Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

WikiCup content needing review view •

Featured content Antigoneia (Syria) (nom) 1923 season 2 (nom) Romanian Figure Skating Championships (nom) (FLC) Golden Spin of Zagreb (nom) (FLC) Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Ice dance (nom) (FAC) Timeline of the 1998 Pacific hurricane season (nom) (FLC) Featured/good topic candidates 2025 Indian Premier League (GTC) Figure skating at the 2026 Winter Olympics (GTC) DYK 2026 Men's T20 World Cup (DYK) 2026 Men's T20 World Cup final (DYK) 2025 Indian Premier League final (DYK) GAN Luo Shifang (start) Washington State Ferries (nom) Russ Crandall (start) Tropical Storm Nadine (2024) (nom) Ryan Davis (video game journalist) (nom) Weightlifting at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 73 kg (nom) Weightlifting at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 89 kg (start) Weightlifting at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 102 kg (start) Weightlifting at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's +102 kg (nom) PR Louis Tomlinson (rev)

Eligibility

Vatican City at the 2022 Mediterranean Games passed a bit late... Would it be eligible for the next round? Arconning (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Is someone going to reset the scores or something? Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I was wondering about that yesterday, though I haven't heard anything from the judges yet for doing that. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi, thanks for checking in. I'm still reviewing the nominations (got home a bit late last night) but will let you know when I'm done, so the bot can reset the nominations.

@Arconning, yes, you can claim it for the next round. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Scores have been checked now, and everything looks good. @Tenshi Hinanawi, could you please run the bot to clear all the contestants' submission pages? Thanks in advance. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Are we all just reset to zero? Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98, the round points (i.e. what you can directly earn from submissions) will be reset to zero. I've created a new table of tournament points; these will persist from round to round. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I see now; that makes sense. I'm going to own this round, too. 😉 Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

We'll see about that BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Epicgenius: Did you want to remove those editors from the table who have been disqualified? Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 I have removed the disqualified users, and fixed the table header. Thanks for bringing it up. On a purely tangential note, I'm very lazy. Technically the answer to that question would be "no, I don't; I really want to go to a museum instead". – Epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Then go to the museum! Life’s too short to pass up hobbies of personal interest. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi, just FYI, the second round has just ended but the judges haven't looked at all the submissions yet. We'll let you know when we're finished; it might not be done until tomorrow, and I forgot to do the newsletter earlier. Thanks for maintaining the bot. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi, thanks again for the assistance. I've sent out the newsletter. It would be great if you can run the bot to clear contestants' submission pages, but if you don't have time to do it, please let me know. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It's done again. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

A note on DYK points for the post-Cup discussions

I wanted to mention this before it slipped my mind so that maybe someone will remember it for the discussions at the end of this this WikiCup. For the first round, I submitted 10 DYKs that all hit the +5 for length, meaning that I had the highest total points from base DYKs (BeanieFan11 had the most DYK submissions at 11, but none met the +5 for length). However, even with 50 bonus points for age and over 100 points from other submissions, I still didn't clear threshold of earning a single tournament point. This year, I'm more tossing whatever content work I happen to complete onto my WikiCup submission page, so that's not disappointing. However, I think we should probably consider increasing the DYK point values in some way to incentivize more general content creation and expansion, especially among newer editors who may not be ready to tackle a GA/FA and first-time WikiCup participants. I think a good option could be a jump to +7 for meeting the length threshold, making it equal to ITN. Just a thought. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with changing points at this point. a change like this would have to be implemented retroactively which would be unfair to those who participated in round one Olliefant (she/her) 18:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you may have misinterpreted my post. I support considering a point change after this year's WikiCup (hence this being for the post-Cup discussions), but wanted to mention it before it slipped my mind/I was too busy to participate in discussion. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I still disagree with it, we just increased the points for GARs, year before FLs got increased, if this keeps going we could start getting into creep issues. I think DYKs are fine given the potential bonuses they can come with, though I did propose a tweak to them which got no traction (see here), I would support something similar to help the bonuses. That being said, I think the best solution instead of increasing everything is decreasing something else to make the point differentials less difficult. The most obvious target is FAs, at 200 points they are 3.6x more valuable then the next highest item, FLs, and 5.7x more valuable then the next highest, GAs. I think maybe knocking them down to 100 or 150 would make everything a bit more competitive. Looking at the last round, only one person who got an FA scored outside the top 16 and only one person who didn't, me, scored inside the top five. Olliefant (she/her) 20:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The average Featured List is 3x less effort than a Featured Article, so I think ~150 would make sense. FLs also don't get that many reviewers, even uncontroversial ones (don't get significant changes) that aren't that popular take 1-1.5 months to promote on average Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 20:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This is my first time participating and it is just for fun. I would like to echo the concerns raised by Olliefant. I find a bit too difficult to challenge anyone has a couple of FAs. Two FAs is 400 points (without any bonuses), meaning on has to get 12 GAs to challenge this... well good luck finding 12 reviewers for this in a reasonable amount of time (in politics-related topics one has to wait more than six months) even if you have them in the queue. Of course FA should get more points but 200 feels too high for everyone else to compete to the point that the competition looks more like a FA-cup not a Wikicup. Moreover, i found a bit odd (maybe I did not understand the rules correctly) that only DYKs for article creation and 5x expansion count, i.e., those who improve GAs do not. The message I get from this is that article creation is a plus, but improving is a no unless it is the highest quality. Anything in the middle is in the underappreciated zone. My 2 cents. A.Cython(talk) 20:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I do have to agree with this. A FA puts such a massive lead ahead of other competitors that you have to put out an astronomical amount of GANs to even hope to compete. I agree with the proposal to lower the points amount slightly. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

