User talk:Drchriswilliams/Archive 13

Reversion of edit on Charitable organization page
May I ask why you made a seemingly destructive reversion of my changes on the Charitable organization page? Both to the list of regulators which was very incomplete and is now again, and also to remove the link to the Charity regulators page from the See Also section? Although I am aware that a suggestion has been made to convert the list of regulators to prose (personally I cannot see this would add clarity), I do not think reverting addtions to make the current list more comprehensive and indeed accurate (in reflecting the current names of the regulators which were outdated: for instance the Charities Directorate of Canada is simply not called the Canada Revenue Agency anymore) is constructive at all. Without a better explanation than "everted insertion of multiple inline external links" this simply looks unecessarily disruptive. Looking forward to your explanation. --Mlevitt1 (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On Charitable organization you removed several wikilinks and added a lengthy list of inline external links, which is not consistent with Wikipedia:External links, so I reverted this action. Regulators were already referred to in the lead, so I moved the Charity regulators wikilink to there, rather than the See Also section. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you for taking the time to explain. I think I failed to notice this wasn't an external links section!--Mlevitt1 (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources for In Practice Systems Limited
Hi Chris, thank you for doing a search for some sources for this article! Would you be able to point me towards some that you found? I'm struggling to find much of anything. Thanks. Liam McM 17:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your recent improvements to this article! Liam McM 22:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Opposition Shadow Cabinet posts
Hello again Dr Williams. Long time no speak. I have to vehemently disagree with you with your recent edits to articles I have edited. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE discusses the inclusion of key facts rather than elected offices. If it did, then no UK Shadow Cabinet post would have an infobox post either. We do so because these are key facts for both UK and Scottish politicians. Alex (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex, I get that Infoboxes include key facts, and I'm sympathetic to efforts around this, but the difficulty I currently see is a recent rapid increase in party spokesperson posts being added to the infoboxes of MSPs. In the Scottish Parliament there is not a Shadow Cabinet system in the sense that exists in Westminster. In the Scottish Parliament all political parties are able to appoint spokespersons, for a wide range of portfolios and to call the posts whatever they wish- some have mirrored the Ministerial or Cabinet Secretary briefs and some feature Shadow Cabinet in names of posts, but even so there is not an official Shadow Cabinet in the Scottish Parliament. There has been a convention around including the seat or region a person is elected to, any ministerial position or any party leaderhip position (including depute/deputy or acting). While I think spokesperson information is certainly relevant to appear within the body of MSP articles- and potentially within succession boxes- I don't see that this information fits within the convention for Officeholder Infoboxes for MSPs. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It just seems like you're making an argument from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. These spokespeople are listed in official Holyrood records, be they publications or online databases so it seems reductive to write them off. I am aware, having spent a great deal of time editing the Opposition Shadow Cabinets of the Scottish Parliament page, the differences between the Westminster system and the Holyrood system. While not myself wanting to make an "Other stuff exists" argument, my point related to the Westminster system was that those are also not elected posts but rather appointed posts, while still being key facts so therefore worthy of inclusion and are indeed included in Westminster politician articles. Alex (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I believe the edits I have made are in keeping with how MSP and Officeholder Infoboxes have been used over the years, and how they have reflected Parliamentary positions. Since the inception of the Scottish Parliament there have been spokesperson posts but these haven't been listed in Infoboxes. Nor