Open main menu
The WikiCup
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)

This page explains the rules for the 2019 WikiCup, which remain identical to those established in 2016 after extensive discussion and polling on the talk page and elsewhere. Having the rules codified like this should prevent any confusion or the need for mid-competition clarification. However, the judges reserve the right to adjudicate in the spirit of the rules, rather than to their letter.

The most important rule is that the WikiCup is just a bit of fun – at the end of the day, we're all here to improve Wikipedia. The second most important rule is to treat Wikipedia and other users with respect. If through the WikiCup any participants are hurting the encyclopedia (whether through abusing the rules/systems, creating a negative atmosphere, or whatever else), they will be removed from the Cup. To quote Durova, winner of the 2009 Cup, "Wikipedia is the real winner". Let's hope we can keep it that way.

If in doubt, ask. You shouldn't need to worry too much – the bot will do all the difficult calculations, and is usually very accurate. The rules will not change mid-competition, though clarifications will occasionally be added to this page.


General rulesEdit

  • Submit your content to your submissions' page including all necessary links. See this page for more information.
  • You may usually only score points in a round for content which has been promoted, or reviews which have been completed, in that round.
    • An exception exists for content promoted or reviews completed after the end of a round, but before the start of the next. In these cases, points may be awarded for the round afterwards, though submissions' pages should not be updated until the start of the round.
  • All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you during the competition to receive points. "Drive by" nominations are not permitted. This does not mean that you have to be the primary author, though it is preferable. Merely copyediting or wikifying an article does not constitute "significant work", but if you are one name on a joint nomination, you may claim points. If this is abused, the judges reserve the right to not award points.
  • Content must have been worked on and nominated during the competition. If something was worked on or nominated in an early round, you may still claim points if it is recognised in a later round, but you may not claim points for articles you have not worked on during the competition. Again, this is to prevent abuse, not to deny you your points. As long as you are not abusing the system, you should be fine.
  • In the spirit of fair play, contestants have 14 days to nominate their work after promotion (for good and featured content), appearance on the main page (for did you knows and in the news articles) or the completion of good article reviews. Work submitted after this time is no longer eligible. Please contact the judges if you have a question regarding the submission of articles.

Specific rulesEdit

Featured articlesEdit

  • An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time at FAC; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them.

Featured picturesEdit

  • Generally, the picture should have been created by you (either photographed, drawn, or created in some other way) or been given significant restoration work by you or been released under a free license because of your efforts. Merely uploading a file you have found elsewhere does not constitute "significantly working on" the image.

Featured and good topicsEdit

  • Points are awarded per article in the topic that was worked on by you. If you would have a right to claim points for the promotion of the article to good or featured status, you have the right to claim points for its promotion as part of the topic, even if you did not nominate the topic.
    • This applies even if the work on these articles was not done this year, as long as you have done significant work on at least one article in the topic this year.
  • Promoting an article that is already within a featured or good topic does not get additional points for the topic. Adding articles to a topic does gain points, but only points for the article added. You do not get points for articles already in a topic when a new article is added.

Did you know?Edit

  • Articles with at least 5 KB (that is, 5120 bytes) "readable prose size", whether expansions or new articles, are worth 10 points. Shorter DYKs are worth 5 points. The bot will calculate which category the article falls into, but a tool to help judge can be found here. Please report any mistakes on the WikiCup talk page. Attempts to game this will not be looked upon favourably.
  • Points cannot be granted until the article has actually been featured on the main page. Merely being approved by a reviewer does not count. If a hook is being held for a specific date after the end of the round and you need to claim the points, talk to the judges.
  • For hooks with multiple articles, every article is eligible to score points independently, provided each meets the Did you know? guidelines. This does not mean you can claim for articles in the hook that you yourself did not work on.
  • Points are awarded for created or expanded articles appearing at DYK. No points are given for nominating an article at DYK that has been created, expanded or improved by someone else.
  • Only articles eligible for DYK through being newly created or newly expanded fivefold (not newly promoted to GA status) are eligible for WikiCup DYK points. It does not matter if the article becomes a GA before being featured on the main page; what matters is that it is eligible to appear on the main page due to being newly created or expanded fivefold.

In the newsEdit

  • Articles appearing on recent deaths are eligible for in the news points, subject to the normal requirement for substantial work by the nominator.

Good article reviewsEdit

  • These rules are for when you are claiming points for performing a good article review, not for when you are claiming points for writing a good article.
  • You may claim points upon the completion of a review, that is, when the article is passed, failed or closed.
  • Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews. This is not to say that such short reviews are not worthwhile, it is merely to say that they will not be recognised in this competition.
  • Third opinions will generally not be eligible for points. In the event that you take over a review from someone else for whatever reason, points may be claimed, provided a full review is given as usual.
  • Attempts to game good article reviews will be looked upon particularly harshly, and, more so than with any other process, people abusing the system will be removed from the Cup.

Bonus pointsEdit

  • This year, we are using the pre-2012 bonus points system with a cap for bonus points at 3×.
  • For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia) on which an article appears as of 31 December 2018, the article is awarded an extra 0.2 times as many points if it appears on did you know, or is promoted to good article, featured article, or featured list. (Note that this does not apply to in the news, featured picture, good topics, featured topics or good article reviews.) For instance, a featured article (normally 200 points) appearing on 21 Wikipedias is awarded 160 bonus points (an extra 80%). A short DYK (normally 5 points) appearing on 65 Wikipedias is awarded 10 bonus points. See the table below.
Bonus points
Number of Wikipedias on which the article appears as of 31 December 2018 Extra points
0–4 0
5–9 20%
10–14 40%
15–19 60%
20–24 80%
25–29 100% (Awarded double points overall)
30–34 120%
35–39 140%
40–44 160%
45–49 180%
50+ 200% (Awarded triple points overall)
  • 5 bonus points will be awarded to any DYK article which has existed since 2013 or earlier (i.e., 5 years before the start of the 2019 competition). In addition, older articles will be awarded 1 point for each year created before 2013. For example, an article begun in 2008 will receive 5 additional points for a total of 10. The bot will calculate this, but any mistakes can be reported on the WikiCup talk page.
    • Articles which were previously redirects or disambiguation pages are not eligible. Articles which have been moved during the time are eligible.
    • This bonus can be claimed in addition to any other applicable bonus; however, it is added after multiplication. For instance, a 6 kb DYK article of a topic with an article on 25 Wikipedias which has existed since 2008 would be worth 30 points — (10×2)+10. The bot will calculate this.
  • This is the only content which will score more points. Other than this distinction, all content is equal.
  • Pages eligible for extra points will generally be awarded them by the bot.
    • The bot uses Wikidata to calculate the number of wikis on which an article appears. If an article is not linked to Wikidata, or was not correctly linked on the 1 January, the bot may miscalculate the correct number of bonus points to award. Please report any such articles on the WikiCup talk page.
    • Any other mistakes or issues should be reported to the WikiCup talk page.

What's changed from last year?Edit

Not much, apart from the bonus years being advanced by one year.

  • There is no longer a requirement that you state your WikiCup participation when reviewing a FAC.
  • We've lengthened the number of days contestants have in which to nominate their work after promotion (for good and featured content), appearance on the main page (for did you knows and in the news articles) or the completion of good article reviews. Instead of ten days, they now have two weeks.