WikiCup (WP:CUP)
WikiCup trophy
History (WP:WC/HIS) Frequeries (WP:WC/FAQ) Discussion (WT:CUP) Contestants (WP:WC/CON) Scoring (WP:WC/SCO) Submissions (WP:WC/SUB) Reviews (WP:WC/REV) Newsletters (WP:WC/N) Records (WP:WC/REC) Previous years' results: 2007  •  2008  •  2009  •  2010  •   2011 2012  •  2013  •  2014  •  2015  •  2016 2017  •  2018  •  2019  •  2020  •  2021 2022  •  2023  •  2024  •  2025

As we approach the beginning of the wikicup 2025 I wish to bring attention to a few useful tools for the contest.

• Wikipedia:Good article review circles You get a review and review another in exchange, a very simple way to get atleast 40 points.
• Wikipedia:Former featured and good topics Picking up a topic and restoring it shouldn't take too long depending on what you pick.
• Wikipedia:Reward board Provides other incentives to produce quality content

While most May find this redundant I hope atleast one person benefits from any of these. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 11:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting these links. I've pinned this section for the duration of the 2025 WikiCup. Epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I worry that would cause issues with the bot Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

The reviewer s Gonzo fan2007. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]