Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Does anyone want to suggest dates and themes for the August Blitz? I'm easy on both (but not cheap! 😋 ). There's four sign-ups already... make that five.😛 Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the blitz page. It's not very original, but we could do Requests and the 12 remaining June articles in the backlog. Tdslk (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me . Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 02:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me too. Let's make sure that there is a good note about experience and a higher level of care being required for Requests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good choice. Given our recent experiences, I second the need for a good note. The outline currently reads: "Skilled use of English is especially important for articles listed on the Requests page." I would suggest the addition of the following: "These requests are often being nominated for Good or Feature Article status. It is vital that great care is taken with your copy edit of these articles. If you have any questions, do contact one of the coordinators. Information about the requirements for a Good Article are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria . Requirements for a Feature Article can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria ." Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twofingered Typist, was this ever done? I couldn't find it. Either way, I'd like to suggest using internal rather than external links for the GA and FA criteria: Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria respectively. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I believe this: "Skilled use of English is especially important for articles listed on the Requests page" was added following this discussion, but I could be wrong. Internal links certainly make more sense.Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Twofingered Typist. Actually, that phrase had been there in earlier blitzes, but it was bolded this time around. I don't see that they used your suggested addition. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) No, I didn't add TT's suggested text because I didn't want to clutter the top of the page any more than necessary (no offence meant, TT). I'm of the opinion most people don't actually read complex, lengthy instructions. It might be a good time to restructure the text areas of Drive and Blitz pages to make them easier to follow. @BlueMoonset:; where are we were using external links to the FA and GA criteria? I can fix the template. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978:, the external links were in Twofingered Typist's suggested text above; if it had been used, I thought internal rather than external links were more appropriate, but as you didn't use it, there's nothing that needs to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; thanks for explaining. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Thanks all for comments; I'll add a note to the page in a bit. Dates? 16-22 or 23-30? I'm fine with either but if we choose the latter, the Sept Drive will start one day after the Blitz closes. Suggest June and July backlog; twelve articles won't last very long. I've signed up as a reviewer from mid-week. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, Baffle, although the requests page is very long again. August 16–22 would probably work better, with a week before the September drive. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 00:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done; I've also just removed the section of Thundreboltz after discovering the account is sock-blocked. See SPI and user's talk page. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since the August 2020 blitz closed and no barnstars? Has somebody forgotten to fling the bling? The September drive is about to start. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this isn't a problem because I love YiFeiBot, but when I went to tag Fasana-e-Azad {{Done}} it had been archived the day before. I checked my code to see if I'd slipped something in to trigger the bot, but can't find anything. When I pinged Zhuyifei1999, I noticed a similar issue with Jonesey95 in June. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 18:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following request for VSCO girl was marked {{done}} but I can't see anything else that would trigger the bot to archive the request above it. Both requests look properly formatted to me, though I noticed you added {{-)}} to the request; so maybe that triggered the bot. It's the only anomaly I can see, anyway. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis:; I've restored the request to REQ and corrected the archive. Naughty bot! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Baffle, although it could've stayed archived because I finished the copyedit. I wonder if that {{Smiley}} tag may be the culprit. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 21:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same thing that I experienced? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be similar; the request I was working on was archived before I tagged it done. I used a {{smiley}} emoji, which may have confused the bot. Baffle's advice not to add anything after {{done}} and the signature is good. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 22:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add whatever emojis; the bot does not care. The culprit in this case was a single space after ===[[VSCO girl]]=== causing it to not recognize the header. This has been fixed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuyifei1999, thanks for the info! So I guess the guideline for working with headers on the requests page is "no unnecessary spaces in headers", then. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Zhuyifei1999 is saying that the code has been fixed so that a space will no longer cause a problem. Tdslk (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Exactly what Tdslk said. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; I didn't even notice the space there! Thanks Zhuyifei1999, Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all; we currently use {{Archive-top}} to close drives and blitzes. This template is generally used to close discussions on talk pages rather than events such as ours. In the absence of any more suitable alternative templates, I propose forking that template and changing the wording from

• The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

to

• The following event is closed. Please do not modify it. Participants should make any final adjustments and add their final statistics in the 48 hours after its closure.

or similar (and less shouty) wording. This would be more suitable for our purposes, would save closing coordinators the task of adjusting the text manually and could be used by other projects to close their events.

