Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2022/3

Withdrawing

You know what? It's clear people don't want featured pictures in the Wikicup. Fine. I withdraw. I only really use this as a method to encourage me to create content. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 07:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I have a lot of respect for people who can do things that I don't know how to do (create FPs, or write content quickly enough to qualify for ITN). I do find it great that there are different ways to take part that rely on different skills. Thank you for your contributions this year! —Kusma (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your work this year, Adam Cuerden. What matters to me is not who is in the WikiCup, but what content is being produced. To that end, I was delighted to see your return after a recent absence and hope to continue seeing your outstanding restorations, perhaps at the Signpost if nowhere else. — Bilorv (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Just kind of tired of how FPs get treated on here specifically (constant talk about how they're less important than articles, every time someone does well with FPs the points for them get reduced, etc). I'll still be doing restorations, just the Wikicup really isn't doing its purpose of motivation, kind of demotivating, so better just... to 3bow out before it burns me out, y'know? And it's not like I've ever seen it pull people to, say, participating in Featured picture candidates or do anything related to them. Never saw one Wikicup participant vote on FPC, for example, unless they already were. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 11:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It does look like the participants from the last couple of years split into a small FP crowd and a much larger non-FP crowd, with very few people active in both areas (and so very few people who have the experience to judge relative merits of each side's contributions). A bit sad. I wouldn't be opposed to "all-rounder" bonus points given to people who have both a FA and a FP or something. —Kusma (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea worth exploring! — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The reason the crowd is so small isn't because there aren't Wikipedians creating/uploading high-quality media; it's because the enwp FPC process is janky and doesn't get that much participation from the people who create the work. You'd see more participation re: media if you counted Commons FPCs (even with a requirement they be used in articles), but that's been rejected a couple times here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You can have two nominations maximum on Commons. That's - at absolute best case scenario, where every time you pass by Rule of the fifth day (≥10 supports, no opposes whatsoever) - 24 FPs a round. To give some idea of how that works out, I'm currently six pictures ahead of my Commons queue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 11:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably better you focus on work at Commons than at Wikipedia to be fair. Your excellent restoration skills should be recognised outside the narrow scope of Wikipedia. It was pretty clear from a few years back that FPs slewed the scoring in the contest. Perhaps suggest some rule changes before the next WikiCup commences which better match your own narrative? Cheers, and remember, WikiCup is just a game. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Cwmhiraeth who may not have seen this thread. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured pictures are an important part of the cup, it's the balance between pictures and articles that is difficult. We are sorry to lose you Adam. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thing is, Cwmhiraeth my best year for FPs ever - the one I won the Wikicup in with the second lowest score for a winner ever if I'm not mistaken., I had 99 featured pictures over the whole year. I could be wrong, but I have reason to suspect I'm the most successful person at Featured pictures Wikipedia has ever had, at least long term (I believe Godot13 is the most successful in a single year, but I also believe he had the advantage of a Wikimedian in Residence position at the time) - and his success was used as a reason to drop the value of FPs.

This means that in the best year I ever had. I scored, for the whole year, on current points, 2970.

THREE DIFFERENT PEOPLE got over that score in the last round alone last year. There is literally no way to compete with that. I can't win because I did a good job. Frankly, I won in 2019 not because I had my best year ever, but because article content creators had their worst year since 2016.

There's no motivation in that knowledge. If there's no legitimate method for you to have any chance of winning, there's no point putting in the effort. Even if I got a featured picture for every single day of the last round, that's roughly 30x60=1800, and, again, that wouldn't win on my merits: , that could only win if article creators got unlucky. In the last decade, the only time that scores have been that low are 2016 and 2019, every other year they've been well above that.

