are having fewer FPOs from Wikicup, I think something should be done to encourage it. Not only FPOs, but also other categories which receive less attention. As far as I have seen, even FLs have been given less importance, as there are very few FLs made. Perhaps I could be wrong, so just an opinion. I am not familiar with these two categories, but making FPOs seem difficult. Maybe not point-wise, but if any other thing could be done to encourage more contribution to categories which are given less weight would be great. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

More scrutiny needed

I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with Cwmhiraeth's point above, not just about GARs, but all submissions. The strength of the Wikicup is that it provides an incentive to improve content. Its corresponding flaw is that it provides an incentive to cut corners to get points more quickly. I was generally happy about the promoted content that I looked at during the course of the cup. But, there were a number of occasions on which I discovered copyvios, content which failed verification, and inappropriate use of sources. This is less of a problem with featured content, which receives intense scrutiny from multiple editors, but it is certainly a problem with GAs, and even more so with GARs. I do not think it is okay for us to brush these off as problems with those processes that need to be sorted out elsewhere. At the same time, I do not think it fair to pile more work on the judges. Therefore, I'd suggest the following: a panel of secondary judges, whose only job is to check submissions. I am in no way suggesting that all submitted content should be perfect; but at the very least, it should be compliant with WP:V, WP:BLP, and free of copyvios. A team of judges should not find it terribly onerous to perform spotchecks for most contestants. If this idea gains favor, I would be willing to serve on this team, as I am not likely to contest next year. Vanamonde (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether it's a panel or not, things need to be tighter. Pages like Counter Logic Gaming were rushed through, only because people nominating and people reviewing were eager for points. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Thanks for chiming in. I (obviously) agree that this is a problem; but if there are alternative solutions to a panel checking submissions, I'd be happy to hear and discuss them. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, Godot13, and Sturmvogel 66: I'd really like to hear your thoughts on this, as the alternative to my suggestion would be folks concerned about quality sending all our concerns to you three. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the obvious solution would be for you to join the judging panel. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I'm hesitant for a simple reason: for the first part of the year my wiki-presence will be sporadic. I will be around, but I may not be able to predict when or for how long. Thus I'd feel able to check submissions; but not always to fulfill the other responsibilities of the judges with respect to setting up rounds, passing submissions listed by the bot, answering questions/addressing conflicts on the talk page, and so forth. If these issues are not a big deal, and if the judges are able to reach a consensus that we shouldn't accept submissions that are not compliant with WP:V, WP:BLP, and copyright (as independently checked by the panel, at least in some cases) then I would be happy to join. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

My major concern would be your limited availability at the beginning of the year when we typically have the biggest problem with substandard articles and GARs as newbies haven't fully grasped the requirements. Having you focus solely on GARs would be fine, IMO, as that would allow the rest of us to concentrate on the other submissions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I understand your concern: but there's little I can do about my availability. If you believe that is too much of an issue for me to join the judging panel, that's perfectly reasonable, and I will not lose sleep over it. What I can promise is that I will be around for a minimum of two weeks during a given round. Regardless of whether I become a judge, I fully intend to check submissions when I can, and not just GARs. Some of the most serious concerns I had this time were with GAs that had verifiability and copyright problems. I understand that GARs are a common source of trouble, and I would be happy to check them as far as I am able. I think it might help to say that in addition to being a certain length, all GARs must explicitly check off the criteria. Just a though. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bonus points

I noticed that the Bonus points section says December 2017. Should have be updated to 2018? Guettarda (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it should have been updated. I have done it now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup scoring and rules discussion

After a competitive final round in the 2019 WikiCup, it's time for us to discuss the possibility of changing the rules or scoring for the competition for next year. So, what worked this year? What didn't work? Is the balance right between FAs and GAs? Should GARs score more? What about the "significant work" criterion? Are there new rules/methods of running the competition needed? Feel free to open subsections on different subject matters. We look forward to having your views on these and other matters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Featured articles

I think points for reviewing FACs should be considered. Participation in this area could use a boost, as I've had several nominations archived due to lack of interest. Speaking personally, I never considered doing a GAR until I joined this competition, so I would expect this to have a positive impact. I think the same criteria applied to GAR reviews would be sufficient to avoid drive-by comments, but they should probably be worth a little more (maybe 6 points?). Argento Surfer (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Featured lists

