Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring/Archive 4

Quick question - first time participant
Can any content from 2010 be counted toward 2011? Specifically, an article that was mostly complete in 2010, but wasn't a GA until 2011? Likewise, a topic that was mostly complete in 2010, but was nominated in 2011? Not trying to game the system, just curious how the point system works. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as you have done significant work on the article in 2011, and it was nominated in 2011, you can claim points. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What about for the topic? Same deal? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Topics can get kind of complicated, as you can only claim points for the articles in the topic on which you have done work. See WikiCup/Scoring for details. J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the help! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify. If I did work on an article now towards, for example, good article status and it's not reviewed until March, would I theoretically get the points in March and hence round two? Brad78 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Anything nominated now that's passed in March would go next round, much like anything nominated now that's passed in a week goes in this round. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah; as long as the content has been worked on and nominated this year, you claim the points in the round in which it is passed. We obviously discourage gaming the system by saving nominations, but we can't stop people doing that. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

GAR points
Hey I was looking through the list of GA nominations, and I saw someone who requested a "second opinion". Here's my question: can you earn points for assisting a GAR, such as in a case where the review needs a "second opinion"?--12george1 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about it in the rules, and so, by default, I'd say not. This is not to say that providing second opinions is not extremely valuable, just that the WikiCup is more concerned with providing points for things which are quantifiable. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would a GAR get double points if the article concered exists on 20 WPs or is on the vital 3 list? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ &bull; ♥ • ♦ &bull; simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Scoring in the gap between 1st and 2nd rounds
Quick query - I've got a GA nominated since the start of the first round on a double multiplier - Saluki. This has come up for review today, in the gap between the two rounds. Now there's no guarantee that the review will be finished before the 1st March, but if it does, can I still claim the points for the 2nd round? Miyagawa  (talk)  11:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Before someone answers this query properly, I would like to add that the default setting of the bot is to credit you in the second round for any points scored in the interval. But that is customisable. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 12:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're fine to claim stuff promoted in the interval for the second round, but please do not add it to the submissions page yet, as there's some more stuff that needs to be done. J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. I'd stored some DYK nominations as comments until they were published (found it was easier than digging through histories looking for nominations after they were published - but I've moved those into userspace so that they don't get lost. Miyagawa   (talk)  14:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify then, stuff worked on in the first round that isn't promoted to the second can be counted torwards the second round even though you worked on it only in the first, then? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Saw the answer above. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Different DYK scoring proposal for 5x expansion
Having written over 300 DYKs, I have a little insight into their works. I think that a 5x expansion is a much more difficult task than writing a new DYK. Whereas a new DYK can be just a little beyond stub, 5x expansion, particularly of a topic that is already beyond stub level, involves much more work. It wouldn't be too far to say it is 5x as much work :) I would like to suggest increasing the award for 5x expansion. A start article, expanded 5x, is usually around B-class, and frankly, not that far from a GA. Currently all DYKs are valued as 5 points. I'd suggest we value a 5x expansion as at least 10 points, although I'd prefer to give it a score of 20 (compared to a GA of 30). This would also reduce the unfavorable bias towards mass production of short DYKs on similar subjects, which make 5x expansion, much more time consuming, not "economical" with regards to CUP scoring. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that expanding an existing article is more work than creating a new 1500+ character article, but changing the rules in the middle of the Cup will be resisted. Also, I, and I am sure others, find it hard to "pad" text and resent it when people write for length rather than for communication. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Last year all DyKs were 10pts because people created a ton of stubs. I would be ok with giving 10 pts for non-new article expansion, since I think that was the intention for 10 pts. My only worry in changing the rule mid-competition is if any of the eliminated ones would have benefitted from it. If not, it is not really a mid-competition change. Nergaal (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree Piotrus has a point and share reservations about adopting it at this point though. Next year...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding when to adopt this scoring, how about this or the next round? Rules should not apply retroactively, so I don't think we should revise last round scoring for any reason. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding points when not closing a review
User:Racepacket gave himself points for a review he did not close: Netball. He also gave himself points for a review that he did not provide a comprehensive review for: Netball at the Olympics. Knowing there are tensions between us that have completely broken down the reviewee/reviewer relationship, he has persisted in reviewing articles that I've nominated. This is very, very frustrating as a new user. --LauraHale (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally give a lot of leeway to new users and am happy to provide help and guidance whenever requested. If you had raised this at my talk page, I would have explained that the criteria for points is whether a review of more than 1K was generated. I devoted an extraordinary amount of time on Talk:Netball/GA1, a review which I took over when you reached an impass with the prior reviewer and requested a substitute. I was designated. Just as I began to work on Netball/GA1, I saw that you had nominated Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA2 and I thought that since there were common sources and subject matter it would be efficient to review both at the same time.  I gather that you have no objection to my claiming points for that review, although it failed.  I closed Netball/GA1 before claiming its points, not after. Today, I saw Talk:Netball at the Olympics and I started to review it before I even noticed that you were the nominator.  The review was 2,837 bytes long, and you did not ask any follow up questions, to which I would have provided elaboration if needed. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple scoring for one article
Hi, is it possible to score multiple points for the same article in one round? If I e.g. get a DYK on a new article, and then lift it up to GA/FA, will I score points for each level? I couldn't find any information on this anywhere. Thanks,  Eisfbnore  talk 12:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an extremely common practice. Nergaal (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Good to know that the cup isn't incompatible with the Four Award! :) -- Eisfbnore  talk 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Points for Featured article reviews
I find that addressing issues raised in a Featured article reviews can be quite time consuming. Activity in bringing FA to modern standards should be rewarded in our CUP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews - need to finish
I'm led to believe that GA reviews have to have been passed or failed (rather than put on hold) to be eligible. If so, could we have a note on the Scoring page. Most reviewers probably put the time in at the hold stage (if it goes to that), so I think it's worth a mention. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is correct, I will add a note. J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts for next year's scoring
We have four months to go until the start of next year's competition, so now seems a good time to start brainstorming ideas for how the scoring will work. At this stage, feel free to throw out thoughts, and we'll see what we end up with- this will probably lead onto some straw polls and such. Some particular ideas which have been previously bounced around:


 * Are the current point ratios fair?
 * Do the points for the reviews work? Should they be done differently?
 * Do the double points work? Should they be done differently?

