Wikipedia talk:Article Cup/Stub 10

Definitions needed

Before this is embarked upon, I think a definition or two needs to be laid out.

1. What exactly is a stub? Are we going with the "generally 1500 characters or less"? Otherwise, the definition at WP:Stub is vague at best.
2. What is a regular article? What is needed to be considered "regular"? Length in kb? Paragraphs? Sentences? Sections?

These should be laid out prior to the contest starting, Either way (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I was about to ask those questions. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally we call a stub an article with under 1.5 KB of text (that means without counting templates, infoboxes, etc...), and a regular article, one with over 1.5 KB of text. If there are any other questions, or you still don't understand/agree, please ask I'll be happy to answer. :) Yottie ^=talk= 07:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So how do we approach it then if an article is tagged as a stub but is above the 1.5 KB size? I'm talking before a user begins to make improvements to it. Either way (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the "stub" was incorrectly tagged and should not count, I would think. Lauryn ^{Dirty little secrets} 22:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe half a point? PiRSquared17 23:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well If it's over 1.5KB of text, it's not a stub, even if it is tagged. Therefore, the points can't count. Yottie ^=talk= 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What if user a expands a stub to 1.5KB of text and user b expands it to 3KB? Does user b get any points? PiRSquared17 01:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the article expanded by user b isn't a stub when he starts, he doesn't get any points. Yottie ^=talk= 12:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Big problem. I assume stubs are anything less than 1.5kb of text. However, how is that measured? The readability tool doesn't work, since it only shows the current version, so what do we (the judges) use? I have a nice tool (which disagrees with toolserver) at [1], that does much of the same thing. For an example of a discrepancy, the current version of Marilyn Monroe shows at 51kb with the tool, and 60kb with toolserver. This may be because toolserver might count the sources, but I don't know. Somehow, this needs to be fixed. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

We should stick with the toolserver. I have created the template {{R}}, which takes two arguments: article name (using underscores instead of spaces) and what to display the link as. Changing the scoring system would be hard for someone like me, who(m) has many pages. PiRSquared17 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But how do we solve the diff issue? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You could copy / paste the text in a user subpage. PiRSquared17 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

HAVE bonus

What is the bonus for HAVE articles? I do not see that laid out in our rules. Either way (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I asked this once on IRC and a follow-up never came of it, but can someone create a list of WP:HAVE articles that are also tagged as stubs? This would be great to have for this Cup since it would allow us to have a list of important articles to focus on expanding. I could sit down and do this by hand at some point, but I figure someone with a bot or even AWB could probably accomplish this much quicker than I could by hand. Thanks, Either way (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal. Let me know if you want any help along the way. Kansan (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How many points should the bonus be?  PiRSquared17 (talk)  21:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think they're immensely important... how about, say, 4 or 5x the value otherwise? Which would mean getting one of them up to VGA would be... great. SS✞^(Kay) 07:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

4 or 5 times the value is too much I think. *2 at most in my opinion. Yottie ^=talk= 16:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Double for the general list, triple for the bolded top 100 ones? Either way (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Yottie ^=talk= 16:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Kansan (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

On a somewhat unrelated note, somebody needs to check the HAVE list and the bolded articles to make sure they're in sync with Meta. I found an error earlier. Purplebackpack89 04:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging

Who is judging this exactly? Who will be going through and verifying that the stubs were A. below 1.5 KB before editing and B. what size they reached after the editing and awarding points from there? Either way (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I will. PiRSquared17 02:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That would mean you can't be in the competition then. Either way (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? PiRSquared17 02:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it would not be fair if you were judging and competing at the same time. It would be a conflict of interest. Either way (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I won't judge. PiRSquared17 02:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I can do some at the end of the cup. Nifky^{^} 04:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely we can trust ourselves enough to judge the cup by ourselves? There isn't really anything at stake. Yottie ^=talk= 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair?

