Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2022/2

Sitting down and getting a genuine yes or no for Peer reviews
The original proposal comes from January 2014. They were included for the 2015 WikiCup but were ultimately removed the next year. There was a breif mention about its return in August 2021, to one response that said, "Yeah, we could bring them back...

Peer reviews, as Wizardman put it back in 2014, still continue to be a ghost town. What is actively encouraged by many veteran users when someone goes through the GA or FA process really lacks attention, especially due to how helpful it is. In fact, some peer reviews have been open as early as August of last year. When I had my first (and currently only) peer review, I basically had to drag down to come and review it (sorry, Sandy). I really do think that having it as part of the WikiCup could help breathe some life into it. Especially because peer reviews work like dominoes of quid pro quos, it can get some new gear kicking. I found two reasons why the peer reviews were removed back in 2016:


 * 1) "Peer reviews are no longer eligible, since they have proved to be overly time-extensive for the judges." (2016 rules) I simply just don't see why this is the case, considering how it's no different than the FAR reviews. However, this may be for two reasons that made it seem like PR was to blame: one, PR reviews were reevaluated and changed in the middle of the 2015 competition and made things seem more complex, and two, this debate here that went on for some time. I feel that peer reviews deserve a second chance when the idea is thought out before the competition rather than raising questions in the middle.
 * 2) "Not many participants actually did them." (Response from The C of E): Well, at least people did do them. Last year, not three, not two, but zero people scored any points in the featured topic category. Does that mean it should be removed as well?

I know there are a lot of people active here, and I'd love to have a discussion to get a clear yes or no. I'd also like to consider copyedits, but that's for another time. Panini! 🥪 14:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the WikiCup should reward quality work that improves the content of the wiki. WP:MILHIST has incredibly extensive and well thought-out peer reviews for A-class status, and I think that kind of work should be encouraged via the WikiCup. The previous proposal suggested points based off of length, but I think that's unnecessary accounting that just increases the work of the judges. I'm not experienced enough to actually suggest a good alternative aside from give it as many points as the other kinds of reviews and leave it to the judges to decide if it's a decent peer review or not. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Panini; thanks for the ping! When I worked (about a year or so ago? Can’t remember precisely … ) to energize Template:FAC peer review sidebar, it was my intent to review every article that appeared there, and for many months, I maintained that template and did just that. PR as a means of prepping for FAC was definitely rebounding, and I think it was resulting in better prepared articles appearing at FAC (I could be biased :).  I believe that today  is maintaining the template as I once did; not sure if they are searching all new PRs for those to add as I did. But since you mention that PR is basically dead, it seems appropriate for me to mention here that the very reason I stopped expending effort at PR towards helping editors prepare for FAC was the environment at FAC, particularly its talk page, as relates to WikiCup.  So, in my view, there’s a carthorse, chickenegg situation here.  At least in my case, it was the environment at FAC as relates to WikiCup that led to me not only mostly removing myself from FAC reviewing, but also removing myself entirely from pre-FAC PR. The situation came to a point where issues impacting FAC couldn’t even be discussed at FAC talk, so it seemed to make little sense for me to be spending so much effort helping editors prepare for FAC. That said, anything that can be done to bring back PR, so that FAC can stop being PR, is a good thing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am still maintaining the FAC PR sidebar. I go through the new PRs biweekly, and I occasionally give reviews. As per the PR review question, some of the reviews I give at PR are just as extensive, and sometimes more extensive, then the ones I give FAC or GARs. This makes sense because articles at PR usually need fixes before they are ready for a nomination, and pointing out these fixes gets them ready. I'd be OK with a PR review category with a minimum character length (similar to what is happening in the GAN drive.) Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So, with the additional clarity that this is a next year thing, my opinion is that giving a sizeable chunk of points towards PR reviews (while reducing perhaps those at FAC) might not only help re-energize PR and lead to better prepared articles at FAC which could help streamline the increasingly lengthy FAC pages—it might also help lower what has been in my view an unhelpful influence of WikiCup on FAC, by encouraging use of more of the skillsets at the PR stage, where there is less pressure, time-wise and other. That is: it has long been my opinion that the number of points assigned here to FAC has not been beneficial to FAC; assigning hefty points at the PR stage might solve many problems at once while also helping restore a more collaborative environment in the entire process of content reviews leading up to FAC. So my vote is to add them, and give them some beef! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we talking just about doing peer reviews, not listing an article for PR and implementing feedback? If so, I would like this to get credit just as FACR/FLCR/GAR does. One minor point is that you shouldn't be able to claim points for both a PR comment and an FACR "Support per resolution of my PR comments" (just one or the other). We'll have to wait until 2023 as it's not right to change the rules midway through, but I've no problem with agreeing it for 2023 now. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, to avoid confusion, this is something to put on hold. If everyone comes to agree I'll make another post at the end of the year to discuss its points and rules. Panini! 🥪 16:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur with Bilorv. I'd like to see this implemented next year. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think at some point, as we add more points for articles, we're really going to need to boost FP points a bit, as they're not eligible for bonus points, nor will participating in the process give you points. Possibly others, but I don't quite understand ITN enough to judge (and I think it's been updated a few times). Other than that, I'm all for this. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 15:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with Sandy above, as a FAC coord, I'm not convinced that the extremely high points value for FAs at the wikicup is good for either Wikicup or FAC. I'd support adding points for answering PRs and reduce the number of points for each FA, perhaps to 100 or 150 instead of 200. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

