Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/2

Ughhhhh...

Oh no, not the Vital article multipliers again... Shitty proposal - banish Cacti to ANI! Jokes aside, this is my feeling when reading previous Vital article incentive proposals, it seems that people don't really like the list or don't even care about improving vital articles in general. In my opinion, the Vital list need not be perfect to do the job, it just need to be good enough list of "articles that people will always care about" to become useful. Demanding the list to be more "clean" has wasted the project a decade worth of time. So, here's my proposal for integrating VAs to WikiCup:

1. 5x multiplier for level 3 (175 pt GA, 1000 pt FA), 7x for level 2 (245 pt GA, 1400 pt FA) and 10x for level 1 (350 pt GA, 2000 pt FA), without bonuses from lang multipliers. The multipliers here are honestly extremely tame by lang multipliers standard – most if not all VAs have +50 languages and are topics of inherent importance. Level 4 and 5 are not counted as they are not as vital and includes topics often seen in WikiCup.
2. Special recognition for those actually tackle these articles.
3. Add smaller multipliers for reviewing/checking these articles.
4. Encourage collaboration by allowing sharing points – if both main contributors work on the same article, they may each get all the points.

I know that this proposal has been here over and over again, but I hope that you guys seriously consider it. Just 10 VA each year could mean a massive improvement to this encyclopedia for the readers. Remember, it doesn't have to be perfect, WikiCup after all is just a highly addictive game. Regards, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

To give a sense of how difficult improving Vital article is: United States, Israel, Emotion, Land, and Euclid. What's the multipliers for all of these articles? Poultry 5x. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Notified: centralized discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too experienced with CD or the WikiCup, but is this really that important? Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I personally think so. There has been many, many discussion about this in the past. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No, people should not be able to win the WikiCup with a single Level 1 VA FA. Level 1 and 2 are not significantly more important/difficult than Level 3. Level 4 contains many countries and world cities that are equally as worthy as some other articles. A FA for a high-profile article is too much of a game of chance to make sense as a WikiCup entry, as it will likely take a very long time, preventing the nominator from scoring on other FAs. Just no.

Vital articles should have their own improvement drives (as they do) and have nothing to do with the WikiCup. —Kusma (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

We do have one, called WP:TCC. The only small problem is that it is ineffective at producing GAs. And yes, I firmly believe that a Vital 1 FA worths a hundred times more than a random FA, due to its impact and extreme difficulties. One article requires you to run a marathon, another requires you to run on hot lava. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, it has a side benefit of pushing people out of the comfort zone and conquer and chewing these articles. I think this is not an unreasonable proposal, given that User:Vami IV have drilled Simon Bolívar constantly, a Vital level 3 article, for a year now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the designation of "Vital article" is too subjective to use for the Wikicup. I think page count, number of foreign languages the article exists in, and age of the article are more objective and should be considered first. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

All importance lists are subjective. They are not meant to be objective as they reflect what values do we consider important, in this case it is the object's or people's effect through history, its relevance and broadness. Sure, we can make another list that solely based on statistics, but I don't think it would yield good result. Do try it though – I and many others would love to see it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think people should be encouraged to waste their time on super broad concept articles like most Level 1 Vital articles. Where Wikipedia shines is in specialised knowledge, not on hopeless tasks like summarising the arts. Level 3 and 4 are typically more worthwhile to work on, but as I said before, not necessarily a good choice for a WikiCup participant because of FA nomination limits that together with the two-months rounds turn VA improvement in the Cup into a high risk strategy. —Kusma (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's good to have a jackpot prize... People can aim for smaller prizes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

1000 or even 2000 points for an FA? Hell no. That's absolutely unfair to everyone else. WikiCup is not a lottery. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is unfair for those working at climate change FA and Hurricane Nicole (2022) FA to get the same 200 pts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

With the current interwiki based bonus system, climate change is worth about 3 times as much as that hurricane, so it seems the concern in your example is already addressed by the rules. —Kusma (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

You stated that people don't even care about improving vital articles in general. I think that can mostly be attributed to the lack of approbation given to Vital Articles within the community. I won't rehash some of the old arguments again, as I think some of the above comments speak for themselves, but I will say that it seems highly unlikely this proposal will gain traction. WikiCup already has clearly defined standards that work just fine for the purpose of building an encyclopedia (and rewarding those who build it).--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The WikiCup is not working fine. Plenty of people stopped participating due to drama, GA and FA reviewers complaining that WikiCup reviews are of low quality, and of course, the articles often nominated would not see the light of day after the WikiCup. Stuff is not "fine" right now. I do agree however that many parts of the proposal needs adjustment before integrating them to the cup. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I've always found the VA list to be pretty arbitrary. I don't always agree that they are the most important articles to work on. There's also only a small amount of items that can be worked on. I'd be against doing this specific proposal. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with at least bonuses for Level 3 articles. This is where I think the sweet spot of the Vital articles project is: it's not got too much popular culture or celebrity clutter, but it's not trying to square the circle of finding the "10 most important... things". The WikiCup hugely incentivises obscure and cookie cutter GAs and FAs—I say this as someone whose contributions fall mostly under this description. Rebalancing the points distribution towards our most-viewed and most important articles, even if we go over the top with it, has a huge potential to make a big difference to readers.

