Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/9

Award more points for vital articles
Hi guys. I worked at Vital articles a few months ago, but since then I appear to have become the only active ("active") participant. Although the list of the 1000 most important articles only has 988, these are broad topics, which means that receive a lot attention (relatively speaking) but are harder to work on. Hence, the quality is mixed. The Cup has been so great at improving articles that I thought it could really help improve the vital articles. I propose we select a diff of vital articles (to prevent people gaming the system) and then provide a modest incentive to work on the articles; the amount is up to you. I'm not very involved in the Cup, so feel free to say no, but I think it could spice things up while making the Cup's improvements more noticeable - or at least offsetting the fact that general articles are more difficult to improve. Cheers, HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are discussions about how the scoring for next year's competition will work ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Perhaps make a proposal there; this kind of proposal has not gone down well in the past due in part to the inherent subjectivity of those kind of lists. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll repost there. HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:WPGA
FYI, this thread might be of interest to cup people. WP:GAN is chronically backlogged, a backlog that is only increased by cup participants, and we're trying to foster more cooperation between the two projects and hopefully encourage more cup participants to help with the reviewing side of things. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination
I think there should be an October GAC backlog elimination drive to offset the surge in production for the WP:CUP finals.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely. And maybe one in January or February, when points aren't really a problem? --WFC-- 22:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. There is about a 40-60 day cue for most subjects.  Without an elimination drive you can't get credit for half your work done during the final round.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that it isn't that long since the last one, and the build up will need periodic drives (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd call six months a reasonably long time, myself. But it would be somewhat less of a problem if points from previous rounds were carried over in some sort of fashion so that people didn't withhold their GANs until the final round. I'm sure that I'm not alone in holding back my GANs lest they get judged now and not in the final round. It's gaming the system, but... --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That really isn't cool. J Milburn (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah... I mean I knew I was through to the next round a while ago but I kept on pumping material (to the point where I'm not sure what I'll work on for the Finals) because that's really the point. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I haven't stopped writing, I've just stopped submitting stuff for GAN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

At last! There is an honest person in this wikicup! Nergaal (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sturmvogel, that really is "not cool" as J Milburn put it. I tried to do that a while back and got somewhat scolded. The object is to write, not the opposite. (Though you have done a great job this round!) :)--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 23:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, reread my post of 23:21 23 August.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand but don't you think that that could come back to haunt you? It already takes several weeks just to get a GAN going!--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 23:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What difference if I get points for them for this current round (since I'll make it into the final round without them) or if I don't get them reviewed in the final round? Either way they'll not help in the final round. This way I can get lucky if there's a GAN elimination drive; if not then I may get hosed. But that's the risk that I and a number of other contestants are taking. TonytheTiger being the conspicuous exception! And even he's being canny about not getting his current GAs under review closed out in this round.
 * The worse thing, IMO, is to make a number of nominations without even the pretense of an effort to do some reviews to offset your nominations. I've done somewhere around ten reviews in this round, but have made no nominations since June, because I know that I'm liable to nominate at least that many in the final round. And I'll try to review some more during the final round as well. But that's my take on things, you may well feel differently.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that sentiment. There is no doubt that we have a responsibility to do our share of reviews. I've done a few over the last week or so. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot not handling VPs
The bot is not recognizing my VP, which I think has been submitted in proper format now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot seems to have missed both my last VP and last GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the judges going to give me credit for these?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Credit will be given. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Round 4
I added preliminary Round 4 lists and expanded the wikicup template accordingly. If there will be any maior change I will try to add the points tomorrow.--Stone (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, appreciated. I gave the scoresheets a last manual update a little while ago, so everything on them should be accurate. I'm now in the process of preparing everything for the final round. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops. I guess there was no point submitting a newly promoted GA today, lol. Resolute 21:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry, the round ended on the 29th. You would have been able to claim it next round, but I'm afraid you haven't made it. Better luck next year? Want a quote in the newsletter? I'm just writing it now, and I think everyone deserves a mention. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * S'alright. I finish 10th either way... and personally, I blame William S. Saturn for my failure to advance.  I figured I had it until he decided in the middle of the round to just outright kick my ass.  ;o)  And yes, signed up for next year already. Resolute 21:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I must announce that to all the complainants about my lack of reviews, I checked the reviews page with 48 hours left to see if anyone had like a two month old nom needing a review. There were no outstanding review problems to my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I updated the Contestants list also.--Stone (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually EC'd with you :) Poster done... Now, scoresheets, then wait until midnight for the final blank sheet and the sending of the newsletter... J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to mention this summary table in the newsletter. I encourage all the finalists to add themselves.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will do. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just the final eight? J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my quote. I'm still in shock that I made it this far. I counted myself out in round one with a total score of 0 and I'm in the final round with 7 of Wikipedia's best writers!