The number of these over the course of the Wikicup seems quite low. That may mean they're very difficult and thus undervalued, it may represent a failure of the featured process so that it's simply not promoting lists when it should - which we can't do anything about, or it may represent disinterest. What do people think? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 05:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's mostly lack of interest. In 2010, Staxringold managed 17; I don't think that number would be achievable now, simply due to a lower number of active reviewers. I achieved 11 in 2015; that would probably be roughly achievable still, but as you suggest, I think it reflects the process more than this contest; I don't see that any change of points is justified. Harrias ^talk 11:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Featured pictures

I think discussion of this really depends on Valued Images being included or not. I think they are undervalued slightly, but if we're adding new means for pictures to gain points we shouldn't touch this score, or possibly even reduce it.

I could see the following:

Featured picture: 25 pt

Commons Quality Image (used in articles) 5 points

Commons Valued Image (ditto) 10 points.

But under no circumstances should we reduce points without adding other methods. To win this year, I beat my old record for FPs in a year by 11... Before the contest ended, and with two months left in the year. And spent two weeks waking up, starting restorations, breaking to eat, continuing restorations, and then going to bed. I'd say that my output this year can be considered around the maximum for FPs, so balancing for that as maximum probably won't hurt, as it just feels weird to have superhuman efforts of the thing you're probably the best person at on Wikipedia result in... A score that wouldn't have won several of the rounds. On the other hand, FAC has a hard limit, and GAR is unpredictable - Wikipedia:Wikicup/Reviews still has unreviewed GANs from people who didn't make the final.

One thought: should we ask on Commons what the processes think? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 09:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty strongly opposed to including Commons processes as part of the English Wikipedia's WikiCup, just as we don't include processes from other Wikipedias, or Wiktionarys (Wiktionaries?), or whatever. It's potentially going to lead to all kinds of complications (for example: What if participants aren't Commons users or have been banned? Can a picture get points for both Commons processes and FP? Does the order matter?) and raise all kinds of other questions (why not include processes on other projects? Why exclude the Commons FP?). I hear what you say about ensuring the images are included in an article on the English Wikipedia, but that's no guarantee that they're really adding a lot (it goes without saying that enwp's featured picture process has a higher bar than "is included in an article"). My feeling is that the WikiCup should be focussed on the English Wikipedia; the English Wikipedia has tried and failed to have projects like the commons VI process, and I'm just not sure there's an appetite for them. (If this changes the view about how many points a featured picture should be worth, then so be it.) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Josh here, I don't think we should be bringing in Commons when this contest is about the English Wikipedia. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The enwiki's FPC process already "brings in Commons". It's largely a redundant process that we keep around mostly because we don't want to use Commons' POTD. The standards are a little different (in a varying sense), but mostly it's just slower, falling into periods of inactivity, and less diverse (relatively speaking). It misses an awful lot of images that add substantially to articles, promoted through formal processes on Commons, with direct impact on enwiki.

The "other projects" slippery slope argument strains my imagination to think of what other projects directly supply visible article content to English Wikipedia articles. Wikidata, and which have processes that lead directly to improvements to English Wikipedia articles. If there are processes on other projects that directly affect the quality of article on the English Wikipedia, like the QI [and especially] VI/FP processes do on Commons, that seems worth discussing, I guess?

QI motivates people to take higher-quality images to add to articles, and wouldn't count for anything if it's not used in an article (and when it is, it wouldn't count for but a few points.

VI often have far higher encyclopedic value than FPs, limited instead by their "wow factor" or some aspect of technical quality at full resolution.

The German Wikicup uses Commons processes seemingly uncontroversially. But yes, there are questions that would need to be answered. Regarding banned on Commons, that would also mean that person can't upload things for the enwiki FP process (but it tends to take more to get banned on commons than on enwiki anyway). I would imagine points could only count on Commons or enwiki when it comes to FP, and not both, since it's only improving an article once. These all seem like surmountable issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites: We have a good few disagreements - including about whether FPC is a "largely a redundant process [kept] around mostly because we don't want to use Commons' POTD" - but in the interests of keeping the discussion flowing, I'll just note one thing: I didn't make a slippery-slope argument, and don't intend to! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair. Apologies for misrepresenting you. I read just as we don't include processes from other Wikipedias, or Wiktionarys (Wiktionaries?), or whatever. as something like "what's next -- will we included processes from...", but that's not what you wrote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

