Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2025/2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Possible rule violation

@History6042: I will start out by saying that this is a bit of an awkward thing to post but I am doing to anyways. I feel that History6042 has broken the rules of the cup. Specifically the one about FACR/FLCR it reads "Only high-quality reviews will be accepted... Generally, a high-quality review will contain at least 4-5 pieces or 100 words of substantial feedback". So where I feel History6042 went wrong is claiming credit for this:

The entirety of the feedback is literally add two commas. Now I understand the value of shorter reviews like this one but IMHO its not worth five points. History6042 is the most prolific FACR/FLCR contribtor so far in the cup nearly over double the next highest so it may be possible there is more like this. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 10:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will remove anything under 4 suggestions, sorry. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Any review under 4 issues done by me have been either expanded or removed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
History6042, we did leave a comment on your talk page regarding the quality/length of your reviews. We aren't looking for 5 or more comments, we are looking for a thorough review of the article in question.
There's nothing wrong with a review that is on an article that is clearly very much past the GA criteria, but in the hundreds of reviews I've seen, it's incredibly rare. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@History6042, Lee has basically summed up my thoughts on this. We want to see that you're thoroughly reviewing against the criteria. Some articles are pretty much perfect, which is uncommon, but in such cases we still would like to see how the article/list stacks up against each of the criteria; you could write a paragraph comparing the nomination against the criteria. For example, if you really did not find any other issues on List of Mingxing films, you can say something like "Aside from the issues I mentioned, the prose is engaging to a professional standard, meeting criterion 1. The lead meets criterion 2 because it summarizes how many films of each type were produced, as well as the dates they were produced..." and so on. It doesn't need to be a whole essay; just explain how you think the article or list meets the FA/FL criteria already. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
That's fine. Just a reminder that all submissions are checked by WikiCup judges. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I will start doing more in depth reviews. Thank you for letting me know of these issues. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"Sorted" WikiCup table is less usable than before

The main table is now sorted by score instead of alphabetically. This is not an improvement: previously it was already easy to sort by score (just click on the sort links in the score column) and we had alphabetic sort order, but now it is no longer possible to sort alphabetically. I find that annoying because it means I need to use ctrl-F to find myself. Can we have (a) alphabetical order or (b) return to signup order or (c) add sortkeys to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant16 so it is possible to sort the table alphabetically? —Kusma (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically it wasn't possible to sort by alphabetical before, and the default sort was based on signup order prior to this year. I strongly believe that score makes the most sense for default sorting, but I would very much like to see alphabetical be supported. Currently the user column sorts based on flag name I believe. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma, I made an adjustment to the Participant16 page. You should now be able to sort by username. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Great work, thank you! —Kusma (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Withdraw

I would like to withdraw. I will be a full-time online college student starting on January 21, and I don't see myself having much time for the WikiCup. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I have now withdrawn you from the WikiCup. Best of luck with your real-life college courses. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Since sign ups are now open throughout, are withdrawn participants going to be able to rejoin and retain any previous points they earned? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien, they would be able to rejoin but would have to start over from scratch. If a contestant wishes to take a break and then return to the Cup later (while keeping their previous round-point and tournament-point counts intact), they do not need to do anything. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

GT

For GTs, I just got an article up to GA status that was in a good topic but it was in a grace period as being a relatively new article, about July 2024. Am I still able to claim points? The topic is Wikipedia:Good topics/Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics. @Epicgenius and @Lee Vilenski. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@History6042, yes, if the article was recently promoted as part of a GT, you may claim GT points for it. In this case, Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2024 Summer Olympics was just promoted to GA status today, and you worked on it significantly. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding "rank" to cup table?

I have no idea if this would be a huge pain to implement or not, but since only the top 16 in each round will score Tournament Points, every time I check the leaderboard I find myself trying to count the rows to see how far I am from that threshold. Would it be possible to add a "rank" column to the table? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@LEvalyn, you could use the unofficial WikiCup tool to see if you're currently in the top 16, and how many tournament points you're projected to receive (based on current round-point scores). – Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh, this is great! Thanks, I hadn't come across this, but it totally accomplishes what I need. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Would this be allowed?