 * On a side note, I'd like to wish everyone luck!--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Round 5 submissions
When will we be able to make round 5 submissions?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If your submission page has been wiped clean then go ahead and start. I already have.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why haven't mine and Sasata's been wiped clean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is going on? I am just putting my submissions on my submission talk page for now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have missed yours. Sasata's was wiped, he's just claimed some early points. Apologies. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot
The bot seems to not have been working for the last week or so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've given X! a poke. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Judges for next year
As you all know, there are currently three WikiCup judges- myself, and. We started this year with a fourth, iMatthew, who has retired. I have been contacted by three people who have expressed an interest in judging next year. Myself and Ed are in a position where we are happy to judge or happy to participate next year; I'm not certain precisely how many we'll need. So, basically, I am opening up the floor- what do people think? How many do we need? How should we work this? Who's interested? Who cares? J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * well, look anyone who's a judge has my gratitude. I guess the first step is the judges to decide how many is a good number - is three enough? is four better? And then I reckon you can all draw straws, or play paper/scissors/rock, whatever - it's all cool. It has been a great competition -we'll all play no matter who the judges are ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with three, or four (since I offered to become a judge for next year based on my work behind the scenes this year) Casliber is right, people will still play no matter who is a judge or how many there are. I'm likely not going to participate next year as a competitor either way as I will simply not be able to write as much as I have this year. However that does not mean that I'll be editing less and I'll still be free to help out with running things here if you guys like :) Best of luck to everyone,--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 15:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer four over three, if for no other reason than having that extra person to help out and make things run quicker. It doesn't seem to matter that much; we started with four this year and ended with three, no significant issues arose, from what I saw. I would be willing to help out as a judge, as well, but see no problems with the current ones either. I don't expect getting past round two for 2011, but if I don't get picked to be a judge, I'll compete nonetheless.  — fetch ·  comms   00:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is any chance for controversy, there should be an odd number of judges. However, Wikicup is quite collegial so an even number is fine.  I am willing but disqualify myself because I intend to be a contestant. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, there hasn't been a controversy that came down to a straight-up vote, so an argument along those lines may end up being purely academic. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be all that worried. However, making a Supreme Court-style situation may not work as it would possibly lead to more lobbying sorry to say. If consensus can't be made, it can't be made.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll of course put my name as a judge, seeing I got experience during this year running a separate Cup in a WikiProject. I put my name in last year and Ed got the job. I won't be so hampered next year like this year however. So that should be a good thing. :)Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 21:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Mitch. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, no worries. I'm not going to hate you for the decision last year. :P.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hidden diff
At WikiCup/History/2010/finalists we are having trouble finding a historical diff for one of the WP:CUP finalists who changed user names during the competition. How can I find historical diffs for WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/Coldplay Expert which has been moved to WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/White Shadows?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Page was moved, the history should still be with it? J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can not find a dif before this one. Where did they get moved to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 29 deleted revisions on the White Shadows submissions page; I'm not quite sure what happened, but it looks like the page was renamed from CE to WS twice and some old revisions got lost the second time. Ucucha 00:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's odd.....--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I restored the old revisions, so Tony, you should be able to find your diff now. There is a little duplicated history on 20 March from 3:49 to 3:52. Ucucha 00:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park FT points ruling
As of September 1, the WP:FT new requirement is that topics have 50% FAs to retain their status. Thus, Millennium Park has fallen below 50% by one article. Today, I nominated Exelon Pavilions at WP:FAC. However, the main coordinator at FT has gone inactive and the newly deficient topics have not been demoted adminstratively. I.E., they still have FT labels on them. If Exelon Pavilions achieves FA before anyone at FT figures out how to do all the demoting actions, will I get credit for a promoted FT since the promotion of one more article will cause the topic to meet the new FT standards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My 2 ¢: way to aim low! Nergaal (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. The current rules are that you get points per article with which you were involved in the topic. You can't farm points by having the topic demoted then promoted again, even if the rules have changed. If you note the current rules-