I don't see why it would be wrong to win the WikiCup by improving United States to FA rather than improving 100 boilerplate TV episode articles to GA and 10 to FA. — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

5x is too much though. If -- If you're going to institute bonuses for Vital Articles, the bonus needs to be something more reasonable like 1.5x. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Why? Using my own work as an example, bringing Black Mirror to GA was 5x the effort of bringing one of its episode articles to GA. That's just a level 5 vital article, and I'm doubtful it should be on that list. — Bilorv (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I disagree with including Vitals. I'd want to repeat what I said the last time. Vital is a flawed and arbitrary system of articles. Not to mention its incomplete for what one would consider "vital". And 1000 points for one article is far too much. You could win a round on just one article with that. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, what is vital is arbitrary. But so do our language multipliers, GA review pts, image FA pts, and so on. I'm sure that out of 1000 articles listed as "vital", most are worthy of further expansion as a broad-topic article. I do agree however that the multiplier is a bit too OP. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• As I don't think most of the Level 1 and 2 articles are actually useful, I would support if it was for level 3 and downwards. I do feel that these, if taken to GA or FA status, would significantly improve the project. Multipliers of x2, x1.5, and x1.25 for the respective tiers seems fair to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Agree, but I think that keeping Level 1 and 2 prizes for anyone dare to do it. I think they should have a x2.5 and x3, without language bonus. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• As above, if levels 1&2 are included, I would oppose. Most of them are not what the WikiCup, and Wikipedia as a whole, specialises in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not persuaded by any of the above to support such a change. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why so? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  For a start, lack of evidence to support the points being made. Some of the articles I've worked on are getting as many or more views over 90 days than some of the level one vital articles, so I think readers are being served by improvements to the non-"vital" articles. (Often helped by peaks; see chart here - e.g. Fatima Whitbread had 226,323 views in 90 days; the arts had 104,192 in the same period.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• If my two cents are of note (well, SandyGeorgia's, I'm just bringing it to light), her original idea was to have an additive of 15-25 points depending on what level the article was at. A base article is worth 75, level 5 vital articles 100, level 4 125, level 3 150, level 2 175, and level 1s 200. This idea specifically I'm opposed to, because 75 is definitely too low, and I don't think this big of a point gap between is encouraging. Every article on Wikipedia is worth 75 points then, and only 10,000 or less are worth anything above that. However, we could potentially do something small with it (a 5-25 point bonus on top of the base points depending on vitality, just to encourage users to shoot for something bigger since they're already going through FA). I think we should just save multipliers for the other languages thing, and just treat ideas like these as a "you did a backflip instead of a frontflip, so that's a 5 point bonus". In short, my stance is "something small or not at all." Panini! • 🥪 17:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Based on the reactions here, I think I'm just gonna make a separate competition to WikiCup instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Reasoning from first principles

So let's start from the beginning. Why does WikiCup exists? Well, The purpose of the Cup is to encourage content creation and improvement and make editing on Wikipedia more fun. So, what is the most essential, most dire articles that need improvement? Some would say it is the stubs – they should be improved to fulfill Wikipedia's comprehensiveness. Some would say it is the popular articles that rakes in millions of views per day – we should make a WP:ITN to inform as much people about the truth as possible. Personally, I think that such articles are low-quality articles that are broad in scope, articles that would likely be referenced for decades into the future.

Well, some would say, why do I fixated on these broad-topic articles? These articles usually contain a lot of important and crucial knowledge that is very hard to find anywhere else. Britannica and Encarta does not have the guts to write an article about science – we do. And we want to make the true and fresh knowledge to access as much people as possible, whether you are from Nigeria with dial-up internet or a scientist in Dubai that need a touch-up on your expertise. That's why Wikipedia is a webpage, that's why the New Vector screen has a big font and fixed screen width, that's why Wikipedia don't have ads (to make accessing knowledge easier), and so on. That's thinking from first principles (asking "why?" until you cannot reduce it further).

What does it have to do about WikiCup then? Well, the most effective WikiCup season is one that facilitating all of these things the most. This means encouraging editors to make great, attractive (to the readers) content, correct factual mistakes, and accelerate article quality growth. The most efficient use of editors' time to achieve this goal is to work on broad-topic articles that are perpetually relevant to readers. A GA about particle physics would outweigh 100 GA about each individual fundamental and composite particles. It just so happens that the WP:Vital article list exists that compile these kind of articles, and though it is not perfect it is the best that we got. So why not use the list then? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The same can be said for other processes here at Wikicup and Wikipedia. Why do so many editors this year that a lot of them withdrawn? (hint: it's not just IRL stuff). Why does the WikiCup never achieved more than 100 contestants at the same time? Why do people farming points by making cursory articles and reviews? Why isn't the WikiCup more effective at encouraging more quality content? This are issues that I believe can be solved if we just shake up the system and walk outside traditions and the comfort zone. Test, fail, learn, repeat – that's what make a good product. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The majority of content creation and expansion on Wikipedia happens independently of the WikiCup, which is an additional fully optional way to be a bit competitive about content work. Many of our best content editors do not even participate in the WikiCup.