It's cheating if you create a stub, then go back and expand it to a full article, isn't it? Purplebackpack89 02:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think so. It seems like the person would be "gaming the system" if they created the stub just to expand it to a full article. Either way (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a rule that says that all stubs must have been created before May 1? Kansan (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That is already a rule. PiRSquared17 02:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is that rule listed? Either way (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't know, I thought it was a given. How about:

1. All stubs created before May 1, and
2. Not by the person who's expanding it?

{{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The message about the stub cup you received states The stubs you expand must have been created before May 1st 00:00 UTC. Yottie ^=talk= 12:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Contest has some problems

• It says if the addition is without references, the article is worth half the original number of points. What if I add unreliable sources?
• It doesn't mention anything about articles having original research/written from a non-neutral point of view/complex articles. Anyone can add OR/POVish material to article and get points for it.
• Contest has no judge. Only a single user has volunteered till now. It would take days, if not weeks to read read every contest articles and verify the points.
• "Likewise, penalties can also be given." <-- who decides for what reasons they will be given? Whose call is it anyways?
• If anyone copy/pastes the content from enwiki and places an {{enwpbased}} template in the talk page, they get points.

I know these should have been discussed before the contest began. These problems weren't so obvious until the contest began and I saw articles with the said problems being submitted for the contest. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 07:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I assumed that enwpbased was fine... :P But yes, if it's going to be that serious, with checking of sources, then it is going to take a long time. How about, each editor in the contest does a cursory review of as many articles as they made, and tag any blatant issues? That would help whoever is judging. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with using enwpbased after simplifying the article. What I object to it directly copying from enwp. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 08:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to Pmlineditor's suggestion. I see a few editors on here who are willing to help but doing things unawarely wrong. I would like to add two suggestions:

• Participants must include a diff link right next to their said article expanded under their name on Wikipedia:Article Cup/Stub 10 or it will not be counted in the final tallying of points. Hence it will be invalid.
• Sources used to reference articles should never be from doubtful sources. Things like Urban Dictionary, Wikia Answers, Answers Wiki, or any other source where a user is allowed to change the content that is not correct or unreliable to be used in one of the references in the article they expand will not be counted. This means that the final article that they've said to expand has been fitted with potentially POVish information that will make it unreliable, one of the aims the stub cup is not about. If this happens this article will not count in the final tallying of results. (I have seen one user today add a false statement in a section about a type of food with urbandictionary as the source. It is never reliable for citing in anything formal.)

And another consideration to be taken in:

• Judges who volunteer to count points for users at the end of the stub cup must have never participated in the cup at any point when it started until it ended. They will be illegible to judge points if they have and cannot be a judge.

Regards, Nifky^{^} 08:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• If you want I withdraw my membership as participant and help out as a judge. I haven't done anything yet for the cup, so I still remain as neutral. Barras ^talk 10:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• I would have volunteered to be a judge, but I've done somework for the contest. I guess that disqualifies me. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Nifky's proposal. Anyway guys, this is no big deal as the main objective is expanding stubs! Yottie ^=talk= 12:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed. The main thing is, there is no point in adding POVish content/OR or using obviously unreliable refs to cite content for a contest. It's no big deal and racing to get the top position by adding such content has a negative impact on the wiki. So, please use proper refs to cite and add content which can be verified by a RS. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  I disagree with removing points for not formatting properly. If I find a bad ref, I'll have the writer fix it. We're here to expand stubs, not for the points. Let's get back on focus. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

One comment on the half points for unreferenced: I think we need to reword that to make it say that that applies to your edit to that article. This would make it more clear that the expectation applies to the edit and not the article. This would prevent someone from adding unreferenced material to an already sourced stub and saying the unreferenced rule does not apply. Either way (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Since clearly judging is needed, I can do it with Barras (withdrawing my participation in Cup). Griffinofwales (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If no one disagrees with us as judges, I'll remove our subpages tomorrow or so and post us as judges. (/me hopes that's ok for you all) Barras ^talk 18:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for volounteering guys... You're great! Yottie ^=talk= 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Tree

How many points do I get for the WP:H (double points) article Tree? If I get it to GA how many will I get? PiRSquared17 15:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

13KB means 16 points (13,000-2,200=10.800->/700=15.4->+1=16.4) * 2 = 32 + 25*2 points if GA (82 in total). Yottie ^=talk= 15:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a lot of points! PiRSquared17 15:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You still have to get it to GA for that ;) Yottie ^=talk= 15:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

How many now? () PiRSquared17 15:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely you can count? (17,800-2,200=15,600->/700=22.2->+1=23.2) * 2 = 46 + 25*2 points if GA = 96. Yottie ^=talk= 16:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

OK...why don't we just give Squared the cup right now? Purplebackpack89 18:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Eitherway has an article worth 160 or so points. Nothing is over. The objective is to expand stubs. Winning is just an encouragement. Yottie ^=talk= 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Albatross

