Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2024/1

This year's timetable

Since this is a leap year, should the initial WikiCup time period be January 1 through February 27 rather than the given January 1 through February 26? There's usually a two day break between the two-month contest sections, but with 29 days in February, wouldn't it be better to give an extra day in 2024?

Looking back at the previous leap year WikiCups, 2012 used February 26, 2016 used February 27, and 2020 used February 26. So, no consistency. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonset. The extra day in February would be logical. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree (might be slightly more work for us, but it seems fair to the contestants). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree as well; I've edited the schedule. — Frostly (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Scoring question

Why is ITN 12 points? It is the only one that isn't a multiple of 5, and I cannot tell why. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

QuicoleJR, I believe it was originally 10 points, but was increased in 2020 because it wasn't a viable way of scoring points. Because no interwiki multipliers apply to it, it doesn't have to be a multiple of 5. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Another scoring question: I nominated an article for FAC on December 24. If it's promoted sometime this month, does it count for WikiCup? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Voorts, yes it does. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What are the rules?

Hi there WikiCup Judges,

what are the rules of the WikiCup? TheTeam219 (talk) TheTeam219 (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Does content nominated last year but not promoted until this year count for points?

I looked over the rules and what it seems like is no but the wording is a bit specific. I was just hoping for clarification. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it does OlifanofmrTennant. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

As a judge, I can confirm that Airship is correct. It doesn't matter when the content was nominated, only when it was promoted and whether you worked on it significantly. Epicgenius (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Bonus points

I don't quite understand why I was accorded bonus points. I don't think that my DYK for Eustace Tilley should get any bonus points. What are the bonus points for?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why it got 8 additional points. Those points should have been from the article being suitably old. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

My thinking is that the bot somehow got confused, since the page itself was created in 2004 as a redirect. Based on the scoring rules, 8 bonus points would correspond to an article originally created in 2014, which is interesting because the article wasn't even edited once in 2014. An article could theoretically get bonus points from interwikis, but no other language articles are linked to the present article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the bot thinks that the adding of categories in 2015 counted as starting the article, because that would mean an eight-year existence, but I may be wrong. I'll ask the bot owner. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I also think the category edits may have tricked the bot. I can modify the score manually if you want @TonyTheTiger. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on the comments immediately below, I think we've confirmed it was the categories that tricked the bot. That would move the year the bot thinks the article was created to 2015 rather than 2014. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring

I encourage the judges to take a look at this and update as appropriate. From a glance, I note that it describes itself as clarifying the rules for the 2023 WikiCup; years for the calculation of bonus points have not been updated (is that deliberate?); and the 'what's changed from last year' section (presumably?) refers actually to changes between the 2022 and 2023 competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I've talked to Jarry, the bot owner, and have updated the page accordingly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the updates. It seems like updating the rules to reflect the current year completely slipped my mind... Epicgenius (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing

Hi, can I withdraw from the cup please? I have too much going on and I don't want one more stressful thing here, I prefer to leave it to people who are having fun with it! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This may be a record for earliest withdrawal! I mean, if it makes you less stressed then sure, but you're on 0 points you're not really preventing anyone from progressing (which is the normal point of withdrawing). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

They must withdraw. It is a Wikicup formality. Panini! • 🥪 04:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, I've marked you as withdrawn. I am sorry it took so long for us to withdraw you - I honestly didn't see your comment amid all the other conversations going on here. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer priority

I have noticed that both DYK and WP:GAC seem to be responding with reviews to expedite promotions. I could not get a reviewer at GAC before I joined the CUP and DYKs seem to be going easier on me. In round 3 or 4 this might be good, but I have a lot of stuff that I thought would take until round 2 that is already under review.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK reviews

Has there ever been discussion of crediting points for DYK reviews. Maybe 2-3 points.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed a bit last year, see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/1. I am opposed at the moment; certainly I would not want to give people more points for reviews without some minimum quality control. Many DYK reviews are too superficial, which causes a lot of problems for DYK. —Kusma (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think DYK reviews are superficial because of the QPQ system, and how DYK reviews are not incentivised in and of themselves. There's no backlog drive, no credit in the WikiCup and typically more hassle than it's worth due to the environment. It should be one thorough review, done correctly the first time. Instead it's several rounds of superficial review (reviewer, prep promoter, admin queuer) plus chaos, with "tweaks" or "fixes" that the original reviewer does not see often adding errors.