But feel free to raise whatever you like. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From a personal perspective I think the multipliers have worked over well, and the changes at DYK have alleviated the problems experienced in the previous years. I think the point about reviews also being eligible for double points, as surely those which qualify would be the articles requiring more time spent anyway and should be prioritised through the system. I wouldn't expect any major changes to this year's competition as honestly I think everything worked out quite nicely. Only minor change is that I'd think that FLs could do with a slight increase, only to 50 points, simply because you can usually only nominate one at a time. Miyagawa   (talk)  16:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be interesting is comparing what FAs and GAs would have qualified under a 2x expansion for the 2010 competition with what actually did qualify for the 2011 wikicup, this might give an objective appraisal if the 2x bonus multiplier had any impact on working on broader articles. I still like the idea of limited cumulative multipliers - eg article length + broadly covered = 4x. NB: My impression was the DYK/GA/FA/GA review scoring proportions were about right. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe now I'll be able to receive answers to my comments above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 04:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with scoring FARs is the vast difference in how close they are to FA status. If you take a "sweep"-style 2006 promotion, then you might as well be writing the article from scratch; some from 2009-10 just need tightening up. I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps a small (10?) point reward could at least mean there was some credit whilst not over-rewarding people. Whether we want to add another scoring option, I don't know.
 * As far as my thoughts on scoring, I think FLs are appropriately scored (if there was such a thing as a GL, I'd have more faith in raising the points allocation). There was a lot of talk for this year about having lots-and-lots of multipliers. I think having only the two has worked well. Article length is a possibility – just 'thought-clouding' but perhaps a GA of some length could receive 40 rather than 30 points. If I picked two of my own GAs to illustrate, the line could be between Spanish general election, 1936 (shorter/30) Background of the Spanish Civil War (longer/40). FA could be the same, 'cept I don't know enough. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The other problem with scoring FARs is that they lie outside the scope of the WikiCup, which is ultimately a competition aimed at creating content. The GAN review points came about because we were flooding GAN, so some responsibility existed to try and help.  I don't see the same requirement with FAR, not that it is no also a worthy project.  As far as scoring goes, I still hate the double-dip points for GTs and FTs, but I doubt consensus will agree with me any more this year than last.  ;)