 * Points are awarded per article in the topic that was worked on by you. 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. You may even claim for articles within a topic that are your own work, but were promoted before 2010, providing that the topic was worked on by you (and nominated) during 2010.
 * 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.
 * Does that answer your question, or have I misunderstood this? J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you are misunderstanding this. This is a topic where most of the articles were created by me and I am the primary author of all the articles in the topic.  In fact, earlier in the year when I helped enough articles get promoted to featured to reach the 33% featured level, which was at the time sufficient for featured topic status, I was given CUP credit for the topic for raising it from good topic to featured topic.  The topic again has less than the required percentage of articles for featured status now that the required percentage is higher  (See item 3aii at WP:WIAFT, which reads: On 1 September 2010, the required fraction of featured articles for a featured topic will increase from one-third to one-half.).  My point is that for the topic to rightly be a featured topic, it needs one more article. I have nominated an article in which I am one of the primary authors and for which I will earn featured article CUP points.  If the featured topic project were not broken, with no one knowing how to figure out all the templates that need to be changed and files that need to be moved, the topic would already have been demoted to good topic.  At some point, someone will figure out how to do everything that is necessary to demote topics.  Then, the topic will be in the same situation as earlier in the year when it was a good topic in need of having more articles promoted to be featured.  If I promote one (in this case I am already attempting to) then I will have essentially duplicated a feat accomplished earlier of getting enough promoted to meet the WP:WIAFT requirements.  Thus, it would seem that I would be eligible for points again, even though it is the same topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you're not actually adding any articles to the topic; you can't claim the topic all over again. This'd be the same as having a GA demoted, then claiming points when you clean up the article and resubmit it. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Promoting an article that is already within a featured or good topic does not get additional points for the topic., there are two distinct cases. Case I-Topic A is a featured topic and Article A is a good article.  Promoting article A to featured does not get CUP points for the topic. Cass II-Topic B is a good topic and Article B is a good article. Promoting Article B to featured does get CUP points if it takes the topic from good to featured.  See your prior ruling on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with that, but I do not feel that this is the same thing. This is a topic demoted on a technicality- you can't suddenly claim the points all over again when the issue is dealt with. Compare- we wouldn't award DYK points twice if an article was taken off the main page because the fact was unreferenced, but then thrown back up ten minutes later when a reference was added. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I claim the points for the two articles that have been added to the topic since the first promotion to FT that have never been claimed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If they were added this round and you have done the usual "significant work" on them, yeah. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They were added last round, but when the FT gets repromoted, they will be new to the CUP since I never claimed the points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then no, sorry. You can't claim points for things that were promoted last round. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

New Plan
I have 3 new layout plans for the WikiCup, depending on contestant count:

45-134 contestants:

Round 1- 1 pool, narrow down to 45 contestants

Round 2- 15 pools of 3, with each pool's highest scorer advancing to round 3

Round 3- 5 pools of 3, with each pool's winner and four wildcards advancing to Round 4

Round 4- 3 pools of 3, with the pool winners advancing to round 5

Round 5- 1 pool of 3 for final round.

135-224 contestants:

Round 1- 1 pool, narrow down to 135 contenders

Round 2- 15 pools of 9, with first-place pool winners advancing to Round 3

Rounds 3-5- same as above

225+ contestants:

Round 1- 1 pool, narrow down to 225 contestants

Round 2- 15 pools of 15, pool winners going to Round 3

Rounds 3-5- same as above

No Round 1 if we have the minimum count for layout plan.

