Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

DYK

Resolved

 – DYK rules expanded upon

If I submit a DYK, does it have to appear on the main page before I get the points or does it just have to be verified by a reviewer?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As the rules stand currently, the article has to appear on the main page. I will clarify this on the rules page. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Major and minor edits

Perhaps an unnecessary complication, but has a maximum been considered? Like 0.1 points per edit to a maximum of 10 points per day? --maclean (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My take on mainspace edits: don't allow points for them. It's abused, argued over, causes many problems, and it's clear from last year that we can't trust users to mark proper edits as minor. It's all too much unnecessary drama. I want next year to focus strictly on content, and not mainspace edits. iMatthew ^talk at 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a big call, and at this time, I don't think I support it. I think this requires some discussion. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be for the removal of rewards for simply edits, if only for the complications of scoring and marking as well as the (highly inappropriate in my mind) drama surrounding Sasata this year.  GARDEN  11:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like edit points gone as well. Its too abusive and easy to get around with scripts and such.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like them to be gone as well, for one it would allow me to get work done without being accused of being abusive or "gaming the system" :) Sasata (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering the number of mainspace edits I do, part of me would love getting points for them, but I can also see way too much potential for abuse - oh, I need to add 20 sentences to this article, but I'll do it in 20 edits instead of one kinda thing. And, honestly, I really don't want to try to remember to mark some things as minor, because I pretty much never mark article changes as minor unless I'm tagging or doing very small typo adjustments :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that mainspace edits should not be counted - too many problems. And as someone who often builds and entire article in one or two edits, definitely feel it's not reflective of the actual amount of work put in. Geraldk (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

The points are awarded in the following way

Did you know?	In the news	Good article	Featured list	Featured picture	Valued picture	Featured sound	Featured portal	Featured article	Featured topic	Good topic
5	5	35 (+5)	40 (+10)	35	5 (new)	35	25	100 (+50)	15 per article in topic (+5)	10 per article in topic (+5)

Would appreciate comments; changes to the current scoring are marked, and edit counts have been removed entirely. My main goal here is to get FAs up to 100 points, to level with the amount of work they require. —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be good, though would also like to see FL higher than 30...at the minimum, it should be as high as GA or higher. FLs are not that easy to get, particularly things like episode, chapter, and character lists (the latter taking over a year when I did one and was without a doubt the hardest work I've done to date between FAs, FLs, GAs, and even two FTs...). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Although you might not think Featured Lists are difficult, many of them are really complex and detailed. While they may be worth less than even a GA, I believe they are considerably more work than a FP or FS (and sometimes, no offense, more valuable). Also, points may be added to GA and FA because they are no longer buffered by the large quantity of edits; I believe this should also apply to FL. Although I doubt it would apply to me, I am passionate that bonus points should be awarded for work on WP:CORE articles or popular pages. Perhaps 20 for GA/FL and 50 for FA? Also, especially with FA being worth so much, I really don't think it should count twice if an article is taken to GA and then FA. Reywas92^Talk 03:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

@ AnmaFinotera - okay, I'll go for that. FL @ 40 sound okay?

@Reywas - (hopefully not sounding angry here) from your userpage, I notice that you have not written a FA. It is extremely time-consuming to ensure that it is comprehensive and fully cited, much more so than even FL, which is why I upped the points so much. CORE might be doable; we could just tack the points on manually at the end I guess (including VITAL is a no-go though). Lastly, I think that if you take the effort to write an entire article and go through two reviews, you ought to get all the points. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

40 works for me...its a good balance for the different levels of FLs :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but it should be clear that most FAs are actually worth 135 points then because most go through GA first. 40 for FL is good for me. But I don't know why WP:VITAL doesn't work; it's a set list of 1000 articles that allows users more opportunites to work on important pages they're interested in - or look at hit count for the real most important thing: what the readers are interested in. Reywas92^Talk 23:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Before we work out a wholly new scoring system like this, we need to address the question, above, of whether we remove mainspace points altogether, as that question is obviously going to have a massive impact on whether we rescore article credits. J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite right.  GARDEN  11:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Drive by noms

While they require much less work, I believe they still help wikipedia on the whole. Usually, they do require some amount of work still. Why not rate them with something really low, say 5 points or less? Nergaal (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by nomming a featured picture requires minimal work. I should know, I do it often. Furthermore, creating more classes of points is not a good thing. We're here to award people for writing articles, not award people for having the bright idea to push article x through process y. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Timing Question

Wasn't watching at the start of this last year, so had a couple questions regarding the policy that all work submitted for wikicup must be new work, and must have started after Jan 1.

• Does that mean that if I have worked an article up to GA, and then do additional work after Jan. 1 to get it up to FA status, I can't submit it?
• For good and featured topics, if I submit a topic that I've been working on for a while, and some of the articles achieved GA and FA before Jan. 1, while others achieved that status afterwards, am I not allowed to count the topic?
• Also, an aside, FAC was discussing asking all submissions that are produced by wikicup participants to be marked as such as a courtesy to reviewers. Does wikicup want to make that a general policy for submissions to the various article recognitions?

Geraldk (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • As long as it passes FAC/GAN/etc during the round, you are okay. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That's the understanding I had, but I gather there has been some disagreement on this. Does anyone believe otherwise? If not, I'll add it to our rules page... J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

What are drive by nominations?Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

"Drive-by nominations" are when an editor comes out of nowhere and nominates an article at WP:GAN. For example, I'd be drive-by nomming if I took your Hurricane Olivia (1975) and nominated it. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They're particularly common (and even encouraged) at DYK. Basically, it is to ensure that people get points for content that they worked on, rather than other content they found. J Milburn (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also possible with images, for example starting a featured picture candidate that was contributed by a photographer from a different WMF project who needs assistance to place, caption, and nominate in English. It's wonderful to help the wikis grow this way, but not the same thing as putting up one's own work. Durova³⁵⁷ 18:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Co-noms

Co- or multiple-noms reduces the amount of work any one individual has to do to get an article promoted and get points. Is it not logical to divide points received by the number of co-noms in these cases? Sasata (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We want to encourage collaboration. If we offer divided points for content, people would be less inclined to collaborate on work. iMatthew ^talk at 20:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Scenario: I get four friends, we agree to write five articles, and each one of us will write one section. We then multi-nom them at DYK, GA and then FAC. When they get promoted we each get points for all 5 articles, even though each person has contributed the equivalent of one. Sasata (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Scenario: You get five friends, suggest collaboration on five articles, and each of you will write one section. You then tell them they will only get one point for the DYK, 6 points for the GA, and 10 points for the FA. I'd bet you they say it's not worth it and decide not to bother. iMatthew ^talk at 20:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just clarifying the rules. Who wants in on my Wikicup nom-cabal? The more the better! Sasata (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

An idea?

I think in addition to the main award for total point, addition awards should be made to each category, say the one with most FA at the end wins something and the one with most FL get something, so on. Just an idea.—Chris!_c/t 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• We did hand out these type of awards. We gave out "most Xs in a round." If we gave an award for the person with them most X at the end, it would be unfair because everyone doesn't make it to the end, therefore the final four had a better shot at winning those awards. iMatthew ^talk at 03:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Right, it does made it unfair since finalists are more likely to win. Never mind.—Chris!_c/t 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • As iMatthew said, these do already exist- for instance, Durova won the award for the most featured pictures in a single round. J Milburn (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Valued Pictures

Resolved

 – VP points and rules clarified.

I would still like to see points for valued pictures as a way to bring more life into that project, as it stands now noone participates in it. Valued pictures are similar in relation to Featured Pictures as Good articles are to Featured articles. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that many VPs do not require restoration, just the time to upload it. If consensus here is to add it, then I'd say 5 points at most would be deserved. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being extremely low, 5 points sounds right, it would be on par I think with time involved as doing a DYK or whatever. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

5 points sound good.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 09:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, completely agree. This was pretty much agreed on last year, but it was said it should not be implemented until this year. I forgot about this as I assumed the VP project dead. I will add it now. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Woops. Oh well... :)  GARDEN  11:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Zero Points in Straw Poll

Why 0 points for Valued Pictures? I thought there wasn't any debate given the above discussion for this. Discuss. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Per my comments below, I'm disappointed that images are not given points unless they are FP. I would like to incentive more people to take images and add them to articles. Because of the difficulty in obtaining images many of them are not going to be FP quality, yet they add quality to articles. I think 5 points is too low for the research, travel, creation, editing, and uploading of the user created original images. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, personally I think adding any image to an article should get points. It takes a considerable amount of time to source images, upload and add to articles. With over 1000 images uploaded to Commons thats where the _Bulk_ of my time goes. If in the theoretical event that people are just adding crap images to articles for the sole sake of getting points then those individuals can be disqualified from the competition. Those of us that actually want to improve the encyclopedia with images should get credit for that work. FP's are one aspect, but not every image you get can meet that criteria, thus VP's which is less stringent but still has some high criteria for inclusion. Personally I'd like to see ~15-20 points for a VP and 40-50 points for a FP and 1-5 points for adding an image to an article. Far to few articles have images, and images greatly improve an article's EV. Problem people adding excessive images or images that add nothing to the article and are only added to get points can be dealt with. This competition should be about improving the EV of the encyclopedia, and illustrating articles is a HUGE part of the EV. Also I think people should get points for work in the Graphics Labs. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How can you justify demanding points for uploading images, even if they are not of featured quality, as that is essential helpful work, but you equally say we should not be offering points for general editing unless it brings articles to a recognised status? J Milburn (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

