This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
|
So once again, it's the time of the year that we discuss the possibility of changing the points for the WikiCup. So, what worked this year? What didn't work? Is the balance right between FAs and GAs? Should GARs score more? what about the "significant work" criterion? Are there new rules/methods of running the competition needed? Was having cash prizes a worthwhile addition to the competition? Feel free to open subsections on different subject matters under this section.
There were no changes in the scoring system for the 2017 WikiCup but there are now several changes that the judges are considering. One of these is the date that signups close; traditionally it has been part way through February but we are proposing making it the last day of January. We look forward to having your views on this and other matters. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 19:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I only just saw this because of the message left on my talk. I think this was, is, a terrible idea, because people are only doing it for the money. I'm actually quite shocked that this has happened or even put forward as an idea in the first place which got as far as getting the green light. I feel like this really goes against Wikipedia's principles actually. People contribute for free because they care about the topics they edit. This is essentially payment for a select few, as it's always the same names who end up in the final everywhere anyway, so it's not like anyone else ever really has a chance of getting to the final, yet alone winning money or vouchers. Having made it to the final three times, I've always felt the competition has been really good without a monetary incentive. I was happy just get a participation badge! But I've always done it because I really care about the topic I edit. It's making something good or featured that I hope others will enjoy reading that makes me want to do it well. — Calvin999 14:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
My only real objection is that it would put an extra burden on the judges/sponsors and it wouldn't be as quick to get done as if the winner did it themselves. I've been awarded several book grants and it takes longer to get the books that way than if I did it myself. Plus, there's a certain amount of duplication of effort as the awardee has to look up the books wanted versus their price to decide between books and then the judge/sponsor has to look them up again to order them. So I think that the voucher/gift card is the best compromise.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I guess I'm the "doing it for the money" guy. It's why I signed up in 2017, and it motivated me to contribute more new content than I would have otherwise. I'm not sure I understand Calvin's point about how it undermines people contributing for free because they care about a topic. It's not like the WikiCup dictated what subject matter participates could work in... Argento Surfer ( talk) 18:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I need to chime in on something that has irked me for several years and it will probably sound like blasphemy... I think we should not award points for GARs. I know this has been where the vast majority of the submissions is from, but that may be the problem- and a problem for Wikipedia as a whole. Because people identify it as the best get-rich-quick scheme, we've had loads of half-assed reviews that are passed prematurely, which only have to be re-reviewed at a later time, because editors got greedy and just wanted points. I understand this will be an unpopular suggestion, so it will likely get struck down immediately, but I see it as more of a detriment than an incentive. I believe people should work for their WikiCup rankings, as the highest-ranking participants typically have done. DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 23:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
One thing about GARs, though, is that it is the only category where you can get points on your own schedule. This was my third year participating and the first two times I was eliminated despite having enough points worth of nominations to get me to the next round (and it wasn't like I nominated them at the last minute). This year I was eliminated under the same circumstances, except that I made a few nominations in the last couple of weeks before the end of a round. And yes, I've included all noms in Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. GARs are a way for many editors to earn their way to the next round, instead of leaving them at the mercy of waiting for reviews.