A more radical proposal might be to credit prepping or queueing a DYK set, as I gather these are often last-minute and hurried. Queueing is admin-only (I don't know what the expectations are in verifying the hooks/articles are sufficient) and prepping should be for experienced editors only. They need to be incentivised, albeit not for those who don't know what they're doing. — Bilorv (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As someone who does both regularly, I don't think either rewarding reviews or prepping is worthwhile. The former is pointless, because as Bilorv pointed out, nominating articles requires reviews, so you'd be rewarding editors for doing what they're obligated to do. The latter is just asking for trouble, because one of a prep builder's main duties is to not promote the articles they don't feel are ready. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If anyone participating in the cup is planning on getting points from DYK, I encourage you to review DYK hooks now. WP:DYKN has a large backlog, which means there are a lot of topics to choose from. Since QPQs don't expire, your review today can be used in May or July as your DYK nomination's QPQ. This is an excellent way to work ahead so that in later rounds you can spend time writing articles instead to get those cup points. The review guide can be found at WP:DYKRI. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

With regards to crediting points for DYK reviews, Kusma linked a previous discussion about this matter. I do not know how likely it is that there will be a consensus to allow editors to claim points for DYK reviews, since literally everyone with more than 5 approved DYK noms has to do a QPQ.

I agree with Z1720 that reviewing hooks now is the best way to get the backlog cleared up, though. Not only is WP:DYKN currently exceeding the post-expand include size (which means noms from ~4 days ago and newer aren't even appearing on that page), but this could also be a way to avoid the hassle of nominating a new DYK and having to write that your QPQ is pending. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

For all the admins taking part in the WikiCup, if you could some prep sets and move them to queue (the actual move can be done in a single click with a neat little script called PSHAW) it would be very much appreciated. We have a monstrous backlog and the main bottleneck at the moment is that not enough admins are helping. —Kusma (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

FL scoring rules

Hi there—I noticed that there isn't a separate section for featured list rules on the scoring page. Do the same rules that apply to FA/FAC also apply to FL/FLC? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620, FLC reviews and FAC reviews are treated the same way. FAs receive 200 points before multipliers are applied, while FLs receive 45 points before multipliers; both are otherwise subject to the same rules (e.g. you have to be a main contributor). Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Sorry, I should've been more specific. The rules you have mentioned in your reply were already clear to me. I currently have a listicle at FLC, which I co-nominated with another user, and was considering submitting another within the next couple weeks or so. Does the FAC stipulation on this apply to FLCs, i.e. would I be allowed to submit the second FLC while the co-nominated FLC was ongoing? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620, yes, you may go ahead with a second FLC. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Bonus for age of redirect

I believe here that the bot has wrongly given 11 bonus points for the age of Coriolanus Snow as a redirect (discounted per the rules); the DYK credit was for the new article that I created in 2024. If my understanding is correct could these 11 bonus points please be removed (leaving 5 points for the DYK + 5 bonus for its length)? It may also be worth looking at whether the bot is doing this elsewhere. — Bilorv (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, essentially the bot has difficulty telling the difference between a redirect with categories and a short stub. The bot maintainer can't easily find a solution, so the Cup judges just have to pay attention, and rely on competitors' good faith. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I can remove the bonus points for you shortly Bilorv. As Airship says, it is extremely difficult for the bot to differentiate between 5x expansions, and DYKs converted from a redirect when the redirect has categories on it already. I appreciate your honesty nonetheless. Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the adjustment and your work with the bot. — Bilorv (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bilorv, you're welcome. I'm actually not the bot's maintainer, though; Jarry1250 is. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about withdrawing

Like User:Chaotic Enby did, can I request to be withdrawn? Considering how inexperienced I am with Wikipedia, the zero time I have left, and the number of late nights I stay up, I really don't feel like I can get very far. If there's one thing that's certain, it's that I'm not the first person to be eliminated. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula, I've now withdrawn you from the competition. The contest does get tough, especially in later rounds, but I can sympathize with your withdrawal. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your GA reviews, @TrademarkedTWOrantula! Hope to see you around next year; nonetheless, please prioritize your mental health. — Frostly (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

FACs

On a different theme, the number of FACs a competitor can have at a time is limited by the FA candidate rules. These limit editors to one FAC at a time and one (or more?) joint FAC nomination. An FAC nomination takes several weeks to process, and those of editors with few or no previous nominations may be slower to be completed as addition checks are made on sourcing etc. Similarly, experienced FAC editors may have their nominations processed more speedily. I have observed editors request that they may be permitted to start a new FAC before the previous one is completed. I believe these varying factors give an advantage to frequent FAC-ers and a disadvantage to FAC novices, a fact that is perhaps only likely to be of importance in the final round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed that too.