People can get points for general editing by doing DYK's. DYKs edit count excludes all contributions that are not prose so people that create articles based on their images are penalized for the time spend doing image work. I see this as a disincentive to doing combination original article and original image work. It is discouraging that this competition does not encourage people to create original images for their articles unless they can reach FP status. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the encyclopedia benefits from being illustrated more than a random text edit. General edits is very objective, can range anywhere from adding a source, correcting spelling, or adding whole paragraphs of text. Some are minmally helpful to the article some more. But for the MOST part illustrating an article that has no pictures is a HUGE increase in the EV of the article and the encyclopedia as a whole. Rewarding people who spend their time sourcing images to illustrate articles is beneficial imho, more so than general name space edits. The Reason I support removing name space edit points is because it's so objective and causes to much problems. If you just correct the spelling or some small error and forget to click the minor edit box (or never do it like me) then you create contraversy. Likewise whos to say your additions to an article couldn't be done in 10 edits instead of 50. People are more incentivized to make their edits stretch as many edits as they can if you award points for them and it causes problems. Adding a picture or not is a very definitive criteria that is MUCH harder to abuse. By removing namespace edits and buffering the point value of the various points to make up for it it removes contraversy. I'm simply suggesting another way to benefit the encyclopedia from this contest, illustration. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Upload only

A second question- do we allow points simply for uploading and nominating a valued picture? Or should we mirror the FP "must have worked on it significantly"? J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It would not be hard for an archival media contributor to locate several caches of FP-worthy material, cycle through them in order to maintain variety for reviewers, and rack up points with minimal effort. Better to reserve the points for original photography, vector graphics, and restoration. Durova³⁵⁷ 20:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought as much too, even for valued pictures. I guess this issue is now resolved... J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Maybe previously discussed...) Are there going to be any points for the upload if it is your own creation (original photogrpahy), or only if it is rated VP/FP? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If the image is your own creation then please upload to Wikimedia Commons so that all the different language editions of Wikipedia can use it. Durova³⁵⁷ 04:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bah... now someone says something about that... Maybe one day I'll do that... too many to just go and do it right now... can images on commons still be rated VP or FP? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons has it's own FP, and other similar rating systems. Don't think about giving points for getting FP on Commons or another language wiki, if it passes on the English wiki it's almost guaranteed to pass on Commons and other wikis as well. Commons' Valued images on the other hand may work for points, it's not about FP but being the best image to illustrate a subject in the whole project. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We have no points for audited content on other projects, but almost all of our project's FPs are hosted on Commons, so stuff uploaded there is certainly eligible. We will not be offering points for merely uploading files, as someone could easily take 50 pictures of the same tree and upload them all. The point here is that we are recognising quality of contributions. The way things are looking, we won't even be including edits for points, so we certainly won't be including uploads. In any case, as was said above, almost all free images should be uploaded on Commons, and just because something was uploaded on Commons, does not mean that it is any use to the encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Commons and en:wiki featuring criteria are significantly different. Commons has higher technical criteria and places greater emphasis on esthetics as opposed to encyclopedic value. An en:wiki FP is hardly "almost guaranteed" to pass there; try it if you doubt it. ;) Although yes, images hosted at Commons can be en:wiki FP and VPs. In fact the vast majority are hosted there. The rare exceptions are images that are public domain under US law but not public domain in their country of origin. Durova³⁵⁷ 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that VP points are new this year. I think that the point value is too low for original user created images compared to the points given for other types of user generated work. There can be considerable time as well as a monetary cost involved in creating images since travel is often involved. This is in addition to the time involved with editing the image and uploading them. Since the only way to get these some of images is through travel to the location, I think it would be nice if this would be recognized in the points awarded. I understand that the low value is from concern that people will upload vast numbers of images that are created by someone else and need little additional work. Perhaps this could be resolved by giving bonus points for original created work. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That was kinda my point... I don't just wander out into my yard to take a picture of a tree, I travel to wherever the building/sign/whatever is to get the picture... Sometime gas is not all I pay for (admission to the zoo, etc.)... That's why I suggested the points for upload of original photography, even if it's just one point per image (40 different pictures of one tree = 1 point) or whatever... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So, one point per image uploaded to Commons, whether or not it's used in an article? Not everything on Commons is helpful to Wikipedia... J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A very well-intentioned suggestion. Yet it would be prone to the same types of problems that arose with raw mainspace points in 2009. Anyone with a digital camera and a large memory chip could drive to the nearest public park, take hundreds of snapshots, and upload them. WMF probably doesn't need 500 point-and-shoot snapshots of a given county park. Featured article writers spend money too on book purchases and travel to research libraries, so photographers aren't unique in this regard. Durova³⁵⁷ 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as the FA writers spending money, that's kinda my point... we photographers also spend money and time (travel/editing) for the images that help those articles get to GA or FA... I was not excluding the FA writers, I was just trying to include the photographers in the competition... Maybe we could do one point per image that is used, whether rated or not... 40 pictures of the same tree = 1 point per image that gets used in an article (no matter the project)... and then make it like the way VP is rated, it has to have been up on the same article, un-contested, for a month, or whatever... I also don't like the "uploaded to commons" part, because the way I read the above, anything on commons won't count towards this competition... We should allow the image to be uploaded to any project... I think the wording should be along the lines of "1 point awarded per original photograph uploaded to any project during the competition, but the image must be used in an article, and must remain on the article uncontested for more than a month"... that should help with the mainspace edit comparison/40 pics of the same tree trouble... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect extended toward the good intentions here, the problem is how prone that proposal would be to gaming. Nothing would prevent an editor from driving around town on a Saturday, taking a few dozen snapshot-level images during a shopping trip and a picnic, and getting as many points as a featured article drive. Hey, there's a duck pond behind the kids' birthday cake. Get the kids out of the picture and shoot... If this sort of thing litters low traffic articles with large galleries, then the only editors who would be likely to contest it are other Cup participants. Sounds like a recipe for drama. Durova³⁵⁹ 20:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point... I was just trying to think of something that would give those who upload photographs more often than work on getting an article to GA/FA a little bit of an edge... Right now, the points are set up mostly for people who spend most of their time getting article rated GA/FA, or searching for DYKs, and not on those of us who work to add content to Wikipedia (new articles & images)... I personally spend most of my time doing janitorial/NPP, and creating new articles, so with the mainspace edits not being worth anything this year, I don't see where I'm going to get any points at all... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the consensus that's forming to stop awarding points for raw edits to mainspace is already a significant boost to the media contributors (unless featured content points get reassessed too). One of the things that balanced it out in the 2009 Cup was the extra points text contributors earned that way. Sure, there's 35 points for an FP or FS, but the nominator seldom makes ten major edits to mainspace since most of the work has to be done offline. The most prolific GA contributors can write GAs at about the same speed as the most prolific media contributors could do sounds and images, so 30 points per GA plus 5 points for 50 major edits brought things neck and neck (perhaps the text writers had the advantage because it could take more edits than that, plus they could continue improvement to FA). If anything, media points might need to be scaled downward a hair for 2010. Durova³⁵⁹ 20:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

hmmm. Unlike Commons where loads of random images are uploaded, images added to Wikipedia articles are most often article specific content. So, I don't think boosting points for the user created images would be the massive problem that you describe. Unlike other types of content additions, without the travel to the location the content can not exist whether it is the highest quality or not. This is not parallel to the existence of text content additions which can exist in a large volume on many if not most topics without the equivalent cost or travel. For example, the time involved in writing a DYK qualified type article can be less than the time and effort involved in taking the photo for the article. Yet, unless the image is FP or VP, no points are given. But my comment was about VP which is already different from general uploads because the criteria addresses the issue of imagines in galleries since the image must have high encyclopedic value. My point is that 5 points is too low a value for original images created by the user that have high encyclopedic value. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic photographs do not necessarily involve travel. An editor could simply open the clothes closet and spend an hour using a cell phone camera to illustrate articles such as this one. The 2009 Cup saw significant tensions over points for raw mainspace edits, which is one reason the consensus is moving toward discontinuing that type of point. This proposal would introduce roughly the same factor for images without reliable quality control or defense against overloading articles with galleries and low value decorative images, but with ten times the point bonus. Durova³⁵⁹ 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then deal with the problem editors harshly, set a clear black-and-white set of rules for what an illustrative image for an article includes, give points per article you illustrate (specifically if it has no images to begin with) and not by per image. Deal with the problem users harshly (kick from competition). Illustrating articles is of a massive importance for the value of the encyclopedia, and those of us that enjoy that and do that shouldn't be punished point wise over those who enjoy expanding/refining articles text. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Three days' work, 0.3 mainspace points. But how does one protect against gaming the system?

