Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Archives/2013

"Claiming" articles in a drive

Stfg contacted me earlier today to let me know that another editor was working on an article for the backlog drive that I had marked as {{working}}. It's not the first time something like this has happened, and while I'm not upset, this does seem like a potential area for conflict. Personally, I always check everyone's entries to make sure no one has "claimed" an article I'm about to work on. So one solution would be to just tell everyone to do this. Or we could just say whoever starts editing first gets to work on the article (but can you imagine if someone ran into an edit conflict?). Or we could proscribe listing articles as {{working}} unless the editor is actually working on the article at that moment. I'm sort of just thinking aloud here. Is this a problem, and should we try to solve it? --BDD (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We've somewhat had issues with this in the past. Maybe we just need to make sure it's explicit that you can only have one article marked as {{working}} at a time, and require tagging the article {{GOCEinuse}}. That should be enough to prevent overlap and overclaiming. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It happens quite often. When I spot it, I always tip off the editors, but as Torchiest says, the best way to avoid it is to use {{GOCEinuse}}. I always remove any {{copyedit}} tags at the same time, so that people don't pick the article up from the category lists any more. It's unrealistic to expect people to look through everyone's entries to see if an article is already "claimed", so we shouldn't use the "working" section in them for claiming, but only as a memo-to-self. Some people don't even use the working tag at all, but just log completions. --Stfg (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, after I wrote that, I thought about it some more, and it's not always a clear-cut situation. For short articles, say 500 words or so, I will just edit the entire article in one go and remove the tag all at once, and do a handful like that before posting them all as {{completed}} at the same time on the drive page. I think the {{GOCEinuse}} tag should be enough to prevent most problems, and should be used for bigger articles that may take hours or days to complete. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As the conflicting editor in question, I'd support making the {{GOCEinuse}} tag mandatory - if you have Twinkle, it's just two clicks before you start copy-editing, and who doesn't want extra mainspace edits? Another thing that occurred to me only after BDD called this to my attention is that perhaps you should include in your official guidelines a suggestion to open up the edit window and execute a ctrl+f for the title in question (since, with the lists collapsed, you can't do an easy check in Read mode). This is the first thing that came to mind when BDD asked me to chip in about fixing the general case, and now, having looked at the conversation on his talk page that he linked to, it would appear that great minds think alike! (Honest to God, I wrote this, then took a look at his talk page, and saw that we'd written pretty much word-for-word the same thing - only he's smart enough that he's already started doing it, whereas it took this unfortunate little miscommunication for me to think of it.) I checked the history before I started editing, but there's no reason to discriminate against copy-editors who prefer to do their work in one fell swoop.

Oh, one other thought is that perhaps it would be a good idea to decide if the "Working" tag is for the purpose of declaring that you're actively working on an article, or that you plan on doing it. IMHO, it's self-defeating to allow people to reserve articles - perhaps a 2-hour expiration window if someone still hasn't edited the article after listing it? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my practice, and I'd assumed this was universal, is to add only large articles to my list here in a {{working}} state right before I begin copy editing. No one should be adding multiple {{working}} tags at a time, hopefully. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a new item to main instructions that hopefully clarifies things sufficiently. Suggestions for modifications or additions are welcome. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Progress box

The "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit" progress box has a red link for June 2010, but still has one article. Wouldn't that article still cause it to bluelink? Gotta learn this stuff now...:-) All the best, Miniapolis 20:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a very odd thing. Category pages can "not exist" but still have members of the categories. What normally happens is that the copy edit categories are deleted as they are cleared. Every once in a while, though, someone will revert an article to an old version that included a copy edit tag, and the category will pop back on the list, even though it's long ago been deleted. Probably, all that needs to be done is to undo the revert, which almost certainly was a bad edit. I'll check it out. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The article in question, Telecom Council of Silicon Valley, had been speedily deleted a couple years ago. An editor requested that it be restored, and then moved it back into mainspace, with all the old tags on it. I updated it with a January 2013 tag, so June 2010 should be cleared off the list again. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A third way it can happen is if someone changes another tag into copyedit, but doesn't alter the date. There was a January 2011 like that yesterday. I did the same as Torchiest in that case. --Stfg (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That one was me, actually. It was tagged as {{cleanup}} for something like spelling, grammar, etc., which I figured just meant copy editing. It seems articles like this should still count for old article credit, but I suppose it's not a big deal. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

January mid-drive newsletter

I've drafted the January newsletter and a new top sheet for it. Please everyone have a look and double check my work. I already managed to overwrite the old newsletter accidentally. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --BDD (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I like it also. Please let me know when you wish me to send it out and I will do so. -- Dianna (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be good to go in that case. Fire away! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice job—thanks! All the best, Miniapolis 03:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:copy edit-inline

Template:Copy edit-inline adds an article to the main copyedit cleanup category, but even when the "date=" parameter is supplied, it seems not to add it to the monthly category. Should we fix this? I'm not sure we necessarily should. Twice in the last 24 hours, I peeked at "undated" articles that were actually dated copyedit-inline, and was able to fix the offending sentences in seconds. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Simon, that it's not enough of a problem to do anything about. At least the undated-article mystery is solved! :-) Have a good weekend and all the best, Anne (Miniapolis 15:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC))

I think the articles in question will often be quick-fix cases like this one was, so it might actually be good to have them segregated for prompt attention rather than added to the queue. -- Dianna (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

To make it easier to distinguish them, we could create a new category: Statements needing copy edit, or something similar, and make it a subcategory of Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be excellent. --Stfg (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Might be interesting to see how much usage it gets. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's working quite right yet. It doesn't show up in the Wikipedia articles needing copy edit box; this may be because it's empty, but I suspect it could be the "undated article" that's showing there at the moment, since there aren't any undated articles and clicking refresh doesn't get rid of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stfg (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the way that box is designed, it only shows monthly subcategories. Click "all articles" takes you to a different subcategory that includes everything in the monthly categories, while clicking undated takes you to the base category, which should only have subcats in it. I think it's working correctly, but it's a bit confusing. Someone could go sprinkle some inline tags about and see if they show up on the list. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've put the tag on the second paragraph of Zaporizhzhya National University#History. It gets into the category, but the category doesn't show in the Wikipedia articles needing copy edit box on the drive page. Unfortunately, I think this has not so much the effect of separating these articles as of hiding them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stfg (talk • contribs)

I'm no Rich Farmbrough, but I added a category thingy that I am hoping will help. -- Dianna (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nor am I, but now I'm puzzled. Didn't that just add an article tagged {{Copy edit-inline}} to the standard category for articles needing copy editing (all and dated)? I thought the intention was to put such articles somewhere where we could pick'em off quickly, without them getting queued. Am I missing something? --Stfg (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought the idea would be to keep them in a separate, but getting them to show up in that box might not be possible, since I think it can only display monthly subcategories, as opposed to all subcategories. Maybe we should just put it back the way it was, since articles that stay in the undated category will only be the inline version, since the bot will automatically date them, and regular copy edit tags will get shuffled away properly. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. It was a good try, but as it was seems to be the most workable. --Stfg (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed my "fix". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a little late to this party, but when is sentence-level copy editing really feasible or appropriate? {{clarify}} seems like it would do the job in the great majority of cases, which is my go-to tag for statements that don't make sense. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. That inline tag has only been around for two months; perhaps we should ask its creator for their thoughts? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

New project?

