Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2021/2

Incorrect submission link
In my submission page, I was trying to claim 86th Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) as a good article. However, instead of putting a link to Talk:86th Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA2 (in which the article was passed), I put the link to Talk:86th Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)/GA1 (in which it had been failed). I didn't realize the mistake until now. Would anything be affected if I changed GA1 to GA2 on my submission page, as I just did? Epicgenius (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is fine, and such things have happened before. I don't think the bot differentiates between a GA pass and a GA fail, but hopefully I would have done so, and investigated when I checked the log. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I withdraw
I was occupied with exams all March, and my uni's speeding up classes now in April. I do have time for Wikipedia, but I will likely be spending most of it on CCI in these coming months. All the best to everyone in the race, and may the most valuable content-creator win. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse &#124; fings wot i hav dun 16:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will mark you as withdrawn then. Perhaps we will see you again next year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoops
FYI, I made a minor typo — I meant to type WRTV (New Jersey) and wound up with WRTV on the last submission I made (crediting me with more points than I deserved). Can the overall score be fixed? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks fixed now. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 06:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this post earlier but anyway, the problem was resolved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Bonus points for a DYK
Just a trivial question really, have I done something stupid to prevent the bot assessing bonus points for Template:Did you know nominations/1998 Football League Third Division play-off Final? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At first, I could see no reason for this nomination to be treated differently from the others, and I adjusted the bonus points accordingly. But on further inspection, you seem to have claimed for this nomination twice, at #10 and #20. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that counts as me doing something stupid. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The "unofficial tool"
Can I make my now traditional bimonthly comment that this is inaccurate for round 1 and should not be relied upon. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for newsletter
One of the best parts of the WikiCup, in my experience, is seeing what everyone has been working on, especially since it's already compiled for viewing on individual submission pages. As a thought, when sending the round wrap-up newsletters that mention the contributions of each top scorer, it would be handy to click through to the revision that shows what they submitted for those points, as a way to celebrate that work. And either way, thanks for compiling the WikiCup newsletter each month. :) (not watching, please  if needed)  czar  01:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The Core Contest
WP:The Core Contest is being run from 1st June to 15th July and may interest WikiCup competitors. It involves choosing an important topic in your area of interest and working on it over six weeks. If you get it to GA or even FA standard, it's likely to give you many bonus points in the WikiCup: the WP:VIT3 articles typically have articles in >50 language. The contest has £250 in prizes to distribute. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Source reviews?
Hi

Just wondering if source reviews count towards a FAC review for WikiCup points? I have done one here, looking at the quality of sources and spot checks, but not sure if I'm allowed to count that. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume the rules haven't changed since 2020, even though the wording/explicit description was. In 2020, not only did a source review count, but you could do a prose and/or image review for the same FAC and count them separately. Not sure if that still holds but a source review should still be a review, at least. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * has since ruled that you can only claim once for reviewing an FAC. But that can be a source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a source review counts. The main problem with featured article candidate reviews is limitations in relation to the bot, which cannot distinguish one type of review from another. When checking FAR claims, I mainly check whether the review has been sufficiently thorough to warrant the award of points. I changed this rule before the start of the 2021 WikiCup because I wanted the FAR to be more comparable with a GAR. And can note that it is no longer necessary to state during a review that the reviewer intends to claim WikiCup points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, thanks. I think one or two FAC people complained about the not-declaring thing didn't they, but if we've decided it's not necessary then great. I hadn't been doing it anyway, I forgot. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Good topic question