I would much rather see the abuse of GARs for points addressed, rather than eliminate GARs entirely. Things that can be addressed would include specifying what should be included in a GAR that can receive points (even if a shorter review would pass at GAR) and stop awarding points for quick fails and any fail that doesn't allow a set period of time for the nominator to respond (see this discussion), eg. minimum 7 days and require reviewers to act in good faith to extend that time if issues are being addressed by the nominator. Requirements for passing should include 1) requiring reviewers to use a template to make sure all GA criteria are met 2) capping the length of comments on issues with prose that satisfies the length requirement (current criteria is simply: "As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered") because I find a lot of reviews pad the length with nitpicking the quality of the prose and even addressing issues that are not part of the GA criteria. [Note: I'm busy and may not respond to responses for a few days. Sorry in advance.] AHeneen ( talk) 10:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I think encouraging GARs is good to help reducing the GAR backlog. Even during this year when GARs are rewarded, my GA nominations often took months before being looked at. True that GARs are somewhat more prone to abuse than other submission types, so in order to not attract abuse, we should keep the score low like this year. I also believe there should be more scrutiny on GAR submissions, including judge's scrutiny as well as the judges' willingness to act on complaints filed against low quality GARs. HaEr48 ( talk) 05:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The judges have to look at all submissions to make sure they qualify. The vast majority do, but there are occasions when they do not. One of these concerns whether a GAR is of sufficient quality: the rules state "Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points." As a judge, this is not something I care for deciding. I particularly dislike someone else, perhaps another contestant, coming along and telling me that a GAR is inadequate and should not qualify. I would prefer to accept all GARs, and if people have concern that a contestant is reviewing inadequately, they should bring the matter up at the appropriate (GA) discussion board. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Since we are having fewer FPOs from Wikicup, I think something should be done to encourage it. Not only FPOs, but also other categories which receive less attention. As far as I have seen, even FLs have been given less importance, as there are very few FLs made. Perhaps I could be wrong, so just an opinion. I am not familiar with these two categories, but making FPOs seem difficult. Maybe not point-wise, but if any other thing could be done to encourage more contribution to categories which are given less weight would be great. Adityavagarwal ( talk) 17:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with Cwmhiraeth's point above, not just about GARs, but all submissions. The strength of the Wikicup is that it provides an incentive to improve content. Its corresponding flaw is that it provides an incentive to cut corners to get points more quickly. I was generally happy about the promoted content that I looked at during the course of the cup. But, there were a number of occasions on which I discovered copyvios, content which failed verification, and inappropriate use of sources. This is less of a problem with featured content, which receives intense scrutiny from multiple editors, but it is certainly a problem with GAs, and even more so with GARs. I do not think it is okay for us to brush these off as problems with those processes that need to be sorted out elsewhere. At the same time, I do not think it fair to pile more work on the judges. Therefore, I'd suggest the following: a panel of secondary judges, whose only job is to check submissions. I am in no way suggesting that all submitted content should be perfect; but at the very least, it should be compliant with WP:V, WP:BLP, and free of copyvios. A team of judges should not find it terribly onerous to perform spotchecks for most contestants. If this idea gains favor, I would be willing to serve on this team, as I am not likely to contest next year. Vanamonde ( talk) 11:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that the Bonus points section says December 2017. Should have be updated to 2018? Guettarda ( talk) 13:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
After a competitive final round in the 2019 WikiCup, it's time for us to discuss the possibility of changing the rules or scoring for the competition for next year. So, what worked this year? What didn't work? Is the balance right between FAs and GAs? Should GARs score more? What about the "significant work" criterion? Are there new rules/methods of running the competition needed? Feel free to open subsections on different subject matters. We look forward to having your views on these and other matters. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I think points for reviewing FACs should be considered. Participation in this area could use a boost, as I've had several nominations archived due to lack of interest. Speaking personally, I never considered doing a GAR until I joined this competition, so I would expect this to have a positive impact. I think the same criteria applied to GAR reviews would be sufficient to avoid drive-by comments, but they should probably be worth a little more (maybe 6 points?). Argento Surfer ( talk) 21:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The number of these over the course of the Wikicup seems quite low. That may mean they're very difficult and thus undervalued, it may represent a failure of the featured process so that it's simply not promoting lists when it should - which we can't do anything about, or it may represent disinterest. What do people think? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 05:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I think discussion of this really depends on Valued Images being included or not. I think they are undervalued slightly, but if we're adding new means for pictures to gain points we shouldn't touch this score, or possibly even reduce it.
I could see the following:
But under no circumstances should we reduce points without adding other methods. To win this year, I beat my old record for FPs in a year by 11... Before the contest ended, and with two months left in the year. And spent two weeks waking up, starting restorations, breaking to eat, continuing restorations, and then going to bed. I'd say that my output this year can be considered around the maximum for FPs, so balancing for that as maximum probably won't hurt, as it just feels weird to have superhuman efforts of the thing you're probably the best person at on Wikipedia result in... A score that wouldn't have won several of the rounds. On the other hand, FAC has a hard limit, and GAR is unpredictable -
Wikipedia:Wikicup/Reviews still has unreviewed GANs from people who didn't make the final.