The point of the Wikicup is to encourage content creation. But when you being able to win the competition is solely dependant on the competition being weak, and literally nothing you can do can improve those chances, then it's not fun, and therefore, there's no point to participating. I'd imagine people who work on featured lists (which might technically be eligible for bonus points, but usually aren't) have similar terrible times in the Wikicup. But at least if someone does well on the back of Featured lists, the judges would tell them they're being terribly unsportsmanlike if they said things such as:

• "Most of us are here for encyclopedic content." - Because apparently illustrations, a basic part of articles, aren't encyclopedic content.
• "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a picture gallery"
• "I personally don't think anyone should be able to win the Wikicup on FPs alone." - that one's by Cwmhiraeth, a judge in the competition. Good to know exactly where I stand, and that you actually don't want me taking part.

Like, really. All that's just insulting. No-one in this competition would ever, ever say anything like that about any other content creator's work, and if they did, the Judges would tell them that this is a friendly competition meant to improve Wikipedia, and insulting other people's content is unsportsmanlike, instead of the judges themselves participating in the insults to other people's content. This was set up as a friendly competition meant to encourage Wikipedia improvement, and I've spent nearly a decade watching people complain about how useless featured pictures were with the judges either saying nothing or participating. It goes completely against the basic ethos of what the Wikicup was founded on, and that's why I quit, and don't plan to ever be back. I'm sure that you'll manage to drive off every other competitor who works in anything other than articles in future.

And that's all I have to say about that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 20:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If you only participate in the Wikicup just because you expect to win it rather than because the competition is motivating and fun, I'm not entirely sure anything short of ensuring FPs are so overvalued that you can beat someone with 8 FAs, 68 FARs, 4 GAs, and 213 GARs will satisfy you, Adam. If you insist on relying overwhelmingly on a single type of content you will be at a disadvantage. Just increasing the amount of reviews you do to the level of recent podium finishers would probably serve to ensure you reach 3rd place somewhat regularly. I look forward to seeing your work for the Signpost, in any case :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Impressive missing of the point I was making, but I told myself I'd say my piece and shut up after. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 20:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Adam you edited your message as I was replying using discussion tool, so I only replied to the first 4 paragraphs. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, look, I suppose a good faith response deserves a good-faith answer. The point is not winning. The point is that feeling your contributions are severely undervalued, feeling that the competition is stacked against you, and feeling like there's nothing you can do to win a competition all weigh on you. I've participated in about 10 Wikicups. I've won one. The year I won, the Signpost literally never covered the results of the Wikicup, It didn't feel like a win since it was solely down to the other competitors being unlucky - they got a bunch of big-point things that passed the day after the competition, and it was an extremely low-scoring competition. Even the newsletter was entirely matter of fact. And I literally had three people congratulate me (One of whom was second-place Lee Vilenski, who is probably the nicest person in the Wikicup, by the way), and that was it. You can check my talk page, you can check here, that was it. I've had issues with this competition for a while. It doesn't feel good. It doesn't feel fun. It just feels like people telling me how much better their work is than mine for a decade. While not ever trying to do it themselves, and acting like I couldn't do what they did.

But that said, it's more of a slow grind than anything too overt at once. I've been on Wikipedia for about 17 years. I know more about Wikipedia than most of you ever will, and some of the stuff I've been through on here was genuinely traumatic bullying. Wikicup was just people being stupid and nearsighted. But it's not helping me anymore. Honestly, I just liked the community. But the attitude of the Wikicup to FPs... it finally got to me, and the best thing I can do is to cut it out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 20:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Just in case it seems like I have something against FPs, I myself have nominated and/or uploaded a number of them. I do value them. However, I think there are a lot of limitations on how to quantify the encyclopedic value of FPs and see point increases as a way for FPs to be easily gamed. It's the same with FLs. I expect my points in the next few years to come mostly from FLs, such as this draft of a Spanish version of Kavyansh's election series. There are 50 provinces in Spain I could do this for, as well as legislative and European elections. That means, as the only editor really interested in Spanish electoral history that participates in the Wikicup (similarly to how you are the only editor really interested in FPs as a main way of participating in the Wikicup), I would literally have to get all of those FLs passed in the final round of the Wikicup to beat Rambling Man's score last year (due to no bonuses). Is everything lost? No. The amount of value for our readers I will have made is worth so much more than barnstars and competitions. Non nobis solum. However, if I did an FAR for every one of the FLs, I'd be able to add 750 points. If I did a GAR plus an FAR, I'd have enough points to win the competition outright. I will never make that much effort in a year. But I don't think that's because FLs are undervalued. I think that's more to do with the overwhelming level of bonus multipliers and their gaming. Hopefully for next year we can figure out a way to prevent the bonuses from being so dominant in the competition, and hopefully that will make participation more equal for those of us not interested in football finals. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (typed this up under Adam's 20:02, 5 May 2022 comment, but got pulled away, sorry) - This is all true, but it's also true that if we're just talking about winning the WikiCup, most styles of content work don't stand a chance. Even if you focus on articles rather than images, if you don't have a specific niche with articles that can be boilerplated to some degree, or otherwise an iterative process you can use, you're probably going to struggle. And that makes sense -- it's about numbers, after all.