 * Points wise, I think we have a fairly good balance. It is interesting, however, that I have made the finals on the strength of 1 FA, 9 GAs, 13 DYKs and two GAN reviews total over four rounds.  I am not sure if that says anything other than the fact that this year's competition has been fairly low key. Resolute 14:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And comparing my work this year to last year, through four rounds I have 1 FA and 9 GAs this year compared to 2 FAs and 12 GAs last. The big difference, personally, is that I have only 13 DYKs this year, vs. 34 last.  So in my case, at least, the point change there reduced the number of submissions, as hoped.  Ironically, given how DYK is now, they might actually appreciate more submissions. Resolute 14:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Improving an article through FAR is improving/creating content. A problem I can see is that we can see people allowing FAR to fail, just so they can then fix the issues and renominate the article as FA to get full points. At the very least, some points for FAR should discourage this, 10 seems fair. PS. Are there still no objections to improving the scoring for DYK expansions back to 10 points (see discussion from few months back I linked above)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Re Resolute- the competition was more low-key this year (though I definitely did a lot more than last year, opposite of you) but I think the reason was that the top three guys last year were posting scores 5-8 times higher than everyone else; when they didn't enter this year, it meant that even if everyone did the same amount as last year the bar score got lowered by a good chunk. Last year it took 430 points to make it to the last round, compared to 150 this year, but if you remove Sasata, Sturmvogel, and Tony from last years comp, then it would have taken... 150 points. -- Pres N  19:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Piotrus, you're proposing two new ways to score points, which could just complicate things- I think we'd need a fairly good reason for every new introduction. I think your idea about expansions has somewhat more value than your idea about FARs, which seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I think that FAR is somewhat less quantifiable than other processes; firstly because they require different amounts of work, as has been said, but also because they often really aren't the work of one person (or don't have the right to be called the work of that one person). A lot of people, including the reviewers, chip in to a FAR, and the person saving it could, very easily, even be the one who nominated it. For similar reasons, I don't think rescuing articles at AfD would be an appropriate way to score points. Further, there is that niggling issue that some at FAC are somewhat hostile towards the WikiCup, and so forcing it upon the various FA processes would be inadvisable. I think it's worth remembering that the WikiCup is not, and nor can it be, here to recognise every good thing that Wikipedians do. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then, next Cup I certainly would be unwise to spend as much time fixing issues in places like Featured article review/Katyn massacre/archive1 as I've done this year. Instead, it would seem a much better move to let it be delisted, fix it then, and get the 100 (2x) points for it. After all, the project benefits in the same way (article is improved), so why not do it in the way that earns one 100-200 points? Gaming the system? Or just being "rational"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Irrational, I'd say. Assuming that no one else really works much on an FAR, it still takes 1-1.5 months to lose the star. That article so far has taken you a couple months to get back up to scratch- lets be charitable, and call it a month. FAC then takes 2-4 weeks. In the end, we're talking 2.5-3.5 months to get 100-200 points, which I would argue is grossly inefficient. There are tons of better ways to get points. If you just look at the incentives that the cup provides towards content, then no one should go to FAC; you could get 4 articles through GAN in the same time (and maybe good topic them too). But no one seems to take the incentives that way- we all work on what we like, and see what points we get. -- Pres N  19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This FAR has lasted that long precisely because quite a lot of effort was dedicated to addressing the issues, and because FAR see less activity/attention from the reviewers than FACs. If I (and VM) decided to let it go, FAR would have been closed months ago as a delist, and than we could've carried out our edits and nominated it for a FA. Sure, it might have not passed - but it might have had, and I'd be 100-200 points richer :) Again, with the CUP hat on, I see no reason why one should touch FARs, and plenty why one shouldn't - which, IMHO, is a disservice to the community. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, if one carries that type of attitude, they are missing the point of the WikiCup and should not bother entering in the first place. What's stopping you from doing such a thing?  Honour, I would hope. Resolute 23:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Piotr, the Cup isn't here to reward all worthwhile activity on Wikipedia. Bot scripting, recent change patrol, mediation, OTRS tickets, general cleanup, stub creation, categorisation... All of these are worthwhile tasks that keep Wikipedia ticking over, and are many users' bread and butter, but these are things not "recognised" by the WikiCup. The WikiCup offers no motivation to do them, and has no pretense or hope of doing so. Yes, you may argue that FAR falls under the Cup's remit, that's fine- but claiming that there is something wrong because the Cup does not offer motivation to do something of benefit to Wikipedia is not a particularly strong argument. We can't reward everything. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Well, as long as FARs have been discussed here, that's fine, even if it is not the way I'd have preferred. Now, for the most important - and seemingly less controversial - issue of DYK expansions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't meaning for this discussion to be the be-all and end-all, just a brainstorming session- concerning both issues, there will probably be other threads/straw polls. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone got any thoughts on the +1/3 length-related modifier I proposed above? (I say this because I expect opinions!) Also, any chance we could tempt some of/more of the big guns into the Cup? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting idea, and it does make some sense. I can churn out 20kb (total size, including tables) articles of old hockey players (Ching Johnson) easier than I can 40kb of modern playesr (Al MacInnis).  On the flip side however, one of the more challenging GAs I did last year was Dan Bain, which is only 15kb but finding the sourcing proved rather difficult.  So size is not necessarily a good measurement of challenge.  It might merit further consideration, though. Resolute 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Size is not necessarily a good indication of difficulty or worth. More technical articles often require a level of expertise or skill (not to mention access to sources) and so, while shorter, they could very easily prove more difficult and more valuable. Further, as above, I think we have to consider the possible negative effect of yet more distinctions, rules and ways to score- if we're introducing something new, it has to be worthwhile. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea per se, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think size is a good, if rough, indicator. You mention that technical articles require skill. Sure, but editors who edit in those subject have skill. Consider why many core topics and concepts are poorly developed, for example - subjects such as preference, controversy, behavior, Value (personal and cultural), skill, etc. are hardly expert subjects on the surface - but in fact creating an article on a core subject like this is much more difficult that on, let's say, a military ship, a species, or a well-researched social science concept. Having significantly contributed to few articles like this (revolution, tradition) I can tell you that appearance can be very deceiving, so I'd strongly avoid judging how difficult an article is based on the subject. Now, some may be comprehensive and even GA/FA being much shorter than others, but yes, I'd say size is roughly translated to how much research was needed to be done for those articles. I think much less work went into creating and GA-ing On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog than political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. In fact I think we should introduce the length criteria to other types of articles; this is not far from my argument above about the need to grade 5x DYK expansions differently from new articles. I'd suggest that we do a quick survey of some articles (GAs, FAs, new DYKs, 5x DYKs, perhaps other types?), find out the min/max/mean length, and use this to create some weight scale for points. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of changing the system so that all the accumulated points throughout the competition during the year are taken into account for the last round. This would create a fiercer competition in general, although it would disadvantage someone who isn't a full-time editor like myself. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 12:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been suggested before. I think we're all clear that points should reset every round, but worry that carrying everything over into the last round will mean that the winner is clear before the round's started. I wonder whether a viable alternative would be carrying over only some of the points- say, a tenth? This would give those who have been consistently strong an advantage, while not giving them an autowin. J Milburn (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you could also just give out a separate award to the player with the highest total points. A sort of most valuable contributor of the contest. Remember (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. It would be nice to recognize someone who's run consistently hard. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd like to propose that the halving of the points for DYKs be reversed. I gather it was originally enacted in part because DYK is unpopular or because the Cup was perceived as flooding DYK, but both of those seem irrelevant to the purpose of the Cup, which is to encourage content production and expansion, of both of which DYK is the clearest form of recognition in the encyclopedia. In any case, as has been pointed out above, DYK went through a series of reforms the start of which coincided with the start of this year's Cup, and which in my view invalidate any arguments that DYK is "too easy". 10 points is in any case very few compared to other point scores. If the underlying argument is that people will be tempted to dash off or mass-produce unworthy articles to amass DYK points, there is already a rule against gaming the system by producing poor content, and it can and should be enforced. (In addition to the quality-control mechanisms at DYK, of which there are now more.) My personal experience was that that change in scoring made the Cup quite different this year; I know it fades to irrelevancy in later rounds, but DYK has traditionally played a large role in the first half of the Cup, and I had to run twice as hard as I'd expected, and basically gave up halfway through Round 2. (Instead I wound up trying to help DYK.) As I say, for what it's worth - there seem to be strong political forces / views of how the encyclopedia should work at play here, but I think the case should be made and the issue revisited. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The highest overall points will almost certainly be held by a finalist, most likely one of the last few. They'll already be winning an award. We have to be careful not to make the awards favour the finalists unduly. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I was about to make a comment about how a DYK should not be worth a third of a GA, but given the DYK process basically now requires an article not be that far below a GA before posting, re-raising the points probably isn't a bad idea. Resolute 23:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Time for some straw polls
These are not necessarily going to be the be-all and end-all, but they may be. I'm opening polls/subthreads on topics which I think need some attention before we finally work out how next year's Cup is going to work. Sign in the appropriate section, or add comments to the discussion section. I'll do my best to remain neutral, in order to close the polls, but I reserve the right to play Devil's advocate. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

DYKs
How should DYKs be scored next year?