Bit of a good topic edge case—I got The 1975 (2019 song) promoted to FA this year, and it's listed as such in the Notes on a Conditional Form good topic, but even without that promotion it still would have been a part of the topic, as a GA. The promotion was after the GT nomination opened, but before it closed. Is that 5 points? — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the rules is that whether an article in a GT is GA or FA it's the same, so I don't see that promotion from GA to FA during the GT process would change the WikiCup points. Kingsif (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So 0 points then? I didn't get it to GA during this year and you need some contributing article in the current year to claim points for any part of the topic. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's how I interpret the rules; as I understand it, you didn't nominate the GT and only contributed to that one article. It's only natural for the status to be updated when the article class changes, but the GT qualified pre-FA and the thing that might have made it borderline would be if you'd improved it to FA as part of the GT effort. Still great work, obviously FA points! (And if nobody else does soon, I'll check your crown and four award noms for it.) Kingsif (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's absolutely not a big deal, more a rule curiosity. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kingsif's interpretation of the rules. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Withdraw
I would like to withdraw. I lost interest. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the reviews of my work can't keep up well compared to my activity. I feel that the points for editors aren't a valid reflection due to DYKs, GAs, and such relying on reviews that may not be close to timely. For DYK, it can take a long time for an approved article to appear on the main page. I thought that I had two GAs that would help, but I withdrew both of them yesterday due to the wait. One of my articles was nominated for GA on January 3. I learned from multiple sources while doing research that GA nominations tend to be reviewed faster if the nominator reviews articles, but I feel that my GA reviews likely aren't sufficient. I feel that I have no room to review GAs and especially FAs - I have no degree in anything involving writing, I can't remember the entire MOS off the top of my head, and I sent my own GA nominations to the copyeditors group before nominating them. I'm not using my disability as a crutch, but another truth of the matter is that I don't feel right reviewing GAs and especially FAs as someone who couldn't finish college because no one cared to give extra help to someone diagnosed with high-functioning autism. I have enough knowledge to review DYKs, but that is it for reviewing. It's not just my inability to review GAs for reviews of my own work in return or for Wikicup points, but it seems to me that I don't have the right to review such nominations of people who are clearly more smarter than I am. I'm not trying to downgrade myself, but those are my true thoughts. SL93 (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your extremely candid and honest statements here, and I'm sorry that you're feeling disillusioned with some of the article assessment processes. I completely agree with you that there are some fundamental issues with the way things are working at the moment, including nominations hanging around for ages and also an extremely inconsistent approach to issues affecting article quality, both at GAN and FAC. Unfortunately I'm not sure there's a quick fix to this though. The root of the problem is that we have a fairly fundamental shortage of people able and willing to contribute to article review processes. Or at least that's my feeling (I haven't checked the stats). Back in the heydey of Wikipedia, around 2007, you could expect a GA or FA to whizz through quickly, and there'd be plenty of people willing to jump into copyedits and peer reviews as well. Now many of those people have left the project, and the newcomers haven't been sufficient to replace them. This, coupled with our "volunteer" model which means there are very few dedicated roles and nobody is obliged to do anything, means that it's inevitable that the few reviewers we have will (a) veer towards reviewing the topics that interest them, and (b) end up in an unofficial quid-pro-quo system where small groups of people review each other's stuff on a mutual basis. The trouble with (b) of course, is that this carries a massive expectation with it, that you'll be able and willing to review. That leaves people like yourself, for whom that process doesn't come naturally, forced to either (1) review anyway, knowing you might not do a good job, or (2) do no reviews and face having to wait long periods for your own articles to be assessed. Neither of those things is correct, but again it's hard to come up with a clean way to resolve it. Forcing reviewers to tackle older noms before newer ones would not be good, because again we all have our specialisms and speaking personally I would not feel comfortable reviewing a medical article while I'd be happy to do a football one.