(outdent) My heart's with you. But what does one do with an editor who is, after all, following the rules to the letter? The usual thing we do at the wiki is foresee potential problems, learn from past mistakes, and insulate the policies against foreseeable exploitation. Occasionally that means accepting a personal disadvantage for the greater good. The necklace at right is handmade lace with over five dozen cultured pearls individually wire wrapped in silver. Took three days' work. Earned almost no Cup points but I was well compensated when it placed in a real world jewelry design contest and could have been better compensated by selling the instructions to a magazine--chose to copyleft it instead. There really isn't any good way to distinguish that encyclopedic value from a simple string of plastic beads. Sometimes one does this for the love of it. :) Durova³⁵⁹ 01:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But you're not supporting granting any points for images except FP, so you are not giving any recognition to the work that people do by creating quality images such as would be done if points are given for VP. DYK is a way that people that create articles can receive points for work that can not reach GA or FA status. There is nothing similar in place for image work even through it is much more likely that highly time intensive encyclopedia image work will not get FP status than highly time intensive encyclopedic article work. Giving zero points for VP is sending a strong signal that people do not recognize creating images as being important work. I hardly see it as for the greater good of the encyclopedia to disincentive people from creating original images...which is exactly what this competition is doing. I could sit at home and write a half a dozen DYK in the time it takes to research an image, travel, create the image, edit it, upload it to Commons, then add it to the article. To get VP status would take even more work. Why would someone go to the trouble of doing it if they are interested in doing well in this competition? So going in it needs to be clear to everyone that some people's highly encyclopedia work is getting zero recognition and points. So, everyone is on the same page, we need to make it clear that this is happening. If the people involved decide to exclude the hard valuable work of other content contributors so be it. I just want people to be very clear about what is happening. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's because VP is a failed program whose purpose was never adequately defined. Durova³⁶⁰ 17:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the criteria before I voted for it to have points. It is just as I remember it. It looks sound. The difference between VP and FP images has always been clear in that FP criteria is more technical than VP criteria. Original images are not going to be technical perfect at a level needed to get FP status but a still very good quality to illustrate the article. If Commons did not exist for our uploads, then likely Wikipedia FP and VP would be more popular among users. There is little incentive for people to get FP status now except if you are participating in this competition. If VP is added, then I image that its use would increase. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's too bad to see that level of misunderstanding. This is veering a bit off subject for scoring discussion purposes. If you'd like to become involved in the Cup or in the vetted areas of media content, drop me a line. Durova³⁶⁰ 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Another idea - bonus points for vital articles

In order to spur work on vital articles, the scoring system could also award bonus points for work done on any vital articles. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(I've moved this to it's own thread, as it didn't really seem related to Ed's proposals.) Something similar was discussed here, and, as of now, I am against such a proposal for the reasons I explained there. There just seem to be too many issues with such an idea, even before we consider the technical aspects. J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd agree to a bonus for WP:CORE, but VITAL is too large and too subject to change. —Ed (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter that it is "too large"? These are 1000 important encylopedia articles, and having looked through the list, every one looks like it would be a massive undertaking to get to GA or FA. As for "too subject to change", just agree to use the Jan 1st, 2010 vital article list. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Sasata's right. If the concern is that Vital can change, just snapshot it on January 1 and that solves the problem. Too large isn't an issue, if anything it serves to demonstrate how many extremely important articles still need a tremendous amount of work. Geraldk (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, WP:VITAL should absolutely be worth more. These are the 1000 most important articles and include something for everyone. However, we should also give bonuses for what our readers find important - [1] has the top 3000 most popular pages. I suggest 20 bonus points per GA/FL and 50 per FA. Reywas92^Talk 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh God yes- Inglourious Basterds and Lady Gaga are SO much more important than Friedrich Nietzsche or Winston Churchill. Also, they'll be so much harder to write, as there are so many complex sources, and so many differing scholarly opinions. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I could see giving either the vital articles and/or the school CD release articles a few more points, because of their comparative importance. However, having been involved with the Christianity project for a while, I have to say some of the most popular articles are, at times, not even close to being important to that subject. Popular, yes, but not necessarily important. It might be nice if we could establish something on the basis of importance to the more "academic" WikiProjects, but even that would be painful, because of the ease such importance ratings can change. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Inglourious Basterds is a current movie, and we'd look at trends, but in addition to Churchill and Nietzche, which would surely count because each has thousands of views per day, we should encourage improvement to the articles our readers actually look at! Bonus points should be given for both important articles, our academic base, and popular articles, Wikipedia's public face, not some of the nonessential and never-seen stuff that shows up at FAC now. Reywas92^Talk 00:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you actual look over the 3000 most accessed articles, though, you'll see neither Nietzche or Churchill is among them. Unfortunately, also, if you look at the list, you will definitely walk away with the impression that a lot of people are coming here for content relating to sex, either directly or through particularly sexually appealing people. While sexual intercourse, masturbation, oral sex, and lord knows what all else that are on that list are in some cases important articles, I'm really not that sure that many of the viewers of those articles are really interested in the subject, but are just looking for provocative pictures. And how would we improve them, by alternating the images or adding more explicit ones? John Carter (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On the flip side, if someone has the temerity (and whatever other attributes it takes) to make a well-written, well-researched scholarly article on something like anal sex, does this not also enhance the reputation of the project as a whole (not "hole", heh), and should they not be rewarded suitably? Sasata (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they are numbers 1013 and 1181. Like Sasata said, we still want readers to be given accurate, thorough facts about what they're doing, don't we? My problem is that there are still plenty of deserving, important topics that aren't included on the vital 1000, like Afghanistan, John F. Kennedy, Caribbean Sea, Vietnam War, Sydney, Bomb, and so on. Also allowing popular pages includes these. People do agree that there should be bonus points in general though, right? Reywas92^Talk 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? You pointed out you don't like pop culture and sex, but nothing about what's wrong with a little incentive to improve our historical figures as well. I don't like it that most of the articles at FAC is stuff that neither I nor 99% of the population (our readers) have ever heard of. Cater to our readers with the important academic topics as well as stuff they read, and bonus points are an incentive. Nothing you've pointed out holds water for me because the important topics like historical figures are most definitely included, and there's absolutely no problem with improving even inappropriate topics. If others say to keep it to the well-defined list of vital articles, that's fine, but I don't see what's wrong with this in general. Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There were other arguments. For instance, take Churchill again- it's an impressive article (in fact, a GA) and may well not need much more to become a FA. Further, there are already numerous editors regular to the page. It's a completely different undertaking to the majority of other FA drives. One of my main concerns here are the methods used to decide what counts as "vital" or what counts as important. I'm not sure how the vital articles were chosen, and I am sure I could find plenty of things that should be on there, but aren't, and vice-versa. As I have said elsewhere, this turns the contest into "you write about things I like, so you win"- that basically seems to be what vital articles are. Someone has sat down and chosen the topics they think are important. Why not use WikiProject selections? More points for "top importance" articles? (Yes, I'm aware of the flaws, I'm just pointing out that there are other ways to decide what's important, too.) Additionally, should we have a similar thing for our FP contributors? If your FP is used on an "important" article, you get more points? There are numerous issues here. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking the Churchill example, although it's already a GA, I think you're quite underestimating the amount of effort it would take to raise it to FAC level. In reality, every statement and source has to (well, should be) be checked for accuracy, and these sources have to be the best available (a huge amount of background reading and research); one can expect fallout at FAC otherwise. Keep in mind high-traffic, high-importance articles like those will be scrutinized especially deeply. You mentioned other editors, which in my mind increases the difficulty of the task, as you have to interact with others interested in the article-some who may have their own interpretations on what should be included and how the text should be written. In the absence of any better criteria, who not include the core/vital list and top-1000 list for bonus points? The bonus is to reflect the extra effort involved in raising these articles to featured status, and to encourage editors to improve them. "Someone has sat down and chosen the topics they think are important." No, these articles were chosen by the consensus of a group of involved editors, not one individual. As for extra points for featured pictures in FAs, it doesn't take any extra effort to photograph/restore an image that's placed in a FA or a stub. Sasata (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right, Sasata. The Churchill article is still a huge undertaking. In no way is Vital improvements "things I like, so you win"; they are the things shown to be what everyone - many editors and readers - like the most. They are articles that many people have widely discussed, mostly based on meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have. They're also articles that should be of highest quality, yet some of ours aren't, so let's give a little incentive to improve (or finish improving) them. Reywas92^Talk 19:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire discussion above illustrates my thoughts—if we allow VITAL, it will lead to a large amount of drama. Can we compromise and agree on a bonus for CORE articles? —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the intelligent, rationale debate above "drama"... how about a poll to help guage the consensus about bonus points, and bonus for vital and/or core? Sasata (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to give bonuses for improving a VITAL or CORE or some other list of articles, what similarly fair bonus do we have for picture/media contributors? Unless equal bonuses can be made for media contributions then I don't agree with bonuses. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not meaning to sound smart, but those articles, and I personally would most prefer giving bonuses to those articles which are included in the CD for schools release, were selected because those articles are considered the most central or pivotal to an encyclopedia. If anyone could point out to me a specific image which would also be counted as a necessity for an encyclopedia, I would welcome giving them extra points. There are, however, an almost infinite number of images which can be produced on a specific topic, but we try to ensure that there is only one article dealing specifically with a certain topic. On that basis, I have to say that I don't see a comparison between articles and images myself. There are multiple images which could reasonably be made for every important article, but really only one article per article. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying, not everyone in this contest are providing FA's or GA's, but are contributing through graphics. The point system (and votes below for higher values in points for some) are skewing the fairness to people who do FA's and GA's making it MUUUCH harder for people providing media content to compete. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this would probably hurt me more than help me. If you see my major contributions, I'm terrible at writing articles. I'm in it so that Wikipedia and our readers will win. Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Translations