If you want VAs to become better, either do it yourself or find out why people don't work on them and fix that issue. Extrinsic motivation like extra WikiCup points may be the wrong way to approach this. —Kusma (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like you guys aren't enthusiastic about this too. I made the Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/Vital Competition specifically to encourage VA development. Let's see how it goes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree that your assessment. In what way does forcing people to work on specific articles make Wikipedia more fun? I disagree that an article on particle physics would outweigh other articles. I think you view our scientific coverage as being incredibly important for researchers, but we aren't a reliable source on such subjects (or at all). We aren't here to state "facts", we are here to summarise what third party RS state about a subject. The Vital articles list is made up of primarily very broad and expertise led items - ones that are incredibly difficult to improve. Whilst working on them is a great use of your time, putting rewards behind very difficult curtains would completely put me off the competition.

We aren't a product, and if you somehow think that focusing on VA items is somehow going to get hundreds of users involved, you are crazy. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you are conflating Wikipedias goals with your own. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to work on articles about what I find interesting, regardless of if they are vital articles or not. And most everyone else here will tell you the same thing. We're volunteers, and choose to work on what we enjoy. This vital articles thing is not going to get conflated with WikiCup, nor should it.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I know a way to encourage people to work on certain articles... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

As well-intentioned as this proposal is, I think it may be trying to conflate the WikiCup and other competitions that focus on Vital Articles, such as The Core Contest. Unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is specifically geared toward improving VAs, and they do give out prizes based on how vital the article is, in proportion to how much the article was improved.

The problem with including a vital multiplier in the WikiCup is that it encourages gaming the system, especially since the Vital Articles list is relatively arbitrary in that anyone could edit many of the VA sub-lists. In addition, vital articles already have substantial interwiki multipliers (many VAs will get at least 2x multipliers anyway). I think coverage in other languages is already a decent measure of how vital a topic is, especially for pages that are not officially listed as VAs. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

anyone could edit many of the VA sub-lists? I can't see how that wouldn't be solved by a simple "as of December 31, (previous year)" or something. I agree with the general idea that the level 1 and level 2 articles are Pretty Bad In Quality, but that's again TCC not WikiCup. The language stuff is a more objective measurement of how much people care about an article/the "global" scope of it, so to speak. casualdejekyll 00:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• I get that this discussion is largely dead, and the rules for this year are unchanged, but I would take issue with the knocking of VAs in this way. Of course, there are some subjective decisions to make when deciding what's "vital", and obviously perspectives will vary, but I actually think the lists are broadly accurate in terms of what's most important to include in an encyclopaedia. And the process is based on a consensus, albeit one of a small fraction of the community. To be honest, the interwiki multiplier is more of an arbitrary measure of importance and tends to inflate certain topics disproportionately. Plus thay can be gamed too if someone cared to, they just have to go around adding their favourite topics to lots of other wikis a year in advance. If we're considering an overhaul next year I would probably vote for VAs. I think the impact of that and benefit to the project would be higher. But hey ho. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Spirit of the GA review scoring rules?

I'm about to finish a two months plus GA review (Talk:Taiwanese Mandarin/GA1) which was delayed by various issues, mostly lack of time by either nominator or me as reviewer. I think by the letter of the rules it probably qualifies for this year's cup once the review is closed (which should be Any Day Now), but I'd like a second opinion on whether it violates the spirit of the rules as I did the bulk of the work in October/November. I'm okay both with it being eligible or ineligible (I think it is unlikely that the points for this review will make a substantial difference). —Kusma (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Since you added more comments after the New Year, you're fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that sounds like a good rule of thumb for these cases. —Kusma (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Just following this thread as I added a GAR to my submissions page yesterday where the majority of work occurred in late December but the review passed in Jan. Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 18:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

My two cents. I have not seen the specifics of these two cases -- but, as long as you know that the articles have not been deliberately "gamed" please go ahead and include them in the submissions if the rules permit it. That's the luck of the draw and sometime or the other we have all benefited from the luck of the draw. Happy editing. Ktin (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As long as you have worked substantially on a review and it has been completed since the competition started, it should qualify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I’ll leave it on my submissions page Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 20:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Cash prizes for improving Vital articles

At the Wikipedia:Reward board there are two big cash prizes for improving Vital articles: US$1000 for improving a level 1 Vital article to GA and £100 for improving a level 2 article to GA. Hope that these prizes would spice up the competition a bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Blimey OReilly, 1000 USD for a GA? It's not even particularly hard to achieve GA, you just have to do some reasonably thorough coverage and then impress one reviewer who shows up...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow! I hope someone who needs the money and deserves the award gets it! Happy editing. Ktin (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Level 1 VAs have been sitting at C and B for literally two decades at this point. I hope the cash prize helps, but I can't really pretend that it gives me much confidence in it. (For sure FA would be a more reasonable thing to put a bounty on, but I'm not the one who made the prizes...) casualdejekyll 12:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for helping improve articles, but I don't really see how this has anything to do with the WikiCup. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the WikiCup, and this competition is not and never should be about monetary reward; I for one would not participate otherwise. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Bonus points

Hi, I recently brought Christopher Nolan to FA status. Nolan has articles available in 80+ languages so it should be eligible for 3x bonus but the bot is dismissing it. Is this intentional? FrB.TG (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You've formatted it wrongly. You need to put Article Review per the commented out message. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my bad! Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