Pardon me if this has been discussed before, but I just came across the old template {{LOCErequest}} from our predecessor organization. It has over 100 transclusions on article talk pages indicating a need for copy edit. I can see why this has been deprecated, as it's not a very effective way of tagging issues. However, it will probably be difficult to ascertain when these articles were tagged and whether or not they still need copy editing. Would it be worthwhile to review these? At this point, they're clutter and should probably be removed one way or another. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good idea. What do you think about making it the target for the April blitz to check all articles tagged in that way, and either remove the tag or copy edit the article as needed? We could just do it separately, but it seems like another interesting variation option for a blitz. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. How to score it, though? Seems like a copy edit should be worth more than just a check, but since the choice of which to do is subjective, I'm not sure how to handle that. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, maybe can use a certain percentage of the word count, on the assumption that the editor had to read the entire article to see if it looked okay before removing the tag. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Even the last of those LOCE requests was made almost 5 years ago. The articles will either have moved well on by now, or if any haven't, it will mean that there's zero interest in them. Would it be more productive just to dump the template, along with the associated request page and all of its subpages, and to concentrate on more recent things? --Stfg (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, I think. Miniapolis 14:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit of a muddle. I've looked at a few of the articles with those old tags, and there is a big variety in their states. Some have actually been copy edited, but the old request tags were not removed. I created a new category for every article that has that template: Category:Old copy edit requests for League of Copyeditors. There's nothing in the category yet, as it will take a while to populate, but we should be able to cross-reference that with some other categories to see whether the articles have been tagged as edited by a member of the GOCE, whether they are already Good or Featured articles, etc. That could help us rapidly clear out all the tags that are not necessary, and then see what's left. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done an initial sweep of all articles with the template. I removed it from every article that was already a Featured Article, with the assumption that it shouldn't require any attention. I also removed it from all talk page archives, and from a few cases where the request had been fulfilled without removing the tag. That leaves Category:Old copy edit requests for League of Copyeditors with 104 entries. Quite a large number of them are either GAs, former GANs, former FACs, or some combination of those. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts; my chief concern is that we have plenty to do as it is :-). All the best, Miniapolis 03:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor misunderstands drive

Editor Buster40004 is claiming lots of articles, but none of them were tagged or requested, and the "word counts" appear to be something like number of bytes added. --Stfg (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. All the best, Miniapolis 15:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing the January drive

I will be able to close up shop on this tonight. I have been working on a script that will be able to automatically add up all the word counts (including the difference for *O and *R tags) for everyone and spit out a nice list, hopefully making it a breeze to get the totals together and hand out barnstars quickly. Can everyone that wants to help comment here? I can divide the list up based on the number of coordinators who will help, and we can do the awarding this weekend. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• I will help with barnstar delivery :) -- Dianna (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Me too. Just let me know if there are any other tasks to be done. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Well now that you mention it, I need to finish the script and test it this evening (CST), but after the drive closes, you can go through and clean up the page to make it easier to parse. That would involve removing all the garbage, things like extra text and empty entries, e.g. "# {{Completed}} [[]]" and similar stuff. Then make sure all the entries are formatted correctly, with the correct coding for requests and old articles. If you can take care of that, it would really help me out! Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I should be able to do that. I'm not personally proficient with scripts, but I can definitely get rid of things like that on the drive page. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done, as far as I can tell. --BDD (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The main mystery for me was Wikid77, who is "opting out of totals due to late entry in drive." You may want to verify that his section isn't going to interfere with the script or anything. --BDD (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I picked out a few funnies that might trip up a script, depending on how you code it. There's some extraneous chit-chat in User:Pinampersand's entry (5.33). --Stfg (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm here to help too, but this is new to me. Miniapolis 02:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a checklist at the bottom of the main drive page. I did some of the things last night. We still need a new message in the Ombox and a summary here. -- Dianna (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll do the Ombox and the summary later. Miniapolis 17:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Done (had more time now :-)); let me know what else needs doing. Miniapolis 18:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a table of the raw results here. It's sortable, so it should be easy to figure out the top five for each of the leader board categories. If someone else would like to start working on individual awards, that would be great, or I can work on it later today. To clarify, I mean working on listing who gets what, not necessarily giving them out yet. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'll start working on individual lists like those in the last drive, including which barnstars participants have qualified for just by word counts. I'll leave leaderboard awards to someone else. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. I just realized I didn't quite format the table the way the totals are normally counted. I'll have to fine tune it so it does all the work next time. As it stands, I still left you with a lot of annoying calculations. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't so bad. There were a few discrepancies in totals that I had to address, most of which likely resulted from honest counting errors on the part of the participants. The only outstanding error I see in the script's output is for Miniapolis's total. It was counting Music of Botswana, which didn't actually get completed and I hadn't removed by the time the script ran, I suppose. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Yeah, I copied the raw wiki markup yesterday and was working with that. Didn't think to get an updated version today. But next time it'll be much smoother. I can have it calculate a separate column for the difference due to bonus words, the number of 5k articles, and a column for the rollover words. I should even be able to get it to populate a column showing which barnstar the user earned, and then the rollover total for the next drive. The only thing we'd do manually, which would be easy, is order the table by each leader board cat and figure out the top people for those. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's now ready to go. I split it into four sections. BDD, if you can do the top section, Miniapolis, the second, Dianna, the third, and I will do the fourth. Let's try to get them all out Saturday or Sunday at the latest. Most of them are pretty straightforward, but for the silver award, for example, I always just find an old one I gave out and copy that. You can phrase them however you want; you've gotten plenty enough to get the idea. :) Let me know if you have questions on how to put together the barnstars. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm up to Diannaa, but how can I get to the GOCE Silver Star Award for the leaderboard? It's not linked here. Miniapolis 16:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the tough one. As far as I know, we don't have a template for that. You can copy this and fill in the blanks:

{| style="border: 2px solid gray; background-color: #fffff0;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Goce silver barnstar.png|75 px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Leaderboard Award—______________—___ Place'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to ______________ for ____________________ during the [[WP:GOCE]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2013|January 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive]]. ~~~~
|}

Let me know if you need more help. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; since we use it a lot, I'll try to create a template when I have time. Miniapolis 17:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Please tweak as needed. All the best, Miniapolis 17:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

At present, the only way to tailor the message would be to edit the template itself. It might be best to replace the whole message with {{{1}}}. Another way would be to parameterise all the replaceables, but this would be more complex and actually less flexible, as different leaderboard categories have different details. Also, it may be best to avoid forcing a newline, by putting the <noinclude> immediately after the |} Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Drive targets

Would it be wise in future to set drive targets conservatively to start with and to add another month if and when the first targets are close to being met? In the January drive, the January 2012 category stuck at 34 for over a week, while February and March were being snaffled up like hot cakes. --Stfg (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea; I tend to choose my articles from the later target months because there's a better selection (i.e. fewer "dogs"), and may not be alone in this :-). Miniapolis 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, three full months may have been a bit too much with our current roster of copy editors. On the other hand, we may have gotten more total articles completed from the old months that we would have with only January and February open. Perhaps we can still do February, March, and April for the next drive. We took down the old articles from 389 to 121, a difference of 268, which is about the number of articles in those three months right now, with four weeks until the next drive.
2. Thanks for the new piece of British slang.
3. I want pancakes for breakfast now. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, British slang is two-a-penny from me. What do yer want on yer pancakes, guv? --Stfg (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Declined a request this morning

Hi all. This morning I declined the GOCE Request for Jacob Rubinovitz, which had been requested on being noticed at AFC. The article is heavy with COI and is essentially a resume. I've informed the requester and tagged the article with {{copyedit}}.

