Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Archives/2011

Signpost

Just to let you know that our YER got a mention in this week's Signpost! ;-) SMasters (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What do we do with...

...Our star, QueenMomCat, who already has 181,270 rollover words from the previous drive, and another 181,009 for this drive?! Can I recommend an additional award, File:Goldenwiki 2.png, for their outstanding and extraordinary contributions to our project? What do you all think? If not, do you have any other alternative suggestions?

P.S. As most of you are aware, I'm currently on a short vacation (for the Lunar New Year). If there are any quick GOCE decisions that need to be made while I'm away, I delegate Diannaa to make any such decisions on my behalf. (Hope you don't mind Diannaa). I will try to check in every so often, but many not respond that quickly. I'm back on Friday. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This special award is a good idea --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone also please check the leaderboard? Last drive, we missed someone out (they did not update the board), and I had to give them an award after all the awards were given out, while the person who received an award should not have received it. Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will add it to my little list. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Hello fellow coordinators, Well done on the recent successful drive. I'm sure we are all pleased with the results. As this month is a shorter month, we need to get a few things organized quickly before the start of the next drive in just a bit more than a fortnight. Firstly, the Members page, which is coordinated by The Utahraptor and Tea with toast – we need to get this page going and incorporate the welcoming committee into it: somewhere for people to signup to join the committee, welcome templates, etc. The Mentor program, which will be headed by Diannaa‎, will also be a department of this Membership page. We are currently starting to experience a backlog on the Requests page, and a small recruitment drive will be timely to help us with this page. I think most drive participants probably need a bit of a rest, so we need fresh editors to help with this. I have also setup the page for the March drive. So, do signup for it. Any other thoughts, ideas or questions? Let's make February a good month in terms of our internal organization and structure. Thanks for all your help and support! – SMasters (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can get the mentorship programme up and running pronto. My idea was that mentors would make a minimum one-month commitment to work with people who want to improve their copy editing skills. The available mentors would be the four project coordinators (SMasters, Utah, Tea with toast, and myself) initially (unless you wish to opt out). Anyone who wants to apply to be a mentor would have to be vetted to ensure their work is of a high enough quality and that they preferably have access to resources such as Chicago or other texts. People wishing to be mentored would put their names down and be matched up with one of the senior editors. Do you want this as a separate tab on the tab-set, or as a subpage on the new Membership page?

Thanks for all your help! I can mentor up to 2 for now. You might want to take a look at some existing mentorship programs out there like the adoption program and the recently launched Online Ambassador program. If it is properly setup, I believe we will get more volunteer mentors. Let's have this as a sub-tab on the Membership page, as it is an internal program for our members, and as such, belongs as part of the Membership department. – SMasters (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. Although resources like Chicago, New York Times, etc. can be useful, I don't think we should make it a requirement as we have our own WP:MOS (although it is nothing compared with Chicago). But it is the minimum requirement for Wikipedia, and should be sufficient. – SMasters (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Requests page: top copy editors who did not participate in the drive include User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:Dank, User:TCO. Let's see if we can think of any others who we could invite to help clear some of the backlog. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! Do you have time to contact them? In addition, we could also ask some of the more prolific participants in the last drive to help out with just doing one article from the Request page. If everyone does just one, which should not be a problem for our super leaderboard folks, we should have the Requests page cleaned up in no time. – SMasters (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that I am currently mentoring User:Yourstruly42. If you need help setting up the mentorship program, Diannaa, let me know. I'm fairly busy in real life, but I think I can design a couple templates for the welcoming committee when I get the time. As for the Requests page, I think a small recruit drive would probably be the best way to go. Since I didn't participate heavily in the January drive, I think I'll be able to participate in the recruit drive. I don't think we need all of our coordinators to coordinate the recruit drive, since it will be smaller than our Backlog elimination drives, so I think two coordinators should coordinate the drive. What does everybody else think? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Two coordinators should be enough. Thanks for helping out! As for the next drive, we can leave the names of all four coordinators as it is. The names are there in case anyone has any questions or want to contact someone on their talk page. But of course, any elected Guild coordinator can opt to have their name removed. At the same time, if anyone (not a Guild coordinator) wishes to help in the drives, they can also volunteer (although I can't see what they can do as the drives are running pretty smoothly these days). – SMasters (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to add. For the coordinators in the Welcoming committee, my idea is for them to monitor new signups on the signup page, as well as new people adding our membership tag. We could have a welcoming template that's a bit like the general welcome template for Wikipedia, and should contain links to the Requests page, drives, talk page, WP:MOS, etc. and a few words of encouragement to get them started. – SMasters (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added the Members page to the tab set and placed the tab on all our pages and sub-pages. I am going to send out a note to a few top copy editors asking for help on the requests page, as well as all leaderboard editors from the January drive. I will start designing the mentorship page after that is all done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that technical references are not required for routine copy edits but once you want to start working on FA or A-class you had better know where your commas go, trust me on this. They go nuts about commas up at FAR. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look and copy edit if required: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/February 2011 Thanks --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

All looks fine to me. Good work! I agree with the commas. Even stubs deserve to have correct grammar and punctuation. – SMasters (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please review the new Mentorship page which is available here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Members/Mentorship and fill in a little biography material for yourself? Thanks --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added my blurb. the page looks great! – SMasters (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done a welcome template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Members/Welcome, but I need help with the signature part. I'm sure it's not correct. Also, please help me copy edit it to make it better. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa, thanks for your CE. The reason why I did not put all the coordinators in, is because there may be other members of the welcoming committee (in future), who may not be coordinators. So, I thought an auto-sign template for the signature might be good. What do you think? Good or bad idea? – SMasters (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but it's the wrong template for the job. Maybe you could transclude the signatures to a subpage? Then when the names of the coordinators change, you would only have to change the subpage. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

March drive

Signup is a bit slow this time round, I plan to put in a watchlist notice. Maybe we can also send out a quick personal note to past participants? A personal two liner might be more effective at this stage rather than a template notice. Can anyone help? The second thing that I want to bring up is the Requests page. Last drive, we did not have any incentives for this page and there was a slight build-up, if my memory serve me correctly. Should we offer any incentives this time round? Maybe 1.5x the word count? – SMasters (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I am available to help with personal notes. Did you intend to send to all previous drive participants? Do you already have a list prepared? I can do it today, or tomorrow afternoon.