I don't want to sound like I'm asking the same question as Square above, but I'm sorry, I don't know what a KB ect, is. :P My bad that I'm so dumb in math stuff. I guess I'll just have to ask my dear Yottie. Well how much points do I get if I make it into a GA? I also expanded it a really lot. Thank you! Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 00:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A KB is 1000 bytes. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

PiRSquared17 00:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. The readability tool tells me very nicely, but how do I find the amount I put into the article? Do I have to count the bytes (I'm so sorry, my stupid mind does not get this word either) I did? Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was you got a point for getting it to 1500B regardless of its original value. That's right, isn't, Griff? Purplebackpack89 00:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

At the top it tells you how many KBs it is. PiRSquared17 00:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm becoming a pest, but could there be somebody who is neutral, fair, and good at math picked who will calculate each point for each person in the contest for them? I'm so bad at it... But of course, that's just one of my silly ideas... Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 00:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Scoring system is vague

I am expanding Archean. I read . It says:

Wikitext: 4.21 KB

Text: 3.23 KB

Proses: 2.69 KB

Which one are we going by. I think we should standardize this. Also, read this. PiRSquared17 00:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume prose. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"As it would make things a bit difficult, I think you can just go with the text count, not the proses ;) More points ;p Yottie ^=talk= 17:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)" PiRSquared17 00:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
In addition to scores, in the end, who counts all the points and gives the scores? If a person in the contest does not write their scores, does the judge just calculate it and say who is the winner? Or does the judge skip that person? Oh dear! This is so confusing. Though I trust PirSquared to know what the scores are for me, I'm afraid the judge might skip me if I don't write the points on my list. What do I do? Or am I just fretting over nothing? If I am, I'm sorry. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I calculated your points with proses. PiRSquared17 03:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Will the judge skip me? (I have not written the points) PiRSquared17 03:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much PiRSquared! But can you put the scores on my list? Maybe I'm asking too much.... I'm sorry once again. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 03:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I will. :) PiRSquared17 03:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it should definitely be prose, which is what matters to the readers. References, wikilinks, templates and other "hidden" text often bloat the wikitext/text readings. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Juliancolton and PirSquared, and just a quick notice; I removed the "this is a stub" from the list, because it isn't (the text and prose is both 1.29, over 1.5, isn't that supposed to be not a stub?) and I forgot to remove the stub tag after expanding. :) Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 03:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1.29 is less than 1.5, therefore, it is still a stub... Either way (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1.29 is about 1.3. PiRSquared17 22:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• We take the prose to count the points. Text includes references, formatting things and so on and this doesn't get points. We create a subpage, post the old version see how much the article is grown and give then the points. Please give us in brackets behind the articles listed a diff between the versions to make us our work easier. Counting will be done by Griffin and me as judges; other counts/points will be removed to make sure all is fine and neutral judged. Thanks for understanding. Barras ^talk 11:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging

I have now completed the point count. If there are any errors (I think I caught all of them), please let me know (a reply here will do). If there are any updates to the point counts, please add a note after my check mark. One of us (Barras/me) will look at it shortly. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just added another article to my list. Thank you for counting my points! I hope you'll count this new one too. :) Happy editing, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 01:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll help soon with checking articles. I'm sorry, but I will be really busy until next week's Wednesday. Barras ^talk 10:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Third and second prize

I know that the first prize will be the Stub Cup. But how about the second and third...? Do they receive prizes too? Up to what place are the prizes given? Or are the others at least mentioned? :P Or else I know all hope for me is lost.... Well anyway thank you for your kind answers and good judging. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 10:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Readability

The readability tool is gone. πr² 23:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How can S10 continue? πr² 00:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I am glad. It means we have to actually read DYKs all the way through and make a human judgement on their readability. S10 can still continue; we will just use prosesize.js instead, or count some other way (like copy-pasting into Word and using word count). {{Sonia|talk|en}} 02:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Does prosesize.js (where is it?) tend to give a greater or lower size than the old tool? πr² 03:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

en:Dr pda/prosesize.js, I think. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 04:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• As there are only a few more days to go and not much will happen any more, it will be the best to close it early. I think that this two days won't change the result much. At the moment, there is only one unchecked article. I will try the mentioned too on it now. Any objections to just close the cup? -Barras ^talk 08:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Could we just have the last day? πr² 12:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Worry about the point of the contest (expanding stub articles into quality articles) rather than the contest itself. Improving the encyclopedia should be the important aspect here. Either way (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)