|
Bonus points
I noticed that the Bonus points section says December 2017. Should have be updated to 2018? Guettarda (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, it should have been updated. I have done it now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
WikiCup scoring and rules discussion
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)
Featured articles
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)
Featured lists
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)
- Honestly, I think it's mostly lack of interest. In 2010, Staxringold managed 17; I don't think that number would be achievable now, simply due to a lower number of active reviewers. I achieved 11 in 2015; that would probably be roughly achievable still, but as you suggest, I think it reflects the process more than this contest; I don't see that any change of points is justified. Harrias talk 11:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Featured pictures
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:
- Featured picture: 25 pt
- Commons Quality Image (used in articles) 5 points
- Commons Valued Image (ditto) 10 points.
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)
- I'm pretty strongly opposed to including Commons processes as part of the English Wikipedia's WikiCup, just as we don't include processes from other Wikipedias, or Wiktionarys (Wiktionaries?), or whatever. It's potentially going to lead to all kinds of complications (for example: What if participants aren't Commons users or have been banned? Can a picture get points for both Commons processes and FP? Does the order matter?) and raise all kinds of other questions (why not include processes on other projects? Why exclude the Commons FP?). I hear what you say about ensuring the images are included in an article on the English Wikipedia, but that's no guarantee that they're really adding a lot (it goes without saying that enwp's featured picture process has a higher bar than "is included in an article"). My feeling is that the WikiCup should be focussed on the English Wikipedia; the English Wikipedia has tried and failed to have projects like the commons VI process, and I'm just not sure there's an appetite for them. (If this changes the view about how many points a featured picture should be worth, then so be it.) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Josh here, I don't think we should be bringing in Commons when this contest is about the English Wikipedia. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- The enwiki's FPC process already "brings in Commons". It's largely a redundant process that we keep around mostly because we don't want to use Commons' POTD. The standards are a little different (in a varying sense), but mostly it's just slower, falling into periods of inactivity, and less diverse (relatively speaking). It misses an awful lot of images that add substantially to articles, promoted through formal processes on Commons, with direct impact on enwiki.
- The "other projects" slippery slope argument strains my imagination to think of what other projects directly supply visible article content to English Wikipedia articles. Wikidata, and which have processes that lead directly to improvements to English Wikipedia articles. If there are processes on other projects that directly affect the quality of article on the English Wikipedia, like the QI [and especially] VI/FP processes do on Commons, that seems worth discussing, I guess?
- QI motivates people to take higher-quality images to add to articles, and wouldn't count for anything if it's not used in an article (and when it is, it wouldn't count for but a few points.
- VI often have far higher encyclopedic value than FPs, limited instead by their "wow factor" or some aspect of technical quality at full resolution.
- The German Wikicup uses Commons processes seemingly uncontroversially. But yes, there are questions that would need to be answered. Regarding banned on Commons, that would also mean that person can't upload things for the enwiki FP process (but it tends to take more to get banned on commons than on enwiki anyway). I would imagine points could only count on Commons or enwiki when it comes to FP, and not both, since it's only improving an article once. These all seem like surmountable issues. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites: We have a good few disagreements - including about whether FPC is a "largely a redundant process [kept] around mostly because we don't want to use Commons' POTD" - but in the interests of keeping the discussion flowing, I'll just note one thing: I didn't make a slippery-slope argument, and don't intend to! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fair. Apologies for misrepresenting you. I read
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)
- Fair. Apologies for misrepresenting you. I read
- Rhododendrites: We have a good few disagreements - including about whether FPC is a "largely a redundant process [kept] around mostly because we don't want to use Commons' POTD" - but in the interests of keeping the discussion flowing, I'll just note one thing: I didn't make a slippery-slope argument, and don't intend to! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Josh here, I don't think we should be bringing in Commons when this contest is about the English Wikipedia. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 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)
Featured portals
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)
- There seems to have been a big clear out of portals too. For instance the rugby portal has been merged to the general sports portal, which seems to imply that there are less of the smaller portals to work on and improve to FP standard. Plus of course there is always that perennial threat to delete them all which means that sometime next year if it's successful, that avenue gets closed anyway. I'm neutral on if we retain it for the Cup or not. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- The featured portal process has been closed down. It has to be removed - I'm not sure there's any room for discussion on this. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Good articles
Good article reviews
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)
Did you knows
In the news
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)
Good/Featured topics
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 like the idea of more points for topics (maybe increase by a third?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps 5 and 10 respectively? I like the idea because topics cover a given subject more thoroughly than the usual scattershot approach.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Article bonus system
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 like the idea. I worry about that recently delisted ones might be game-able, but on the other hand, they were poor enough to demote, and no one cared enough to save them, so if we can get someone to look at them, and improve them, all the better. Harrias talk 23:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don’t think that’s a good idea. Articles receive already too many bonus points as is. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
