Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

I believe the bot errantly awarded me 9 bonus points for my DYK on Flemish bond. As the article is too short, a conversion of a redirect, and not on any other Wiki, I believe it does not fulfill any of the bonus point requirements. If possible, I'd like my score to reflect the accurate 5 point total. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti, thanks for bringing this up. I've now adjusted the points for you. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti, I appreciate your honesty! — Frostly (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder. Could they be silently removed from the original list? I see no reason to see their name in scary red in a competition they will never win nor take part in. Just a thought. ——Serial Number 54129 22:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129, are you asking if we should remove his name from Wikipedia:WikiCup or from Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2024/Round 3? If you mean Wikipedia:WikiCup, we can do that. I'm going to reset everyone's points by tomorrow, so that shouldn't be a problem.

If you're asking us to remove his name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2024/Round 3, that would be more awkward, as his name was kept there for record-keeping purposes. He never formally withdrew, and he did score points during Round 2. Rather than removing his name from the Round 3 page, we might have to come up with something else, such as using a different color for his name. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Epicgenius, that's good—what you say about tomorrow or today is understood. I absolutely agree. If anyone agrees about anything currently, they may be a serial troublemaker. Cheers! ——Serial Number 54129 23:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine currently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had Mercy Gilbert Medical Center undeleted to be rewritten and republished it. The article is 90% new material. Should it still qualify for an age bonus as a DYK based on the original date of publication, as the bot has handled it? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in order to recive a bonus for existing in a year it must have been around for 51+% of that year. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie, in my view it would indeed be eligible for an age bonus. The article had been deleted for only about three months, and it was undeleted rather than rewritten from scratch. If we remove these three months from consideration, it's been in mainspace for the same amount of time as an article that was created in December 2011 and never deleted.

As long as you expanded this page fivefold from the undeleted version, I think it qualifies for the age multiplier. (On the other hand, had the article been rewritten from scratch rather than being undeleted, it would not be eligible as an expanded article, only as a new article.) Epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius It is indeed not a 5x — it was 2327 characters RPS before and is 3140 characters now. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay - I see now. This is a real gray area, since you moved this to mainspace (which would make this a "new article" under most circumstances), but it has undeleted history dating back to 2011. My thinking is that if it qualified for DYK as a new article, then it should be scored as a new article, and thus it wouldn't receive the age bonus. I'm going to ping @Cwmhiraeth and @Frostly for their feedback, but I'm leaning toward treating this as a new article without any age-based bonuses. Epicgenius (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, thanks for the ping. I think that it would be best to treat this as a new article as well, given that the vast majority of the content is new material. Best, — Frostly (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So my and another user have been working our way though GAing every episode of Doctor Who series 14. The review for "Rogue" was posted for under 24 hours before my Co-nom two. Can I claim points for this? While my name was on the review and I am the second highest contributor I didn't work on the review specifically. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant, yes, if you're the co-nominator, you may claim points if you were a significant contributor. This version of the talkpage indicates that you were a co-nominator, so this should be fine regardless if you worked on the review. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding! — Frostly (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit shocked that this year there's been 0 FPs. Like, I left the Wikicup a few years back because it really felt that doing at all well with FPs in the cup was something that made people very upset, but that the celebration of all content on Wikipedia now has 0 FPs? That feels weird. Ah, well, probably just means I was right to leave when I did. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 05:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would try, but Sca is very intimidating... Panini! • 🥪 06:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden, I noticed that as well. I don't know if I've announced it on-wiki, but I should announce this publicly here: The first competitor to get an FP this year will get a special award at the end of this year's cup, in addition to the standard awards given for the highest-scoring competitors in a certain category. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone wants to learn, poke me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed this in passing on Discord, but I think we should consider adjusting the points that are given for featured lists. I'm going to just spew some reasons and thoughts of mine on the matter;

• Featured lists cannot be spammed like good articles, DYKs, or ITNs because of the limit on the number of featured list candidates you can have at any given time (2)
• Far fewer lists are eligible for the interwiki bonus point multipliers
• Should featured articles really be more than 4x the value of featured lists?
• The most featured lists in any round this year was 6 (by myself), for a base point total of 270.
• The most featured articles in any round this year was 3 (by Generalissima), for a base point total of 600.
• I pulled some numbers, and this is only the second time that we've had more featured lists than articles.
• I feel as though we're simply not incentivizing the FL process for the cup, and I think the points could be increased to encourage a greater mix of content from participants.
• Featured list points were last increased from 40 to 45 prior the 2012 cup
• Featured article points were doubled from 100 to 200 prior to the 2014 cup
• The ratio was 2.5 lists being worth 1 FA from 2010–2011
• 2010–2011: 40 pts per FL vs 100 pts per FA (2.5 FL:1 FA)
• 2012–2014: 45 pts per FL vs 100 pts per FA (2.22 FL:1 FA)
• 2015–present: 45 pts per FL vs 200 pts per FA (4.44 FL:1 FA)

In short, I believe the value of featured lists is not properly reflected with the current scoring. As such, I am proposing that featured list points be raised to 65 (3.08 FL per FA), 70 (2.86 FL per FA), or 80 (2.5 FL per FA) starting with the 2025 WikiCup. I'd very much appreciate any feedback on the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are good ideas to consider. Actually, perhaps it might be time for another scoring reform; the last such reform took place in 2019, when competitors were much less likely to submit FLs for points. We haven't changed the scoring rules substantially since then. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be beneficial to examine. Though not exploited in the most recent iteration of the cup, there have been concerns voiced on Discord about the gameability of ITN items. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, at the moment, an FP is only worth ⅔ a FL, and less than a GA. If FLs get raised by themselves, FPs get more marginal. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 18:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I disagree actually because of the fact there's no limits (to my knowledge) on the number of featured picture nominations you can have. My suggestion is meant to compensate for the limits in place for featured lists. I think there's just not a lot of cross over between FP nominators and WikiCup participants. Looking at the 2022 stats as an example, you had 12 pictures in round 1 (360 base pts), 13 pictures in round 2 (390 base points), and 14 pictures in round 3 (420 base points). These base point values just aren't possible with featured lists, so in a sense, it's actually moving things closer to being equal instead of further apart. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As far as I can tell, I have more FPs than any other person on Wikipedia, and I still generally lost every year, even years I was literally spending entire days morning to night working on restoration.

On my best year ever, 2019 - and, remember, no-one is more productive than me - I had 99 FPs. That's 1970 points for the entire year. Last year, the winner had 2582 points in the final round alone. In 2021, the winner had over 5000, again, last round alone.

If I don't participate, no-one would be stupid enough to participate who works with FPs. Whic is very, very much against the original goal of the Wikicup, to celebrate all varieties of featured content. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 20:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of article writing (as someone who has written all three), I feel that FLs are only slightly more difficult to accomplish than GAs, but are significantly less difficult to write than FAs. The current ratio of FL:FA points seems about right to me; I would not support increasing over 55. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]