So what is the process for proposing an addition? Is that this page, WT:WIKICUP? Seems like not a ton of appetite for it here, but also not a lot of participation on this page in general... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Featured portals

Unless it's going to break the bot, we should probably remove these from the submissions pages that contestants fill out. I'd say lose them fron the tables too. It's not like Featured Sounds are still in the tables. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 09:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, we really need to get rid of sections like this:

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2019/Submissions/Adam_Cuerden#FPO:_45_points

There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to have a section on everyone's submissions page that not only has portals, but has a point value for them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 09:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There seems to have been a big clear out of portals too. For instance the rugby portal has been merged to the general sports portal, which seems to imply that there are less of the smaller portals to work on and improve to FP standard. Plus of course there is always that perennial threat to delete them all which means that sometime next year if it's successful, that avenue gets closed anyway. I'm neutral on if we retain it for the Cup or not. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The featured portal process has been closed down. It has to be removed - I'm not sure there's any room for discussion on this. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Good article reviews

I think we should try upping this a little bit, to say 5 or 6. GAN has a long backlog and we need all the encouragement that we can to clear it. The downside is that it's slightly easier to abuse, so maybe this will mean we (judges and other competitors) need to watch it more. HaEr48 (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, for the reasons stated above. Up it to 6? Ruby2010 (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

In the news

I get the impression ITN points are pretty rare. Should we reconsider the points given difficulty? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 09:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Good/Featured topics

I think the points awarded for good and featured topics are seriously deficient. You work hard to get ten linked articles to GA status, and what do you get, a paltry 30 points? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea of more points for topics (maybe increase by a third?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps 5 and 10 respectively? I like the idea because topics cover a given subject more thoroughly than the usual scattershot approach.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Article bonus system

I have been thinking it would be good if more former featured articles got repromoted. How about a 100-point bonus if one of these is repromoted to FA-hood? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea. I worry about that recently delisted ones might be game-able, but on the other hand, they were poor enough to demote, and no one cared enough to save them, so if we can get someone to look at them, and improve them, all the better. Harrias ^talk 23:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s a good idea. Articles receive already too many bonus points as is. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

General

I'm wondering about the requirement that submitted articles should have been worked on during the course of the competition. Checking up on this causes some extra work for the judges and means submissions are sometimes declined because the work was done in the previous year. This rule mainly affects the first round, and relaxing or abolishing the rule would have minimal impact on the final result. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it prevents excessive prepping. If one can spend all of November and December setting up articles and images to submit, it's going to make for very different competition strategies. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 12:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how you stop this though. You could just prep a lot in userspace, then flip the switch to mainspace at the start of the competition. Realistically, with GANs and FACs, you'll have enough commentary during the nomination for it to be significant work then. Especially as the first round needed just a single GAR last year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see somebody stockpiling articles in November-December and then unleashing them in the final round. Admittedly the review processes will negate some of that sort of gamesmanship, but... --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe the "must have put significant work in during the calendar year...." requirement somewhat eliminates that as viable. It'd probably get pulled out as a spirit-of-rules violation if the requirement isn't lifted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 14:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thinking to past years, I do think it might be fairer to photographers in particular to allow a certain backlog in the first round or two, to get those in the Northern hemisphere into spring and better lighting. Perhaps we could loosen the rule for the first round or two alone, putting in the stricter, more labour-intensive checks once we're down to - what is it for round 3? 32 people? This would probably not affect me much, as I tend to take a break over the holidays anyway, but it might get us more competition in rounds 2 and 3. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 09:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick thought to throw into the mix: This has been a rule since (I think) 2010, and it wasn't a rule in any of the earlier competitions (and, to be clear, 2009 was a fairly big one, though 2007 was tiny and 2008 not huge). Once upon a time, all that mattered is when the work was promoted. It strikes me that removing the rule could save the judges a lot of work and prevent a lot of bad feeling, but I understand why it was put in place. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikicup/Reviews

D'ye think it'd help, especially for GAs, if this was transcluded as a sidebar on the Wikicup main page? Are people even aware this exists? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 09:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I tried to use it - but I don't think it gets many eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That's why I'm thinking we should make it more prominent. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 09:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Content types