Alternatively, this wording could be added as a "|event" switch to the current template, which would be more economical on server space, but I'm not experienced in adding switches to templates. I may experiment in my user space over the next few days and see what can be done. Another alternative to a new template would be to hard-code the closing text into {{GOCE-new-drive-page}} and {{GOCE-new-blitz-page}}. That would be more localised but less attractive because it would clutter the transculded pages with extra code. What do other project members and coordinators reckon? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up! It sounds like a good idea to me, but the finer details of templating are beyond the scope of my knowledge. I'm fine with whatever method you think will work best. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning more towards creating a new template for it, as Participants should make any final adjustments and add their final statistics in the 48 hours after its closure doesn't necessarily apply to all events on Wikipedia. Of course, if a variable for the proposed |event parameter can be created, like GOCE, I'd be fine with it being incorporated into the preexisting template. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Baffle, including Tenryuu's addendum. Pinging Jonesey95, who's good at this stuff . Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 23:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Thanks all; I hadn't thought of having a variable timespan or message. I'll see if I can mock something up in my user space over the next few days. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like Tdslk I know nothing about templates. coding etc... and am fine with what you believe best serves us. 12:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twofingered Typist (talk • contribs) 12:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally got around to making the above template; it's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Event close; it hasn't got a variable timespan but I'm sure one of our talented template editors could fix that! I've taken the liberty of adding it to the templates {{GOCE-new-blitz-page}} and {{GOCE-new-drive-page}}, and the current January drive. Feel free to revert my additions if necessary. Cheers and Happy New Year all, Baffle☿gab 03:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baffle gab1978, that's awesome! However, I'll point out that you only forked {{archive top}}; if you want to close it off you'll need to get {{archive bottom}} forked as well; otherwise it'll enclose everything after it. In regards to a variable timespan, I added a parameter, |time=, which changes the numerical value. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 03:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool; thanks for that. :) I've never needed to use {{archive-bottom}} on drive and blitz pages, we usually don't need to exclude any content from the event closure; see last Jan's page, though I'll think about forking {{Archive-bottom}} if there's a need. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a redirect ({{GOCEeventclose}}) for easier access, but would it be preferable to just move the template proper into templatespace? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to let y'all know that I should be more active now - my computer broke and then I was on a vacation that was extended longer than I had forseen, so I was unable to do much Wikipedia-wise, but I should be more free now. Thanks! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 14:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Since you've popped your head up, can you take a look at the top of the Requests page, where you signed up to edit Waiting for a Train (Jimmie Rodgers song)? Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, sure thing, planning to get to that soon. Thank you! -- puddleglum^2.0 15:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The top 50 candidates for copyediting from the 2020-08-20 database dump are now posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report. The 20th of the month dumps are processed a lot faster than the 1st of the month (which I guess includes page history and stuff) so hopefully these will be more up-to-date, as requested last time. -- Beland (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beland: All done. Most needed tagging for copy editing, so I am happy with the low false positive rate. Please see the page for notes about articles that need further attention from the typo team. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not good at this stuff, but when I signed up with the default three tildes I got my custom signature (as I should have). I replaced the drive-page markup with
{{Subst:User0|{{Subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} to prevent this. Hope I didn't break anything. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 23:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks Miniapolis; my fault and a known problem, I should have corrected that when i created the page. I couldn't get the code to substitute properly so i left the tildes as a known-working but imperfect compromise. Thanks for fixing it. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miniapolis, thanks for doing that; I also got my (very noticeable) customised signature. Seems to be working perfectly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all; I've updated the September newsletter, which I think is ready for checking and sending; unless anyone wishes to add anything to it. I'm sorry for the delay in completion. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, Baffle; lots of information, and very concise. I can send it in a day or two unless someone beats me to it. I may have asked you this already, but would you like the mass-message flag? Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 20:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you've asked me before; thanks for the offer but I'm happy to have newsletters approved by consensus here. I don't think I need it unless you or Jonesey would rather I send newsletters in future. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second Jonesey95. Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the newsletter. It's always a bit nerve-racking; I have to hope that I didn't mess anything up on 646 pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all; I think we're safe. If we all stay quiet, they'll never notice the mitakes cock-upps errrrrrors... :D ;) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beland, I have processed all of these articles and left you some notes. If you want to refine your filters and then add another batch of 50 from the same database dump, I would be happy to take a look at them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted another batch. Changes to the exclusion code will show up in the report for the next dump. -- Beland (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone available to run the script to calculate September drive barnstars? I can do it by hand if needed, but the script is faster, despite its quirks. I don't have access to a Windows computer to run it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it! Tdslk (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done and handed out (except mine). Tdslk (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick turnaround. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to start the October blitz this coming Sunday (roughly three days from now) in order to avoid squishing up against the end of the month (too spooky!). – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; I've checked all of August and September's backlog up to 'H'; October is unchecked. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to add Requests with experience proviso? Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me; we don't really have time to throw together a theme . Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 18:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as well. Tdslk (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not reflected on the Current Blitz page. Someone with computer skills needs to work some magic.