Beverly White was promoted to FA status on January 19, 2025, but I submitted it for that on December 1, 2024. Would I be able to include it in my Wikicup submissions? Jon698 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jon698, it was promoted on January 19, so yes, you would be allowed to include it. Articles' eligibility for points is based on promotion date, not nomination date. Epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article co-reviewers

If two people were to work together on reviewing a good article, how would the points be allocated there? Would both people get the 5 points if they both put significant work into the review (sort of like how FAC reviews are split up but everyone gets full points), or would only one person be eligible for the points? Interested in hearing feedback from the judges and other participants. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I think one would want to be wary of unintended consequences. Five points each, however deserved in an individual case, may encourage joint GAN reviews. That said, if five points each is agreed, I have a recently completed second opinion which ran to more work and words than any of my full GANRs of the past year ... Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd consider it a plus if it encouraged joint reviews (namely a detailed prose review from one and a detailed source review from the other). It would be an effective way to make GA more lightweight for individual reviewers and limit reviewing burnout. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, both reviewers would be eligible for points, subject to the usual requirement that they provide substantial feedback and review the article against the full criteria. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I didn't think our GA process allowed for joint reviews Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: PMC and I have done it before, but it was for a huge article and she was the "primary" reviewer -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If I add a good article to a featured topic, would that count as featured topic points or good topic points because its not a featured article? History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@History6042: If you go through the formal process of revising the FT to add an article and there is an consensus to add the GA to the FT, you would get 1 FT article worth of points -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I'm not going to have as much time to contribute as I did last year and doubt I'll even make it past round one, so I am withdrawing from the competition. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't have elimination this year. AryKun (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I didn't realize that. In any event, I don't foresee myself ending up in the top 16 of any given round, so I'll still be withdrawing. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@voorts, I've withdrawn you from the competition. Thanks for your contributions and hard work. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Not part of it officially yet

Hey guys, I signed up for this a few days ago but haven't officially been added to the submissions page, just confirming it is open right? Thanks! Also quick question - it's only stuff done within the time frame of the Cup right? So if I get a DYK hook approved in December, is it still valid if it ends up on the main page in Jan? Thanks! jolielover♥talk 17:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover, yes, signups are open. I typically add new contestants to the WikiCup table twice a week. I have added your name to the WikiCup table and set up your submission page; sorry for the delay, and welcome to the WikiCup.
Also, you can claim points for content which has been promoted, or reviews which have been completed, during a given round, as long as you claim the points within 14 days of the article's promotion or the review's completion. For WikiCup purposes, a DYK is not considered to be "promoted" until it has appeared on the Main Page, even if the hook was moved to a DYK queue/prep. The full rules are at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Feel free to ask me or one of the other judges if you have further questions. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Multiple hooks

The DYK scoring page says "For hooks with multiple articles, every article is eligible to score round points independently, provided each meets the Did you know? criteria." My question is how to do so on the scoring page? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried 

#[[Foo]] [[Template:Did you known nominations/Foo]]
#[[Bar]] [[Template:Did you known nominations/Foo]]
#[[Baz]] [[Template:Did you known nominations/Foo]]

or something similar? —Kusma (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I worry that would cause issues with the bot Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
It is the format that Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2025/Submissions/BeanieFan11 uses. The bot seems to be OK with it. —Kusma (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay thank you! The hook wont be on the main page for about a week just wanted to get ahead of the issue Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant, Kusma is correct. For multi-article hooks, simply link the DYK nomination. The DYK nom does not have to match the title of the article. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

FT query

I am just checking that if an existing article within an FT were improved from, say, A class to FA then the improver could not claim any round points. {But if the same article were part of a newly created FT they could.) Yes? Asking for a friend. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, if the article is already in a GT or FT, then unfortunately not. Points can only be claimed if an article is added to a GT or FT and it wasn't in the GT/FT previously. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Heads-up about March

As a general heads-up, starting on March 10, I'll be unavailable for much of the month because I am going on vacation with very limited internet access. My co-judges will be available to help answer any questions or comments you have. I will still be able to send out the Round 1 newsletter before that time, but Lee and Guerillero will be handling scoring, signups, and other Cup-related matters. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Good topics

I'm not sure if it'll end up being closed as part of this round or next. It's still a ways out, but I wanted to go ahead and ask just in case it's this one. If I improved an article that is part of two good topics, am I able to claim points for it in both?