Your second point: We had a math issue with the double-count for the requests page. Does a requests-page article count extra for basic word count or both leader board and basic word count? Does it count extra for article count as well? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't have a list prepared. We will need to lift it off the pages from the previous drives, remembering to remove those from the opt-out list. The last time we had a double word count the leaderboard was artificially inflated. I think we only allow actual words for the leaderboard. Maybe we can call the 0.5 a bonus, and maybe the bonus should be indicated in brackets as (R00,000) with "R" denoting a Request page bonus. The final total, i.e. regular word count + R, will be used purely for the personal barnstar count. Or is this too complicated for people? – SMasters (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have gone ahead with manually sending a note to everyone from our last two drives who has not yet signed up. It was 49 people. Hopefully we will get a few more to sign up! We can't make the math too complex for the stats. Your idea will probably work; we can add a line for bonus points to everyone's tally. Can you look after that? I am following an important thing at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard whilst hunting vandals, and will be knocking off soon for the day. Cheers, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I will add something about this. To make things simple for participants, we just tell everyone to mark all request page articles with an asterisk. The drive coordinators will award these an additional 50% for the word count, when we do the final count just before we award the barnstars. That way, participants don't have to do anything, and it will not confuse them in regards to the leaderboard. – SMasters (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's perfect. Participants will not have to worry about any extra math at all, and the leaderboard will not get muddled. BTW, my notes already drew some more talent :) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, I have also put in a request to have it on the watchlist page (fingers crossed). I have added the 50% Request page instructions to the drive page. Can you please check my copy? Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A class copyedit

Hi

I have just completed a copyedit on the USS Chesapeake (1799) and left some notes on Talk:USS Chesapeake (1799) for possible further action.

Can one of the coordinators please either take a look and check my edits, or ask an experienced GOCE member from the MilHist to do so (esp. ships if possible). I am not yet comfortable enough to edit A class or FA and, as this is my first attempt, I would prefer it if someone went over them. My knowledge on US topics/spelling/conventions is especially concerning me :¬)

I know it is drivetime but, if possible, a critique would also be preferable which is why I am asking here.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to wait a day or two to see if the authors respond to your queries. Please remind me about this in a day or two. I will also watch the page.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Someone has already been hacking at it though, I will see how it is tomorrow. :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw that :/ --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Issue Template Error

Please refer to my comments here. Seems there is an error in Template:Multiple issues which leads to a false report for copyediting. Maybe someone here can fix it, or chase up a solution? --jjron (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter draft

I have started the newsletter for the end of the drive and it is available here for your editing enjoyment. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this to April as the March page is transcluded to many pages. We had a problem with the last newsletter as putting a heading caused problems for some users. We need to remember that we have to add the heading in when we send the newsletters out and not include it in the transcluded page, as it is the cause of this problem. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I had no idea the whole page was transcluded. Thanks for the fix. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No problems. – SMasters (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Have all coordinators looked at this, and is it ready to go? I plan to send it out today if possible. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please put up some talkbacks and make sure. The barnstar attachment is ready to go. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The only thing I could imagine adding would be an exhortation not to backslide too much during the off month, and try to keep ourselves below 4k between now and the next drive. Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing that, I've put talkbacks and will wait for any final changes. – SMasters (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Time away

Hi all

I must apologise for my absence over the last two weeks. Unfortunately we had a problem at work which meant I had to stand in for two members of staff who left rather suddenly (as well as deal with the police reports and the rest of the fallout). It has been rather difficult to maintain any semblance of normality during the ongoing situation and unfortunately Wiki has suffered most.

Things are back to normal now, we have hired some new staff members, so I should have more free time again :¬) I can only apologise as I know there has been an increased workload with the end of the drive and keeping things flowing. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know and welcome back! – SMasters (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 drive

Torchiest has suggested that we reward those who work on 2009 articles. This is a nice idea and I do support it. However, how are we going to be able to check these? In addition, that page now says to use an asterisk to mark such articles, but we have always used an asterisk to mark articles from the Request page. Should we change this now? The Requests page historically increases more than normal during drives. What do we do with these? I fully appreciate the efforts to move this forward, but in future, can we please discuss all the issues at hand before we "go live" on any pages? We cannot be seen to be changing the rules once people start signing up. Your thoughts are appreciated. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I hadn't planned on advertising or promoting the drive until we were done putting the page together. And the March page was live on February 8, so I thought we were running behind. I don't think anyone has signed up yet besides coordinators. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No problems, let's move this forward quickly as it is being advertised in the omboxes, which appear in many places. How are we going to check this, or is it a matter of trust? Also, we may not want to be so bold about the Requests page. We have 15 outstanding now, and this can quickly grow. We had to add an incentive at the last minute last drive and just as well, as the numbers shot up much higher than normal. – SMasters (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Philg88 is working almost exclusively from the Requests page, and I can keep an eye on it too. I think it's important to try new things to help keep the experience fresh for our editors. We can spot-check whether or not they came from the 2009 articles easily enough, as the dated tag will still be there in the history. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, we agree to go ahead with this then. I do think the lead of the page is a bit too long now, and I think there's some repetition. We can move most of the new copy to the instructions section. Once that's done, we can remove the tag at the top. I have to go off to a meeting. If anyone can do that, it will be great. If not, I'll get to in in the next two or three hours. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If the Requests page falls behind, we can send out a blurb to a few of the top people who like to work there and get things caught up again. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a plan. Will proceed with this. Cheers and thanks for both your help. – SMasters (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Limits on the Requests page