Thanks Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. For future reference, the tabs can be edited at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/tabs! Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have distributed all barnstars for the October blitz except for my own. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that has been given out as well. Cheers! Tdslk (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report. I started posting two sections of 50 each, since we did more than 50 last time and about half of the first 50 look like new problems. -- Beland (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report. -- Beland (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all; I probably won't be a candidate in the December election unless I'm needed. I seem to be running out of coordination steam juice and I feel I'm overdue for a wikibreak. Hopefully we'll see some enthusiastic experienced editors stepping up this time. I'm sorry I haven't been as active as usual, although the long winter nights might change that!

In other news, the December newsletter is in pre-press here.

Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the newsletter, Baffle; it looks great. Stay well, and enjoy your wikibreak and the holidays. All the best, Miniapolis 16:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not planning to run again either. I am expecting my first child in the spring, so my free time will be greatly diminished! It also looks like Puddleglum2.0 has not been active on Wikipedia in three months, so there are multiple opportunities for people to step up. Miniapolis, your emeritus status was always provisional, are you interested in resuming a proper coordinator spot? Perhaps some other Guild regulars would be interested in giving coordinatorship a try? It comes with a shiny userbox! Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the new arrival and yes, family comes first; WP will still be here when the dust settles, and I know from experience that kids grow fast. I'm keeping an eye on who's returning, and will be happy to pitch in as needed. May be time to put out the "help wanted" sign . Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 01:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll still be around to coordinate. My governor has us locked down pretty tight, so WP is my way to get out and wander around and try to make the world a slightly better place. Tdslk, you are wise to dial back your commitments. I have told many people: You know those five or six things you enjoy doing? Pick two. And if you have another kid, one of those two fun things will have to go away, at least for a while. Good luck! – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers all, and congratulations Tdslk; do enjoy your free time while you can! :) I've updated the newsletter as far as possible; just awaiting a few tweaks and the December Blitz dates and themes, if any. feel free to edit / add / correct as you see fit. I'll still be around to copy-edit and do the odd bit of updating. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 09:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the well-wishes, everyone! I am heartened to see some good names have popped up on the nominations page. I still hope to be around intermittently, and would be happy to pitch in on any projects that align with moments of spare time. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone available to run the barnstar script for November? I'll be happy to give out the awards. The page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November 2020/Barnstars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Jonesey95, and thanks for giving them out. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 15:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All given out except my two. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about December 13–19, and Requests for the December blitz? The Requests page is getting a little long. Comments welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the timing and subject. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; REQ could use some more attention. :) I'm currently triaging 'C' in the November backlog; thanks to Jonesey and Miniapoils for checking the earlier backlog months. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. We're nearly finished October and we've now already got 10 for December plus November! Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dates and topic are fine by me. Baffle, thanks for chugging through the November backlog. All the best, Miniapolis 15:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I've added the blitz dates to the newsletter, adding in September and October backlog articles (assuming August will be done by then!). The newsletter is ready for checking. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Looks good, Baffle. Let us know when you want it sent. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 16:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Newsletter sent, Ombox updated, and the Blitz page appears to be ready to roll. Teamwork! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have a number of new editors signing up for this month's blitz. Should we maybe add some of the backlog (say, August and September) to the blitz to give them another option besides the Requests page? Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 02:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thinking too; there might not be enough easy-to-c/e articles at REQ. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Feel free to amend my note. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, I experimented with the coordinator table, arranging it more like a cast table or sports tournament table. I shelved it because it's trickier to update and might be a bit showy. But I thought now that I'd post it here for feedback. (Perhaps this could be better used in the 10th anniversary annual report than the coordinator page.) – Reidgreg (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Username	Term
	2011		2012		2013		2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		2019		2020
	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2
SMasters (talk)		E
Diannaa (talk)			H	E
The Utahraptor (talk)
Tea with toast (talk)
Chaosdruid (talk)
Torchiest (talk)							E
Slon02 (talk)
Stfg (talk)					E
Sp33dyphil (talk)
Dank (talk)
Allens (talk)
BDD (talk)
Miniapolis (talk)										H									E
Baffle gab1978 (talk)				H
Jonesey95 (talk)													H
Philg88 (talk)
Biblioworm (talk)
Keira1996 (talk)
Pax85 (talk)
Corinne (talk)															H
Tdslk (talk)
Reidgreg (talk)
Twofingered Typist (talk)																H
Puddleglum2.0 (talk)

  Coordinator   Lead coordinator  E  Inducted as a coordinator emeretus  H  Inducted into the Hall of Fame

It's so pretty! (And not just because I like dark green....) I think it would be fun to include a version of this in the annual newsletter in January/February. It looks like a bit more trouble to maintain than the current boring table of editor names, so I think we should probably stick with the simple table for that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, no one earned an H or E while lead coordinator (the low colour contrast would be difficult to read). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, Reidgreg, does that look good! It's very helpful for people like me (whose memory is getting woollier), and doesn't look too difficult to update Stay well, happy holidays and all the best, Miniapolis 20:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is great! I agree it would be a useful addition to the January/February newsletter. Welcome back by the way! Happy Holidays all. Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is really cool, Reidgreg; thanks so much for putting it together! It could go into the Annual Report as a human interest item, which I haven't got around to writing this year. Perhaps it could go on a sub-page for transclusion or just a link; and the coordinators table is getting kinda long... :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; I'll tidy it up a bit for the report. I should have time to work on the report in January; I usually like to wait for the last December Requests to be completed before running the numbers. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the last working articles from the blitz and did a manual count for the barnstar page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December 2020/Barnstars. Nothing too controversial. (One editor accidentally claimed their rollover words from the last drive and I assessed a partial copyedit at 1/2 the total wordcount.) Should be good but perhaps a coordinator ought to check. Just thought it'd be nice to get the barnstars out for Xmas. Cheers. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had this on my to-do list for today, so thanks for doing most of the work! I'll check the table. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All given out except mine. Happy end of December! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done now. Stay well, happy holidays and all the best, Miniapolis 00:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another GOCE editor needs to go through the article Tito-Stalin split thoroughly and point out to CHF79 what is expected of a GOCE copy edit.

Should the "Done" tag be struck until this is taken up?

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, I am happy to undertake the c/e when I'm finished the one I'm working on.