ITN posted and pulled

I nominated an item at ITN that got posted, briefly, and then pulled. It doesn't matter for my point total in Round 1, but I'm curious if the judges would count those in the scoring, or exclude them. Getting anything posted to ITN that isn't a recent death or already on ITN/R is a tall order these days, unless the death toll is high enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Guess I should ping the judges, @Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth:, to get their notice. I don't personally care about claiming these points, but I think it's good to have clarification on this. Should an item that was posted to ITN and pulled count for WikiCup? See Special:Diff/1138354336, Special:Diff/1138400263, and Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Pulled)_LeBron_James_sets_scoring_record. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to allow anything to which you have made a significant contribution and which gets as far as the main page. I guess there have been other articles on which you have worked but which are ultimately not selected for ITN, and these are not recognised in the WikiCup. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Where to submit Featured List reviews

Hi there! I just realized that there's a place for FARs, but not FLC reviews -- which I think are supposed to count this year? Am I just supposed to post these in the FAC section? (Sorry for the confusion on my end!) Nomader (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomader, I've just put them in the FAC section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Nomader (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

ITN updaters

Hey! I was wondering if updaters at ITN, not just nominators, can be awarded for points. It only states "nominators" at WP:Wikicup/Scoring#In the news, and so I'm asking for clarification, if ITN updaters can also be awarded points if they've also made substantial contributions on the ITN article. I was also directed here via Discord. Thanks! Tails Wx 21:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, yes, you should be able to do so as an updater! Happy editing! Ktin (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright! Thanks! Tails Wx 04:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I have clarified the requirements for "In the news" submissions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

FAC/FLC review standards

Is there an established minimum standard for what sort of FAC/FLC reviews can be submitted? I ask because a lot of reviews focus specifically on one aspect, like citations or images, or they might otherwise leave several comments without doing a top-to-bottom review. I figure this has probably been addressed before, but it's not specified in the main WikiCup page or Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and I can't find it in the talk archives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think like anything else, as long as a thorough and high-quality, it can be claimed. I have claimed points for sources reviews on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Levitt/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Burnley F.C. in international football/archive1, for example. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: As a source review specialist, I would say that they are much more tricky than is often believed. I would write an FA first or do a series of prose reviews before jumping into them -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I very much second what Guerillero says. A detailed source review is intense, even when few points end up being raised. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The judges check every submission made, and all the FAC/FLC reviews I have inspected have been of a high standard suitable for WikiCup points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Where are the results from Round One?

I see that the ongoing Round 2 is on Wikipedia:WikiCup but where can the Round One results be found? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2023/Round 1 Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias. For those who might be following the results from time to time, perhaps a link to individual past Rounds could/should be provided on the main contest page? Shearonink (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest

The Core Contest will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. Most of our core articles carry a lot of bonus points for the WikiCup, so I'm hoping this finds interested ears here. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Casliber, Aza24 and —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

FA Review question

Hello, all. I would like to inquire about the scoring for FA reviews: do you have to support or oppose a nomination in order to claim points? Or are comments sufficient? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think comments are sufficient. As a judge, I look at the review and see whether I think it qualifies as having involved significant effort by the reviewer. I seldom reject a review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

QPQ

Hi! 1919 Copa del Rey final has a peer review here. I'd be glad to review a GAN/FAN of anyone who comments on the peer review :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

My bad

I had some medical issues and failed to promote New Mexico Rattler for Adog before he left. Is it possible to add that to his Cup page since he won't be around for a month? It's my fault and I feel quite badly about it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe he's reached the second round, Sammi Brie. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

My bad, I was talking with Epicgenius and he brought it up so I thought he had. Thanks, @AirshipJungleman29. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

How to join?

If someone did not join on 1 January it's too late now? Eurohunter (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: signups close on 31 January each year (though the competition begins on 1 January). — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv: How do I remember for the next year? Eurohunter (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: you can add yourself to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to opt into newsletters (which are sent out, I think, at the end of each round and when the next competition begins). — Bilorv (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Good/Featured Topic Question

Hello, I would like to inquire about the nature of the scoring of good/featured topics? If articles are promoted earlier in the competition, but the actual nomination of the topic occurs later, is it still possible to claim points? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth and Sturmvogel 66: Sincere apologies for the rude interruption, but may one of you help me clarify this? Thank you kindly, Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a judge but per Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Featured and good topics, you get points for every article/list that you have done significant work on within the topic, Unlimitedlead, so long as at least one of those was this calendar year (not necessarily the same round as GT/FT promotion). This is how I've claimed GT points in the past. — Bilorv (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for answering this in my absence, Bilorv. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Long DYKs and WP:COPYWITHIN

I recently submitted the article Mira Bellwether for DYK. The article runs >5 kB, so would normally be eligible for a 5-point bonus. However, as I've noted on the nom page, about 2kB is either quotes or permissibly copied from the article Fucking Trans Women. (I'm aware that, strictly, DYK rules only exclude block quotes, but it felt GAMEÿ to count multiple inline quotes of 2 to 3 sentences.) An (unreadable) version containing only new content can be seen here, at 3,115 B—above DYK's requirement of 1,500 B new prose, but below the 4 kB implied as a minimum by the 5 kB rule + DYK's "80% new" rule.