Incidentally, I think we should consider amending the FAC rule to match what the FAC coordinators allow (i.e. an editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them, or if a second nomination is approved by a FAC coordinator). In practice, during the past few years, we have seen several contestants nominate a solo FAC before their previous solo FAC has been promoted. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could amend the rules accordingly, limiting open FACs to one solo nomination and one joint nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that this might add even more restrictions to the already-restrictive FAC process. As written, the rules technically allow people to nominate 2 FACs simultaneously, where they are co-nominators on both. This might worsen the inequality between FAC novices and regulars, as novices are encouraged to seek a FAC mentor (who may end up being a co-nominator for the article) and so technically could no longer co-nominate a second article if they wished. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that overall, consistency with existing precedent/rules is a positive goal. — Frostly (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Vami_IV

As some of you may know, one of this year's contestants, Vami_IV, unfortunately passed away recently. At the time of his death, he had the second-highest number of points. In light of this, I am considering a tribute to him in the upcoming March 2024 WikiCup newsletter. Any and all suggestions are appreciated.

Since Vami has never formally withdrawn, he will remain in the competition and will likely advance to round 2. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

i think a "highlight reel" of sorts, featuring his most recent work, would be a good idea. including some of the things he's well-known for, like the Completionism essay & Simon Bolivar, would be nice as well. :) sawyer * he/they * talk 21:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that we should implement a system where dead people are considered withdrawn for the purposes of scoring? It would make sense, considering that they can't exactly compete anymore. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean, Vami had two ongoing FACs which if successful, could likely see him through to round 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

True, but after that he has no chance at success, since he cannot make any more nominations on account of being dead. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Joint nominations are a thing. For example, he had written several GA's which could potentially be taken to FA-class. At the end of the day, a person's work on Wikipedia lives on after they do not, and I don't think this cup should be any different. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm also thinking about if we have an unfortunate incident like this again in a future year. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• I hope to see him advance to round 3. I don't know the state of his FACs, but at least one of them has to be a co-nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, he has two FACs currently open (one is actually a co-nom with me). As I'm a judge myself, I can't claim the points for him if that FAC passes, but someone else can do so if they wish, even if they're a competitor. Epicgenius (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Cutoff

What has the highest cutoff point total been in prior years.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, per Bilorv above, 2022 is the only time in the last 10 years, I believe, where a single point (or the minimum possible of 5) didn't see you through to the second round.— ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I actually collected this information recently and made a table at User:Hey man im josh/Wikicup stats. Keep in mind that the scoring system has not been the same throughout the WikiCup's history, so the points there may not accurately compare to the point values now. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Any guesses on what the unprecedented cutoff will be? 25? 30?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I did some extrapolating and came up with this forecast:

  • 20 points - February 15-16th ( ✅ achieved - February 14th )
  • 25 points - February 24-25th
  • 30 points - February 25-26th
  • 35 points - February 27- bordering safety

  The current points placing:

  • 25 points = #54
  • 30 points = #53
  • 35 points = #51
  • 40 points = #44
  • 45 points = #42

  Seddon ^talk 10:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am so done for, crap crap crap Panini! • 🥪 04:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Bonus points: From number of interwikis

Just wanted confirmation that December 31, 2022 was still accurate for bonus points based on the number of interwikis the article is on. I think it should be 2023, right? I didn't want to change it incase I missed some memo or something. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Yes, that would be correct. I've fixed it; thanks for the heads up. Epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge Boot (medicine) and Walking boot