The current method is fine- 5 points

 * 1) DYK is easy-peasy-cheesy. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

They should be raised back to 10 points

 * 1) In light of the recent tightening within DYK processes
 * 2) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (given the tightening up and overall rejigging over there)
 * 3) Writing new articles isn't easy, and DYK isn't a sure thing even if the article is good.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  12:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Given the recent tightening of the processes.
 * 5) Yes, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  03:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) The new requirements for reviews constitute much more work than even last year when it was a simpler one for one review.
 * 1) Given the recent tightening of the processes.
 * 2) Yes, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  03:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) The new requirements for reviews constitute much more work than even last year when it was a simpler one for one review.
 * 1) Yes, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  03:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) The new requirements for reviews constitute much more work than even last year when it was a simpler one for one review.

A distinction should be made between new articles and x5 expansions

 * 1) This would be a great option, IMO. It might be easy to get a small new article to DYK, hypothetically. I feel a x5 expansion is much more helpful to the encyclopedia. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk )  14:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Hmm, a 5x expansion would be maybe 15 pts while a regular DYK could be 10 pts.  HurricaneFan  25  16:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I'd support a 5 for new/10 for expansion point stack. Makes sense to have more for longer ones.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is the problem that turning a 1000 character stub into a 5000 character article shouldn't be worth more than creating a 5000 character article from scratch. I would actually vote against this change for that reason.  Resolute 16:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I vote for it of course, but that's because this community is also very lazy (not the Cup one specifically) at expanding existing stubs rather than making one.<FONT FACE="Poor Richard" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><FONT FACE="Georgia" SIZE="-1" COLOR="black">32(Never support those who think in the box)</FONT> 23:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes - I think some differential between a new article and expanding someone elses' stub is a good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) A very emphatic yes. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  03:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) A x5 expansion requires more work than a new article, be it a one-line stub. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 19:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) A x5 expansion requires more work than a new article, be it a one-line stub. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 19:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A distinction should NOT be made between new articles and x5 expansions

 * 1) Just to make it official, per my comment above. Resolute 01:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) New articles can be just as long as 5x expansions. The only way to make it fair is by using a character/word count system rather than a "new or 5x" system. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  13:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I worked mostly on existing stubs during the competition but a lot of those were of the one line to half a paragraph variety, which is essentially the same as starting a new page but is technically 5X.
 * 4) Oppose - a "5x expansion" might well be expanding a one-line stub. Do we define it as any 5x expansion, or only 5x expansions of articles that were already over 1500 characters? There's a can of worms here best kept closed by treating all DYKs as equal. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) The point that others have made about some stubs being so short that it's to all intents and purposes a new article; plus it's a crapshoot what has already been created as a stub and what has instead been redlinked all over the place or utterly ignored; finally, in some fields it's not very unusual to create a new article in good faith and later discover a stub already existed at a wildly different title. Quite apart from the fact that I don't agree with the value judgment; they're both useful, just as some editors believe stub creation is useful and some would rather just make a redlink till the topic can be properly treated. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) I'd agree- new articles can be just as much work as 5x expansions. Best to treat all DYKs equally.--Slon02 (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK discussion

 * No vote either way. We lowered the points because we were crushing the process, and raising the points back could return us to that scenario.  That being said, DYK has done a fine job of killing itself lately, and while their queues have begun to climb again, there is also a reasonable chance that they will now desire increased submissions.  I'm fine with the points either way. Resolute 16:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe if your DYK has over 5,000 page views, a few extra points are added? Anyone can right a DYK on anything, some of which I want to say who cares? If the article is really interesting, the extra points should be awarded for a good DYK, expanding on the average "Did you know that a lake in Ethiopia has a 10% salt content?" <span style="-moz-border-radius:1em;border:1px solid black;font-size:11px;background-color:red;color:white;padding:1px 4px 1px 5px">Bar Code Symmetry  (Talk) 20:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's gamable, and depends mostly on the hook and subject matter, as opposed to difficulty/value. I don't think it's a wholly bad idea, but I'm playing Devil's advocate. J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with a bonus for page views. In my experience if you are able to get the lead hook with an image it generates many more views or something that is more of a current event. for example I had these two on the main page during the competition. After cleaning up a new article I realized I had expand it 5x and decided to go for a DYK. It ended up getting the lead with an image and received 7.4K views. The second was something that I thought would make a good hook and an experienced editor at DYK told me it would make a very good hook in their opinion but wound up as the last hook and received 2k views. Here they are you can judge for yourself which one sounds more interesting and if there would be a difference of 5.4K based on how they sound.

Hook 1: ... that, following a brawl-filled game, Pittsburgh Penguins team owner Mario Lemieux (pictured) questioned whether he still wanted to be a part of the National Hockey League?

Hook 2: ... that Anthony Stewart believes he made it to the National Hockey League partly because a good Samaritan picked him up while he was walking in a blizzard?
 * The first one has the violence advantage. Violence, sex, gore, horror... They're always going to do well. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured lists
How should featured lists be scored next year?