Thanks TT; I agree the article could use more c/e work so I've struck and de-templated the done. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 17:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I left a note for CHF79 with a couple of links per WP:BITE . Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 00:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report. -- Beland (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beland, this report has been processed. If you have a report from a more recent database dump, feel free to update it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 and Miniapolis: Report is now up on the same page for the 2021-01-20 dump. Thanks for all your work with this! -- Beland (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Would it be possible to become an official "coordinator emeritus"? I don't plan to completely disappear from the Wiki, and I would be happy to help with the occasional Guild chore when I have time. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support this self-nomination/retirement/emeritus status. Tdslk served nine terms as a coordinator (all consecutive). – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've seen Tdslk do great work on here in the time I've been active. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Tdslk, the markup for the coordinator-emeritus topicon (if you're interested) is:

{{Top icon |imagename = GOCE Coordinator Emeritus.png |wikilink = Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators |description = This user is a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators|coordinator emeritus]] for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|Guild of Copy Editors]]. |id = GOCEcoordinator-icon }}

Remove the nowiki tags when placing . Congrats and all the best, Miniapolis 18:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support; why not? I'm glad you'll still be around. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I hope you'll stay involved. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call this Approved by acclamation from nearly all recent coordinators. Do stick around! – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Just saw this! Absolutely agree. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We finished another backlog drive! I've gone ahead and closed the event, but could someone walk me through the steps of uploading the partial screenshot of the backlog? I'm not sure if the image^[1] should be uploaded locally or on Commons. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upload it locally, not to Commons. I recommend going to File:Guild of Copy Editors backlog status 2020-12-01.png to see how it should end up, then open another page and click "Upload file" on your left-side toolbar. The process is NOT intuitive, but if you manage to get through it, you can make corrections afterwards. I don't know of an easier way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, I've uploaded the screenshot and implemented it onto the drive page. I think the licence used is appropriate, as Wikipedia content uses CC-BY-SA with non-fair use content, but a check from someone who knows is appreciated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good enough to me. Someone will fix it if it is wrong and they notice it. The minutiae of licensing, combined with the difficulty of the upload wizard, are too much for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've audited the drive page totals and progress. I restored a copy edit tag placed in October where no work was done, nor taken credit for. I wonder if it matters that comments come after the word totals, as they do on some pages. My impression is that if they're not enclosed in parenthesis before the word count, some script is not able to run properly. Is that the case? Should they be changed? Dhtwiki (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The script saves a lot of work, but it's a bit fussy. I remove everything extraneous before I run it Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 15:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Also, I've gone ahead and copy edited the article tagged for October. So, it (Reo Brothers) is no longer on the backlog. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else working on the annual report? I've made a few error corrections (my fault; I miscounted the data) and added some stats to the REQ section, but I'm no longer a coordinator so feel free to revert. I also hope you don't mind me 'gnoming' things here and there (mostly at REQ) ; just tell me and I'll buzz off. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 12:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to try running some spreadsheets today (time-to-completion statistics, longest REQ wait times, a couple things for the annual leaderboard, etc). Not a coordinator either, so feel free to do things differently. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the page; please continue and let us know when you are done with your gnoming. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks, both of you Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I filled in all the blanks. It certainly needs some more prosework and tidying (where you want to write out numbers as words, whether to capitalize drive, blitz and request, etc.). @Baffle gab1978: I found discrepancies with some of the numbers:

• I had slightly different figures for the request reasons. Is it possible that false positives weren't filtered out? For example, article titles with "Michigan", "Organ" (×2), "Gandhi", "Megan" (×2), "Hooligan", "Raagangal" and "organization" may have inflated numbers when searching for "GAN". (I'd isolated the purpose column before counting, which was easier with a spreadsheet.) I went ahead and used my results.
• Of the 752 requests submitted in 2020, 42 were declined or withdrawn. Fifty-one copy editors completed the remaining 710 requests, which were submitted by 276 editors. I got 27+14=41 declined or withdrawn (seems to check from req archive page), 44 copy editors and 261 submitters (from spreadsheet)
• My numbers for the top-five copy editors and submitters were off by one or two from yours (or by a half-dozen with some of the larger numbers). I have the same basic order and same number of assists (for a half-point each). I didn't count submissions which were withdrawn or declined if that accounts for some of them; otherwise not sure where discrepancies may have crept in.