Just wondering if any coordinators have any thoughts on setting a limit by requestors on the Request page. This is not to limit how much someone can use the Guild, but more of preventing any abuse, and also to give other people's article a chance. I have noticed this problem now for a few months, when a single editor puts in 3 or more requests in a row. I was thinking of a limit of 2-3. They can then request more as soon as one has been completed, provided that on the whole page, they do not have more than 2-3 at any one time. This will also make editors think carefully about which articles are important and how they should prioritize. This was not a problem before, but perhaps the Guild's recent success has meant more attention, and work. Although all is well at the Guild, we do have limited resources in terms of time and people. If someone puts in 6 requests, other editors may end up waiting a long time for their ce to take place. Any thoughts on this? – SMasters (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea. It's flattering that the Guild is now thought of as a solid resource, but yes, people should limit their requests to keep things balanced. I've often felt that way about the WP:GAN page, where some editors can get up to ten nominations at once, and it limits access for everyone else. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A newer shorter article will not take as long to work on as one that is almost ready for GA. A dense one about deities in India is much more difficult to do than a pop-culture biography or a piece about kesha's latest song. But I agree in principle. -Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. When a shorter one is done quickly, then the requestor can put in a new request once that has been done. Can we agree to set a limit of three at any one time? – SMasters (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Three seems fair. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and its subpages

Ummm...kind of awkward pointing this out, but one typo here is worse than a thousand typos in the main namespace, as it makes us look like complete idiots. I think that this should probably be taken care of ASAP by a coordinator, as it is a matter of group reputation. Typos are one thing, but the error I spotted and corrected was sv–agreement. If I found one, I'm guessing there are more. I also spotted some CAPS USED FOR EMPHASIS which I didn't correct, because I assume there's (maybe—long live good faith?) a reason for that choice. I know we mainly focus on the main namespace, but I just thought that it might be good if GOCE was {{GOCE}}.Bronsonboy (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Requests order

I am starting to get a little concerned that cherry picking of requests is going on. There should, in my view at least, be some sort of order to requests being completed.

Should we not be starting at the oldest (top of the list) and working our way down? I realise this may be controversial (!) but it seems that those which have waited longest should get looked at first, sort of. I propose this as a starting point for discussions on guiding:

1. Urgent requests (on frontpage in the next 24-48 hours)
2. Requests over 7 (or 10) days old
3. FA and GA current candidates
4. DYK requests (as they are likely on a 48-72 hour limit)
5. Requests to be nominated as FAC and GAC
6. Any others left in the list

I have put 5 7 days old as I think that is reasonable, others may think 10 or more is reasonable but, with the drive coming up, it is probable most will be cleared fairly quickly. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My opinion: I agree with you in principle that the oldest requests and the most urgent ones should be dealt with first. I almost always take the oldest article. But if the article at the top of the queue is a dense or difficult one about a Hindu goddess or another tricky topic, we need our editors to feel free to skip it and do one from further down the list. Contributing has to be fun, or people will not do it. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's why I called it a guide - I agree with you entirely on the fun part, as well as the tricky topics (after all I wouldn't touch FAC and GAC for a long time) but I have seen some cherry picking going on over the last three months, leaving the really difficult articles which I know have mainly been done by three or four editors. I was looking forwards to a few of them, hoping they would come to the top when it was my turn to choose the next article, but mostly they were gobbled up from way down the list soon after they were posted. I suppose I could also do the same, it just isn't in my nature and I find it hard to justify it to myself. Perhaps I shouldn't apply my standards to everyone else - I have been told before that I expect too much from others lol :¬)

I am only listing it like that for convenience though, I would prefer if it was written in such a way as:

"Please try and choose articles from the top of the list first, as these are the oldest requests....If an article seems daunting or is not a topic you are familiar with, feel free to choose another one as other editors..." Chaosdruid (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, more like a loose guideline. And I don't always take from the top of the list; I jumped on Chesapeake right quick, I tell you what. I just feel like sometimes I deserve a reward for all my hard work. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Rollover words

Got a talk page message from Aichikawa (talk · contribs) asking about rollover words. Doesn't look like they participated in the March drive, but they had 10,199 rollover words from the January drive. I thought words couldn't be carried over for more than one drive, though. Do we have a policy for that? Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is in the FAQs...yup Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives/FAQ Chaosdruid (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Q: I participated in a drive and then missed a drive completely. Can I use my rollover words from two drives ago?
• A: No. You can only use rollover words from the drive immediately before a current drive. Therefore, you should always try to participate in a drive, even if it means just copy editing a few articles. That will be enough to make your rollover words eligible for the next drive.

The reason for this policy is to encourage continuous participation for the drives. The drives all run for an entire month. We strongly encourage participants to copy edit at least one article in every drive to maintain their rollover credits. Of course, we hope that they can do more, but one is the minimum. – SMasters (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Userbox

Congratulations to all the newly elected coordinators. You can use the following relevant userbox on your page if you like.

This user is the Lead Coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors.

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/UserboxL}}

This user is a Coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors.

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Userbox}}

Cheers, and all the best in your term of service. – SMasters (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Aichikawa - May drive totals edited today

Hi

Aichikawa did not add all their articles to the totals page in the May drive (articles No's 5 & 6). They mention it on my talk page after they had edited the drive archive today [1].

The correct totals are in brackets here. I have asked them why this happened User_talk:Chaosdruid#From_a_GOCE_drive_participant.

Aichikawa was not new to the drives, they had participated in November 2010 (78 articles) and January 2011 (55 articles) before the May drive. I would not have done all this if it was not for the fact that there is a massive gap in their Wiki contribs [2] from the exact time of their last edit on 11th May (article No.6) until 26th June, with the exception of one solitary edit on 30th May. This gives me the impression that there may have been an outside influence causing them to be unable to edit for a month and a half.

As I see it there are three main options:

1. Add the correct totals in brackets, award a modest Barnstar, edit July roll-over to the new figure
2. Add the word count for the two articles to the July roll-over only (i.e. no barnstar)
3. Tell them that unfortunately they cannot have anything as the drive page is now closed.

What do we think?