What if anything are the standards regarding articles which are translated from other language wikipedias? John Carter (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Translated articles still have to meet the normal criteria for DYK, GA, or FA before promotion. I don't see why the standards would be any different. Sasata (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you're skilled enough to be able to translate articles well (and can find some high quality articles in foreign languages that we lack) then points should certainly be forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Not everyone knows languages other than English and can translate articles. Not everyone knows how to edit pictures or write featured articles, but anyone can learn how to edit a picture or write a featured article much easier than learning a whole new language. You get what I mean? iMatthew ^talk at 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So you feel that, because it is so difficult to translate articles, we should not be awarding points? How does that work? J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't specific enough. I don't feel we should be allowing points for something that only certain contestants would be able to do. Like I said, it's a hell of a lot easier to learn how to create/fix an article/picture/sound, than learn a new language. iMatthew ^talk at 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have access to the library of a major university, some contributors have access to top class image editing software, some of us have access to databases of journal articles... We all have our own skills and advantages, and we should all be utilising them as far as possible to help the encyclopedia. I know nothing about baseball- sources relating to baseball may as well be in a different language for me. Equally, I wouldn't expect people to necessarily follow sources for some of my interests (fungi, philosophy or role-playing games, for instance). J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we're getting the points for the creation of the featured content, not the skill or training that it took for us to be able to create it. Sasata (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Translation can still be a benefit without extra credit, as in bringing a new article or stub expansion to DYK length when the available English language sources aren't very extensive. Durova³⁵⁷ 00:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But you feel that translation is not a benefit when it involves directly translating foreign language Wikipedia articles? J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There were a couple of Latin American biography new article/expansions that certainly benefitted from es:wiki translation in getting to DYK for the 2009 Cup. Hard to quantify that kind of thing, though. Durova³⁵⁷ 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Very hard. Creeping too... :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Straw Polls on point values

Mainspace/Portal edits

Resolved

Mainspace/Portal edits will not be awarded points. iMatthew ^talk at 17:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Mainspace/Portal edits should be awarded points

1. I'm not too fussed about how many, but I do feel we should be recognising them. I have not been convinced by any arguments to the contrary, but do not feel that strongly about the issue. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Major edits should = 0.1 point, Minor edits should = 0.01 point

1. With apparent increases in the point value for other categories, leaving this value the same as last year is essentially a relative decrease. Useight (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Major edits should = 0.01 point, Minor edits should = 0.001 point

1. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Major and minor edits should = 0.01 point

1. Support IMHO, mainspace/portal shouldn't count for different amounts since marking edits as minor is difficult to remember to mark edits as such and some can slip through that count for more than they should. Plus, 0.1 is too much to award for non-recognized content since that's the point of the cup.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   You don't need to say "IMHO" because all of this is your opinion anyway.  GARDEN  22:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Of course.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Support - I like the idea of mainspace edits at least being worth something, even if they aren't worth much... and I like the idea of all mainspace edits being worth the same... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   I thought about this a little, and even though I am a janitor and make most of my contributions in the mainspace, I would be willing to vote for mainspace edits not being worth points so long as new article creations were worth something (e.g. each new article created, not including redirects/disambigs, are worth 1 point)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Points for new articles seems like a sweet spot here. You have to bring the article to a certain standard, or it will get deleted by current community process. +sj+ 08:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

3. A tiny amount is all that's needed. Wizardman 04:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. —Chris!_c/t 07:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - none put editors who don't produce content as quick in a disadvantage, a tiny amount is needed
5. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mainspace/Portal edits should not be awarded points

1. iMatthew ^talk at 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Geraldk (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
3. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Sasata (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
6. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
7.  GARDEN  22:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
8. No moar dramah. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
9. so long as the point value of the GA/FA is sufficiently increased to account for the points lost from the old point system. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Why reward seven edits when the work might otherwise have been done in three? WFCforLife (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
11. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Concur.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
13. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Theleftorium 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
15. I try to to everything I want to do in one edit, not spread it out for numbers. It's the total change that counts. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
16.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Per others. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Featured articles

Resolved

Featured articles will be worth 100 points. iMatthew ^talk at 17:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

50 points (current)

1. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 11:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

75 points

1. Just feel like 100 points is too much. Geraldk (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree, +50 more then before is too much, +25 is more in line. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Secret Saturdays (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

90 points

1. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 20:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

100 points

1. iMatthew ^talk at 20:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Sasata (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
5. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
6. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
7. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
8. —Chris!_c/t 02:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Wizardman 04:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
10. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Theleftorium 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
13. +sj+ 08:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
14.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
15. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

125 points

1. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

---

Featured lists

Resolved

 – Featured lists will be awarded 40 points, which seems to be a solid average, as well as the most frequent vote. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

35 points

1. Sasata (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)moved to 40

2. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

40 points

1. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 20:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   WFCforLife (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

3. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 11:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Should be same as GAs. Theleftorium 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. I'm voting against my own interests here, b/c I do a lot of FLs, but the FL process is in most cases nowhere near as difficult to navigate as FA. Geraldk (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. per Gerald. —Ed (talk • contribs) 07:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
7. +sj+ 08:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
8.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
9. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Some FLs take an hour of work, some take months. 40 seems reasonable to balance it out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

50 points

1. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
2. At minimum, I think they should be half the points of an FA - yes, some lists are "easier" but some aren't; some lists take more effort than some FAs even. Half the points is a good balance to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. —Chris!_c/t 02:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. iMatthew ^talk at 03:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. What AnmaFinotera said. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. AnmaFinotera's convinced me. WFCforLife (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Also biased, but many FLs can be a huge task. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Featured pictures

Resolved

 – Featured pictures will be awarded 35 points. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

25 points

1. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 11:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

30 points

1. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. —Chris!_c/t 02:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Though I'm okay with 35. Wizardman 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. 30 or 35. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

35 points (current)

1. iMatthew ^talk at 20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 20:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Sasata (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
5. WFCforLife (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
6. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Theleftorium 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
9. +sj+ 08:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
10.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
11. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
12. FPs are sufficiently difficult to justify this, at least. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

45 points

1. In line with increasing EVERYTHING else in points, but not pictures? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, everything else is mainly increasing because we're probably getting rid of mainspace points. To make up for that, we're giving more points to article content. Points were never given for edits to images, so why increase the points for FPs? iMatthew ^talk at 23:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't use that argument because an increase in FA's of 50 points is 500-5000 mainspace edits, that's simply to much. There is _no way_ they take that many edits, so you're increasing well beyond just making up for the removal of those points. Everything is being increased WAY beyond what the points someone would of got before in the last round. EXCEPT pictures. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Featured sounds

Resolved

Featured sounds will be worth 35 points. iMatthew ^talk at 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

25 points

1. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 11:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

30 points

1. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. —Chris!_c/t 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

35 points (current)

1. iMatthew ^talk at 20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Sasata (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. WFCforLife (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
5. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
7. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Wizardman 04:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
9. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Theleftorium 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
12. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

40 points

1. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

45 points

1.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Featured portals

Resolved

 – The vote is fairly evenly split, but a solid average can be seen with 35 points. Though that is not where the most votes lie, it would be unfair to favour 25 when so many people are calling for higher, but none for lower. Further, if it counts for anything, the three judges who voted when for this option. As one of the much less populated featured content areas, and the fact that so few were submitted in last year's competition, I don't think that this will matter too much. Finally, as portal edits no longer count for points, we would be expecting the number of points awarded for a portal to go up. All in all, this, to me, seems a fair conclusion. J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

25 points (current)

1. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
2. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. —Chris!_c/t 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Geraldk (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. +sj+ 08:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

30 points

1. Wizardman 04:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Theleftorium 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

35 points

1. iMatthew ^talk at 20:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
5. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

40 points

1. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 11:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Having contributed two FPOs, I can tell you that a featured portal requires equally as much work as an FA, and quite often much more. 40 as a minimum. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured topics

Resolved

Every article (that you worked on) in a featured topic is worth 15 points. iMatthew ^talk at 17:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

10 points per article in topic (current)

1. Sasata (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (if only FAs are counted that have been promoted since the start of the competition, I'd change my vote to 15 points)
2. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

15 points per article in topic

1. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 20:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. (assuming points are only awarded for articles nominator has helped promote) WFCforLife (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
5. (15 per FA and 10 per GA)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Presuming its not a drive-by nom -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. —Chris!_c/t 02:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Wizardman 04:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
9. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Theleftorium 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Concurring with WFCforLife. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
12. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
13. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

20 points per topic

1. iMatthew ^talk at 20:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Good topics

Resolved

 – Every article will count for 10 points, as this is what the vote indicates. A note about the apparent inconsistency here- 2.5 GAs equals one FA, and this may imply that the fact only 1.5 good topics equals a featured topic is unfair. However, remember that featured topics also include featured lists- in fact, an entire featured topic can be made up of FLs. As such, there is not a straight comparison between GA/FA and GT/FT. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

5 points per article in topic (current)

1. Sasata (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (if only GAs are counted that have been promoted since the start of the competition, I'd change my vote to 10 points).
2. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 04:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
6. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

10 points per article in topic

1. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. (points only for GAs). Some articles are not GAs in GTs (see Wikipedia:Featured topics/Video games developed by Key).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. —Chris!_c/t 07:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Theleftorium 16:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Geraldk (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
8. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

15 points per topic

1. iMatthew ^talk at 20:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Good articles

Resolved

Good articles will be worth 40 points. iMatthew ^talk at 17:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

35 points

1. Sasata (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. WFCforLife (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Okay with 40. Wizardman 04:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. 35 or 40. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

40 points

1. iMatthew ^talk at 21:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
4. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. --Mahanga^Talk 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
8. —Chris!_c/t 07:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Should be the same as FLs. Theleftorium 16:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Geraldk (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
11. +sj+ 08:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
12. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
13.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
14. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
15. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

50 points

1. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

---

Did you know?

Resolved

Did you know?'s will be worth 10 points for created or expanded articles.