We switch later rounds to present format if Round 1 withdrawals take us below the given number. Us441(talk)(contribs) 17:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a fairly good idea but I would like to see more wild cards in the rounds.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 17:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed- under this format, everything would come down to who you were in a pool with, and big-hitters could potentially go out very early. I also don't like the fact that there are so few people in the later rounds- that'd make it very boring for the rest of us. Your plan is brutal- lots of people being eliminated, lots of direct competition. I'm not sure I like that; this is just meant to be a bit of fun. J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - the fewer the pools, the less it matters what pool you're in. If it's a pool of three, then it becomes more personal - there's far more value in adding your thumb to the scales, slowing down that one GAN or FAC that can keep you at the top of your pool. Not saying people will do anything like that, but it becomes more feasible, and thus, more probable. Guettarda (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. Too brutal too quickly. 15 people by the third round? I think not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should have at least 5 or 6 finalists in any plan. I agree with Sturmvogel.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This direct competition is problematic and sometimes not fair. You can get into a group with somebody like Sasata and than you have a lot do do to get into next round, or you have a group with two people dropping out due bad luck and you have a nice time while others work their .. off. Large groups of at least 8 to 20 is more what I like!--Stone (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Late entry
I think we should accept late entries during round one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Last time, we said we wouldn't, then did- the cut-off point was the first newsletter (so, basically, we allowed new entries throughout January). This will not be a problem if we have the big pool in round one- the only potential problem will be having to shift the poster around, but I'm sure we'll manage. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. Many people may try to come in in round 1 and we should let them. The more the merrier for round 1 :)--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - this mattered when the competition had fixed numbers of people. It might be a problem if we prorated points to level the playing field for late entrants, but I can't imagine anyone actually suggesting that. Guettarda (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree--if you come in late, people would already have points and you would be behind. Us441(talk)(contribs) 11:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying we should disallow people from doing something, purely because it puts them at a disadvantage? The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support people may not know about it until it's already started. <font style="color:	#002664">~DC <font color="#BB133E" face="Tahoma">Let's Vent 17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure, at the end of the round, we could give them extra points in porportion to how late they are and how many points they get. Us441(talk)(contribs) 19:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would oppose giving them bonus points for signing up late.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We could easily accept any eligible articles/media that they have had promoted prior to entering the Cup, though. That would put them on level-pegging. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