Can we get some statistics for number of submissions for each content type? It'll help judge whether any of them are rarer than others. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 09:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Try this page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Lists and ITN seem the outliers there. Topics as well, but that's such a weird process. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 05:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the common trend is that you get more DYKs at the start but they gradually fade as the number of FAs and GAs grow as the year goes on. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That may say as much about strategy as anything else. It's probably easier to make a GA from scratch than to fix a confusing morass of unorganised content. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 08:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Timetable

In the last few years, the contest has tended to attract fewer participants, perhaps in line with a general decrease in new article creation and improvement. The present timetable assumes there will be greater than 64 contestants at the start, but if there were for example 65 entrants, would it be sensible to have a Round 1 that eliminated a single editor? I don't think so. I suggest that if the number of entrants is below a certain figure (X), the pool sizes are adjusted and the contest is contracted into four rounds. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In every year since 2015 (inclusive), literally everyone who has scored any points in Round 1 has progressed, making it relatively meaningless: whether you complete 1 GA review, or have 3 Featured articles, you progress to Round 2. I would suggest either having a more competitive Round 1, or carrying points over from Round 1 into Round 2, so that it has some relevance. And yes, I would agree with your suggestions. Harrias ^talk 08:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• • I would support having points carry over, and maybe even prorating them as added incentive. Like, in round one, the top 10 get 5% carried over, the next 10 get 3%, the next ten 1%. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I would support carrying over, but I suggest just making the percentage flat to keep things simple. The top finisher already has an advantage because x% of 1000 is already higher than x% of 100, for example, and we don't need to compound it further by complicating the value of x. As for the right value of x, 10% seems a good percentage. if you finish a strong round at 1000, having +100 in the next round will give you a nice edge but not an insurmountable one. HaEr48 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Pools

Are editors happy with the present arrangements which features the top two contestants in each pool advancing to the next round, as well as the top-scoring others? An alternative would be to abolish the pools system, with editors advancing to the next round on score alone. In most instances, the two would produce identical results, but it is theoretically possible for the top scorers in a low-scoring pool to advance at the expense of other editors with higher scores. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• The pools are why I no longer compete in the WikiCup. Please get rid of them. Abductive (reasoning) 07:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've looked at every round for the last several years. There has never been a case where a higher scoring competitor lost out because of the pool system. Honestly, I'd be irate if I was the first one, and I'd sympathize with anyone who was bounced out that way. In short, they're pointless and a potential source of conflict. Ditching them would make it easier to see how you're doing, too. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Changes in rules and scoring for 2020

Summing up the above discussion I suggest the following changes to the rules and scoring:

• Featured articles
  • No change
• Featured article reviews
  • Introduce these as a new feature. Rules similar to GARs, with only quality reviews being awarded points. 5 points
• Featured lists
  • No change
• Featured pictures
  • Quite a bit of discussion above but not a consensus for change
• Featured portals
  • Remove
• Good articles
  • No change
• Good article reviews
  • Increase points to 5
• Did you knows
  • No change
• In the news
  • Increase points to 12
• Good/Featured topics
  • Increase points to 5/15 per article
• Article bonus system
  • No change
• General
  • Remove requirement that articles need to have been worked on during the course of the competition.
• Timetable
  • Revise if too few people enter (four rounds if <80 contestants?)
• Pools
  • Remove subdivision into pools with all contestants advancing on merit.
• @Sturmvogel 66, Godot13, and Vanamonde93: Seeking your approval. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Have you talked to the FAC community about adding points for FAC reviews? There has previously been a lot of hostility to idea, which is part of the reason it's never been included before. (Another reason is that it's less quantifiable; one person takes "control" of a GA review and sees it through. FAC reviews are much more a group effort, with individual reviewers sometimes doing very little and sometimes doing an awful lot.) I would strongly advise against adding this without the blessings of the FAC community. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made enquiry at the FAC discussion page here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Two points: You say articles, specifically, don't need to be from the competition year. Should this read "content"? Downside for that, though, is that I have finished images from years ago I could put forwards.