General
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)
- I think it prevents excessive prepping. If one can spend all of November and December setting up articles and images to submit, it's going to make for very different competition strategies. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 12:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure how you stop this though. You could just prep a lot in userspace, then flip the switch to mainspace at the start of the competition. Realistically, with GANs and FACs, you'll have enough commentary during the nomination for it to be significant work then. Especially as the first round needed just a single GAR last year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can see somebody stockpiling articles in November-December and then unleashing them in the final round. Admittedly the review processes will negate some of that sort of gamesmanship, but... --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I believe the "must have put significant work in during the calendar year...." requirement somewhat eliminates that as viable. It'd probably get pulled out as a spirit-of-rules violation if the requirement isn't lifted. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 14:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can see somebody stockpiling articles in November-December and then unleashing them in the final round. Admittedly the review processes will negate some of that sort of gamesmanship, but... --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thinking to past years, I do think it might be fairer to photographers in particular to allow a certain backlog in the first round or two, to get those in the Northern hemisphere into spring and better lighting. Perhaps we could loosen the rule for the first round or two alone, putting in the stricter, more labour-intensive checks once we're down to - what is it for round 3? 32 people? This would probably not affect me much, as I tend to take a break over the holidays anyway, but it might get us more competition in rounds 2 and 3. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Just a quick thought to throw into the mix: This has been a rule since (I think) 2010, and it wasn't a rule in any of the earlier competitions (and, to be clear, 2009 was a fairly big one, though 2007 was tiny and 2008 not huge). Once upon a time, all that mattered is when the work was promoted. It strikes me that removing the rule could save the judges a lot of work and prevent a lot of bad feeling, but I understand why it was put in place. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure how you stop this though. You could just prep a lot in userspace, then flip the switch to mainspace at the start of the competition. Realistically, with GANs and FACs, you'll have enough commentary during the nomination for it to be significant work then. Especially as the first round needed just a single GAR last year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikicup/Reviews
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)
- I tried to use it - but I don't think it gets many eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I'm thinking we should make it more prominent. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Content types
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)
- Try this page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Lists and ITN seem the outliers there. Topics as well, but that's such a weird process. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 05:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think the common trend is that you get more DYKs at the start but they gradually fade as the number of FAs and GAs grow as the year goes on. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- That may say as much about strategy as anything else. It's probably easier to make a GA from scratch than to fix a confusing morass of unorganised content. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 08:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Lists and ITN seem the outliers there. Topics as well, but that's such a weird process. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 05:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Timetable
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)
- In every year since 2015 (inclusive), literally everyone who has scored any points in Round 1 has progressed, making it relatively meaningless: whether you complete 1 GA review, or have 3 Featured articles, you progress to Round 2. I would suggest either having a more competitive Round 1, or carrying points over from Round 1 into Round 2, so that it has some relevance. And yes, I would agree with your suggestions. Harrias talk 08:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I would support having points carry over, and maybe even prorating them as added incentive. Like, in round one, the top 10 get 5% carried over, the next 10 get 3%, the next ten 1%. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I would support carrying over, but I suggest just making the percentage flat to keep things simple. The top finisher already has an advantage because x% of 1000 is already higher than x% of 100, for example, and we don't need to compound it further by complicating the value of x. As for the right value of x, 10% seems a good percentage. if you finish a strong round at 1000, having +100 in the next round will give you a nice edge but not an insurmountable one. HaEr48 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- I would support having points carry over, and maybe even prorating them as added incentive. Like, in round one, the top 10 get 5% carried over, the next 10 get 3%, the next ten 1%. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Pools
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)
- The pools are why I no longer compete in the WikiCup. Please get rid of them. Abductive (reasoning) 07:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I've looked at every round for the last several years. There has never been a case where a higher scoring competitor lost out because of the pool system. Honestly, I'd be irate if I was the first one, and I'd sympathize with anyone who was bounced out that way. In short, they're pointless and a potential source of conflict. Ditching them would make it easier to see how you're doing, too. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Changes in rules and scoring for 2020
Summing up the above discussion I suggest the following changes to the rules and scoring:
- Featured articles
- No change
- Featured article reviews
- Introduce these as a new feature. Rules similar to GARs, with only quality reviews being awarded points. 5 points
- Featured lists
- No change
- Featured pictures
- Quite a bit of discussion above but not a consensus for change
- Featured portals
- Remove
- Good articles
- No change
- Good article reviews
- Increase points to 5
- Did you knows
- No change
- In the news
- Increase points to 12
- Good/Featured topics
- Increase points to 5/15 per article
- Article bonus system
- No change
- General
- Remove requirement that articles need to have been worked on during the course of the competition.