One more side question (I promise this is    maybe    the last one)
While on the discussion of peer reviews, would it be worthwhile to consider making it possible to add them to the WikiCup review table? Oftentimes people put up peer review because they're looking for additional reviews before they go to GA or FA; this should help attract other WikiCup members so they jam up FAC less. I have a peer review open but since it's "technically out of WikiCup scope" it's going relatively unnoticed. I would also like to mention that I apologise if anyone is annoyed about this ruckus that I've caused. The WikiCup talk page has quadrupled in length... Panini! 🥪 18:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That ruckus is good, though! The more active the discussion on the scoring, the more ideas are shared, and the more attempts to improve the wikicup rules and regulations mean that next year's cup will be much better. Also, it always cheers me up to see the cute lil' sandwich emoji :D It's also good that discussion happens now when plenty people are excited about the cup and few are stressed about round deadlines. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Affecting FAR
See here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not good. Ugh. Guettarda (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we even accept FARs? The wording of the scoring page only makes mention of "featured article candidate reviews". Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No we don't. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Question about points for a GT that became a FT
I nominated Interstate 82 for good topic status last year and claimed points when it passed as a GT a few weeks ago. Now that it's been promoted to a FT (due to Interstate 182 becoming an FA during this round), am I able to resubmit it for points?  Sounder Bruce  02:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of those cases that became a lot harder with the abandonment of the "created in the same year" rule. The GT/FT continuum is... probably the weirdest in Featured Content. For those that don't know, a GT or FT must go through a nomination, but once it has, if the percentage of featured content in it changes, it *automatically* changes, often without any announcement Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 03:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I reckon you can resubmit it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair enough to allow it. An FT is a pretty major achievement. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, despite what I said above, I agree. Just think it's more complex than before, and might be worth making some more clarity for it, especially as ownership of that rise from GT to FT isn't really clear - could anyone with a stake in any FA in it from any time claim every article in the topic? I know we don't generally change rules after the Wikicup starts, but it'd be nice to at least have some concrete rule interpretations. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 17:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * does give a bit of clarity on that specific question. Points are awarded per article in the topic that was worked on by you. If you would have a right to claim points for the promotion of the article to good or featured status, you have the right to claim points for its promotion as part of the topic, even if you did not nominate the topic. This applies even if the work on these articles was not done this year, as long as you have done significant work on at least one article in the topic this year. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point, and does seem fair. Presuming that last applies, it would seem we're good. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 23:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn
Unfortunately, I will have to withdraw from this competition. I hope I can join next year. Severe storm  28  21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging and  so they can withdraw me from the competition.  Severe  storm  28  12:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will mark you as withdrawn, and we will hope to see you again next year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Does this count?
Hi there, I recently completed a pick-up review of Thomas Tuchel here. Does is count as something that I can claim points from? Just asking. REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 15:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have sufficiently contributed, yes. Kingsif (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Tiebreakers
Hi all

I was just wondering what the system is if there's a tie on points between two or more contestants at the cut-off point for progression from the round? Looking at the current standings, there are six contestants on 10 points, occupying positions 62 to 67 in the table, suggesting that three of them will progress and three will not. Not sure how that would be selected though?