Assuming this is promoted to DYK, should I decline the 5-point bonus the bot will give me? If it matters, I am sole author of the FTW article, and claimed WikiCup points for its DYK run but not for its GA promotion (ineligible by 4 days). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hook has now been mainpaged, and I've listed it on my submissions page; I remain fine with waiving the 5-point bonus if that's what's most fair. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm eliminated: what happens now?

I'm a bit sad about getting eliminated from the cup, especially since I didn't notice that yesterday was the deadline day for the second round... Still, I've had a lot of fun while participating, so thank you for the opportunity, and good luck to everyone who is still competing!

I just wanted to ask two quick questions: firstly, will I still receive updates from the newsletter, as long as I'm subscribed to it? And secondly, am I eligible to include a userbox for my participation on my personal page (once I'll manage to create it)?

Oltrepier (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Oltrepier: Thank you for participating and writing new articles! As to your questions, I think the answers are yes and yes. We should all receive a newsletter now that the second round is over and the third round is about to start. —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kusma, yes and yes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Newsletter

When will it be sent out? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Last year, the newsletters were usually sent out between the 1st and the 3rd day of the month when the new round started. I would expect that it will be sent when it is ready, probably this week. —Kusma (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Got it. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Related question: could/should this talk page also receive the newsletter? And/or link to an archive of newsletters? —Kusma (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Kusma see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletters. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't see the link before (it is hidden in the navigation template). Would it make sense to add it to the archive box in /Header on this talk page? —Kusma (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The unofficial tool

It doesn't work, and hasn't been working for a while. Anyone know why? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been experiencing the same issue. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Jarry has fixed it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

"FAR" vs "FAC"

At the moment, "FAR" is used to indicate record keeping (in individual's submissions pages) of reviews at Featured article candidates. Surely this should be "FAC" instead; "FAR"—i.e. Featured Article Review—is something different entirely (Featured article review). Aza24 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Or possibly FACR - Featured Article Candidate Review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

We have GARs, so why not FARs? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Outside of the Wikicup, WP:GAR and WP:FAR have a different meaning: both are "review with a view to potentially demote" processes, so perhaps GANR and FACR would be better to use here. —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

What Kusma said. We do use those shorthands, but they both mean the review process of things already promoted.

I suspect people use those acronyms in part because it is promoted here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer GANR and FACR as I've also found GAR/FAR confusing. — Bilorv (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense to me... where would this even be changed for future competitions? A template somewhere? Aza24 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Stalled good article nominations

Just a heads up for editors who are hoping to get points from good articles: recent changes at GA as well as a general lack of reviewers has resulted in the expected wait time for GA nominations to go up to 6+ months. Per this discussion, editors who do not frequently review good articles will have their nominations placed at a lower priority and will often have to wait longer. In order to have high priority, you need to have more reviews than you do GAs. The oldest unreviewed nominations are at 7-8 months, and this number is trending upward, so there's a good chance that current nominations will not be reviewed by the end of the WikiCup if you're not a frequent reviewer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

On the flip side, I am a relatively frequent reviewer, and anecdotal evidence from the handful of GAs I have nominated this year says that my wait times have gone down quite a bit (1 day, 9 days, 6 days, 11 days, 1 day). GA reviews also give Wikicup points so it is worth doing them. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thought: Bonus points for reviewing really old GANs? Panini! • 🥪 01:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, why not? The WikiCup does generally create more reviews than nominations, but I don't know how many of these reviews are of "easy" articles. Bonus points (one bonus point per two month nomination age? or five bonus points for articles more than 6 months old) would give an incentive to WikiCup participants to work on the "old" part of the backlog. —Kusma (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I will not have the time or energy to participate meaningfully this round - had a death in the family and as an engineer I get very busy during construction season. I'd like to withdraw. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Missing GA Multiplier

The GA for Pamela Stephenson that I submitted hasn't had any multiplier applied. I'm guessing this could be because I added it to my submissions page after the entry below it. If it's possible to fix this then thanks. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It is probably cause you claimed that article twice mate - it's the second GA as well. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Self-trout applied. Thanks Lee Vilenski. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No drama, easily done. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

A few words of gratitude

Hello! Since this year's edition is officially over, I just wanted to thank everyone involved real quick, and especially @Sturmvogel 66 and @Cwmhiraeth, who hosted the tournament and indirectly gave me the opportunity to take part in my first ever WikiCup: I might not have made it far (in fact, I was out just after the second round), but I genuinely had plenty of fun and learned a lot about GAs, DYKs and other useful Wiki-features!

I also have to say congratulations to @BeanieFan11 and the rest of the finalists, because their dedication was just impressive!