- Timetable
- Revise if too few people enter (four rounds if <80 contestants?)
- Pools
- Remove subdivision into pools with all contestants advancing on merit.
- @Sturmvogel 66, Godot13, and Vanamonde93: Seeking your approval. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@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)
- I have made enquiry at the FAC discussion page here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:25, 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)- We have a somewhat problematic habit of saying all discussion has to happen after the competition, everyone's away for holidays, then it has to wrap up shortly afterwards to prepare for next year, which really doesn't help progress. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 03:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- In general, I'm fine with most of these suggestions, subject to the reservation I made below about work needing to be done in the year of the competition, and we do need to revise the wording from just "articles" to "articles and media". People only seem to interested as the deadline approaches, so I'm OK with the current timeframe for suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest that we retain the "worked on during the course of the competition" rule, but I may not enforce it in the opening couple of weeks of the competition, issuing a warning instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Query
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)
- Subject to the views of others, I would say that if the DYK appeared in 2020, it would count, whenever it was nominated. This might lead to some people advancing to Round 2 when they otherwise would not have done, but that is immaterial seeing that the points are reset to zero at the end of each round, and they won't get far without effort in 2020! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think there could still be a limit, just move it from 1/1/2020 to 9/1/2019 (or whatever). Argento Surfer (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- No major objections. I do think we need to talk to the folks at FAC before offering points for FAC reviews; knowing some of the regulars there, it isn't going to be terribly popular. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- My preference would be to retain the existing policy. It's a bit more work for us in the first round as newbies try to game the rules, but I think that it's true to the spirit of the Cup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could delay the awarding of FAC review points until a later round to prevent low quality reviews? By having fewer contestant-reviewers to closely scrutinize, it could help lighten the load for the FAC coordinators. SounderBruce 05:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- That might be reasonable, although I honestly don't expect many new contestants to review any FACs. We should definitely advise people new to FAC to read the criteria, and more importantly, read through several reviews to see what experienced reviewers there are doing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I presume the reason for increasing the points for a Good Article Review is to help reduce the backlog. Better yet, how about also enforcing the QPQ clause for good articles? The last step in the good article nomination process is to "consider reviewing two nominations for each one that you nominate". The fact that this step is optional is the major reason there is a backlog. (Inherently, if there were two reviews for each nomination, there would be no backlog.) If the WikiCup required each participant to have at least one Good Article Review for every passed GA in each round, it would also be inherent that you would all be helping to reduce the backlog. (For example, if a participant had 5 GAs and 2 GA Reviews in Round 1, they would only receive points for 2 out of 5 GAs. The rest would receive nothing until the participant does three more reviews.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- In principle I agree, but it would only make a marginal difference in practice because more GARs are claimed for by participants than GAs, a total of 339 GARs in 2019 as against 175 GAs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about that. Using 2019-Round 2 as an example, 18 different editors had GAs promoted. Of those 18 editors, only half performed as many reviews as they had promotions. 5 editors received promotions without doing any reviews at all.