One thought: should we ask on Commons what the processes think? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
just as we don't include processes from other Wikipedias, or Wiktionarys (Wiktionaries?), or whatever.as something like "what's next -- will we included processes from...", but that's not what you wrote. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
So what is the process for proposing an addition? Is that this page, WT:WIKICUP? Seems like not a ton of appetite for it here, but also not a lot of participation on this page in general... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Unless it's going to break the bot, we should probably remove these from the submissions pages that contestants fill out. I'd say lose them fron the tables too. It's not like Featured Sounds are still in the tables. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, we really need to get rid of sections like this:
Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2019/Submissions/Adam_Cuerden#FPO:_45_points
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to have a section on everyone's submissions page that not only has portals, but has a point value for them. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we should try upping this a little bit, to say 5 or 6. GAN has a long backlog and we need all the encouragement that we can to clear it. The downside is that it's slightly easier to abuse, so maybe this will mean we (judges and other competitors) need to watch it more. HaEr48 ( talk) 00:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I get the impression ITN points are pretty rare. Should we reconsider the points given difficulty? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the points awarded for good and featured topics are seriously deficient. You work hard to get ten linked articles to GA status, and what do you get, a paltry 30 points? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I have been thinking it would be good if more former featured articles got repromoted. How about a 100-point bonus if one of these is repromoted to FA-hood? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the requirement that submitted articles should have been worked on during the course of the competition. Checking up on this causes some extra work for the judges and means submissions are sometimes declined because the work was done in the previous year. This rule mainly affects the first round, and relaxing or abolishing the rule would have minimal impact on the final result. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
D'ye think it'd help, especially for GAs, if this was transcluded as a sidebar on the Wikicup main page? Are people even aware this exists? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Can we get some statistics for number of submissions for each content type? It'll help judge whether any of them are rarer than others. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
In the last few years, the contest has tended to attract fewer participants, perhaps in line with a general decrease in new article creation and improvement. The present timetable assumes there will be greater than 64 contestants at the start, but if there were for example 65 entrants, would it be sensible to have a Round 1 that eliminated a single editor? I don't think so. I suggest that if the number of entrants is below a certain figure (X), the pool sizes are adjusted and the contest is contracted into four rounds. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Are editors happy with the present arrangements which features the top two contestants in each pool advancing to the next round, as well as the top-scoring others? An alternative would be to abolish the pools system, with editors advancing to the next round on score alone. In most instances, the two would produce identical results, but it is theoretically possible for the top scorers in a low-scoring pool to advance at the expense of other editors with higher scores. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Summing up the above discussion I suggest the following changes to the rules and scoring:
@ Cwmhiraeth: Have you talked to the FAC community about adding points for FAC reviews? There has previously been a lot of hostility to idea, which is part of the reason it's never been included before. (Another reason is that it's less quantifiable; one person takes "control" of a GA review and sees it through. FAC reviews are much more a group effort, with individual reviewers sometimes doing very little and sometimes doing an awful lot.) I would strongly advise against adding this without the blessings of the FAC community. Josh Milburn ( talk) 17:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Two points: You say articles, specifically, don't need to be from the competition year. Should this read "content"? Downside for that, though, is that I have finished images from years ago I could put forwards.
Also, do good and featured topics get bonus points? If so, I suspect pointscould be much higher already. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 00:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC) I wpuld like more discussion on FPs, though. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 00:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
more discussion on FPs, though- same, of course. I'm curious if people's hesitation to include Commons processes is because they don't think they have sufficient value for enwiki or if they find it too complicated to implement. I would argue strongly against the first point, but defer to the organizers for the second. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
How does "Remove requirement that articles need to have been worked on during the course of the competition." work for the first round? Does the articles still have to be nominated in 2020? Ie, if a competitor has a DYK which was nominated in December run in January, does that count for the Cup? Harrias talk 15:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I just signed up. Can I claim points for DYKs that ran yesterday, January 2, or the day before, January 1? epicgenius ( talk) 02:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I did not nominate Jim Lehrer for ITN but I was the one that did the work for it to be posted. Am I unable to claim it because I did not nominate it at ITN/C? --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
|
So once again, it's the time of the year that we discuss the possibility of changing the points for the WikiCup. So, what worked this year? What didn't work? Is the balance right between FAs and GAs? Should GARs score more? what about the "significant work" criterion? Are there new rules/methods of running the competition needed? Was having cash prizes a worthwhile addition to the competition? Feel free to open subsections on different subject matters under this section.