It might be worthwhile to combine some of the data; I wrote a paragraph about the size of the req backlog. It was down to single-digits for some of late Feb and early March, coinciding with the rapid req completion times. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just rechecking some of the top requesters and top c/e's stats; I forgot I had 2021 data on the table that I didn't filter out. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across a request (James M. Canty) that should have been joint-credited to two editors (see here and the following edit). Baffle☿gab 22:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've now merged the entries in the archive with joint credits. Baffle☿gab 20:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding withdrawn / declined, I must have failed to filter out 2019 requests; 41 is correct. Baffle☿gab 22:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, while I was playing with spreadsheets, I noticed that Tintor2 has become the fifth editor to have 100 copy-edit requests processed through WP:GOCER. Is it okay if I send a teamwork barnstar their way on behalf of the GOCE? – Reidgreg (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please; Tintor2 is also the fourth-most requesting editor of 2020, with 23 requests. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate their vote of confidence Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 03:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By all means! He's quite the contributor to WP. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is calculation of barnstars done manually or are there some automatic components that can be employed? Dhtwiki (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a script; I would've run it, but I've been copyediting Culture of Azerbaijan and it's been a fair amount of work. There's light at the end of that tunnel, though, and unless somebody beats me to it I should be able to do the barnstar table in a day or so. Would you like me to send you the script and documentation I have? Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 01:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the script and its documentation. Is it not something that can be viewed as a Wikipedia page? Does sending it mean to my user talk page or through email? Dhtwiki (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No; email me so I have your address, and I'll email you the script and its related documentation (I can't attach files to WP email). All the best, Miniapolis 00:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstar page is ready for distribution, with a link to Jonesey's extremely helpful all-purpose award template. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 20:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: I've sent you an email telling where you can send the script. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Got it; check your inbox for two emails. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 21:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just glanced at this and believe there's a problem with my rollover number. My old rollover was 1,449,394.5, my new one is now 104036 which can't be right. Perhaps the problem is the number is so big the script ignores it? Would someone in the know mind checking? Many thanks. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: I tried looking at the script. It seems to have rejected your November rollover words (stated in the bottom of your section on the drive page) as it didn't recognize this as a numeric string and defaulted a value of zero. I suspect this would probably be because of the commas in 1,449,394.5, but Tenryuu's 466,786.5 seemed to work alright. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: Thanks for looking at this for me. It can't be the .5 word since several others also have a half-word credit. Perhaps someone else will have an idea. Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks, Reidgreg; I know how to run the script, and that's about it I thought maybe the decimal was the problem, but apparently it's the size of the number (eight figures; seven seems to be okay). I don't know how to fix that; maybe an active editor who knows Visual Basic can. All the best, Miniapolis 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Just looked at the script and didn't see anything obvious about the number of figures. However, I also looked at the November barnstar page and the November script added your old and new rollovers for that huge number; according to my calculations, your actual new rollover should have been 25,742 (your grand total over 100K, our largest award) and not that humongous number which doesn't make any sense . I think if you replace your new rollover on the January barnstar table with 25,742, you should be okay for March. All the best, Miniapolis 14:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. My suggestion above was based on the November barnstar page, not January. The script ignored your old rollover number for January (maybe because of its size), so if you add 25,742 to your January new rollover that will give you your rollover figure for March. This is why we're not going to do bonus word counts for blitzes Miniapolis 14:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollovers shouldn't accumulate drive to drive like that. Miniapolis 14:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: Here are my rollovers to carry forward for 2020. They have been accumulating all through last year (and obviously previous years).