Even if the enwp FPC process did work better, and even if FPs were worth a bit more here, most people who contribute their content to FPC still wouldn't stand a chance, either, because again, WikiCup caters to iterative projects. Improving photos already used in articles is very valuable, don't get me wrong, but it's more realistically repeatable than going out hoping to find something worth photographing (or in the case of someone like Charles, going on a trip somewhere to find things to photograph), getting a good shot, and hoping it makes sense to add to an article.

This isn't to complain, but to make a point about what it takes to win the WikiCup. IMO participating in the WikiCup can be fun even if you know you have no chance to make it to the final round. The game to win it is just a different kind than the rest of us are playing.

If anyone is inclined to reward diversity of contributions, there are ways to do that: awarding points for combinations of highlighted content (bonus points for each set of GA + GAR + FP, etc.), or points for diversity articles based on the category tree, or fewer points for topics, or even points for improving other projects related to an article you worked on (GA + a Wikidata item, for example). At the same time, I also get that some really like that it encourages you to focus on a narrow area/activity, and know that the regulars are generally against including other projects. Finding a balance that would please everyone is probably impossible. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I just want to add, given the exchange that came after I typed up the above, that I'm in no way trying to invalidate what you're saying, Adam. Your experience sounds really disheartening, and I'm glad you've stuck around to do great work. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It's worth noting you can't compare scores from one year to the next because the scoring mechanics change year on year following constructive feedback and consensus before the start of each event. Personally I find someone stating "I've been on Wikipedia for about 17 years. I know more about Wikipedia than most of you ever will" to be unbelievably arrogant and completely out of tune with collegiate editing. I guess in those 17 years you've racked up a few dozen FAs? A hundred or so FLs? A few hundred GAs? Perhaps, perhaps not, but I don't think I've heard any other Wikipedians try to display such overt arrogance. No wonder people have stopped listening. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean editing, I mean institutional knowledge. The changes in how Wikipedia worked, how editing feels. I was around to watch the Wikicup start, and therefore know what its original goals were. I've seen how editing culture changed, how it's... honestly a lot less friendly than it once was. Wikiprojects used to be incredibly vibrant places and now feel kind of dead. Featured portals (and most portals, for that matter( and Featured sounds have both disappeared, and no-one works to bring sounds to articles anymore.