As an alternative to increasing the benefit to doing higher-quality article creations/expansions leading to DYK, I can generally agree with reducing the absolute value of FAs. I wouldn't want next year's Cup to put them at fewer than 150 points, but feel like being able to score 600 points on a single FA is probably less than in the spirit of broadly improving the project. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

If DYKs for GAs were counted, that would mean essentially a double-count on that article (35 from the GA, 10 from the DYK) as all GAs can be expected to pass a DYK review. You might as well just raise the base GA total by 10 then. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

DYK is a different process with an additional reviewer that is not always available, from WP:DYKNEW: An article is ineligible for DYK if it has in the past five years appeared on the Main Page as a bold link at DYK. Even if it is available a second reviewer has to check and may very well reject it (hook is not interesting etc), thus it is not a guarantee one to get the extra points. Finally, I did not say that it must be 10 pts, even a humble 5pts irrespective of length would do more justice than getting nothing. I am just saying... A.Cython(talk) 23:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I am well aware of how DYK works. In 19 times out of 20 an article passing at GA will have both the length to get 10 points and the content to ensure it will feature at DYK. But why is it unjust to not penalise those article improvers who don’t want to create nominate at DYK? There is 19 times out of 20 no improvement between the GA pass and the DYK main page appearance - and article improvement is what the Cup is intended to drive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not follow this logic, so I might be missing something.

• But why is it unjust to not penalise those article improvers who don’t want to create nominate at DYK?
• But why is it unjust to not penalise those article improvers who don’t want to create nominate at FA?

If one does not want to contribute then how is this a penalty? No contribution, no points. The question raised (not just me but others too) was whether one type of contribution monopolizes the competition. A.Cython(talk) 02:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. How is nominating a GA article for DYK evidence of contribution? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

For the same reason that we have a main page in WP, to raise awareness of new content. We do not write so that nobody reads. Again we are talking a small number of points, you do not like 5, how about 2. Is this low enough? A.Cython(talk) 03:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

”The purpose of the Cup is to encourage content creation and improvement”. There is no content creation or article improvement between passing a GA and nominating it for DYK (indeed it is essentially an exercise of filling out a form), so it is not within the bounds of this competition. There are other initiatives to raise awareness of new content. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Well this is a narrow interpretation that in the long run damages creation and improvement since it does not appear to encourage. Why would anyone want to write if not read by others?

But you are evading the central question: whether one type of contribution (FA) monopolizes all other contributions not just DYK. A.Cython(talk) 04:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

If you think the only encouragement there can possibly be is pageviews, I think you might need to read the cup description again. I have no opinion on the question of FA monopolisation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

No need to read more than once. There is the letter and the spirit. Dominance of one leads to the loss of both. But let us agree that we disagree.A.Cython(talk) 04:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

That would mean that a GA is only 10 points less than a FL, and it is often much harder to create FLs than to create GAs, in general. Extra points being awarded based on importance (vital articles) or length (in GAs, FLs and FAs) would help combat the current incentive to get topics that can't have much written about them through the processes. This would be a very radical change though Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 02:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

