Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Cup

Are there any questions before we begin next week?

Ask now while there is still time for clarifications. –Fredddie ™ 22:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For images, do we need to list what article it is used in on the submissions page? Also, do we get extra points if it is used in more than one article? Dough 48 72 23:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You only need to provide the diff from when you put it into the article, so you don't have to specifically list the article. Points will only be given for using the photo once. –Fredddie ™ 23:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For increases in class (i.e. Stub to Start; B to GA, etc.), do we need to add a diff for just the actual page, or do we also add one for our edit to the talk page (change to the class part of the USRD template)? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just the article, the talk page will be self-evident. –Fredddie ™ 17:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks! I just wanted to verify (and make sure I don't miss any pages. Also, I want to reassure you guys that I am trying to edit better, starting with the Cup. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We never resolved the issue of routes in multiple states - what happens in this scenario? --Rs chen 7754 21:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered a few options, I'll let you all decide which we'll go with:
1. Lowest state's multiplier for the whole route (bad if it goes through Michigan)
2. Highest state's multiplier for the whole route (good if it goes through Maine)
3. Average the high and low states' multipliers
4. Average all the states' multipliers, only counting each state once (such as US 395 or US 2)
I would be OK with any of these, so let me know which you like best. –Fredddie ™ 23:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like option 4 the best. Dough 48 72 23:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer option 2 - this promotes the improvement of multi-state articles. --Rs chen 7754 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer option 2. Sounder Bruce 00:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So long as nobody else chimes in, it looks like we're using #2, the highest multiplier among the route's states. –Fredddie ™ 13:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a page gets renamed, what happens then? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only getting renamed, nothing. Points are only for improvements. –Fredddie ™ 23:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a page gets started, what needs to be put on my submissions page? How do I get a "diff" to put there? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same way you would otherwise. Using this page as an example, you would go to the page history and click the very first link (looks like 04:28, March 12, 2009‎) and use that URL as the diff. –Fredddie ™ 13:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, is that the way all other diffs are done? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please read WP:DIFF. –Fredddie ™ 20:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't remember: Will the bottom/top states (sorted by wikiwork) stay the same throughout the Cup, no matter how many edits may change the wikiwork (and thus the standings/order)?
Please re-read all the rules before we begin tomorrow. The first bullet point of the multiplier section says "A state's position on the leaderboard at the beginning of the round is locked in for the entire round." –Fredddie ™ 20:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this is my last question: When I upgrade the class of a page (such as stub to start), do I put one point, or do I put that value multiplied by some multiplier? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use the multiplier. –TC N7 JM 21:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what I should have asked was, "Is there a total point list that I can refer to (including multipliers)?" Thanks again. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The total lists are on the Cup page, they're just collapsed. You really should read the rules page before asking all of these questions. –TC N7 JM 22:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Past cups

We should put together a history page listing the results of prior editions of the Cup. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pages are at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Cup/2009 and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Cup/2010, but are hard to navigate. --Rs chen 7754 02:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My submissions

I have submitted more pages, but they haven't been looked at. Did I do anything to cause this? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fredddie seems to be behind. Speaking from my 2009 experience as a judge, it took me at least an hour every day to score everything. --Rs chen 7754 00:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not behind, I'm simply not letting this consume me. I'm looking at everyone's submissions currently, though. –Fredddie ™ 00:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to rush you. I just didn't realize how long it would take to have the scores evaluated. Sorry if I sounded impatient, angry, or any thing else. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curious recalculation

I thought it would be interesting to see what would happen if I recalculated the points without the media multiplier that we had for the first two days. The points would be as of this update. Let me be clear, I am not going to change everyone's points to purge the media multiplier, I just wanted to see what standings would look like.

Dough4872 249.25
SounderBruce 126
TCN7JM 102
Scott5114 79
Morriswa 50
Rschen7754 48.25
Pzoxicuvybtnrm 44
Awardgive 28

Big difference, isn't it? –Fredddie ™ 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points structure for Round 2

