@H.G.: Well, I posted not too long ago that I found on my own 6 (at least) editor(s) who have the power to publish a given CVP item (such as a CV Rules Page, in my case), and they had visited CVP site since the (still young) year 2025 started.
And it doesn't worry you that none of those 6 considered it worthwile to publish your pending submissions, not even after such a long time?
As to a discussion about standards amongst the CVP editorial staff, it should be clear that my stance is:
When things can easily be done better, doing them poorly should not be considered acceptable.
Preferably all articles should have a rule-accurate Interactive Diagram against which readers can practice.
Description of the pieces in the Pieces section should be accompanied by images, at least for the unorthodox pieces.
New submissions should be sufficiently original, but variants disqualified on that account could be mentioned as rule variations in the Notes section.
It should be made easier for contributors to satisfy these requirements, by making the submission forms more user-friendly. In partcular some help should be provided for creating a diagram (be it static or interactive) in the Setup section through graphical drag-and-drop editing and (as an automatic spinoff) a draft for a description of the participating pieces in the Pieces section.
Note that a tentative submission script for realizing that last point has already been developed, and is present on the site (looking somewhat like this dummy). Perhaps it is time to start using that in the submission process instead of the old one, or discuss flaws and improvements that would have to be fixed before that can be done.
And it doesn't worry you that none of those 6 considered it worthwile to publish your pending submissions, not even after such a long time?
As to a discussion about standards amongst the CVP editorial staff, it should be clear that my stance is:
Note that a tentative submission script for realizing that last point has already been developed, and is present on the site (looking somewhat like this dummy). Perhaps it is time to start using that in the submission process instead of the old one, or discuss flaws and improvements that would have to be fixed before that can be done.