 * Anyway, going back to your specific case, I know you from the DYK project and I think you've actually built up a huge amount of goodwill from the community this year as a result of your stepping into the breach there after we sadly lost Yoninah - almost single-handedly building hook sets for several weeks when nobody else was doing so. Even if you don't do reviews yourself, that work counts for a lot and I'm sure there would be people who'd be happy to help you out if you could somehow communicate to them that you need it. (Although that said, how to actually do that communication without getting accused of canvassing is another problem that I don't have an answer to...) If you're interested in reviving your two GA noms, I can have a look at them for you in the next couple of days. From a very quick glance I think Sarah Zettel would probably not pass GA the first time, it looks like it needs some more detail in the Career section for example. While William Brooks Close probably would pass with some prose tweaks etc. Cheers, and I hope this reply is of some use to you. Long story short, lots of people have the same issues, and there are some fundamental problems with reviewer numbers, but there are also ways to get around those. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * if there are any DYK noms or GANs you'd like me to take a look at, please don't hesitate to drop me a note, I'm more than happy to take a look at most things.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I will think about taking you up on your offer to look at the William Brooks Close article. I do think that the Sarah Zettel article can't be improved much with the sources that I could find. It's a shame because I found out about Zettel due to buying the Analog issue (for 50 cents) that her first short story is in (which just so happened to be mentioned in the DYK hook). Another issue that I thought of about my GA nominations taking a long time to be reviewed is when I use library books to expand the articles - I can't look back at them if reviewers have questions after returning them. I plan on leaving the WikiCup though with apologies to . I'm glad that I didn't submit this before looking back at the talk page - thanks for the offer, . I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * on the library book question, would it be possible for you to take photos of the pages on your phone before returning the book? Obviously there are copyright implications, but if it's just for personal use for you to refer back to them, and those images are never passed to any other person, then it's hard to see what harm is being done and it saves you having to trek back to the library to get the book again... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert but I think personal use like this is legal (in almost all countries), even if you take photos of the whole library. However, the issue could be that SL93 doesn't know which pages they'll need again in advance, and you don't actually want to get every page of the book or it's too time- and data-consuming. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining the situation, and thank you Amakuru and The Rambling Man for your offers of help. SL93, you have been doing well in the WikiCup, and I hope you have been enjoying it. I won't withdraw your name for a couple of days in case you have a change of heart. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of your work so far, . The way I see it is that the WikiCup is not a competition, but a way we can mutually help ourselves get a boost in motivation in doing the things that we feel proud of and that benefit our readers. There are lots of workflow styles that don't suit the WikiCup and lots of expertises you could have in ways that won't get you many points. If the WikiCup doesn't help you do your work here then you don't need it—cut out the middleman and find yourself a new game or rewards system, if you even need one. Don't waste your time doing reviews that don't make you happy, putting content through a process you don't enjoy, or writing stuff that's just for the cup. The work you've submitted for it this year has been great, and is very appreciated (I've just read through a couple and learned something interesting from each of them), but it needs to feel satisfying by your standards, not someone else's. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I will stay in the WikiCup. As for the library books issue, my current phone takes such bad pictures that text cannot be read clearly. I can scan them to my desktop, but that takes a lot of time and effort. SL93 (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that working from book sources is significantly harder than working with internet based sources, so I salute you for this. I too would recommend a camera solution, as it is what I do. There are software that can convert clear images to text, which has helped me in the past, but these have to be super high quality images. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Following from the discussion on my talk page, I fear I was a little too blunt. The Wikicup is not a competition for everyone to try to win (although some of us do attempt to do this), it is a motivator (as Bilorv says) to create content, GAs, DYKs, FAs etc. I do feel it is a lot harder to get GA article reviews done without being a reviewer (rightly or wrongly), which is why doing reviews may get them done quicker. That system closes a disparity in there being a backlog, but obviously does mean some articles (specifically certain subjects) are harder to find reviewers for. The one way to definately not get a review, is to pull the nomination. Regardless of how long it takes, it will eventually get seen. The arguments about how we should look into GA reviews is a different topic for WT:GAN, but I think the wikicup is a fantastic way to help produce content.
 * You state that you don't have an English degree, but (I've never discussed this on wiki) I flunked English language at GCSE. I used wikipedia as a whole as a way to boost my confidence in English - don't think you are not good enough. I for one would like to thank you, and anyone who adds content to the project for doing this. We may be harsh on reviews, but that is simply to improve our coverage as a whole. If you would like to learn how to do a review, I'm more than willing to sit down and pass notes/meta reviews or whatever else you'd like. I am also happy to do reviews on request, but I must admit I have found myself a little snowed under of late. I'm also available via email, which is usually a good place if you need a chat about wikipedia. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK
Hi, I think I'm ok to claim points for Walter Donaldson (snooker player) as a DYK because I nominated it before it became a GA, but please could someone confirm whether this is the case? Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. As long as you nominated it for DYK before you nominated it for GA then you can.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 06:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it qualified as a 5x expansion and The C of E is correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for future reference, it's if the article was suitable for promotion as creation/expansion, not if it was nominated before GA. I could see someone expanding/creating an article, it flying through a GA, and then nominating all within 7 days, which would still count. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * just to follow up on this, I began working on George Curtis (footballer, born 1939) two days ago, but I forgot to put it in for a DYK nom at the time. It's already been elevated to GA, but is still within the window for a 5x expansion. Can I get DYK points for it, or has the boat sailed? Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly have no issue with that. It's clearly within the threshold for that criteria. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I guess this is pretty much the scenario you described above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lee. It qualifies for DYK as a five-fold expansion and you are within the correct time frame for this and can claim WikiCup points. It also qualifies for DYK as a newly promoted GA, but if you went along that route, you would not be able to claim WikiCup points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Entering Wikicup ?