Also, do good and featured topics get bonus points? If so, I suspect pointscould be much higher already. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 00:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC) I wpuld like more discussion on FPs, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 00:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

more discussion on FPs, though - same, of course. I'm curious if people's hesitation to include Commons processes is because they don't think they have sufficient value for enwiki or if they find it too complicated to implement. I would argue strongly against the first point, but defer to the organizers for the second. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

We have a somewhat problematic habit of saying all discussion has to happen after the competition, everyone's away for holidays, then it has to wrap up shortly afterwards to prepare for next year, which really doesn't help progress. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 03:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• In general, I'm fine with most of these suggestions, subject to the reservation I made below about work needing to be done in the year of the competition, and we do need to revise the wording from just "articles" to "articles and media". People only seem to interested as the deadline approaches, so I'm OK with the current timeframe for suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that we retain the "worked on during the course of the competition" rule, but I may not enforce it in the opening couple of weeks of the competition, issuing a warning instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Query

How does "Remove requirement that articles need to have been worked on during the course of the competition." work for the first round? Does the articles still have to be nominated in 2020? Ie, if a competitor has a DYK which was nominated in December run in January, does that count for the Cup? Harrias ^talk 15:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Subject to the views of others, I would say that if the DYK appeared in 2020, it would count, whenever it was nominated. This might lead to some people advancing to Round 2 when they otherwise would not have done, but that is immaterial seeing that the points are reset to zero at the end of each round, and they won't get far without effort in 2020! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think there could still be a limit, just move it from 1/1/2020 to 9/1/2019 (or whatever). Argento Surfer (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• No major objections. I do think we need to talk to the folks at FAC before offering points for FAC reviews; knowing some of the regulars there, it isn't going to be terribly popular. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• My preference would be to retain the existing policy. It's a bit more work for us in the first round as newbies try to game the rules, but I think that it's true to the spirit of the Cup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could delay the awarding of FAC review points until a later round to prevent low quality reviews? By having fewer contestant-reviewers to closely scrutinize, it could help lighten the load for the FAC coordinators. SounderBruce 05:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • That might be reasonable, although I honestly don't expect many new contestants to review any FACs. We should definitely advise people new to FAC to read the criteria, and more importantly, read through several reviews to see what experienced reviewers there are doing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I presume the reason for increasing the points for a Good Article Review is to help reduce the backlog. Better yet, how about also enforcing the QPQ clause for good articles? The last step in the good article nomination process is to "consider reviewing two nominations for each one that you nominate". The fact that this step is optional is the major reason there is a backlog. (Inherently, if there were two reviews for each nomination, there would be no backlog.) If the WikiCup required each participant to have at least one Good Article Review for every passed GA in each round, it would also be inherent that you would all be helping to reduce the backlog. (For example, if a participant had 5 GAs and 2 GA Reviews in Round 1, they would only receive points for 2 out of 5 GAs. The rest would receive nothing until the participant does three more reviews.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

In principle I agree, but it would only make a marginal difference in practice because more GARs are claimed for by participants than GAs, a total of 339 GARs in 2019 as against 175 GAs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. Using 2019-Round 2 as an example, 18 different editors had GAs promoted. Of those 18 editors, only half performed as many reviews as they had promotions. 5 editors received promotions without doing any reviews at all.

In 2019-round 3, 14 editors had articles promoted, but only 5 did as many or more reviews as they had promotions. Of the 9 who had more promotions than reviews, 8 did no reviews at all. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Any form of 'mandatory' or 'QPQ' style review lowers the quality of said reviews. Hard oppose. Harrias ^talk 15:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth's numbers are for the contest as a whole, so it all evens out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I know his numbers are as a whole, but it does not even out that such a rule would have "a marginal difference" in the scenario Sportsfan77777 proposed. There were several competitors who would not have advanced under his proposal. And, if you consider that a good strategy would be to do a review as soon as you nominate an article, it would mean that if I make a nom in January that isn't picked up until July, I would do three reviews for that one nomination. I wouldn't want to miss out on GA points the last week of the second round because I hadn't done a review, after all... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll just point out that I do at least 1 GA review for every GA nom of mine reviewed. However, I don't submit all the reviews to the here because some of the reviews end up being quickfails and thus not eligible for consideration in this competition. I do think you have to look at the overall impact of the WikiCup and that is one where participants are reviewing more articles than they're submitting. As I recently noted over at WT:GAN I would certainly be in favor of some more transparency around the number of noms vs reviews. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep. I hadn't considered that option. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