5 points for created/expanded articles (current)

1. Sasata (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. —Chris!_c/t 07:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - DYK doesn't require much effort imo
3. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

10 points for created/expanded articles

1. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
4. Don't see why expanded should get more points -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 04:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
8. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 11:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Theleftorium 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Geraldk (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
11. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
12.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
13. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Secret Saturdays (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
15. DYKs require quite a bit of actual effort. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

10 points for expanded articles, 5 points for created articles

1. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. iMatthew ^talk at 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

10 points for new and expanded articles greater than 3000 characters, 5 points for new articles and smaller expansions

• Note: DYK rules currently require a minimum of 1500 characters, or 5x expansion of an existing article. This proposal would give a boost in points for submissions double that size or larger.
• I'm afraid that this would make people add useless information just to make the article meet the 3000 characters. I think it would be messy and complicated to figure out if each article is 3000 characters or not, with people arguing what does and doesn't count towards that count. I think we should just keep it simpler, and not do this. iMatthew ^talk at 01:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This would apply the same standards that are already in use at DYK, which are already worked out and uncontroversial. Would avoid the shortcomings of a previous proposal by rewarding "above and beyond" new article creations without overcompensation a 1500 character expansion on a two sentence substub. Durova³⁵⁹ 03:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

In the news

5 points for created/expanded articles (current)

1. Sasata (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. At most. Wizardman 04:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Generally easier than DYK. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. —Chris!_c/t 07:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 11:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Theleftorium 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
10. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

10 points for created/expanded articles

1. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
2. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
3.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
4. If the point of this is to help Wikipedia there ought to be more points for areas which do not attract a high amount of interest. This is not always as easy as DYK. Whereas it is unlikely Wikipedia will run out of DYKs there are usually not enough contributors to this section and it can go days without having anything new added. If more points encourages more contributors this can only be a good thing. --candle•wicke 23:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
5. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
7. iMatthew ^talk at 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Valued Pictures

0 points (discuss)

1. iMatthew ^talk at 00:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 04:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Durova³⁶⁰ 08:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Theleftorium 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

5 points (currently proposed)

1. Mahanga^Talk 00:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Geraldk (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Sasata (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

10 points

1. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. —Chris!_c/t 07:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 11:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. WFCforLife (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
9. +sj+ 08:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
10.  GARDEN  21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
11. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
12. --Aqwis (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
13. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

15 points

1. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

---

Reducing unnecessary GANs

First time I've done this, so sorry if I've missed or repeated anything.

I've voted in some of the straw polls that I have opinions on, except for DYK. I think the range of scores seems fair (I'm neutral but they're all in the right ballpark). But I think there should be an added incentive to take a DYK to GA/FA/FL. Perhaps an extra 5 points for an article which you've taken to both DYK and GA/FL, and 10 or 15 for an FA?

Secondly, I'm not sure if they do already, but I think the scores should reflect FA's that were not previously GAs and were not taken to GA. I don't think we should encourage someone to take an article to GA if they fully intend to later make it featured. If someone chooses to do a Good Article nomination and then take it to FAC, that's fine, but I don't think they should get 135 points for it when someone who bypasses GAN gets 100 for the same standard of editing. WFCforLife (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of that though? :/

That's not a bad idea, because you would assume that an article that passes FAC would pass GAN. :-) The problem would be how to implement this; a bot keeps track of the scores, so would it be possible for the bot to track whether a FAC passed GAN? Or should we just add it on manually as a bonus at the end? —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Manually I'd say. If someone gets an article to FA that has never been a GA, they ask for the 35 points here, it wouldn't be too difficult for this to be verified. It would save a lot of work for both the nominator that ultimately did not benefit the article, as well as being a big help at GAN. WFCforLife (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The GAN bypass is an interesting idea that would help prevent GAN backlog overload. One potential problem is that it might result in the appearance of FAC noms that aren't ready, and result in the ire of the non-Wikicup community. To help overcome this, I'll offer my services as a pre-FAC copyeditor if my name gets included on the FAC nom (apparently it's ok to do this). Sasata (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this point. I wouldn't like to see FA-worthy articles being sent through GAN just for the points. If someone wants feedback, then Peer Review should be used. -maclean (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Though this has potential to annoy GAC regulars ("stop ignoring us!") and FAC regulars ("this isn't even a GA, it's not ready for FAC") I actually think it's a great idea. I can't see any reason to deny FAs the points for GAs. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Very valid points. But even though you agree with me, I think we should go out of our way to pre-empt any concerns that those processes may have. So here goes:

Looking at the small number of FA points scored in 2009, my guess is that most people were being sensible about nominations, but at the same time did not feel it was worth their while to write FA-quality material. I think this change would be another incentive for people to consider writing FA content, as they could conceivably take a GA-standard article straight to Peer Review, knowing that they intend to take it from good to great. If we adopt this there will rightly be concern at FAC, and as a community we should make sure that we're doing everything in our power to stop substandard nominations. If it became problem, perhaps insisting that people taking this route have a Peer Review would do the trick?

In the long run, if the number of FAC submissions increases because wikicup participants feel it's worth actually writing articles of that standard, then provided these submissions really are FA material... great. And if this takes even a dozen near-FA articles out of the GA backlog... great. WFCforLife (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. For what it's worth, I'd be happy to comment on WikiCup FACs, I would imagine. Providing I've got the time, of course. J Milburn (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR

I have two alternative modification proposals. I think that an editor who comes by and helps clean up an article for FL, FA and GA deserves less credit than a person who takes it all the way through the process. Thus, I think there should be one of two modifications to the process. Either FA, FL and GA are scored with partial credit for involvement or WP:FOUR should earn points (maybe 50 or 100). I think people might be against the former and the latter would help publicize to WP:FOUR among editors as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See two sections up.

@Four, 50 or 100 points is a lot, and you would already get 140 points for it (assuming 5=dyk, 35=ga, 100=fa). Let's not add too much creepiness into the rules here... —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is creepiness relevant for both alternatives. I think it is relevant for the former, but not for the latter (adding points for WP:FOUR).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Great minds think alike tony! I disagree about the level of points you've suggested, but I certainly think that actually creating a featured article, with a DYK for good measure is worthy of something. Ed may be right about making it too complicated, but it's worth a mention. WFCforLife (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying both alternatives are too complicated. The former is complicated. The latter is a simple addition of a point designation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How about a proposal that everyone can sign like below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with WP:FOUR per my section above (but at the same time I don't want to vote no points for an idea that in principle I support). WFCforLife (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we put it to a vote like below? You seem on the fence and a vote will force people to think clearly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:FOUR should be worth something, it is a real accomplishment. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not on the fence Tony, I'm very firmly in favour. I just don't want articles to be nominated at GAN for the sake of it. WFCforLife (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If the system above does not cause wasted GAC noms neither should points for WP:FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree. For clarity, you're saying that if someone creates an article, gets a DYK and makes it featured, we should give them the points, but they cannot be awarded WP:FOUR itself (EDIT: without a GA nomination)? WFCforLife (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a proponent of improving content and I beleive that GAC improves content in a way that puts less of a strain on GA reviewers. I am not in favor of skipping the step.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Judge's comment

Okay, here's my view. Part of the beauty of the Cup is that it is simple; anyone can join and anyone can understand how it is scored. The scoring system may not be perfect, nor may it be 100% fair, and it may not even include every kind of content one can achieve—but it is easy to comprehend. As of this moment, the cup includes the major content reviewing areas of Wikipedia in every area: FAC, WP:GAN, DYK? and WP:ITN (also featured and good topics) for articles, FPC and VPC for images, and FSC for sounds. FPOC is also included; though that isn't as well trafficked as the others, it is still recognized as "featured content". I believe that we can all agree that this includes all of the major review areas of Wikipedia.
Obviously it doesn't include everything. But that is the beauty of it; it keeps everything simple and easy to understand. We cannot, nor should, attempt to include everything. We should limit the contest to the major review areas and call it quits; outside of possibly including points for core articles (simply because they are monsters to write), we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
This line needs to fall before WP:FOUR. Four is not and will never be a review process, and editors already would receive points from DYK, GA, and FA. —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree completely. iMatthew ^talk at 01:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:FOUR is as much a review process as either WP:DYK or WP:ITN in a sense. Neither makes editorial reviews of the articles. Is there a reason why this should not come up for a vote among contestants like main space edits or any other prospective point bonus?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • P.S. Ed, please explain to me why points for FOUR are any more difficult to determine than for any other area.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha. Thanks for your message on my talk—I laughed. You're right, of course; I did not explain why it should not go to a vote, but nor did I have any intention of explaining why it should or should not (but I will below). Replying to the above, you are also right in saying that DYK and ITN aren't content reviewing. That was a bad description, obviously. DYK and ITN may not be content reviewing, but they are featured on the main page, and a certain standard has to be adhered to before any appear there. FOUR is an extremely obscure barnstar/award. There is a marked difference between the two. This is why it shouldn't even come to a vote. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think both FOUR and TFA should be added for consideration. What you have said, I believe is that if six out of the first eight contestants who expressed an opinion feel it should be awarded points and you feel it shouldn't that it shouldn't come up for a vote. It is difficult to argue with a person who bases his argument on WP:POV language like "extremely obscure barnstar/award" rather than substantive statements. It is sort of like arguing with someone who can't express themselves. But I will attempt to anyways. FOUR is more widely known than VPICS, if your argument is based on obscurity. It is not unlike DYK and ITN in terms of being non-reviewing recognition. So if I am understanding correctly, you don't have a reason (Or should I say your reason is that is less obscure than VPICS and like ITN and DYK). The award is a recognition of quality contribution to the project. That is why six of eight people who responded think it is worth points in a contest regarding quality contribution to the project. It also seems like people are attempting to guide the contest to award points in a way that encourages improving the project. An award like WP:FOUR seems to be encouraging people to clean up some of their oldest articles to try to get articles at the top of the list. Why are you against encouraging people to do that? I am working on one of my oldest articles (Arthur Eve), which just passed WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK and ITN are on the main page and have a vetting of content before the main page, while VPs are the 'good articles' of images, which go through a review process. Both are in the Wikipedia namespace. Four, on the other hand, is an award based out of userspace. Extremely different. My argument is not based so much out of obscurity rather than fact that it is an award, one which participation in it would get you Cup points (~140 of them) anyway. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is in userspace. It is probably the second most well known userspace recognition after WP:CROWN, IMO. Your argument against FOUR being included has some merit. It would be a valid reason to vote/say it should get no points. However, you have presented your argument making it three out of nine. You did not explain why the six out of nine people who think it should get points should not get a say. Please explain this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting your numbers? I count two (you and raeky) versus two (iMatt and I), with one on the fence (WFC). —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You must not be aware, I put this up for a vote and iMatt took it down. I think it should be up for a vote which you are free to participate in. Is it O.K. if I restore the vote.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. It's still closer than you say: Sasata is willing to change his vote and WFC supports only if you can skip GA (which I am sure you don't/wouldn't like :-). Let's let the judges discuss tomorrow and the discussion here hopefully expand beyond us two before restoring, alright? It's a rather contentious topic at the moment. —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying it is decided one way or another. I am saying that there are a lot reason to bring it to a vote. It may or may not pass, but it is not a very difficult addition to the scoring system that is in place. It could probably be scored by a bot, if we put a talk page template on FOUR articles saying This article has earned X editor a FOUR award. Even if all four judges are against for various reasons, it does not seem to be a valid reason not to bring it to a vote.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. You don't seem to understand that the judges are responsible for the WikiCup. Not administrators, not ArbCom, not Jimbo, the judges are responsible for it. If we all agree that points shouldn't be given for FOUR, we're not going to open the poll. We're trying to do what's best for the WikiCup, and if we feel that adding points for FOUR is a bad idea, we're not going to allow the poll to reopen. I guess you didn't see the example in my reply on my talk page. iMatthew ^talk at 13:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