There's history behind these things. The Wikicup has lost three different ways to gain points over the years, and that's part of the reason that it's so article based now. Back when it had Featured sounds, featured portals, and, briefly, points for edit counts - a flawed process, but something - featured pictures fit in with everything else. But with two featured content processes now shut, but additional ways to get points from articles added - look at the 2009 Wikicup rules. There's a parity of content there that the Wikicup doesn't even come close to anymore. Hell, there were even two ways to get points from pictures (that said, no-one ever cared about Valued pictures). We've also added points for reviews since then, which isn't a bad idea, but has further ghettoised FPs. The Wikicup was meant as a friendly, fun competition that celebrated all content on Wikipedia. It's turned into an article competition with an adjunct. And it's no fun being the red-headed stepchild in a competition. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 21:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Shameless promotion here but if you want to join a WikiProject I'm in the midst of reviving, I'd love to have you contribute FPs and other restored images to WP:FINANCE. There's tons of articles without images, including biographies and old buildings that may be right up your alley. While not part of the Wikicup, that might be a great way to get some recognition and appreciation for your work, Adam Cuerden. We'll be having a content drive in June (likely themed on stock exchanges), and having restored images of cartoons or pictures like this one, this one, or the picture in this article would be absolutely gorgeous and greatly appreciated. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wasn't really expecting a name check, but thanks :). I wasn't going to weigh in before, but I probably sjoild. I really don't understand Featured Pictures. That's my problem, not yours. I don't think I have the "art gene". I know that both the creation and the process is long, but I can't quite tell the difference from something that is good - and something that I cropped from a YouTube video. (I genuinely can't tell a difference from 720 to 1080p, my eyes aren't the best). I know how much images help the project, considering me getting a solitary blurry image of a pool player usually takes me begging on the darkest reaches of the internet to get them uploaded by the creator.

The WikiCup has become a little extreme, but I don't think that is the scoring system. Getting two Featured articles to pass in two months is a massive prospect, but I've seen people put in six! But, with 1200 points from that, it won't win the WikiCup, it's when that is augmented with GAs, DYKs, ITNs, topics etc. that we get massive scores. The issue is probably that Featured Pictures don't benefit from bonus points. If you think that they are (almost) worth a GA - that to me seems reasonable (not withstanding that I don't know if it is harder or not to get a featured picture than a GA). Problem is, if you write about, say, an Olympic sport, that GA might get you 105 points for a 3x bonus. An featured image of someone doing the sport, that was well created, used in the same article, still worth 30.

Maybe you shouldn't be able to win the WikiCup just making one type of content (baring in mind I was beaten with you doing just this!). Similarly to someone just fixing up the article of every RD person for ITN, there will come a time when this is no longer fruitful alone. However, you should at least get reasonably far before those making ridiculous amounts of content. I do think there should be some sort of bonus point system in place for this type of content, but without looking into it, I don't know what to suggest.

From the little I've seen, the creation of FPs aren't exactly something everyone can do. Feel free to drop me a talk page message if you think you can make me into Leeonado De Vilenski, as I'd love to know a bit more on the issues you are having. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Adam Cuerden: As far as I am aware, you withdrew from the WikiCup two weeks ago, so I am puzzled why you are still submitting entries. Have you changed your mind? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  Just proving to myself I could have done this round, even if actually participating would be toxic to my mood. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 19:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I'd like to withdraw. AryKun (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is sad to see you go ... You did a great work on birds and nature related articles! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: the above two requests. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for participating and for your contributions to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Withdraw

I'm announcing my withdraw. I was gonna do a lot of GAs this year, but then I got addicted to adding chart peaks of songs and albums to article, plus I got a small business to help in these crazy times, so I would prefer to alleviate pressure a little bit by not competing anymore. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for participating and for your contributions to Wikipedia. Perhaps things will become easier and you will take part again next year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Bonus for vital articles