As an aside, it's quite surprising that the cut-off point is there - if I recall correctly it's usually sufficient just to score a single 5-pointer to progress from round 1, so perhaps there's more competition this time around! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the unofficial tool including only "ArnabSaha (10), Nomader (10), Tayi Arajakate (10)" has something to do with the decision. SL93 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like the last time people with points didn't advance from Round 1 was 2014, but prior to that it was the norm. But I also don't see any cases of ties across the cut-off, so assuming this ever happened before everyone progressed. Since the contest doesn't do pools any more, I would imagine it wouldn't be a big problem to allow everyone to advance in the case of a tie. But I suppose that's why we have judges - to make the hard calls. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Historically, if you are tied, all those with the points progress. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if that might mean a final round with more than 8? I suppose that's not the end of the world. You could even get the winner be a tie. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You'd need the judges to confirm, but I don't really see another way around it.I see it more like meeting the cut in golf. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there's still a few days left for us to raise the stakes further... I've been very pleased to see the stiff competition this year, where the first round is a real round and more than 64 people have scored. Even though, as a current 10-pointer, that puts me in the danger zone. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is much better, indeed! There is four more days, so every chance that line might go up to 15 or 20 points by the end, which is unheard of. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My tradition of just squeaking by every year in the first round is really at risk this time! I have a pending DYK that I'm hoping will come through quickly enough so I don't have to be nervous, but otherwise I'll just be keeping my fingers crossed!  Nomader  ( talk ) 14:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You may need to do some GARs or something. I can't see how that DYK would get through the preps in time. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and 15 was the magic number, it turns out. Very well-played, everybody. No shame to those caught out by the high standards this year. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Last minute grab by Bilorv - well played. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Will try to write this up for the Signpost
Going to go as far down the list as I can reasonably do a gallery for. Probably Top 20 or so? From past experience, at some point the requirement to use freely-licensed photos just doesn't work for someone, and the less content promoted the harder it gets. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 14:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Closing of Round 1
Is it at the end of the 26th or the start of the 26th? I have a featured picture due to pass at around 1 am on the 26th, so this matters slightly (I mean, it's 11 FPs vs 12, I'm probably progressing either way. Might make a difference between eighth and ninth place for the round, I guess.). Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 20:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's always midnight British time on the day noted (so, going into the 27th). Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume it's actually UTC rather than "British time"... this would make a difference during the summer months, when the UK moves to UTC+1... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I specifically said British time. As far as I remember, it usually follows BST. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's UTC. The difference is usually unimportant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Being that guy
Hi all!

I just finished a review at Talk:Need for Speed: High Stakes/GA1, about five minutes ago -- but the bulk of the review (and the edits done to it) were done two days ago. It would put me at 15 points and would allow me to qualify for the next round in a tie, figured it was worth a shot to ask if it would qualify here (I added it to my submissions but defer to y'all). Is there any way that would let me qualify for the next round this year? Nomader ( talk ) 06:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah just realized that it ended on the 26th. Nevermind, good work to everyone who made it through! Nomader  ( talk ) 06:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Round 2
@Cwmhiraeth: Am I in the next round? Because I have been (maybe accidentally) removed from WikiCup/History/2022 while you were removing users with 0 points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologise, I'm not sure what happened there. I have added your name now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No issues; thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but for me, it's now showing that Kavyansh has 500+ points from last round... Pamzeis (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the submissions page was not cleared up, which I just did now. Hopefully that fixes it up. (Side note: It looks good to see yourself on the top, even if only for few hours!) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought of that in bed and got up extra early to put it right! Sorry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, no need to apologize! Thanks for all you are doing! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