have they have ever been included in any of the Wikipedia template examples. Every party in the Scottish Parliament has spokesperson posts and they may appoint people who don't need to be sitting members of the Scottish Parliament. Unlike with Westminster, there are not any official Shadow Cabinet arrangements in the Scottish Parliament, although some of the larger parties have used that language. Drchriswilliams (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am usually quite happy to acknowledge my edits may have to be reverted or modified but the lack of policy justifications gives me strong cause for concern. To be clear, I'm not advocating spokespeople for non-Shadow Cabinet posts but the Scottish Parliament records are quite clear about what offices are and aren't Shadow Cabinet-level. Again having often edited the page on Scottish Shadow Cabinets, I am aware there are no sitting MSP requirements for these posts but in the absence of a second chamber like the House of Lords it is to be expected for leaders to install unelected party spokespeople. I still advocate including Shadow Cabinet-level posts in MSP infoboxes based on Wikipedia policies on such matters. Alex (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Scottish Parliament has long produced lists of party spokespersons. The latest is linked to here: There are not any official Shadow Cabinet posts in the Scottish Parliament. Parties are allowed to choose any name for their spokepersons, and some have chosen to use the terminology of "Shadow Cabinet" in the name the party themselves give to these spokespeople. These aren't offices. Drchriswilliams (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the point about them being positions or posts rather than offices. In face, I have long argued against describing them as offices in collapsed infobox tab titles, against the opinions of other editors. However, they are still worthy of inclusion as key facts as per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Alex (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They are party roles, not Parliamentary or Government roles, they have never previously been included in the Officeholder Infobox for MSPs. There already exists a design for this template and party spokesperson roles are not included in examples listed. The examples I have removed from MSP Infoboxes (but not from the text in the articles) have presented posts in Infoboxes as "Shadow Cabinet" in a location where normally offices of Parliament or Government are listed, and in such a situation risked misrepresenting an opposition party internal appointment as an office. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They are parliamentary roles as well as party roles for Scottish Labour (with the exception of campaigns and party engagement) and the Scottish Conservatives. They dictate the order at which the presiding officer calls the MSPs and the time allotted to MSPs for speeches. This is different for the Scottish Lib Dems and the Scottish Greens but I'm not suggesting we add those, only for Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives. Alex (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I should also add that even if the roles were merely party roles (which is not the case as I've explained), there would still be a strong case for including them per WP:RS and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I feel I should clarify that so as not to be accused of goalpost shifting. Alex (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I have fulfilled WP:ONUS so would like your speedy input so I know whether consensus has been reached. Otherwise, we're at risk of stonewalling each other with regards to this inclusion of material. Alex (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it has been two days since your last response and I have further edits to make, I have decided to revert to avoid WP:STONEWALLING. It's not that I would accuse you of doing so deliberately (I'm sure you have other priorities such as myself). It's just that I always err on the side of caution with regards to WP:STONEWALLING and WP:ONUS, due to being burned by past experiences with disruptive editors. But rest assured, having collaborated with you on many Wikipedia projects, I have a lot of respect for you but I can't wait for more than two days to even a resume a discussion where I have already outlined my justifications with policies and rationalised applications. Happy to resume the discussion at a time that suits you. Alex (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As you'll see, i was in the process of responding. To summarise things so far as I see this:

