Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives

Word Count

The backlog elimination drives are definitely a good idea. I'm not at all sure about the awards system though. It looks to me as if the "word count" business means that awards are given based on how many words you remove. Is that correct? If not: please explain here in talk and also clarify in the article; if'so: what?! Giving awards based on how many articles you copy edit makes sense, but giving them based on word counts doesn't instinctively make any sense to me, since the copyedit flag doesn't distinguish between articles that need a ton of work and those that don't. — eitch 19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The word count tool is used to find out how many words the article has before you edit it. I think this is to get an idea of how big the article you're editing is. Obviously, it's harder to copyedit a 20,000 word article, versus a 600 word one. You have a point in saying the tag doesn't distinguish how bad the article is, and that's why some are checked. Nolelover (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that makes sense after all. Certainly not an exact measure of the size of the job, but I see it is a reasonable and practical one. And now off on a tangent: what's the "that's why some are checked?" Who's checking what and how? — eitch 14:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This answer that. Nolelover (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oy, it sure does. Alright, thanks for being patient. — eitch 17:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Nolelover (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is partly to do with the same issue. Where a copy-edit tag has been placed for a section, rather than an entire article, do we count the section or article in the word count? Or do we identify whether the tag should have applied to the rest of the article? I'm a bit lost. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I copyedit the entire article anyway, and from experience, one ends up correcting issues in other sections as well. If this is the case, then you can count the words of the entire article, and not just the section. - S Masters (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for addressing this so quickly. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What I do is, I get the word count for the section. If you click "edit section" and then click "show preview" without making any changes, you can get a word count for just that section. Or you could go with S Master's way and copy edit the entire article. I guess that's best, but the decision is up to you. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 02:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I had the same query initially, maybe clarify it somewhere in instructions.(Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)).

{{GOCEinuse}}

The {{GOCEinuse}} template message says "If this page has not been edited for several hours, please remove this template." However, with some very large articles, I can easily see copy editing taking quite a long time, with editors having to fit it in around their work, family, etc, and even overnight for articles that can't be finished in a day. So I'd think gaps in editing of more than "several hours" will be reasonably common, and it would not seem right to have the copy-editing taken away from you just because you can't give it your undivided attention from start to finish. Any thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

one can leave a note in the summary of any extended time.(Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)).

edit summary/instructions

I think it would be nice to leave an instruction that when editors are done with their copy edits they should leave an edit summary saying "Copy Edit on behalf of WP:GOCE" or soemthign like that, i just started doing it today too.(Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)).

Total word-count awards question

If I am to copyedit for example a total of 25000 words, will I get only the The Tireless Contributor Barnstar or will I get barnstars for each milestone? (ie The Modest Barnstar, The Working Man's Barnstar, The Cleanup Barnstar and The Tireless Contributor Barnstar)
Also, if you copyedit 25000 words, will you get all 5000 words into rollover, or will you be given the modest barnstar for the first 4000, and then only get 1000 words on rollover? Skibden (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll get one barnstar, representing the highest milestone reached, and all of the rest will be carried over. So with 25,000 edits, you'll get a Tireless Contributor barnstar and 5,000 words carried over. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing an article from list-style to prose-style

Hi. I recently completed copy editing Communications in Israel. When I started editing that article it contained 960 words of "readable prose style" and was also tagged with a {{prose}} template requesting that the article be changed from one that was largely list-style to more prose-style. I accomplished the task of moving from lists to prose, which resulted in an article that is now 2045 words of readable prose. I was copy editing the text as I was moving it from lists to prose. I added no other words or content to the article while I was editing it. Would it be possible for me to get the word-count credit for the article as it is now, in prose-style? I have added a note to my section on the main drive page. Thanks. --Tea with toast (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We have said in the past to remove asterisks and hashes, then take the word count from that. So yes, go ahead and take the 2045 word count instead of the 960 word count. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove final paragraph after each drive?