I was taking the view that GOCE requests, which get higher priority than tags, should focus on articles that an editor is substantially championing, and that third-rate stuff spotted at places like AFC should at most be tagged. Coordinators, please do revert if you think I was too draconian. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks! Miniapolis 15:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Brand new stubs can just get a copy edit tag, I think. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:IEG

Hey guys. I pitched a long-term proposal to develop software to help with copyediting to Siko ("Seeko"), who's running the Foundation's WP:IEG project, at User_talk:Sbouterse_(WMF)#IEG idea. She wants me to get moving with this sooner rather than later (and there's a deadline of February 15 coming up). My feeling is that there are two big repositories of knowledge in what kinds of copyediting work best on Wikipedia: the collected experiences of reviewers (at FAC, GAN and PR), and the collected experiences of the GOCE. The two pools provide different outcomes, sometimes, but I think both are equally valid. Do you guys (coords and friends of coords :) think it would have a net positive effect on the GOCE if we start a long-term project to discuss automation of some part of the copyediting process? If so, I'll pitch the idea at WT:GOCE, or you can. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dan. I think that's a fantastic idea. The fact that "the two pools provide different outcomes, sometimes" really makes it even more useful, since knowing where the differences are will probably help us, and certainly won't hinder us, to identify where the difficult issues are. I'm trying (not very successfuly yet, but still) to limit how much time I spend on Wikipedia just now, but I'd definitely watchlist anything you do along these lines, and might chip in occasionally. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. Is it okay if I point people to this page for discussion? I've got a feel for what article reviewers want; I'm less sure what software the Guild will find useful. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Leaving that to the current team, but just a question: is it something that might branch out and run and run? Something that would benefit from a page of its own that could be linked from here and elsewhere? Or do you expect it to bottom out quite quickly? --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point ... it's too early to say, really, so this should probably have a page of its own, so that people won't wander here by mistake. Maybe an /IEG subdirectory? - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I love this idea, but I don't think I'm 100% clear on what this would end up being. Are you suggesting something that would automatically make corrections, or something that would make suggestions to an editor who would then manually make the corrections? Either way, the obvious and easiest thing to automate would be simple spelling errors. It gets trickier after that, and I'm not sure how powerful this thing would be in terms of accurately catching punctuation or, say, verb tense problems. It seems like a vast realm of possibilities, and somewhat overwhelming. I'd suggest starting a discussion at WT:GOCE and pointing everyone there, as more guild members have that watchlisted. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

February newsletter

I've created the February newsletter and topsheet. Please proofread and edit as desired. I don't have time to create the March drive page just now, so if anyone else could put it together, that would be great, because I'd rather not send out the newsletter before the drive page is ready. Thanks! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

All requests made before the end of March seems infeasible -- I assume you meant all placed by the end of February. Please revert me if I'm mistaken. The rest looks good. --Stfg (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on the March drive page—suggestions for the target? All the best, Miniapolis 19:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm making the target months February, March and April 2012, but feel free to change as desired once the page is up. Miniapolis 19:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The drive page is up. Miniapolis 19:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a reasonable target—it's around 250 articles, which should be readily achievable. I am off to the gym now and have a thing this evening, but i will be available to do the bot run later on tonight. The newsletter and drive page look ready, no edits needed imo. -- Dianna (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

At present we're inconsistent on the requests target: newsletter says those requested before the end of February (was March until I edited it); drive page only says requests made in January. We have previously targeted all requests made before the start of the drive, but I'm not sure if that's what you want. (It could be feasible, seeing the blitz is also aimed at these). --Stfg (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was my mistake. Everything through the end of February, or up to the beginning of March, was what I meant. I think it's all matching now, so go ahead and shoot it out tonight, Dianna. Thanks to everyone for your help. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Extending February blitz

Odysseus1479 is still working on the 11K-word Peninsular War, and requested an extension on the blitz talk page to finish it by midnight local time (which is OK by me :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 02:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

February blitz wrapup

Since the March drive is only a few days away, I'll create the blitz barnstar page. All the best, Miniapolis 16:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar page is up. Miniapolis 18:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing the blitz newsletter, and wonder what we've been doing about editors who haven't participated in the current blitz, but have enough rollover words for a barnstar anyway; do they get a barnstar (I included the two pertinent editors on the barnstars page)? Miniapolis 18:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume it's like the backlog drives, where you need to participate in order to earn a barnstar. I would think those editors would lose the rollover words. I like this approach because it encourages participation in the next competition. The documentation isn't 100% clear though. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives#Roll-over words says "So, for instance, if you received 1,400 rollover words in a March drive and didn't participate in the May drive, your rollover words return to zero." It doesn't say whether those rollover words alone net you a barnstar, though. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It was always the intention that they wouldn't -- in fact I vaguely remember drive talkpage postings advising people to get editing or they'd lose their rollovers. We've certainly never given barnstars just for rollover words. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing all that. And Simon is right, we don't rollover more than once or count just rollover without additional work. I'll cross off the entries that shouldn't count and then we can divvy up the awards. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Just wanted to let the other coordinators that I'll be traveling at the end of the May drive. I hope to be able to give out some barnstars at the end, but to be safe, you should probably plan on me not being around for any of the closing. This should be the only time. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Miniapolis 18:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Starting the March drive

I will not be able to start the March drive up tomorrow. Can anyone else open it? Also, I will be able to do the daily updates after the time change on March 10, but might not be able to get to them right away before that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I can. What will that entail exactly? --BDD (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

All that's needed is to change a tense in the opening paragraph of the drive page and create the first row of the Progress Chart. Here is the diff for this task for the January 2013 drive. --Stfg (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sure. That's no trouble. We really just need someone to be around to make the edit at the right time. I can do that. --BDD (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done BDD (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting things started, BDD (I forgot :-)). Anyone know how to get the progress graph started? (Dianna, I found the January graph on Commons.) All the best, Miniapolis 03:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Mid-drive newsletter

I'll put it together tomorrow after the next daily update unless someone else wants to do it before then. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 05:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've completed it. Newsletter is here and topsheet here. Everybody double check my work please, and if two other coordinators give it the go ahead, Dianna can send it out ASAP. Thanks! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. (I'm in a rush today and haven't checked the counte of how many have edited). --Stfg (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter and topsheet both look fine. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The bot should be rolling now. -- Dianna (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for helping out! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Brief wikibreak

I'll be on a few days' wikibreak next week (from Tuesday through Saturday), but should be back later Sunday for the end of the drive. All the best, Miniapolis 15:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