• On technical grounds I would go with 1, as the articles were edited in the middle of May. On moral grounds I would go with 2, unless they come up with a reasonable cause for them not maintaining their own totals. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• I support option 1. I think that there must have been some reason for the large gap in editing. More important in me reaching this decision is the fact that the articles were completed in May. They were done in the month of the drive and counted for the article totals in the drive. Although the articles weren't recorded, they were still completed, and I think that full credit, although with a warning, should be given. --Slon02 (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think we should go with option 2, as the articles were copy edited as the drive was running. Our best bet would be to go for option 1 and, as Slon02 said, issue a notice about the incident. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• It is likely they were not able to edit for a while and forgot to update their drive totals. We need to encourage participation and the best way to do this is to let them have the barnstar. I think we should wait and see what the responses are to the questions on Chaosdruids talk, and then make the decision, but right now I am leaning towards letting them have it. --Diannaa (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• As long as the articles were edited in a particular drive (which was, in this particular case), then we should fix the awards for the drive even though we have closed it. It is the right thing to do. So, I would go with Option 1 (if I understand this situation correctly). In principle, editors are responsible for updating their own numbers, but for whatever reason, this may not have been possible, or just did not happen. In this case, I think we can go back and fix it. It would be a win-win situation for both the editor and the Guild. – SMasters (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We all seem to be in agreement that option 1 is the best.

Their response is that they only have internet access at work, not having home internet, and they were off work, as well as being busy. As there are no editing sessions between those dates, and someone else updated their total articles, I am going with option 1. I have updated the May totals, updated the July roll-over, and awarded the barnstar.

I have also pointed out to them that the situation could have been much more difficult if the new additions had placed them in the leaderboard. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Special award

HaeB, the editor-in-chief of The Signpost is stepping down as he is taking up a new position at the Foundation as Manager, Movement Communications. The Signpost has been very supportive of the Guild during his tenure as EIC, and has given us a lot of publicity in terms of our drives. Can I suggest to the coordinators that the Guild officially presents him with a GOCE Gold award? – SMasters (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. HaeB is one of the many users that has helped the Guild grow into the large project it is today. He definitely deserves some kind of award. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. --Diannaa (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --Slon02 (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, I cannot comment more as I have no real knowledge of the matter :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have sent the barnstar off today on behalf of the Guild. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Checks - Qizix

Hi

I have checked Qizix's edits to Spanish Civil War and found a few problems, noted on their talk page. I have marked the drive page check as for now (their section Q).

Should this be passed or a failed? There are some fairly numerous corrections to be made but; it is a pretty big article (8,500+), and it appears they are new to both copy-editing and Wiki. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say, since it does seem as though he tried, and did a lot of work on the article, that he should be given credit for the article. Hopefully he'll learn from his mistakes and will improve in his copyediting ability, but I fear that failing him may be BITEy and discourage him from participating in the future. --Slon02 (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Qizix has done another pass on the article and made some improvements. Hopefully they will be OK with a little monitoring and assistance. --Diannaa (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I just saw that. I will amend to a tick Chaosdruid (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Qizix is now tackling Thomas the Slav, which is at FA. I will follow along and monitor the edit, as I am already familiar with the article. --Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE banners on talk pages

Hi all

I was wondering what our policy was/is/might be on the moving of our banners to inside the Wikiprojectbannershell. (also the thread on on the GOCE talk page)

Some editors are moving the "This article was edited by...on..." to inside the banner shell, such as this one. I have been moving them back out when I find them, but wondered if there actually was a policy, or if we want to discuss how to handle it if there is not.

My understanding is that the projectbannershell was for projects that are interested in the article, "This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects", rather than for informational banners such as Engvar: as Macwhizz says the template says "I fixed your punctuation, spelling, and grammar" [and the Talk page note says] "...and these things still need looking at.", which in my view is akin to "I have peer reviewed your article and left you notes on things that may need fixing".

Why is a copyedit not considered as part of the article history similar to a Peer review? At present copyedit is only mentioned as part of the "things to do" shell, alongside wikify, NPOV, update and others.

As such I do not know if we are technically "interested" in articles we place the banners on, rather we are stating that we have done something, as are peer review, GAN etc. Secondly banners tend, almost exclusively, to have assessments and importance features in them, something which is not in our banner. Thirdly the GOCE banner raises awareness that a copyedit was done on a certain date allowing for a reasonable assumption that at that point the article was in a reasonable state, something which is not always apparent from the article history if the ce was three months ago.

Any thoughts? Chaosdruid (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Our copyedits should be considered part of an article's history. The reason that the banner shell starts with the words "This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:" is because those projects are actually interested in the article's continuous development- that's not our purpose. We go in, do what we need to do, and leave- and don't come back unless someone requests that we do, generally. Since we operate on a request basis most of the time, either through template or direct request, we're very close to peer reviews in the way we operate. I'd say that we need to try to get our banners listed right above the article milestones section. --Slon02 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been somewhat controversial in the past. Some editors saw the banner as a huge ad for the GOCE, and as often the banner is just the work of one Guild member once (whether it was for a few hours or a few days), they felt that for this amount of work, the banner does not deserve such a prominent place. The situation got to a stage when it was considered for deletion! We had to scramble to get Guild members to oppose the deletion to keep it. I would leave it up to individual editors. I would rather have it in a banner shell, rather than to have it outside and cause unhappiness. I also believe that it should not come above an article's milestone section such as GA or FA. We need to put our work into context of all the work done by many other editors, and we need to be fair and balanced about it. My personal view is that many editors working on an article decide that it should be in a shell, then so be it. That's just my thoughts on this. Of course, if others feel strongly in another direction, we would have to consider their view/s. – SMasters (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The banner was placed in the shell automatically by AWB when Rich Farmbrough edited the talk page using AWB. Diff of Talk:George Frideric Handel --Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 17:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Other editors have been placing it there manually on other pages as well, though I do not think an outing session on that would benefit anyone.

Although I appreciate the view that we may not do much work, I cannot agree to it as some copy-edits have taken four, five and more hours. Klemens von Metternich took one editing session of three and a half and one of three hours. Blade Runner took me 6 hours the other day, though not a GOCE requests page it was implied in the FARC commentary and I was doing slightly more than just copy-editing such as adding a couple of refs.