- In 2019-round 3, 14 editors had articles promoted, but only 5 did as many or more reviews as they had promotions. Of the 9 who had more promotions than reviews, 8 did no reviews at all. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Any form of 'mandatory' or 'QPQ' style review lowers the quality of said reviews. Hard oppose. Harrias talk 15:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth's numbers are for the contest as a whole, so it all evens out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- I know his numbers are as a whole, but it does not even out that such a rule would have "a marginal difference" in the scenario Sportsfan77777 proposed. There were several competitors who would not have advanced under his proposal. And, if you consider that a good strategy would be to do a review as soon as you nominate an article, it would mean that if I make a nom in January that isn't picked up until July, I would do three reviews for that one nomination. I wouldn't want to miss out on GA points the last week of the second round because I hadn't done a review, after all... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'll just point out that I do at least 1 GA review for every GA nom of mine reviewed. However, I don't submit all the reviews to the here because some of the reviews end up being quickfails and thus not eligible for consideration in this competition. I do think you have to look at the overall impact of the WikiCup and that is one where participants are reviewing more articles than they're submitting. As I recently noted over at WT:GAN I would certainly be in favor of some more transparency around the number of noms vs reviews. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Barkeep. I hadn't considered that option. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'll just point out that I do at least 1 GA review for every GA nom of mine reviewed. However, I don't submit all the reviews to the here because some of the reviews end up being quickfails and thus not eligible for consideration in this competition. I do think you have to look at the overall impact of the WikiCup and that is one where participants are reviewing more articles than they're submitting. As I recently noted over at WT:GAN I would certainly be in favor of some more transparency around the number of noms vs reviews. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- I know his numbers are as a whole, but it does not even out that such a rule would have "a marginal difference" in the scenario Sportsfan77777 proposed. There were several competitors who would not have advanced under his proposal. And, if you consider that a good strategy would be to do a review as soon as you nominate an article, it would mean that if I make a nom in January that isn't picked up until July, I would do three reviews for that one nomination. I wouldn't want to miss out on GA points the last week of the second round because I hadn't done a review, after all... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth's numbers are for the contest as a whole, so it all evens out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Any form of 'mandatory' or 'QPQ' style review lowers the quality of said reviews. Hard oppose. Harrias talk 15:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- To add some numbers to Argento Surfer's point, 80 out of the 175 GAs passed last year (45.7%) would have been disqualified under the rule I suggested. (In other words, an additional 80 reviews would have needed to be done to count all of the GAs from last year's cup.) That's a big difference. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- As a separate point, 57 of the GA reviews from last year were done by a single editor who didn't submit any GANs, all but one of which came in the first round. Assuming that editor is retired (as it states on their user page), I wouldn't expect the WikiCup to make a significant dent in the backlog next year with the current setup. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan77777: You make some interesting points here. If such a rule were to be introduced, how would you suggest it should be worded? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- How about: "To encourage editors to help reduce the good article review backlog, good articles will only receive points if an editor submits an equal or greater number of good article reviews in the same round. Additional good articles will not receive points. For example, if an editor submits 3 good articles and 2 good article reviews in Round 1, they will only receive points for the 2 highest-scoring good articles (plus the 2 good article reviews). They would need to submit an additional good article review for the last good article to count." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- If there is really opposition to that, you could instead award much fewer points to those additional good articles instead of zero. Something like: "To encourage editors to help reduce the good article review backlog, good articles will only receive the full 35 points if an editor submits an equal or greater number of good article reviews in the same round. Additional good articles will only receive 15 points. For example, if an editor submits 3 good articles and 2 good article reviews in Round 1, they would receive 85 points in the GA column: 35 points for each of the 2 highest-scoring good articles, plus 15 points for the last one. If they were to submit an additional good article review during the round, the last good article would receive the full 35 points, increasing the total to 105 points." This way, it still wouldn't be required for GA editors to do reviews. Yet, the huge benefit would hopefully still encourage editors to start doing reviews more regularly. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Although encouraging good article reviewing is a useful objective, in practice points are awarded by a bot and I imagine automating the rule advocated by Sportsfan77777 would be impracticable. Additionally, Argento Surfer makes a good point, good article reviews often take place long after the article is nominated and complying with the GAR requirement that this rule would introduce might be discriminatory. As an alternative, we could introduce a bonus rule: anyone claiming for more GARs in a round than they claimed for GAs, would receive a bonus of ten points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think a bonus point system would be a good workaround
, although I think 10 is too low. I suggest closer to 35.Argento Surfer (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think a bonus point system would be a good workaround