March drive closed

I have closed the drive and am beginning the process of calculating the totals. I am making some modifications to my script that will get it to do all the math for us, including calculating the rollover words and the proper word count awards for each participant. The leaderboard awards will still have to be figured out separately this time. I'll have to think about a way to programmatically do that for the next time. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A friendly heads-up: I understand that the drive doesn't go by my local time, but I've finished my copyedit and it's still March here. I'm respecting the instruction not to modify the drive page, so I'm not updating to reflect that I've completed the article I'm working, but it is noted on the "Requests" page. Dementia13 (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to finish updating your records, despite the do-not-modify advisory. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 20:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have completed calculating all the awards. Everyone that wants to help hand out awards, please respond here in the next day or so, and we'll try to get everything out before the weekend. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Have to go out for the day in a few minutes, but I'll pitch in when I get back. Miniapolis 12:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I can help later. -- Dianna (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm around. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've split the leaderboard awards into groups for you three. I will do all the word count awards myself this evening. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've handed out my assigned awards. If anyone is in a crunch and wants to push a few more my way, feel free. How are we going to deal with these .5 word totals from bonuses? I seem to think we just rounded those up in the past. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we did. --Stfg (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If no one else is doing it, I'll take care of the non-leaderboard-editor barnstars. Miniapolis 19:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like Torchiest said he'd do all of those tonight. He probably wouldn't fire you or anything if you helped. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013 newsletter

I have created the April newsletter and topsheet. Please review and make corrections as needed. I also went ahead and created the April 2013 blitz, picked the theme (articles tagged in March 2013), and set the time (April 15–21). If anyone wants to suggest or make changes to anything for the blitz, go ahead, and when we're agreed on it and the newsletter, the latter can be sent. Thanks everyone! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The newsletter is great. I've updated the header and sign-up line of the topsheet. --Stfg (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Nice job! All the best, Miniapolis 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Just signed up for the blitz (and deleted the section referring to request-list blitzes). Time will tell, but one problem I've found with recently-tagged articles is instability; edit conflicts are a drag. In future, we may want to blitz request articles or one (or more) month(s) of the oldest ones. Our first blitz, if I remember right, targeted tagged articles from several WikiProjects and I found that lots of fun! All the best, Miniapolis 13:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I am gonna start the bot run now. -- Dianna (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

April blitz awards

I've put together the results table here. Anyone else feel like zipping out the awards? I'll be busy most of the rest of the day. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done; also gave out Minor Barnstars where appropriate, but didn't give a barnstar to Soulparadox (who had rollover words, but didn't do any new articles). Thanks for doing the table and all the best, Miniapolis 23:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

April/May 2013 drive invitation newsletter

I've got the newsletter and topsheet put together. If everyone can take a look and make any necessary fixes or changes, I'd appreciate it. We can plan to send it out this weekend. Thanks! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Great job! Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Stfg (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just let me know when you want it delivered. I have to go out Sunday night, but will mostly be around on the weekend. -- Dianna (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead and send it whenever you're ready. It's Friday somewhere. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should decline this

Hi all. I'm not quite familiar enough with the AFC process to do this off my own bat, but I suspect we ought to decline the GOCE Request WP:GOCE/REQ#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Moad Gouzrou. It's basically a resumé and puff piece, and I suspect (since the IP geolocates to Marrakesh) probably a COI piece as well. I wonder if we need to make a policy of declining AFCs as a matter of course, as the AFC reviewer can always tag them if need be? --Stfg (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. We should not invest effort in unproven material, in my opinion. First let it stand up on notability grounds and pass AFC, then we can look at it. I would be fine with making that a policy and adding a note to the top of the requests page saying we don't do AFC pages. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more; we're busy enough as it is! All the best, Miniapolis 01:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've declined it and informed the requester. I've drafted an enhancement to the instructions here. --Stfg (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks—looks good. Miniapolis 13:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Reminder

When creating new drive and blitz pages, don't forget to update the links to point to the correct rollover words file. I also recommend returning to our old habit of creating a proper .../Rollover words file and not merely a redirect to the .../Barnstars file (as was done for the April blitz), as we found that people got confused about rollover words versus new rollover words columns. --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Drive progress graphs

With Dianna's help, I've been trying to come up with a progress graph for the current drive. Frankly, though, the spirit is willing but the brain is weak; my spreadsheet/Commons experience is limited. Does anyone more knowledgeable than me feel up to the task, or can we live without it? All the best, Miniapolis 21:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I will continue to make the graphs for now until another solution can be found. -- Dianna (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, Dianna. Miniapolis 02:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming elections

I have created the election page for the second half of 2013 here. Nominations start in ten days and run the first half of June, with voting taking place in the second half. Incumbents, please indicate whether you'll be running again, or send me a message if you want to discuss anything. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently redlinked from WP:GOCE/COORD (missing a slash character). Was that intentional? --Stfg (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. No, that was a typo that I didn't notice because I made the link first. Thanks Miniapolis for fixing it! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've opened the nominations. I'll update the rest of the monthly events in an hour or two, unless someone else wants to jump in. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

May drive barnstars

I've started working through the information from the last drive. I should have it ready Sunday. Everyone that wants to help distribute awards, post a note here. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Reporting for work :-). All the best, Miniapolis 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I can help. -- Dianna (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying something a little different with the breakdown. We'll see if this is easier than how we normally break it up. There are 51 total awards to do. If you go here you can use the table to easily see who gets awards, because I've added more to the script and it has all five leaderboard columns now. So:

• Dianna, you can give out the five awards for largest word count ("Raw total" in the table), the five awards for largest number of articles ("Article count"), and the seven Modest barnstars.
• Miniapolis, you can give out the five awards for most old articles ("Old article count"), the five awards for largest overall articles ("Largest article") and the seven awards for most 5k articles ("5k article count").
• I will give out the remaining seventeen miscellaneous barnstars.

This will mean more total talk pages we each have to post to, but it means you two only have to set up three different types of awards,and I won't have to worry about changing award titles for 1st-5th place. I think it will be simpler and faster to do it this way, but let me know what you think afterward. Thanks! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Minor addendum: I just realized that I instructed Miniapolis to give herself two awards. I'll get those two if you can give me my Minor award. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done I did my share, except I am entitled to a Modest barnstar, so someone else should place that on my page. Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Also  Done with mine and yours. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm done too. All the best, Miniapolis 20:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

And thanks, Torchiest, for setting up the sortable table. Miniapolis 20:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. I could not give myself the minor barnstar I earned during the drive, however. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. All the best, Miniapolis 13:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

June stuff

I'll create the June blitz and newsletter pages late Monday, unless someone else wants to take a stab at them before then. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way I can help? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 10:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, how have you been? I've gotten everything taken care of for now, but you can nominate yourself for coordinator again, if you're up for it. We're about to undergo a changing of the guard, so to speak. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been getting by, I suppose. I'll definitely consider signing up for coordinator again. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 06:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The blitz and newsletter pages are done. If someone can check them out, and then Dianna, you can send the latter out whenever. Thanks everyone. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just in case this was missed, the newsletter is ready for review and release. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know if anyone has reviewed it yet, but since we are only sending out the topsheet, if any errors are found they can be corrected later. -- Dianna (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Number of assistant coordinators

Is it the best idea to limit the number of assistant coordinators to three? Back in the day we've had as many as four, and life happens—people have to stand aside for whatever reason, and a lot of work falls on too-few shoulders. More than four (in addition to the lead coordinator) would probably be cumbersome and I'm delighted to see three excellent candidates, but many hands make light work. All the best, Miniapolis 19:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You make good points, which was why I went ahead and bumped the number of assistants from two to three for this go round. But back when we had four assistants, that was the entire coordinating group. Now we've got Stfg and Dianna as essentially permanent coordinators helping out as needed, so we'll really have half a dozen altogether. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, you have me too; I'd just rather not have the hat at the moment :-). All the best, Miniapolis 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Tolbiac

Hi,

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask, and apologise if it isn't, but is this now satisfactory?