I would say that requests edits, in particular those performed on GAN, FAC and peer-reviews going to those processes, take an average of two or two and a half hours. While it is not as much work as some put in to achieve GA and FA, I would say that it is certainly equal to the effort put in to complete a peer review. Perhaps there could be room for a copyedit entry in the article history section and a CE1 etc. sub-page with notes on it. It is certainly something to think about, as for the banner, with that level of work and with it not being a project banner in the sense that the others are, I think we should be able to put it outside the shell. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on the amount of work. Some of the articles I have worked span over a few days and has taken at least 6-8 hours or more in actual work. However, as I have pointed out, we have had hostility over the banner in the past. Fighting for it to have prominence may only bring ill-will towards us. For this reason, I would say that it has to be treated on a case-by-case basis. – SMasters (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I find this discussion to be quite incomprehensible. I not infrequently spend several hours copyediting articles, but I've never felt the need to lob a "copyedited by Malleus Fatuorum" tag on the page. What exactly is the tag meant to achieve? The idea of project tags is that members of the project will keep an eye on the article. Does the GOCE keep an eye on the articles that its members copyedit? Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

One potential use is that the copy editor could be contacted in the future if the article starts to slip and needs another touch up, or if another, possibly related article needs work. I have personally added numerous articles to my watchlist after copy editing them, but that can be done without tags. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

All articles have a tendency towards entropy, and all that prevents it is the editors who watchlist them. But that has nothing to do with with a GOCE tag, unless there's some some sort of guarantee from the GOCE that it will be watching over the article after one of its members has copyedited it. Which it doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 05:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition to what Torchiest said, it also provides a record of when Guild members worked on the article. It has proved useful when we have had multiple request for the same article in relatively short periods of time. All of these have been debated on the page that proposed its deletion. Continuing with this particular line of discussion will get us nowhere, and will just make the discussion go in circles, without addressing the original concerns in this thread. – SMasters (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my first point Malleus. The original point was that the GOCE notice "copyedited by" was being put into bannershells which projects use to classify and assess the importance of the articles according to their individual project's scope. The GOCE notice is for information only and being hidden in the banner shell sort of implies we are keeping an eye on it as a project. The GOCE template is not one of those project banners and I was seeking confirmation on whether or not there is a need to request it stays out of the shell. At present we place it below the other banners and engvar etc. and above the messages where it may remain for some time, after which it is often deleted; and I, for one, would not expect it to remain there indefinitely. That was all, though perhaps I could have expressed it a little better and maybe should have separated the second part to prevent any further problems. I will try and clarify the second part of my thoughts:

As an aside I had wondered if there was any way that we could formalise a "copy-edited" entry and a CE1 sub-page to be included in the "article milestones", similar to peer-review, for article requests (particularly those under GA/FA review and those being prepared for the same). I did say that was "something to think about" on the other talk page, rather than something to pursue now. I am sure that if people saw that the article had a CE1 and that Malleus was the person that had done it, they would be extremely happy that the article was copy-edited thoroughly. I am not saying that "only GOCE members can do it", far from it in fact, as I am suggesting it would be treated as peer reviews are currently. It seems that most GA reviews look for a peer review and in many instances ask for a copyedit as a part of the process, so why not include it as part of the process and article milestones was my train of thought. As I said, it was just an aside though! Chaosdruid (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a trade-off of recognition versus work. People do work for recognition, even small amounts. Look at the hoops people jump through for gold stars and the placement on user pages and the like. I think SMasters has the pulse of the thing, though...TCO (reviews needed) 15:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, Chaosdruid. If the rest of the Guild accepts this concept, after my trip, I'll look into setting the whole thing up. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of a peer review type entry in the article's milestone. – SMasters (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Requests page word bonus

I know that in this drive we add a 50% bonus to word count for articles completed from the requests page. I have two questions about this:
1. Should editors update their totals themselves while the drive is going on, or should the coordinators do it after the drive is finished?
2. Do we count the actual word count or the bonus word count when dealing with the leaderboard (5k, total words)? --Slon02 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is partially covered in the FAQ. "Q: Can we list articles from the Requests page on our tally even if they have no copyedit tag on them? A: Yes, and if they are eligible for a special award that drive, you should mark articles in your tally from the Requests page with an asterisk (*). Awards for the Requests page may vary from drive to drive. Details will be provided in each drive page relating to this." So, editors should put an asterisk for all articles from the Requests page. They do not double any figures. This is done after a drive is concluded for the award of individual awards. Bonuses do not apply to the leaderboard, only for individual awards. – SMasters (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mentor needed

Hi, I have received a request to be a mentor, but I am too busy with work at the moment to be able to take on anyone else. If you are able to, please look at this request on my talk page. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 numbers

Hi, according to AWB, there are 48 user names on the drive page, but there are only 36 sign-ups. Can someone please put the missing names to the bottom of the page before the drive closes? Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It also looks like some of the participants aren't listed in the totals section. I'll fix that tomorrow, when I have the time. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think we should send a message to the participants who didn't sign their name in the "participants" section, and we should make a mention of the importance of putting your name in the totals and participants section in our end-of-drive newsletter. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I think with just a few more days to go, it's not worth us sending out notices this late. Let's just try and fix it and we wil make sure to stress this better in the next drive. The MILHIST project had quite a cool way of registration for their drives, that automatically fixes this problem. Maybe we can investigate and introduce it for our next drive. It's a simple process that "automates" this process. We don;t want to make it complicated for participants. – SMasters (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link. – SMasters (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think we need to add the participants who aren't on the totals section to the totals section. With the drive coming to a close, if they haven't participated by now, chances are they probably won't. And yes, I think we need to introduce this way of registration for our next drive, and all future drives, come to think of it. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We need it so that we can have an accurate report on the drive. – SMasters (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Updated ad

For the longest time, I've been wanting to update our ad. No offense to the people who created it but time has caught up and it looked outdated and well... old. I have also wanted to incorporate our official (or unofficial colours) in the ad. Today, I had a bit of spare time so here it is.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #154

Now, my user page (and many others who choose to help us advertise) looks nice and modern. – SMasters (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice :¬) Looks like you hit the nail on the head (or the phoneme on the grapheme lol) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Great- definitely looks more modern. --Slon02 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles created for course in psychology

(Moved from the requests page)

I just became aware of a freshman-level college course in psychology whose students were required to register an account and to create or expand articles. Many of them appear to have chosen the former, and I became aware of it through Template talk:Did You Know, where Illusion of transparency was flagged for unclear and ungrammatical writing. I fixed it up, but I imagine many others are equally in need of copyediting and I appear to have been the first to realize that the articles constitute a group. (The instructor did not work with WP:School and university projects.) A list of students and articles is to be found at the end of this page. At least one of the new articles, Optimalism, has already been merged as a result of discussion of the submission to Did You Know, and I have also brought the situation to the attention of Wikiproject Psychology, but they should all be checked. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Following up and advising on users talk page. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

List made User:Chaosdruid/currentgoingson/GOCE and will coordinate with Yngvadottir on their talk page User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 1#GOCE requests list Chaosdruid (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sock requests on req page

Hi all

Not too sure about this one. Requesting editor self-reviewed Techno Cumbia (using a sock) and passed it as a GA. GA removed and user blocked for socking.

