Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Bacon task force/Bacon WikiCup/2011

This page is for discussing the Bacon WikiCup 2011.

To discuss the Bacon Challenge, please go here.

To submit your contributions for scoring the in cup, please go to the submissions page.

Scoring

I have created the page for the Bacon WikiCup 2011. After scoring the Bacon Wikicup 2010, I have made some changes to the scoring and have added some more clear-cut definitions for article expansion. Comparing the first and second, what do you guys think? Anything you think should be different? Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does/should wikification of an article count like copyediting? LadyofShalott 17:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I would think so. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed the rule for copy-editing. Instead of six corrections in one article counting as a copy-edit, any ten corrections, regardless of how many articles they take place in, scores a point. Do you think that's fair? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

Hi and first of all great challenge, I love it. Do you think it would be fair to award half a point for every bacon article tagged with {{WikiProject Bacon}}, and have a quality and importance rating. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it; to tell you the truth, I've been debating with myself for the last few days as to how tagging an article with WikiProject Bacon should be scored. I would figure that doing such should count as categorizing an article, which would award one point. Originally, if I recall correctly, I made it so that categorizing an article would be worth half a point, but figured that round numbers would be cleaner, so I made it one; while I figured that it would perhaps be a bit too weighted to score categorizing an article as a full point, I didn't anticipate brand new, mass-scoped categories to be made and applied to a lot of articles. That's a lot of pointage. I really don't want to reduce the quantitative value of anything, since Cirt went through all that work of tagging, nor do I want to go into decimal places; I think, perhaps, the better option would be to up the value of other contributions, such as article creation being worth, say, 10 points instead of 4. I don't mean to diss out on Cirt's work or anything, and it is my fault for the inbalance on scoring for categories. Thoughts? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the emphasis on article quality content improvement, over things like for example minor edits and WikiProject tagging. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and revamped the scoring system, with most content-contributions increased by a factor of four. I tried my best to value contributions fairly, but if anyone sees a better way, do feel free to put it forth. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]