To add some numbers to Argento Surfer's point, 80 out of the 175 GAs passed last year (45.7%) would have been disqualified under the rule I suggested. (In other words, an additional 80 reviews would have needed to be done to count all of the GAs from last year's cup.) That's a big difference. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

As a separate point, 57 of the GA reviews from last year were done by a single editor who didn't submit any GANs, all but one of which came in the first round. Assuming that editor is retired (as it states on their user page), I wouldn't expect the WikiCup to make a significant dent in the backlog next year with the current setup. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: You make some interesting points here. If such a rule were to be introduced, how would you suggest it should be worded? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

How about: "To encourage editors to help reduce the good article review backlog, good articles will only receive points if an editor submits an equal or greater number of good article reviews in the same round. Additional good articles will not receive points. For example, if an editor submits 3 good articles and 2 good article reviews in Round 1, they will only receive points for the 2 highest-scoring good articles (plus the 2 good article reviews). They would need to submit an additional good article review for the last good article to count." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

If there is really opposition to that, you could instead award much fewer points to those additional good articles instead of zero. Something like: "To encourage editors to help reduce the good article review backlog, good articles will only receive the full 35 points if an editor submits an equal or greater number of good article reviews in the same round. Additional good articles will only receive 15 points. For example, if an editor submits 3 good articles and 2 good article reviews in Round 1, they would receive 85 points in the GA column: 35 points for each of the 2 highest-scoring good articles, plus 15 points for the last one. If they were to submit an additional good article review during the round, the last good article would receive the full 35 points, increasing the total to 105 points." This way, it still wouldn't be required for GA editors to do reviews. Yet, the huge benefit would hopefully still encourage editors to start doing reviews more regularly. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Although encouraging good article reviewing is a useful objective, in practice points are awarded by a bot and I imagine automating the rule advocated by Sportsfan77777 would be impracticable. Additionally, Argento Surfer makes a good point, good article reviews often take place long after the article is nominated and complying with the GAR requirement that this rule would introduce might be discriminatory. As an alternative, we could introduce a bonus rule: anyone claiming for more GARs in a round than they claimed for GAs, would receive a bonus of ten points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I think a bonus point system would be a good workaround , although I think 10 is too low. I suggest closer to 35. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the bot author. I think it would be possible to code something as described here (e.g. 10 bonus points on a QPQ basis). If that's what people wanted I mean. Best, - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 13:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The rule would really need to be that a bonus of 10 points would be awarded if a contestant had one or more GAs in a round and the number of GARs exceeded the number of GAs. I'm not sure that the bonus should apply if someone has merely done a single GAR, otherwise the first GAR would effectively score 15. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Just so I understand we're discussing now moving past QPQ to QPQ+1 (albeit as a bonus rather than requirement)? If the lack of QPQ is a problem wouldn't WT:GAN be the place to decide that? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't visualising it as a being a QPQ at all, just a bonus for anyone who chose to do more GARs than they did GAs in any round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean we're just calling it a different name than QPQ which is fine but the idea that you need to be doing at least 1 review or better for every nom you put in is what we're incentivizing. I mean from my perspective this is fine because it'll be easy enough for me to accumulate these bonus points. I just don't understand why we're deciding here on addressing a problem - lack of QPQ - that hasn't been raised on the relevant project page. And hasn't been a problem with the WikiCup because I believe if we remove first round from last year's cup the cup still did more reviews (196) than noms (133) and across the whole competition in 2018 the same is true (464 noms to 646 reviews). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was responding to Sportsfan77777's suggestion. As you say, the WikiCup has no need to address any perceived problem with GAN accumulations. The simplest thing is to leave this aspect of the scoring unchanged from last year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about points

I just signed up. Can I claim points for DYKs that ran yesterday, January 2, or the day before, January 1? epicgenius (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I will create a submissions page for you and under the new rules, you can claim for these. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Jim Lehrer

I did not nominate Jim Lehrer for ITN but I was the one that did the work for it to be posted. Am I unable to claim it because I did not nominate it at ITN/C? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: You can claim points for your contributions to this ITN article because you did substantial work on it. It is immaterial who nominated it for ITN. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)