relegation play
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring <font style="color:	#002664">~DC <font color="#BB133E" face="Tahoma">Let's Vent 17:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC) My idea would be to make one pool with all the people who did not manage to get into the next round and award the winner of that pool a place in the next round. As an example: Round 2 (64 participants) finishes with 32 people not getting to the next round. From these people pool X is formed. At the end of round 3 with 4 groups of 8 (and pool X of 32), the top two in each pool will progress, as well as the top seven of all remaining users, plus the winner of pool X (only the winner!). This would increase the positive output of editing and it would make it possible to have 0 points in one round, but come back as the winner of pool X. But nobody will try that by purpose, because if one of the top competitors gets ill or off-line for two months you have a real shark in your small basin and that you will end up as second in pool x with nothing. --Stone (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction is that that isn't actually a bad idea. What do people think? J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This could be both workable and productive. Although I'd suggest that it's done in conjunction with some sort of carry-over of points in the final round, to ensure that it's very unlikely that the eventual winner could take this course of action. --WFC-- 11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I quite like the idea. My gut feeling is that the sort of person who comes through this sort of system and then wins is probably a deserving winner anyway, but they were, as Stone says, ill or incapacitated. I'd be interested to see if the big points scorers agree with the "justice" in giving them a second roll of the dice. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 12:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, as well. Kind of gives the "dark horse" idea to the Cup. Plus it would keep incentivizing article production. Useight (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, definitely would encourage people to keep trying. But why not take it a step further and have a "junior" or "amateur" cup, for less experienced users, similar to the Europa League?   <font style="color:	#002664">~DC  <font color="#BB133E" face="Tahoma">Let's Vent 16:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. How do you propose we judge who counts as "amateur"? J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could let people self-select. Make the 'championship' cup more dependent of featured content and 'important' articles, let the 'amateur' cup weigh article creation more, and allow mainspace edits to count. Also makes it interesting if you add the relegation bit - one strategy to earn your way out of the second division, a different way to keep your place in the first division. (Complementary strategies as well, in a sense - load up on DYKs in the lower division, and then build them up into GAs and FAs once you're promoted). Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking self-select (people could chose one or the other), but I'd like it so that more established editors couldn't join the "amateur cup." Maybe we could say the top 32 in the previous wikicup, and anyone who ever finished in the top 8 of a wikicup, couldn't join the amateur one.  <font style="color:	#002664">~DC  <font color="#BB133E" face="Tahoma">Let's Vent 03:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We could have one big cup that everyone participates in. The losers are automatically placed in the ametrual cup as well as the people on the waiting list. They can drop out if wanted. YE  <font color="#66666">Tropical  <font color="#66666">Cyclone  13:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or do it via Total Edits. Example: Users with less than 5k total edits go into both the main cup and the amateur cup. Like a rookie system that is done in NASCAR, Indycar etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numyht (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 September 2010
 * The one thing about basing it on edits is that there are probably alot of vandal-fighters who'd have high edit counts, but relative inexperience at content building. <font style="color:	#002664">~DC <font color="#BB133E" face="Tahoma">Let's Vent 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Edits using Huggle/AWB/Twinkel/etc are never counted, so that wouldn't make a difference. Useight (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but it would put them in a group with the more experienced article writers, if it was used to determine in which of the two groups they were to be placed. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both ideas sound very interesting. Buggie111 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion, although adding people who are knocked out in the first round into a 'lower' pool is a really good idea. My main point in commenting here is to warn against creating something that is too complicated. We've had enough trouble with the rules already, and I think those are simple; setting up and maintaining two separate cups, plus regulating both to ensure that one is 'amateur' and the other is 'experienced', is no small matter. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Relegation => the project would have to be renamed from WikiCup to WikiLeague, or WikiChampionship. Nergaal (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that a single GA was good enough to make the second round I really don't see any point to this in the first round. There may be a point later on, but even then I'm a little doubtful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a rather excellent point. The first round can separate the people interested in the competition from those who signed up and bailed. Perhaps begin the relegation pool after the second round and give anyone eliminated in the first the chance to opt-in at that point if they so choose? Resolute 02:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The first round behaves more like a qualifying round anyways. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot problem
Hey, the bot just ran and it gave everyone erroneous points for a GT.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And FT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I told you guys GT and FT points were a problem! ;) Resolute 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is no doubt my fault, though I can't see what I've done. I have removed everything from the GT and FT sections on the submission pages, and removed the points from the scoresheet manually. God only knows how it missed one off, that just makes this even more weird. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot still missing my VP
The bot missed another one of my VPs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got a horrible feeling it doesn't actually recognise them... I'll drop X! a line. J Milburn (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot just took away my manual VP points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the bot calculates everything anew, so it overwrites manually-added points. I have filed a bug report, hopefully this will be dealt with soon. J Milburn (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK credit
Can I take a DYK credit for this assist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IDK, did you get formal recognition for it from the DYK volunteers?--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 23:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have been a DYK without you- you cleaned the article up a little. I don't think that constitutes "significant work". J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh. Obviously a matter for the judges, but I wouldn't really care if you claimed points there, added a solid bit to that article. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any other opinions? If people think that's enough... As I say, it would have been DYK without it, for a start. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's kinda cheating the system. The article did not need TTT to get it to the main page.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 10:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done a lot more on the article and request another opinion now. I will be taking GAC credit for the article, which I just nominated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, take the GA credit, but I would argue it got to DYK without you. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was surely 1500 characters before I got to it, but the article was a shadow of the current version. I think I will get DYK credit from the DYK guys for it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, you are in 1st pace. Stop being paranoid about, "hiding diffs" and trying to squeeze every last point out of articles that to be quite honest, would have gotten to where they were without you. Take GA credit but you do not deserve DYK credit from the article IMHO.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 01:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiding points
Are people sandbagging. I am trying to figure out how many points Sasata has hidden based on Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-13/Features and admins.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I promise I'll update soon. I've been on vacation until today, and haven't felt like hunting down diffs yet. Sasata (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the comment above about paranoia is apt. Leave the judging to the judges and focus on your own work. Resolute 02:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What?--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 02:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You made a comment above about TTT being paranoid. This topic on "hiding points" is an example of same, imo. Resolute 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks. All the best,--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 02:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 vs 2009: submissions vs points
It should be noted that ITN, FLs, and FTs have had their requirements increased notably, and driveby noms were not allowed (which hurt especially FPics). Nergaal (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The featured picture issue is not a driveby thing- drivebys were not allowed last year (although there was some confusion about that) it's just that last year saw both Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday competing, both of whom nominated a number of restorations for FP status. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That 2009 DYK # is just wrong. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, where are you getting your stats from here? J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

