Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Further thoughts on points

Given that I have withdrawn from next years competition and have a pretty good perspective of the competition from the inside, I thought I would add further thoughts on the scoring system. Since, I believe DYK production is needed for main page survival and I believe GACs are not really needed and do cause a reviewer burden, I have been evaluating this year's scoring. Many of the FAs in the process score GA and DYK points along the way making them worth 150 points in this year's scoring system. I think the 10-40-100 system is slightly off. I do think that the FA portion is worth 100 of the 150 points. However, personally, I would prefer the DYK be 15 and GA be 35. I just think the relative contribution of a DYK versus a GA is much more than 1:4 and 1.5:3.5 brings the relative contribution of DYK and GA in line. Furthermore, given the reviewer burden at GAC and the true need for DYKs, I think that this would be a better system. I think FLs and GAs should remain 1 to 1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that during this final round there are some 10 FACs and over 120 GANs, I don't think the 40:100 system is balanced (keep in mind that the ratio of total FAs to GAs is 1:3 not 1:12). If you take into account only the people with realistic chances of winning, the ratio is even worse. Nergaal (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about scoring as if points should be based on how mahy of a given type exist. I am basing it on encyclopedic contribution for that topic. In a high quality article a good WP:LEAD is at least 10% of the encyclopedic value of an article. A good DYK should be the equivalent of a good WP:LEAD in terms of encyclopedic contribution for a well developed topic. By the time an article is developed to a good article at least 1/3rd of its potential encyclopedic value should be developed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep your perceived need of more DYKs "for main page survival" out of this unless/until the DYK project agrees with you on it. Shubinator (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. DYK could in any case easily go back to 3 or even 2 updates per day rather than "falling apart", but there is in fact no liklihood of this happening in the medium term. Personally I find it easier to do 10 DYKs than 1 GA, depending on the wildly variable reviewers. And I check my DYKs pretty carefully, unlike some. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of ease of production, DYKs represent the lowest hanging fruit on the tree of knowledge. However, in terms of nutritional value the lowest hanging fruit is often as valuable as the stuff you need a ladder for. If we were suppose to score based on difficulty I would buy your argument. However, it seems that people want to emphasize value to the project by emphasing core articles and such so ease of production is not relevant, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For the most part I don't do articles to get DYKs; I do articles to get GAs, and the DYK thing is a bennie. Sometimes I'll settle for a DYK when my sources will not support a B-class or GA-class article, forex my two recent Swedish river monitor articles, but that's not the norm. I did, however, often pick articles for which my sources were good enough for the 5x DYK requirement and complete enough for a GA so that I maximized my points. I disagree with Tony, I don't think that DYKs are undervalued at all and believe the opposite, though I will concede that he's persuaded me that my original suggestion of 2 points for them is probably a bit too low. But I'd value them no higher than 4 points, because I've seen a number of DYK stubs that show that they can be cranked out very easily while adding very little of value to Wiki.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You have done a ton of DYKs and a ton of GAs. If at any time you looked at your last 10 DYKs and assessed their content versus your last 3 GAs, I bet you would feel the reader has as much encyclopedic value to glean from your last 10 DYKs. I think we are trying to move to a point system reflecting encyclopedic value and that is why I think DYKs should have a higher score.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the highest value of input to the feedback of this cup is not that of the participants, but that of the people dealing with the processes (i.e. FAC/FLC/GAN/DYK directors). I don't understand why you appear to consistently dismiss their opinion. Nergaal (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the costs of the system, they are the experts. In terms of the encyclopedic value of the content, I don't particularly value their opinion over my own. I can simply go look at Sturmvogel's last three GAs (USS Texas (1892), HMS John Ericsson, and La Galissonnière class ironclad) and ask myself. How many DYKs teach the reader the same amount of encyclopedic value. Is the number closer to 10, 15 or 40? For example, put those three up against the content of any DYK update ( which on average has about 10 articles in 8 or 9 hooks) and would there be a great difference in encyclopedic content? I am not counting characters. Because two 5KB articles on different topics have more encyclopedic value than 1 10KB article on one of them. If DYKs should be worth 4 points, then we are saying that each DYK has more encyclopedic value on average than an entire DYK update, which I don't feel anyone beleives.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic value" is a highly subjective term and consequently carries very little value in my opinion. For instance, very few people would consider your flood of college basketball seasons to have any encyclopedic value. And I have little doubt that many think the same of my Hockey Hall of Famers and Sturmvogel's ships. So no, I don't buy your argument on this at all. Further, DYK is the black sheep of this competition. Everything else (save ITN) deals with quality. As you have shown in spades, DYK can be used to pump out quantity with no consideration for quality. That, in my view, is the biggest reason why DYK needs a significant devaluation. Especially since, in my view, three updates a day is actually better than four - giving articles more time on the main page is better. So, two or three point DYKs will be enough to get a person into the second an third rounds, but people who want to advance farther will need to focus on quality. IMO, that is how it should be, and that is what scoring should reflect. Especially if we implement bonuses for core content. Resolute 14:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the final round, I am producing below average difficulty DYKS, just like Sasata and Sturmvogel 66 are producing below average difficulty GAs. Look at how few of their GAs are 20KBs of prose. A two-three point DYK (call it 2.5) and a 40+2.5 GA says that when we look at the average article that comes across Wikipedia:Good articles/recent‎, we feel it is worth the same to the project as almost two entire DYK current updates. That just seems wrong to me. I think on average it takes about the three most recent GAs to contain as much as the average DYK update.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy that quality is dependent on byte count. Nor do I feel we should place a high value on unaudited content. Resolute 14:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with Tony's "encyclopedic value" argument either. Although I do start new articles myself, I sometimes think that the best way for the project to improve "encyclopedic value" would be to ban all creation of new articles not clearly on "news" topics for say 6 months. Seriously. Then people would have to just improve some of the vast majority of crappy articles we have. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly think the average GA is worth as much to the project as two whole sets of DYK updates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this discussion done over DYK/GA an not over GA/FA and DYK/FA. You are seriously saying that a DYK update (8 entries) that is on the mainpage for 6h is as valuable as a let's say todays TFA Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan (and keep in mind that this FA is among the lower tier ones that was up recently). Let's not forget that the DYKs get up on the mainpage in a week or two, while a FA might take years. If anything GAs should get a bonus over DYKs because the former will never appear on the mainpage, so they never have the chance of getting exposure. Nergaal (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

To a large degree it depends on how many of those DYKs barely made the 1500 character criteria or if were they something a little more complete, which generally means longer, IMO. I think that DYKs that were 5x expanded are generally more worthwhile than the 1500 character stubs that the current scoring system rewards because the short ones are so much easier to create. So I'd say that a single GA is worth more than a full set of minimal-length stubs, and less than a set of 5x expansions or longer new articles.

I suppose that we could restrict the points for a DYK to those that are expanded as well as those that meet an arbitrary length, say 5000 characters, but that has its own problems. Mainly that the burden on the judges would become much larger as they'd have to enforce the limits, which is not a good thing. Easier to make a one-size-fits-all rule and just live with the injustices.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Sturmvogel - I find GA's to be more worthwhile to the project than 5 new stub articles. I would also rate them as more important than a 5X expanded one, but not much more. --PresN 18:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to restrict DYKs to the extremely above average 5000 KB, why not restrict GAs to 20KB? The value of a 1500 character article over a redirect that someone is looking for is as valuable as the difference between a 15,000 character article versus a 1500 character article, IMO. Giving the reader the basics is important because the casual reader often only reads the WP:LEAD of a larger article anyways.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, now you are assessing value based on what you assume a casual reader might read? Resolute 19:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A new approach to DYK points

A quick thought - DYK is basically a proxy for "new article creation" (or effective new-article creation by expansion), with the added requirement that a) it satisfy certain minimum standards, and b) there is something at least vaguely catchy to say about the topic. There are two problems, though - a) it's rival - only so many articles can be DYKed in a specific timeframe - meaning it can be flooded, or that equally eligible articles can potentially be forced to "compete" against each other; and b) that it can be relatively arbitrarily denied if the article just doesn't seem interesting or isn't handled appropriately, or for administrative reasons like forgetting to nominate it in time. There is no "right" for a technically satisfactory article to be listed as a DYK, unlike the situation with any other content process.

Rather than arguing over whether or not points should be awarded for DYK entries, why not simply cut to the chase and award them for the root activity? X many points for a "DYK standard" new article creation, or a similar simplified standard. At a stroke, you keep the benefit of the points (encouraging new article creation) whilst losing the penalties (restricted numbers/rival good; burden on DYK process; need for specific hooks). Editors would be able to submit them for DYK or not as they chose - and most no doubt would, for the same reasons people submit articles there without getting points - but it would no longer be a required step...

Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 19:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Who's going to judge it? The whole point is that when an article hits the main page, it has been "judged worthy", in the same way (for instance) that when an article gets a star, it has been "judged worthy". Who is going to go through rubber stamping everything? Further, this would have a very "keep it in-house" mentality- this kind of thing was already proposed (ignoring the actual processes altogether and just judging them ourselves- "declaring independence") and it was not popular. J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There is the point why wikicup has a image problem. We let others judge. This is a awful lot of work and part of us do no reviews. My suggestion was and will be to review our stuff before we put it into the DYK GAN and FAC process. This would generate material which is up to a good standard and the reviewing process to the outside world would be limited. This is a lot of work for the wikicup participants, but we force the same load on the GAN, DYK and FAC reviewers.--Stone (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This will no longer be an issue, or at least not nearly of the same magnitude, for DYK. As of 12/1/10, DYK nominators will also be required to do DYK reviews. cmadler (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)These should not be mutually exclusive groups. WikiCup or no WikiCup, someone submitting large amounts of content through review processes without doing their share of reviewing has the potential to cause a problem. If we do set up some kind of "in-house" reviewing prior to more formalised reviews, we, first of all, have the problem that we either force people to participate in the reviewing, which is not going to be great, or we make people volunteer to participate, which brings us back to square one with regards to the problem of a lack of willing reviewers. Either way, dragging reviewers into our in-house system will either lead to them being dragged away from the main processes, or lead to them reviewing in-house then reviewing in the main process- this will lead to, for instance, mass-approved WikiCup DYK entries, hastily reviewed GAC nominations and useless "support, meets criteria" type comments at FAC, all of which we very much want to avoid. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's how DYK wants to handle their material then that's no longer an issue. I still believe that giving two points for a GA review runs very few risks of cursory reviews if competitors know that their reviews are going to be looked at by the judges and disallowed if they don't meet the standards. The only drawback is that the judges will need to spent time doing spot checks, but the points are so low that I doubt anyone would try to use GA reviews to win like TTT did with DYKs this year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was quite open to that kind of idea at first, but the general GAC/FAC community reacted negatively to the idea of us introducing points for reviews. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC):::

Screw 'em. They're not realizing that they'd be spot-checked by the judges. I'd agree with them if they weren't going to be validated, but... Very few editors are going to do a cursory review if they knew that it could be caught and disallowed for fear of the public humiliation involved. It worked just fine for the WWI contest that MilHist ran last year and the short-lived Aviation contest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

How about allowing points only for reviews of at least say 2k? Nergaal (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For internal reviews we can give as many points as we want.--Stone (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

So, what you're suggesting is that we say to people participating "hey, don't take part in those silly review processes, come and do our review processes and we'll give you points!" Again, this sounds unpleasantly like "declaring independence", something we should be avoiding. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No independence! But we have our own QA and when we think it is good enough than we hand it out to DYK GA or FAC. But you are right that we would draw reviewers from the outside into our system if we award points. This is not to pleasant for the system.--Stone (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

If I were to start working on an article now in my sandbox, would that disqualify the article from earning points during the 2011 WikiCup even if I move the article to mainspace in 2011? I am anxious to start working on an article, but would prefer that it qualify. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There were always two rules here- you needed to do "significant work" on the article during the competition, and the classic "don't be a dick". J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And working on a sandbox article now for points later would violate both. Thanks for understanding, and good luck in the upcoming Cup. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Valued Pictures