The current method is fine- 40 points

 * 1) Not being a huge fan of lists myself, I think the point value is fair. FL's are hard to get through due to the seemingly endless quibbles and typography things that have to be done, but I think 40 points is fair. Then again, lists can't become GA's, so one can only get 40 points for any list, as opposed to 135 for an article (if it was at DYK then GAN, and the next round was featured). ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk )  14:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. <FONT FACE="Poor Richard" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><FONT FACE="Georgia" SIZE="-1" COLOR="black">32(Never support those who think in the box)</FONT> 23:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Fine is fine. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  13:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There should be a slight increase- 45 or 50 points

 * 1) - just because you can only do one at a time. 50 points.
 * 2) - I'd put the amount of work it takes to do a FL to be about the same as a GA, except that there are no restrictions on GAs while it is very unlikely anyone could ever hope to complete more than two FLs in a round.
 * 3) - As per Resolute's explanation.
 * 50, per Resolute.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  12:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Due to a seemingly lack of reviewers.
 * 1) Due to a seemingly lack of reviewers.
 * 1) Due to a seemingly lack of reviewers.
 * 1) Due to a seemingly lack of reviewers.
 * 1) Due to a seemingly lack of reviewers.

Total points
Should the final round carry over points from previous rounds?

No- the points should refresh every round

 * 1) Just speaking as someone who did rack up some points, I think it should be reset completely each round. They're already at an advantage for being able to write articles well (or having a lot of time on their hands). If they're that good, they should be able to complete fairly and start fresh each round. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk )  14:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fairly" is subjective in this regard - a fair number of participants would argue that holding back with nominations in order to have more pre-prepared bite in later rounds is far from fair. This would eliminate that. &mdash; Joseph Fox 14:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) A prolific writer could end this competition by March.  Additionally, if I were to squeak into the finals round only to find myself several hundred points away from contending, it would probably sap my desire to continue competing.  IMO, carrying over the score could be done as a parallel scoring system, where anyone eliminated from a round that wanted to continue could just continue submitting their page, though it would require a bit of work to get a bot scoring it properly without affecting the main competition. Resolute 16:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes per Resolute. <FONT FACE="Poor Richard" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><FONT FACE="Georgia" SIZE="-1" COLOR="black">32(Never support those who think in the box)</FONT> 23:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) More realistic; otherwise, someone who might be less active one month due to real life would be disadvantaged. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) More realistic; otherwise, someone who might be less active one month due to real life would be disadvantaged. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) More realistic; otherwise, someone who might be less active one month due to real life would be disadvantaged. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) More realistic; otherwise, someone who might be less active one month due to real life would be disadvantaged. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A set bonus amount should be given to the winner of one round, applied only to the following round

 * If someone wins round 1 (highest overall point total), they should get, say 50 points, for round 2 and only round 2. If someone wins round 2, they should get 50 points for round 3 and only round 3. (etc. etc.) It's a small enough number that it won't force anyone out of the game, but at the same time, will disincentives people from hoarding GA/FA noms until the latter rounds.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  12:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A bit unfair if you ask me. Since everyone who made it to this round is is starting over anyway. <FONT FACE="Poor Richard" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><FONT FACE="Georgia" SIZE="-1" COLOR="black">32(Never support those who think in the box)</FONT> 10:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Double points
Do we want more articles eligible for double points? Do we want higher multipliers? How do people feel? J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the 2x multiplier is fine for those two types of articles. I would like to see a higher, perhaps 4x on Vital articles/Level/2 articles. It would be really great if the Cup motivated people to rise to the challenge of doing them. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest something like this:4x for Vital aRticles 1, 3x for Vital articles 2, 2x for Vital Articles 3 and 1.5x for Vital articles/Expanded. Buggie111 (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Vital articles/Expanded list is absolutely useless. It's in a constant state of flux, and generally seems to reflect whatever the last guy to edit it thinks. A quick glance now, looking only at philosophy, shows a rather shocking lack of certain key thinkers and topics (Bertrand Russell? Engels? Schopenhauer? Animal rights?), some rather interesting categorisation which shows a complete lack of understanding (Thomas Hobbes is apparently a "behaviourist", William James, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are apparently "early modern" philosophers), and some very odd choices for inclusion (Ptahhotep? Just a desperate attempt to include a thinker from Africa. Henri Bergson? Germaine Greer? Capable writers for sure, but hardly two of the 40 most important philosophers ever.) A quick glance down the rest of the list also reveals many disambiguation links. There is no way that that list should be used for anything but ridicule. J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, than cut that one off my list. Comments on the others? Buggie111 (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I was initially cool on it, the 20-languages criterion is a solid non-gameable one. The only thing I would tweak is allowing multipliers to be cumulative, so that a broad/ large vital article can be x4 multiplier. FAC's are good for reducing fluff and relegating unnecessary detail to daughter articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who's never been in the cup, but has followed the scoring discussions with interest: If people are unhappy with the "vital articles" listings, what about making everything based off the other-language-wikis numbers? For example, Horse, Science and English language all have more than 100 interwiki links (I stopped counting at 100, they actually have a bunch more). If you made it something like a 2x multiplier for over 20 languages, 3x for over 50 and 4x for over 100, would that work? Taking Horse even to GA was a huge undertaking that took many editors hundreds of hours - way different and much harder than taking something like an individual breed article even to the higher level of FA. Just a thought... Dana boomer (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that idea :))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A very interesting idea. What do other people think of this? That sounds like a great option upon which to base the entirety of the multipliers. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, someone could run through some easy GAs during the first four rounds to advance, then push through a sufficiently general FA in the final round they worked on all year, collect 400 points come pretty damn close to winning on the strength of a single article. And I don't exactly see that as a bad thing.  I like it too.  Resolute 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I really like this idea- the more incentive to work on those really difficult articles, the better. Warning to future competitors who try this strategy, though- if your 200-400 point FA fails FAC at the last minute because you get busy at work, your whole last round could fall apart... not that I'd know anything about that. :) -- Pres N  21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, this is looking like a goer - what'd be interesting is to see what sort of articles qualify for the 50 and 100 language benchmarks. One would presume many of the core articles, but what else? Hmmm let's see.......(sounds of wikipages ruffling)Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * science has 162 other languages. Botswana has 175, Gadolinium has 84. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, Casliber found some large, academic ones. Still, I'm worried that this approach will disproportionately favor pop-culture subjects. Song Dynasty (Ruled China) has 49, but Lady Gaga (Produces songs) has 96. Tokugawa Ieyasu (Unified Japan) has 43, but Anime (Also from Japan) has 84. Oh, and Pornography has 72 by the way.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  13:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (undent) On the other hand, Lady Gaga has been viewed 1 million times in the last 30 days, Song Dynasty 30,000. Clearly some balance has to be drawn between popular and "intellectual" topics. This would seem to be a fair balance. Ignoring the fact Song Dynasty is just beneath the line, it does not do badly out this arrangement. "2x multiplier for over 20 languages, 3x for over 50 and 4x for over 100" sounds good. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One second. Would you like a 50th language? I'll be able to create one, if its that necesary.......Buggie111 (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That article is an FA already, with an FT pending. I don't think there are any points to be milked out of it anymore.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  09:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think those multipliers are a great idea! Miyagawa   (talk)  17:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Anything else
Is there anything else that people feel needs to change? J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, GA's would be nice to stay at 30, FP's should be lowered to 30, FA's should be ok at the current level. Keep GAR's at 2 points.  HurricaneFan 25  14:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