Thanks, Matty.007 17:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

June/July newsletter

I've written the newsletter and topsheet for the blitz wrap-up and drive invitation. Can I get a few proofreads on it? It was a rather busy set this time. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also created the July drive page, which probably needs some double checking as well, since I always seem to miss a month here or there. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter and topsheet look good. I'll check the drive page this evening. --Stfg (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I will send the newsletter when I get back from work. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Increase drive participation

For the first time, we're seeing an increase, rather than a decrease, in the total number of articles during our Backlog elimination drive. I'm planning on stepping up my participation, but I can only do so much. We need to encourage others to not only continue to copy edit, but to also step it up. I think we should send out a newsletter to all current participants and emphasize that we need them to work harder. Thoughts? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 12:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been trying to do more myself, and I left messages for about a dozen former participants who have done substantial work in the past asking them to help out. But a broader call to action is a good idea. We are due for a mid-drive newsletter anyway. If you want to write it up or get it started, go for it. I was planning on putting it together over the weekend. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to get a few things done today, but I'll have the first draft written up by the end of the day. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

First draft is here. We should also create a topsheet that strongly emphasizes our need to work harder to reduce the backlog this month. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I hyped it up with what amounts to begging. I think we can skip the topsheet for this and just send the newsletter, since it's short. We'll do a full-sized newsletter with all the events in two weeks anyway. This one will perhaps have more impact if we focus on just the drive and eliminate the extra click. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? It would be nice to get it out before the weekend is over. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding this image:

and saying something like "We want you!" but I was concerned that might be too U.S.-centric. It could be a good attention-grabber though. How do our non-American coordinators feel about it? If not this, I'd be keen to try another public domain image to make this pop somehow. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well it's summer holiday season in the northern hemisphere, and who wants to spend their hols in front of a computer screen? And while it takes less than a minute to add articles to the request page, it takes a lot longer and considerably more skill to eliminate them. Sadly I can't suggest a cure for the lack of participation, but I think that mentioning it in the nl could help encourage some extra effort. How about this image? I think it's a more positive and encouraging than Uncle Sam, which I associate with conscription.

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Haha. I was going to suggest putting this of Lord Kitchener beside the Uncle Sam. Must admit that Baffle's suggestion is probably better, though. --Stfg (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I second Baffle's suggestion. Any objections? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 12:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I really like the "we can do it!" picture better. I added it in, but if anyone else wants to play around with its positioning, go for it. Otherwise, I'm ready to send it out. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel up to playing with positioning (not enough technical skills), but the image overlaps the text (more at some text sizes than others). Is this related to the strange content-free div created by the code:

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>

near the start? It doesn't seem as if that could do anything. --Stfg (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It was my friend the banned user who made all this fancy code with the absolute positioning etc. I have no idea how to use any of it and I know it does not work on all displays. I suggest going back to some simpler mark-up and have edited the newsletter accordingly; I hope nobody minds. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Works for me! Let's go ahead and send it. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 17:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The simpler mark-up is much better. Thanks Dianna. --Stfg (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will fire up the bot. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Now we kick it into high gear. We're almost down to the last week of the drive, so it's time to get busy. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 12:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A new idea

To increase participation, I think we should directly contact (personal message, not a bot message) every editor who has signed up for the drive but hasn't copy edited any articles yet. I also think we should do something to encourage one last push so that we can at least break even (or come close to it) for this drive. Like, for instance, in the past we've given an award for most articles copy edited on the first day. So I think we should give an award for most articles copy edited on the last day, or do something similar to get that last push. What does everyone think? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you leave messages on the pages of all participants saying about a final day push? Matty.007 13:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all participants would be notified. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for improvement

Am I the only one who thinks that Northamerica1000's posting of This Week's Articles for Improvement at WT:GOCE is inappropriate, and that it should be booted off? GOCE has enough on its plate, surely. --Stfg (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Below is the post placed on GOCE's talk page below, verbatim. (post below erased, removed by another editor, replaced with a template link). Why limit opportunities for editors to improve articles? GOCE is inherently about improving articles. Those that aren't interested in contributing to articles for improvement can easily skim past the listing to the next thread on the talk page. It's a simple announcement on a talk page for a project that is heavily involved in improving articles. Is this really "inappropriate", to be "booted off" the talk page there? Why would doing so be appropriate? User:Stfg, Why the immediate, rather strong criticism about a simple post at a related WikiProject? Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:TAFI/Collaborations of the day

posted here by Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 12:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we already have a lot going on. Isn't AFI more about sourcing and expansion? That's mostly different than what we do here. I've converted the template into a link and removed the separate section header. I'm okay with leaving it alone on the main GOCE talk page this week, but I'd prefer that you didn't post it every week. It's too large and would clutter up the page with tangential information. I totally support the idea of AFI, but every WikiProject has a specific focus for good reason. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It was a thought; to post articles for improvement as a notice on the GOCE talk page, because editors at GOCE are more likely to be interested in article improvement compared to many other projects. However, if people aren't into it, then so be it. Regardless, it would be nice to see if there's any response to the post there at GOCE's talk page, or if there's any interest in improving the articles posted therein. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if you found the criticism "rather strong", Northamerica1000, but GOCE is seriously backlogged. Both the number of articles tagged for copy editing and the number of requests at WP:GOCE/REQ have increased since the start of this month, even though we have a drive going on. So I do feel that advertising WP:TAFI here is an unhelpful distraction, and not your first. GOCE is about copy editing, that is, about making writing skills available to editors who want help with those, not about wider article improvement involving the kind of thing that Torchiest identified. --Stfg (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: If any of the articles for improvement are tagged as being in need of copy editing, a short, customized (not a boilerplate message) notice about those particular articles might be appropriate (once in a while). We do like to copy edit and contribute to other projects, but our focus as a Guild is primarily on copy editing. Jonesey95 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• All right folks, I hear you; I don't plan on posting TAFI stuff again on GOCE's talk page (except if there's ever an instance of interproject collaboration). It was just an idea in hopes to generate interest in the project/it's articles. At this time, it's just an announcement to let people know about the project. Regarding articles for copy editing, those I tend to tag with the copy edit tag. As a GOCE member myself, I don't want to go against the flow of what's occurring here. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Patakí review

Someone please review the Patakí article for me. The article does not have problems with grammar or punctuation. It did need a lot of wikilinks added, and the addition of the article elsewhere (not an orphan, and my education on the subject). I added the section Sources at the bottom, but the addition of inline citations was more than I have energy to pursue right now. I take a ver broad view of copyediting, but not an unlimited one. I would welcome your advice on this esoteric article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it, though I can't promise to finish it tonight. --Thnidu (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

July Drive Reviewers

BenJonson (talk) is signed up as a reviewer, but he has not done any Wikipedia contributions after signing up in June. Fellow Philadelphian Thnidu (talk) has also signed up, and I have asked him to review an article for me, the one above. This would seem to leave the reviewing task in the lap of our already hard-working coordinators. I will do a few reviews and sign up as a reviewer, but I think that a call for reviewers is in order in the fading few days in the July Drive.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

July Drive awards

I don't have time over the next couple of days to work on July Drive awards, but I'm creating a placeholder here for the other coordinators to discuss who will do what. Lame, I know, but I'm traveling IRL until Friday.