- Although encouraging good article reviewing is a useful objective, in practice points are awarded by a bot and I imagine automating the rule advocated by Sportsfan77777 would be impracticable. Additionally, Argento Surfer makes a good point, good article reviews often take place long after the article is nominated and complying with the GAR requirement that this rule would introduce might be discriminatory. As an alternative, we could introduce a bonus rule: anyone claiming for more GARs in a round than they claimed for GAs, would receive a bonus of ten points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Sportsfan77777: You make some interesting points here. If such a rule were to be introduced, how would you suggest it should be worded? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- In principle I agree, but it would only make a marginal difference in practice because more GARs are claimed for by participants than GAs, a total of 339 GARs in 2019 as against 175 GAs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm the bot author. I think it would be possible to code something as described here (e.g. 10 bonus points on a QPQ basis). If that's what people wanted I mean. Best, - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 13:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- The rule would really need to be that a bonus of 10 points would be awarded if a contestant had one or more GAs in a round and the number of GARs exceeded the number of GAs. I'm not sure that the bonus should apply if someone has merely done a single GAR, otherwise the first GAR would effectively score 15. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Just so I understand we're discussing now moving past QPQ to QPQ+1 (albeit as a bonus rather than requirement)? If the lack of QPQ is a problem wouldn't WT:GAN be the place to decide that? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't visualising it as a being a QPQ at all, just a bonus for anyone who chose to do more GARs than they did GAs in any round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- I mean we're just calling it a different name than QPQ which is fine but the idea that you need to be doing at least 1 review or better for every nom you put in is what we're incentivizing. I mean from my perspective this is fine because it'll be easy enough for me to accumulate these bonus points. I just don't understand why we're deciding here on addressing a problem - lack of QPQ - that hasn't been raised on the relevant project page. And hasn't been a problem with the WikiCup because I believe if we remove first round from last year's cup the cup still did more reviews (196) than noms (133) and across the whole competition in 2018 the same is true (464 noms to 646 reviews). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I was responding to Sportsfan77777's suggestion. As you say, the WikiCup has no need to address any perceived problem with GAN accumulations. The simplest thing is to leave this aspect of the scoring unchanged from last year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I mean we're just calling it a different name than QPQ which is fine but the idea that you need to be doing at least 1 review or better for every nom you put in is what we're incentivizing. I mean from my perspective this is fine because it'll be easy enough for me to accumulate these bonus points. I just don't understand why we're deciding here on addressing a problem - lack of QPQ - that hasn't been raised on the relevant project page. And hasn't been a problem with the WikiCup because I believe if we remove first round from last year's cup the cup still did more reviews (196) than noms (133) and across the whole competition in 2018 the same is true (464 noms to 646 reviews). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't visualising it as a being a QPQ at all, just a bonus for anyone who chose to do more GARs than they did GAs in any round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Just so I understand we're discussing now moving past QPQ to QPQ+1 (albeit as a bonus rather than requirement)? If the lack of QPQ is a problem wouldn't WT:GAN be the place to decide that? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- The rule would really need to be that a bonus of 10 points would be awarded if a contestant had one or more GAs in a round and the number of GARs exceeded the number of GAs. I'm not sure that the bonus should apply if someone has merely done a single GAR, otherwise the first GAR would effectively score 15. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm the bot author. I think it would be possible to code something as described here (e.g. 10 bonus points on a QPQ basis). If that's what people wanted I mean. Best, - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 13:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Question about points
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 will create a submissions page for you and under the new rules, you can claim for these. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Jim Lehrer
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)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: You can claim points for your contributions to this ITN article because you did substantial work on it. It is immaterial who nominated it for ITN. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Bryant Park
Technically this was promoted as GA 13 days and some hours ago, so can I still claim it? epicgenius (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it qualifies for submission as a GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Elizabeth Willing Powel
Is it kosher to claim Elizabeth Willing Powel for WikiCup. I started the article and co-wrote it with GreenMeansGo. I nominated it for GAR but it passed GA very quickly and I did not participate in the GAR. I had a majority share (or near plurarity share) in the authorship depending on how you look at it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, by the time we got to GA there was naught but a few minor tweaks here and there. So the fact that I got all the GAN comments was just a measure of who got their coffee first that morning, not that one of us put in a ton of work at review and the other didn't. The work was done before we ever got there. GMGtalk 21:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Should be fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Two questions
First, I want to know if I can claim articles like Church Avenue station (IND Culver Line) if I have not nominated them, but have addressed some comments at the GAN. To which extent must I participate at the GAN to claim articles? Do previous edits/additions count toward GAN? Presumably the same thing goes for Nostrand Avenue station (IND Fulton Street Line).