6/2 maybe? That creates a 6% bonus per FT article, and 6.67% per GT article. A token bonus for working articles in a set, drastically reduces the overvalue of a GT vis a vis an FT and still offers the potential for meaningful scoring of points for those so inclined. And yeah, FT/GT wasn't a big thing this year, but last year there were several 20+ article topics that got promoted. Had a huge impact on scoring. Resolute 19:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As always, I dislike FTs/GTs since no actual improvement of content takes place. It is just a system to add a second bronze star or green plus to people's tallies with very little work. Resolute 16:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * GTs/FTs should only be put into Cup points if the user has contributed to the articles given. In other words, only put the articles in GTs/FTs that have been improved by yourself during the Cup period.  HurricaneFan 25  16:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is already the rule. My contention is that it generates a 15% (FT) or 33% (GT) premium on scoring for no actual work done.  If it is to be kept, then the scoring needs to be shifted down to something far less disproportionate to the work done.  I'd say score them like we do GANs - 1/2 points bonus each.  A DYK is worth five points, and requires work to qualify an article, to nominate, AND to review another.  I've seen editors score 80+ points for a FT when the only work done is to nominate.  Resolute 16:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't have done- that was probably an oversight on the part of the judges. I admit, when I came to write the rules for GT/FT I was at a bit of a loss- my minimal experience with the process no doubt being part of the problem. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should be more specific. The editors are getting their usual 30/100 pts for the GA/FA.  But after that point, there is no actual improvement done to that article to reach GT/FT, so all that is required to get that 15-33% bonus per qualifying article is a simple nomination.  Everyone's acting within the rules Resolute 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is something to be said for GTs/FTs as I think they are a desirable end-point for the 'pedia in encouraging us to be thorough. That said, I think it is ok if the point bonus is relatively minor as the editor is also collecting for completed GA/FA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the bonus could be total, rather than per-article? If you contributed to a good topic, you get 20 points, if you contributed to a featured topic, you get 40? Something like that? That gives token recognition for the achievement, but keeps it simple and no great game-changer. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just throwing it out there, but that gives more incentive to find mostly-complete topics and finishing it. Why would anyone want to work on a bigger topic then? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 13:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with both, maybe just nudge downwards so the bonus is 10/5 per article, or even 5/2½. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking as one of the few people who worked on a G/FT in the competition, I think something like that would be fair. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the things that I'd like to see is extending the fifth round to near the end of November, to make the last round more competitive. However, Thanksgiving gets in the way.  HurricaneFan 25  15:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Drop Featured Sounds You might want to remove Featured Sounds from the list. It is currently a) pretty dead, and b) incapable of deciding what standards it wants to put forth. As a former director of the process, I'm saddened by this, but it's certainly not on par with our other topics.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: Featured Sounds has been marked as inactive by the only remaining, active, FS Director.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Requests Board Perhaps we could have a requests board set up, accepting submissions from now until the next cup starts, in which people put forth articles that they would like to see improved, but don't have the time or skills to do themselves. For example, I have a list of related B class articles that could all get bumped up to GA, and taken together, Good Topic. It helps me, because it's something I care about, and it helps the participant, because I'm directing them to a sizable chunk of points for the taking. Thoughts?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of a requests board - certainly when Casilber put together some interesting DYKs about half way through the year it inspired me to work on some articles I otherwise wouldn't have touched (I remember kalamata olives was one). I think breaking it down into GAs, FLs and DYKs would be the way to go. DYKs could potentially be broken up further (as they are time sensitive and so it might be useful to have a subsection for topics for use for specific days. I think it'll give editors a bit of much needed variety as it can feel like a bit of a slog in the middle if you stick to a single topic. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all for subdividing like that.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * points for editing Can we please reinstate getting points for editing articles. IIRC, there were problems with it in 2010 which is why they were removed this year? But if rules were set out, like minor edits are not counted (trusting that people mark minor edits as such), or that for an edit to be elegible for points the article must have had at least 10 characters removed or added. That would differentiate between minor edits like fixing typos, but not so small that adding or removing categories, formatting tables, or transcluding templates, etc, would be discounted. Matthewedwards : Chat  05:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should we give points for working on articles but not points for, say, working on the massive 250,000 item backlog at Category:Articles lacking sources? The sad fact is that there are so many topics worthy of inclusion into the cup that a truly comprehensive list would be massive and complicated to work with.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the backlogs when I suggested it. Clearing out the backlogs does require the editing articles :) Matthewedwards : Chat  17:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I feel like I just suggested this in the signpost, and I was about to advocate it here, but then I read this. Anyway I'd strongly support some sort of backlog removal drive. But we'd have to keep it small, because some of these backlogs could easily have 10 done in a day, maybe 5 fixes per point? Some of them really aren't that time consuming, we don't want people getting 800 points a round for fixing linkrot. he <font color="#F88017">who  am  are  is <font color="#660099">myself  01:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should award one point for mainspace edits with more than 100 characters. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific  <font color="#66666">Hurricane  01:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With the amendment that vandalism reverts will not count. I think it's a lot harder to get something up to a good or featured article than it is to use Twinkle or hit undo.