double newsletter
FYI both of the past two newsletters have come through two times (duplicates). Doesn't look like I'm on the /send list twice or anything. Just a minor annoyance, but FYI. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Panini! • 🥪 17:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Who are you whacking with a wet trout? I sent the January newsletter twice in error but this time I did not. Have a look on my talk page and its history and you will see one copy sent at 12.06 on March 3rd. If you got two copies, it was nothing to do with me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I striked the trout; force of habit, I apologise. How is a duplicate message possible, then? I got two this time as well, same with this user, and I stopped by the talk page of and saw he got two as well. A look at other talk pages though, and I see the majority of users got only one.  Panini!  • 🥪 00:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't know what happened. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Amount of contribution necessary for ITN
I recently got credit for an ITN blurb, which I was surprised by as my contributions essentially amounted to reverting some vandalism and adding one sentence. However, it was the first sourced sentence in the article about the event, which I assume led me to be listed as the first updater on the nomination. Would this count for points? Also, I think that in general, what counts as a significant contribution for ITN should be clarified as the updates to the article can often be relatively small (compared to DYK/GA/FA). ev iolite  (talk)  21:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked this one yet. If you received a credit, I think it's OK. If you did not, one sentence would probably be insufficient. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

So I should be out, right?
Oh, well……⸺Q28 is preparing for the senior high school entrance examination 06:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

We should add "Am I eliminated?" to FAQ
Some people don't know if he was eliminated himself, as mentioned above, so we should add this question to the FAQ.--⸺Q28 is preparing for the senior high school entrance examination 06:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You scored no points so you were eliminated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we allowed to save articles for later?
Like the title says, am I allowed to work on articles now and nominate them for GA or FA in a later round if I think that I don't need the points in the current round? Or would this be seen as against the spirit of the competition? AryKun (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see why not. Generally speaking, any rule that's basically unenforcable shouldn't be a rule. Like, let's look at my work. I had a couple FPs fail from failure to reach a quorum of votes, which I put to one side to renominate later. I've had other FPs that I've held on to to space out nominations and to keep subjects a bit more varied. How on earth would the judges begin to regulate when I nominate an FP? For that matter, when is an article "done"? If you work on an article to save, are you not going to review it and prep it some more before nomination?
 * I think it only becomes an issue to "spirit of the rules" if excessive amounts start coming from previous years, and even then, there'd need to be intentionality. There's also some risk involved: You might end up nominating all your GAs in round 5, and not have them pass until you've lost the competition, because you really can't tell how long things will take to pass.
 * That said, think about others outwith the competiton and be polite to them: People not involved in the Wikicup shouldn't feel like their good will is being abused because of delays. For example, if you open something for peer review, I'd say there's a strong assumption in the people doing it that it's going to go to FAC soon after. It would be awkward if they then discover that they're being used for a competition, and you've jumped over to another article.
 * It's a friendly competion. Keep it friendly, and think of others. But I probably don't really need to say that. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 14:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't thinking about previous years, just from round to round within the year. I expect to have a lot of time to work on Wikipedia for about the next two months, but will get busier later. I just don't want to have a lower chance of winning because my free time is during the "wrong" time of the year. AryKun (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not one of the people running the Wikicup, of course, but I first joined it in 2009 (as Shoemaker's Holiday; long story), and won in [|2019], so I kind of know the history. Saving stuff for the last round has been a strategy people have always used. (Except I'm really bad at it, as you might be able to tell from me getting 360 points this round.)
 * There's two big issues you're going to face: WP:GAN is slow. You're not going to be able to predict exactly when they'll pass, but the older reviews do get precedence (in theory), so when to nominate is going to be an interesting puzzle. Secondly, FAC? A lot of work, and that could be an issue for you.
 * Seriously, though, good luck. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 16:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if a judge says otherwise, ignore everything I said above. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 17:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's OK. You can work on an article when you like, but it's the timing of when it appears on the main page as a DYK, you do a review or have your article/picture promoted that is critical. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Someday, it might be fun to do some calculations to find out how many GANs you'd need to submit in January to then be able to stop and reach the Final 8 with, say, 50% certainty. Could use a pool of all articles added to GAN in January and see how many last long enough to give points for each round.  But that might be mean to the overwhelmed GA reviewers.  Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 21:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are various GAN backlog drive throughout the year. Even if someone nominated, say (just saying) 200 articles at once (200×35=7,000) on 1 January, I am not sure if any of that would survive till the last round. The fact that points reset after each round makes this difficult. But again, one can never predict how fast or slow GAN would be! It would be interesting to find out ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If people were really mass producing GANs much faster than reviewers can process them, I'd imagine we would launch a backlog drive sooner than we otherwise would. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there is an article from 2020 up on GAN (Interlingue, though that's probably a special case, as it's been undergoing continual improvement), three from June 2021, and a few from October, so it might be theoretically possible, depending on when the backlog drives are. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 17:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (I also set up the question in a way I thought increased the chances: Reach the final 8 just needs a certain amount of GANs from January to pass in July or August, whereas winning needs a lot more and in September/October. Last year, you'd have needed 507 points in round 4 to go to the final round, which is 17 GAs, ignoring bonus points; I don't know the average bonus for GAs so couldn't say. I'd imagine the number would therefore need to be quite high.) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 00:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Kenje Ogata
This was one of the easiest restorations I've done in a long time. Your call. I've claimed it for the moment, strip it if you want, but given the next one is literally taking days of work... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, a featured picture is a featured picture in the WikiCup. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The core contest
WP:The Core Contest is being run from April 15 to May 31 and may be of interest to WikiCup competitors. It involves choosing an important topic in your area of interest and working on it over six weeks. Those articles are often worth a lot of bonus points in the WikiCup: the WP:VIT3 articles typically have articles in >50 language. The contest has £250 in prizes to distribute. You can sign up here. Femke (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawing
Hi! Personal circumstances and a probable death in the family this week (why does this make me sound like a murderer lol) will prevent me from meaningfully working on content. Thus, I'll have to withdraw this year. I'll beat all of you next year though >:) Best of luck to the remaining participants! I'll continue to participate on scoring discussions as they happen, as its quite interesting. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging who may not have seen this message. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I missed this. We will hope to see you again in the 2023 WikiCup then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly sign up for that one! Hopefully I'll have a number of Carlist articles in the pipeline by then as well. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