Has consensus been reached on the rules and points for Valued Pictures? I've looked in the archives, and they seem to indicate that the image must have been taken or drawn by the contestant, not just modified or discovered somewhere, and that they will be worth 10 points. Is that correct? Also, do the valued pics have to be uploaded to en.wikipedia, or to the commons? Abductive (reasoning) 09:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The rules for VPs are the same as the rules for FPs- you need to have done "significant work". Historically, this has included restoring the picture and the like in addition to creating it, but discussion needs to be had about that- is adjusting levels enough? Is cropping? Is restoring? What about when people negotiate for the release of images (as I have done in the past)? However, VP has issues in and of itself- the project is undefined and unrecognised (apart from here) and suffers from a lack of participation. Ideally, I think we would see a clarification of what counts as enough work for a FP credit, and, short of something drastic happening, the removal of VPs (which are currently worth 5 points, not 10) from the scoring; the project has failed, and it was pretty much me who pushed through the points for them this year. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The straw poll in the archives has 10 points winning big over 5 points. Even 0 points got more votes. This suggests to me that people want to use it in the Cup. I think VP has not been used because it is confusing; do you have to upload to the commons, or to en.wiki, or is either acceptable? Abductive (reasoning) 08:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That straw poll was for last year, not this year. Since then, there have been at least 4 calls for VP to be disbanded or radically changed, and the current MfD. I would seriously doubt that VP isn't popular because nominators don't know whether to upload pictures to commons or en; that's such a minor point that could be easily cleared up by asking on the talk page, or just assuming that it could be fixed easily if you pick the wrong one. --PresN 08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The poll to which you refer was closed with the rationale that there was community support for VPs to be awarded points, and subsequent polls/discussions concluded that it should be 5 points. VPs' inclusion in the Cup, much like VPC generally, was far more trouble than it was worth. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So, a VP is worth 5 points in the 2011 Cup? And does the photograph have to have been shot in 2011 to qualify for Cup points? Abductive (reasoning) 10:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now, there has been no clarification of how many points a VP will be worth. It was worth 5 last year, but it's entirely possible the process will no longer be live. As to your other question, basically, yes- the usual rules- significant work in the year, and don't be a dick. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of things, VPs will not be around, so this debate will be academic. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Points for Peer Review

It's been mentioned occasionally that points should be awarded for doing reviews at places like GAN, but I don't believe it has ever been looked at seriously in the case of WP:Peer review. There is almost always a backlog and would be a perfect oppurtunity for points, but is also less open to abuse because nothing is, technically, gained based on the review (unlike at GAN or FAC). One of the other problems brought up for giving points based on doing any review is "How much is enough?", but, personally, I think that just applying "Don't be a dick" would be sufficient. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be worth running a separate "Reviewers cup," rather than rolling such a thing the content creation and development fried-egg award. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article points

I seem to recall that there was discussion on increasing the points for FAs because of the difficulty and length of review (typically ~2 weeks). Did a consensus ever develop? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

An outside thought - multipliers for article importance?

Looking at this year's wikicup, the only criterion used to give points to articles is the article status (that is to say whether the article is a "FA/GA/DYK ect). Looking through the submissions of the winners this year, their articles are predominantly on "more manageable" topics of less encyclopedic importance. One possibility to incentivise more variety in article types would be to introduce a weighting system towards more "important" articles. For example, an article that was rated "top" or "high" importance by relevant wikiprojects could be worth 2X the points of a "standard" article. Adapting from the TFAR/R other multipliers could be given for a core topic, a vital article, a subject underrepresented at FA/GA level a widely covered article (an article on 20 or more wikipedia's). Either we could set a maximum multiplier for each, or they could all be say 2X stack. Potentially if someone was to manage to rewrite say "science" to FA standard they would get a very very high multiplier, but I think that would be a good thing because it would be a monumental amount of work! That way the wikicup could encourage editors to focus on a wider variety of editing areas. Thus, an editor who worked hard to improve one of wikipedia's vital articles to GA/FA status, which would be undoubtedly more daunting than developing an article on an individual battleship, could still compete more fairly with someone who wants to work creating alot of new articles in a similar template. While the latter are ofc still great to have, wikipedia's more important articles are in need of some wikicup love too. (addition - looking through the archives, I see a similar idea gained some support while the wikicup was ongoing but it was suggested to leave it until the conclusion of the cup - so consider this a reopening of that discussion!) Ajbpearce (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Article importance is a tricky one - the ratings for which could theotically be gamed. Although the wikicup is supposed to be light-hearted and fun, one can bet that there will be discussions of quite a serious nature at times about interpretation of rules, which is why any article modifier has to be based on some rock-solid criteria which cannot be gamed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay - bombs away

Given this has come up now, I guess we may as well start the ball rolling on if and how we introduce multipliers for next year. I can list the ones I and other people thought of and vote below (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I had collated material at User:Casliber/wikicup scoring. Others are welcome to add other suggestions and we can go from tehre. My idea is that the multipliers would work across the board (most articles would be too big for DYK anyway I think, but someone's been doing some elements which is great) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is all way to effing complicated. Doubly so for a competition that summarizes all of its rules as "don't be a dick". I think we should go with the previous suggestion (somewhere in archive 2) of a 10x multiplier for Level-3 core articles and 5x for any article that has sister articles in 20 different languages. Doing 2x for this, 2x for that results in a complicated set of rules and a lot of bickering over what counts for what. --PresN 04:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. I understand the intent of this proposal, but adding so much is complete instruction creep and TL;DR. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well there's a short version at User:Casliber/wikicup scoring. As for WP:CREEP - this isn't a policy or a guideline (which is what WP:CREEP is about). The WikiCup has been pretty widely slammed in recent discussion...sure, a lot of it might be undeserved criticisms, but it matters how people perceive it. Doing something to bring the cup more in line with the aims of the broader project is important. More to the point, these ideas were raised even before the cup was subject to those criticisms. To characterise this as adding "include things which [don't] really belong" is wrong on so many levels. Rules are inherent elements of the contest. And the contest, since it exists in Wikipedia must, necessarily, be subject to the goals of the project. More importantly, if it is to survive, it can't just barely toe some hypothetical line. It needs to be something the community values, not something that doesn't quite qualify for speedy deletion. Guettarda (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, I didn't think it was that complicated. The main reason I came up with some categories below is that there have been differing lists of 'core' and 'vital' articles I have seen over the past few years, and significant discussion over what is or should be in them. The purpose of below is some set-in-stone categories that can't be gamed. You are welcome to vote 'no' in each one so we get an idea of consensus anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I linked creep for an explanation of the term, not for a literal interpretation. The community doesn't value content generation? I'm not commenting on the goal of the proposal – I think it is excellent – but the reality is that if this is adopted, we significantly increase our overhead and, if we start down the slippery slope of multipliers, will have quite a few arguments over what is "important" and what is not (yes, these are concrete, but as soon as we adopt them, people are going to push for more and more categories to be "important"). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay - I thought this was a good way to go initially. Maybe folks will add other categories, maybe not. You could list the simple alternative at the bottom. I thought mine allowed for some grading though. I don't think the overhead is that big, just a few simple yes/no algorithms to deduce point multipliers. Furthermore, if someone is inclined to work on a major article, I suspect they will have fewer articles to nominate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

@Ed - I couldn't figure out what you meant based on the way I have always interpreted "instruction creep", so I clicked over and read the essay. And while it doesn't say exactly what I thought it did, reading it moved even further away from the point. As for "the community doesn't value content generation?" - that's not the way quite a few people saw the contest. They saw it as "trophy collecting". And the goal of the Cup is irrelevant if people see it as nothing more than a way for people to stoke their own egos. It's not about intent, it's about the way people who aren't involved in the Cup perceive it. "Right" or "wrong" is utterly irrelevant. Arguments are rarely won on facts - people tend to make up their minds first, and the more you argue about the facts of the matter, the more likely they are to become entrenched in their positions. Either the Cup responds to the criticism (and by that I mean acts to mitigate the perceived problem) or it runs the risk of going the way of Esperanza. Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a good way to go initially, and like I said I'm totally in favor of multipliers for "important" articles- they're harder, more needed, and worthy of more praise. I just think that coming up with a dozen categories that get multipliers is only going to result in people pushing for even more cats to get multipliers. (What about other major world cities? Species that are important like tiger?) You're at 26 categories after 1/2 a day, and it's only going to get longer- it's already longer than the entire rest of the Cup rules. You are, in effect recreating the level-3 or level-4 core articles, by trying to come up with things that are important (with the twist that they're also underrepresented). Even if we drop the level-3 core article multiplier, I like the "is it in 20 other languages" as a clear, bright line of importance. It may not line up perfectly with what we would all agree is important, but it's an easy distinction to make, doesn't lend itself to game-playing, and still incentivizes the kind of article improvement that we all like. --PresN 06:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Overhead will increase from needing to check these articles against a greatly expanded set of rules. While I am not resistant to all change, I will always oppose something which makes the Cup overly complicated. This competition is supposed to be a fun and friendly; we moved away from that in 2010 principally due to one finalist, who was very close to being kicked out, but this person is not competing this year. Neither are the two top-scorers (as of now). There is reason to believe 2011 will be more like 2009 than 2010. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

<-Bumping back, I agree with Ed, and I've read this over. The only one which has any significance to me is the one below my post. We don't need that much overhead, considering the fact that people don't want to participate unless mainspace edits are back in points, which is really really un-useful.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 13:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I still don't see the fact of having a few cats as a huge increase in overhead. It takes all of about 7 seconds to determine whether an article qualifies for one or not. To PresN, tiger would get a bonus due to size if the article size multiplier passes. Nergaal has also proposed a tweak to world cities below. In the interests of consensus, I'd be happy to have some rationalisation. I am not thrilled about an all-or-nothing approach, if we have (let's say) only one bonus cat (let's say Wikipedia:Vital articles), and all these are (say) 5x multiplier. The level 3 vital article list to me looks pretty generic and boring, and I don't see the elements on it. Has a pared down list of cities and countries that someone's chosen or prioritised. I strongly feel we need to do something to reward working on the more complex or core articles, as not having any multipliers will work against these. The wikicup should be benefitting the 'pedia and this is a golden opportunity to do so. Anyway, I'll load some options for voting at the bottom: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Maximum number of multipliers

Given concerns over increasing complexity of scoring, should we cap the number of possible multipliers for an article? Thus the maximum we allow to be used for the competition should be:

(multiple voting is allowed here - please tick all acceptable to you)

None

1. Absolutely not.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 03:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Three to five

1. I could probably live with this too Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Six to ten

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. ten sounds good. I am worried about gaming temptations if there is no cap, and a lot of drama will ensure if someone asks for a 20x bonus but it is debatable. Nergaal (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unlimited (strictly depends on a case by case basis of acceptance for use below)

1. tentatively. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Anything that hits a lot of multipliers is going to be an insane amount of work, and deserves the extra reward. Canada Hky (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any sovereign country

Vote for a 2x multiplier. I would have thought this one is pretty concrete and hard to game, and having country articles in good shape I'd have thought was a pretty basic encyclopedia requirement: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Nev1 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
3. The last country was featured in 2007. I think a 2x is still too low. If we make this 10x and all people only work on countries it would still be a net gain for the cup. Nergaal (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Any state listed here: List of sovereign states --maclean (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. I'd say go to 3x on this one; the major countries especially should be GA/FA quality. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Seems like a fairly obvious choice, though I wouldn't be averse to Wizardman's suggestion. Guettarda (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Yes, but what about former states? Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Important, basic topics. Canada Hky (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reasons cited already.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 23:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Like (just of curiosity)? Nergaal (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Nergaal, I was hoping for a cumulative multiplier (i.e. if we vote on that below, then we have long article x 4 and country for a x 8 multiplier...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