There were no changes in the scoring system for the 2017 WikiCup but there are now several changes that the judges are considering. One of these is the date that signups close; traditionally it has been part way through February but we are proposing making it the last day of January. We look forward to having your views on this and other matters. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 19:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I only just saw this because of the message left on my talk. I think this was, is, a terrible idea, because people are only doing it for the money. I'm actually quite shocked that this has happened or even put forward as an idea in the first place which got as far as getting the green light. I feel like this really goes against Wikipedia's principles actually. People contribute for free because they care about the topics they edit. This is essentially payment for a select few, as it's always the same names who end up in the final everywhere anyway, so it's not like anyone else ever really has a chance of getting to the final, yet alone winning money or vouchers. Having made it to the final three times, I've always felt the competition has been really good without a monetary incentive. I was happy just get a participation badge! But I've always done it because I really care about the topic I edit. It's making something good or featured that I hope others will enjoy reading that makes me want to do it well. — Calvin999 14:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
My only real objection is that it would put an extra burden on the judges/sponsors and it wouldn't be as quick to get done as if the winner did it themselves. I've been awarded several book grants and it takes longer to get the books that way than if I did it myself. Plus, there's a certain amount of duplication of effort as the awardee has to look up the books wanted versus their price to decide between books and then the judge/sponsor has to look them up again to order them. So I think that the voucher/gift card is the best compromise.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I guess I'm the "doing it for the money" guy. It's why I signed up in 2017, and it motivated me to contribute more new content than I would have otherwise. I'm not sure I understand Calvin's point about how it undermines people contributing for free because they care about a topic. It's not like the WikiCup dictated what subject matter participates could work in... Argento Surfer ( talk) 18:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I need to chime in on something that has irked me for several years and it will probably sound like blasphemy... I think we should not award points for GARs. I know this has been where the vast majority of the submissions is from, but that may be the problem- and a problem for Wikipedia as a whole. Because people identify it as the best get-rich-quick scheme, we've had loads of half-assed reviews that are passed prematurely, which only have to be re-reviewed at a later time, because editors got greedy and just wanted points. I understand this will be an unpopular suggestion, so it will likely get struck down immediately, but I see it as more of a detriment than an incentive. I believe people should work for their WikiCup rankings, as the highest-ranking participants typically have done. DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 23:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
One thing about GARs, though, is that it is the only category where you can get points on your own schedule. This was my third year participating and the first two times I was eliminated despite having enough points worth of nominations to get me to the next round (and it wasn't like I nominated them at the last minute). This year I was eliminated under the same circumstances, except that I made a few nominations in the last couple of weeks before the end of a round. And yes, I've included all noms in Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. GARs are a way for many editors to earn their way to the next round, instead of leaving them at the mercy of waiting for reviews.