incentivizing backlog clearing with wikicup points
Maybe we could create a category that awards small amounts of points for clearing various backlogs? NPP isn't a good candidate for this, since there's no way to check that the submitter did a complete review—but it could work for AfC, maybe DYK reviews and promotions (although for those, a point might be too much?). I think this could be a neat way to incentivize people to help clear our perennial backlogs. Anyone have other backlogs that we could clear with this? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think all incentives should run through the wikicup. There are plenty of drives or other ways to reduce backlogs (GOCE or GAN drives especially come to mind). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 06:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @A. C. Santacruz: Well, hang on, hear me out—despite those drives, AfC is still perennially and severely backlogged, so I don't think it'd be a bad idea to offer another incentive. You brought up GAN drives—WikiCup gives points for GARs too, why is it bad to do both? Plus, it gives the WikiGnomes who work in grimy stub creation and reviewing a chance to make the field more competitive. You're right, not all incentives should run through the WikiCup—but focusing on AfC specifically, I think offering a point for a review could be a really good way to offer more editors a chance to participate. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Participate in the WikiCup or in AfC, ? A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 06:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * both, actually, although it should be noted that getting more people into AfC is more important. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the purpose of the Wikicup is to encourage content creation and improvement. Points for GARs to me seem like a good way to make sure GAs nommed as part of the Wikicup are reviewed in time to count for score etc. That's why there's a requirement that DYKs are ones based off your own work rather than any nomination. I'm not entirely convinced roping in AfC backlog work is going to result in more content creation and improvement, rather it might reduce it as WikiCup participants see AfC as a more efficient way of gaining points. Additionally, I think adding backlog work might make it hard for the coordinators to actually deal with all the submissions. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 08:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The WikiCup piggybacks on existing review processes. If you add new ways to score points, this will need ways to review what is scored. And giving people points for DYK reviews is unlikely to make the average review more thorough, rather the opposite. —Kusma (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * AfC is very backlogged, and we are overdue another backlog drive. The last one exceeded my highest expectations, but there was a fair amount of consideration given to scrutiny, as any incentive towards rubberstamping would cause a huge issue. I think re-reviews and the technical process of monitoring numbers of reviews is sufficiently complicated that it needs to be kept a separate drive to the Wikicup. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ...but not everyone can review AfC submissions, as far as I know. Wouldn't this category give an advantage to AfC reviewers...? Pamzeis (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pamzeis: i mean, technically- but ten bucks and a box of froot loops that anyone who has even the hope of making it a few rounds into the cup could get AfC reviewer rights pretty easily if they ever wanted them. It might be less official, but I'd argue that the prerequisite knowledge to, say, conduct a qualified GA review is higher than the numerical requirements needed to conduct an AfC review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As much as I appreciate work done at AfC (I do some myself sometimes), I don't really see how it has much to do with what the WikiCup is. We create content, and have points in place to incentifies us being content neutral. The reviews we offer points for are so we don't add to the backlogs. We aren't adding to the AfC backlog Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And if AfC reviews need to be checked to obtain points, we might end up in a situation where we need a backlog drive backlog drive, compare Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/January_2022. Let's try to avoid that. —Kusma (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:FINANCE Drive
Hey y'all! In case y'all want to participate in a drive as part of your work for the WikiCup I'm currently organizing a drive for WikiProject Finance running during April to improve coverage of financial markets. You can join at WikiProject Finance & Investment/Content drives/April 2022. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Dave Frederick
Could you explain why my DYK of Dave Frederick was not eligible for points? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't be sure, but didn't it hit the main page a day late? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Five minutes late, actually. It may still have been 28 April in the OP's timezone. (One advantage of winter in England is that wikitime is the same as local time...) —Kusma (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It did not qualify for Round 2, which closed at midnight on 28th April UTC, but would have qualified for Round 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Keeping the bar high
We had a rare (in recent years) 15 point threshold needed to make it through Round 1, and I'm glad to see that the cutoff point in Round 2 has been over 100 points (111 needed). Last year it was 61, and 71 the year before. Congrats to all who made it through—it's a shame I couldn't join you as quicker reviews on 2 of my 3 GANs would have had me tied in last place, but I'm looking forward to seeing the impressively high standards in the rest of the Cup.