I hope I'll see at least some of you again next year... : ) Oltrepier (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Flags on submissions page

@Cwmhiraeth and @Frostly, I noticed that the second bullet point on Wikipedia:WikiCup/2024 signups says: "The flag you choose doesn't have to be the country or area in which you reside, it can be any geographical or institutional flag, both current or historical; this is one of the traditions of the WikiCup." In practice, numerous competitors over the last few years have used non-geographical, non-institutional flags (e.g. various pride flags, the flag of Mars, and never-implemented flag proposals). Should we just remove the text "geographical or institutional" so that, going forward, the text says: The flag you choose doesn't have to be the country or area in which you reside, it can be any flag, both current or historical; this is one of the traditions of the WikiCup? – Epicgenius (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Epicgenius, looks good to me! — Frostly (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've implemented that change. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems good to me too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK/GA and bonus points

Currently, an article can be claimed as a DYK only if it has been a creation/expansion, not as a new GA. As DYKs of older articles can get quite a lot of bonus points merely for being old, this creates a large incentive to do 5x expansions, as these can score 10 base points plus bonus points for age. As an example, for Anna Blackburne, which I expanded 5x in a way that was good enough for GA, I got not just 42 points for the GA, but an extra 27 points for the DYK, although the DYK was nearly zero additional work. On the other hand, if I had nominated the article for DYK after it passed GA, I would not have received any points for the DYK. This seems slightly wrong to me. Perhaps GAs should have bonus points based on article age, or DYK-after-GA should also score something (maybe without bonus points?) I'm not sure what the best thing to do is here, but it feels a bit like a loophole I was exploiting. —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma: What you say is not quite correct. The DYK bonuses are designed to encourage the expansion of stubs that have been around for a long time, and can be very worthwhile in the WikiCup, points-wise. If an article becomes a GA, it can score in the normal way. However, to score as a DYK it needs to have been nominated as new or a fivefold expansion within the seven days of its start or expansion. The timing of its becoming a GA is not material as long as it qualifies for DYK as new/expanded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just wondering whether we can encourage people to work on old articles that can't reasonably be 5x expanded. —Kusma (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Having collected points in this way myself, I see this situation a little differently. It's more like recognition of the fact that it requires a bit more effort to 5x expand an article, bring it to DYK, and then bring it to GA, compared with bringing an article to GA without expanding it five times.

However, this doesn't account for the fact that you get to nominate an article for DYK under the 5x expansion criterion if you expand a page from 1.5 kB to 9 kB, but not if you expanded it from 10 kB to 40 kB, This is despite the fact that the latter expansion represents four times as much added text (30 kB added, compared to 7.5 kB added). Maybe we can open a discussion on whether the prose size of a GA should be considered as a factor in calculating points. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a good point. I do caution, though, on over-incentivizing longer articles, as brevity and clarity are certainly important. — Frostly (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup Judge needed?

Having read the most recent WikiCup newsletter, it seems that one of the two judges will be stepping down from their role. The WikiCup is both a fun competition and an important force for improving the encyclopedia. I don't know if I meet the requirements, but I would like to help out if that is possible. The Morrison Man (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Since Cwmhiraeth was basically the only active judge over the past few years, we definitely do need judges. I'd be willing to step forward if people are OK with that, although preferably we should have a few more judges as well (so maybe 3-4 active judges). I appreciate all the effort Cwmhiraeth has put into the contest over the years - it certainly is an arduous task - and I definitely would not be able to judge everything on my own. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd also love to help out! — Frostly (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, I will be stepping down as well. I hope that y'all can find volunteers to carry on our work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to step in as a support judge if Morrison and Frostly would like some assistance? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your offers of help. I do not necessarily need to step down as a judge, but I want someone else to be responsible for the general running of the competition and the meeting of the deadlines entailed. My life has become more complicated with regard to real life issues, giving me less time for Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, that makes sense. I was under the impression that you would be standing down completely as a judge.

I'm also busy in real life, so there would be no guarantee that I would be able to enforce deadlines (i.e. set up all the candidates' submission pages) - that duty would likely have to fall primarily to somebody else. However, I reiterate that I would be happy to step in if there were a consensus in favor of me becoming one of the judges. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@The C of E: with thanks for the offer and without wishing to dredge up old dramas, but per Wikipedia:Editing restrictions you are "subject to an indefinite topic ban from WP:DYK, broadly construed", so I don't think being a WikiCup judge, which touches directly on the DYK space, would be compliant with that TBAN... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru: It's perfectly possible to do the job without dealing with any DYK matters (for theres many other areas involved as indeed when I compete, I earn my points without going near there). With respect, I find it a little rude to be bringing that up here in public when a simple note on the talk page would suffice. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, nothing about being a judge would require any actual engagement with the DYK process. There's no TBAN from looking at DYK. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I would support Epicgenius as a judge -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

+1, wholeheartedly supporting Epicgenius. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Epicgenius has my full and complete endorsement as an excellent editor capable of being a diligent and impartial judge. I also anticipate not running in the future, so I will be available if I am needed in some capacity. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 on @Epicgenius being a judge. Good luck! Ktin (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll throw my hat in the ring if I ever finish User:GalliumBot#cupboard, but otherwise I'm happy to cheer on Epicgenius and others :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This was my last year competing, so I'm happy to also help with the general running of the competition. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Bonus points: a continuation from last year

Current format
Bonus points Number of Wikipedias on which the article appears as of 31 December 2021 Extra points 0–4 0 5–9 20% 10–14 40% 15–19 60% 20–24 80% 25–29 100% (Awarded double points overall) 30–34 120% 35–39 140% 40–44 160% 45–49 180% 50+ 200% (Awarded triple points overall)

Kusma's proposal
Bonus points Number of Wikipedias on which the article appears as of 31 December 2021 Extra points 0–4 0 5–9 20% 10–19 40% 20–34 60% 35–54 80% 55–79 100% (Awarded double points overall) 80–109 120% 110–144 140% 145–184 160% 185–229 180% 230+ 200% (Awarded triple points overall)

Epicgenius' proposal
Bonus points Number of Wikipedias on which the article appears as of 31 December 2021 Bonus points 0–9 0% 10–19 20% 20–29 40% 30–39 60% 40–49 80% 50–59 100% 60–69 120% 70–79 140% 80–89 160% 90–99 180% 100+ 200% etc.