Currently, the final paragraph of each drive page says "The backlog elimination drive is open to all, and you do not need to be a member of the Guild of Copy Editors to participate. However, you may want to consider joining, as membership has its benefits. For example, you can place a special "page in use" tag when you are copyediting, and another tag on the talk page when you finish. Please visit the Guild or the main drive page for more information." Since the drives are closed, should this paragraph be removed? Or perhaps we should change the paragraph to past-tense rather than removing it? Thoughts? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be better to leave most everything alone, and that way the new drive page can be created from the old one. I have not been the one to set up the drive pages, so I don't know for sure. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary as it is clear that the page is an archive. The page should be what it was at the close of the drive, so we should not have to change anything. – SMasters (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on the January drive

Although my guilty conscience drove me to hit a few items on the 2009 list, I selfishly spent most of my time on requests and (relatively) newly-tagged entries. Generally, more Russia, less India. I repeatedly got to interact with the enthusiasts who were already working on them, which was a blast. Dianaa made a follow-on upgrade to History of New York, which reminded me that my usual, single-pass editing mode has its limits, especially on more in-depth pieces. I'm now making a second run through all my Januarys. The second pass isn't taking nearly as long as the first because the subject is now familiar, and the interval provides distance that reveals lots of useful tweaks.

This was my most interesting and productive drive to date. Thanks to the coordinators for making it happen. Cheers!

Lfstevens (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I find especially that when an article is written by a non-English speaker, it is important to make that second pass (obviously this was not the case on the NY article, but still). I tend to do the big things like structural changes and grammar on the first pass, and the smaller things then become more obvious and easier to spot. I wish there were more time to do repeated passes on all the articles, but there is just so much work to do. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

where is Running Totals section

There is a section title "Log completed copyedits in the Running Totals section". Well, where is it? Can't find it. Could the latter part of the section title be made into a link?

Also, is there a drive going on or not? I got here because a notice came up on my page saying "join the drive" but the latest drive listed at the top is May 2010. Herostratus (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Herostratus. Thank you for your interest. Here is a link to the current drive page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2011. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

iPads

"Unfortunately, because of financial limitations, we are not able to give away iPads at this time." Hahaha, the undeliverable award gets demoted every drive. I remember the days when it boldly didn't promise sport cars. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should reverse the trend? --Slon02 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe topical to the preceeding couple of months? "Unfortunately, due to the retirement of the space shuttle, we are not able to give away free space flights at this time." or "Unfortunately, because of financial considerations, we cannot afford to ensure your country will host the Olympic games." (Chaos hides under table waiting for a man carrying a flame and a revolver...) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha, we used to change it for every drive. Perhaps somewhere along the way, we forgot about updating this part. – SMasters (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

{{cleanup}}

I was wondering, is it possible to copy edit a page with {{cleanup}}, and have it count for the drive? --Nathan2055^talk 03:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Was there any copy-editing done? Chaosdruid (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Nathan2055^talk 23:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting of sections

What does one do if he or she copyedits a page where the copyedit tag was only in a single section? Do I just count the words in that section? Surely, I do not get to count the whole article.... ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the past I've done that and only counted the section where the tag was. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks ~ Lhynard (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars for word-count; none for article-count.

This has been on my mind for a while now. Why is it that users, regardless of whether they are on the leaderboard or not, receive a barnstar if they have copyedited a quantity of 4000+ words, but they get nothing for how many articles they copyedited, unless they make it into that column of the leaderboard at the end? One can't argue that quality is more important than quantity, on this, because the number of words you've read over in your copyediting is a measure of quantity, and while it may be significant, I think a quality job of copyediting for 16 articles, even if they only had 100 words each (which amounts to 1600; 2400 less than 4000) should still garner a participant an award. After all, for the job of reducing the backlog, clearing up sixteen 100-word articles is far more significant than just one article of 4000 words. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to limit all of our awards to word count, because the amount of effort involved is directly related to the size of the article, not the number of articles. Rewarding article count encourages us to pick the easy ones, so we can do a lot of them in a short amount of time. (I know, because I've done it, too.) It's good to see the overall backlog going down quickly, but we're just saving the hard ones for the end and hurting ourselves in the long run. Johnson487682 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ehhhh.... I don't see how we're "hurting ourselves in the long run" by doing that, in any case. Usually, I'm told, it's best to get what can be taken care of easily out of the way, first, so it is not a worry when you focus on the harder tasks. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If we went by the number of articles, we might have people rushing to get as many done as possible, resulting in a decrease in copy edit quality. So while it's an interesting thought, I think we should stick to the awards we currently have. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I will add one thing, as I had two different drives wherein I copy edited a lot of short articles. The short ones can sometimes be easy, but sometimes they can be incredibly difficult, such as when they're about tiny Indian villages and are written in utterly broken English. Sometimes, just figuring out what the article is trying to say can take a good chunk of time, such that going after lots of short articles is actually harder and more time consuming than going after a few bigger ones. Plus, there's a lot less context, and you're not necessarily learning much about a subject, so it's less intellectually stimulating. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If we focus on the articles that have been in the queue for the longest, we are focusing on the articles that are least likely to be deleted. There tends to be few that are tiny in the older part of the backlog. Copy editing tiny new articles is not a productive thing to do, as ten to fifteen percent of them will not survive; they will be speedied or taken to AFD. That is not a productive use of editor time. With our current level of participation by our volunteers, it is probably inevitable that the backlog will creep up a bit. The main thing to focus on is doing good quality work on each article, as in many instances we are the first skilled Wikipedian to visit the article since its creation, and may be the last for a while. -- Dianna (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Prizes for being on the leaderboard?