Today, I dropped by the Chicago Public Library to see if they could help me research Boot (medicine), which is a stub-class article, so I could get some WP:CUP points. The research librarian came upon the Walking boot article, which is a start-class article. It seems to me that Boot (medicine) only started getting pageview since it became a WP:VA. Walking boot seems to be getting the pageviews and incoming links for this subject and seems to have the encyclopedic content. I am WP:COI for the merger process. Walking boot was created in User space on 22:29, October 24, 2012‎, moved to WP:AFC space on 01:10, October 25, 2012‎ and moved to main space 03:12, August 10, 2015‎. Boot (medicine) was created by me in main space 03:33, November 25, 2012‎. Please advise on appropriate merger process and point eligibility.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I would advise figuring out the best course of action for a merge/redirect (perhaps ask WT:MED). WikiCup points considerations are secondary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are COI on the articles in question unless you produce medical boots. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is that I don't want to prescribe how the merge should happen/what histories should be kept because I put the article in the main space first, but while the more prominent version seems to have been in user space and AFC space. Where do merger discussion happen?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, merge discussions typically occur on the talk page of the article to which you're merging the content, i.e. the target of the merge. Please see Wikipedia:Merging#Step 1: Create a discussion. You can propose merging the contents of the Boot (medicine) page to Walking boot, since the Walking booth page is more substantial. Even though you theoretically can propose a merge into the Boot (medicine) page because that page is older and is a vital article, it's much less substantial. Accordingly, I'd open a merge discussion at Talk:Walking boot and tag both of the pages with {{merge}}.

You can still claim WikiCup points for a successful DYK/GA/FA subject to the typical restrictions that you are a significant contributor to the article. For DYK, that means you need to have expanded one of the articles fivefold (the articles are both too old to qualify as new creations or mainspace moves). – Epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• User:Epicgenius, if someone walked by you on the street and you felt compelled to look search the item on wikipedia or google, what search term would you enter "boot" or "walking boot". I have personally never heard of the latter term. It might be the case that some medical professionals might use the latter term. I think the common term for the subject is simply boot. My quandry is less based on being first in main space and being vital and more on actually having the name of the common term. Thoughts? Or maybe this should be the subject of the merge discussion. Will await feedback here before I act for a little while.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that the articles should be merged, but what the correct merge direction is and what title the merged article should have are questions that are offtopic here and should go to the merge discussion. Neither of the articles currently qualifies for Wikicup points; in my opinion any expansion should start from the merged article. —Kusma (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  @TonyTheTiger, Kusma said what I wanted to say. This isn't a WikiCup issue; any merger needs to be discussed on the talk page, and it is possible that someone might support merging "Walking boot" to "Boot (medicine)". – Epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Boot_(medicine)#Merger_discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Old article

If I stumble upon an old article that I contributed a lot to several years ago that has since been edited by other editors and is now ready for GA or FA nomination, am I eligible for points? I think there may be many such articles at User:TonyTheTiger/DYK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a judge but I think you would be, especially if you're the one doing the finishing touches and taking it through the GA/FA process. — Bilorv (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, yes, you would be. The major editor requirement does not have a time-related restriction. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Insight on promoting a good topic to a featured topic

Just doing some strategizing here. Wikipedia:Featured topics/Paper Mario, one of my works, is by coincidence on FA away from being a featured topic. If I were to promote this from a good topic to a featured topic, would I still be allowed to cash this in for featured topic points? This was promoted to GA during the 2021 WikiCup. Panini! • 🥪 04:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to quickly note that I said the following to Panini! on Discord: From my reading of WP:WC/SCO, I don't think so (before I realized I misread Panini's question). After Panini clarified, I said: It seems like it's unclear what happens when you promote GTs to FTs. If you're nominating this as an FT, I think you'd be eligible for points. But if you merely upgraded an article from GA to FA, the topic wouldn't automatically be eligible for points, you'd have to nominate the topic to be upgraded (or nominate another article to the topic) first.

In any case, if there is agreement that the good topic should become a featured topic, I would award 15 points for each article you worked on significantly, as if it were a brand-new featured topic. I am not sure what the process is for upgrading good topics to featured topics, though—you would need to ask @FGTC coordinators: about that. Epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Panini! and @Epicgenius, we are working on streamlining processes like this. For now, I'd simply nominate it like a normal "brand new" featured topic and we'll take care of the template updating so it makes sense. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Exciting

We've got this year the highest participation since 2017 (116 currently, +27 from last year) and 29 people who have scored points in the first four days! Exciting! BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Holy cow. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 06:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's make it a competitive one! 2022 is the only time in the last 10 years, I believe, where a single point (or the minimum possible of 5) didn't see you through to the second round. — Bilorv (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

From my count 48 people have scored as of 12 of January. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow! - it won't be as easy for me to win it this year! (Not to say winning it last year was easy - it was extremely time-consuming) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You'll storm to a second title, I'm sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

As of 23rd of January their is one more avalible slot. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And now that's gone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