How do you register for WikiCup A1LT6N (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Signups for the 2022 competition will open later this year and will likely close sometime in January 2022. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Withdraw
As I'm the only one currently sitting with a whopping zero on my point chart, I think it's clear that I have no intention of actually winning. Not that I've lost interest (I'll probably participate next year), I simply took a break over the summer to do real-life stuff and wasn't working on the site then. But top 16 isn't that bad, right? Panini! 🥪 11:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Top 16 is a great result—it was my aim both this year and last and I've only made it this year. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reaching the last sixteen is a great achievement. Thanks for taking part, and we look forward to your participation next year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto on the above. Thanks for working so hard on the encyclopedia. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Peer review question
One process that's missing from Wikicup is peer review. It seems to be the only major process here that's not forming part of the Wikicup. Would it be possible to consider adding responding to a (non-FA related) peer reviews as something worth 1 point? Reviews often linger for 3 - 6 months before responses; currently we have around like 90 reviews or so and this would really help. Reviews are an important tool at engaging new and up-and-coming editors and having those delays is very disheartening for them. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We tried it for one year but it was sadly decided to discontinue them because not many participants actually did them. But I would welcome them back.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawing
Hi Wikicup contestants, I want to announce that I will not be participating in the final round of the Wikicup if I end up qualifying. Instead, I hope my place will be given to whoever places ninth in the fourth round. Unfortunately, real-world life needs to take precedence right now, so that is what I choose to focus on. I wish all of the competitors the best of luck. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging who may not have seen this message. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining this in such a timely manner. I will mark you as withdrawn, and adjust the results of the fourth round accordingly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Having stumbled across as the ninth, am I in the next round, or not? Either way is fine by me. Hog Farm Talk 04:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because of Z1720's timely withdrawal, you have qualified for the final round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :)
Just want to say thanks for running this again this year. Made it further than I did in 2020 and even had a record haul of GAs over the period, but alas, my lack of experience at the FA level did me in. Glad to be part of this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Same from me—really happy with my tenth place and holding an esteemed top scorer cell in the Round 4 Good Topic category. Thanks to those who help run it and to the other contestants for providing good motivation to improve the encyclopedia. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Have fun storming the castle in the finals! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, but the competition really does make some really great content. Even if you only do one extra GAN review, or a DYK, it helps the encyclopedia. To get to round 4, you have to do considerable work, so great job. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with all the above. The Cup has really motivated me to work hard on getting things promoted, and I've ended up squeaking into the final 8, which I didn't really think was possible at the start of the year. Kudos to everyone who's taken part and to the organizers. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

FA promotion timing
So, because Lee's had two promotions within the two days preceding the final round, he has 800 points before we're getting going. The FA community decided to promote my FA one day before the final round, for 280 points all going into the dead rubber of the previous round. Is there any point in continuing in this year's contest given such a bizarre start for the final round? I stuck by the rules of claiming the points in the round in which they were awarded, but since I already had more than 3,000 points, this seems like a futile exercise. I fear I know the "judge" commentary here, "feel free to resign from the contest", but it's another issue with the scoring and the arbitrary cut-offs which mean that I could have gerrymandered the nomination for another couple of days. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Further reading at User talk:Lee Vilenski/Archives/2021/September. As I said there, I'd be happy for the points to come across to the final round. I certainly wasn't attempting to gain an unfair advantage. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * However, the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter apparently not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So what would your solution be, TRM? Ask the FA coordinators not to promote Cup FAs until after the deadline if within a few days of the deadline?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

LivingBot down?