"A special leaderboard award will be presented to all editors who make the top 5 leaderboard in each category." So there's an award for being on the leaderboard (possibly only if one's on it in all 3 categories), even if not in the top spot? Allens (talk | contribs) 00:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone on the leaderboard gets a barnstar. If you are on the leaderboard in all three leaderboard categories, you get three leaderboard barnstars. A gold-plated typewriter to the top person in the chart, and a silver-plated one for all four runners-up. These beauties are worth a fortune on eBay, trust me on this. This is in addition to any other awards such as word count, most articles first day, and largest single article, and 10K article. A person could theoretically win seven barnstars, though I think the most anyone has ever been awarded for a single drive is five. -- ►►—Ninja Diannaa—► ^(Talk) 04:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How about boxes of Boo Berry during spring and summer seasons? --Fateful_Despair^(Talk) 20:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (Just kidding. 01:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC))

I sell my barnstars on eBay for big bucks. The gold-plated typewriters are worth a fortune! -- Dianna (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

CatScan problems

Anyone else having trouble using CatScan? If I search for just one category, such as "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit", it works fine, but if I attempt to cross-reference two categories, it freezes up. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've found it to work best to use the box for templates - "copy edit" or "copyedit". I'm admittedly unsure if this will catch "multiple issues" cases. Allens (talk | contribs) 16:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't tried 2 cats since March, but it worked fine then. Lfstevens (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think I figured out what the problem was, but I forgot to update here. The second category I was using was Category:Linguistics, and I set the depth to 10. I think there must be almost literally a million articles included at that setting. Going into sub-categories with smaller depths worked better. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Net vs gross

Thanks again to everyone for sticking with the drives. While we've reduced the net by 5700 articles, we've actually edited many more than that, because every month hundreds more articles enter the queue. The same is true with the Requests page. I'd love to see a tally of the total number of articles we've hit, including both queues. I'm guessing that we get some 400 new tags per month and 50 new Requests. Multiply that by 24, and you add well over 10,000, which is pretty incredible. Is there any way to track the gross numbers? Lfstevens (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your estimate is probably pretty good. What you could do is go back and count all the totals from all the drives, and then count all the articles on the requests archive page. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be pretty close. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your idea would work for Requests but not for tags. The drive totals are always net—the backlog adds in the new stuff as it arrives. Lfstevens (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I phrased that sloppily. I meant add each individual's totals from every drive. It would be a massive undertaking, with a few dozen numbers from each drive to add, but would be pretty accurate. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would take a minute or two. Just for last month, though, 1242 (including those GOCEreviewed) were claimed by drive participants and 62 requests were completed, and the backlog was reduced by 760. Some of the requests were completed by editors not taking part in the drive, but this suggests that the number of tagged articles dealt with might be around 150% of the backlog reduction. (Or it might just be anecdotal. Hey ho!) --Stfg (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There again, it probably is anecdotal. The figures for the January drive are: claimed=480, requests=46, backlog reduction=169, ratio=260%. Oh well. --Stfg (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You got your Mays mixed up. The list goes in reverse chronological order, with the newest on top. That one reduced the backlog by 1166, so the numbers claimed are a lot closer to the total decrease in backlog. But, I'm willing to bet last month was a pretty big outlier, simple because Lfstevens copy edited a ridiculous number of articles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes. It was only the backlog reduction I got wrong. The other numbers came from the current drive's barnstars page and the current requests page. As you say, even closer, and I think you're right about it being an outlier. By the way, I believe that both the tagging rate and the rate of monthly requests has been gradually increasing over at least the last year. --Stfg (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