Firstly, many thanks @Cwmhiraeth and Sturmvogel 66: for their stewardship of the competition over the years.

Last year, there was substantial discussion about modifying the bonus point system, as at the moment improving the articles for a town in Norway with population 30,000 and United States to FA net exactly the same reward—600 points. Two proposals were put forward to remedy this (above) by Kusma and Epicgenius. However, neither was implemented because the current bot, created by Jarry1250, couldn't be modified in time (I've seen that theleekycauldron's GalliumBot contains "an in-progress project to manage various facets of the WikiCup", but I don't know its rationale/status).

I don't think there were any objections last year to the content of the proposals. I'm here to ask 1) if that's still the case, 2) which one is best, and 3) how we could implement the chosen one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: For me, I would support Kusma's proposal because its similar to what we have but offers reasonable rewards for those that exist elsewhere even on a smaller scale. Whereas Epicgenius' one I think puts too high a bar for bonuses to be achieved in most cases. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I also prefer Kusma's proposal—I think it allows an easy "entry point" for smaller articles, but also a good reward tier for "the big ones". Epicgenius' proposal still rewards Leicester at the same level as China. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

My proposal basically increased points on a linear scale, but honestly I'm not too enthusiastic about it because anything with 5-9 interwikis would no longer get any extra points. I'd probably go with Kusma's proposal as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Been some time — I think I had made a proposal too. Though I do not remember much of it. Ktin (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Yeah, I wanted to take over administration of the WikiCup so we could make changes in the way it's done. That's currently sitting behind a number of other projects on the priority list, so I can't really say with any confidence that I could have that done for next year's cup. Maybe another bot op wants to get on this? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not enthused by either variant -- I think this is a better opportunity to revisit the classic Vital bonus discussion. While neither Vital nor ILLs are perfect measures of anything, combining the two covers a lot of gaps. Moss, Norway isn't any level of Vital; United States is Vital 3. Consider this toy model:

• Vital 5: 20%
• Vital 4: 40%
• Vital 3: 60%
• Vital 2: 80%
• Vital 1: 100%

This compounds with ILL bonuses. That means you get an insane number of points for a high-Vital FA. I consider that totally fair. Vaticidalprophet 11:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel like we could do that, although we can calculate the vital bonuses as a percentage of the score after interwiki bonuses are applied. For example, let's say that you get United States to FA status. Since you'd have 312 interwikis, you'd be able to qualify for 200% extra points, i.e. 600 points, from interwikis along. Then, since this is a level-3 vital article, the 600-point total is increased by 60% (360 points), which means you can get 960 points just from this topic.

If the vital bonuses are calculated before or when interwiki bonuses are applied, you'd only receive 120 extra points (60% of 200), or 720 total, in that case. That situation does not seem very rewarding to someone who worked on a vital FA/GA. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I think either of those work, depending on what the community is more interested in. Vital bonuses have been criticised before from the idea that FAs are already "too rewarded" and that winning on the strength of one or very few articles would be undesirable, but I think this is preferable to many alternatives. FAC is much harder to game than other aspects -- it is possible to, say, nominate tens of short articles at GAN and have them reviewed quickly by sympathetic reviewers, and I'd much rather incentivize "single huge article" over "many quickpasses".