Now, when considering how information on spokesperson posts is wikified, this not a natural sequence of replacing someone, so- for example consider for example how attempting to fit spokesperson roles consistently into MSP Infoboxes might work, consider for example Jackie Baillie's previous roles. She has had 1 MSP seat, 2 ministerial roles, 3 convener roles, 1 deputy convener, 2 deputy party spokesperson roles, 1 chief of staff, 10 party spokesperson roles, 1 Acting convener role, 1 deputy leader role There are only 16 offices that can be listed in an Infobox. Even though fitting MSP, ministerial, deputy leader, chif of staff and party spokesperson roles is possible this would become a massive size. Your current plan doesn't appear to include consistency across parties or timespans. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a change from previous convention.
 * It would not affect just the current two largest parties of opposition. For the smaller parties many or all of their MSP are given spokesperson roles.
 * The Scottish Parliament does not have an official opposition, or an official Leader of the opposition. such language is in use, but is informal
 * All parties have spokespersons. on the Parliament website, the spokesperson roles have always been listed as "party roles"- a category distinct and different from parliamentary roles (eg convener) or government roles (eg minister). The appointment to these roles and naming of them is managed by the parties themselves.
 * I am perfectly consistent with how the Wikipedia policy should be implemented:


 * Shadow Cabinet posts are key facts of a politician's bio.
 * The Holyrood system has a functional Shadow Cabinet system which applies to both parliamentary and party roles for Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives (albeit a. this system is different from the Westminster system, which I have made clear through my edits to the Scottish Shadow Cabinets page, and b. for the Scottish Lib Dems and Scottish Greens, it does not necessarily include parliamentary roles, which again I have made clear in my edits to its page).
 * Ergo, they are necessary to include in Scottish Labour and Scottish Conservative politicians' pages per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Alex (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The information that is being conveyed is getting muddled though. The posts are party spokesperson posts, styled as Shadow Cabinet by both Labour and Conservative parties. Because the parties choose the titles, currently both the Conservatives and Labour have opted to use titles for that are not unique. So for example, while Labour have Rhoda Grant in the role of "Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Justice", Liam Kerr is in a role of the same name for the Conservative party. They do not hold the same role, and there is not an official Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Justice position- Grant is "Labour's Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Justice", Kerr is the Conservative Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Justice. As I mentioned above, indicating a preceding person or successor in for these roles can also be misleading. Some of the recent Infobox additions even suggest that Conservative or Labour politicians have succeeded each other, impossible given they are not in the same party- for example on the page for Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser, the recent change to the Infobox says he was preceded by Labour's Jackie Baillie. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually inclined to agree with you on this. If we look at the edit histories of some articles, we'll see that this was an attempt by me to reach consensus with the now-blocked user ciaran.london (AKA his sockpuppet Politicsnerd123). His logic was that once the Scottish Conservatives became the second largest party, theirs was the "Official" Shadow Cabinet. Now I disagreed with him on this and actually it was quite a headache to determine who was succeeding who between the parties following the 2016 election. I'm happy to go back to "Scottish Conservative Spokesperson for..." and "Scottish Labour Spokesperson for..." and correct the successors accordingly. Alex (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alex. I can see how it would be problematic to try and find consensus with a user that went on to get blocked. If an editor's starting point was to want to convey information about current "Shadow Cabinet" (spokesperson) details for current MSPs, they might not immediately consider the potential problems with implementing this in the Infoboxes. I agree that this the spokesperson role is an important one but I still have doubts about how a consistent approach can be taken to this information going into the Infobox- eg can/should all a MSP's spokesperson posts be listed in In the infobox? There are sitting and former MSPs that have other Officeholder fields to accommodate in their Infobox- for example where they have also previous been MPs. I previously highlighted Jackie Baillie as an example of a current MSP where the Infobox wouldn't be able to hold all of these roles (as dictated by the current technical restrictions of the Officeholder template) as she has held party leadership posts and held ministerial posts when Labour were last a party of Government in the Scottish Parliament. Baillie has held 10 party spokesperson roles to date while an MSP. Some politicians have sat as both MPs and MSPs, with some Labour politicians holding Ministerial positions in both Scottish Parliament and Shadow Cabinet positions in Westminster, for example Cathy Jamieson. I wondered if you would look at those two examples and give some thought as to whether adding party spokesperson to these Infoboxes can achieve a consistent display of information. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do. Just before I wrap this up however, I would just point out that the above problem is actually a result of the Scottish Parliament website laying out its offices in a way that makes the spokesperson ones look overly bloated. Going back to the Baillie example, her role of Spokesperson for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work (as described by WP:RS) is broken down by the parliamentary website into two roles. Ditto for Public Services and Wealth Creation. And three for Economy, Finance and the Constitution. As you'll have seen from my edits, I lay them out according to the RS rather than the primary Scottish Parliament source. Alex (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
 * Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
 * 🇷🇼 Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
 * 🇺🇸 Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

BASICS Scotland
Thanks for your help with the BASICS Scotland page, this and The Sandpiper Trust are new, and probably need a wider range of editors to make them excellent. Tannim101 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

PICT
Hiya, would you be able to offer an opinion on the draft PICT Team page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Highland_PICT_Team ), I don't want to make it live until its ready to go - but I'm not really experienced enough to know when somethings good enough. Any advice welcome. Tannim101 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
 * Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
 * Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski,  BennyOnTheLoose, 🇷🇼 Amakuru and  Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Am Buidheann Dubh for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Am Buidheann Dubh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Am Buidheann Dubh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is, who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:


 * 1) with 5072 points
 * 2) with 3276 points
 * 3) with 3197 points
 * 4) with 1611 points
 * 5) with 1571 points
 * 6) with 1420 points
 * 7) with 1043 points
 * 8) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
 * wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
 * wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)