From an unofficial update of the newsletter that I found in the archives. Some of the figures were probably right, but I switched with those form the last newsletter: WikiCup/Newsletter/2009/36

Question
Would it be possible to create a complete list of all of the content submitted to the WikiCup 2010 for all participants? I think creating such a list would be interesting to see how much content has been created for this competition. Remember (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IIRC last year there was at least a general statement in the newsletter about X FAs, Y FLs, Z FPs, etc, etc. An actual list of the articles would be pretty cool though. Staxringold talkcontribs 12:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm completely honest, I'm not up to doing that myself- you'd have to dig into the history of the submissions pages. I admit a full list would be really cool to view; I could certainly do a list in terms of numbers (x number of FAs, y number of GAs, etc.) for the Signpost feature, and link to a full list if one has been prepared by then. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If stone is willing to assist me, I'm willing to spend the time compiling it.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 02:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can help out with that as well. I'm rather curious myself. Resolute 16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

List
Because I was bored (and have no life), I've mostly compiled the list here. The list is not quite done - ThinkBlue, Casliber, Sasata and Sturmvogels' contributions are not yet done, and I'm not doing any final round submissions until it ends. I got tired of linking DYKs and G/FTs after a while. It has led me to a few opinions about scoring for next year, but I'll save those until I complete the list - probably on Wednesday. As a bonus, I've compiled the overall scores through four rounds. Sasata in the overall lead with 3375 points. 14 editors topped 1000 points total. Resolute 02:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This should be moved to WP space and put in the Cup template next to WikiCup/History/2010/finalists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that to the judge's discretion. It would have to be cleaned up a bit in that case, however. Resolute 02:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to move it to the Wikipedia space. Thanks very much for this. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Awesome jobe Resolute! Thanks for doing this! Remember (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've added the final four users, so the totals after four rounds are complete.  Table to the right. Resolute 01:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This table suggests that GA and DYKs are overvalued compared to everything else. Nergaal (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? No matter how you structure the points GAs/DYKs/etc are always going to be more common than FAs, that's an issue of the process not just scoring. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that DYKs are overvalued - but will express that on the scoring subpage later. GAs I think are fine, but FAs are undervalued, IMNSHO. Resolute 03:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if we use multipliers, plus allow cumulative multipliers as we've talked about above, that will inflate the value of FAs of larger and more core or underrepresented material accordingly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if FAs get more valuing, fair enough, but it is going to be biased towards people who have friends or write on popular topics, as they will be able to pass an FA each week, while others can only get one each month because nobody will review them, then making someone's success dependent on whether they have any buddies among the FAC regulars or a supportive wikiproject. And the prose multipliers are badly needed per the endless flood of 1500b DYKs and other stub GAs everywhere. Unfortunately WP is only well-developed polictically, in terms of rorting everything at every possible turn, ie third world sophistication  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lighten up YM, it's supposed to be fun and games :) You've convinced me already with your 3rd-world analogy. What's "rorting"? Sasata (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I've collected likely or feasible multipliers here at User:Casliber/wikicup scoring for clarity, until we can figure out after the end of this years' competition what we do (i.e. accept some, all or none, and how we decide etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A 2.25 multiplier for a major world leader or general or nobel winner isn't going to convince anyone to write it up instead of a 10-15k FA on a topic that isn't the source of endless historiographical and source disputes.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  05:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You reckon? Okay. It is food for thought. The table is preliminary anyway. We can always discuss multipliers as we go and make some bigger. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Perhaps not, depending on how masochistic one was, but a 2.25 multiplier (i.e. size and core article multipliers) would definitely induce me to work on something like soybean (for example). Participants will still "game" the system to find multiplier articles that are the least hassle/effort, but this is gaming in a way that's clearly for the encyclopedia's benefit. Sasata (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