8x ? Nergaal (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes - 2x for this cat, + 4x if long article (see below), = 8x total. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To Wiz and Guettarda - if we include multipliers for long articles (most will be), should shoot it up to 8x easily. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Support, but how about states and other major regions? Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Any current leader of a sovereign country

Vote for a 2x multiplier. I would have thought this one is pretty concrete and hard to game, and having country leader articles in good shape I'd have thought was a pretty basic encyclopedia requirement: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. I think this is actually a good idea. Sure, they come and go, but it's a finite set. And it's the sort of thing that we should cover. Someone should be able to find a comprehensive article about any current leader of a sovereign country. One question though - where they aren't the same person, do we count head of state, or head of government? Or both? Guettarda (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. tentative. Head of Government is probably the appropriate language, if you want to exclude retired law professor Presidents who are Head of State. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Again, important and basic topics. Canada Hky (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. They come and go. Very few would make it on the Vital level-3 articles. Nergaal (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Cookie cutter abuse possible, and they're boring. Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Many will fail to meet FAC's stability criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Not so sure about that Fifelfoo - they may be stable apart from a minor bit at the end on current status - that is generally considered stable enough for FAC. To Guettarda, I am veering to head of government ratehr than ceremonial head. Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • FWIW, it seems we've only ever had four FAs on incumbent leaders - one (Barack Obama) is currently FA; Hugo Chavez was demoted after a few months (back in 2006); Tony Blair lasted approximately a year as FA, and Yoweri Museveni lasted three and a half years. Not the best of records, but it's doable. Shimgray | talk | 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any past leader of a sovereign country

Vote for a 2x multiplier. I would have thought this one is pretty concrete and hard to game....or is it? Is it as concrete as the previous? I'd have though it was again a pretty basic encyclopedia requirement: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Seems like a viable option. Might want to limit it to some historical period, otherwise you'd have debates over whether some tribal group constitutes a "sovereign country". Twentieth century or later? Guettarda (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes, but possibly with some caveats regarding terms of service. Canada Hky (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There are just too many of them and I am sure this would an easy way to game multipliers by finding obscure leaders and GANning them. Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Cookie cutter abuse possible, and they're boring. Abductive (reasoning) 06:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Too many that simply don't have the importance, and this leaves out other major historical figures. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Any chemical element

Vote for a 2x multiplier. I would have thought this one is pretty concrete and hard to game, and having element articles in good shape I'd have thought was a pretty basic encyclopedia requirement: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. I have a COI in this, but the good part of this is that there are only about 100 to pick from. Nergaal (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes. Guettarda (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Definitely. Canada Hky (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any nobel prize winner

Vote for a 2x multiplier. I would have thought this one is pretty concrete and hard to game (either they've one a nobel or they haven't), and having these bio articles in good shape I'd have thought was a pretty basic encyclopedia requirement: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Only about 500 to pick from, and even if people game this, it would be one of the most ok way for ppl to game since they are pretty basic encyclopedia requirement and once their article is fine, some information could start spilling into the research topic/war articles that they won for. Nergaal (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Guettarda (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Canada Hky (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Most are good, but how about major scientists, peacemakers, and authors pre-1901? Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Any World Heritage listed Site

Vote for a 2x multiplier. I would have thought this one is pretty concrete and hard to game (a good definition to get some of these imprtant areas up to scratch), and having these environment articles in good shape I'd have thought was a pretty basic encyclopedia requirement: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. There are 911 of them: Table of World Heritage Sites by country. The articles are broad and global. maclean (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Guettarda (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Nergaal (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. I really like this one. Abductive (reasoning) 06:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Most of these articles are pretty poor. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Too many of these articles are in a poor state, especially those outside the English speaking world such as India. The lists seem to be gathering momentum and improving, but articles on individual sites don't seem to be experiencing a knock-on effect IMO. Although there are 900+ sites, there may be some wriggle room; Avebury and Stonehenge are obviously individually notable but are listed together. A step in the right direction though. Nev1 (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Many WHSs are important and obvious, but how about modern wonders, national parks, and other sites not listed?

Discussion

• I am neutral on this one. They are of a pretty core value, but I've seen quite a few come at FLC lately, and I think the remaining ones will require fairly little amount of work (just use the format that has been developed in the recent successful FLCs and compile a bit of info from the UNESCO sites would consist most of the work). Nergaal (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, you mean the specific sites not the lists? Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. ungameable and all significant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Support then. Nergaal (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any capital city

Vote for a 2x multiplier. I would have thought this one is pretty concrete and hard to game, and having these geography articles in good shape I'd have thought was a pretty basic encyclopedia requirement: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. While not ideal for all cases (since states like Kazakhstan and Nigeria have capitals that are not the biggest one) they are a good pick. Nergaal (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Even if they aren't the biggest city, it's still important. Guettarda (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. How about any city with over a million people as well? New York, Shanghai, Munich, Rio, Venice, Vancouver, Sydney, etc?

Discussion

• Taxonomy: "Of a recognised sovereign nation," per the nations section above (same criteria for both). Those editors who produce high quality content regarding non-sovereign nations ought to be congratulated for the value of their work separate to bells and whistles. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think expanding this to any 1million+ city that is in the top-5 largest cities in a country (i.e. not all the 50 Chinese ones, and only the 5 largest in US) would be ok. Nergaal (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any ocean

Vote for a 2x multiplier. I would have thought this one is pretty concrete and hard to game (there are only a few...and they're all big), and having geo articles in good shape I'd have thought was a pretty basic encyclopedia requirement: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Only 5 to choose from. Also, might be worth an extra bump above 2x since any of them are encyclopedia-worthy. Nergaal (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Guettarda (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Or large sea, long river, or big lake? Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Taxonomy nit picking: Ocean#Ancient_oceans, World Ocean, extraterrestrial oceans. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah - for something like this, defining in advance the precise list of articles you think it should apply to could potentially save a lot of unpleasantness later on. Shimgray | talk | 01:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Ancient oceans, extraterrestrial oceans - as long as they're real, I think it's worth a bonus. Guettarda (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Such as Oceanus Procellarum :) ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any continent

Vote for a 2x multiplier. I would have thought this one is pretty concrete and hard to game (there are only a few...and they're all big), and having geo articles in good shape I'd have thought was a pretty basic encyclopedia requirement: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Agree with the expanded version. Nergaal (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Guettarda (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Only Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia (continent), Europe, Indian subcontinent, North America, South America, Gondwana, Laurasia, and Pangaea. Abductive (reasoning) 06:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Suggest a very broad taxonomic rule about what a continent is, including widely recognised past continents of earth. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I'd never thought about that! Gondwana, Laurasia and pangaea - all very important...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Template:Continents of the world suggests a discrete article list of at least 54 potential items. I suggest that Wikicup scorers discretely enumerate the articles which will count. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why not all of them? Guettarda (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Because they hardly can be verified to have existed, are fictional or are mistakes from the olden days. Abductive (reasoning) 06:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was approaching this from the perspective that anything with enough information to write an FA/GA about would be notable. But, then I remembered how slim some FAs can be - completeness is the necessary characteristic, not length. So yeah, I agree with limits. Guettarda (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any desert

Vote for a 2x multiplier. As concrete as previous? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not really a big fan of any of the ones outside top-3 in size. Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Very hard to define, and there are a lot of small ones or subdivisions of ones. Only thing worse is forests. Abductive (reasoning) 06:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Good point Nergaal - I wasn't sure but also wondered whether the definition might get a bit wooly for small ones too. But felt it was worth discussing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Might work, but as with the others I think you ought to state up-front that "these points are awarded for any of the following articles (...)", etc. Shimgray | talk | 01:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If we include Vital Level-3 the important ones will be covered. Nergaal (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any mountain range

Vote for a 2x multiplier. As concrete as previous? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too many sub-ranges, not enough to say about many of them. Will lead to padding and poor articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Nergaal (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• There should be a concrete definition on this. How about a min height? Nergaal (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(snaps fingers) min. hight is a very good and non-gameable idea. But I have no idea which height is significant in geography...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

5000m could exclude many but might be overly-biased towards Central Asia. Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Height categories tend to be mountaineering ones, such as the Eight-thousander peaks. More mountain ideas in Category:Lists of mountains. Carcharoth (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Any unit of time (anything from second, minute hour to geological periods (Cretaceous/Mesozoic etc.)

Vote for a 2x multiplier. Very core encyclopedic and hard to game I think (???)...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. I like it. Nergaal (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Real units that have actually been used, not things that were proposed but never really caught on. Guettarda (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. per Geuttarda. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why not other units as well? What about SI base units, for example? Guettarda (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with this - units of measurement, rather than simply time. Canada Hky (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I am happy - SI units? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Support all SI units. Nergaal (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Any biological taxon of order or higher

Vote for a 2x multiplier. We've done loads of species, but bigger ones are huge and often hard work....: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Weak support: how many are there to choose from? Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Guettarda (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Essential stuff Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• There's 26 extant orders for mammals, about thirty for birds, another twenty or so amphibians and reptiles, and perhaps sixty for fishes. This is before counting any extinct orders, or any invertebrates, or any plants. I don't think there'll be any shortage! It might be worth clarifying what the rule would be for articles combining multiple ranks, like Hagfish. Shimgray | talk | 01:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say highest order counts, so this would be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd be inclined to exclude taxa that consist of a single family. Guettarda (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah yeah, me too, but I guess the issue Shimgray means is a sole family in an order, hence monotypic order (so this then qualifies as an order) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiplier for article size (FA/GA) - up to 15 kb prose size (with PDA tool) =smaller, 16-30 kb = medium, and > 31 kb large

• these are initial estimates on my part just to start discussion - I think we need to start somewhere and I reckon they are not bad (??) Medium are 2x multiplier, and 4x for large article.

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Strong support, but we need some kind of clarification from preventing users to be screwed by missing on 100 bytes. Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Guettarda (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Not sure about the medium, but the large absolutely. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. I don't think the medium multiplier is necessary, just 2X for large. Canada Hky (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Ajbpearce (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Would help encourage more encyclopedic topics since there is more to write about on higher value articles.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• I don't think bonus should be given to medium articles. Just for 30k+ a 2x sounds fine considering the stacking from other parts. Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am happy either way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Any awards, decorations and vexillology article

Vote for a 2x multiplier. Underrepresented at WP:FA. As concrete as previous? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose; there are far too many non-notable awards. I'll be forced to nominate people's hard work for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 06:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Not a vital area frankly; it's a tad perverse this has its own FA group. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Nergaal (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm not sure they are, strictly speaking, under-represented. They seem to be because they're split out separately at FA, but this is a pretty small field of knowledge compared to anything else on the page - you could make a case it's as well-represented as anything else, and it's certainly "proportionally" better-represented than some of the topics which appear at first glance to be much bigger. Shimgray | talk | 01:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm not sure about this either. Seems like a fairly narrow field. Guettarda (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Shim.Nergaal (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any Business, economics and finance article

Vote for a 2x multiplier. Underrepresented at WP:FA. As concrete as previous? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too broad by far. Abductive (reasoning) 06:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Way too broad. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. I would support some, but the entire category is too broad. Nergaal (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• If this is felt to be too broad, a bonus for any major company - say, members of a standard major stock index such as the FTSE-100 or BSE Sensex - might be a quite workable approach; a well-defined set of topics, and certainly things we could do with good solid articles on. Too many of them are just abysmal... Shimgray | talk | 01:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Picking a target set of [limited number] which would bring the grouping up to FA parity might be the idea here. Vital 3 and Vital 4 don't seem to offer a depth; and they're very strongly biased towards contemporary capitalist relations of production; and a very poor model of that (No Firm for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Only major indexed companies. Privately held companies are too hard to research. (I've tried.) One cannot be certain about the most basic facts. Abductive (reasoning) 06:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• This is an underrepresented area, but this is too broad. Maybe not articles on individual companies at all, we have zillions of these, although they mostly aren't much good. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Okay, I am open to any rock-solid descriptor we can apply. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Any currently existing national peak council of trade unions (ACTU, AFL-CIO), any supranational trade union confederation organised by industry with members in at least 15 states, any owned business or autonomous government instrumentality or cohesively organised network of economic cooperatives functioning under a single rule set with a yearly turnover greater than [country x] for year 2009." ? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Any chemistry and mineralogy article