On the Drive's talk page, someone mentioned that we should give a little extra thank you to the new editors who jumped in and worked hard this month. Giving newbies a good experience is always a good idea. Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I created a Barnstars page for this drive, following the instructions on the main drive page. I copied the May 2013 page and am slowly editing it. I hope this is the right way to do it. Is there some automated tool to make this easier, or do we just do it by hand? Jonesey95 (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Torchiest has an automated tool; I used to do it by hand. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The Barnstars page is done. Feel free to check it for errors (I already caught a few when I thought I was done). Who wants to organizing giving out the stars to Drive participants? Jonesey95 (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I will check it in the morning; I am too tired right now. Then I will award all the Modest and Minor barnstars (except my own) -- Diannaa (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ach, I completely forgot about doing this over the weekend. It was my birthday yesterday, and I spent the whole weekend having fun with my family. I'll be able to give out some awards tonight (U.S. time). —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I did spot-checks on the word counts and awards and found no errors. I did not check the leader board material at all. I have delivered all the Modest and Minor barnstars (except my own) and ticked them off on the page. Please let me know if you need me to do any further duties. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I ran my script and compared the results. They looked accurate. I'll start sending out the word count awards, including yours, Dianna, if you'd care to return the favor. Anyone else want to chip in on the leaderboard awards? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Torchiest. I will be happy to do your barnstars, including your leader board awards. I won't be able to help beyond that point as I am busy elsewhere cleaning up a big mess I made, and have reduced editing time due to real-life concerns. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done with the Barnstars! Made it through my first month as GOCE coordinator. I set up copy-and-paste templates on the July barnstars page, since I didn't see them anywhere else. I found them helpful in getting the stars out quickly and accurately. Thanks, everybody! - Jonesey95 (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks JNonesey95 for your help. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing those! For future reference, we have this for the silver awards. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

August newsletter and blitz

I've written up the newsletter and topsheet for August. If a couple other coordinators can double check and proofread them, the newsletter will be ready to go ASAP, hopefully before the blitz starts later on. On that note, I will not be around this evening (U.S. time) to open the blitz, so if someone else could do that, I would appreciate it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Content looks good. In the July newsletter, Dianna improved the format so that the picture didn't sit on top of the words. I don't feel confident to edit for that, but could we make a habit of using Dianna's layout for these, as it's a bit nicer? --Stfg (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I don't see the image sitting on top of words. It is rather nicely placed in the corner of the box. If we like the June/July format better, I can probably make the July newsletter look like that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it may depend on text size and possibly on which browser. --Stfg (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks okay to me this time too. I think it depends on what other images are used in the document; it included an additional image when it got truncated. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am gonna roll the bot now. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic: Is there a way to prevent this newsletter distribution from plastering 100+ Mention notices onto my Notifications page? I would like to be able to know if I am mentioned somewhere, so I don't want to uncheck the box entirely in my Preferences, but can I block notifications from EdwardsBot, or block Notifications of this type? Where to ask?

For now, I'm going to try switching the setting to "Email" and turning off "Web" for Mentions. Since I get a daily e-mail summary, that may be the best I can do. Other workarounds or fixes are welcome. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

We could either not list the coordinator names on the piece we send out; or we could not link them. --- Diannaa (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I forgot about that until I looked in today and saw 99+ notifications myself. I'd asked about this a couple months ago here. The solution seems to be to add the {{noping}} template to the newsletter until they put in an official fix. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What's happening is that it's telling you that your user page has been linked to on all those 99+ talk pages. The solution to this is simple. At the top of the screen, click Preferences (or use this link). Once you're there, you'll see a bar that says "User Profile, Appearance..." etc. Go to the tab that says "Notifications". There will be a list that reads "Talk page message, thanks, mention, page link, page review, edit revert". Uncheck the "mention" box and that should take care of it. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but if you like getting notifications from other, "legitimate" events, that's not a perfect fix, unless you were to temporarily turn them off right before a newsletter and then on again afterward. But they're working on a permanent fix is my understanding. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

August blitz barnstars

Barnstar calculations are done.

I calculated numbers for three people who edited Requests but who did not sign up for the blitz. Do we give out barnstars to those folks? If it were up to me, I'd say yes; it does no harm.

Who wants to proof my numbers and distribute the barnstars? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

All I did was check the one that had already become FA. I made a few little tweaks, but I don't feel it's enough for a barnstar and have edited the file to say "none desired". No objection to the others receiving barnstars for what may, after all, have been much more work. --Stfg (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

All the numbers checked out fine, and I have delivered the barnstars. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Questionable request

Hi coordinators. I've just corrected the formatting of the WP:GOCE/REQ#Feudalism, but I suggest we might decline this request. Looking at the article's recent history, I suspect the request may have been a reaction to a reversion. --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I poked through the history a bit, and I think the request is legitimate. An IP editor has been inserting the copyedit tag, and it has been reverted a couple of times. The last substantive addition appears to be on May 23; pretty much everything since then has been vandalism; this article might benefit from being semi-protected.

I see what you are saying about the requesting editor's edits being reverted — the reverted edits were not done elegantly — but I think a copy edit would be useful on this relatively stable article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

September drive page and blitz wrap-up newsletter

I've created the next drive page here and the newsletter here. I set the old article months to June and July this time. Please take a look and proofread me as usual. I managed to misspell the month, so anything goes. If we can get the newsletter out today, that would be great; give us almost a week for people to sign up before it starts. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added the {noping} template to the user names and shortened the title, as it was getting truncated under the floating image on the right on my narrow display. I will send it out at around 00:00 UTC so others also have a chance to check it over. The drive page looks fine. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that! I just came back to add it after I broke into a cold sweat at the thought of that red 99+ at the top of my display again. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I just hope it works :/ we will see. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it worked perfectly. Only one notification that I had a talk page message. Thanks again. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives page Current Drive takes the user to the July Drive, not the September Drive. I will go back and try to fix it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you got it. Thanks -- Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've brought the Drives section up to date. --Stfg (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers sign-up

I signed up as a reviwer, and already I have questions.

1. Does a GOCE member get credit for copyediting an article which has been deleted?
2. What is done when a GOCE member leaves many place names without Wikilinks that could be added and claims credit for copyediting?
3. What is done when a GOCE member leaves Wikilink place names pointing to disambiguation pages that could be corrected and claims credit for copyediting?
4. Can I quietly pass along these kinds of problems to an experienced reviwer, and watch how it should be done?