64 people now have 10 points or more. The game is afoot! — Bilorv (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Now 15 points is the minimum to progress! — Frostly (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Crap crap crap crap crap crap Im done for crap Panini! • 🥪 02:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Now 20 points.... Seddon ^talk 09:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

27 now on the last day! BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually it's up to 30 now (Red-tailed hawk did a GANR) but the table isn't updating. We suspect that LivingBot isn't aware that it's a leap year and there's an extra day in round 1, so unfortunately, the scores are currently out of date. It looks like Red-tailed hawks is up to 32 points (from a listed 27, thus raising the threshold for advancement to 30), Teratix should be up to 30 points (from a listed 20), and Dylan620 should be up to 40 points (from a listed 25). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding a number ranking to the table?

With the number of users participating and how points are rapidly changing, it's hard to tell what place I'm in at a glance and how safe I am with advancing to the next round.

Is it an easy change to add an additional row to the table that displays the rank position of each user? Panini! • 🥪 18:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure about how to do rankings in the table, but you can see what place you are in advancing to the next round here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• @Panini!, unfortunately I think it may break the bot; @Jarry1250, the bot's operator, may be the best person to answer that. For the time being, the link that BeanieFan11 posted earlier should work (it is currently not updated yet). – Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawl

Hi, was hopeful that I would have time to ramp up content creation again this year but real-life events are making it so I can barely even focus on the regular articles I update. Unfortunately, I'd like to withdraw and look forward to participating next year. Nomader (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nomader, thank you for your contributions. I have marked you as withdrawn. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel ya man TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Note about the table

It appears that LivingBot has not updated the table at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2024 during the last 23 hours. I think this is because the bot does not account for the fact that Round 1 is ending on February 27, rather than February 26, this year, but @Jarry1250 might be the best person to confirm whether this is the case.

In the meantime, I'll be manually updating the table shortly. Sorry for not posting about this earlier, folks. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, it turns out the bot did update at 00:13 on February 28. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Bonus clarification

Am I interpreting the scoring correctly that the interwiki bonus applies to DYK, FAC, GAC and FLC, but the age and size bonuses only applies to DYK?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That is correct. Epicgenius (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Good Article Backlog drive beginning March 1st!

I thought this may be of interest to the Wikicup contestants; over at WP:GAN, we have a backlog drive beginning March 1st! Please feel free to sign up here and carry out reviews. In addition to scoring points for WikiCup, there's a fine array of barnstars and medals to be won, as well as the intrinsic satisfaction in seeing a big backlog get smaller. Hope to see you there! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello! A reminder to any interested WikiCup contestants - the March Good Article backlog drive is now open, so please sign up and review articles if you're interested! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Acronym on submissions page

The submissions page uses "GAR"/"FAR" in reference to reviews, but those acronyms are usually for Reassessment (WP:GAR/WP:FAR), not Reviews. I would suggest using a different nomenclature, perhaps "GA Review" and "FA Review" instead. czar 23:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Czar, I was thinking "GANR" (GAN review) and "FACR" (FAC review) might be good options for new acronyms. I'm going to ping the other judges (Frostly and Cwmhiraeth) for their opinion on this matter, and I'm also going to ping the bot maintainer (Jarry1250) to make sure this doesn't break anything. Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Epicgenius' proposal. Thanks for catching this! — Frostly (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will wait for Jarry1250's feedback, though. It seems like his WikiCup bot actively looks for the text "FAR"/"GAR" while updating these tables. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply, been busy IRL. The bot doesn't check the acronym, so you should be okay to change it to whatever you want (touch wood!). - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 16:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem. That sounds great, thanks; I'll change the header now. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, if it was changed, the submissions page has reverted back to its old format when wiped for the round czar 21:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my mistake. When I set up the submissions pages for round 2, I forgot to change the formats. I'll do that starting in round 3. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Reassessments

I forgot. Do reassessments count for points. I am involved in this one: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Blackstone Hotel/1.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, I'd like to know if I'd get any credit or points if I was to save articles at WP:FLRC. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, reassessments would not qualify for points at this time. I'm not sure of the reason for this, but it historically has been hard to quantify exactly how many points a reassessment is worth, since the amount of work required will vary widely between different reassessments. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it is better to celebrate saves and rescues by other means (like WP:FASA) than WikiCup points. Good saves are often based on efforts of several people, and it is very difficult to quantify that without an in-depth look. WikiCup coordinators are busy enough as it is, we should not add more to their workload. —Kusma (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