One aside: all the articles being used as examples here are locations. Locations are very inflated on ILLs compared to most things, because they fit well into pretty much all projects and because short articles on them can be produced cookie-cutter to fill in a small one. I don't think we should increase ILL thresholds using locations as examples, and I think the degree to which they impact the stats is well-resolved by adding a Vital multiplier, because locations are handled pretty well at Vital. Has anyone ever won or placed high in the cup based on location articles? Vaticidalprophet 15:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sold that Level 1 and Level 2 Vital articles should get any better scores than Level 3. I've never wanted to look up the arts or society, while Level 3 actually has topics I might want to read about. I generally dislike the hierarchical approach promoted by VAs and would be happy to not see it used in the WikiCup. —Kusma (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It'd be doable to ceiling the bonus at Vital 3 if desired, sure. I think there should be 3-4 and 4-5 distinctions -- both of those have articles that intuitively scan as "clearly core topics" in the sense people want to grant bonuses to, and both also have a lot of inclusions that might not warrant the highest possible bonus. Vaticidalprophet 16:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If we're thinking outside the box for bonuses, we could also look at something more reader-centered than "vital articles": page views. This is a (not perfect, Wikipedia namespace pages should be removed) list of Level 1-3 Vitals by page views over the last year. Perhaps bonuses for articles with 5+ million views/year, 1+ million views/year, 250000+ views/year, 100000+ views/year might be more appropriate? —Kusma (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That depends on whether the views are sustained. If the article averages 5 million views a year over five years, then sure. If the article peaked at 20 million views because of some controversy back in 2019 and averages 100 views a day, maybe not. However, it would be very hard to determine average views for pages that were created less than two years ago, so I feel like this could pose a drawback. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I tend to think that the bonuses are trying to aim for an intuitive sense of "core" or "important" subjects. Pageviews at the very high end are difficult to assess; the highest level of that would be massively confounded by things that aren't actually pageviews (e.g. people accidentally hitting autocomplete in search bars, Cleopatra being the default Wikipedia article Alexa reads out, etc). Some articles have flatly weird results that seem to be errors. It's also very difficult to judge what's a "spike" that needs exclusion and what's normal variance -- for whatever reason, many articles on generally consistent subjects have some major upwards or downwards fluctuations. It's a good signal for things like Million Awards, but it's incredibly messy for the Wikicup. Vaticidalprophet 21:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The vital articles fail to give me this intuitive sense. Almost any article could be argued to belong one level lower or higher, and in fact there is constant arguing about who or what to include and at what level, an activity that does very little to improve the encyclopaedia. Pageviews from 2023 would be new and unusual, but completely non-messy (at least not as messy as VAs where people can argue for their Wikicup article to be included or upgraded prior to submitting it). —Kusma (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I find the intersection of Vital + ILLs gives me the sense much better than anything else much does. (I persistently notice that people assume prehistoric religion must be one of my highest-viewed GAs -- it's very far from that. It doesn't have that many ILLs either, really. My highest-viewed articles are mostly rare genetic disorders; my most-ILLed articles are mostly video game expansion packs.) Vital above V5 is pretty stable, and exploiting places for the Wikicup seems resolvable the way Wikicup exploitation is generally resolvable (not letting people do that). V5 is less stable, but in a place these days where attempts to game it for the Cup would be easy to shut down. Vaticidalprophet 21:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Cleopatra being the default Wikipedia article Alexa reads out - I know it's not the point, but I recently found out that it's actually Google Assistant that does this.

Also, I think page views can be subject to abuse (to be fair, so are vital articles, but to a lesser extent as inappropriate additions to the VA list can be reverted quite quickly). Someone can write a bot to click on their preferred article a few million times, and suddenly the page has an abnormally high number of views. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, people could theoretically go and fake-pageview the page they intend to improve a million times in December 2023, in order to gain more Wikicup points in October 2024, but somehow I don't expect this to be a popular abuse vector. —Kusma (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably not. But just to be sure - and to account for things like popular DYK hooks - I think we'd have to set the pageviews bar pretty high (say, at least 100,000 annual views) before any bonus kicks in. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I think incorporating VAs into point calculation is a good idea. Perhaps pageviews can be played around with too, with low bonuses, as a trial run. — Frostly (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

As a general point, I think it would be great if somebody could apply any of the suggestions above to this year's Wikicup results, just to see how much (or how little) they would change the outcome. —Kusma (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

+1— Frostly (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I am cognizant of the fact that there is no ideal method to determine how "important" articles are. However, I find it rather unfair that a single article can be worth 600 points. This makes it nearly impossible for me to compete because I have the misfortune of a topic area where articles eligible for that level of bonus points are very few and far between. I am not advocating for the removal of bonuses, but I do think the percentages should be dialed down, especially for FAs. 3x points for a GA is nowhere near as strong of an impact as 3x points for a FA. Full disclosure, I do not intend to participate as a contestant for the foreseeable future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree in principle with Trainsandotherthings. I think that it might be good to introduce different categories of bonus points, but the multipliers should be reasonable. — Frostly (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings and Frostly: I am not sure I fully agree with that. Yes, a single article can be worth 600 points, but they take a much larger amount of time to a) get to a sufficient standard and b) get reviewed at FAC. BeanieFan11 won this year largely through improving 61 articles to GA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 asked if it was possible to amend the bot to change the relationship between ILLs and Bonus Points, to which the answer is yes - I'd tweak line 321 of the main script. A bigger change, e.g. to bring in vital articles, would be harder but probably still possible. FWIW I personally like ILLs. I agree that they include lots of smaller places, but I've never noticced a problem in terms of which articles WikiCup participants are focussing on. If someone could email me if there's a consensus, I can make the change. Best, - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 16:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

New Wikicup trophy?

It's bland, it's low quality, and although it has some charm to it and is overall unnecessary, could we consider giving it a new look? Panini! • 🥪 15:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I would guess it's a matter of someone stepping forwards and volunteering to make a new one. (I'd be in favour.) — Bilorv (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd be interested as well. I guess anyone can make some designs and we could get some opinions? Panini! • 🥪 22:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Panini!, and @Bilorv, any thoughts on your preferred design styles? Emoji? (many, like Twemoji and Microsoft's, are freely licensed) Digital drawing? Photo? :) — Frostly (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggested trophy

@Frostly: There's a WikiCup trophy picture that was featured in The Signpost a few months back here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't have suggested a photo but seeing this I think it looks brilliant. — Bilorv (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I kinda want to have two made up and put in my cabinet. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Frostly, I don't want to speak for everyone but I'm thinking something drawn that is made to look realistic. Most custom Wikipedia graphics either are ripped from IRL images (such as the current one), or are drawn to be realistic, such as barnstars. Panini! • 🥪 23:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)