If an experienced reviewer looks at the articles done on 1 September, some of the problems can be found without hints from me.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

For 1, it makes no sense to copy edit an article which has any kind of delete tag on it, but after the deletion it may be more work than it's worth to go check this (if possible at all). I always just used to AGF and allow it. For 2–3, if the copy edit was otherwise reasonably diligent, perhaps give a friendly reminder on the editor's talk page, but still allow the claim; if it wasn't an adequate c/e, a second opinion is always a good idea. I occasionally emailed whoever was lead coordinator at the time for this. Hope this helps. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am going to reduce our counts by adding {{GOCEreviewed}} to articles marked for both copyedit and deletion in any form. No doubt some will come back on our lists, but some will go away.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Very good idea. --Stfg (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with everything Stfg wrote above, and yes, getting them off the list until deletion issues are handled is a great idea. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Football hooliganism

The section Football hooliganism#Europe is tagged for copyediting. This is actually a request for GOCE members to intervene among many different editors with a variety of views on particular teams, fan clubs, and football hooligan organizations. It seems to me that the Guild should stay out of this particular arena. I did not remove the tag. What do other editors and coordinators say about it?--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a divisive subject, that I can say. Matty.007 17:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The tag was placed by a good faith editor who is doing his best to knock the article into better shape. I'll drop a note on his talk page and then remove the tag and place {{GOCEreviewed}} on the talk page. Lfstevens has already put a note about this on the talk page, and I'll append something to that. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, one and all, for consensus on this situation.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

And thank you, DThomsen8, for spotting this before someone wasted a lot of time on it! Today I got to thinking what could be done to move the article forward a bit and I've made a proposal at Talk:Football hooliganism#Proposal to split. Comments from GOCE folks would be welcome there. --Stfg (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am so sorry

I feel the need to apologize for being absent for about a month. I was thrown into a pretty tough RL situation and it's taken all of my attention away from Wiki. I'll be editing more this month. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! And don't worry, it's just WP. RL is more important. Hope you're doing OK. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm doing well now. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

{{GOCEreviewed}}

The tag {{GOCEreviewed}} is on 620 article talk pages, and I have been adding even more. I suggest a review of the Category:Articles reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors in October. Some of these entries will disappear because the articles are deleted, but many of them will remain. What do the Coordinators say about these tags?--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi DThomsen8, I don't think we need to do anything to reduce the number of articles in the category; it's for other editors to improve the articles, remove the template and re-tag / re-request copy-edit. Do we need to reduce the category and what are the problems associated with leaving it to grow? Note that we also have Category:Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors, which has 4,004 articles as of now. Perhaps the text " ... please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}" or something similar could be augmented with "and remove this template". These are just my thoughts; it will be good to see what the other coordinators think. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. --Stfg (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of the GOCE members who are doing a significant number of copyedits are not tagging the articles on the talk page. We do not require it for credit, but we would have more publicity if they did do so.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

*ahem*Guilty. It's only recommended, not mandatory, that article talk pages are tagged. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Also guilty. I tag the requests, but not those from the cleanup categories, which are often so poor in other ways that I've never been sure it helps us to tag those. What do people think? --Stfg (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I tag all the copyedits I do during a drive. For articles which are "...so poor in other ways..." either I fix most or all the other problems, or I don't touch them at all, or I do some copyediting but leave it tagged for others to continue the work. For example, I always add WikiProject templates to the talk page, disambiguate Wikilinks, and run the Reflinks tool if needed. All the tagged for copyedit articles have been through AWB Regex typo fixing. I add a Coord template if I can find it on Google maps. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fix?

How do I fix the mess above?--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

How's that? (used {{tl}}). --Stfg (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Good work!--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

September drive barnstars

Sorry I haven't been around much lately. This dang real life thing has been taking all my attention. I can run my script and get all the drive totals tonight. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a cleaned up version of the article lists at User:Jonesey95/sandbox2. I removed the "Working" articles, checked all article counts, removed the "checked" templates and other P.S. notes, and removed zero-article editors. I have also started the Barnstars list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2013/Barnstars. Feel free to pick up where I have left off. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I put in the new table of totals based on what you had in your subpage. If you'd like to give it a double check that would be great. It looks pretty close to the leaderboard totals. Anyone else that would like to help hand out awards post here in the next day or two, and we'll try to get them out by this weekend at the latest. Thanks all! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I updated the Leaderboard table and copied it back to the drive page. I am willing to give out some barnstars if I have time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have delivered the Modest and Minor barnstars -- Diannaa (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

All Drive and Leaderboard barnstars are distributed, except for the ones for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Y done -- Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If User:JudyCS continues at this rate, we may need a 250,000-word barnstar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I nominate her a Hall of Fame award. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/GOCE Hall of Fame -- Diannaa (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I did one of the oldest articles, and dropped off the leaderboard early in the month. Does someone have more than one, or perhaps I should be on the leaderboard myself.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is that there was a three-way tie for fourth place, which means the next available slot on the leaderboard for this award would be seventh place. You can see a similar thing happening in the 5K articles, and also in the Equestrian high jump at the 1900 Summer Olympics. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In any case, the next one was Ankit Maity, who did 4. --Stfg (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, give an award and put Ankit Maity and anybody else who did 4 on the leaderboard.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that. I think Jonesey95 is right. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, we've always bumped up people to the next ranking, even if there is a multi-place tie for the rank above them. I agree with the way it was calculated this time, but it has never been done that way in the past. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

October blitz dates and focus area?

Any ideas for the October blitz? We need a date and a focus area. I thought working on the Requests list was a nice change, since the articles are in much better shape than most of the stuff in the backlog. I'm open to other ideas as well.

Dates: We've run the last few during the third week of the month, more or less. I propose October 13-19. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Fine dates by me, but I would prefer something other than requests.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's better to switch the focus each time and avoid repeating the theme in two consecutive blitzes. A quick breakdown of the six blitzes we've done:

• October 2012: WikiProjects Olympics, Albums, Football, and Television
• December 2012: Oldest tagged articles
• February 2013: Requests
• April 2013: Newest tagged articles
• June 2013: WikiProject Military History
• August 2013: Requests

I'd prefer picking another WikiProject; that was the original concept behind the blitzes. WP:INDIA is one that always has many articles needing copy edits, but I'm okay with any other projects too. Or if someone can come up with another theme or approach, that would be great too. I like mixing it up. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Just checked, and running this query pulls up 388 articles needing copy edit from WP:INDIA, so it's a massive list. It looks like about half are probably those tiny and difficult village articles, but the top end of the list has some potentially interesting stuff. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Other suggestions:

• WikiProject Television (90 articles)
• WikiProject Film (69 articles)
• WikiProject Novels (21 articles) – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with any of those. We already did Television a little bit the first time, so I'd favor the other two a bit more. Film is probably the best in terms of size and scope. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm ready to set up the page with the list from WikiProject Film, but catscan2 is not working for me, as of a few hours ago, so I can't regenerate that list. Is catscan2 working for anyone else? I get an error page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's redirecting from http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php to http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php as part of the migration from Toolserver to Wikimedia Labs. Hopefully it is only down temporarily :/ -- Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's been at tools.wmflabs.org for a long time (months?). The links above were all made with the tools.wmflabs.org version of catscan. I think there might be something else going on, but I haven't been able to figure out where to report it. VPT, maybe, for starters? The folks at WMF are working on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the tools servers are still being worked on (my sense is that catscan will be back within 24 hours), and since we need some catscan output to start this blitz, should we delay the blitz by a few days so that we give people some time to sign up? Maybe we could run it from Wednesday to Wednesday next week. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about delaying it a full week just to be safe? I like sticking to weekend opens/closes. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's start at the end of this week. Catscan is back, so the list of (71) films works again. I have pasted it at User:Jonesey95/sandbox/OctBlitzList in case catscan goes away again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have created a draft blitz page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/October 2013. I haven't proofed it. I copied the text from the August blitz and the June blitz, so there may be text that needs to be updated. I haven't used catscan to update the list of articles that I created a few days ago.