1242 can't be right. We reduced the backlog by 1166. Since there are still 281 qnd 347 on the April and May lists, respectively, we must have edited at least 1794, not including Requests. We rock!Lfstevens (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's just the number of copy edits that were counted on the drive page, among the 32 people who participated. I'm sure plenty of tags were removed by other editors just through the normal course of editing. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That implies that non-gocers are basically holding the backlog constant. Amazing! We could check that by watching how much the backlog rises during non-drive months. Lfstevens (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, but close to it, most of the time. You can see a chart with all the monthly changes for the last two years or so here in the Progress chart section. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

blitz

for all the jan-feb-mar articles left? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The blitz is for request articles; the March drive target is TBD. All the best, Miniapolis 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Coordinate the next drive that doesn't have a coordinator?

Hi everyone. Ever since conceiving of the GOCE backlog elimination drive, and coordinating the first few, I've followed the progress of the drives. what you've all done is amazing! When I held the first one, the backlog went back years. I've noticed that recently, the level of tagged articles has been rather constant, and I'd like to help you knock out a thousand in the next drive. That sounds like a big number, but I've done it before, and I can do it again. I can most effectively do that if GOCE would allow me to coordinate another drive. I'll promote the drive, as I used to do, in various different venues around Wikipedia, and deliver you more participating editors than you've seen in a very long while. I expect to see less than 2,000 articles in the queue when were finished.

If you've already got a coordinator for the next drive, that's cool, maybe the next open slot.

Let me know what you all think, and thanks for keeping this going.

ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 08:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for putting yourself out there. Jonesey95 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The next round of coordinator elections are coming up in June, with nominations just about a month away, so you can nominate yourself for the second half of 2013 then. Feel free to promote away for the May drive in the meantime though! The more the merrier. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

New members

We have some great new editors in July. I hope we will make sure to welcome/acknowlege/encourage/award them. Love to see their energy and results! Lfstevens (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Now we have some new members in September! We should welcome/acknowlege/encourage/award them!--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Which ones are new members? -- Diannaa (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't create the Javascript skin page necessary to install the word count script

Every time I try, the edit window is closed and won't let me edit. LazyBastardGuy 02:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's how I did it: Go to User:LazyBastardGuy/vector.js. Click Edit. Paste the text from this box:

// Page Size tool for Toolbox
importScript('User:Dr pda/prosesize.js'); //[[User:Dr pda/prosesize.js]]
// End Page Size tool

Save that page, then reload it a few times (I use ctrl-shift-R in my web browser), then load an article you haven't looked at before. See if "Page size" appears in the Tools menu on the left side.

That worked for me, anyway. Your mileage may vary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't do that. The edit box is closed. Imagine you go to the edit window for this talk page section and you can't see the text to be able to edit it or post a reply because the window in which that stuff would appear is collapsed. It just won't let me put in the code. LazyBastardGuy 15:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Maybe try fiddling with your preferences at [[1]], especially in the Editing section. Also maybe try a different web browser, i.e. if you usually use Firefox, try Chrome or Internet Explorer. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what I'm looking for here. I only see at most a few things JavaScript-related, none of which are relevant to my case (e.g. using a JavaScript library for older browsers or something like that). I'm running Firefox 27. LazyBastardGuy 23:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I just performed an update. I am now running Firefox 28 and it still doesn't work. LazyBastardGuy 23:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just had a thought. Would it be technically kosher to allow someone, say, an admin create this for me? LazyBastardGuy 23:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like what happened to me once. If you're using WikEd (and I suspect you are :-)), at the top of the edit box (which is collapsed) there's a double row of buttons on the right; hovering over each will tell you what it's for. The bottom-right button toggles the fullscreen mode (sometimes it collapses for some reason; WikEd is good, but quirky) and hopefully you'll be good to go. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 23:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

How'd ya guess? ;D

Unfortunately, that still didn't work. I was able to paste the code in fullscreen mode, but it still wouldn't save. I'll be right back; I'm going to see if disabling WikEd for just this one occasion will work. Thanks! LazyBastardGuy 00:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

