Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/HWY Cup/Archive 1

Wikiwork multipliers
There was some discussion in the USRD thread of using Wikiwork, or something based on Wikiwork, as a points multiplier. I assume this would be done on a task force level rather than project wide, but then what about articles belonging to multiple task forces - would the highest multiplier apply, or an average, or something else? Also, would the multipliers be recalculated at the beginning of each round? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 00:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll think a bit on your first question, but I will recalculate multipliers at the beginning of each round. T  C  N7 JM  01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've decided I'll most likely average the multipliers. That makes the most sense to do in my eyes. T  C  N7 JM  05:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Format
What exactly is the format for the Cup planned to be? Since a "destubbing party" is most likely out of the question, I need to know. It most likey will determine if I actually participate or not. Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking about it. I'll probably incorporate a few aspects from Fredddie's scoring system last year, but it won't be exactly the same. My original intent was to incorporate USRD's 2014 goals somehow, but that wouldn't be fair since we decided to expand it to include all of HWY. T  C  N7 JM  01:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was asking (and needed to know), since I am not good at much other (grammar?) than destubbing articles, and this laptop is too slow to do much else. If what I do doesn't work for the Cup, then I don't know what else I could really do to participate in the Cup. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, destubbing articles will still be worth a few points if that's your concern. Lowering the WikiWork is, of course, the #1 long-term goal of the project, and destubbing articles is a part of that. T  C  N7 JM  01:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There are still (as of right now) 3,943 Highways Stubs, 1,022 Canadian Stubs, 1,629 U.S. Stubs, 253 Hong Kong Stubs, and 441 Australian stubs - plenty of work to do on de-stubbing. --  Admr Boltz  14:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility
Are all articles covered by WP:HWY and the roads projects eligible? - ie, is it limited to traditional road articles, or would articles like Interchange (road) and Speed limit also be eligible? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with these types of articles is that I wouldn't know how to add any sort of multiplier to them. They're not part of any specific task force or even subproject, so WikiWork shouldn't be used. I could just give them no multiplier, but then that would just make people want to work on them less as opposed to road articles which are probably easier to work on and give you more points for upgrading them. I might think of something between now and June, but you can most likely expect that this will be limited to road articles. T  C  N7 JM  02:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You could just use the overall HWY WikiWork, which is relatively high at 5.87, and/or give out bonus points for top (or even high) importance articles - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That calculation is skewed because it does not take into account any of HWY's subprojects, which are still part of HWY, but have their WikiWorks counted separately. Adding USRD, CRWP, AURD, etc., articles into the HWY WikiWork would lower it drastically. T  C  N7 JM  02:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On deeper thought, including these articles would be a good idea, I'll just have to figure out how to do the multiplier. I'll think of something within four months.  T  C  N7 JM  05:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, all articles with the WP:HWY or one of its sub-project's banners on the talk page. Philroc (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Scoring
I've devised a scoring system at this page. I welcome any comments regarding anything I may have missed or any point values that seem egregiously high or low. Media is not meant to be worth too many points, though, so I don't want to raise the point values of media submissions too much. Regards, T  C  N7 JM  04:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC).
 * 15 points for a successful challenge seems high; surely the main point of a challenge should be to prevent others from getting an unfair advantage or yourself from getting an unfair disadvatage
 * I was trying to get it similar to last year's 10-point bonus, but factoring in all the multipliers and stuff (since bonuses get no multipliers). I've changed it to 10 points.
 * Videos should have a similar paragraph to images, and specify the points for videos taken before the cup begins
 * Uh-huh.
 * Should the points for maps be lower if they were created using KML data which any contestant has already claimed points for?
 * So that's what I forgot in the media section! I knew something was eerily missing.
 * What happens to stuff done in-between rounds – can it be claimed for the next round?
 * It cannot, because most likely the scoring system is being modified.
 * Note that contestants might not necessarily be male, references to "he" and the like should be changes
 * Eh, that's actually proper grammar according to what I've learned. However, I have changed all instances of this to avoid possibly offending people.
 * Can you provide an example submission page, and/or specify what needs to be included on the page
 * Here is my cup submissions page from last year's USRD Cup. I'll have a header there like the one Fredddie had last year so the scoreboard is easy to find. Basically, just separate your types of submissions into different sections, and add diffs for each submission.
 * You should mention that WikiWork will be reassessed at the beginning of each round
 * You're right, I should.
 * Does creating a missing article get any points? (If so, this should probably exclude redirects.)
 * Missing articles are treated as stubs. Creating a start class article is considered a one-class improvement. I have mentioned this on that page.
 * Should the media section should specify that the media has to be included in at least one article? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I forgot a few other basic things too that I have now added.
 * Thank you for all of your comments. I tried to get this out as early as possible so exactly this could happen. Does anybody else have any comments? T  C  N7 JM  05:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * KMLs - does there have to be a flat cutoff point of 10 points for a KML that is 200 miles plus? If a road was 1500 miles, which is more work for someone who might submit it, surely that would be worth more points than a 200 mile one. How about an additional two points for every 100 miles longer than 200 miles the road is? (Example - 1500 miles = 36 points.)  Rcsprinter123    (push)  @ 19:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm trying not to make KMLs too powerful, so I'm not sure this is going to work. Besides, KMLs don't have to be created using Google Earth; somebody could create a map for this 1500-mile route, then create a KML for it in almost no time flat and gain more points than a contestant would gain from bringing a normal state highway article here in the USA to A-Class, which usually takes days or even weeks of work, depending on how quickly they're working. T  C  N7 JM  12:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but you can get directions in Google Earth, save the directions to My Places, then make a few edits (centring the line at divided intersections for example), and pop out a 1500 mile route in as little as 5 to 10 minutes. -  Floydian  τ ¢  00:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another question, lists improvement - if an article I improve is marked as list-class, and therefore doesn't move from start to C to B etc, how can I earn points on it? Is there no way to do this until it is a Featured List? Or would points be allocated based on article importance only?  Rcsprinter123    (chinwag)  @ 20:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there are only two classes for lists – List and Featured List – the only contribution to lists that are scored are bringing them to FL-class. Although, they do score quite nicely, and are often easy to construct compared to Featured Articles. T  C  N7 JM  20:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Reviews
While I understand the sentiment behind awarding points for GA and FA reviews, I think perhaps it should be rethought. I have long been kind of uncomfortable with project members reviewing project articles, because of the inherent conflict of interest involved in reviewing an article for a project that you want to do well. I think it would be more impartial for non-HWY editors to be reviewing the articles. We already have the ability to do in-house QA with our GA audit program and ACR. I recognize this may make the GA process slower, but ultimately I think we will have better articles to show for it if we allow outside eyes to take a fresh look. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I will think about this one. T  C  N7 JM  12:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so here's what I think about this kind of stuff. Counting GA reviews for points might be unfair because some contestants could rubber stamp them and others could give much more thorough reviews and get the same amount of points. The only indicator on whether or not something is thorough enough to count is my own judgement, and mine could differ from that of others, so I'm considering ditching GA reviews altogether. I won't touch FAC reviews because, on rare occasions, we have had people who wanted to review articles when they were at ACR but couldn't, and ACRs are normally judged against FA standards or just below them, so there isn't that much of a difference. Besides, one can only claim one review for one article, so there would be no gaming the system on that. Anyone else have thoughts? T C  N7 JM  23:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In last year's USRD Cup, I prohibited GAN reviews of other participants for this reason. As the judge, you could simply toss out reviews that look like they're gaming the system. –Fredddie™ 23:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I won't mess with the scoring system just yet, I've decided. T  C  N7 JM  20:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Slight schedule change
Note to contestants,