Vote for a 2x multiplier. Underrepresented at WP:FA. As concrete as previous? Not sure, waht do others think...:can be cumulative with elements too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Guettarda (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Hmm, you'd get loads of obscure minerals. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • And random chemical compounds. I like the concept, but "chemistry" is very, very vague. I like the idea for concepts and applications rather than compounds. Canada Hky (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, if we can think of any rock-solid descriptor we can apply. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • • Rock solid, as in significant: as important rock forming mineral (quartz, orthoclase, biotite, calcite, olivine ...) or significant economically (chalcopyrite, galena, uraninite, bastnasite ...) or scientifically (zircon, perovskite/post-perovskite ...) or gems (ruby, topaz ...). Maybe avoid the obscure by requiring inclusion in standard mineralogy textbooks or > 500 or 1000 locations on Mindat.org. Why not include petrology articles, rock types (basalt, andesite, peridotite, eclogite, marble ...) Vsmith (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Gemstone and the first GA or FA on a compound whose element does not have a GA/FA yet. For example, if there are no compounds of samarium at FA/GA, then samarium iodide would get the bonus for being the first samarium FA/GA. Nergaal (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Erm...so carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen and chlorine are all out as we have acetic acid, hydrochloric acid and caffeine already FA...I am intrigued though. Would be an interesting take on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
        • There's a lot of chemistry outside of combinations of elements. Also, I would think articles about core compounds such as amino acids, common reagents and concepts such as chromatography and mass spectrometry are more crucial to basic knowledge than whoever can write the first article about Ytterbium compounds. Canada Hky (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Good point - question is, can we think of a succinct, clearly defined and ungameable classifier? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
            • The only way I could think to do it would be to combine with size: A 4X multiplier for working on any "large" chemistry article. No bonus for working on a shorter chemistry article. It would probably miss a few things, but it would keep out a lot of the less important articles. Canada Hky (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Any article concerning particle physics

I was initially thinking "any subatomic particle" - we already have electron and quark featured, which is great and I recall the latter was a particularly hard slog for the nominator. It'd be great to see other subatomic articles...but i was trying to think of one that covers other basic building blocks such as molecule. My physics is a bit rusty, so all input welcome. "subatomic particle" is easier and more succinct. Are folks worried the larger one can be gamed

Support

1. both this and a narrower (subatomic particle) option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Any computing

Vote for a 2x multiplier. As concrete as previous? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Malkinann (talk)
2. Arg, all these computer products, languages and etc just caused a massive AfD battle. Abductive (reasoning) 10:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Is the primary objective of introducing multipiliers into the competition to counter systemic bias? If so, per "the origins of Wikipedia's bias", I believe that computing topics should not qualify for a multiplier score. --Malkinann (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • it was the lack of Featured content in the area, really. Some topics have loads of material, but not much improved to GA/FA level. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Any Food and drink

Vote for a 2x multiplier. Grossly underrepresented. As concrete as previous? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs)
2. The most underrepresented category in a long time. Nergaal (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Do restauraunts count? The Bushranger (talk · contribs) - 00:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

   No, those would fall in "Geography and places", or possibly architecture. Nergaal (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

4. Guettarda (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too many obscure topics. High probability of poor sourcing. Abductive (reasoning) 06:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Abductive I think this is a category that has a high potential to encourage the creation/expansion of a large number of low importance articles. Ajbpearce (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• We could vote separately on the restaurants. I am inclined to say 'yes' but am happy either way. I wasn't really thinking about it beforehand. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • McDonalds would not fall in this category. Nergaal (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Heh, reminds me of the discussion where a twinkie falls outside the definition of 'food' as it doesn't decay...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Health and medicine

Vote for a 2x multiplier. Not that underrepreesented, but good articles to have in good order (if folks use them as health advice or whatever). As concrete as previous? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. I think any obscure article in this topic would be worth the bonus. Nergaal (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Would this include articles on disability? --Malkinann (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd see that as falling under the aegis of health and medicine (as would diet, exercise etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Language and linguistics

Vote for a 2x multiplier. Grossly underrepresented. As concrete as previous? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Nergaal (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Any language with greater than 5 million speakers would be a good constraint. Otherwise there will just be cookie cutter articles on obscure languages. With many speakers, there will be enough other people and secondary sources available to accurately review the article (at GAR etc). Abductive (reasoning) 23:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Five million speakers sounds good -I think that is a good one. Maybe 10 (or 20) million if we wanted to focus on world languages -or official language a number of countries (1? 5?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Would Latin count? It may be a dead language, but it was the main language of one of the greatest empires in history (Roman Empire). --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I'd think maybe x million speakers at any one time would be sensible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with X million speakers vs. Latin is that Latin is also used for scientific classifications e.g. Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica).--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics

Vote for a 2x multiplier. Grossly underrepresented. As concrete as previous? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Even the GAs are grossly underrepresented here. Nergaal (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too broad. Abductive (reasoning) 13:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy and psychology

Vote for a 2x multiplier. Grossly underrepresented. As concrete as previous? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too broad. Abductive (reasoning) 13:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Any BLP

Vote for a 2x multiplier. Any push in the right direction to clear the backlog is a good thing surely? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. The Bushranger (talk · contribs) - 00:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Don't know if non-participants are allowed to comment here, but if we can I strongly oppose this. The last thing Wikipedia needs is any kind of incentive to create yet more BLPs. – iridescent 00:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Iridescent, plus, there are way too many borderline significant people already featured. This will make creating entire low-division lacrosse teams (or some other less recognized sport) just too tempting for DYK. Nergaal (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. maclean (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. The principle is sound (and good articles on high-profile BLPs are something we really do need) but I agree this might prove something of a perverse incentive in practice. Shimgray | talk | 01:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. I say BLPs should not only not have a multiplier, they should not be allowed to be in the Cup. All they end up being is cookie cutter pages. Abductive (reasoning) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
6. per iridescent. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
7. BLP are already some of the most written articles. While there is a need to reference the backlog of unreferenced BLPs this reward would not necessarily help eliminate that problem.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• My intention was that this would result in more unsourced BLPs being sourced, rather than unsourced ones created. Remember one needs pretty good sourcing for DYK even. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but from past experience of how Wikipedia works in practice, that's not what would actually happen. Instead, people would find a 'notable' topic in Wikipedia's terms, but one obscure enough that nobody had created the biographical articles; they'd then take a yearbook or almanac and create a gazillion 1500-character articles, swamping DYK with a flood of Albanian Futsal Premier League and Samoan Roman Catholic priests stubs which will then languish unwatched and unread, but undeletable owing to the WP:GNG. – iridescent 00:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to have list of all the unrefferenced BLPs say on Dec 1, 2010, and to limit the entries only from this list? Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
      • That sounds like a good way to go. Or simply that it is a preexisting article as of Dec 1, 2010? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
        • If the intention was to generate content in needed areas, I think this section basically gives leave for everyone to work in their comfort area. I like the idea of multipliers, but we are quickly getting to the point where we are going to have higher scores, without any change in what people are creating after assigning everything a multiplier. Canada Hky (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I...honestly utterly fail to see the problem with that. If it meets WP:V, WP:GNG etc, why not have an article on it/them? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
      • There are lots of marginally notable people who have bios. Adding more bios of that sort wouldn't be a good thing. Any improvement would probably be a net benefit, but do we really want more bios of marginally notable people on the front page? Maybe...I can craft arguments as to how this would be a net pro or a net con. But that would just be fact-free arm-waving, which wouldn't get us anywhere. Now FAs and GAs are another matter. But as long as it includes DYK, it's iffy.

        I see another problem with this, and that's purely political. BLPs have become perhaps the key hot-button item on Wikipedia. If we go ahead with this I can imagine that it would be used to discredit the Cup ("they're encouraging people to create more BLPs!!!"). So while the idea is not without merit, if implemented it would need to be very carefully structured. Giving points for adding sources to BLPs would be a plus politically, but it would create a lot of problems from a scoring standpoint because it would be too easy to game and too hard to police. Getting an unref'd BLP up to DYK standard would be an all-round plus, but putting marginal BLPs on the front page would be a potential nightmare politically. Guettarda (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I understand your intention, Casliber, but such a bonus would have negligible effect on the backlog, imnsho. For example, I will probably continue writing about current players and Hockey Hall of Famers (living and dead) next year as that is my area of strength. But the hockey project's identified backlog is cleared. So yes, I would be improving biographical articles, but my work would have no impact on the backlog. More to the point, people are going to write about what they want to write about. Referencing a BLP in a topic area you aren't interested in is doable. Building one to DYK/GA/FA standard is much more challenging, and frankly, comes closer to being work than a hobby. Those of us who focus on topics that include a lot of bios will naturally improve some of those regardless of a bonus multiplier. Resolute 15:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• My suggestion would be to have the multiplier but exclude it from DYK... although I appreciate that it'll make it even more complicated! Miyagawa (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Any page subject to arbcom sanctions

Vote for a 2x multiplier. Any push in the right direction to stamp these articles as audited and neutral is a good thing surely? Not sure, waht do others think...: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Guettarda (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While I understand why this has been proposed, encouraging people to dive into these articles without due diligence and care could lead to problems flaring up. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Nergaal (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
3. In principle it sounds good, in practice this would end badly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• In principle it is a nice idea, but it could lead to extra drama. Nergaal (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Nergaal. This seems like a quagmire option sucking people in. maclean (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Articles subject to sanctions are more difficult than normal to get into shape. You can always walk away from drama if you choose. And you can always let yourself get sucked in, whether there are bonus points or not. Guettarda (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Vital Level-3

These are a select list of 1000 articles typically maintained well. To prevent gaming, I think the version on Dec-1-2010 should be used, regardless of later promotions or removals. I think they should be included at 2x. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Nergaal (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. maclean (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Guettarda (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Ajbpearce (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
9. PresN 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Remember (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Miyagawa (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think level four (which include the level 3 articles) is a better choice. Level three is a bit too restricted IMO, and many high-level articles are on level 4. Or maybe level 4 four could give a smaller multiplier. Circéus (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Level four is heavily biased towards the United States, which is only one of many major POV problems that list has. I would oppose any multiplier of any kind for level four on that basis. Resolute 15:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Level-4 would get covered by the broadness of coverage in other wikis (if other wikis have articles on them, chances are that they are already lvl-4). Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Is it possible to have a link to whatever these "vital articles" are? WP:VITAL, I presume? What about WP:CORE? Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Broadly covered (has an article in at least 20 other wikipedias as of December 2010)

PresN suggests this, and some other folks have too. I am warming to this one so am placing it here too to get an idea of how many of us like it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. tentatively yeah, depending on how many other multipliers we get. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
2. I'm all for it, though of course I meant instead of these other cats. --PresN 05:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Probably the least likely criteria to game. Nergaal (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Ajbpearce (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
6. I think I like this one the best, and would be fine with it as the single "bonus" category. Canada Hky (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Yes. How many could there be? Abductive (reasoning) 10:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
8. I think it is intriguing idea. I like it. Remember (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Bluntly, this should replace all of the above options. Any truly important topics from any other category listed here will also meet this criteria. Resolute 15:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Twenty or 25 is good with me. Guettarda (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Agree with the general idea, though not sure what would be a good number. Miyagawa (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
12. Excellent. Shows that an article is very important, can be of any topic, and indicates and article's popularity. This can replace all the categories. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• I am just starting to look -this one could end up being pretty broad. For instance, Pokémon Red and Blue would qualify, as would Bulbasaur, Billboard Hot 100, or Alan Alda for that matter. it might be an idea to double check what sort of articles this may cover, so doing a random browse might be good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, discounting Simple English (which I think we should) Pokémon Red and Blue gets 21. Maybe make it 30? 40? Tiger, which I figure should be in every language, has 108. 20 would be too low then- we need a number that would cut off semi-popular video games and such. If we do this, we should look around and figure out what number to use, I think 20 was just pulled off the top of someone's head. --PresN 23:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting isn't it? I wasn't expecting it either and thought 20 was a good starting point. I think having a bit of a scour with some sample articles and slotting them below will give us some ideas. My gut feeling is hovering between 40 and 50, but let's take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: Stonehenge has 67. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

3 of the 4 examples have less than 25. The remaining one, Billboard Hot 100 is in my opinion sufficiently more notable to get a bonus over a random lacrosse player. 25 seems a well-rounded number and I would not go above 30. Nergaal (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

multipliers stackable?