There are no ongoing GANs/GARs and no editing traffic on the pages for a week. I have removed from the requests page to here, pending anyone's objection to removal.

Selena songs

I am not too sure if I can do this but I would like these articles to be copy-edited, as they are currently GAN. They received a peer review which I had fixed the problems that the reviewer had brought up. Now the only issues are prose. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Techno Cumbia
• Dondequiera Que Estés
• No Me Queda Más

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Chaosdruid. This user's articles need work that typically goes far beyond routine copy editing. The last one I did was impossible to copy edit due to these other issues. Chaosdruid has marked these three requests as "declined". Anyone who wishes further background information on this decision should inquire via e-mail. Thanks, --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 21:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE culture

This will mainly concern the coordinators and I feel it will serve its purpose better here than on the main GOCE talk page. I hope that's OK. Sorry that it's a bit long and is a brain dump; I couldn't really think how else to do it.

I took on Ducie Island from the requests page, when it was a GAN that had just failed for reasons that included a need for copyediting, but had a second reviewer interested in taking it forward once the issues had been addressed. Seven minutes after I completed my copyedit, the second reviewer gave this feedback. When the article eventually passed to GA, on 22nd August, the reviewer's assessment on criterion 1a was "Very well written".

The next day, the reviewing GOCE coordinator did this (as well as two other edits with which I have no issue). A list-introducing colon has been changed into a semicolon (reverted by the GA reviewer) and the syntax of a perfectly valid sentence has been altered in such a way as to change the meaning (reverted by me). Two other changes have been made that are OK but unnecessary and, in the context of a review, seem to be saying "my idiolect is better than yours" (these two changes were not reverted).

I realise that you coordinators are keen to ensure quality, and having looked through the archives of this page this morning I very well understand why, but this careless action and the offhand "lol" in response to my revert do not reflect well on GOCE. It also felt like a bit of a kick in the shins, and I now find myself agreeing after all with Truthkeeper88's remark that " ...if I were to come here today as a new editor and my work was "checked" that would be the first and last time I'd participate ...".

The scope of the reviews and their range of outcomes have not (yet?) been defined, as far as I can see, but a re-read of the splitting-the-Guild thread throws up these quotes:

• "... newer and less-experienced editors ..."
• "... we have willing volunteers, we just need to help them get better at it ..."
• "I do not always receive a warming "thanks for the time" or "thanks for showing me how to improve myself", though I have done more often than not, but I have at least tried and then I keep an eye on their edits. If they are going to do something in the name of GOCE, then we have to try and make sure they are done correctly - something I see as part of a co-ordinators role, though unofficial as GOCE does not include that as part of the role."

There's too much us-and-them in all this, and it's patronising. An important question is: who is attracted to offer their contribution to GOCE? If the idea is that coordinators should mark the work of the rest of us, like school teachers, then who is this expected to attract? I'd expect: people who don't know if they can but would rather like to try and do so hope it will be jolly spiffing; and people who would like a game of who-can-get-the-fewest-corrections (or even who can get the most!). IOW, not of the highest calibre.

Conflating "newer" with "less experienced" is a mistake. Many Wikipedians are professional, published academics who know all about how to write, when and how to cite, and about the need for consistent style. There are some really lovely articles on natural science topics, for example, written by such people. While in post they are unlikely to offer their services to GOCE, but when they retire, some just might come along if they feel they would be valued. Patronising them like school teachers is likely to be a real turn-off and to lose them forever.

Scope of checks: The checks system has been in place for 12 days now, and only 2 checks have been done. Also, the requests page and the archive have got out of sync (see the state of Djungarian hamster, an 8 August request, for example). It seems that the workload may be too much, as well as your other coordination work. On reflection, although I supported it then, the new system really seems to be overkill. That our work is "patchy at best" is true, of course, and probably always will be in a wiki that anyone can edit. But the Guild is often well spoken of too, even by people complaining about specific instances, as in this case (which passed GA about 3 hours after I finished my copyedit). The key in such cases is to put the matter right without delay. The new system now seems to me to be an overreaction.

It would be better to revert to the old system but do discreet checks on new arrivals and known problem editors. You don't need to seek perfection; what you need is an assurance that any given copy editor has adequate language competence and is conscientious. This will mainly require a look at the first one or two articles by editors whose names you don't recognise. The check should consider the requester's satisfaction, too. Thanks from a requester on the copyeditor's page and/or passage to FA/GA is evidence of good work already, and you could probably save yourselves the trouble of going inside when you find that. (The 10% spot checks in the drives, which are a different thing, are still needed, of course.)

Levels of CE: There was insight on the "splitting" thread that different articles call for different skills. This could be developed to make the introductory material on the guild page less intimidating. FA, of course, requires high standards of excellence. At the other end of the scale, those village articles may be "notable" by decree, but in reality they scarcely are, often seeming to have been written to curry favour with the richest family in the village (or maybe to goulash favour, since the east European ones are sometimes just as bad as you-know-what). With these, you're doing well if you can figure out what the hell the author was on about and can express it in intelligible English without distorting the meaning too much (or exercise good judgement about what to delete). Wikipedia in general really needs people who are good at doing that kind of figuring out. At this level, to expect pretty prose and a high level of MoS expertise would strike me as precious.