 * "The sad fact is that there are so many topics worthy of inclusion into the cup that a truly comprehensive list would be massive and complicated to work with.  S ven M anguard   Wha? " Well... We have 2 months, let's work one out! I wouldn't mind an advanced list. Wikipedia has many aspects to it. Let people get credit for everything there is to be done! Otherwise when this cup gets popular we will have 4000 people working on turning B class to goods but no one getting stubs beyond stubs.  he <font color="#F88017">who  am  are  is <font color="#660099">myself  03:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly would mind an "advanced list". First of all, it's hideously complicated, and no doubt ripe for gaming. Secondly, the feel of the WikiCup has changed; in the first couple of years, it was literally just an edit count competition. This was then lowered to 0.1 points per mainspace edit, with 0.01 per minor, with edits from tools (Twinkle, AWB, Huggle, etc) not counting. Most of the points then came from content creation. This year and last, points were not awarded for edits at all, with all points coming from content creation. Turning the WikiCup back into a edit count competition will significantly change the feel of the whole thing. We are a content competition- the Cup cannot, and does not pretend to, award every worthwhile activity on Wikipedia. Consider mediation, or work at AfD, or dealing with OTRS tickets, or keeping down AIV backlogs; these are highly important tasks which keep Wikipedia running, but ones for which, clearly, we cannot and should not be awarding points. (Also, as an aside, the Cup has been popular. I'd strongly imagine we won't ever have as many participants as 2010). J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Valid points all around, I believe I had different interpretations of the comment above than you, and yours is likely more accurate as I have not been following the cup until recently. but there are places that probably need more attention than the amount of content we create, as Sven Manguard said in his opinion essay on this week's Signpost. If we were to somehow work that in to the cup that could only be beneficial to Wikipedia's growth. That being said I understand your worries of the WikiCup trying to become something that it isn't, but any way we could promote backlog reduction would be helping Wikipedia. That is what we're all here for, isn't it?


 * Post Thought: After looking over what I had previously said, it seems obvious to me now that backlog reduction is obviously not what WikiCup's purpose is and was and trying to get that changed would just be a waste of everyone's time. A collection of MiniCups whose focuses are backlog reduction might work out better, but at that point it's just becoming the same thing as a backlog drive. Still, embracing the competitive nature that is undoubtedly among Wikipedians is the best way to keep people here. It's working with the Germans, after all. he <font color="#F88017">who  am  are  is <font color="#660099">myself  20:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuff like that is done from time to time, and it generally goes pretty well. For instance, take a look at WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives, Reward board and Contribution Team/Backlogs. There are other examples about. J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification
I know it's almost the end of the Cup, but I was curious. If I worked on an article in round 1, and I nominated it for GA now, would that count for this round's points? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so yeah. Sp33dyphil © • © 00:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that you need the points. When your FT goes through, you'll be 200 ahead of everyone else, and with Sp33dyphil as the only one with a chance of an FA going through before the close....  S ven M anguard   Wha?  09:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's very much frowned upon (given the impression that you "stored it up". And, like, angering other editors just to progress in the contest is a bad choice. The spirit of the rules is far more important than the letter. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jarry's got the right idea here. Technically, as long as you have worked on the content this year, you are able to claim points in whichever round it is promoted. However, "storing up" noms for later rounds is very much Not Cool; it's something that the judges reserve the right to remove. J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, it wasn't so much that I was storing it. I wrote an article earlier this year for a storm that was active back in February, and I wanted to wait to see if any more information would come out about it. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

GTC/FTC manipulation and general thoughts
I rather like the points for good and featured topics as I believe that they give the encyclopedia a little more depth in the subject are of the topic than just a scattering of articles. However, I know that they can be used to score a lot of points in the late rounds if a participant is reasonably clever about things. This is a technique that I used last year and was very helpful in racking up points. In the final round I scored ten GTs, each with between 3 and 8 articles. For many of these, I put off writing the last article of the topic until the last round, got it to GA and then submitted the topic in time to be promoted late in October. Generally, I'd submit the other articles of the topic as I wrote them, as I really didn't need to stockpile them for the later rounds, but I wouldn't do anything significant to the last article other than to update the infobox or references. And if I'd have competed this year, I'd have done the exact same thing. I have two very large topics, one of 14 and another of 24 articles, nearly ready to go even as we speak and I could have easily focused on writing all the required articles earlier if I'd had a real motive to do so.

I'm not sure that there's really any cure that doesn't put a heavy burden on the admins other than to, possibly, cut the points down to 5 for articles in a GT and 10 in an FT. But I'm just throwing that out there. One reason why I chose to go with ships for the contest is that they lend themselves so easily to topics with all the ship classes that naturally group that way. Just something to consider as I was always puzzled last year that most contestants never seemed to take advantage of their potential.

I think that the points for reviewing GANs worked only so so, as I didn't see a whole lot of reviewing in each round. This worked at the current value only because nobody in this year's Cup is as absurdly productive as Sasata, TTT or myself where a hundred or more additional GAs clogged the GAN queues in the later rounds between the three of us. I'd suggest upping the points to 3, for now, to encourage more reviewing in case a future competitor(s) is as prolific as we were.