 * I've just learned I'll be unavailable from July 27 to August 1, so I had to figure out a slight reworking of the schedule to avoid this. As such, Round 1 now ends on June 28 instead of on June 30, Round 2 now runs from July 2 to July 26 instead of from July 5 to July 31, and Round 3 now begins on August 3 instead of on August 4. Sorry if this is an inconvenience.

Signed, T  C  N7 JM  04:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it's more important that the judge is available than the contestants are available, so that's fine.  Rcsprinter123    (deliver)  @ 06:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Multipliers?
What are multipliers anyway? Phil roc My contribs 12:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It means you'll get way more points for doing the same edits on a Wyoming article than you would a Michigan article. –Fredddie™ 14:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

are you going to make a multiplier table? –Fredddie™ 14:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Give me a thousand seconds or so and I'll have that right out. T  C  N7 JM  15:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've created the one for the United States at this page, and will add that for other task forces (as well as a couple things I forgot for the United States) there shortly. This is just so you know how the multipliers work. T  C  N7 JM  16:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Map points
The scoring page says maps made from KMLs will get fewer points. How will you know if the maps are made from the KML? Will you assume that maps made for an article that has a KML will be made from the KML? –Fredddie™ 20:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You and Scott have both told me that maps are much easier to make with the KML data already existing, so by your own admission, it would be foolish to make the map from scratch if the KML already exists. So to answer your question, yes. T  C  N7 JM  12:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify the rules, as they are currently misleading - you say "KML data created by another user is used in creating it" when it seems you mean "KML data created by another user is used in the article". Otherwise, when you award 3 points, it seems like you are implying that KML data has been used without attribution (required if the KML is licensed as CC-BY-SA), even when it hasn't been used. And if the GIS data source already has the road in it, the there is absolutely no need to import a KML file derived from a different data source - that could actually be more work. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 15:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends on what type of highway system you're working with. In Australia, I assume everything is cataloged by road name. In the US, of course, we use route numbers. Some data sets only include one route designation per road segment, usually the most important one. So if you do a search for a minor highway, your selection will have gaps where it's occluded by the major highway designations due to concurrencies. So you have to go back and manually select those segments. If someone already did a KML, all that work has been done for you; all you have to do is import the file and set it to match the route legend and you're done. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I assumed the "KML data created by another user" to mean someone on wiki. So, I don't see any problem with using KMLs made by an outside organization and claiming full points. –Fredddie™ 22:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor rule changes
Hey guys. I've made a couple of minor changes to the rules. The first one I made is that each bonus can only be claimed once per round, and the second is that the KML restriction on map points now applies to KMLs made by any other user, not just other contestants. Just letting you know. T C  N7 JM  12:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