To me this seems sensible as some monster articles are easily 10 x the work of short ones. Casliber (talk ·contribs) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, but should be capped at 5x or 10x. Nergaal (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. multiplitive Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Additive. For two bonuses, it's all the same. Three bonuses though make it possible to get 800 points for an FA. Four bonuses (if that's even possible) would mean 1600. That seems a bit excessive. Guettarda (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Support multiplicative Ajbpearce (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support additive. Multiplicative will spread out point ranges too far. Abductive (reasoning) 23:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No more than 4x. Anything bigger is a bit absurd. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Multiplicative or additive? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Multiplicative sounds more natural. Nergaal (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• What does this mean? If an article is a vital-3 article and on a Nobel winner it gets 4x points? Abductive (reasoning) 06:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes - so that (for instance) capital cities would 2x, but those listed as vital articles (several big ones such as Rome, London) as well would be 4x total. If the size modifier is included it could be 8x maybe. The idea I thought of was a few multpliers so some mammoth articles which would be a helluva lot of work could have a few multipliers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Others

Africa

I support a multiplier for articles on any topic to do with Africa, that is not a species or a footballer. This is an oustandingly weak area. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

interesting idea that. I can see the benefit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll support that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Anything that is too broadly defined will tempt people to abuse the bonus system. Nergaal (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really follow the logic there, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - we do need more non-western articles, but "anything related to Africa" is too broad. There are plenty of articles that are "related to" Africa while not actually being exclusively African. --PresN 21:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Would a random obscure lacrosse player get this bonus because he is of African descent? Nergaal (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, no sports players at all! Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The point was to show how users could find ways to game this broad rule against the spirit of the original intention. Nergaal (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, too broad. Abductive (reasoning) 12:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Aerospace companies

• What about manufacturers of aircraft operated by military forces? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • neah. Too obscure. Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it seems a bit too narrow. Guettarda (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree that it is an obscure group. We have a pretty active military history wikiproject..aren't they writing about this stuff? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, we are. :P I was thinking maybe "Aircraft operated by military forces" as an alternative? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • It's not really something where we have a desperate need for higher-quality core content, though, is it? Shimgray | talk | 13:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Probably not, I suppose. I'm just trying to think of something where it's a topic I'm likely to actually edit, I admit. :P - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Averaging 1000+ hits/day

This shows that an article is an important enough topic that many people read it, and it would cover most any category discussed above but includes those left out. Non-capital major cities? States? Important historical figures? Sports? Well-known species (I'd hardly call some families more important than their species)? Only looking at the categories voted on above is incredibly limited, and few competitors even work in those topics. Bonus points for categories is not even worthwhile when so many are excluded. By looking at the popularity of an article, it shows us the public faces of Wikipedia and what articles are actually read. This allows people of any interest to find articles that qualify for multiplyers.

This is somewhat related to the languages, which I would alternatively support. I would expect an article in many languages to have many people reading it, and vice-versa. These don't limit by category but do give a wide range of important articles. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
2. If we are talking about 2010 (or earlier) hits. Abductive (reasoning) 07:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. See comments below regarding Plato vs. Bieber Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Be interesting to see what articles this might include. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• I would support only if the threshold is higher. I would have gotten a bonus from caesium last year and considering it would have been at 8x already (element, length, coverage), getting to 16x would be a bit too much since as seen at User:Cryptic C62/Elements it is in top 60 just among the 120ish elements. 2k or 2.5k would be better IMO. Nergaal (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Improving previous self-created articles

An idea I haven't seen suggested elsewhere is that people should go back through old articles they have created and see if any could be improved given what they have learnt about editing Wikipedia since they created the articles. The disadvantage of this is that it would apply only to people that had a large "back-catalogue" so to speak, but I suspect even the newest of contributors taking part in the WikiCup will have articles they have created and then ended up not taking any further. One way to encourage people to go back and improve their earlier contributions, rather than create more new stuff that may not get beyond start level, is to give a multiplier to (say) five articles that people could nominate at the start of the competition, the only condition being that it would need to have been created by them and be below GA level, with the aim of improving such articles to GA level or above. It might not work, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this. I suspect much self-created material will be of a more obscure or esoteric nature, which sort of moves in the opposite direction of where I was going with this proposal. Furthermore, DYK and WP:FOUR are two processes we have in place whereby people can (and do) improve what they start. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea is to encourage some people (not everyone) to think about improving what they have already created, rather than creating more new articles. Some people are aware of this, many aren't. Asking those that like this idea to pick five articles they created that they would like to improve on helps focus that mindset. Or even get others to improve what you started. Go on, look through the articles you created and pick five that could be improved over the next year. In fact, I'll do that for you: Antonio Carluccio, Boma Plateau, Western Ground Parrot, List of deadly fungi, Curse of Xanathon and Cultural depictions of ravens. OK, that's six, so you can drop one of those. Though on looking at your to-do list, I see that I'm not the only one to have lists of things to do that could take up a whole year! I suppose the question is what motivates people to work on something in the first place, and will giving multipliers to various things really affect that? Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC) To be fair, I should come up with such a list for myself, if only to stop others making such a list for me! I would pick List of Arctic expeditions, 1938 Banda Sea earthquake, Annales de chimie et de physique, Phillips & Drew Kings and For Services Rendered.

WOW!, but I wasn't expecting anything so complex

Hello again, wikicup'ers - great to see that my random idea is clearly something that has been bubbling under the surface for a while. While its great that you guys have apperently been thinking about this issue for a while, Casliber's proposals do seem to have created something far more complex than I had envisaged. I don't actually think that the categories that i mentioned in my previous post are particularly difficult to administer or grade, especially if the cardinal rule of the wikicup just a bit of fun. So, to recap, rather than lots of difficult, and potentially easy to game categories - I would suggest 2X multiples for the following areas for articles taken to GA/FA (a clarified version of my earlier proposal):

• Articles that already exist on wikipedia and (at the start of the wikicup) are rated by 2 or more wikiprojects as high/top importance

This won't really work since nobody really follows the impartance rating of a project, and to be honest, too many video games would somehow get an advantage from this system. Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nergaal, although we could say Top/High as of Dec 1 2010 or something. Still, I'm iffy about what might be covered. I might have a look at the sort of articles and revise my opinion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a problem with that -- not all projects use importance ratings, putting (ex.) Milhist people at a major disadvantage. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Articles that (at the start of the wikicup) meet the WP:TFAR/R requirement of being widely covered - which is to say having an article on over 20 other language wikipedia's

PresN proposed this one, and I think it has merit. Again, we'd have to say 20 other wikipedias as of a date, say Dec 1 2010. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Articles which (at the start of the wikicup) are on wikipedia's list of core topics, as listed as WP:CORE

• Articles which (at the start of the wikicup) are on wikipedia's list of level 3 vital articles as listed at WP:VA

Yeah, (so support it above!) but I still feel it is a bit of a vanilla-flavoured list ... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Articles which are in a subject listed at the time of the nomination as underrepresented at FA level by the FA director - Raul654 (only for featured articles)

Some of those above were in this group, but I think folks are worried about a bunch of very obscure food, maths or business articles being improved rather than core material. I am warmer to it however. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Articles which are "long" by an agreed standard - here I defer to Casliber's superior experience and judgement in setting a benchmark, but any standard acceptable to the project could be used.

See above. please vote! Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Casliber's suggestions would introduce a lot more multiples, and I can see the advantages to that. But they are also fairly arbitrary in what area's of content it values. My suggestions are much broader (and therefore potentially have a higher abuse factor) but I think they achieve the core demands that i originally made of encouraging very valuable encyclopaedic contributions in areas that are underrepresented. Potentially, under my proposals a featured article on a core topic (a huge ask given that there are only 15 so far (and five of those are by the insane people at wikiproject Astronomy) would have a multiple of 64, but i would venture to suggest this is not to far from the workload that such an article would need! Ajbpearce (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I concede that I did throw up a lot of possibilities, but not all have broad support, so if we just cherry-picked the most unambiguously supported, there aren't that many. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I have added my support to the relevant sections of casaliber's proposals as suggested. I have deliberately not voted on his more specific proposals because, although I think they are very well intentioned; I'm not sure that such narrow focus is the correct approach. I appreciate that Casliber has suggested that we only choose the most supported, but I do feel that focusing on such categories might well lead to a similar form of specialization as we saw in this years wikicup (again I am not a participant in the wikicup, and don't intend to be in the future so take my comments as only those of an interested observer.) Ajbpearce (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2010 (UT)

Summary of the above

The above section(s) are exceedingly long now, so I'm going to keep a running summary down here for convenience's sake. Yes means >3/4 majority with at least 4 supports, No means 1/3 or lower, No consensus means everything else. This summary is separate from the meta-debate about having these categories as a whole. Counting me, 56 people have expressed concern about the idea; looks like 10 have voted yes for a category other than vital level-3 or broadly covered, which I'm excluding due to their origin as a competing idea. That's still a no consensus overall, so if you haven't voted yet because you're on the fence or voted no for a cat but never yes please note your support or opposition to the idea as a whole somewhere. --PresN 06:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolute added as being against non-"broadly covered" categories, firmly pushing the proposal as a whole to "no consensus". The other 45 people are me, Ed, Mitch32, Ajbpierce, and Reywas92. Note that the 56 opposes aren't in alignment either- Ed and Mitch are just opposes, while I wanted the Broadly covered and vital-3 cats only, Resolute wants the broadly covered cat only, and Ajb and Reywas92 had whole counter-proposals. I'm tempted to start a meta-poll, though this is getting deep into tl;dr already. If you are against the idea of these categories, support one of the counter-options, or if I'm misrepresenting your views, please speak up! --PresN 18:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a meta-poll would be in order shortly. I would love to let this run another few days, but we're running into low-activity time (Christmas-New Years), followed by the start of the Cup itself. My suggestion would be give it another day or so, then break it down into a meta-poll and get the newsletter bot to ping all the participants. Guettarda (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position, I believe that any article that is truly a vital-3 will already be in the broadly covered category. I'm not opposed to vital-3, but I am very much opposed to vital-4. I am not opposed to the other ideas, per se, but I prefer a simpler approach. Resolute 20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my position, which has probably not been clear, given I am new to the wikicup & the meta-debate aswell. I think having any system where articles that are "more important" to the encyclopaedia are rewarded more than a default level is a good thing. I think that a multiplier concept for certain kinds of articles is the best way to do this and I think that those areas where I have given explicit support represent what I perceive to be good general areas to apply such a multiplier. I have remained neutral or explicitly opposed specific categories - because I feel that these either have the potential to incentivise articles I would feel don't qualify as "important" or incentivise only a limited subject-specific subset of those articles I feel are "important". But: I would much prefer the next wikicup to overly incentivise the production of articles about nobel prize winners than to incentivise another lot of articles about college american football seasons or obscure battleships ;). Ajbpearce (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reywas92 has added another counter-proposal up above (1000+ pageviews/day), and I've updated the above counts. I'd like to point out that if we added the opponents of the proposal as a whole into the below counts, pretty much all of the "yes" cats would be knocked into "no consensus", and the top-scoring criteria would still be barely holding on, if that. I think we need to start the meta-poll today- I'll get to it if I have time after work, but anyone else should feel free to start it up as well. --PresN 18:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that there is a huge consensus to add multipliers, especially if including those that have supported such a move here or on the Cup talkpage in teh past two months. I would not be worried about multipliers as a whole, just which ones are good and feasible; and not likely to be gamed. Nergaal (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes

• Vital level-3- Yes (11/0)
• Broadly covered- Yes (12/0)
• Size of article- Yes (7/0)
• Multipliers stack- Yes (5/0)
• Countries- Yes (8/1)
• Elements- Yes (6/0)
• Nobel winners- Yes (6/0)
• World heritage sites- Yes (7/0)
• Capitol cities- Yes (5/0)
• Oceans- Yes (5/0)
• Continents- Yes (6/0)
• Time- Yes (5/0)
• Life orders- Yes (5/0)

No consensus

• Cap on multipliers- No consensus (1/0/1/2/2)
• Leaders of countries- No consensus (4/2)
• Past leaders- No consensus (3/2)
• Africa- No consensus (3/3)
• Food- No consensus (4/2)
• Chemistry- No consensus (2/0)
• Physics- No consensus (1/0)
• Computing- No consensus (2/2)
• Health- No consensus (2/0)
• Language- No consensus (2/0)
• Math- No consensus (2/1)
• Psychology- No consensus (1/1)

No

• Deserts- No (1/2)
• Mountains- No (1/2)
• Awards- No (1/4)
• Businesses- No (1/3)
• BLPs- No (2/7)
• Arbcom sanctioned articles- No (2/3)
• Aerospace- No (0/3)

• "Africa" - added very late, & right at the bottom, looks like 3 in favour, 1 against to me! Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to see that clearly definable things (countries, elements, Nobelists) are much more popular than broad topics like "computing" or "food". Not sure that's the result I would have expected! Shimgray | talk | 16:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's exactly what I was hoping for - concise clear categories that can't be gamed and takes a reviewer all of about 2 seconds to check whether an article qualifies or not :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes line changed to 3/4 per Nergaal and Casliber; this didn't change anything as of right now. --PresN 22:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• I just wanted to note that I am watching this, and very much support this poll taking place, I'm just staying out in case someone "uninvolved" is needed to close things. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Multipliers

Just looking at the list above, I expect the multipliers to typically look like this:

• 2x if the articles are large (over 30kb?)
  • 4x if they are also broadly covered in other wikipedias (over 25?)
    • 8x if the articles are also either Countries, Elements, Nobel winners, World heritage sites, Capitol cities, Oceans, Continents, Time, or Life orders (possibly a few more)
      • 16x if also on Vital level-3

I don't see any combination going over x16 which sounds fine to me. Comments? Nergaal (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I would estimate that a monster article such as London would be 16x the work of a smallish esoteric one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've made my position clear above. But I wouldn't be too opposed to this. I'm not sure on the large count- I'm currently working on Final Fantasy XIII, which is quite large and which I feel like shouldn't get any multipliers. I'd say over 30 or 40 for the broadly covered- without looking too deeply, that seems to be the line that separates popular subjects from really important subjects- and I don't like the specific categories. But this would incentivize people to work on the more important articles, as one of the super articles would send them to the next round. --PresN 08:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiplyers should be limited at 4x. Something that happens to be of a certain topic, etc should not be 1600 points while something of similar work is only 100. Important articles should naturally be long and be in other languages (or have over 1000 views/day) so these multiplyers overlap and should not be cumulative anyway. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not follow the whole discussion, sorry! My question is now: Was there a discussion if articles above a certain views per month get also a multiplier? If not I would suggest that articles above X views in October 2009 and April 2010 ( simply two dates to avoid hype article) will have a multiplier of 2x and if they have X+X views they have a multiplier of 4x.--Stone (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I was thinking of something like this myself. Perhaps any article that has ever been in the top 1000 for a month should get a multiplier. Does anybody know a way to get more recent results than last December's? Abductive (reasoning) 10:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if the nomination looks like that:

• I nominate Guido Goldschmiedt for DYK 10 points multiplier X (October 2009 45 views April 2010 109 views)
• I nominate Chromium for GA 40 points multiplier X (October 2009 79037 views April 2010 146702 views)

The first would get the 1 as multiplier while the second would get a multiplier which would be more like 2 or 4. --Stone (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In principle this sounds like a good idea, but if you think about it, too many pop-culture articles would get this bonus, and the point of the multipliers is specifically against that (in my opinion). Also, the spirit with the article views is quite similar to that of broadly-covered criteria in almost all the cases (intended). Plus, if something has 50k+ views regularly, it will most likely get the length bonus also. Nergaal (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, if lots of people are reading it, even if pop culture, there should be a bonus for making it high-quality. Enough with the obscure topics that few people read. And very few articles have 50k+ daily. Most important topics would be covered by 1000 or 2000 hits/day. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I know there is a steady stream of pop culture material getting to GA, but is there to FA? My gut feeling aligns with Nergaal's. Hunting for refs for some articles is much much harder. For instance, an element might have uses (and hence sources) in horticulture, agriculture, medicine/health, along with physics and chemistry. Medical articles I find very challenging to get weighting right compared with straight zoology/botany/mycology articles. So my thinking is also looking to reward effort I guess...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, please do not have a multiplier for page views. We are writing an encyclopedia, and page views do not show what articles are the most encyclopedic -- only what is popular (eg Plato is much more important than Justin Bieber, but guess which one gets more views) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Plato gets over 7500 hits/day so it would get the bonus. It's not proportional, so either the article is popular or not. What, should we not encourage editors to improve the Justin Bieber article as well? Just because you don't think it's as "encyclopedic" doesn't make it important to give the most of our readers a high-quality article on a topic they've actually heard of. (And Britannica has a page on him too). Reywas92^Talk 17:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, popular subjects are likely to be dynamically edited and poorly sourced and therefore more difficult. Abductive (reasoning) 07:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, multipliers should be limited to 4x maximum. I understand the want to provide massive incentives, but you can't make working on one article equal to sixteen 'normal' articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Everybody who prefers taking United States through FAC instead of doing four SMS Hindenburg, or four Tropical Depression Ten (2005) from scratch raise your hands. Everybody who prefers having four more MHSs or four more Depressions to FA instead of the U.S. article raise your hands. Nergaal (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously though Ed, Nergaal has a point. The differences in effort can be large - i'd say a 16-fold increase in workload is accurate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are trying to steer WikiCup participants to work on broader topics, rather than obscure ones, these multipliers might have that effect, though they might not. I would be very willing to work on the Nobel bios (the Nobel Foundation publishes lots of material each year for each recipient of the awards, so it is not as difficult as it looks, though ideally more sources will be used in addition to those ones - the earlier ones will now have published book-length biographies, while the later ones, particularly those still alive, will not have reached that stage yet). However, I would have thought that a separate project, one that everyone can contribute to, throughout the year (the way the WikiCup attenuates round-by-round works against sustained effort from a group throughout the year), with only barnstars being awarded rather than overall prizes, would work better. The big satisfaction would come from working as part of a team that got x number of countries, or x number of whatever, to GA or FA. No need to use the WikiCup to leverage that sort of work. That sort of work should be its own reward, and for the larger and broader articles, this sort of work is better done in collaborative teams, rather than individuals trying to claim points for some competition. Some of the comments on this page seem to miss this fundamental aspect of how the biggest articles are worked on, and how larger workloads need to be shared, not given more credit. Carcharoth (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(belatedly) Carch, I'd like to believe that such a project as this would fly, but past experience has shown otherwise. I'll list some - I tried to reactivate Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive along these lines a while ago, and Wikipedia:The Core Contest (2007), Wikipedia:Danny's contest from 2004 and late 2004, and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF which was active February 2006 to Feb 2008. The last might be intriguing to reactivate. (if anyone can think of any other core contest please let me know...what did happen to Danny anyway...?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the point I was trying to make is that people improving articles conscientiously because it needs doing, and as part of a team where a structured approach is taken, with the right balance struck between the various things needed (reading and finding of sources, consolidating into article prose, copyediting, finding pictures, discussing tricky points, and making sure that the sources used are chosen for a reason and are not just the ones that happen to be available, and noting where further work needs doing), all this, should in theory make for better articles at the end of it, rather than individuals competing for points in a competition. On the other hand, much of the discussion and 'peer review' (in the wider sense) takes place at the various review processes, so that normally means it is OK.

I think the problem with the various improvement projects in the past is that they have tried to do too much. The key is to identify what sources you have access to, and also those you don't have access to, to do what you can to improve the article, and then recognise that others may be needed to take the article further and leave notes for them to do so (it is better to say "A new (and definitive) book on this topic was published in 2008 which I don't have, so access to this book will be needed to go further with this article", than to try and do too much with too little). Or aim for a subsidiary goal such as checking all the links, or copyediting, all of a group of articles, and repeat these 'small' tasks for all articles within a group.

One thing I think is absolutely key to any major article is identifying a wide range of sources and when they were published and by whom, though I admit for the broadest of articles it is not feasible to do a complete list, but there should be some justification (e.g. for a country article) saying why the sources used are good enough for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, and why others were not used or did not need to be used. The other thing is, with these broad topics, we will likely see multiple people claiming credit for their work on the articles - I would be really uncomfortable if a topic as broad as a country was rewritten by a single person - in some ways, those articles should be summaries of the daughter articles anyway (History of, Geography of, etc).

Anyway, I won't push this point further, as I've signed up for the Cup for 2011, so I'll have to get cracking on the Nobel bios (and I'm hoping others will as well, and everyone willing to work on those articles can do so as a team) - the thing is, I'd much prefer to set out a schedule of work for a whole year, rather than do round-by-round work aimed at generating points in a competition. The former (slow and steady work over the year) should be recognised at least as much as intensive work during each round. So there are two main points I wished had been discussed more: (1) Teamwork versus individual work; (2) Sustained effort over the year versus round-by-round work. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Base point scores

Ok, our points for this year were as follows-

2010

Featured article	Good article	Featured list	Featured picture	Featured sound	Featured portal	Featured topic	Good topic	Did you know?	In the news	Valued picture
100	40	40	35	35	35	15 per article	10 per article	10	10	5

I think, with next year's competition so close, it's time for us to finalise the points for next year. What I offer below is very much provisional, and in no way final, though we're going to have to get the whole thing finalised very soon, preferably within a week. Taking into consideration that valued pictures was recently closed, we will not be offering points next year. Per this discussion, there seems a fairly clear desire to de-emphasise DYKs, with some even calling for them to be removed from the competition (with solid reasoning). There was not a consensus on a cap to DYKs, with several ideas being shot around. That is the reason I have (provisionally) lowered the points scored for a DYK to 5 (and I am certainly open to the possibility of lowering it further). The question of lowering ITN as well was not fully addressed, but the consensus seems to be that ITN offers quality contribution, is well reviewed and difficult to game. As such, that is staying at 10. There was discussion about FA vs FL vs GA, but I can't really see much of a consensus, and there has been little discussion about other topics. So, provisionally, the points for next year are looking pretty similar to how they did last year. Thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

2011 (provisionally)

Featured article	Good article	Featured list	Featured picture	Featured sound	Featured portal	Featured topic	Good topic	Did you know?	In the news
100	30	40	35	35	35	15 per article	10 per article	5	10

I will participate in the competition for fun, regardless of the point system, but I think this is a fair point system. I agree with DYKs being worth 5 points rather than 10. I have no opinion on the multipliers (I think it makes things more complicated than necessary, but if it provides incentive, why not). Looking forward to the competition! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I was thinking along the same lines as J Milburn. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose dropping the GAs a bit. Last year DYKs and GAs were clearly the winners, and since it is so hard to get a FA through, I would like to see a better ratio of FA/GA points. If GAN reviewing is going to happen, I think that it will incentivize users to focus on GAs even more as there won't be such a huge wait as before to get the 40 points. I think having GAs go from 40 pts to 35 or 30 would be ok, since I would still prefer to write 4 GAs than have to put with one FAC. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dropping the GA score would make sense for the reason you mention, and would certainly be consistent with the discussion that was hinting towards raising points for FAs (and perhaps FLs) with relation to GAs. What do others think of lowering GAs to 30? J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But then GA is less than FP and FS...? In general I can see the rationale and have no strong opinion (i.e. either is ok) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