Jan-20 1241345.5; Mar-20 1399172; May-20 1451170; Jul-20 1405660.5; Sep-20 1,423,652.5; Nov-20 1449394.5

Doing the calculation manually: 1449394.5 + (raw total 136024 + bonus 68012) 204036 = 1653430.5 less 100,000 for award = 1553430.5 carry forward to March

I appreciate this is a major pain! Does this help? Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC) (This can be resolved anytime. Not a priority.)[reply]

Thanks, Twofingered Typist, but you may not understand how the rollover words work. They're only from the previous drive or blitz, and are not supposed to accumulate indefinitely like this. I don't know why they did in your case, and am hoping that once they're reduced to a realistic number (like the 25,742 noted above) the problem will resolve itself. Please don't lose sight of why we do this, and I hope Jonesey95 sees this discussion when they return from wikibreak; I'm not the lead coordinator I don't understand why this hasn't been happening to other editors. All the best, Miniapolis 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Miniapolis, let me assure you I could care less about the barnstars. But, my rollover total has accumulated since early 2016, as I showed above. For example Tennryu, who just started participating last year is carrying forward almost 600,000 words into March 2021's blitz—mine have accumulated over five years. I suspect the "problem" is that the Most Excellent Barnstar requires only 100,000 words which in most cases would wipe out an accumulated total in one or two Drives. The "trouble" begins once an editor is accumulating more than 100,000 words per Drive. The total will never be cleared if they keep up a similar pace in each Drive. One solution would be to raise the number of words required for Most Excellent to 250,000 or something like that. If I skip a Drive, you are correct, my rollover number would reset to 0. Anyway, lets see what Jonesey95 has to say after his break. Thanks again, cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the rollover words from two drives (or blitzes) ago should be wiped clean; they shouldn't accumulate like this. Someone who has the script and knows Visual Basic needs to see why this is happening. Lfstevens used to run up amazing totals without this happening, but that may have been before Torchiest wrote the script; back then, we had less participation (and lower totals) and the coordinators compiled the barnstar table by hand. We couldn't do that today with the help we have; as it is, only a couple of us run the script. All the best, Miniapolis 21:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick glance at the archives, and in July 2012 LFStevens entered with a rollover total of 284,296, edited another 317,028 (!) words for a grand total of 601,324, and after deducting 100,000 for the Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker barnstar, had a new rollover total of 501,324. In other words, consistently prolific editors have always been able to accumulate a word hoard over multiple months. I agree that for these editors the rollover totals do start to look a bit silly, though. Theoretically, they could rest on their laurels with a token edited article for months on end and still get a fancy barnstar, but I don't think this has ever been an issue in practice. Tdslk (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So long as an editor didn't miss a drive, rollover words could accumulate. There've only been a few (essentially Hall of Famers) who consistently cleared more words than would earn the highest award. My rollover words peaked at about 300k in mid-2018 (after which it took about a year and a half to burn through them while still doing enough to stay on the leaderboard). – Reidgreg (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that's not my understanding; rollover words may be more or less, depending on the award earned in the previous drive or blitz. I've been participating in nearly all the blitzes (although I don't much care for them), and my rollover words for this blitz are 17 because whatever award I earned in the last blitz used up the rest. Frankly, this is beginning to not work; the barnstars are going out late (they haven't been distributed yet, and the page has been up for two days), and I hope we're not starting to unravel like the LOCE did (when I came in, the GOCE had just replaced it). Unless someone is willing to rewrite the .vbs script, TT should accept a rollover figure that will work (over a million apparently doesn't) so we can move on. IMO, this is becoming a timesink. All the best, Miniapolis 16:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the barnstar page, and rollover apparently gives up the ghost at one million. So ... we either fix the script, or accept what is. Miniapolis 16:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about we make up a shiny barnstar to give to an editor when their rollover count passes one million, and then the next drive their rollover resets at zero? (Also, this way we don't have to fix the script.) Tdslk (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fun suggestion. Perhaps it should be called the "Rollover Script-Breaking Barnstar". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about the "Word-hoard Award"? Tdslk (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of peace, I accept what ever the script does/doesn't do. Life is too short, and I couldn't care less about barnstars anyway. I'm here to edit articles. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is all settled, but just a quick comment: when I used to run the script, I had gotten it to a point where it worked well enough with most values, and rather than trying to continually tweak the script to handle every possible type of formatting and potential typographical issue, I would just run it, check the result for errors, find the cause, clean up that portion of the numbers, and run it again until it completed successfully and the numbers matched expectations at a glance. I'm pretty sure it's been changed at least some since I was originally the one running it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see input from the helpful creator of the script, and I remember your caveat that it wouldn't cover every possible scenario. IMO, we've become way too focused on barnstars and leaderboards. All the best, Miniapolis 23:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, is anyone going to actually give out the barnstars? It's a lot easier than generating the table. Miniapolis 23:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have two weeks left to us: 14–20 (with the holidays of Valentine's and President's days, as well as Ash Wednesday) and 21–27 (no holidays).