Specifically asking about Doctor Who specials (2022) and Doctor Who series 14. I just claimed points for both today in topics that encompassed the episodes within them. However, there is also a current GTC that encompasses the the 14 series' (and 4 specials articles) which these two also fall under. Essentially, if that passes can I claim another 5 points each for these two articles? TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho, yes, you can claim GT/FT points for an article every time it's promoted as part of a GT/FT. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Always the Same Reviewer Very Soon After Nomination

@Cwmhiraeth, @Epicgenius, @Frostly, @Guerillero, and @Lee Vilenski, I am just checking to make sure this is allowed. Almost all of BeanieFan11's GA submissions were reviewed by the same user only hours after nominating. I am just wanting to know if this is an issue or not. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The reviewer s Gonzo fan2007. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2024/3#Is teaming with reviewers in the spirit of the cup?. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Scroll up. Gonzo has publicly offered to review anything related to the Green Bay Packers, something they've been doing for years. Beanie has capitalized on that, as Beanie also regularly writes on and promotes content related to NFL players. There's nothing strange about it, and Gonzo provides high quality reviews. I can attest to this myself because I regularly reviewed their featured list noms and have received quite a few reviews from them myself. By all means, work on anything Green Bay Packers related, you'll find them willing to give it a quality review.
This seems like an entirely unnecessary ping of the coords, as it wasn't urgent to begin with. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Going to go ahead and ping @BeanieFan11 and @Gonzo fan2007 since their conduct is being discussed. To reiterate, it feels pretty clearly like two quality contributors with a similar interest who have clear and transparent motives, improving content related to their interests. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay, it just seemed strange to me that it has been only hours after the reviews were put up that they were reviewed. If this has been talked about before, whic it has, then it was a mistake on my part and I apologize to BeanieFan11 and Gonzo fan2007. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@History6042, thanks for sharing your concern. However, as long as the reviews are comprehensive and in compliance with GA guidelines and rules, which they appear to be, then there's really not much to do here. Gonzo has publicly offered to review certain types of GA nominations, which, as I've said previously is fine if this is done on-wiki and in a transparent manner. Beanie seems to have taken him up on the offer, and the reviews seem to be of high quality. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Its all good. Fun fact, Beanie has written like ~20 GAs on Packers players so far in 2025. This is literally 1% of all Packers players to have ever played a game for the team! So at this rate, give Beanie a few more Wikicups and they might literally run out of Packers players to write about. As I have mentioned, my only skin in the game is seeing WP:PACKERS content improved :) its a symbiotic relationship lol « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Offer of Reviews

For clarity and openness, I wanted to put an offer out to all participants of the Wikicup: if you have interest in Green Bay Packers articles in anyway and would like to work towards promoting them during the Wikicup for points, I am happy to review them. Time permitting, I usually can jump on them pretty quickly. As the unofficial MC of WP:PACKERS and the promoter of much of its featured and good content, I consider myself an SME within this niche field (I also have access to Newspapers.com and some good Packers' sources). All that said, I want to note I have no vested interest in the Wikicup. My offer is focused on continuing to work toward the Goals listed on WP:PACKERS, including reaching 150 GAs and 200 DYKs, as well as continuing to improve stubs. If you have an article that falls within the project, please feel free to drop my a line at my talk page, although I do follows the WikiProject's article alerts page, so I will see it there. Cheers and best of luck to everyone! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again... If you want a guaranteed review, write about the Green Bay Packers. Gonzo doesn't care who you are and will review seemingly every single thing they can in the name of improving content related to the Packers. They're a quality reviewer too, to the point that I love/hate having them as a reviewer for my list nominations because they bring up so many great points that make me think and have to do more work lol (but obviously result in improvements to the articles). 10/10, take advantage of this if you're up for writing about American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Just a few qualifications on my offer:
  • I don't edit much on the weekends, usually.
  • I obviously have a capacity, and will try to prioritize older reviews over newer ones if a long queue starts.
  • My offer assumes fairly well-written articles that are ready for GAN.
One of the reasons that my relationship with Beanie works so well is that they use only high-quality sources, they are thorough in their coverage, and they have been receptive to my comments (i.e. they make changes to future articles based on past comments). It makes reviewing easier and more straightforward. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Quick note