One more change here. I've received a couple of suggestions to remove the restriction that recognized content must have been submitted after the Cup began to be submitted for points. Given the extremely long queue at GAN right now in the Transport section, I've decided to act upon them. Yes, I know this doesn't benefit all the users competing in the Cup, and that went into the decision making process, but looking at how backed up the queue has been lately, it doesn't look like anything submitted now will be reviewed by the end of Round 1. Regards, T  C  N7 JM  05:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Update
Sorry if I'm taking a while to update the scoreboard and check submissions this time around. No, I haven't disappeared; I'm just busy. I will get around to it tomorrow. Regards, T  C  N7 JM  04:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Judges
Who are the judges for this project? Moksh Juneja 01:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am the sole judge. Why do you ask? T  C  N7 JM  01:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Reduction in point values
Hey guys. After looking at it for a while, I've decided the Cup is a bit too imbalanced toward media submissions, even with the lack of multipliers for media submissions. This is why I've decided to lower the point values for both maps and videos, effective immediately.

First, videos are now worth 20 points if taken during the Cup and 10 points if taken before the Cup. I realized that although there is a lack of videos in WP:HWY, 40 points is a bit too much to award them, and I think even 20 might be a bit too high, but I'll leave it here for now.

Second, maps are now worth five points if no KML exists for the article. You'll notice I didn't reduce the point value for maps for articles with an already existing KML; they're still worth three points. This was done to reduce the gap in point values between these two submissions, which I felt was a bit too large.

Regards, T  C  N7 JM  05:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Update
For most of the rest of this week, I will be unable to spend a significant amount of time on Wikipedia. Just to let you guys know, the next scoreboard update probably won't be until Saturday night or Sunday morning my time. Regards, T  C  N7 JM  00:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Important notice
I will be driving through the wilderness in North Dakota and most likely will be unable to close Round 1 on time at midnight UTC (which is 7:00 PM my time). I advise all of you to just use common sense and not submit anything after the proverbial final buzzer. There are still timecodes in the edit history and I may penalize for trying to submit after the Round is supposed to be closed. Regards, T  C  N7 JM  17:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Round 1 is over
Round 1 of the HWY Cup is officially over. Nothing is final until I double check the scores tomorrow, but currently on the scoreboard are the preliminary results. Given the wide scoring gaps, the field for Round 2 should remain as is, even with any minor fixes in my math. T C  N7 JM  04:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Or some major math fixes, I seem to have gained about 600 or so extra media points from nowhere - Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Lemme see what happened. (To be completely honest, it's not too big a deal. The points do not roll over and you'd be in the Round 2 field regardless.) T  C  N7 JM  05:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You did. I added a phantom 6 earlier. This is why I'm double checking.  T  C  N7 JM  05:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. I fixed your row. T  C  N7 JM  05:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Final Round 1 standings and updates to scoring system
Recounts are finished. The final standings for Round 1 are as follows.

Congratulations to the seven editors who have advanced to Round 2. See you then!

Also note: I have made a few changes to the scoring system. The changes are as follows: I can still change the scoring system at any time before or during Round 2, but every change will be reported at this talk page. Regards, T  C  N7 JM  06:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * KMLs and RJL conversions are now scored progressively based on length instead of having set point values.
 * All maps, regardless of where the KML data originated, are worth five points.
 * Videos are now worth only ten points, and only one video is allowed to be submitted per article.
 * The Good Article bonus now requires only five Good Articles, the image bonus now requires ten images, and the map bonus now requires 20 maps.
 * Low-importance content creation submissions now have a x2 article importance multiplier instead of x1.
 * Challenges are now worth 15 points if successful (as it was when I originally created the scoring system).

Get ready for Round 2 (and a couple notes)
The multipliers have been calculated for Round 2 and the Round 1 scores have been collapsed in the submissions pages, so I'm ready for the start of Round 2 in approximately four hours. Are you?