the last update from LivingBot was nearly 5 days ago on October 6. Any chance the bot can be fixed? —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for drawing that to my attention. I have left Jarry1250 a message on his talk page and sent him an email, so let's hope he can fix it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Final 8 image Comment Comment
File:WikiCup Medal Gold Final 8.png seems to have gone AWOL from Commons. Can we put out an APB? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do. (What is an APB?) Cwmhiraeth(talk) 19:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an all-points builtin. Police speak for "be on the lookout". Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it got AFDed.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone know why? The discussion is opaque to me. More to the point, what if anything can be done about it? Or does want to just select a new one? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This image seems to have been hosted on Wikipedia rather than Commons, and is apparently widely used. I don't know why it was deleted in this opaque, invisible process but we could ask the participants: . We could have opposed the deletion if we had known the discussion was going on. I guess we need a replacement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Could probably WP:DRV it, or reupload with suitable licence to commons. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the photo includes a part of a euro coin, you need permission from the photographer per c:COM:ART, but it didn't say who the photographer was, so there is no way to verify if permission has been given or not. The obvious solution would be to create a similar picture which does not use unsourced or unlicensed content.
 * The deletion followed the standard deletion process: tag the file, list at WP:FFD and notify the original uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Stefan2. There seems to be a lot of confusion above, and this situation is more complicated than the nomination statement makes it out to be (tangential note: this is an excellent RfA question), so I'll summarize some of the key issues.  The deleted image includes portions of a Euro coin, which, although copyrighted, may still be uploaded to Commons without the usual NFC considerations (see Money-EU).  However, as stated by the former WMF general counsel, photographs of coins are eligible for a new (layer of) copyright belonging to the photographer of the coin.  This in turn means that the coin image itself (which serves as the basis for File:WikiCup Medal Gold Final 8.png) may be copyrighted.  File:WikiCup Medal Gold Final 8.png is a mashup of two images, the original euro coin and the "8" symbol.  This is a textbook example of a derivative work, and the resulting image incorporates copyright (belonging to the original copyright holders) from the original source images.  Wikipedia policy requires that all media files include source information which makes it possible to verify the copyright status, all others will be deleted.  Now, the file description page of File:WikiCup Medal Gold Final 8.png contains no such source information about the photographs used to create it, which of course runs afoul of our sourcing requirement.  This appears to be a widely used file, so I think Stefan2 made the right call by sending it to FfD, however I do note that this file is also eligible for dated speedy deletion (e.g. ).  Moving forward, I see no issues with uploading a new image; I'll be happy to volunteer to make one if nobody else is interested.  -  F ASTILY   22:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that makes sense. Thank you. If you could do the honours we would all be grateful. And there would be a much higher probability that subsequent tidy up would not be required. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and redrew it based on inspiration from File:Gold medal blank.svg. Let me know if this works and/or if you'd like any changes. -  F ASTILY   04:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, FASTILY, for the comprehensive explanation and for replacing the deleted image. Very helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

FAC closures
Just a reminder that I won't be closing any FACs for WikiCup participants until after the competition ends. So if you want to push to have FACs closed in time to claim the points - which is fine - you will need to attract Ian's attention. They have genuine issues with not always receiving pings, so feel free to re-ping them - tactfully! - every 36 hours or so. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

PS Anyone up for doing a review on Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747)? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done one of my usual disrespectful and unknowledgeable garbage reviews, hope it helps! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are a star TRM, many thanks. I can see where you could do with one yourself. I am up to my neck at the moment, but - no promises - I shall try hard to see if I can reciprocate. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * no stress, busy times, and you're welcome, I always enjoy reading your articles. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey,, just curious, what did your signature look like before it contained COVID info? Panini! 🥪 13:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was pretty much the default one. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I suspect everyone is aware of this, and there's already conversation on the FAC page, but if anyone is able to do a review for UEFA Euro 2020 Final in the next two days to give us a bit of ammunition to ask for an early promotion, that would be terrific. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm about to head out for a bit but if you want a content review in addition to the source review ping me and I should be able to do one, likewise if another review is still needed for yours I should be able to get to these tonight/tomorrow. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's good of you 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ, but I should be good. I have five reviews, just the nervous wait to see if the last two are going to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * that would be terrific if you're able to do one for us. I think Gog had noted that getting more reviews in might increase the chance of it being promoted before the end of the month, so the more the merrier certainly! Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary results