The requests page could stand some work, as well as working on the January backlog, a pretty usual theme.

I'd like to bring blitz award requirements into line with those of the drives, by halving barnstar word-count requirements and giving 50% bonuses for copy edits within the theme of the blitz. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume there was some reason why the counts were set up the way they are—perhaps because they involved a "theme" rather than simply working on the backlog. It would be nice if we knew why before we change things. I can recall Blitzs where we edited articles on specific topics, cooking for example, but I have no idea how these lists were established. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the word-count awards but it might be useful to look through the old talk archives. I think this has been discussed before but I can't remember where off-hand. Edit: it's here. I'd think next week would be best for the blitz, it would give a break before the March drive. There's not much backlog to choose themes from so requests is fine by me. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next week and requests for the blitz are fine by me too. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 01:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a brief glance at February's backlog and it seems like a sizable portion of it appears to be India-related articles. Possible theme? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thread below "Word count?", "Discrepancy between Blitz and Drive barnstar requirements", is more relevant and is the one I started in 2016. The responses were: "It cheapens the barnstar to hand it out for less than full price.", which would make more sense if the awards given for blitzes weren't the same as those for drives; and "I've always figured that it was because it is easier to sustain high effort for a week than for a month.", whereas I find the blitzes relatively inflexible time-wise and, when there is a theme other than backlog + request, by subject-matter. I haven't been sedulous in searching the archives for reasons for the discrepancy. Perhaps I should try again. However, I detect a lack of enthusiasm for a change. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we seem to be in agreement about the date (14–20) and theme (requests + backlog (both January and February)), I've gone ahead and created the blitz page and placed an announcement on the Ombox. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the dates and the theme. I'm not sure about the word counts; they have been where they are for a very long time, AFAIK, so changing them should be done with care. I will be on a wikibreak for about four days, so you'll have to start the blitz without me. I recommend NOT trying to count the number of requests edited each day – it's a big hassle for no benefit. Take a look at the December blitz for the sort of count that is sufficient and useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be concerned that adding a 50% bonus for blitzes would make extra book-keeping work for coordinators and participants. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should add a 50% bonus for blitzes. The bonus in the drives is/was to reward people for working on the oldest and presumably most difficult articles, since Requests are usually longish, and old articles were the ones left over after the low-hanging fruit had been picked. In a blitz, all of the themed articles are part of the blitz; I see no point in giving a bonus for every article edited. Maybe I'm missing some nuance in the proposal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I agree that the word-count status quo is fine; we have enough bookkeeping to do as it is, and (ahem) it took a while to get the January script run—I did it as soon as I got done with a long, requested copyedit. All the best, Miniapolis 20:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dates/blitz fine with me. Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since dates and theme have been determined, I'll put those on the community portal. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you do that by updating Wikipedia:Community bulletin board, which is transcluded. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]