break
The FA/GA/DYK ratio should be within the lines of the total number of FA/GA/DYKs out there. Since there are 3x more GAs than FAs, the ratio FA/GA should be close to 1/3 not 1/7 as now. I think there are about two FAs per day on average, while DYK are under 40; this gives a ratio close to the current one (hmmm). It might be worth considering halving the points for DYKs and doubling-ish (or 1.5x) the one for FAs.
 * On the other hand, FPic/VPic is >>1, which should not be. I suggest giving more equal amounts of points next year, because the amount of work is probably similar in both cases.
 * FT/GT is 1/3 instead of roughly 1/2 that is going on at xTC => propose slight increase of FT points? (now FT entries get 1.5x than GT ones; perhaps make it 2x?)
 * FLs are really down from last year, but at least they are on par with FAs => bump by whatever bonus FA gets
 * FSounds are doing awful: give a bonus for the penalty of not attracting editors' interests
 * My conclusions: if FAs were to be kept at 100pts, decrease GAs to 25 (or 30), bump FPics and FPortals to 40, FTs to 20, make DYK 5, and put VPics at least at 20 pts. Also, add a 1 or 2 pt bonus for doing a complete PR/GAN/FAC review. Nergaal (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As for bonuses I propose several rules:
 * all multipliers should be manually inspected by judges
 * have multiple multipliers but allow only one per submission
 * core articles get big bonuses: level 2 perhaps 20x, level 3 perhaps 10x; level 4 2x (here judges are important to prevent abuses as this level is not well defined)
 * level 3 cores should still be judged case-by-case as getting a 10x bonus for Ireland is not similar to getting a 10x for World War II
 * extra categories of important articles would likely overlap with the scope of level 4 core articles
 * underrepresented FA classes would be only for FAs: not more than 1.5x
 * prose multiplers: 1.5x for 20k+; 2x for 40k+; 3x for 60k+
 * if bonuses are provided, then collaborative efforts will split points (a lvl 3 article done by two users would give each a 5x bonus, while an underepressented FA would give them either 1x or 0.75x)

