Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Simon, Paula and I have been working on trying to make the point values completely fair.

Thanks, Randy // talk // 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Kara, then? //roux   20:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ST47 of course. iMatthew // talk // 21:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote for increasing mainspace to 0.2. It would make an FA worth 250 edits instead of 500 and a GA worth 150 edits instead of 300. However, I'm completely biased because I only have mainspace. Useight (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the sound of that. Or, 0.5 for mainspace? I kid, I kid. Although that would be nice. :P   jj137 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how different this competition is because of minor edits only being 0.01, perhaps we could have something in the newsletter as to whose got the most mainspace points for major edits and who for minor ones? WereSpielChequers 05:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since minor edits are worth 0.01 points, and Huggle and AWB edits are not counted at all, I'd think that most people don't even bother checking the minor edits box. Gary King (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's the case I wonder if anyone would mind if we simplified things slightly and minor edits other than Rollbacks were marked as 0.1? WereSpielChequers 12:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against that. Although I believe what I said above, I still believe that some people choose to mark some edits as minor if they really are minor. It's a kind of an honor system. Gary King (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I check edits as minor if I'm adding punctuation, fixing a typo, fixing grammar, bolding text, etc. I'm not changing my editing patterns and techniques because of my participation in the WikiCup. Useight (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK fessing up to a personal interest in this, I suspect that most of my edits are ones I'm flagging as minor, so my score would go up a fair bit if we treated minor manual edits as 0.1, 0.05 or even 0.02 instead of 0.01. If we are all interpreting wp:minor in the same way then this isn't a problem, but if some people are as Gary put it not bothering to check the minor edit box then this might not be a level playing field. WereSpielChequers 18:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are the current points people have going to be changed, or will they stay the way they are currently, with new point values being appended? Xclamation point 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the changes will be retroactive, because for one thing, it's the easiest to do. Gary King (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that mainspace becomes 0.5 and minor become 0.1 Who agrees? I only do mainspace, but I tried to have a Good Topic, but it failed. Anyway... back to edits. What!?Why?Who? (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current weight of both is actually pretty good. Gary King (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you're ahead in your pool with 2 FAs! I only have mainspace and minor for now and in 5th! What!?Why?Who? (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's a content competition, there's a reason that of the thirty people leading their pools, only six have zeros in all the columns but mainspace. Useight (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfair to change the point system when the game has started. When a user proposes to have his contributions devalued for whatever reason, this is a voluntary handicap, that would be ok. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be devalued, edits would be upgraded!What!?Why?Who? (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about an increase in Wikipedia mainspace? I work intensely at P:CLM and WP:MOTD (What did you say? :P), but I think it's only fair to perhaps make it .2 for Wikipedia mainspace, as we have some WikiProjects in need of revamping. What say you, Randy, Simon, Kara? —La Paula (T•C) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I've decided to close this poll. Apart from the FP vote - which was pretty evenly split - general consensus seems to indicate that all point values should stay as they are. Durova, I for one am willing to take you up on your offer of a voluntary point deduction. I don't know if the bot will like it, but it's something to try. If anyone else is feeling as generous as she, feel free to offer the same thing (for another area, obviously) but don't for the love of God feel inclined to. Thanks to all for their opinions, and sorry for IARing consensus a little. :P Garden. 18:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

25

[edit]
  1. --King Bedford I Seek his grace 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Clyde1998 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30 (current)

[edit]
  1. Garden. 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Featured lists are about on par with GAs- of course, some are easier than others. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SpencerT♦C 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — neuro(talk) 18:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Xclamation point 22:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Helpful One 23:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Useight (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. —La Pianista (T•C) 01:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

35

[edit]
  1. TheLeftorium 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm willing to have them be a bit higher to encourage their creation, but think 40 may be too high for some lists. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

40

[edit]
  1. iMatthew // talk // 21:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Featured lists are underestimated, they take a lot of work to get the coding in which the content will be listing to work well. In addition to writing a good quality prose. 40 pnts. is a reasonable amount.--TRUCO 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, most FLs are simply copypaste layouts and copypaste leads. I know some are brand new but many are just templated. Garden. 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (FWIW: no FLs) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. They're not that easy. :P   jj137 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. More motivation = more featured content = net positive. Winning the cup is secondary, it's just for fun! Paxse (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]
[edit]

25

[edit]
  1. (FWIW: no FSs)I'm probably going to be alone in my opinion, but featured sounds are pretty easy. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you got one? This is the same person who wants FAs to be 100 :P Garden. 21:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Clyde1998 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30

[edit]
  1. iMatthew // talk // 21:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --King Bedford I Seek his grace 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TheLeftorium 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   jj137 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

35 (current)

[edit]
  1. The site only has about a hundred of these. We need more. FWIW 19 featured sound credits. DurovaCharge! 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Garden. 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As per Durova Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We do need more of these. Useight (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — neuro(talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Xclamation point 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Helpful One 23:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. More motivation = more featured content = net positive. Winning the cup is secondary, it's just for fun! Paxse (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —La Pianista (T•C) 01:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. As there is a shortage of them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]
  1. Would it be possible to differentiate between sounds recorded by the user, and those they have taken from elsewhere? J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do a lot of restoration work on sounds. If I spend several hours getting Caruso up to standards, which should it count as? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shoemaker's audio restorations are amazing. He even works from wax cylinders. DurovaCharge! 21:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much "even" as "usually". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

25

[edit]
Garden. 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. --King Bedford I Seek his grace 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (FWIW: no FPs) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   jj137 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — neuro(talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Xclamation point 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Helpful One 23:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Clyde1998 (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30

[edit]
  1. iMatthew // talk // 21:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Paxse, but I have to admit, maybe a 5 point drop might be appropriate. A 10 pt drop in my opinion may be too much. (FWIW: 2 FP's). SpencerT♦C 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TheLeftorium 16:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —La Pianista (T•C) 01:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Scorpion0422, I agree pictures and lists should be worth the same. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

35 (current)

[edit]
  1. These things ain't easy for most people to do. If you drop the point result, drop it only when counting my contribs. FWIW 139 featured picture credits. DurovaCharge! 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the image is uploaded by the user, anyway. See below. SDo you have any ida how much time and money I spend on FPs for Wikipedia? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. More motivation = more featured content = net positive. Winning the cup is secondary, it's just for fun! Paxse (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm against changing the point system between rounds. Useight (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Uploader credit only, mind. Garden. 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]
  1. Would it be possible to differentiate between people who have made the image themselves, and those who have taken it from elsewhere? J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know, probably would be. ST47 is the guy to ask. I'll try and nudge him towards here on IRC, but you could leave him a note as well. Garden. 21:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A better distinction is "Is the nominator the same as the uploader?" Because I've both found images others have uploaded, at the same time as preparing a high-quality restoration of Doré's works from books I bought myself for that end. And then you hit me, where there's interesting problems with that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    J. Milburn, the difference isn't so much whether the editor was the original artist as how much work went into it. It can be more labor to restore an image than to create one, yet it's also possible to get FP credits by scouring archives and putting as-is material onto FPC. The bot can't really distinguish. DurovaCharge! 21:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Just so everyone's aware, I've made an offer to drop my own FPs to 15 points as long as they remain 35 for everybody else. The entry bar for FPs is higher than for most other types of featured content: would love to see more people doing this and would gladly assist new restorationists getting started. If the points drop for everybody, though, I'll withdraw the offer to handicap the points. The offer of assistance would stay, though. DurovaCharge! 17:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiCup/Poll&oldid=1144432947"