- In my view, both of these articles are eligible for points as you have played a substantial role in expanding the articles and preparing them for GAN. I don't think it matters how much you participated in the GAR process. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Second, I claimed Hudson Yards (development) as a GAN, but the bot does not seem to be calculating points for interwikis. There are 6 interwikis, so that should've been a 1.2-times multiplier. I did add this article at the same time as another which had a 1.0-times multiplier. epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know the answer, but I believe the Bot looks at the position at the start of the year and there may have been fewer interwikis then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, thanks for both of the replies. I'll add these articles to my WikiCup page, then. epicgenius (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's exactly right. At the beginning of the year Wikidata only listed one interwiki (Korean). On this particular occasion, I think Wikidata was just a bit behind: from a cursory inspection PT, ES, FR, IT and KO all seem to have had extant articles, they just weren't linked to Wikidata. In such circumstances I think it is open to the judges, upon further inspection, to overrule the bot manually and apply a small multiplier. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 10:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have done as suggested, and added 7 bonus points to your score. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, thanks. This has happened again with Morningside Heights, Manhattan, which had 14 interwikis but I did not receive any bonus points. epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have added 14 bonus points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, thanks. This has happened again with Morningside Heights, Manhattan, which had 14 interwikis but I did not receive any bonus points. epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have done as suggested, and added 7 bonus points to your score. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Question regarding scoring of a DYK submission
I recently submitted Singer Building to my nominations page as a recently expanded DYK. The page is currently 37 KB in prose size. I noticed that the bot has awarded me a 2x multiplier with 16 bonus points, but did not add 5 extra base points for the size bonus. Is this an error, or else is there something I'm missing? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps the bot was overawed by the massive expansion! I have adjusted your score. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, thanks for the response. I'm not sure what happened but the score was reverted with this edit by the bot. epicgenius (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm genuinely not sure what happened with Singer Building -- I thought it might be because you claimed extremely promptly (while it was still on the front page) but since the bot had no trouble with Broadway–Chambers Building in the same situation I'm flummoxed. What I can say, though, is that to overrule the bot a judge has to change the multipler template on the submissions page -- if you don't do that, then it will overwrite any manual changes to the main table (this is intentional so as to keep the two sets of pages mutually consistent). Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Jarry1250, that is very strange indeed. Thanks for the helpful response and for the debug. epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm genuinely not sure what happened with Singer Building -- I thought it might be because you claimed extremely promptly (while it was still on the front page) but since the bot had no trouble with Broadway–Chambers Building in the same situation I'm flummoxed. What I can say, though, is that to overrule the bot a judge has to change the multipler template on the submissions page -- if you don't do that, then it will overwrite any manual changes to the main table (this is intentional so as to keep the two sets of pages mutually consistent). Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, thanks for the response. I'm not sure what happened but the score was reverted with this edit by the bot. epicgenius (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Questions regarding nominations
Hey there! I initially chose to just predict whatever the writers are implying, but felt like asking is the best way of knowing.
- On FA, FL, and GA, can nominations nominated before January 1 but closed during or after January 1 accepted?
- On ITN, are Ongoings eligible?
- "For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia) on which an article appears" on their Main Page?
Would appreciate answers. Not that I won't be watching this, so you gotta ping me. Thanks, GeraldWL 13:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerald Waldo Luis: Answering your questions in order below.
- These are eligible.
- Any bold-linked article in the In the news section can be claimed for, irrespective of whether it first appeared there in 2020 or in 2021. Not the main COVID articles in the box at the top, however.