Well done to all those in Round 3 and commiserations to anyone who lost out because of the tough competition this year. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Expecting some point increases and new categories for next year's point system I wouldn't be surprised for the bar to increase further in 2023. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 22:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a thread here earlier on a scoring / points revamp. I really think that should be attempted before next year. Those changes will suppress the topline, but, not sure if it would increase or decrease the floor. So, you might still be right re: the bar. Ktin (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I expect increasing the floor not by difficulty but offering different ways to score points for different types of editors, so progressing the first two rounds would require more points. I do agree they will decrease the ability to get really massive points so finalists might score less. Or who knows! Maybe the competition will be insanely tight next year. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 22:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Starting to get a bit worried
I've been too anxious to leave the house for more than brief periods for months, and my numbers aren't even looking good enough to even reach the final round. I'm not sure it's possible to do the Wikicup with featured pictures under current point systems. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 01:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I finally got my school projects and most of my exams out of the way...yeah, I'll take the big fat donut. You just hope the leaders did too much too early and burn out in the later rounds. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  03:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your contributions to the Cup are much appreciated. You won a couple of years back and the basic scoring has not changed much since then. I think the balance between featured pictures and text contributions is currently about right. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a picture gallery, and every featured picture needs a suitable article in which to be included. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more with Cwmhiraeth above. I hope you recover from the burnout and (if I understood your comment correctly Adam) wikiaddiction. Sending you warm hugs from NL <3 — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 10:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the year I won was literally the lowest scoring win for years, my most successful year ever, and burned me out completely. This year, there hasn't been a round where the top score wasn't in the thousands, which would mean new featured content at a rate greater than one new piece every two days. That's not really possible without nomination manipulation (holding things back, etc). Also, I've noticed that whenever featured pictures do at all well in the cup, whatever superhuman efforts have to be done to do so, that's used as justification for everything being fine. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 03:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think anyone should be able to win the Wikicup on FPs alone. That would be suitable for Commons, but not enwiki in my opinion. Even if you don't feel you are a strong content creator, GARs and FARs offer a great way to get points in a less stressful and pressured environment. In this first round multiple editors got over 100 points just from GARs alone. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You know I have eight featured articles, right? I am aware of the relative difficulties, as it happens. I'm also aware that the ratio of article creators to image creators is heavily, heavily biased towards the former, so if I switch to article creation, no-one's going to pick up the slack. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 07:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Adam, it's evident you are passionate about FPs but sadly that's a minority view. Most of us are here for encyclopedic content.  FPs etc are more to do with Commons I'm afraid.  I recall early days of WikiCup which was utterly destroyed by banknote FPs.  We don't ever want to go there again.  Anyway, I hope you can find a way to deal with the common global conditions.  WikiCup doesn't sound like a good way for you to do that right now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawal
I would like to withdraw from the Cup at this time. I am about to start a new career path, which unfortunately means I will probably have a lot less time to contribute to Wikipedia in the near future. Given how much more competitive the Cup is this year, I think it's better if I withdraw now rather than later.