Couldn't find anything substantial in the archives about this besides this short comment: [1]. Has a bonus for vital article promotion and review ever been considered? Ovinus (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea has merit, but I think it would add complexity to an already complex set of rules. There is also the problem of the scoring bot being able to recognise whether submissions qualify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it was considered a few years ago but we decided not to do it on the grounds Cwmhireath mentioned plus that it was perceived as a little arbitrary in terms of scope. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, there is already a different contest focusing on vital articles, and the interwiki multipliers are an existing (if imperfect) proxy that will give lots of bonus points for most level 4 and higher vital articles. —Kusma (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It does sound like a good idea on paper and it was discussed a bit at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2022/1. These discussions were mere rambling of thoughts and there will be a former discussion and point reevaluation at the end of the year, but it appears the consensus was against vital articles for a) lacking depth (only 10,000 of our 6 million(?) articles are on this scale), and b) lacking quality (a lot of articles considered vital on those lists are undue or unjustified). Such discussion fizzled out but I do still feel there's something we can do with it, and it could be worth bringing up again later. Panini! • 🥪 12:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Whatever metric we use (interwikis as now, pageviews, or inclusion on Vital Article lists, or in how many traditional encyclopaedias a topic is covered) is going to be able to be gamed for the contest (there will be "easy" targets scoring "too many" points and "worthy targets" not scoring enough). I kind of like the current system because it is simple, although it has deficiencies. For example, articles with zero interwikis are actually harder to write than articles with five interwikis because you have to start from scratch and can't use the sources from a foreign language Wikipedia article. But they'll score less at DYK. While we're here: Is there a list of high-value targets (pages by number of interwiki links, or old short articles that will score bonus points for 5x expansions) somewhere? —Kusma (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair points; perhaps it's too much complexity. I'm agnostic on the exact metric that one would use, since they all have their pitfalls. (I'd like to claim the disambiguation page Null, which has 800,000 views/month!) Maybe one doesn't exist. I guess I don't understand the intention of the WikiCup, because it seems to implicitly favor work on less important articles, since they usually take a shorter time to improve. Ovinus (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

- ILL points work ok - there are certainly some targets that have lots of points, and some topics (such as new topics) get no points, despite being suitable. I don't think VA is any better for this, as the allocation of articles does seem to favour certain topics. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone considered bonus points for most viewed articles? Or would that not work for some reason? casualdejekyll 18:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Issue is, how do you decide what counts as "most viewed"? Most views over the past week? Past month? Past year? All time? Each method has its flaws. This can also be heavily influenced by current events. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Trying to figure this out is a lot like Redistricting, in that we have multiple goals and it's impossible to achieve one without compromising on another. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems that people don't understand what the Vital article project is for. Yes, our selection of article isn't ideal, but it doesn't have to be, it just need to be good enough. We could have implemented this exact incentive back in 2011 when it was first properly proposed (File:Wikipedia’s poor treatment of its most important articles.pdf) and have the Vital articles improved significantly. Too much effort has been made to choose the "right" articles, and too little has been devoted to their improvement. In fact, I think that we actually don't want to improve Vital articles, we just like to use it as a proxy for other projects. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification of rules: Mass de-listing of GAs through reassessment?

Last week, I noticed that all of the African women's football GAs had just been delisted. I looked into what happened and saw that PCN02WPS delisted them all through individual reassessment and counted them for WikiCup points. 7 of them were done last week and 3 were done in May. I didn't think GA reassessments counted for WikiCup points. (That impression is based on seeing that some other participants work on FA Removal Candidates, but I don't think they list those for points.) Are GA reassessments supposed to count for points? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Even if GA reassessments do count for points, I think the quality of these reassessments is a big concern. They were all rushed. The nominator closed them all after a week or two, even though most of them had yet to receive any response at all from other editors. The lack of attention was because the notifications were extremely poor. The original GA nominator of these articles was vanished, and so they need to find someone else to address the review. Very few editors were notified and the few projects notified are mostly or completely inactive. I only noticed it because I saw the articles were removed by a tracking bot from the WiG list of GAs. Beyond that, I looked at the articles and the criticism mentioned in the review and most if not all of it looks easy to address --- it looks like it was just stretched out so that it could meet the minimum length to count for WikiCup. The goal of GA reassessments is "the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it". Based on the way these reassessments were conducted, they were done to delist the articles (and done for WikiCup points!). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I reverted all of these reassessments because of these procedural concerns (done for WikiCup points, rushed review, poor notifications, as well as the general problem of listing so many articles in the same area at once). Currently, one of the GAR coordinators/overseers pushed back on that and the current status is to re-open these individual reassessments as community reassessments. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Overall, this seems really problematic to me. African sport and women's sport are two very neglected areas of Wikipedia. It seems like encouraging these kinds of actions only widens the GA content gaps for race and gender. If this is allowed, I would advocate for making it not allowed any more. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777 As for counting the GARs for points, this already been taken care of, see here, here, and here. The quality of the reassessments was never a concern - they were all thorough and the time frame of the reassessments was done in accordance with guidelines at WP:GAR. The main issue with them was the poor notification on my part, which I have taken responsibility for. To say that the reassessments were "stretched out" (whatever that means) to meet some minimum length requirement (which, if it exists, I am not aware of it) is absurd, as in my mind the articles are in quite bad shape at the moment. You got pushback on your reversion because you did it with no discussion whatsoever (or at least none that I saw), just undid everything and explained it in an edit summary. I believe the current proposal is to re-open most (or all) of the GARs as individual reassessments, as they were, and wait to see if people want to improve the articles. If they do - great! I have no reason to want these articles delisted if they're improved. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The lack of quality of your reviews is the concern. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't see "review quality" among your list of "procedural" reasons, but alright. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think doing a bad job on the comments given in a review counts as going against procedure. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