GAN reviewer points

Could you please, please consider increasing the number of points contestants can gain for doing GAN reviews? The current backlog drive is collapsing under the pressure of new submissions and people are getting discouraged. Since a great number of nominations are coming from WikiCup participants, it seems fair, and also would be a huge help, if we could get more reviews being done by WikiCup contestants. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

So, a follow up question, what would happen to FAR points if the points for GANR were increased? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I say hike them both. -- asilvering (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The backlog "collapse" is less down to general discouragement and more down to one user nominating 64 articles in the past week. That said, I would support changing to 10 points (?) at this year's contest end. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it was caused by discouragement; I said it was causing discouragement. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29 and Asilvering: The better fix would be to go to a system like this month's backlog drive where for every 2500 words in length of the article there is a bonus. All three of my reviews were for articles under 10k characters. I was looking at the Queensboro Bridge since I once lived at 417 E. 60th (between 1st and York, the first place I moved when I moved off of a friends couch), but that article is 60k+ characters.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry about that, it has quite the long history and I really couldn't help myself. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

WTF, Tony!? I'd really like to see you do as many reviews as you do nominations; it only seems fair as you're asking for a hell of a lot of reviewers' time which is definitely a limited resource. That said the number of reviews in the backlog drive does seem down from previous years. My own paltry number is something like fourth highest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't call Tony out in particular because I don't really think we can say any one nominator is to blame, even if they submit literally dozens of articles at once. We want as many articles as possible to become good articles, right? Since that's our aim, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from submitting, unless they were mass-submitting articles that definitely aren't GA-worthy. I'd much prefer that we encouraged quality reviews instead, and wikicup looks like a good place to do that, especially since it encourages editors to submit GANs. -- asilvering (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but it is discouraging to see so much progress in eliminating the backlog wiped out all at once.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be a good idea if there is consensus for it. However, even with consensus, I think any change to FAC/GAN reviewer points would have to occur starting with the 2025 WikiCup - it would be very unwieldy to change the rules in the middle of the year. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely has to wait until next year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but that will be a good improvement for next year.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius why not at the start of a round? Don't the points reset back to zero every round? -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be unfair to have one set of rules for one round and another set of rules for a round immediately after that. There would also be logistical hurdles in updating the bot to recognize the new rules (especially as the bot's maintainer isn't very active), as well as notifying contestants of the updated rules. This is especially so because we're talking about a substantial change in the way that points would be calculated. For simplicity, it's best to just change the rules in between years, rather than between rounds. Epicgenius (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- asilvering (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Traditionally the WikiCup has provided more reviews than nominations. I am not fully convinced that increasing points for reviews is necessary, but certainly points should not go above 10. —Kusma (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think GAN reviews need to be capped at 10. I could see a range of bonuses fanning across a 5-15 point spectrum for GAN reviews based article length since this would still be less than half of the GAN point value itself even without any GAN bonus/multiplier. A long review, like the Queensboro Bridge one that I mentioned above would take considerably more effort than any of the 3 shorties I am doing. In fact, it would take more work than all three of my backlog reviews combined. I would have no ill will toward someone earning 15 points for such a review. Review adequacy requirements should be more extensive for the higher point value reviews however.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Who is supposed to check these requirements? Reviewing the reviews doesn't just magically happen, it takes time. Reviewing can be done with little preparation and does not require research, so it is a lot easier than writing decent new articles. —Kusma (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

When done correctly, reviewing does require research to decide if an article meets criterion 3(a) (broad): for instance, at Talk:The Star Beast (Doctor Who)/GA1 I had to research whether sources existed to cover certain aspects of the topic not discussed in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll be very honest: having recently begun reviewing FLCs (though admittedly without having yet dipped my toe into FACs), I have found featured reviewing to be easier than GAN reviewing. The fact that there are multiple reviewers at FXC means that any one reviewer can choose to focus on ensuring compliance with a specific portion of the criteria if they so desire; meanwhile at GAN, each nomination is generally reviewed by only one editor, putting the onus on that sole reviewer to make sure the article being nominated complies with an entire set of criteria, even if the GA criteria are less stringent than the FA or FL criteria. (Not to say I don't still enjoy reviewing GANs, though – it's a great opportunity to learn about the subject of the article, and I've been mulling over calling dibs on a couple noms.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 16:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)