We are still due for a September summary and October blitz announcement to be placed on user pages. Anyone want to take it on? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the October blitz page, updated the article list, and checked the links. I think it's ready to go. Please proofread it and make any necessary changes.

I have created a September newsletter, to be distributed ASAP. A proofread of that is also welcome. Who has the ability (or instructions for me) to push it out to subscribers? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have created a topsheet to go with it, Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/August 2013/Topsheet. This reduces the clutter on the recipient talk pages. I have access to EdwardsBot and will start the bot run immediately. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for all that. I should be able to open the gates tomorrow for the blitz. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I will not be around at 00:00 (about 2 hours from now) to close out this blitz. Is one of the other coordinators available to do it? I can come back to update the progress table a few hours later if you don't have time to do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I am back from the gym and will do the initial steps. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I calculated all the awards and handed them out. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

catscan querying old data?

I was hoping to use the catscan query above, WikiProject Film, to check the number of Film articles needing a copy edit at the end of each day of the blitz, but at least for me, catscan is not showing me results that match the current state of WP. I'm seeing the same results that I saw a few days ago, 72 articles, including articles that have been copyedited and from which the copyedit tag has been removed.

Is anyone else seeing this? Are you seeing updated results? I'm having this same problem with other catscan queries that I have bookmarked and check regularly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but I just ran it through that link, and though it took a while to run, it came up with what I'm assuming is an up-to-date total of 48 articles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it started working on the second day of the blitz, and it appears to be working fine now, as are all of my other saved catscane queries. Sorry for not following up here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 drive

I've created the new drive page here. If someone could double check it for the usual mistakes and update the ombox events to promote it, that would be great. Also, I will put together a newsletter this weekend summarizing the blitz and advertising the drive; hopefully we can send that out Sunday/Monday. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Naah! You created one here. :) --Stfg (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The drive page itself looks good. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Intro needed updating too, to point to the September barnstars page. I've done this. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Both pages look good. (I changed Torchiest's link above to reduce mis-clicks. The link originally pointed to the September drive.) I updated the ombox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

October newsletter

I've created the newsletter here. Since it's pretty small, I didn't make a topsheet for it, so that can be sent directly as soon as it gets a double check. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks good; I will start the bot run now. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Coordinators: a page to add to your Watchlist

Coordinators: please add the page Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit to your Watchlist.

For the reason why, see the discussion I started at the AnomieBOT talk page regarding copyedit articles that were not being tagged with "date" parameters. An apparently erroneous change to the above Category page resulted in our category not working as expected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't have that one on my watchlist either. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

New message delivery system

A new message delivery system has been created on Meta: meta:MassMessage. This system replaces and is superior to User:EdwardsBot, our former delivery system. Any sysop can use the new message system. I have tested it and am ready to use it for our next message delivery. As part of the prep, I weeded inactive users from our mailing list and converted the list to the required format. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Great! I'm planning on sending out a good-sized newsletter next weekend for the drive, blitz, other events, and the upcoming elections. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

November drive barnstars

I have created a draft barnstars page. I was planning to wait half a day or so for people to finish entering their completed articles on the drive page before working on the final tallies. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I got most of the other drive wrap-up tasks done earlier, so we are in pretty good shape. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Greatpopcorn did an excellent job with the Barnstars page. Thanks! I have proofed the numbers. Torchiest, can you run the script on User:Jonesey95/sandbox2, which is a scrubbed version of the editors' article lists from the drive? Or can you provide me access to the script? If the script has no objections, the barnstars are ready to be distributed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The script found a few minor math problems. I've corrected those, but they didn't affect anyone's barnstars, so it's ready to go now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I wrote a simple script to automate the making of the table. Can you tell me what those minor issues were so I can fix my script? By the way, the script and it's source code are located here.Greatpopcorn (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I assumed the raw totals were calculated manually. Here are the changes I made. If the leaderboard was built using a script, it's fine, it just had one mistake from the raw totals. Or am I misunderstanding your meaning? I have a VB script that calculates the raw totals, but nothing to build the leaderboard yet. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing that the minor issues were due to differences between the original lists of articles, as maintained by the individual editors during the drive, and the cleaned up version of the article lists that I posted on my sandbox page (link above). To clean the article list, I remove extraneous text, remove all "Working" lines, remove blank "Completed" lines, manually proofread individual article word counts for reasonableness (e.g. there was one "1" instead of "5921" and one like "1.232" instead of "1,232"), and make sure all old articles are marked with "*O" (not "old" or something else). I also remove all non-participants. I expect that Torchiest's script doesn't need all of this scrubbing, but it helps me check article counts and make sure everything looks as reasonable as possible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstars have been given out, except for two for myself. Can my barn get a little love from a coordinator please?  Done

We still need a wrap-up newsletter. Torchiest and Diannaa had mentioned writing one and distributing it, respectively. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have most of the newsletter written. I'll finish it up this evening and post it for proofreading. —Torchiest ^talk_edits

December blitz should start on the 9th or the 10th

I think the December blitz should start on the 9th or the 10th. If we wait until later in the month, we'll be competing with major holidays.

Any ideas? Maybe a winter/holiday theme of some sort? We should try to have a theme decided on in the next 2-3 days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree about starting it this weekend. Later on in the month it won't get much participation. Last year I considered a holiday theme, but I couldn't find enough articles to fit even the broadest conception to make a decent-sized list. I just did a catscan with articles needing copy edit and religion with a depth of 3, and came up with a list of 74 articles, which could be a good size. It's semi-holiday themed. What do you think? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. We did about 35 articles during the last blitz, so starting with 74 gives us plenty to work with. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Blitz page is ready to open on the 8th, as far as I can tell. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

December newsletter

I've completed the December newsletter (topsheet here). Please double check me in the usual way. Otherwise it should be ready to go. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks great. Nice work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

All the blitz barnstars are out. I am debating putting together a newsletter this weekend before the coordinators election officially begins, to see if anyone else is interested in helping. The alternative would be to wait a few more days or a week and then send a reminder that the election is open to voting and the next drive is coming up in January. Thoughts? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

As someone who is a candidate in the election, I am stating my COI up front. That said, I think either is fine but that sooner would be better. More coordinating help of the competent, involved sort would be welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No opinion on these questions, but I was planning on opening for voting this coming midnight if not beaten to it. Please say if I should hold off. --Stfg (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. I didn't have the time to sit down and put this together earlier, but I'd rather just get the election going. Additional coordinators could always be drafted if they're really needed, but we have at least two active CEs helping (thank you, by the way), so I think it'll be fine as is. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just coming back to create the January 2014 drive page, and I see that Jonesey95 already took care of it. Thanks for that; it was the only thing holding up the newsletter, which is here and should be finished. If anyone else wants to add anything or edit it, go for it, but I'm fine with sending it out ASAP now. I didn't create a top sheet this time, because it's relatively brief. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact, we might not need to do top sheets all that often anymore without all the CEotM notes every month. But that's up to the discretion of the incoming coordinators. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The newsletter looks good to me. I did a copy edit on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. --Stfg (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)