I have a few ideas for things we can do in Round 2, but I'm wondering if the participants have any suggestions. –Fredddie ™ 04:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Turnpike bonus, ACR points increase by a lot, decrease points for photos. --Rs chen 7754 04:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say we cut back on the multipliers for the top and bottom states. I would say do regular points for all states except the bottom 5, which would get 2X. Also maybe award a bonus for an editor who does a certain amount of reviews at GAN/ACR/FAC. Dough 48 72 17:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we cut back on the multipliers when they are doing exactly what they're supposed to? Compare Kentucky's location on the leaderboard to where it was at the start of the Cup. That's why we had the multiplier—to get people out of the states we don't need so much attention for (Delaware, New Jersey) and to get them to work on states that need the help (Kentucky). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is to be a bonus on reviews, it should be a larger number of reviews. It isn't really that hard to read over the article once or twice and then pass it, like Dough did here and I did here. –TC N7 JM 19:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for something a little more challenging. I would like each participant to think of 5 articles they would like to see improved or created. Don't bother adding Kansas Turnpike or a US 66 article to the list. Now next to those articles, I'd like you to list how many points you think someone should get for improving the article. DO NOT publish the list on the wiki; email it to me. –Fredddie ™ 20:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea to look into for the second round is to add a length multiplier. Roads that are longer should get more points because there is more work involved than with a shorter road. We should encourage editors to work on articles about longer roads, which are often the more important ones. Dough 48 72 01:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. What would you consider a "longer article"? National articles like Interstate 90 or long state highways like Montana Highway 200? –Fredddie ™ 01:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we have various multipliers for various lengths. For example, we can do 2X for 50-100 miles, 3X for 100-200 miles, 4X for 200-500 miles, 5X for 500-1000 miles, and 10X for roads over 1000 miles. Dough 48 72 02:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for bringing this up again, but -- if I make it to Round 2 -- I don't think that the length idea is the best. Take states like Georgia, Maryland, and many others that have state highways that are shorter than a mile (or at the very least just very short). Those states wouldn't be worth too much for the Cup. It may not matter for me, but I wanted to express my opinion. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree on the multiplier scale. 2x is far too generous for 50–100-mile-long routes. –Fredddie ™ 02:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Most states have a mix of short and long routes. At the very least, all states would have US and I state-detail articles. This would also provide a bonus for editing national summary articles, many of which are kind of dilapidated. Anyway, I'm all for it. The only question would be how would this interact with the state multipliers; would a stub to B on a national article that runs through Mississippi get 450 points? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can start the multiplier at 100 miles and do 2X for 100-250, 3X for 250-500, 4X for 500-750, 5X for 750-1000, and 10X for more than 1000. I think the multiplier can be mixed in with the state multiplier, I see no harm in getting 50X points for a national-detail article that passes through a state at the bottom of the leaderboard. It is an encouragement tool. Dough 48 72 02:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can also try to discourage working on articles on shorter routes by throwing a 0.5X multiplier on routes less than one mile. Dough 48 72 02:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a problem with it: it leads to Family Feud syndrome, where the multiplier is so large renders anything not affected by the multiplier completely irrelevant. Put simply: Should a national article that passes through Mississippi really be eligible for four and a half times the number of points you get for an FA? I think the less game-breaking option would be to give the player the option to claim one of the multipliers but not both in the situation that they both apply. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a fair idea, as it would be impossible to catch someone that gets Interstate 10 to FA (5000 points). Dough 48 72 03:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplier question

Which would be the appropriate multiplier for a turnpike or freeway which doesn't carry a numeric designation? SH? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it carries a USH or IH, then yeah, SH. –Fredddie ™ 03:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing

After some thought, I have decided to withdraw from the Cup. I'm happy with making the Final Four, but I think Scott deserves to go to the finals more than I, and I plan on doing much more non-USRD stuff once baseball season starts on April 1st. Go ahead and count me out. T C N7JM 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7, I think I can speak for all of us in Round 2 of the Cup when I say that we will all miss you. However, I think that I should withdraw, as well. My 10PM-10AM schedule wears on me a lot (I leave and go right to sleep; then, I wake up to only have a little bit of time to do anything before I have to go back to work; the cycle repeats at least 3 times a week; although next month my shift switches to the 10AM-10PM shift, I don't see much difference). Also, even though I got the most points in round 1 (amazing, I might add!), the reduction of points in round 2 (20 down to 4) for a Stub-to-C expansion of Georgia State Route articles (which are the only real "passion" I had for the Cup) made it virtually impossible to catch up. Also, I did miss the first few days of Round 2 due to my schedule. I was hoping to make it to the end of the Cup (maybe not win, but at least finish), but my wacky schedule, along with not enough points, has influenced my decision. Also, since I haven't seen a movie in the theater in however long, I have been looking up movies online to watch. Therefore, all of this has demotivated me from even entering the chat room in awhile. I hope everyone understands. I am not leaving Wikipedia. I'm not even leaving USRD. I just don't think that I can be competitive in the remainder of the Cup. :-( Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever feel like you can't come into the channel! I spent two years mostly lurking around as my college years grew busier and busier - there were some months where I barely managed 100 edits. --Rs chen 7754 00:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I felt like I couldn't come into the channel. I just don't have a lot of time to do so. I play FreeCell during the movies, but it covers part of the movie "window" (think YouTube video like player). The chat client would probably do more of the same. I still plan on continuing editing. I'm trying to finish the movies (it makes me look foolish and like a laughingstock when I don't know what people are talking about movie-wise). Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, with that said, I am going to end Round 2 early since there is no point to continue. The final between Scott and Bruce will begin as scheduled. This will give me a little more time to plan. –Fredddie ™ 02:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. Any rule changes planned? Sounder Bruce 03:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything going to happen with the unscored points from Round 2, or are those moot now? (Not that scoring them for round 2 would have much point, but it might be interesting if they were scored to round 3 instead...)—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]