Any thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, collaborative effort should probably get some penalties (if x collaborate, then get 2/(1+x) points), so 1x for lone work, 2/3 for two, 1/2 for 3, 2/5 for 4, etc.Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like all these ideas. It's not too much extra work for judges to scrutinize each case individually, as these bonus cases will be few and far between (I predict). I also think the penalty for collabs is a good idea as it still encourages collaboration but doesn't allow for each to get full points—a "loophole" in the current point-scoring system that I'm surprised not more have taken advantage of. The core bonuses you propose are perhaps excessive, but I agree the multiplier should be more than 1.5X. Sasata (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that the core bonuses appear excessive at first sight, but the 10x is for articles that 1) are actually important (except for the likes of Ireland); 2) will probably be collaborative effort (outside the cup or within); 3) probably nobody in the whole history of the cup has tackled; 4) could be limited to 1 per round. Nergaal (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with scrutiny by judges to see what multipliers apply. A nominator would suggest tehm on their scoring page and the judge would then confirm or otherwise. The multipliers are interesting - the really big ones (major depressive disorder, vampire, lion) I have worked on have all taken months when I think about it, and probably were 5-10x the work of the small species ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting and good suggestions, Nergaal, though I worry about making this too complicated for the judges - we shouldn't make this too much of a job for them. Additionally, I again object to using the level 4 list on the vital articles page to determine a multiplier. First, because it is very America-centric, and second because it is not a complete list. I could easily see someone adding their own FA to that list after the fact. Instead of that, we could go with a concept recently implemented at WP:TFAR. Make the level four multiplier apply to "widely covered" articles - those that exist in 20 or more foreign language Wikipedias as well. Resolute 15:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fine with not having the level 4 and have something like this instead. Nergaal (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nergaal's ideas are all very interesting- the only one I really don't like is valued pictures having a massive bump in points. If we are awarding them points at all (there are many who feel that the project should have been closed down, and, regardless, it's currently very unmoderated), they should be minimal. There was a lot of opposition to them being awarded points last year, and the project is now in a far worse state. It's unfair to say that they require the same amount of work as featured pictures- the standards are very, very low in comparison. (Also, the scoring talk page is always open for suggestions and discussion.) J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the points increase for VPics: whenever GTs were started, it went really slow and very few users outside the initial proposal to start them did contribute; my impression is that when they were added to the Cup scoring (perhaps overevalated initially) people started gaining interest, and editors from MilHist project (that generally tends to completely ignore GAs) have started to take notice of it and nowadays there are twice more GTCs than FTCs (probably half from MilHist). If VPics were to indeed stay, I believe that the cup could really make sure it gets noticed. My personal opinion VPics should not be closed before similar dead projects like FPortals, which are usually the same stuff all over again, and never really get any visitors; VPics on the other hand would be featured on presumingly notable articles and therefor would add value to wikipedia. Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the motivation for including points for VPs this year- it's had minimal effect. For what it's worth, I was very much behind that, last time. The point is, VP isn't just undersubscribed (in the same way, for instance, FPO and FS is) but there is, in fact, a significant number of people who feel it should not exist at all. As for pictures being "featured on presumingly notable articles and therefor would add value to wikipedia"- in an ideal world, yes. The problem is that the VP project is a long way from ideal. I could rant further about the issues with the VP project (it actually, in practice, has a far, far lower EV requirement than FPC, which completely defeats the point...) but here is not the place for that. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This year it included points: ha? 5pts for a picture that you have to take, instead of taking a bit of extra care and hope for a 35 FPic points? Look at the DYKs: they were doing quite poorly until users realized they can abuse the 10pts bonus and invaded it (last year there were 6 DYKs if you can believe it); then, if they cared enough they got extra 40 pts for GANning it. I think it had minimal effect because the points were minimal. Last year FPics had 2/3 of an FA and two user doing mostly pics got in the last 8; there were 43 FAs and 235 FPics! This year, by having it to 1/3 of FAs there were 1/5 of the FAs submitted. If one provides the points, users become interested. Nergaal (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for those curious, I am pasting the totals from last year to see what point tweaks might be appropriate:
 * ''This combines with the Round 1, Round 2, and Round 3, to make a grand total of:


 * 43 Cscr-featured.svg Featured articles
 * 61 Cscr-featured.svg Featured lists
 * 5 Cscr-featuredtopic.svg Featured topics
 * 235 Cscr-featured.svg Featured pictures
 * 44 Cscr-featured.svg Featured sounds

'' Nergaal (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6 Cscr-featured.svg Featured portal
 * 8 Support cluster.svg Good topics
 * 325 Symbol support vote.svg Good articles
 * 6 Symbol question.svg Did you know? items
 * 150 Nuvola apps knewsticker.png In the news items


 * A number of issues with what you just said. Firstly, there were not six DYKs, that's straight up wrong. Secondly, there was such a high number of FPs because the competition included Durova (the eventual winner) and Shoemaker's Holiday- two big restorers. This year, Juju has done some restorations, and Sasata has nominated some of his own pictures, but other than that... It's not a points issue, it's a particiation issue. As for the 5 points for valued pictures, I faced a lot of criticism for introducing that, nevermind higher- I had to go with what the votes said. There's no way that everyone can be happy on that front, but I think you'll find that you're in a very small minority supporting equal points for featured pictures (long established, high standards, recognised by the vast majority here and other projects) and valued pictures (though no longer new, certainly not established, very low, unclear standards, with many supporting the closing of the project). J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)