From my own experience, I am more pleased with my featured portals than I am with my good articles, and I was extremely happy when I managed to secure the release of some files which, later, became featured sounds. Placing good articles there would place them below all types of "featured" content- obviously, "featured" content can't get much better, while "good" content can. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair points. I've not done other media so will bow to your experience...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that GA should be dropped to 30 points.Remember (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the general gist of how people feel, so I'm gonna knock it down above. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think FAs should be raised to 125 or more, simply because they aren't easy, and you can only nominate one at a time, while reviews take roughly two to three weeks (as opposed to GAN's unlimited amount of nominations and shorter review time) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

I think we need to open the "review" can of worms again. There was opposition to (especially) FAC reviews and (also) PR reviews being awarded points for various reasons, but I think the question of GAC reviews needs to be addressed. The opposition was not nearly as strong as to other types of reviews, and there most certainly is a "bare minimum" that someone would have to do to warrant points- remember that to review an article at GAC, you have to review the whole article. There is a constant backlog at GAC, and previous drives to clear it have not, so far as I know, caused shoddy reviewing. I am leaning towards offering a token number of points for a GA review (something between 1 and 5) based on previous discussions, but the last thing I want to be is, as a reviewer and article writer myself, indirectly responsible for shoddy reviewing at GAC. What do people feel is the best way forward? J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the incentive should be minor, like a conversion in football or something. 1 point is fine. Something that just ticks the score along by a little. My thinking is a point is enough to spur those reviewing to do so, but not those not interested, and the main focus remain on content improving. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep- I admit it was your arguments which convinced me in the first place. I'm thinking 1 point for a good article review may well be appropriate, but I think we need to note that the judges will be ready and willing to remove review points if the reviews are shoddy. Also, I don't think points should be given for quick-fails, as they take a matter of seconds. J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you want to specify something along the lines of, "An adequate review will have at least three queries or the reviewer will have made at least three straightforward edits/fixes? Or is that getting too detailed? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a 1:1 correlation between reviews and nominations for GA. One point isn't going to offer a whole lot of incentive. I wouldn't want to see 10 points awarded for a review, but would rather propose that the 10 points for a competitor's GA aren't "official" unless / until they have reviewed an article during the same scoring period. If complaints are raised about the reviews, the points can be suspended into the ether again. To say the focus should be on content improvement leaves out the fact that GA reviews are a part of this improvement. Reviewing shouldn't be a way to sneak into the competition without contributing significant content, but it also shouldn't be left entirely on the shoulders of those not involved with the event. Canada Hky (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's an interesting way of looking at it I hadn't thought of. I am warm to it, but wonder if it sounds a bit too 'serious' and not 'fun'...hence why I thought a 1-point tidbit was a good option. No-one is going to win by reviewing articles as the points are just insufficient. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I do like Canada's idea a lot, but I worry about forcing people to do things. Editing Wikipedia should not be a chore. Cas, I think setting in stone what constitutes a good review may be a little restricting, and a line in the sand could easily become a target (people looking for three things to moan about, then leaving) or a defence ("but but but I said three things! I should get my points! I don't care if it's a copyvio, we're not gonna get sued!"). I think anyone who has any experience at GAC knows what a good review is (and may be lucky enough to know what a great review is) and so it shouldn't be too problematic; as you say, the low point cost will deter any kind of abuse anyways, and the fact we can now all see how many reviews our leaders are doing will mean that the kind of people who never review despite utilising GAC themselves will stick out like a sore thumb. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My vote would be to award people 1 point per review because forcing people to do GA reviews is likely to lead to lots of bad reviews by people who aren't very good or enthusiastic about doing them. Alternatively, it could lead to people just not participating in the cup or just not submitting GAs. I think the point system is the easiest way to fix this problem. Perhaps even bump it up to 2 points per review. Remember (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We had 2 points per review in the aviation and WWI contests and that is about right, I think. Enough to be a real incentive, but not hardly enough to game via crappy reviews. People just have to understand that the judges can spot-check the reviews and delete those that aren't up to snuff. That ought to discourage any crappy reviews.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How about 2pts for extensive reviews, i.e. over 1k of text? This would exclude quick-fails and uber-sloppy reviews. Nergaal (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. Remember (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me too. For anyone that's worried about bad reviews, how about I volunteer to check them all each cycle? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds feasible and works for me three. J Milburn what do you reckon of this idea? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If people like it, we'll go for that. Does that mean that we would also be awarding a point for the shorter reviews, but it'd be two points for the longer ones, or just two points for the longer ones? J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just two for longer reviews. Also - do articles eligible for review begin on January 1, or are those already in the queue eligible as well. I don't think it matters one way or the other, I just wanted to be sure. Canada Hky (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

My thought, FWIW, would be 0 for short, 2 for longer, and come Jan. 1, anything that's in the queue is eligible. After all, the longer it's been there, the more it needs to be cleared. Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Meta-multiplier poll

Or, lets make this page a bit longer. It may be too late for this, but I'll give it a shot.

The options are: No multipliers, multipliers for specific categories (as determined above), multipliers for broadly covered (available in >x other wikipedias), multipliers for being on the Vital Level-3 list, and other. Please put your name down under all categories that you're fine with- the options are nonexclusive, and it's support only, no opposes. For Other, note your specific proposal in 1 sentence or less- it will be moved to a full option if enough people agree.

Surely "broadly covered" and "vital level 3" are examples of selected categories? I get the impression this poll is a little biased against many of the categories discussed above. J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Against which ones? Anyways, I am adding page size also. Nergaal (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Countries, oceans etc. You have started a poll which is basically "Who likes option A? Who likes option B? Who likes option C? Who likes option D, E, F, G and everthing else?" so far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point actually happening below by the disparately low amount of supports in the merged option. Nergaal (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea was that the Broadly Covered and the Vital Level-3 ideas were thought of before Casliber came up with the idea of specific content categories. Once those got merged into the specific content categories proposal as some of the categories, the idea that they were separate was lost. It seemed to me that there were several people who were opposed to the idea of specific content categories but were not opposed to the Broadly Covered or Vital Level-3 ideas, which was being lost in the above polls since they were merged together. Thus this poll, and why I didn't make it a support/oppose thing- people are free to support everything, and prove me wrong. In the end, feel free to judge the consensus however you want and ignore this poll if you feel it is biased- I'm not a judge and I probably won't get any multipliers, I was just trying to pull out a thread of the discussion I felt was being lost. --PresN 05:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No multipliers

1. I support no multipliers for BLPs. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Selected categories

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes, it will be the only thing distinguishing EV articles from Bieber ones. Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

   Funny, because these exclusive categories also leave out Plato! If we're only using the few categories listed above, we have about 400 countries, capitals, and oceans (leaving out states, other major cities, and seas); 100 elements (leaving out all other chemisty, math, and physics concepts); 500 oft-forgotten Nobel winners (leaving out all of history's other scientists and politicians); 900 mostly minor WH sites (leaving out national parks and other natural and man-made monuments); several life orders (leaving out many more-important species); and time, whatever that really means (leaving out so many more topics). I'd much prefer no bonuses than limited categories that exclude thousands of topics that could be more important and are viewed by more people/are in more languages. Reywas92^Talk 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

   You are partially right. But if you come up with well-defined categories to include the exceptions, I am sure users will support those. The problem is finding important, but well-defined categories. Nergaal (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

3. Somewhat. Guettarda (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
4. yes. I'm dubious about "broadly covered" - too many tv shows etx. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)y
5. Support the categories listed above as having consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Broadly Covered

1. PresN 19:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
2. (once we figure a number of other pedias, but yeah in principle...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Defenitely. I am thinking 25-30 is a good threshold. Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Strongly support. Articles in 30+ languages have already proven themselves to be important, widely-known, and well-viewed. Reywas92^Talk 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
5. I like this idea a lot. Remember (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Ajbpearce (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Miyagawa (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
9. --White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 14:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
10. You know, I thought this referred to topics which have ≥20 articles in other language wikipedias but no article in English. Given that, I would prefer 30+ (prior to Dec 2010) as the threshold. Abductive (reasoning) 07:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Vital Level 3

1. PresN 19:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
3. This should be the primary aim of the Cup. Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Yes, but this leaves out too many top-importance articles; Level 4 would be better. Reywas92^Talk 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

   Ideally yes. But Level 4 would just create drama since that list is not stable nor well maintained. Nergaal (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

5. I support this. Remember (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Ajbpearce (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Yes Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Miyagawa (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Sure, will go a long way towards validating the Cup. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
11. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Long articles

1. Probably above 30kb. Nergaal (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Ajbpearce (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Long-windedness is a problem on Wikipedia. People should not have to worry that if they edit an article down on the way to a GA or whatever they will halve their points. Abductive (reasoning) 07:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. Creating long articles should be rewarded, currently the CUP favors mass production of short articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Page views above 1000 per day, for at least one year prior to Jan 1 2011

1. Support, as co-suggester. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Very much so, as the other. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Newbie Cup?

In reading this, I get the impression that most contributors here see the wiki cup as an activity for experienced editors with lots of time on their hands. That's a good thing, but there are also relative newbies, such as myself. Last year it took only two did-you-knows to get into the second round. This caused a friend of mine to get interested - too late to sign up for 2010; she's been eagerly waiting for 2011 since around February; meanwhile contributing all kinds of DYKs. She even talked me into signing up.

Now we're both feeling overwhelmed. Fine articles seem way out of our league. I've been wondering whether to simply withdraw now.

Hence this suggestion - have either two leagues in the wiki cup, or a separate, smaller scale (and shorter) wiki cup for relative newbies. (A separate newbie cup might be easier, since it's so close to the start date for the main one.) There'd be some kind of cut off for number of edits to admit one to the newbie section. Perhaps it could be as simple as "if your new articles are autoapproved by Dec. 31 2011, you aren't eligible for the newbie section".

That would give folks like me reason to play too, without feeling outclased from the beginning.

Kobnach (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that, and I can certainly understand that the discussion here can seem a little overwhelming, but I note that there are a lot of newer users participating in this year's WikiCup. It's possible that a lot of what is discussed here will not play a part, especially not in the earlier rounds. When I took part in the 2009 WikiCup, I didn't get too far myself, but I certainly enjoyed it. The majority of users will indeed be looking at scoring a few DYKs and GAs (as I was when I played), rather than the multiplied FAs we discussed above. Please don't feel discouraged; at the same time, last year, there were some great cases of less experienced editors getting to the final rounds and being amazed that they were "playing with the big boys", as it were. I've no doubt they won't mind me saying; I doubt many people expected White Shadows (talk · contribs) or Suomi Finland 2009 (talk · contribs) to do as well as they did, but both did a great job. There's certainly room for the "little guy" in the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Kobnach, much of the above was started by me gasbagging, and now there is a lot of hot air. It'll precipitate down into some useful bits and pieces about certain articles being worth more points, but easy to understand. Lots of us can also help new users getting articles ready for Good Article or Featured Article status, so don't feel overawed. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Two DYK might not be enough this year, but 6 might be OK. There is a lot of people around not getting any points at all. Combine efforts and claim points for working in a team with other authors capable of things you can't do. There is always a way to get to second round even third round was not that critical last year. --Stone (talk)

Thanks for encouraging Kobnach; I hope they stay in the Cup and do well. But for me at least, it's not about winning, and I regard the people who scored no points this year as signs that the Cup is failing, not opportunities to do better. I collaborate on articles where that seems best; I work alone where that seems best; and I may well propose someone else's article for DYK this afternoon. "How can I do well" is not the only issue here. Another is "Why participate?" Yngvadottir (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Kobnach has a good idea here, and a good idea for the cut-off (although I personally think the threshold for autoapprove is set way too high and someone like me, approaching 50 new articles and with several huge expansions too, is no longer a n00b by any standard).