I would much rather see the abuse of GARs for points addressed, rather than eliminate GARs entirely. Things that can be addressed would include specifying what should be included in a GAR that can receive points (even if a shorter review would pass at GAR) and stop awarding points for quick fails and any fail that doesn't allow a set period of time for the nominator to respond (see this discussion), eg. minimum 7 days and require reviewers to act in good faith to extend that time if issues are being addressed by the nominator. Requirements for passing should include 1) requiring reviewers to use a template to make sure all GA criteria are met 2) capping the length of comments on issues with prose that satisfies the length requirement (current criteria is simply: "As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered") because I find a lot of reviews pad the length with nitpicking the quality of the prose and even addressing issues that are not part of the GA criteria. [Note: I'm busy and may not respond to responses for a few days. Sorry in advance.] AHeneen ( talk) 10:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I think encouraging GARs is good to help reducing the GAR backlog. Even during this year when GARs are rewarded, my GA nominations often took months before being looked at. True that GARs are somewhat more prone to abuse than other submission types, so in order to not attract abuse, we should keep the score low like this year. I also believe there should be more scrutiny on GAR submissions, including judge's scrutiny as well as the judges' willingness to act on complaints filed against low quality GARs. HaEr48 ( talk) 05:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The judges have to look at all submissions to make sure they qualify. The vast majority do, but there are occasions when they do not. One of these concerns whether a GAR is of sufficient quality: the rules state "Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points." As a judge, this is not something I care for deciding. I particularly dislike someone else, perhaps another contestant, coming along and telling me that a GAR is inadequate and should not qualify. I would prefer to accept all GARs, and if people have concern that a contestant is reviewing inadequately, they should bring the matter up at the appropriate (GA) discussion board. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Since we are having fewer FPOs from Wikicup, I think something should be done to encourage it. Not only FPOs, but also other categories which receive less attention. As far as I have seen, even FLs have been given less importance, as there are very few FLs made. Perhaps I could be wrong, so just an opinion. I am not familiar with these two categories, but making FPOs seem difficult. Maybe not point-wise, but if any other thing could be done to encourage more contribution to categories which are given less weight would be great. Adityavagarwal ( talk) 17:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with Cwmhiraeth's point above, not just about GARs, but all submissions. The strength of the Wikicup is that it provides an incentive to improve content. Its corresponding flaw is that it provides an incentive to cut corners to get points more quickly. I was generally happy about the promoted content that I looked at during the course of the cup. But, there were a number of occasions on which I discovered copyvios, content which failed verification, and inappropriate use of sources. This is less of a problem with featured content, which receives intense scrutiny from multiple editors, but it is certainly a problem with GAs, and even more so with GARs. I do not think it is okay for us to brush these off as problems with those processes that need to be sorted out elsewhere. At the same time, I do not think it fair to pile more work on the judges. Therefore, I'd suggest the following: a panel of secondary judges, whose only job is to check submissions. I am in no way suggesting that all submitted content should be perfect; but at the very least, it should be compliant with WP:V, WP:BLP, and free of copyvios. A team of judges should not find it terribly onerous to perform spotchecks for most contestants. If this idea gains favor, I would be willing to serve on this team, as I am not likely to contest next year. Vanamonde ( talk) 11:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that the Bonus points section says December 2017. Should have be updated to 2018? Guettarda ( talk) 13:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
After a competitive final round in the 2019 WikiCup, it's time for us to discuss the possibility of changing the rules or scoring for the competition for next year. So, what worked this year? What didn't work? Is the balance right between FAs and GAs? Should GARs score more? What about the "significant work" criterion? Are there new rules/methods of running the competition needed? Feel free to open subsections on different subject matters. We look forward to having your views on these and other matters. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I think points for reviewing FACs should be considered. Participation in this area could use a boost, as I've had several nominations archived due to lack of interest. Speaking personally, I never considered doing a GAR until I joined this competition, so I would expect this to have a positive impact. I think the same criteria applied to GAR reviews would be sufficient to avoid drive-by comments, but they should probably be worth a little more (maybe 6 points?). Argento Surfer ( talk) 21:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The number of these over the course of the Wikicup seems quite low. That may mean they're very difficult and thus undervalued, it may represent a failure of the featured process so that it's simply not promoting lists when it should - which we can't do anything about, or it may represent disinterest. What do people think? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 05:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I think discussion of this really depends on Valued Images being included or not. I think they are undervalued slightly, but if we're adding new means for pictures to gain points we shouldn't touch this score, or possibly even reduce it.
I could see the following:
But under no circumstances should we reduce points without adding other methods. To win this year, I beat my old record for FPs in a year by 11... Before the contest ended, and with two months left in the year. And spent two weeks waking up, starting restorations, breaking to eat, continuing restorations, and then going to bed. I'd say that my output this year can be considered around the maximum for FPs, so balancing for that as maximum probably won't hurt, as it just feels weird to have superhuman efforts of the thing you're probably the best person at on Wikipedia result in... A score that wouldn't have won several of the rounds. On the other hand, FAC has a hard limit, and GAR is unpredictable -
Wikipedia:Wikicup/Reviews still has unreviewed GANs from people who didn't make the final.