(By the way, that figuring out and making sense from nonsense was what the "exemplary diff" was exemplary of. I didn't notice the typos, and I think them immaterial.)

MOS: There's a tendency, in the Guild and elsewhere, to use the MOS as a blunt instrument. I believe we need to remind ourselves that MOS pages are guidelines, not statute law, and that the guideline box at the top says "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." It would be good to remember, too, that a lot of the MOS is not mandatory below FA level. The GA Criteria are far more limited and even explicitly exclude any requirement to conform to the MOS main page (GA footnote 2). At most, stomp lightly (and, in edit summaries, say which bit of the MOS you're referring to).

Requests page: Just a thought: it wouldn't be splitting the guild to divide the requests page into three sections, one for FACs, one for GANs, and one for Others, would it? This would allow each section to begin with a reminder of what is expected of a copyeditor taking on one from any of these.

"Reward culture": Malleus and others have a point, don't they? Perhaps rewards for word count should only be offered for tagged articles. The barnstars are good if they attract new members, and tagged articles are what we want to attract them to. People who make requests on the requests page are pretty good at thanking (I think I've taken 8 requests from there and had positive feedback from 5 - negative from none). That's reward enough, and it has to be earned by diligence rather than by word count, which is what we surely need at this level.

You'll notice I'm taking leave for a while. Please don't misunderstand this as me going away in a huff; I enjoy GOCE. It's a sabbatical to let me put more emphasis on my musical activities. I'll be watching this page until this gets archived, and I may be back on active service one day. Good luck. --Stfg (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I accepted that those two were incorrect. I changed the text of the colon sentence, but changed it back - it was simply a case of me not hitting shift when typing and not noticing it when I saved. The other edit was correctly pointed out as causing a possible context problem - in both cases I was incorrect. In the case of the sent and departed issue, I still felt that there was ambiguity in the sentence. Though my initial correction was indeed introducing a similar ambiguity your comments were correct in your summary, the lol was to make light of a situation and was in no way intended to kick anyone's shins. Moreover you apparently had no issue with me until later when you asked about the boldening changes.

You have said that I "subconsciously started to see yourself as some kind of unoffical mentor to me", I also said "If you do not know what this does, then I will explain; if you do know, skip to the next bit :¬)" - in no way would I try and mentor someone who appears to be a pretty good editor, as you yourself appear to be. Am I wrong to offer advice and, realising that it might be unnecessary, include a clause to ensure that if you already knew you would not have to bother reading it? Everyone offers advice from time to time - that is not part of the coordinators role and is offered by me as one editor to another. Similarly the advice on not copyediting the article in one large edit is offered as an editor, having seen many instances where this has occurred in the past. The advice is given by other GOCE editors and is not simply my personal opinion.

You misinterpreted my comments on newer and less-experienced editors, they are two separate groups. A new editor is not necessarily less-experienced and less-experienced copyeditors are not necessarily new editors. I commented a couple of days ago on your talk page about how you had misconstrued another of my posts, these are things I will address by making sure anything I say to you is more clearly and simply written so that you cannot misinterpret anything I say. This is also a little too personal for my liking - as the only quotes are from me - as it seems you have taken good intentions written as an editor, not as a GOCE coordinator, and viewed them in the worst possible light and brought them up here rather than on my talk page where we could discuss them and you could perhaps see that there was no malice intended in any of my comments.

I can only say that I will take on board your comments and try and ensure this does not happen again. I cannot comment on the other parts of this as I feel that this has been caused by issues between the two of us and not by anything any other GOCE editor or coordinator has said or done. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I knew a problem like this would come up with the new review process, but I didn't know it would come up so soon. This is why I was trying to convince the coordinators that reviewing the requests was a bad idea; its intention is good, but it has many flaws, and, loosely quoting myself, it only takes one minor mistake or misunderstanding to cause a large problem for the Guild. Stfg, I agree with the point you bring up: "It would be better to revert to the old system but do discreet checks on new arrivals and known problem editors." I can't remember if I ever said this or not, but I do remember thinking this would work before we implemented the changes to the Requests page. I think this would be the best thing to do right now; as you said, we shouldn't be seeking perfection, we should make sure our copy editors have a good grasp on the English language, the English language's syntax, and the English language's structure. Another thing we could do is encourage all new members to participate in the Mentorship program. I'm thinking all of the Guild's coordinators could watch the sign up page, and every once in a while post a "Welcome to GOCE" message to the talk pages of new members. In this message, we should include something along the lines of "It is recommended you participate in our Mentorship program to sharpen your copy editing skills." In the mentorship program, we could have them copy edit one or two articles from the Requests page, after which we could check their work and provide them with feedback. After a certain amount of time and experience, much like Wikipedia's adoption program, the new member would graduate, and with that, they could copy edit articles from the Requests page without having to have their work checked. This would work for the Guild's members; for the editors that copy edit articles from the Requests page that aren't a part of the Guild, we could do as Stfg suggested: only review the copy edits of a new or problematic user. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, The Utahraptor. And, Chaosdruid, I'm sorry if I came on too strong and upset you. On the more personal matters, I will reply to the message you put on my talk page in time, but I will take a day or two to reflect on it first. I hope to stand back and watch now, if possible, as I've had my say and I believe you will all understand that it was meant constructively. Best wishes, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reveiwing edits from the Requests page will have to be dropped; obviously we don't have time to do this, and it's not working out for the other reasons Simon has outlined. Offering a Bonus on the drives for copy edits from the Requests page is also being dropped. Just got off the plane 12 hours ago and tons of RL stuff needs to be caught up, so sorry for the curt reply. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2011 Signing on behalf of Diannaa by SMasters. Not sure why the bot did not do this.

Projects section

Somehow, our Projects page has been put together under the Requests section. It is difficult to find if you are visiting the Guild for the first time. In fact, one of the our projects is the Requests page, so the Requests section should be a sub-section of the Projects page and not the other way round. For those members who are willing to help, but might not be interested in joining a drive, they might miss some of our other work altogether (e.g. our work at The Signpost). It also gives the wrong impression that all we do are the Requests page and the drives (we do a bit more than that). If anyone has time, please help move the Projects section permanently to the top? It should come even before the "Requests" tab. If not, I will try to do it this weekend. Thanks. --SMasters (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done this. --SMasters (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

September newsletter, current drive & tagging issues

Moved from September newsletter staging page.