I realize this is a strange request since editors at the top of the the leaderboard typically don't withdraw, but can I request that my spot be given to the next editor who qualifies (i.e. whoever is in 33rd place right now)? I would greatly appreciate it. Epicgenius (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your contributions to the cup, both this year and in prior years. Your output has been impressive and of very high quality. As I list the contestants for the next round, I will remove your name, unless you would like it included but marked withdrawn. When I last looked, there was a four-way tie for the last qualifying place, but I have yet to check the latest submissions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Devastating. Most output by someone to never win. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cwmhiraeth, thanks a lot. I really appreciate it. I'd like it if I'm marked withdrawn, but only if it doesn't negatively affect one of the four contestants in the last qualifying position.@Lee Vilenski, it was a hard decision to make, but ultimately I think it's for the best. I'm quite proud that I was able to get 36 good articles and 2 featured articles promoted this year so far. I'm still going to be around, it's just that I just probably won't have as much time to improve that many articles over the next few months. I'm really looking forward to next year's Cup, which hopefully I'll have the time to compete in. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Epicgenius Good luck with your new career path! I've always been awed by the amount you write. Guettarda (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your achievements so far in this Cup and best of luck with the new job. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Honorable mention for Epicgenius! Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words and well wishes, everyone. I really appreciate it. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

good luck in your new career. I sincerely hope you'll find time to continue your excellent work on architecture articles, many of which I've had the honour and pleasure of reading, reviewing and promoting. All the best. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks TRM. This means a lot coming from you - I similarly have been impressed by your reviews and the large volume of GAs and FAs you've put out over the years. I'll still be around, and hopefully I might even have time to compete in next year's Cup. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer reviews
Shouldn't they be awarded five points, like GA and FA reviews? It's frequently backlogged, but still an important precursor to those two... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it has been discussed before (here and here). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ... the second one looks like it has consensus, no? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should finalise the rules for next year between the end of this year's contest and the start of the next, ideally deciding on the whole package instead of having incremental decisions spread throughout the year. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this perspective. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 08:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the plan. A little while back a lot of users staked their opinions about the rules and point systems; a lot of good ideas were thrown around, but we're holding off on making any changes until the end of the year to avoid confusion. Panini!  • 🥪 11:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Amazing, I was literally just coming here to suggest that PRs get added for 5 points just like FL/FA/GA reviews. As long as they are sufficiently detailed, there's no reason at all to exclude PR, and indeed it might just start a revival over there....! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * can we restart a blank drawing board for ideas and inputs re: suggested point changes for next year? I think this PR thingie for 5 points seems a valid thing to incorporate. Ktin (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you want to discuss it now or would it be preferable to wait till the end of this year's contest? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * probably better to wait, I suppose. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)