I like the double points for "important" articles although you might balance that against page hits. The lists of vital articles are probably too subjective in their compilation and multi-language articles might place too much emphasis on popular culture, but an argument can be made that articles with the most number of hits really are Wiki's most important articles because they're the most viewed.

Something else to consider is that most of my articles were under 10k in size and almost all were under 35k. There simply is no incentive to go into depth on a complicated subject in a single article if that same amount of energy can produce 2 FAs and half a dozen GAs or more. So I'd support bonuses for additional length over 15-20k, and maybe a double bonus for something over 30-40k. Make the editors provide diffs of the difference between the starting and finishing points to keep things easy for the admins. If the boundaries for the bonuses are big enough, that will minimize editors trying to game the system, I think.

Just some things to consider for next year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured sounds
Featured sounds has been tagged as inactive, and not a single sound was claimed in last year's competition. It has faced problems concerning scope, and has a real issue concerning participation; I'm thinking, as per Sven Manguard's suggestion above, it should be dropped from the scoring, similarly (though not identically) to how VP was dropped last year. Do people agree? J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Not that it matters, with a multi-month waiting period for any nomination, but if it's dead then we should just drop it to keep things simple. -- Pres N  22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, per my above rationale.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Multipliers for 2012
Ahead of the beginning of this year's cup, do we have consensus for "2x multiplier for over 20 languages, 3x for over 50 and 4x for over 100"? I personally support this measure. Mr Milburn and everyone else? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be closing the above polls and putting down a preliminary list of changes over the next few days; it's just finding the time to go through all the discussions again! J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Some conclusions
Ok, I have again worked my way through the discussions/polls and we seem to have reached some conclusions.
 * DYKs will go back up to 10 points, but there is no consensus on whether there should be more points for an expansion than a new article; the numbers are roughly even, and there are coherent arguments on both sides. As such, we shall keep things the way they are, which is also the simpler system, and they will be awarded the same.
 * FLs will go up to 45 points apiece. There are mixed opinions with regards to FL points, with a third preferring to keep them the same, and two thirds supporting an increase. This increase should not be gamebreaking, as per Resolute's argument (endorsed by Miyagawa and Sven Manguard) and Hink's point; it is near-impossible to have more than one FL pass in a round. However, as has been pointed out by many, FLs are not considered overly difficult, and so awarding 50 points (which is significantly higher than anything else but FAs) does not seem an accurate reflection of people's wishes and beliefs.
 * There will not be a change in how points are accumulated. Points will refresh every round for everyone. Any other way would not be in the spirit of the competition.
 * With regards to our multipliers, we will be keeping the double points for 20 or more Wikipedias on 1 January, but also we will introduce triple points for articles on 50 or more, and quadruple points for articles on 100 or more, Wikipedias. This does mean that a round could be won on a single article, but the consensus seems to be that, for an article on a subject covered on that many Wikipedias, that would be deserved. We will also be keeping the vital article criterion, in case there are any that are not featured on 20 or more Wikipedias. However, there is no consensus to stack those bonuses, so we will not be doing so.
 * There is no consensus for the inclusion of backlog-elimination points or edit points in the WikiCup. It seems that the ideas are contrary to the current spirit of the Cup, which is more about recognised content.
 * Featured sounds will not be eligible for points next year. The project is currently inactive, and, even if it became active in the next few weeks, it would not be sufficiently established.
 * Good and featured topics will continue to be awarded points, but there will be a nudge downwards in terms of points awarded. Featured topics will be awarded 10 points per article, good topics will be awarded 3 points per article. This brings them in line with the number of points offered for FAs/GAs in relation to each other, and stops them being gamewinning when there are questions about their value/relevance to the Cup.
 * Good article reviews will still be good for points. Featured article reviews, at FAC or FAR, and other types of reviews, will not.

Questions? Complaints? Death threats? J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Put me down for the third one. It's going to involve a bucket of live hamsters, the 1972 Harlem Globetrotters starting lineup, a large peperoni pizza, and whatever can be salvaged of Stalin's beard. Also yodeling. Nothing creates agony like yodeling.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  12:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On a general question, are there any vital-3 articles that aren't on 20 Wikipedias? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that. One would hope not. J Milburn (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I went looking for them and found 1 - Shitao. But I suppose it's proof of concept. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The FT/GT ratio should probably not be the same as the FA/GA one, since the gap is probably smaller. 10/5? Nergaal (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I do not understand. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FT requires only 50% featured, but an FA requires 100% of criteria done. So I think the FT-GT gap should be 10pts-5pts isntead of 10pts-3pts. Nergaal (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how that follows, at all. Could you please explain your argument more fully? J Milburn (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he is saying it is easier to get FT relative to an FA than it is a GT relative to a GA. i.e.: Every article in a GT must be GA status or better, but only half of the articles in a FT need to be FA status (though all must be GA or A).  If my read is accurate, I would say that is a better argument for lowering FT points rather than raising GT. Resolute 14:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. I've also looked down the list of articles with the most interwikis and it actually works very well as a metric. Do people want me to have the bot automagically multiply scores this year to encourage take up? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can manage to script it, that would be super. Would you be able to have a bot ready with all of these changes accommodated by the start of the competition? J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. I think I'll have it add the multiplier template to the submissions page at the same time: it has the bonus of making sure people their scores have been multiplied, thus reducing confusion and encouraging further work on the article. It'll also mean I wn't have to update the running totals script. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 10:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One quick note - the Vital Articles list changes over time; to date in 2011, ten have been added and six removed. If you're stating "on 1 January" for the widely covered requirement, it might be worth giving a fixed version of the VA list to work from. Shimgray | talk | 18:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, that's a very valid point. I don't want to see the WikiCup influencing the list at all, which could happen if we allow fluidity. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)