My point exactly, but you reverted them all just based on "procedural error" (the whole reason all of this is going on) and only now want to complain about my perceived inability to do the reassessments well in the first place. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The procedural issues are the reasons I reverted, but it would help if you did a better job with the reviews. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm always open to constructive criticism but I would argue that a reassessment that achieves its goal of getting attention and improvements to dilapidated articles (or in other cases correctly reassessing them as sub-GA class) is a net benefit, as opposed to letting poor-quality articles sit (neglected, as you say) among other more deserving GAs, regardless of how awful you think the reviews are or how incompetent you find the reviewer to be. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

In January, a contestant submitted a review at WP:FAR for points and it was rejected by the cup co-ords (discussion found here). I think that if FAR reviews are not accepted, GAR reviews should also be rejected for cup points. I also think that reviews resulting in a delist should not be counted for points, as the cup's goal is to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia and delisting articles doesn't fulfill that goal. As for the merits of the reviews and if those articles can be delisted, I think this is the wrong venue to discuss that and should probably continue at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment (and it looks like a discussion has already started there). Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't be up for allowing reassessments for the cup. Whilst it's important work for poor articles, the idea of it being gamed for points is pretty scary to me, and it kinda goes against what the cup is all about. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Sturmvogel 66, who was not involved in the original decision to give PCN02WPS the pass for submitting GA reassessments (and may not have been aware of this discussion). —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

No points are awarded for GARs. The level of work required varies so much that it's hard to be fair, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't plan on submitting any more GARs for points whatsoever, though I am surprised this hasn't been worked out at some point in previous years. I checked over the rules before I submitted my first three GARs for points in round 3, and asked Cwmhiraeth on his talk page on May 2 whether they'd be acceptable. I won't blame them at all for this, since they just said They are not mentioned in the rules, but I would probably accept one if it was submitted. After another editor brought it up to them following my submission of the set of 7 at the start of round 4, Cwmhiraeth stated that they are not currently acceptable and left me a talk page message suggesting I cease submitting them but saying that those which had already been submitted would be honored (I will allow them on this occasion, because you have spent a significant amount of effort on them.) For that reason I'd prefer if mine from this round are honored but I understand if a decision is made otherwise. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Points should not be given for GARs, with regret to PCN02WPS for having been mislead by a comment by Cwmhiraeth. If they are to be given, it should be written in the rules, and I don't believe this falls within reasonable judge discretion. I believe the GARs are fundamentally valid due to the quality of the Sudan article, the only one I've properly looked at, but I do also believe Sportsfan77777 is right in bringing scrutiny to how they were carried out. — Bilorv (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawing

While it was unlikely that I would advance past this round anyway, I would like to formally withdraw from this year's Cup. Between my motorcycle accident, contracting Covid, and the general difficulties of living with bipolar disorder, my physical and mental health need to be looked after first and foremost. I wish everyone else luck in the upcoming rounds. — GhostRiver 15:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Cwmhiraeth who may not have seen this. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you GhostRiver for taking part in the Cup while battling with your health problems. I will mark you as withdrawn. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

End of the line

I'd like to withdraw. There's no path forward for me at this point, and formally withdrawing will allow me to finally focus my time and energy on some stalled projects that badly need doing, but aren't really worth WikiCup points, rather than deluding myself that I can still get enough points to make the final round. I honestly didn't even think I'd get this far, but recently I had a death in the family and caught Covid, which really set me back on editing. I still hope to make the final round next year. Congratulations to those who will advance this round. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, and hope you are fine now. Your work this year on various articles was amazing and really interesting to read. It was a pleasure working with you this year, and hoping to do same the next year! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking part in the WikiCup and making worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia. You have done very well. Best wishes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Final result

@Muboshgu, Lee Vilenski, PCN02WPS, Bloom6132, Sammi Brie, Z1720, Kavyansh.Singh, and BennyOnTheLoose: The present results of the 2022 WikiCup are provisional. A number of submissions were made during the last four hours of the competition and were not processed by the bot. I am checking these and making adjustments to the score where applicable. These adjustments are likely to have a significant effect on the final scores. The bot owner was informed about this problem last year and the year before but is less active in Wikipedia these days and has not changed the bot, which made a final pass through the submissions at 20:13, 31 October 2022‎. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, Lee Vilenski, PCN02WPS, Bloom6132, Sammi Brie, Z1720, Kavyansh.Singh, and BennyOnTheLoose: I have now made the adjustments that I consider due. Please check your scores. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for running the competition as always Cwm, your organisation and dilligence makes this event happen. My score is as much as I expected it to be. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: you disallowed my DYK points that I claimed at 00:35 on 1 November 2022, stating that it was "because it was not submitted until after the WikiCup had ended". Yet the general rules clearly state that: "work qualifying in a particular round must be nominated and claimed within 24 hours of the end of the round. Nominations submitted more than 14 days after the points were earned, or more than 24 hours after the end of a round, will not be eligible." My DYK points were claimed within 24 hours of the end of the final round. Since when was this rule – which was agreed to before the 2021 competition – rescinded? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of these DYKs appeared on the main page a week before the end of the contest. So why did you choose to submit them after the contest had ended? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: again, according to the general rules, "contestants have 14 days to nominate their work after … appearance on the main page (for did you knows and in the news articles) … by entering it on their submissions page. However, work qualifying in a particular round must be nominated and claimed within 24 hours of the end of the round. Nominations submitted more than 14 days after the points were earned, or more than 24 hours after the end of a round, will not be eligible." There is no rule that says they must be claimed immediately after they were earned. During the final few weeks of the Cup, I was updating and nominating articles for In the News at a rate of 2+ ITNs per day (33 ITN in last 14 days = 2.36/day. Cumulative final round rate was 106 ITN in 61 days = 1.74/day). So I was more caught up with getting those articles up to Main Page quality than I was updating my submissions page. Were any DYKs claim beyond 14 days that would thus make them ineligible? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I could have saved myself considerable trouble if I had realised that I can trigger the bot to make a pass at any time. I have also reconsidered my decision that 5 of Bloom's DYKs should be disallowed because they were submitted too late, and I have run the bot to reflect this. The only remaining issue is whether the DYK of Chuck Deardorf should be allowed. I think it should not, because it is date-stamped 1 November and therefore did not appear on the main page until after the contest had ended. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Sturmvogel 66 as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur. You had 24 hours after the end of the round to make any last-minute noms, and you did just that. Deardorf doesn't meet the criteria that a DYK must appear on the main page before the end of the round. Congratulations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Woo! We did it!!!!! https://tenor.com/xQRM.gif

Thanks for running this again as always to Cwm and Sturm. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth did all of the hard work, she deserves all the credit. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)