And I think it worked! I'm going to re-enable WikEd now, and if I ever need to add to that page I'll disable it just until I've done so. Thank you guys so much for your help! LazyBastardGuy 00:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(←) FWIW, I've also had to disable WikEd because (in addition to an ongoing preview problem) today it began giving me "load error" messages (and stopped working properly :-)); the newest version (March 8) may be buggy. All the best, Miniapolis 16:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean... WikEd is useful to me because of how it differentiates text, how it groups citations and wikilinks from non-syntax, but it can be frustrating to use sometimes (sometimes the cursor doesn't land where you expect, or it gets kind of finicky with how it pastes text). LazyBastardGuy 17:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong link for rollover words

The edit notice for creating your heading under the new drive has a link for gathering your rollover words, but it links to January rather than March. LazyBastardGuy 16:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey; thought I'd updated all the links. Better check my rollover words... :-) All the best, Miniapolis 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Backlog trends

We have kept a consistent record of the remaining backlog on a monthly basis for the last four years at the progress chart here. If you were pulling those from the actual drive pages' "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit" box, you're actually getting the current totals for a lot of them, hence the nearly identical totals. Only some of the closed drives have saved images of the backlog at the time of the close. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I defer to the real deal! Lfstevens (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon

I just ran across the concept of an Edit-a-thon. (Wikipedia: Edit-a-thon) Are we eligible to/Should we join that program? Lfstevens (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Help in Rollover Words

Hi everyone! I've participated in the recently-closed June Blitz copy-editing drive, and was given a Minor Barnstar, which is my very first award here at Wikipedia. Since I don't want to make any mistake, I'm just wondering if I am eligible to use my total words edited (860) as Rollover Words in the next (July) copy-editing blitz or not. Please help illuminate my situation. Thanks in advance to any response/advice that will be given. Best regards to all. R4k3t.14unch3r (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes; rollover words (available here) are the "overflow" from whatever barnstar you've received (if that makes sense :-)). Many thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Those June rollover words are for use in the next week-long blitz, which will be in August. The next month-long drive is in July. Blitzes and drives each have their own rollover words, so if you participate in July, you would use your rollover words from May, and you'll get rollover words that will be usable in the September drive. A bit confusing, but you'll figure it out. Thanks for copy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Jonesey; R4k3t.14unch3r, one-month drives and one-week blitzes run in alternate months and have different criteria. Since you didn't participate in the May drive you won't have any rollover words for July. Sorry about the confusion and all the best, Miniapolis 23:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first award! Great to have you with us. Lfstevens (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July Drive

(copied here from my talk page by Baffle gab1978 (talk) to centralise discussion.)

Hi there. I just looked at a few random articles "copyedited" as part of this drive and I have some serious concerns about the resultant quality. Obviously not every single submission can be checked/redone but to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia I think that it's important to have some sort of quality control process in the loop. Thoughts? Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Phil; I think it would be a good idea to have some QC in place. We do encourage editors to volunteer as reviewers, but the general short-handedness of experienced editors means there's often a lack of QC. Tagged articles should receive a general improvement where possible, but those on the Requests list are often the result of editors seeking nomination for GA, FA and A-class status, so we need to be more particular with those. Another thing; different editors have differing standards and won't necessarily have the same skills with English grammar, punctuation, spelling etc. I wouldn't want to discourage users from taking part though; saying "your edits are rubbish" might just have the opposite effect! So yes, I'd like to see the reviewers check more articles and I wonder whether we can build something around the existing structure, but finding and retaining good reviewers might be problematic. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. Glad you agree that we need to do something and that it's important not to drive editors away by criticising their work (which is why I didn't mention any names in my comment above).

As a start, how about adding a "Drive article quality" section to the project page? These are my initial ramblings:

"It is important for the continuing quality of Wikipedia that when complete, all copyedited articles (whether done as part of a drive or otherwise) follow the Manual of Style and use clear and concise English with no spelling or grammar errors. The appropriate tags for identified problems that do not fall within the remit of a copyedit—including {{clarify}}, {{Expert-subject}}, {{POV}}, please see WP:TC for a full list— should also be added to artcles where appropriate."