On the surface, your talk page argument seems like doublespeak and I have pointed out why.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. this whole homeowner analogy seems a bit WP:OWNy. WP is suppose to be based on consensus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the competition, you don't have to take part. If you can't see why Four Awards and TFA are both incredibly bad ideas for points (despite the fact that I have a lot of respect for both processes- I was one of the first editors to get a Four Award) then I'm not sure what's going to convince you. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see all kinds of problems with TFA, because it is difficult to say who deserves credit in many cases. The arguments against FOUR are that it is obsure like VPICS and not a review process like DYK and ITN. Other than that it is in userspace and not on the main page, it is not different from these other valid point concerns. Also, unlike VPICs three quarters of the initial respondents think it is a good idea. Thus, yes if the majority of respondents think it is a good idea, your WP:OWNy reasons don't convince me. J Milburn, did you have any reasons that it should not come up for a vote other than that it is not on the main page. Yes you have convinced me you have valid reasons to vote against. No you have not convinced me it should be up for a vote. Even though your rules encourage people to put icing on cakes rather than make them, I will compete in your contest to see who puts the icing on the best although I am really a cakemaker.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you always this angry? The rules most certainly do not encourage putting icing on the cake- nominations have to be the user's own work. Note how many times the express ban on drive by nominations is expressed on this scoring page. Having the Four Award as a point-scorer is a terrible idea as, by definition, there has already been a DYK, a GA and an FA scored from that article. Yes, I obviously support the idea of a Four Award, I think it's great, but it's certainly not something that fits in this competition. As for the matter of "ownership", the competition has judges to (newsflash) judge. We're here in an attempt to act as impartial adjudicators of what is fair and what is valid. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that I beleive most of my GAs are the result of more extensive work than those who clean up other articles. I have already named names once in this regard. There is no need to go there. I have watched what you consider a non-driveby nomination. Your threshold for a persons own work is very low. Most of my self creations took a lot more work than your threshold requires. This is why a WP:FOUR point designation would not be redundant. It would give extra points to people who did almost everything by themselves versus people who cleaned up an already decent article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being a little short-sighted here, but, as far as I can see it, no one is claiming, and no one believes they can claim, for cleanup. Could you perhaps give some examples of what you feel is inappropriate to claim for? I think yourself and I both edit in a similar way- note that everything I claimed for last year (with the exception of Faryl Smith) was my own creation. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please calm down

This is getting way too crazy. I want to make it clear that we are not here looking for as many ways as possible to give out points. We're only going to give out points for the main Wikipedia content projects. FX, GX, DYK, ITN, and possible VP. We're not looking to give out points for anything and everything. Let's continue these polls calmly. The polls that don't end with a firm consensus will be discussed afterward. iMatthew ^talk at 01:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can the polls be moved to a subpage? They are killing my watchlist, but I don't want to dewatch it and miss the discussion aspects. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I like them here because this page is obviously getting a lot of attention, which is what I'd like the polls to get. If we move it to a subpage and just add a link to them from this page, it might be missed by a lot of people. iMatthew ^talk at 01:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

They're fine here I think, and they obviously are getting much attention. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

FA/GA increase in points

I thought the idea of increasing points for these was to make up for the points lost by removing points for mainspace edits. But this clearly isn't the case. By in large people are supporting doubling FA point value, or 50 more points. This is equal to 500 mainspace edits or 5000 minor edits. I can't in my wildest dreams imagine the average FA takes 500 mainspace edits. This point increase is way out of proportion to just making up for loosing points for mainspace edits. These wild increases in point values are putting media content providers at a serious disadvantage here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Try writing a featured article. It takes two weeks at the minimum; a month is a more likely timeframe. How long does it take to restore a FP? If you're Durova, 5.2 seconds, but I'm not sure about other people; I'll ping her and ask if she will comment here. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say anywhere from a few minutes to tens of hours depending on the work, then a week for the nomination which is not a sure thing and if it fails there is no fixing it and trying again later like an article can do. I'm just saying if your increasing the point value because you feel FA/GA's are more work and that the past point values was unfair to them, then say so. But I thought from reading the comments before that these point increases was simply to offset the removal of mainspace edit points. If thats the case then the amount of increase is quite disproportionate to the points contestants was getting before. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This really does need correction. Raeky has never consulted with me about the amount of time that restorations take. I don't know where s/he gets that estimate, because to the best of my recollection this person hasn't ever done a restoration FP. Digital image restoration takes hours, minimum, if it's done well at all or worth being called restoration. Most people take days or weeks on a project. Durova³⁶³ 15:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I may have not done a restoration yet and nominated it for a FP, but I'm more than capable of it. I have over 5 years experience in print media from magazines to newsprint. Most recently I've turned this into this (a lot of clone brushing). Sure some more stubborn images might take many hours, but weeks is probably a stretch. Weeks is either you not putting many hours in every day or days without working on it in between. Show me an image that truly justified weeks of daily work to restore? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Glass plate photography can be devilish to work with if one sets the bar to a high standard. That restoration looks good in thumbnail but a view at 100% resolution reveals thousands of uncorrected flaws. Compare to File:AdmFarragut.jpg and File:Adm2.jpg, where the damage was corrected to be viewable at 300% resolution. Work on the face was performed at 700% resolution to preserve the expression in his eyes. I seldom restore that type of portrait anymore because it's so frustrating to do properly. Currently Xavexgoem is putting similar effort into a portrait of Booker T. Washington. I managed Admiral Farragut in three days; Xav's been at it nearly three weeks on on source file that's about 100 MB.[2] Any of the Johannes Vingboons maps represents in the neighborhood of 80 hours' labor. Compare the water damage correction and crease issues in File:California island Vinckeboons.jpg to File:California island Vinckeboons5.jpg, or the localized brightness and color balance issues between File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons.jpg and File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons4.jpg. The uncompressed versions of the Vingboons maps where we actually did the work can't even be uploaded because they are far over the 100MB upload limit (100MB was as far as we've been able to talk Brion into allowing; there's a Bugzilla request for a "large file uploader" op.) But among the 2009 Cup restorations, the one that leaves me proudest is this one: File:John Quincy Adams drawing2.jpg, File:John Quincy Adams drawing.jpg--both because of the technical challenge of removing damage that extensive without impacting the delicate and badly faded lines and for the honor of working with material of such intrinsic importance. Durova³⁶⁶ 16:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I donno, maybe I'm faster, working in the newspaper industry has drilled me to work super fast and accurate. The Stephen Elkins picture was a glass plate with EXTENSIVE flaws, only took maybe 2-3 hours to complete edit out all the flaws. I don't see days, or 30 hours of work in these images. Maybe because I've never attempted to restore a map like that or whatever, but I'll defer to your experience there. As for glass plate restoring by removing TONS of defects, yes it takes hours, but not days. Maybe, and only maybe, days if the file is absolutely horrid and huge. For example, I'm half-way through Henry Davis's picture, it has many more defects then Elkins's. I don't see the point of arguing this, but it was a bit rude what you said before about me. Offense was taken. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This was a delicate matter to state once, and more delicate to rephrase, but the work on that image did not completely edit out all the flaws. It came nowhere close to editing out all the flaws; thousands of damage spots remain. They are easy to identify at full resolution even without magnification. Perhaps you're used to web-optimized parameters in which only thumbnail size matters. Expectations at Wikipedian featured processes are quite different. This restoration did not pass FPC, even though it had only a handful of miniscule imperfections. The larger matter, though, is about the Cup and fair scoring. There was a little bit of conflict in 2009 which arose from non-media editors underestimating the time and effort that historic restoration takes at the featured level. It's a little bit worrisome to see a media editor endorsing that misunderstanding. If you do choose to branch out into digital restoration for part of your points next year, you may be glad in retrospect for this conversation. It's all about the work; no intention to offend. Durova³⁶⁶ 21:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously by my first post here I think the direction of the points this round is being highly skewed in favor of text content providers. I'll defer to your expertise in editing times for particularly nasty restorations since obviously I don't have any experience in that processing getting on passed through FP. Also I do note that the restoration I did does still have _many_ tiny imperfection that I didn't edit (mostly because I'm 100% sure from my print media experience that if you printed that image those imperfection would not be noticeable). I think that possibly the larger amount of hours might be to appease reviewers with no experience in print media making a judgment that the two or three pixel black dot zoomed in matters, because it won't show up when you print at 300dpi. Anyway, I'm worried about this round not increasing FP point value when it can take days or weeks in some circumstances to improve an image to the point it would pass FP, and if a picture fails the nomination on grounds other than a correctable imperfection it's work that won't earn you points (unless now you use the VP that looks like it will be probably 10 points, hardly nothing for that amount of work, to be sure.) So we do agree that there is a potential problem here. Specifically with FA's looking like they're doubling in points! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Totally in agreement with you about the new changes skewing toward text contribution. The poll itself seemed premature because the principal issues hadn't been discussed adequately. Elimination of raw mainspace points was a boon to the media editors, but not as large a boon as the compensatory point increases to text. At any rate, am not certain how often historic portraits need to be restored for print media. Unless the purpose is very large format (wall posters) then the required effort would be much less than Wikimedian featured processes demand. Time ran my restoration of Louis Brandeis; if they'd actually commissioned me to do it the parameters they ran would have needed less than two hours' labor instead of the twenty it took for the full featured picture. Do let me know if you have contacts over there; they're still running my work on their website and I've had trouble getting responses to requests for restoration credit. Durova³⁶⁶ 19:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No contacts at Time.. heh. And unfortunately that's a problem with working on public domain images, they don't have to credit you for the work. Maybe create a template where it clearly indicates it was a retouched image by you and you'd like credit for it. Might make it more obvious to someone, right now that image doesn't have a whole lot to indicate someone would even prefer credited for the work. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, one benchmark to go by is that the most prolific media contributors and text contributors have been able to generate FPs and GAs at roughly the same speed, when they put their minds to it. So if a GA and an FP end up on average at roughly the same points then that's probably the right balance. Durova³⁵⁹ 05:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