I'm going to self-identify as the friend referenced by Kobnach - pretty obvious from their wording when then signed up. In fact I now much regret not jumping in in January 2010; someone else got permission to do so as I was contemplating asking whether I could, but I decided not to add to the administrative burden. I would have made it into the 2nd round. I'm not a competitive person and am dead set on not changing my activities on Wikipedia just because I'm in this thing. I'm doing it for fun. I already create articles and improve articles and I already submit at DYK.

I know you all have good motives. But I am not sure you realize how daunting you are making this. I've looked in here at least 3 times (it would have been more, but this page is hard to find) and have not voted on alternatives for scoring because . . . I don't understand the alternatives. They are massively complex. The discussion here makes my head spin. This is supposed to be a fun thing to encourage people to add content (in which I will say again I include improving existing articles). Making scoring complicated is not going to help in that aim. Moreover, I know you folks think the Cup is broken in some way, but I just cannot see what the problem is. Are too many articles being created?! The talk of lists of needed things just saddens me. I thought we all realized by now that what makes Wikipedia better than a printed encyclopedia is that nobody knows what is interesting or worthy of inclusion until someone else writes it up. That's also what Did You Know? is about. Any attempt to rank articles in order of how vital they are gets bogged down in bias pretty fast - how can it not? And it can't even include things the individual or committee is not yet aware of. One example. We went for 9 years without an article on Heathen hofs. There was a redlink sitting there in a footer template, but other than that, until I came along and said "Waitaminnit, major religion with no article on its temples" and had the chops to write one, I have to presume 99.9% of active editors here didn't realize that was a major lack. Or at least to me it's a major lack. It is just foolhardy - IMO - to try to identify the holes that most need filling. At least at this point, when the project is about to be 10 years old and we have people seriously asserting that there are very few articles left to be written, because all the categories of articles they rate highly are pretty much populated. I think the scoring discussion has gotten divorced from the purpose of the Cup.

That's aside from the fact I personally think the criteria for Good and Featured articles, once you get past "is it grammatical," "is it adequately referenced," and "Does it have the refs after the punctuation" basically boil down to "Does the group of influential editors who vote in these things like it." Which gets rapidly into things like "Does it have lots of sections even if the topic doesn't require breaking up," "Does it use whichever complicated citation format the voting group likes," and "Does it have a picture." Even "Is it too long or too short for the importance of the topic" (which makes little sense to me because some things take longer to explain). It's lovely to have an article featured on the main page, and it's a good incentive to editors to have articles being worked on to make them "good articles," but it doesn't really correlate with relative merit - especially when you remember that articles are not only never finished, they are and almost always should be continuing to change and evolve. It's more like "staging" a house that's for sale. So I don't play that game, and think it's highly over-rewarded in the scoring for what it is.

So, with the best will in the world, I think you've made this counter-productively daunting. But then I find the prospect of fitting my stuff onto the page to claim points to be daunting. I suspect some of you here have forgotten that willingness and ability to edit content does not imply ease with templates and tables.

You've reached no consensus anyway - and I suspect there are others like me who have been discouraged from speaking up by the complexity of the suggestions and/or a disagreement with the assumptions - so I'd really like it if you left the scoring system the same this year as in 2010. Or implemented Kobnach's suggestion. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

All the discussion has really led to very little. The changes in scoring from this year are simple- a small drop in DYK points, a small drop in GA points, removal of valued pictures (the project no longer exists), a small incentive to review good articles and, possibly, a small incentive to work on certain articles. If you note the section below this one, I have posted what I see to be the conclusion from all the discussion above about multipliers (which, yes, at times became very complicated). You can rest assured that whatever rules are finally implemented will be simple and, in the vast, vast majority of cases, will have no effect. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that DYK, which in my view should be the most important, drops further in valuation; that multipliers are introduced, complicating scoring and encouraging people to work strategically, which is gaming; that the discussion has had a chilling effect; and that the assumptions you claim are generally shared are IMO mistaken and detrimental, but the discussion has wound up giving them validity. I know you all have the best will in the world, but I'm no longer a newbie, I do both produce content and discuss things, and if I don't even understand half the talk here . . . there's a problem. Again, what is the purpose of this Cup? Is it to encourage content production (including expansions?) Or is it about validating some group's idea of what kinds of content? If the former, you're going in the wrong direction. If the latter, with respect, I don't belong in the Cup except as a gadfly working on kinds of articles that fall outside the criteria but getting 'em on DYK regardless (if I can overcome my distaste for being judge and jury over other people's articles, the new DYK requirement that interacts badly with the added complexity and demoting of DYK here). Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK has been abused and, in many ways, is very different from the other ways you can score points in the competition. The multipliers are unlikely to be gamable- the simple fact is that they will be reflected in articles that are very difficult to write; it would be much easier to game systems by writing numerous easier articles. The purpose of the WikiCup is to encourage quality contribution to Wikipedia and make editing that little bit more fun. Recognising that certain discrete groups of articles warrant a few more points is not about validating ideas of what is and isn't important any more than recognising that featured articles warrant more points than featured lists. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I notice that some people mass produce articles for DYK. I think there should be more quality control there in terms of the requirement that a hook should be interesting as well as more enforcement of the referencing requirements. But you can't "recognise that certain groups of articles warrant more points" even if they are inherently discrete groups - which I doubt - without making a value judgment about what's important, and there are many variables in what's easier, including whether something happens to have had many books written on it (which gets into the way we judge notability, which can be regrettably circular in many fields), whether one has access to a library that happens to have many of those books, whether Google gives one a full view or whether one has to painfully tease references out of a snippet view, how easy it is to explain something to someone with a typical education in an English-speaking country, whether there are issues of alternative points of view that have to be weighed and presented neutrally but clearly without the article starting to sound like an academic essay . . . and subjective factors, like my relative lack of expertise in science, which made Johann Wilhelm Schwedler hard for me personally to write. To give one example which is also another example of a needed article that no one had ever happened to realize we needed/have time and ability to read German sources in order to write. All of these things are more or less subjective. I hear your point about "quality" but it's frankly impossible to define it usefully. What is instead happening is that these changes make the Cup significantly less fun and take it a step away from encouraging people to write on what they can contribute on. I'm a good example because of my eclectic interests and bizarre editing pattern; what I'm afraid of is there are others who are not sticking their necks out. The project as a whole has become increasingly scary to content producers; the WikiCup and DYK are among very few things that offset that and that one can point to when telling someone "Yes, it's still about content." I'm afraid you're inadvertently making the Cup less so. I'm seriously considering withdrawing rather than further waste your time; but I got another reminder over this Yuletide of how important it is, another new editor who is an expert whose article (with good refs) was immediately taken to AfD. So instead, I'm just trying to point out that these changes dilute the message of making contributing good content fun.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvadottir (talk • contribs)

I hear what you are saying, but I wonder whether your issue is not wider than merely a problem with the WikiCup. You seem to dislike the majority of quality-control projects on Wikipedia (GA, FA and the like) yet want to have stricter quality control on DYK. As I have said, the multiplier question will have absolutely no effect on the vast majority of articles that competitors will claim points for, and may not be a deciding factor within the competition at all. If it does play a real part, it will be in the final rounds. The Cup is still completely open- no matter what corner of quality content production people take part in (be they photographers, writers of FAs, writers of DYKs, even much more unusual things) they can still score points, and still potentially score a lot of points. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope it will be simpler than I'm getting the impression it will be. On quality control - I do find it hard to reconcile the avowed aim of avoiding bias (recentism, etc. etc.) and the claims that citation templates, for example, are optional, with the way GA and FA reviews operate. But as I said above, having articles featured on the main page and having articles undergo processes of review are in themselves encouraging things, so I think you're overgeneralizing my disagreement :-) What I have a real problem with is taking those ultimately very subjective judgments, discussions on which are extremely influenceable by popularity, and rating them higher than content creation. That's multiplying a defect inherent in crowdsourcing and encouraging an "I like it" mentality. We all have our quirks and preferences - I am averse to joining projects but on the other hand I've found fascinating things on the DYK proposal page that I've not only been able to improve, but have enjoyed learning about. I've noted that many people on Wikipedia, conversely, stick to a few areas of expertise and rate participation in projects and policy areas highly. To each their own. But this Cup is supposed to encourage. I disagree with you that quality issues override that and require complication. I know you all mean well, but I'm saddened and feel the kinds of things I regard as important are being further marginalized - at this point in the project, I would have expected us to be well into working hard to broaden Wikipedia's coverage of underrepresented things (foreign, older, female, non-heterosexual, minority religions, lower-class anbd everyday . . . etc.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

. . . A 50% reduction hardly constitutes "a small drop" in DYK points! The discussion here has been so off-putting that I didn't realize you'd all apparently decided to halve it and that you were telling me that was a small reduction! Now I really do regret that the discussion here was so discouraging (and hard to find). And am not surprised at all that there are fewer sign-ups. I disagreed with the initial proposal to factor in mainspace edits, but I note that several people would still like that, yet that got turned down. I do not think this has been a good process in terms of determining consensus or making the Cup fun and encouraging, and I don't think playing down the changes helps. This is a bad show.Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The changes have not been downplayed; they really are not major. The competition will look practically identical to next year in practice. J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Final call on the multipliers

Ok, as I'm reading it, we like the multipliers and we want them in the Cup. I think there's a fairly clear consensus that "broadly covered" articles (which we can define as something like "articles covered by at least 20 Wikipedias on December 31, 2010") are eligible for a bonus. There also seems some considerable support for the Vital Level 3 list, but surely every one of them would be considered "broadly covered" anyways? I think the best way to do this would be to have them both, but not have them stack. The number most commonly thrown around in terms of multiplier is x2. Now, it seems to me clear that this could apply to DYK, GA, FA and FL (and FPo, in theory...), but not any other process. That's my thought process. The rule I am proposing for the 2011 WikiCup is this-

Any article which exists on at least 20 Wikipedias, as of 31 December 2010, as well as any article which appears on the vital level 3 list, scores twice as many points if it appears on did you know, or is promoted to good article, featured article or featured list. Any portal which exists on at least 20 Wikipedias, as of 31 December 2010, scores twice as many points if promoted to featured portal status.

Fair? J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the degree of overlap is high. I think stacking is a good idea though - all those vital articles will be a major effort, so my personal preference is for stacking, but given the responses from new users above, I don't want to scare anyone off, so can live without stacking and see what happens. I do think that any bonus whatsoever arising from these discussions is a huge step in the right direction and all the rest is merely icing on the cake. So am ready to archive the above and move on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I could agree to that rule. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Guettarda (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Remember (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to have seen the select categories given a multipler as well. In particular, the UNESCO World Heritage Sites had the most consensus for a multipler, and are not all Vital or Widely covered (unlike, say, countries). Can't these be included for the sake of countering WP:Systemic bias? Abductive (reasoning) 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that once we start including something as specific as that, there are lots of things that should also be covered. We can't say "anything widely covered, anything on the select vital list, or any world heritage site". J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder about World Heritage areas - how many aren't in 20 other wikipedias....my connection is slow so it will be a pain for me to check now, but if significant numbers aren't that'd be a shame. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrarily picked four from the African list, and they ranged from 13-20 interwikis. Guettarda (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am ok with this conclusion. --PresN 01:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks OK. I would hope those that supported the specific categories do work on those categories anyway, as there is nothing to be lost by working on those articles anyway, and much to be gained (for the encyclopedia, not the competition). Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that this could come across as much too little, but, as the thread above shows, there is fairly active resistance to making large-scale changes. I'm hoping that this small change is enough to uncontroversially push the contest in what people consider the right direction, without starting any fights and without changing the feel of the competition. J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to start small and see how it works. If it works badly, we can scrap it. If it works well, we can keep or expand it. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am intrigued by what sort of articles make it into 'broadly covered', which we'll get a better picture of in a few months' time I suspect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)