- This refers to the interlanguage links at the bottom of the sidebar on the left. As an example, the article Pierre Daumesnil is present in 10 Wikipedias, 9 foreign language ones plus the English language version. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Bonus points system
This is my first time in the cup. As a new participant, I want to provide feedback regarding this system. I feel like this bonus system is unfair. It requires minimum of 5 Wikipedias on which the article has appeared. Now, someone one who contributes to movies, TV shows, or anything related to Westen world etc has an advantage, because these things are more popular. And someone who contributes to like Indian articles (like me) is unable to taste the bonus. Minimum 5 GA, FA, DYK in other Wikipedias are very distant things, articles in other Wikipedias don't even exist. So, there's no scope of bonus.
I have a suggestion. Instead of having a bonus point system like this, we can do this thing: Some percentage of points from the previous round will be added to the next round. Like someone has 1000+ points in Round 1. He/she will get 25% of that in the next.
- 100+ points - 5%
- 250+ points - 10%
- 500+ points - 15%
- 750+ points - 20%
- 1000+ points - 25%
The point system will have slabs like this. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 20:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- What you say is true and we can discuss your suggestion at the end of the contest. The bonus system is meant to be an incentive to encourage the improvement of important topics, and because you can't actually measure "importance", it uses the number of other language Wikipedias as a proxy. However, you can work with the rule to your advantage in the WikiCup by selecting articles to work on that do appear on multiple Wikipedias. When I was a contestant, I used to search out aged stubs for articles that appeared on multiple Wikipedias and expand them for DYKs, and I scored a great many bonus points! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
DYK points
Can I get the DYK points for an article that I created and improved to GA? Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 08:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- No. No DYK points for GAs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ArnabSaha: It depends on whether it qualified for DYK as a newly created or 5x expanded article, and was nominated for DYK on that basis. If that is the case, it can be claimed for. However, if it qualified for DYK on the basis of being a newly-promoted GA, then the DYK cannot be claimed for because no extra work is needed above fulfilling the GA criteria. Which article are we talking about? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- 2020-21 SC East Bengal season this article. Just completed the article. GA review was done under QPQ and nominated for DYK. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 11:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Then the answer is no. If it was nominated for DYK before the GA nomination it would have been OK. But since it hasn't been created or expanded in the last wek as the grounds for the DYK and is relying on the GA status for it, then I am afraid you can't get any DYK points for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks for the info. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 12:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Then the answer is no. If it was nominated for DYK before the GA nomination it would have been OK. But since it hasn't been created or expanded in the last wek as the grounds for the DYK and is relying on the GA status for it, then I am afraid you can't get any DYK points for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- 2020-21 SC East Bengal season this article. Just completed the article. GA review was done under QPQ and nominated for DYK. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 11:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ArnabSaha: It depends on whether it qualified for DYK as a newly created or 5x expanded article, and was nominated for DYK on that basis. If that is the case, it can be claimed for. However, if it qualified for DYK on the basis of being a newly-promoted GA, then the DYK cannot be claimed for because no extra work is needed above fulfilling the GA criteria. Which article are we talking about? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
"Substantial work" and ITN
Although Amakuru was kind enough to include me in this ITN nom, I don't think my contributions to the Courtenay Bartholomew article are substantial enough to claim credit, but I was curious whether it met the barest minimum standard. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Borderline, I should say. Most "In the news" submissions are rather more substantial. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: thanks! Since I don't do ITN, it was something I was trying to get a sense of. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
"worked on significantly"
Is there any existing published guideline or precedent (e.g. authorship percentage) used in assessing whether a nominator has done enough work on a GA-nominated article to satisfy the condition that "All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you to receive points", or is it left to the judges' discretion on a case-by-case basis? I'm planning to work at some point on Atul Gawande, which was nominated for GA last year and which I reviewed at the time. I don't foresee me having a particularly large authorship percentage on it to get it to what I think would be close to GA standard. (Maybe 15% as a ballpark estimate.) That leads to a second question, which is: is there any time or other restriction on nominating an article which one has previously reviewed? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- To answer your first question, it's on a case-by-case basis, but looking at the article you mentioned, you have already done sufficient work for it to qualify were it to become a GA. As for your second question, I think there are no restrictions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt response, Cwmhiraeth - I'll ask the judges if I'm not sure about a specific article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
FAC review vs FLC review vs GA review