On mainspace edits

I'm a little confused as to why we're taking them out entirely, given that we're increasing basically everything else. Last year, it was 500 mainspace edits were the equivalent of an FA, which is of course too few. If the .01 were used though, it would require 10,000 edits to hit that FA. So while content writing would remain at the forefront, those that wish to fix other articles that they won't be able to promote could actually do so and not feel like the edits are worthless. Of course I understand why there's opposition to it, we don't want abuse of that. Well, it'd be pretty much impossible to game the system at .01. I don't mind if it's removed, just a thought. Wizardman 20:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who has voted for it's removal has likely thought about last year's conflicts over it. What should be considered major/minor edits, users forgetting to make edits as minor when necessary, users concerned that others are gaming the system by barely contributing content, but adding wiki-links to 1,000 articles. It's a lot of trouble. Plus, we want to make this competition purely content-based. You do the work on the content, you get points for it (after nominating it). You just won't get the points for editing the content. iMatthew ^talk at 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman- with mainspace points almost certainly being removed, it's no wonder we're upping the points. The points costs last year assumed that the writers would also be getting points for the actual editing- now, they won't be, and so the article points may need to be upped appropriately. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

With the mainspace edit points being removed from the competition, that's really going to hurt those of us that do everyday janitorial work... I personally do a lot of cleanup, new page patrol, and creating new articles, and have only one GA under my belt... what would be the point of those of us like that running in next year's cup, if it is obvious that I have absolutely no chance of getting as many points as those that do most of their work in the DYK/ITN/FA areas? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

GT/FT

Do you get FT credits for promoting a GT to FT? There would be no discussion page as I understand that promotion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say so. Surely there would need to be a discussion page? I'm not awfully familiar with the FT process, but taking a look at this page, it would seem to follow the standard procedure if it was already a GT? Of course, this does raise the question of whether we allow GT points if something is promoted straight to FT... I would personally say not, as this is not as linear as the GA-FA process... J Milburn (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about WP:CHIFTD. Currently, Jay Pritzker Pavilion is at WP:PR. It is about 2nd or third in my WP:FAC queue. If it is successful at WP:FAC, I think the topic automatically gets promoted to WP:FT without further discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to accept that. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with FT points for that, but if you had already earned points for the GT, they would be overridden by the FT. Reywas92^Talk 01:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The straw polls...

...have been up for about a week, so they will be closed in the next day or so. Some changes may (I stress may) have to be made in the realm of GT/FT, as only 5 points more for a FT is kinda cheap; it's much harder to get the latter, for obvious reasons. Any ties will be discussed among the judges. Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, I didn't know we were closing them so soon. I though we should leave them open for at least another week. The most input the better, right? Plus, we have over a month and a half before 2010 starts, so there's no rush. iMatthew ^talk at 00:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any great rush for closure. I'd say we don't need to start thinking about closing until December is almost over... J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there seemed to be little additional voting, so I figured that we could stop it and get everything ready e.g. getting the bot up to speed. But never mind then :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ed, the reason FT points are lower is because in theory the user will have already got points for the FAs and GAs constituting the FT. Thus the points are really just "well done, you thought to put it up on FTC".  GARDEN  10:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Driveby nom example

I am trying to get an understanding of what constitutes a driveby nom. Are there any examples from last year's cup of a driveby nomination for a GA. I have requested an example on one of the judges talk pages without response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You got more than no response, but whatever. I am not aware of any driveby noms being counted last year; perhaps you should use common sense? —Ed (talk • contribs) 08:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I got more than no response, but I got no examples. I got a response saying 50%, but checked around and plenty of less than 50% were included.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that why we have four people called "judges"? To "judge" things like which ones count as drive by noms? I don't see any need to offend anyone by highlighting their good faith contribution as a drive by nom and disputing their scores from an event that is now over. It's a new event, rules changed, so I see no point in comparing old submissions and speculating it'll happen in this one too. There is no need for examples; we can see which ones are counted as we go along. An editor can understand if he has done at least 50% work in improving the article using their commons sense, and I'm sure the judges will assist if anybody is unable to do so. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am just trying to understand the rules and calibrate my expectations. I am not trying to offend anyone.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify. If you do five FAs with a group of people where you do one-fifth of the work on each, then none of them would count. Is that correct? It seems that many such FAs counted last year. I am curious because I don't see my efforts at Vincent van Gogh as being much less significant than many FA credits from last year. It is a very extensive article and I am maybe 10-15% responsible for its evolution. I have contributed in the neighborhood of a dozen hours to the article. If it comes up at FAC next year, I am trying to get an understanding of what to expect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If it comes up at FAC next year, you can't use it anyways. Only articles worked on from the start of 2010 will count. iMatthew ^talk at 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is still a work in progress. Who knows how much editing will be involved until we feel it is ready to go to FAC. What is the meaning articles worked on from the start of 2010? Does it have to have been newly created in 2010?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be created in 2010, but if you worked on improving the article before the start of 2010, and nominate it after the Cup starts it won't count. iMatthew ^talk at 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If I improved the article in both 2009 and 2010 I can nominate it though, right?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, that still does not help me understand how much of an article I have to do to get credit. Would Vincent van Gogh get me credit if I continue to do the same proportion of the work in 2010 and it gets nominated during the year?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rule clarification requested

Regarding articles worked on in 2009, and promoted in 2010, one judge says this: "As long as it passes FAC/GAN/etc during the round, you are okay. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)"

Later, another judge says this: "If it comes up at FAC next year, you can't use it anyways. Only articles worked on from the start of 2010 will count. iMatthew talk at 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)"