GOCE September 2011 Backlog Elimination progress graphs

Do we need to mention rollover words here? It is very clearly stated in the FAQ as to how this works. --SMasters (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite that, it's been brought up multiple times during this drive (under Diadema812's section in the totals section it says "do I get any [rollover words] from March?" The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone has gone crazy with the tagging, and the count just went up by nearly 80 articles. --Dianna (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The count went up over 40 articles the other day. Perhaps it's the same mass-tagger? And perhaps we should check out some of the recent tags? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I found today's mass tagger. If you look at the contributions of Orenburg1, you'll find that he/she tagged multiple articles as needing copy edit today (September 19). I'll check the tagged articles out tomorrow when I get the time and, if necessary, copy edit them. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they're at it again. We don't want our numbers to continually drop like this, so what should we do? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can do anything about this except copyedit more. We can't exactly tell him that he has to stop tagging, because from what I can see (I looked through about 5 of his tags), they're accurate. However, we could include a count of how many articles we copyedited in the drive since we started.--Slon02 (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should just copy edit more articles (perhaps assigning one or two editors to keep an eye on the articles that Orenburg tags), but I don't think we should include a count of how many articles we copy edited since our start. If you think about it, the goal of our Backlog elimination drives is not to copy edit a certain amount of articles; rather, it's to reduce the copy edit backlog. So our current count of the number of articles removed from the backlog should remain, even if it is reduced drastically by mass-tagging. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We may have to re-focus the organisation now that interest levels and participation have dropped off somewhat, to attempting a small decrease in the number of articles in the queue or even allowing the numbers to creep up. We may need to focus on the most heavily viewed or most important articles. For example, Denmark has two sections marked for copy edit and gets 200,000 views per month. Any suggestions would be welcome --Dianna (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought this lack of interest would occur; after all, the drives do become repetitive and, I suppose, boring after a certain amount of time. A small number of articles are tagged daily, and even now we're having trouble keeping up with this daily growth of the queue. The Requests page, although not heavily backlogged at the moment, will most likely experience a similar growth. I fear this growth will continue, and participation in the Guild will continue to slack off, unless we do something about it. We can't do much about the loss of interest, so what exactly can we do? Perhaps we can assign a coordinator (or two coordinators) to watch the sign-up page and invite all new members to participate in the Backlog elimination drives? Or, if we can't find many new participants, perhaps we could just tough it out and dedicate the majority of our time to these drives? This, of course, is drastic, but other than trying to recruit people on the sign-up page I'm not sure there's much else we can do. Thoughts? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I just did a membership count, with the members counted from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants and Category:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors members, and AWB tells me that we have a total membership of 705. In our Year-End Report, I reported that our membership stood at 503 at the end of 2010. This means that we have had a membership growth of 202 or 40%! Of course, this also counts members who are inactive or those who have left the project, but nevertheless, there is interest in the Guild and people are joining us all the time. I am somewhat frustrated that our membership department was never properly organized and fully functional. We have new editors join us every month. It would be great if we sent all of these new members a nice welcome note from the Guild. As for the current drive, it is indeed disheartening to see most of the work wiped out by the new tags. If we want to see more participation in the drives, we need to engage with our members more personally. I also forgot to put in a note at the WP:RB this time round. That normally gets us a few new active editors who are keen to earn barnstars. --SMasters (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not intend to cause consternation among the Copyeditors. I generally do typo correction and some copyediting if I have time. While spotting typos I kept running into film pages generated by user Sunuraju. I initially tried to copyedit them but Sunuraju’s plot summaries are often incomprehensible and it is not an area I have expertise in so I tagged them in the hope it would attract someone with the time and knowledge to fix them. Sunuraju has created in excess of 300 pages many of which have problems so I also tagged the worst of these. I do not tag most things I find when typo spotting by the way. For example if I tagged all the Asian village articles that come up I would add hundreds or maybe thousands. Orenburg1 (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at Sunuraju (talk)'s contributions. Many of these are very short, and copyediting these will not take very long. --SMasters (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Oreburg: Don't worry, you didn't cause too much damage. As SMasters said, most of them are short and relatively easy to copy edit. I've already knocked out three of them, and would be happy to tackle the rest.

@ SMasters: I'll get started on a GOCE welcome template when I have more free time on my hands. I'll be one of the coordinators that watches the sign-up page, and I'll welcome any and all new Guild members. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

TPS'er jumping in here -- feel free to hijack User:The ed17/MILHIST, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Invite or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Welcome if any of them work for you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. --SMasters (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there's already a welcome template here. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Abscence

Hi all

Apologies for my absence during September - unfortunately I had some RL issues that ran into each other. I would have posted a wikibreak notice but really did think I would be on more than I managed in the end.

I should be around for the next month at least, though probably more at weekends than during the week.

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Next drive?

I noticed that no one has started the page for the November drive, and it's only eleven days away. Is it still going ahead as planned? I would've started it myself, but I didn't want to step on any toes. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is, all of our coordinators (including myself) have been busy with real life for the past few weeks. I'll try to get it up later tonight (between 1:00 and 4:00 UTC). The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am only available for an hour or two each day, and was hoping to put it up on the weekend. Tonight would be even better. Thanks, Utah. --Dianna (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have launched the drive page; updated the Om box and tab headers; requested a blurb in the paper; and posted to the Rewards page. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 15:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that I did not post any goals for the drive as to a number or percentage of the backlog that we would like to get through. I thought with the recent lower participation rates it might be counter-productive to beat ourselves up about the number of articles in the backlog. Any thoughts on this? --Dianna (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. The holidays are also coming up, so that could limit participation as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Template for requests page and archiving

Hi

I have started to go ahead with trying to get a template done to cover requests and archiving. I did discuss it a few months ago and have now begun to ask around for someone to help me get it made.

I have laid out a basic procedure and parameters page to illustrate the process and necessary info. Feel free to have a look and let me know if there is anything you feel should be added in.

User:Chaosdruid/sandbox

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)