Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dan Leonard. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Executive Order 12898".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dan Leonard. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:River Cottages, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is Luiysia again. It was amazing seeing so many people come out for Wikipedia Day in January. For March, we will be hosting an edit-a-thon in honor of Women's History Month supporting Chicago woman writers.

Here is the official meetup page, where you can register for the online and in-person edit-a-thon.

The edit-a-thon will be lasting all of March online, during which time you can contribute via the program's dashboard. On March 24th, we will be meeting in-person at Skunk Cabbage Books, in the Logan Square neighborhood, at 6:30 PM.

See you soon!

(If you would prefer not to see messages for Chicago meetups, go ahead and take yourself off this list.)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dan Leonard! Thank you for reviewing my article and for your feedback! I agree that the topics mentioned in your comment qualify as trivial coverage, but in our case there is more to it than that.

WP:SUBSTANTIAL gives an example of substantial coverage: “ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization.” Over the past four years, the company has attracted media attention, including on controversial topics:

• In the early 2020s, the company was mentioned within the AI training and data-annotation sector. NBC News discussed Invisible in the context of a “shadow workforce” powering AI systems and reported that the sector relied heavily on remote contract workers performing standardized tasks without employment benefits.

• In 2023, Business Insider reported on restructuring in OpenAI’s contract-based data-training ecosystem, including layoffs of 31 contract data trainers from Invisible Technologies who had been working on projects related to OpenAI’s large language models such as ChatGPT.

• In 2024, reporting by Reuters described a shift in Invisible and the AI-training industry toward greater reliance on subject-matter experts for complex AI training tasks.

• In addition, a 2025 article in Forbes critically examines the company and its founder’s strategic decisions and includes perspectives from former investors who disagree with the founder’s management approach. This appears to be clearly independent coverage rather than company-initiated publicity.

Given this set of independent sources, including some that contain criticism and analysis, my understanding is that the topic might plausibly satisfy the requirements of WP:SUBSTANTIAL. If the article were nominated for deletion, these sources might help demonstrate notability.

Would this additional context affect your decision to decline the submission, or do you think the article could potentially be revised to better demonstrate notability? I would greatly appreciate any guidance on how the sources or structure of the article could be improved. Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 19:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]