Great work from everyone during round 1; the submissions so far have been impressive. I see that people have created 18 FAs, 26 FLs, nearly 200 GAs, and at least 100 DYKs, along with hundreds of reviews. Unfortunately, there will be a delay in reviewing the latest submissions, awarding round points, and sending out the newsletter until tomorrow, my time (so about 12 hours from now). – Epicgenius (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that some contestants have not received the most recent newsletter. I would like to apologize to @Abo Yemen, @BigChrisKenney, @CanonNi, @CatchMe, @Cremastra, @Czarking0, @Dan Leonard, @EF5, @Gayobah13, @Haffaz, @janosabel, @JJPMaster, @Jolielover, @Locust member, @Md Nayed Ahmed Riaj, @Mohammad Murtaza Zaidi, @MPGuy2824, @Narfhead, @Reconrabbit, @Soulbust, @Spectra321578, @Stranger43286, @The9Man, @Tylermack999 and @ViridianPenguin for forgetting to send you the newsletter.
Please forgive the mass ping. If I have pinged you, it is because you are a WikiCup contestant and I forgot to send you the newsletter, which is located at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletters, here. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
There are a lot of things to do, so I'm busy. Spectra321578 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Let's make it so that everyone gets a trophy and only for participating, so as not to offend anyone. Spectra321578 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
...? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Spectra321578, that's kinda the entire point of a contest, to win something and overall have fun. The competitive aspect is stripped away if we give "participation trophies" to everyone. — EF5 20:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Spectra321578, could you please clarify? I'm unsure if you're requesting something or if you were responding to my comment about forgetting to send you the newsletter. I pinged you because you signed up for the Cup back in January. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you meant. Unfortunately, giving everyone a participation trophy kind of defeats the point of having a competition. Though contestants are welcome to award participation trophies to themselves, this is meant to be a friendly competition to encourage people to create and review content. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
So participants can copy? How is that? And can I copy? Spectra321578 (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Spectra321578, rather than worrying about trophies, I suggest that you instead look over the WikiCup rules if you'd like to participate. I notice that you're relatively new to Wikipedia. If you're just starting out, Help:Introduction gives you pretty useful information about how to edit, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives guidance on how articles should be written. If you already know what to do and want to improve a page about a specific topic. you can create or expand an article and nominate it for the Did you know section of the Main Page. Once you've gained more experience writing articles, you could try expanding an article and nominating it for good article, featured list, or featured article status. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Competitor blocked from mainspace

Abishe is currently pblocked from mainspace – should they be disqualified/removed as a competitor? charlotte 👸♥ 01:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Queen of Hearts, thanks for bringing this to our attention, but I don't think it's necessary. Abishe is not banned from mainspace or the WikiCup, only partially blocked, and can theoretically appeal their block at any time during the Cup. Whether they will be able to is a separate issue and not within the Cup's purview. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
There is no need to remove me, because participation in this Cup is already an achievement for me. Spectra321578 (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Are you using a translator or something, bcs none of your edits are making sense, and are borderline disruptive. DWF91 (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't care what you think, if you want to discuss the situation then let's discuss it and if not then go to the diner and throw sandwiches at the North Korean segment Spectra321578 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@Spectra321578: I think most of us have no idea what you're trying to say in this response. Either way, you should tone back your aggression. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I'll calm down. Spectra321578 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a clarification on ITN entries

Hello! I suppose only ITN entries that have featured in the "Recent death" section, and not in the main one, do count towards points, right?

I was almost about to submit the 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference, but then I remembered about this rule... Oltrepier (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Oltrepier, if you've worked on an ITN entry significantly, you can claim points regardless of whether it appears as a bold link or in the recent deaths section. Reading it again, the rules were phrased opaquely, but they were meant to state that recent deaths are also eligible for ITN points, not that only recent deaths are eligible. I've fixed this. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
@Epicgenius That's awesome news! Thank you for clarifying! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I added my article to my application

I added my article to the application, you know where the tournament table is Spectra321578 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately, your submission is not eligible for points as it needs to have gone through the WP:FAC process - in fact, your submission is currently a draft. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
I've already done this enough, added sources and so on. Spectra321578 (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Besides, I'll have to wait a long time, hold me until Round 3 and then I'll be able to arrange everything at least a little bit Spectra321578 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing

I would like to withdraw from the wikicup. DWF91 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have withdrawn you. Thanks for your contributions. Epicgenius (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Hold me until the 3rd round, then to the finals and then we'll see. Spectra321578 (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think spectra321578 understands english well, Epicgenius, he keeps butting in everywhere with incomprehensible sentences. DWF91 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I know, I offer you friendship, we can discuss everything in detail Spectra321578 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
@Spectra321578, DWF91 has a valid concern. While your enthusiasm is appreciated, please stop interjecting in conversations that you aren't a part of. This section does not concern you, and we were not talking about removing you from the contest. However, please note that if I receive further complaints about your behavior, I will have to remove you from the contest anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
OK Spectra321578 (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I continue my participation

I would ask you to hold me until the final to gain time, I continue to take part this year Spectra321578 (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Query

Is it possible to see anywhere what participants gain points for in round 1, ie their submissions? Or are these wiped and gone forever when a new round starts? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It's 2025, we don't say "query" anymore Bit of a long way to do it, but if you go to any year's archive, everyone's submissions page stays up. From there you can go into the history and find the revision prior to when it's wiped for the new round. See this example: HickoryOughtShirt?4's Round 1 is visible in this revision right before Epicgenius clears it for Round 2. Panini! • 🥪 14:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
In my head 1969 has been on repeat for at least 50 years. Thanks Panini! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

ITN

Do I have to be a nominater and major contributor to an RD in ITN for points, or can someone else have nominated it but I still do substantial work? History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Substantial work is all that is required. Although with how ITN works, we do require it to be substantial work, not simply drive-by updating things. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski, thank you, for example, please see the page Stuart Young (politician), if it passes ITN could I get points for it? History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Flag icon

Please change my flag icon to {{flagicon|Vancouver}} Vancouver . Thank you in advance. Yue🌙 07:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Yue, seems like @History6042 has already done this. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Question about DYK

If I nominate a DYK for 5x in this round, it gets approved this round, but it is put on the main page next round, what round do I redeem it in? History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The rules say "Round points cannot be granted until the article has actually been featured on the main page. Merely being approved by a reviewer does not count." so, in your example, next round. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Gog is correct, you claim points whenever the article appears on the Main Page. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Submission

My submission Kosovo at the 2024 Summer Olympics is not counting for bonus points, it is a GA and should be getting a 1.8X multiplier but has gotten nothing after the bot has ran twice. Does anyone know how to fix this? 20:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC) History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it manually. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be a 1.6x multiplier? (using interwikis on 31 December)? —Kusma (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure how to check I remember checking. Does English count as one? History6042😊 (Contact me) 09:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
22 other languages plus English makes 23. 1.8X History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, English counts as one. Kusma is technically correct if the bot only calculates interwikis from 31 December. However, if the bot won't give the correct multiplier (which is very rare), we'll use the number of interwikis that exist at the time of submission - in this case, 23 - to calculate the multiplier. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Okay so 1.8 is fine? History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, 1.8 is fine. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't know what the bot does, but Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#From_number_of_interwikis says the score depends on interwikis on 31 December. Using the current number of interwikis instead is a rule change. —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma, good point. I've never seen this come up before, actually, so I guess we should just use the number of interwikis on 31 December for the time being, since that's what the bot calculates. If this is effectively a rule change, then I'm going to go with what the current rules say. We can discuss whether to change the rules to use the current number of interwikis later.
@History6042, my apologies for giving you the wrong information. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I should note that the article was available in 20 languages (including enwiki) as of 31 December, so the 1.8x multiplier will remain unchanged. The number of interwikis includes enwiki and is the number of languages in which the article exists, as of 31 December. Sorry for any confusion. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I also made a mistake, I thought the table on the Scoring page was for interwikis instead of total number of articles, so 19 interwikis is 20 language versions and gives a 1.8 multiplier. I changed the table to not mention "0 languages" as I thought it meant "0 interwikis". —Kusma (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
In the future, do not do it manually yourself @History6042. There's no rush, it could have waited until there was a response here. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Okay. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Howdy, i would like to withdraw from the cup for this year. Thank you very much! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Generalissima, I have withdrawn you from the Cup. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia - they are greatly appreciated, even though the points for the History FAC may not have worked out in your favor. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Well this is a major bummer, I'm sorry to see this. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah. I was seriously upset, and concerned, when I first saw this. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:( ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
That was quite unexpected. Nevertheless, I hope to see you return even stronger next year—best of luck until then! MSincccc (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