Maybe it's just the way I do things, but I've noticed that a typical FA review from me is large (like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John McGraw/archive1, at 21,260 bytes) while I see a GA review of my own nomination weighing in at 855 bytes ( Talk:2003 Football League Third Division play-off Final/GA1). Both reviews are scored as 5 points in the current regime. I'm not sure these reviews should be given an equivalent amount of points. I'm not suggesting it should change this year of course, but it's certainly something that I think needs reflection before next year's WikiCup. Perhaps like the current GAN drive, some consideration needs to be given to the volume of text being reviewed at the very least, or somehow a quantitative measure of the effort being expended. I'm not suggesting that the GAN review was less onerous or complete than the FAC review, but one was around 25 times lengthier than the other yet both attracted 5 points. And certainly, from my point of view, FLC reviews are somewhere in between FA reviews and GA reviews... Interested to hear the opinions of others. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's an interesting point. A GAN review should be more onerous, as it requires a consideration of all the criteria and should be thorough enough to determine whether they are all met. The reviewer liaises with the nominator and checks that all necessary improvements are made. Reviewing at FAC is different, it does not need to cover all aspects of the criteria, and whether the article gets promoted or not is a sum of all the reviews it has received. So a GAN reviewer has a responsibility whereas a FAC reviewer makes a contribution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- I’m fully aware of the roles at GAN and FAC, but that’s not really the point at all. This competition is about effort expended to improve Wikipedia and as noted, it makes no sense at all that one review which is 30 times the size of the other, which includes a much higher level of scrutiny and far greater attention to detail is worth the same as a quick GAN review. There should be some consideration given to the size of the reviews as a minimum and probably some level of acceptance that reviewing a FAC is a much more onerous task than simply plopping in a GAN review template with half a dozen comma fixes. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- I guess I'll have to bring this up before next year's competition. Just a quick glimpse at something like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Burnley F.C./archive1 where I've contributed 9KB of review in a day should not be considered equal to a GAN review of less than a KB. It's pretty clear there needs to be consideration given to review size, or even size of article reviewed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
CBS Building
I claimed this as a DYK because I expanded it fivefold to about 29 kb of readable prose size (it was approved as a GA before running on the main page, but I believe this is fine since I expanded it 5x for DYK before the GA promotion). For some reason, I did not get 5 bonus points when I put it in my submissions page, which I would've normally gotten for an article above 5 kb of prose. I'm not sure what happened there, because I got the two other bonuses, for interwikis and for the article having existed for about 14 years. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that it should have the extra 5 base points, as awarded to your other expansions. I have adjusted your submission accordingly and I think the bot will adjust the points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: For some reason, it has happened again with Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2022/Submissions/Epicgenius, where both Broadhurst Theatre and Paramount Hotel were given 5 points rather than 10, despite both pages being in excess of 5120 bytes of prose. I'm not looking to get the extra 5 points for either article, as that would be petty (both pages having been claimed weeks ago), but it may be something to bring up with Jarry1250. Epicgenius (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have not found Jarry1250 easy to contact. For example, his last edit was in November. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think I will fiddle around with the score now, but let me know in future if it happens again and I will make adjustments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have not found Jarry1250 easy to contact. For example, his last edit was in November. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: For some reason, it has happened again with Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2022/Submissions/Epicgenius, where both Broadhurst Theatre and Paramount Hotel were given 5 points rather than 10, despite both pages being in excess of 5120 bytes of prose. I'm not looking to get the extra 5 points for either article, as that would be petty (both pages having been claimed weeks ago), but it may be something to bring up with Jarry1250. Epicgenius (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yep -- I'm not really editing much at the moment -- it's probably best to email about Cup stuff. In these cases I think it must be something to do with multiple DYKnoms, but I can't see anything obvious. Let me know if it's a recurrent problem. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Edge case FA promotions
So, on 29 August (the last day of the penultimate round) I had an FA promoted worth 280 points. Those points were mandated to go into the penultimate round of scoring. Within the next two days, another finalist had two FAs promoted in "no-mans land", worth 800 points, which count to the final score. The cut-off for when points can be claimed seems like it needs some discussion because this is very disappointing indeed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- The WikiCup rules on cut-off dates have been in place for years. The FAC review process takes a varying amount of time, typically 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 weeks. The choice of date on which to nominate the article for FAC is up to the nominator, so the best way of avoiding the article being promoted too soon is to delay its nomination. Similarly, if you need the points for a FAC in the current round, don't leave the nomination too late! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I suspected. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)