There are a couple of things I'd like to note before the start of Round 2: Regards, T  C  N7 JM  20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To assure the correct scores are recorded, I'm now requesting the contestants add the amount of points they are submitting their contributions for in their submissions. It is a little extra work for you guys, but it will help prevent me making stupid errors with scores.
 * I will be away all day on Thursday, July 3, so I will not be able to reply to questions or comments on that day. I will try to get to them the next day but July 4 is Independence Day so I may be doing other stuff instead. The first scoreboard update will probably not be until July 5.

Round 2 has officially begun.
On your marks, get set, go! T C  N7 JM  00:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Another update
Hey guys. I am leaving on vacation tomorrow morning, so I do not know when the next scoreboard update will be, as my activity will be sporadic for the next week or more. Also, I should note that despite that I may have said otherwise (I actually already forget), that contestants note how many points their submissions are for is a request, not a requirement. This was mainly so that there would be no errors in scoring, but also so that contestants would be more familiar with the scoring system. Regards, T  C  N7 JM  20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Back from vacation
Next scoreboard update coming tomorrow. T C  N7 JM  03:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice
I will again be unable to close the Round at the exact time it is supposed to end, which is in just less than two hours. Please heed the same advice I gave you when this happened last month. Regards, T  C  N7 JM  22:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Update – Round 2 is now officially closed. I may or may not update the scoreboard sometime tonight or tomorrow morning; as there were only four active competitors in this round, the field for Round 3 is already set, so it's probably unnecessary. T C  N7 JM  00:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Round 3 is underway!
The header speaks for itself. As a sidenote, I did not make any changes to the scoring system, intentionally. I could still tweak some stuff mid-round, but probably will not. Go crazy. T C  N7 JM  00:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you not going to give us our final scores for the previous round? Just to see the standings.  Rcsprinter123    (orate)  @ 00:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it only mattered that we made it, not what our scores were. But I agree that it'd be nice to at least know where we stood. –Fredddie™ 00:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd like I can probably do that within the next couple days. I wasn't going to do it unless somebody actively asked me to. T  C  N7 JM  00:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies
Real life gets in the way more than I wish it would. For that reason I must, and I realize this is the second day in a row I've had to do this, push back the scoreboard update. I am sorry. I will do it within the next couple days. I swear it. T C  N7 JM  06:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Once you get it done, you should do it a little bit every day so it's not so daunting. –Fredddie™ 19:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you should appoint a deputy to assist you in updating the tables when you are unavailable. -happy5214 20:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And the winner is...
This year's Cup began on June 1 with 13 contestants working to improve the articles of WikiProject Highways. Three months, three rounds, and a whooooooole lot of KMLs later, the field has been narrowed down to one winner: Mr. Matté! Congratulations to Mr. Matté on winning the 2014 HWY Cup. The full scoreboard can be seen below:

Thanks to all 13 contestants for participating this year. The project's articles have benefited greatly from your hard work. Mr. Matté may have won the Cup, but the real winner is WikiProject Highways!
 * Great competition, especially in the closing days of this past round. Continued peace and love and happy editing. —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 13:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, these are the KML statistics:
 * 257 - Mr. Matte
 * 212 - Rcsprinter
 * 73 - Fredddie
 * 16 - Floydian
 * 14 - others
 * = 572 total
 * = 572 total

--  Floydian  τ ¢  17:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of creating a world map of all the KMLs made for the cup. My computer was being slow and crashy today, so it's not finished yet.  Rcsprinter123    (converse)  @ 21:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Cumulative results
I've assembled a table of cumulative scores from all three Rounds of the 2014 HWY Cup. It speaks for itself. Enjoy!

Again, thanks to all contestants for participating. T C  N7 JM  00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

2015
TCN7JM: Any news yet about having a contest for this year? I fancy having something to do over the summer.  Rcsprinter123    (spout)  @ 10:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's a contest this year, I won't have enough time on my hands to run it or even be a participant in it. I know was looking to be the judge last year before I scooped it up (because I knew I wouldn't have time to do it should there be one this year), but I don't know if he'd feel the same this year. Besides, it usually takes a month or two to set up, what with the judge having to think up a scoring system and a sign-up page having to be out there for a while so contestants have ample time to join. If we were to start getting one ready now, there's only a slim chance it would even start running before the end of the summer.
 * tl;dr: It doesn't look like we're having one this year. T  C  N7 JM  15:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have thought about running it too, but it would be early 2016. --Rschen7754 16:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice to have the USRD cup either start or end on the 10th anniversary of USRD's founding (September 18). Though since this is a HWY cup, I'm not sure if we really should put it on that date.  Sounder Bruce  19:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a thought, and usually the HWY cup is dominated by USRD editors anyway, so I don't think it would be a problem. --Rschen7754 20:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with running a 10th anniversary USRD Cup starting on September 18 and running for three months.  Dough   4872   18:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine, though I doubt I'd be able to participate due to my erratic activity. --Rschen7754 03:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be out too, as stated above. T  C  N7 JM  03:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)