Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

Could the judges please make sure that the archiving systems are working as intended at the start of each Cup? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, could you clarify? Do you mean the archiving of this page, the contestants' submissions pages, or Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2026? – Epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

This page, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The archiving seems to be working properly. The top section was pinned, and the other five sections are less than 14 days old; the archive settings are configured so that they are not archived until at least 14 days past the last comment. I'll see if unpinning the top section causes it to archive. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, just make sure we don't end up with multiple archive pages for the wrong year, as we did a couple of years back, or archive pages not linked in the box above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@WikiCup judges: What do you know, 2026 discussions have ended up in 2025 archive pages, which aren't linked from the main talkpage. Please sort this out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I have unarchived this, since it seems like the discussion is still pertinent. Let's see if changing the archiving code from a hard-coded year to Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/%(year)d/%(counter)d fixes things. Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As for the archive box, I have applied a temporary fix. However, we will need to sort this out later because the archive box is not detecting these automatically. (At least when using {{Archives|banner=yes}}.) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

If we are talking about this page, everything is either active or pinned.

We don't just remove stuff because it was relevant last year. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@WikiCup judges: In this DYK, the article was WAY beyond 5120 bytes, Sorry for shouting. (51,130 bytes) but the bot still gave me only five points. GiftedIceCream 01:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@GiftedIceCream, the bot awards points based on readable prose size. This is what I see:

• Prose size (text only): 3954 characters (631 words) "readable prose size"

The calculation above includes the bolded pseudoheaders under "Timeline of events". Since the multiplier only takes effect when there is at least 5120 bytes of readable prose size, I don't see any error in the scoring. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! GiftedIceCream 01:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

A few hours ago, an article of mine became GA, Talk:Siege of Verona. Will this count for round 1, 2, neither? Thanks. A.Cython(talk) 15:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like round 2, once the table is reset. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 15:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be claimed in round 2. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)