...so which is it? (p.s. it's important, as I need to know whether I can continue working on articles normally or if I need to save changes offline.) Sasata (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I had the same concern. Like many other editors here, I tend to work on a number articles at a time, rotating them off and on the back burner. I understand that there needs to be some way to prevent people from writing a bunch of articles this fall and keeping them for January 1, but the end result of that may not have the goal intended. For example, it may mean that if Pierre de Coubertin is not FA by January, which it likely won't be, I have an incentive not to work on it further and focus my time elsewhere, leaving a project unfinished. And there's also my original question - if I got an article to GA before the start of the cup and then do the work to get it to FA after, can I count it? Geraldk (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Ed, personally. If something passes in a round, the points are given for that round. As with anything else, it's open to abuse, but obvious abuse will just lead to the points being discounted. iMatthew, could you perhaps clarify your understanding of how this would work? J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What I said is what we did last year. Allowing contestants to claim points for items worked on pre-2010 isn't fair to someone who signed up the day before the competition. If they didn't know about the competition, they weren't aware that they should be creating content or improving it. Last year, if you improved the item after Jan 1, 2009, you could claim points for it. If you began to improve/create it before that date, even if you nominated it after 2009 started, you couldn't claim points for it. iMatthew ^talk at 18:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Doing it that way put the judges in the situation of having to inspect all claims for FAC/GA/FL points, not only going through the history, but comparing before/after versions of the article in question. This will be a lot of work, considering nearly 150 participants, many of whom will submit multiple articles. Plus, it leads to another slippery slope: how much "improving" is required for a claim to be valid? Sasata (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're using a sledgehammer to deal with a problem that would better suited to a scalpel, Matthew. So if I bring an article up to FA that I last worked on three years ago, I can't claim it? Geraldk (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit silly, if i touched an article years ago for vandal reversal, or to just add a picture, or correct spelling, then I can't improve it for the contest? I think there is a very clear distiction between caching up articles before the contenst to flood it right at the beginning for points (which should be OBVIOUS after a quick review of the history of the article) and someone who has minorly worked on the article in the past and then decided to seriously put effort into it and improve during the contest. Let me give you an example, Seneca Rocks, would I be disqualified from improving that to a GA, I've worked on it in the past but not a whole lot. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue is confusing. I just opened a WP:PR for John Beilein. If I clean up the PR concerns and nominated it in late December. Would it count if it passed? What if we resend Vincent van Gogh for another PR and then make some more changes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stick to last year's rule. The way it was phrased is draconian, but the spirit was right. The whole point of this is as a little extra incentive to improve content, and the point of a strict cutoff is to ensure that the competition is fair, that it rewards what an editor naturally does over a year, and that the good/featured/valued processes are used naturally throughout the year. A strict cutoff puts me at a considerable disadvantage, given that I've done some substantial work on a lot of Watford F.C. articles and lists which I intend to take to GA/FA/FL in 2010, but that's life. WFCforLife (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So what would my status on Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument (Indianapolis) be? I've made 14 edits to it now and then, but nothing huge. I recently bought a book that would allow me to expand the article three- or four-fold and bring it to GA. What is past the cut-off? Reywas92^Talk 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some consensus among the judges and make a definitive statement about this one way or the other fairly soon, as it will affect pre-2010 editing patterns and choices for several of us. Thanks. Sasata (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that there will be no rules this year. We purposely chose to have an even number of judges so that in the case of disagreements they can be left unresolved. Each judge has been instructed to use his own beliefs to guide his/her rulings. They have also been told not to discuss their beliefs with each other:o!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, if something passes in a round, the points count for that round. Abuse will be obvious, I would imagine, and so it's simply a matter of good faith- please don't abuse it, and if you do abuse it, we'll be docking points. I don't think there's really any other way to do it. I believe iMatthew has different views, but, as has been said, these views don't seem to have been clarified. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have some more clarifications, if you're willing. Let's say hypothetically that featured topics are set at 10 points per article. Suppose I submit a featured topic with 10 articles. Seven of the 10 articles are FA's. Only 3 of the 10 were promoted to FA in 2010 (assume I did the work to get them promoted). Of the remaining 4 FA's, two were written by me, two by others. According to the rules, how many points does this score?

a) 100

b) 70

c) 50

d) 30

e) bugger off with the questions, already

Now let's say I collaborated with another fellow on two of the 3 FAs I got promoted in 2010, and he wants to get in on the FT point action. How many does he qualify for? Thanks in advance. Sasata (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Topics are not something I have considered. Pro tanto, I would be inclined to say 100 for ten articles, but looking more closely, I would say something like disallowing the entire topic if fewer than half of the articles are your own work (possibly). Say an artist has released five albums, and you get their most recent one to FA, but the other four are already FA thanks to the work of a retired editor. I would not be comfortable giving you the FA credits and the FT credits. In answer to your actual question, I would say 100, but it is something I would be wanting to take a close look at each time it is submitted. Right now, I would say it's all or nothing for FT credits, no "well two of those articles are mine, so I want twenty points" rubbish. For a start, the bot would struggle... J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What have you got your eye on, by the way? You gonna aim for every Cyathus species or something? J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure yet, there's a wealth of articles crying for improvement, but the competition (and my spare time) is gonna be tight this year, so careful long-range strategic planning is required to maximize both the point potential, and benefit to Wikipedia. Sasata (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I envy those who can manage featured/good topics... I thought I had one in Connie Talbot, but no one cares about her more recent albums. I guess my hope now is Faryl Smith; lots about her new album already, even though it hasn't been released... Shame I'm not competing really :) J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for protection as a way to earn points

I propose that we add successful requests for page protection as a way to earn points. Please respond to this idea ASAP. Secret Saturdays (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No. :P iMatthew ^talk at 01:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! ;)--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey looked I caused drama! No, I got the article I made drama in protected! I want my points!Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

>:( Ha ha, but seriously is it a pass or not (or are we going to turn this into a laughingstock)... Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RFPP is not content creation. It doesn't really suit the spirit of the Cup. Useight (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that page protection is not an "achievement" but a measure to prevent disruption, it would also mean we have to include successful AIV reports, CSD noms etc. And we don't want WP:RFPP flooded with bad requests; we have enough backlogs as it is. So that's a "no". A big one. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You were actually serious? No, no, no, no, no. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Media

How about awarding a modest amount of points (~3) for images/sounds? Some editors, for example, are skilled in producing maps, graphs, or diagrams, and we are always in dire need of .ogg pronunciation files (especially for words in foreign languages). As with everything else, merely finding and uploading a file wouldn't count, but if an editor produces a map/sound/whatever on his/her own, why not award a few points for that? If I remember correctly, one of the recent issues of Signpost tried to bring attention to this exact problem—we do not have enough sounds. Comments?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:20, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

There already is a featured sounds process that would welcome more nominations. But in terms of general points for media uploads, that was discussed higher up on this page. The problem is that raw points for media uploads could be gamed for disproportionate Cup points. Durova³⁶⁶ 19:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not if you assign them a value that is commensurate with the overall scale. OK, three points may be too much, but if one is given, say, .5 points per media file, it's hardly worth gaming the process if an FA is worth, say 50 points. Recording 100 sounds or making 100 diagrams in this case is going to be a fairly time-consuming process, and surely the net effect (in terms of the big picture) is just as positive as having an additional FA in place? Like the Signpost said, we do need more sounds, so why see it as "gaming the system"? It's merely concentrating on an area that needs attention. Surely that's more reasonable than counting and giving points for mainspace edits?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:31, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Besides, to limit the gaming potential, we could assign points only to the media that are actually used in articles. Uploading two hundred pictures of one's backyard to the Commons would not fall into that category.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:34, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

A lot of articles are already over-illustrated. Further, making everyone document these tiny changes on the submissions page is going to be bloody annoying, as this isn't really something a bot could count. Also, do we allow points for uploading things taken from elsewhere? Non-free content? And if we're awarding media, why not raw edits? This competition has now become about creating recognised content, not just creating any old content. This may have been viable last year (but was rejected for pragmatic reasons) but the tone of the contest has now changed. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What has it changed to? I hope not to a bunch of dudes and dudettes hanging out to rack up points to get respect and exp? :) The point of the contest should be improvement of the encyclopedia, I hope we agree at least on this much? Creating featured content most certainly promotes that goal, but so do mundane tasks that are currently being neglected; and absence of sounds (but, I agree, perhaps not necessarily images) is one area that is totally neglected. It's a frigging disaster! Why not address that in a contest?

Regarding the pragmatic side, if this is not something that can easily be programmed through a bot, do indeed shift the burden to the editors themselves (and some to the judges). Let the editors compile a list of media they created/uploaded/used in an article, let them provide a link to that article, and let the judges decide whether points are warranted in each case or not. The constraints can be set so the review is not a terrible chore for the judges. For example, no points are awarded for media which are merely found and uploaded; they have to be created by the editor. If an article is already over-illustrated, then no points would be awarded as well. In fact, why not give points for the first image/sound (constructively) used in an article, and no (or significantly fewer) points for any subsequent media? And if a truly amazing image/sound is added to an already "overly illustrated" article, then points can still be scored if that image/sound become featured, so, once again, no loss here. Yes, compiling documentation for submission can be annoying, but so what? No one is forced to do it, it would be just another side of the contest, and it wouldn't detract those who are genuinely interested in media and still want to experience a thrill of participating in a competitive event. Why shoot this idea on sight? Surely there are ways this can be worked out, and it's not like the problem this suggestion is trying to address does not exist...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:11, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

The change of tone is a change to audited content, rather than content generally. Yes, I agree with you that "mundane tasks" are also of great benefit and importance to the encyclopedia, but, as you can see above, we are now removing poits for mainspace editing (or almost certainly will be when we judges get around to closing the polls). This is what I mean- the mundane jobs are no longer part of this competition; it's now about featured, good, and main page content. Your complicated rules about what gets points and what doesn't get points is really something we want to avoid- we want simple "x is worth y points"- we certainly want to be avoiding the mass of documentation. Look at the submissions pages of last year's finalists- see how full they were. Consider how full they would have to be if we were counting every uploaded media file. See how many contestants there are. Further, consider the drama, upset and workload on the judges if we were to implement anything like the point scoring you mentioned. Speaking from my own point of view- I am at university. I have lectures and seminars in the day, roleplay between one and three nights a week (plus all day Saturday) and have coursework and a girlfriend. I also have other hobbies that take up time (photography, socialising, reading). All the other judges also have real lives. This just isn't worth it, and really doesn't fit into the competition as it is now. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this assessment, even though I understand perfectly what you mean. To me, it simply sounds that we need more judges, is all. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:18, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

A move to more judges would be a bad thing- it would make the contest overly bureucratic; I can't see how it would really help us in terms of content creation. I do feel your thoughts have merit, absolutely, but then, I'm one of the few who feels there should still be points for general mainsapce edits. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)