In my experience FLs are generally around the same difficulty as GAs. The difference in points in the Cup is because there is no other way of rewarding list improvement, whereas GAs often can go on to FAC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Featured content is the highest possible achievement that an article can get on Wikipedia, and working on one is one of the most coveted awards for many editors. I don't see the logic in reducing the points editors get from FAs simply because other people can't do FAs. WikiCup is a competition. A ton of points towards those who do the greatest work is warranted. And this is coming from someone who has greatly struggled with the FAC process since joining the site. λ NegativeMP1 23:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I've done over 100 DYKs, over a dozen GAs, and two FAs. I don't think I'm comfortable saying that an FA is 20- or 40-times more valuable than a well-written new/expanded article. Even factoring in age/interwiki points, expanding a 20-year-old article that appears on 100 Wikis 5x to 10k bytes gets 50 points. An FA on the same article would garner 600 points (and that can be even further added upon if it's within a featured topic). The purpose of this competition is to improve the encyclopedia and not have a competition where players can min-max. If holistic improvement of the project is desired, we should change the point values. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. FAs should definitely be valued much more highly, but the fact it's so high that people who may have less time for FAs, or tend to improve a high number of GAs, are automatically falling behind because they didn't submit an FA is very disproportional. The points gap is just too giant and needs to be shrunk, even if by a little bit. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It is not easy to score a lot of points from FAs in the WikiCup, simply because you can only nominate one FA at a time and it takes time to get it reviewed. I find it worth keeping a large distance between FAs and GAs in scoring. —Kusma (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I share the sense that improving a GA to FA is probably not 12 times more valuable than 5x expanding a 20yo stub, but I do think it’s 12 times harder. I think it’s appropriate for the WikiCup to give a very large reward for the hardest task. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s not even 12 times more valuable for the WikiCup. A maximum-multiplier GA is worth 105 points, so taking it to FA is worth under six times more. To take a recent example, I would have passed Nile at GA with minimal inspection, but I left 10,000 bytes of review notes at FA and was rewarded with 15,000 bytes in response from the nominator. That is the level of effort that the FA process should demand, and does demand, from the topics Wikipedia most needs to have high-quality articles. The current point scheme, for me, reflects that accurately. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

My example was 5x expanding a 20yo stub for DYK, not writing a GA, though I acknowledge I did my math wrong. With maximum interwiki multipliers, such a DYK would be (10+20)x3 = 90 points, so still in the ballpark of 1/6 of a max interwiki FA. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Missing points

I submitted Benjamin Hammar House and Samuel Dyer House as DYKs. They hit the 5k size requirement for 5 bonus points, but the bot incorrectly assessed them as not meeting that requirement. If I remember correctly, this bug seems unusually common when the articles are NRHP-listed properties, so a template on those pages may be the culprit. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I have a similar issue with Silvius Leopold Weiss, which has a prose size of 14k and should have scored 5 extra base points, but did not, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2026/Submissions/Kusma. —Kusma (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Both fixed. I have no idea how either of these happened, so pinging @Jarry1250, the bot's maintainer. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the same might have happened with my submissions of Mary Hannay Foott (prose size 5597 B) and Liane Moriarty (prose size 8669 B). MCE89 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed this as well. I might email Jarry later too, just to make sure he's aware. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Mine too The Good, the Bad and the Cuddly (Legends of Tomorrow) has 7K bytes Olliefant (she/her) 04:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. I definitely don't think this is a NRHP template problem. I will email Jarry as soon as I get access to my other computer that doesn't freeze every time I try to respond to a long FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am pretty sure this was caused by WP:Recent additions being moved (the bot uses it to help date DYK noms). It should now be fixed for all future nominations. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 19:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jarry1250, thanks, I appreciate the quick fix. I'll see if there are any other DYK submissions during this round that may have been scored incorrectly - this seems to affect DYK submissions since March 16. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like two more articles didn't get the correct bonuses; I've fixed them now. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Flag icon request

Someone with the ability to do so, please change my flag icon from {{flag icon|Canada}} to {{flag icon|East Turkestan}}. Thanks! Yue🌙 (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Yue, I have done this. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thank you! Yue🌙 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

EasternShah blocked

@WikiCup judges: EasternShah is AE blocked and should be disqualified. GiftedIceCream 13:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@GiftedIceCream Done, thanks for letting us know. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey there

Just a request, I have read the rules and have signed up for WikiCup 2026, and set to make my WikiCup debut, but could somebody condense the rules if i want to remind myself every now and again without too much kerfuffle?

Regards, F1fan00 (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

also, i did sign up with then changed it a couple minutes later to myself manually, is that allowed or have i messed up? F1fan00 (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@F1fan00, that is allowed. As for a condensed version of the rules, we don't have a summarized version of WP:WikiCup/Scoring, but generally you are allowed to claim points for WP:GA, WP:FA, WP:DYK (except for new GAs), and WP:ITN articles which you've significantly contributed to, as well as WP:GAN, WP:FAC, and WP:PR reviews you've conducted. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

ok, thank you @Epicgenius, seems your name is accurate :D.

When does each round start though and if we are in a break, when is the next round? F1fan00 (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@F1fan00, it starts on the 1st of every other month (January 1, March 1, May 1, etc). The last day of each round is two days before the start of the next, except that the last day of round 5 is October 31. The dates can be seen on the WP:CUP page. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

ok, thanks :) F1fan00 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)