One thought: should we ask on Commons what the processes think? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
just as we don't include processes from other Wikipedias, or Wiktionarys (Wiktionaries?), or whatever.as something like "what's next -- will we included processes from...", but that's not what you wrote. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
So what is the process for proposing an addition? Is that this page, WT:WIKICUP? Seems like not a ton of appetite for it here, but also not a lot of participation on this page in general... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Unless it's going to break the bot, we should probably remove these from the submissions pages that contestants fill out. I'd say lose them fron the tables too. It's not like Featured Sounds are still in the tables. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, we really need to get rid of sections like this:
Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2019/Submissions/Adam_Cuerden#FPO:_45_points
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to have a section on everyone's submissions page that not only has portals, but has a point value for them. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we should try upping this a little bit, to say 5 or 6. GAN has a long backlog and we need all the encouragement that we can to clear it. The downside is that it's slightly easier to abuse, so maybe this will mean we (judges and other competitors) need to watch it more. HaEr48 ( talk) 00:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I get the impression ITN points are pretty rare. Should we reconsider the points given difficulty? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the points awarded for good and featured topics are seriously deficient. You work hard to get ten linked articles to GA status, and what do you get, a paltry 30 points? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I have been thinking it would be good if more former featured articles got repromoted. How about a 100-point bonus if one of these is repromoted to FA-hood? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the requirement that submitted articles should have been worked on during the course of the competition. Checking up on this causes some extra work for the judges and means submissions are sometimes declined because the work was done in the previous year. This rule mainly affects the first round, and relaxing or abolishing the rule would have minimal impact on the final result. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
D'ye think it'd help, especially for GAs, if this was transcluded as a sidebar on the Wikicup main page? Are people even aware this exists? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Can we get some statistics for number of submissions for each content type? It'll help judge whether any of them are rarer than others. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
In the last few years, the contest has tended to attract fewer participants, perhaps in line with a general decrease in new article creation and improvement. The present timetable assumes there will be greater than 64 contestants at the start, but if there were for example 65 entrants, would it be sensible to have a Round 1 that eliminated a single editor? I don't think so. I suggest that if the number of entrants is below a certain figure (X), the pool sizes are adjusted and the contest is contracted into four rounds. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Are editors happy with the present arrangements which features the top two contestants in each pool advancing to the next round, as well as the top-scoring others? An alternative would be to abolish the pools system, with editors advancing to the next round on score alone. In most instances, the two would produce identical results, but it is theoretically possible for the top scorers in a low-scoring pool to advance at the expense of other editors with higher scores. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Summing up the above discussion I suggest the following changes to the rules and scoring:
@ Cwmhiraeth: Have you talked to the FAC community about adding points for FAC reviews? There has previously been a lot of hostility to idea, which is part of the reason it's never been included before. (Another reason is that it's less quantifiable; one person takes "control" of a GA review and sees it through. FAC reviews are much more a group effort, with individual reviewers sometimes doing very little and sometimes doing an awful lot.) I would strongly advise against adding this without the blessings of the FAC community. Josh Milburn ( talk) 17:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Two points: You say articles, specifically, don't need to be from the competition year. Should this read "content"? Downside for that, though, is that I have finished images from years ago I could put forwards.
Also, do good and featured topics get bonus points? If so, I suspect pointscould be much higher already. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 00:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC) I wpuld like more discussion on FPs, though. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 00:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
more discussion on FPs, though- same, of course. I'm curious if people's hesitation to include Commons processes is because they don't think they have sufficient value for enwiki or if they find it too complicated to implement. I would argue strongly against the first point, but defer to the organizers for the second. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
How does "Remove requirement that articles need to have been worked on during the course of the competition." work for the first round? Does the articles still have to be nominated in 2020? Ie, if a competitor has a DYK which was nominated in December run in January, does that count for the Cup? Harrias talk 15:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I just signed up. Can I claim points for DYKs that ran yesterday, January 2, or the day before, January 1? epicgenius ( talk) 02:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I did not nominate Jim Lehrer for ITN but I was the one that did the work for it to be posted. Am I unable to claim it because I did not nominate it at ITN/C? --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)