The final scores need some adjustment as the bot seems to have made its final pass at 20:13, 31 October 2021‎, and some submissions were made between that time and midnight on the 31st, when the contest concluded. Watch this space! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update Cwmhiraeth, and for all your hard work on the contest, and congrats to all the participants in the Cup for producing all this great content for the project this year, that's the main takeaway here. I'm feeling rather deflated this morning, as I thought I'd done enough over the past few days to get 2nd place, but it wasn't to be. Ironic that UEFA Euro 2020 Final was the article I thought had secured it, only for me to end up losing at the end, much like England's fortunes in that match! Still, third place isn't to be sniffed at, and more than I expected at the beginning of the year. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A very well run tournament as always. LivingBot always seems to not update on the final day of the cup, is it designed not to run in November? I thought you had me too Amakuru; it was a very tight run deal. Crazy that three users outdid last years winning points total IMO. The big take away for me (as always), is the sheer amount of quality articles, reviews and collaboration done during the contest. If I remember correctly, people can still claim points that were passed before the deadline but not yet claimed until this evening? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It would seem so: "work qualifying in a particular round must be nominated and claimed within 24 hours of the end of the round." What a final round! Great fun to watch. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the scores to include the final submissions that the bot missed. (I asked the bot-runner to make sure it did not stop too soon, but no action seems to have been taken). If I have made any errors in these adjustments, such as getting the bonus points wrong, please point it out. It has indeed been a very competitive contest, with Wikipedia being a massive winner! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you? Sorry, I have no recollection. The short answer is that a judge can trigger a run of the bot at any point by clicking here: https://wikicup.toolforge.org/script.php . But if you'd like I can also set it up to run at 00:01 on 1 November each year -- just drop me an email. I think the reason it's not configured like that is because there can be timezone issues and other edge cases, so some human intervention is also advisable. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 12:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to everyone on their results! And thanks to all of those who have reviewed any of the content I submitted for the cup, as well as those who co-ordinate the cup itself and the quality review processes. Though I didn't make it to the final round, this competition has been a big motivator for me over the last couple of years, and I hope the encyclopedia has benefited from my increased output. It has been really stiff competition, too. (Also, I'm going to shamelessly remind everyone that User WikiCup result is there if you want to use it, and I'm happy to demystify the documentation if it confuses you.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the newsletter, and again for all your hard work on the Cup. I've noticed that I won on an unrecognized category - that of the most bonus points in the round! I'm not sure what, if anything, that means, but I'll award myself that prize just because I can. 🏆  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Why am I not listed?
I signed up for this year's WikiCup at WikiCup/2022 signups (I'm number 5 on the list) but my name is not listed under round 1. Why is that the case, and how can I ensure my name is added? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging . SL93 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologise, you do indeed seem to have been left out. I will add you now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Question
This qualifies, right? As it was put on the main page today. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can claim for that DYK, and you are off to a flying start! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

ITN if I didn't nominate it
... but I did (with Stephen) add most of the references and update it to get it posted (Betty White) - can I claim this? Kingsif (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can claim for ITN where you have made a significant contribution, as is the case here, even if you didn't nominate it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Double sent mass message
Just noticed I (and everyone else on my watchlist) got the mass message twice. --JackFromWisconsin (talk &#124; contribs) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Same here. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  15:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I sent it once and nothing happened. Usually it takes a quarter minute, so I thought I had done something wrong and after ten minutes or so I sent it again, but it seems that there was merely a delay in the first message going through. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , here you go :)
 * – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Mistakenly submitted for points
My first submission of the year (Interstate 90 at DYK) turned out to be a rule-breaker. Can the points be reset?  Sounder Bruce  23:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Serial numbers in a column
Hello there. Thanks for running this competition. Is there a simple way for you to add a column before the editor names that just shows a serial number? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A serial number? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol. Is that a WP:ENGVAR term? Think of my request as row numbers. Does that resonate better? Ktin (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is. A serial number is a specific thing. I have previously asked for a "position" column, so it shows who is currently in the lead, etc. But I'm not sure how likely it is to be a thing. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the unofficial tool do so already? The showing who's in the lead, I mean. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  13:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Each of the columns in the main table is sortable except the names. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup. A simple position number / column would be a nice addition. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Avril de Sainte-Croix - Restored, cropped.jpg
Given I did the work in 2019, I feel like I should confirm: Should I claim this? I have... two more FPs in the pipeline at the moment, so it's probably not going to matter, but I'm still figuring out what the spirit of the rules is after the removal of the restriction on older work. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 15:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Where do you list FLC reviews?
I don't see a section for FLC reviews in the submissions pages. Are we supposed to list them under FAR? AryKun (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)