FP

I would like to suggest a removal of Featured Pictures from the WikiCup. My argument is that nobody has redeemed getting one since early 2023. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Two things here. First, I think this should be discussed at the end of the 2025 contest. Second, until 2023 there were a whole lot of FP submissions; 2024 was an aberration because no one submitted any FPs for points. In 2025 someone actually did try to submit an FP for points, but it was rejected because they weren't a significant contributor. While no one has submitted any FPs and claimed points yet in 2025, that doesn't mean they haven't tried. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I can wait to bring this up again if nobody has by the end of year. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
I can't see how the second sentence is an argument for the first. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
I was saying that the FPs are unused. That seems pretty relevant to me. For example, say for some reason WP:ACC reviews were in the WikiCup, not many people do that and even less who do are in the WikiCup. It would probably be removed as nobody would be redeeming them. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
If the goal is more quality content, and FPs are considered quality content, then nobody redeeming them would be an argument for raising the points awarded. CMD (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the goal of the Cup is to encourage improving Wikipedia, not discourage it... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
I just looked through WP:FPC and the process seems very much alive. People nominating their own pictures (or their own restorations) so the nom would be eligible for WikiCup points happens several times each month, so there could be nominations ending up here. The main contributor to restorations at FP, Adam Cuerden, has in the past participated in the Cup and relied almost completely on FPs to score. Adam sometimes complained about the points balance between FP points and other content; as we do not have enough people who do both text and FPs, it was difficult to resolve this in a way that looks fair to everybody. —Kusma (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

GAN Limits

I reviewed an article for GA but it was removed for being to short. What are the limitations on GAs, I though it was fine? History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Usually, we'd like to see several substantive pieces of feedback. Talk:Jordyn Wieber/GA1 consists of three short comments (two of which were to note that there were no issues), so that review is not comprehensive enough to qualify for points. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Something similar with Talk:1990 United States Senate election in Delaware/GA1 Olliefant (she/her) 16:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant, the bot is correct to not award a multiplier in this case since there were only 4 interwikis (including enwiki) as of 31 December. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I meant that History6042's review of my article was a similar length Olliefant (she/her) 18:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I'll take a look later, but yeah that doesn't look sufficiently long to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
History6042, one piece of advice for your GAN reviews would be to not make any changes to the article yourself. Although possibly appreciated by nominators, it does have a tendency to make your reviews appear lighter than maybe they are in reality. Just a recommendation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I really have to disagree with this. It's essentially creating more work for both the reviewer and the nominator just to pad the review and make the reviewer look good. If I make significant copyedits during a review, I add a diff so they can be easily checked. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I also disagree. Copyediting can often a wordy part of a GAN, but it is usually not the most important consideration. CMD (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Speaking purely from a personal perspective (not from that of a judge), I do sympathize with the desire for a reviewer to fix minor errors themselves. However, it may also be beneficial for a reviewer to leave feedback regarding more substantive changes—for example, if a detail were to be removed—since it's likely that the nominator may disagree with these changes.
That being said, it is possible to both leave a substantial GA review and pass it without having to suggest any major changes. Talk:Surrogate's Courthouse/GA1 is one such example, in which the reviewer explained, in detail, how the article met each of the GA criteria. If you're a contestant reviewing a GA nom, and you don't find any significant problems with an article, this is an example that I suggest you follow. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
First, it was a recommendation. Second, sometimes I disagree with comments in a GAN. If the reviewer just makes changes, it makes it harder to have a discussion about these comments. It takes away the collaboration between writer and reviewer, and could lead to conflict. Third, one of the most beneficial things for any writer is to see where their writing can be improved. The best way to do this is to actually see the comments (and reasoning for comments) and then go improve the article yourself. Lastly, sometimes a reviewer makes a comment that helps a bit, but then the discussion leads to even better changes. If the reviewer just makes the change themself, then there is less chance for these iterative improvements. I am not saying don't go in and fix an obvious typo, etc. but everyone here is so concerned about the quality of GAN reviews, my recommendation was to put the comments down in the review to help everyone understand that the article was thoroughly reviewed and thus should qualify for points, or to make clear it wasn't some rubberstamp review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2025/2&oldid=1295435175"