With regard to reviews as part of the drive, I think that we should have a sliding scale of "auditing". If drive participants haven't taken part before then (sigh) every one of their submissions should be checked. Therafter, we have a sliding scale of 50% for at least one drive, 25% for two and 10% for three or more. I reckon a total of three editors should be able to handle the task and I'm willing to volunteer myself as one for the next drive. Then we come to the thorny issue of what to do if the copyedit is substandard. Would adjusting the word count and adding a simple template that says something like "This article has been reviewed and retagged for copyedit as a result of unresolved issues" placed next to the editor's entry in their article list do it?

Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, Phil; I'm going to centralise this discussion. I think it should occur at an appropriate Guild talk page rather than on my talk page. I've thus copied it to the Drives main page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up this tricky topic. I had the same experience this past drive as you, Phil, which I mentioned on the drive's talk page ([2]). There is, of course, already a mechanism in place for reviewing other articles to make sure this doesn't happen, it has just fallen into disuse. My problem with the mechanism as it currently stands is the 1200 word penalty for inadequate editing. It is probably technically just, but makes the process more antagonistic than I care for. I have always appreciated that GOCE is one of the friendlier corners of Wikipedia. My suggestion would be that we get rid of the penalty. Instead, the editor's word/article count would be readjusted to where it would have been without the article, and the article be changed from "Completed" to "Working" on the editor's list of articles. Then, leave a polite note on the editor's talk page describing the changes that should be made, which, once done, would allow the editor to change the article to completed and restore the counts to their total.

I don't know that we would necessarily have to check every submission from editors in their first drive. If the first few edits look good, it would seem to me to be fine to relax the oversight. Tdslk (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of the no-penalty/word count readjustment option, it is much less critical of an editor's AGF actions. Not convinced about switching the status back to "Working" though - I'm not sure that we want the editor to do it again. I'd rather strike out the whole thing and reinsert the copyedit required tag on the target article. If we were to point out what needs to be done on their talk page (which has the potential to be an awful lot of work for a long article) it may never get done. I also agree that if the first few edits look good then the 100% requirement should be dropped.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a contrary view. For this group, our biggest issue is getting more bodies in the enterprise so we can get this backlog down. We're worse than the VA! I don't see going hardcore as helping with that. I think the standard should be "substantial improvement". Most of the articles I work on are half-baked at best and many are far worse. Copyediting them makes them better, but it is rare that copyediting is the biggest issue they face. Many have no references/footnotes, are littered with bare urls, primary sources, yada yada. I'd make an exception for articles that are rated high importance by the projects they're in and those that are undergoing a GA/FA review. Those we need fine-toothed combs for. I'd encourage our editors to ask for a review of their work on such articles. Finally, if an editor is making things worse, we should definitely confer with them and help them improve. Otherwise, we should celebrate their contributions. Lfstevens (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lfstevens, actually, I quite agree with you. Many of the tagged articles are of relatively minor importance and receiving no more than a handful of page views a day. "Fine-toothed comb" levels of effort may not be necessary for these, especially when the article has multiple other issues with it. "Substantial improvement", as you say, would suffice. This past drive, though, I stumbled upon a copy edit where minimal changes had been made to a >1000 word article, and numerous glaring errors remained. I suspect Philg88 had a similar experience, which is why we are suggesting reviving the dormant review mechanism for the drives. Tdslk (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the sloppy copy-editing is due to the oversight of very experienced editors, as well. I just did a check of the July drive, to see if any articles had been check-marked as having been reviewed (I found none). I found an article that I had considered doing, on the completed list of someone hugely productive. I then followed the link, to see how a pro had handled it, and quickly found a glaring error that should not have been overlooked, but was. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like me. In any event, thanks for catching the error(s). I am always prepared to fix things I break, if someone lets me know. Please don't hesitate to call out me (or others) for sloppy work. As the above discussion indicates, targeting "perfect" does not always produce the same outcome as "better". My approach is to leave improved, albeit imperfect articles in my wake, when those articles have multiple quality issues or have not achieved high importance ratings (in the eyes of others). For lesser articles, I preference volume over quality. This is not ideal, but does not prevent other editors from re-tagging articles that still need help. I welcome commentary from other editors, particularly from the guild. Lfstevens (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, everyone makes mistakes, even very experienced copy editors. Which is why I think it is important that we have a conversation about quality standards and the reviewing process. For me, I don't think that a single error, or even a few errors, would warrant removing an article from an editor's "completed" list. I suspect that would leave very few people wanting to participate. I would suggest that the best practices for reviewing would be:

• 1) If there are minor mistakes, quietly fixing them.
• 2) If there are larger mistakes, especially something the editor does (or doesn't do) repeatedly, pointing it out in a polite note on the editor's talk page.
• 3) If there are lots of mistakes, restoring the copy edit tag, removing the article from the editor's "completed" list, and leaving a polite note on the editor's talk page. Tdslk (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's really 3) above that is of concern to me. What we don't want is to tie up experienced editors in a complex review/feedback process when they could be doing something more productive. If we have a documented drive QC process that maintains the integrity of both Wikipedia and the Guild, then that has to be a good thing.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If the most experienced editors aren't involved in QC, then it's not worth doing. If the most experienced are not themselves held to a higher standard - especially if their mistakes are mistakes that everyone makes, but the mistakes of neophytes are worrisome - then QC is kaput as well. Perhaps QC, and guild integrity, would best be served by some of the faster editors taking it a bit more slowly, if at present they're accomplishing their titanic output by cutting corners and missing tricks. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that all editors, including experienced and/or prolific ones, should be reviewed by QC, the same as it was done in the past. Tdslk (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting this page

Hi all; i've done a rewrite/cleanup of this page here; I've removed much of the clutter like the list of old drives, taken the Coordinators' instructions section out of its table and removed some outdated instructions as suggested. Are there any more changes that should be included before I copy it over? Next I'll be butchering rewriting the blitz pages in a similar manner—most of it will be similar anyway. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the long list of old drives from this page; it was cluttering up the page for what appeared to be very little benefit. The archives are available if anyone wants to view them, and I've moved the progress template there. Please do BRD revert this change if you disagree; I'm quite happy to discuss this. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

CatScan needs fix?

@Baffle gab1978, Philg88, and Miniapolis: does the link on main drive page about CatScan needs replacement since the service is currently down? --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Catscan comes and goes, like many external tools. It always comes back. It's working for me now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Correction to my note above: Catscan is working for some of my canned reports, but it is returning zero results for others. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a note on the CatScan page that it's being worked on. Don't remember if it was part of Toolserver, but Toolserver stuff has generally needed a bit of tweaking to work as part of WMFLabs. All the best, Miniapolis 14:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oldest articles clause needs to be updated?

@Jonesey95 and Miniapolis: there are no articles from June 2013 left so we can perhaps make it July/August/September? And we can delete "February 2011" page as it has zero entries and also its entry in the table on top right. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The category page was re-created by AnomieBOT (talk); I'll nom it for speedy deletion with a db-G6 template. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

Does anyone else think creating WP:GOCE/DRIVE and redirecting it to here would be a good idea? Eman235/talk 03:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Having something like that redirect to the *just completed or current drive* might be useful, but not so much to the main drive page. WP:GOCE already links to a page with easy further navigation to the drive pages. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with the rationale for creating a redirect to the main drives page, since it's probably one of our busiest pages, but not to the current/recent drive's page. That would need regular updating, making an unnecessary job for coords (to forget). It's easy enough to navigate from the main drive page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We have WP:COORD, WP:GOCE/REQ, and WP:GOCE/NEWS, all of which are easily found via the tabs on the main page, (sounds a bit like OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know) and as Baffle gab said, it's one of the busiest pages, so redirect? Eman235/talk 22:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it, along with WT:GOCE/DRIVE. Eman235/talk 02:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eman, it will be a very useful redirect. Sorry I've ignored this; the drive's keeping me busy! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

March drive, not January

Please point to March drive, not January.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Sections"

I have just sorted an article tagged with

. Can I add that to my total in the latest drive? As you can tell, I am new around here. As well as ever hopeful. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Only articles tagged with {{copy edit}} or other templates that put the article in one of the copy-editing backlog categories (listed in the collapsible box on the right side of the drive page) are eligible for the drive, though (a) thanks for sorting that article and (b) thanks for jumping in with enthusiasm. We love competent, energetic copy-editors! – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Drat. Ah well. Do you have a view on copy-editors who are merely energetic? Gog the Mild (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Older articles

A query regarding the current drive. I have found the list of articles outstanding from April on the 'Guild home' page, but where do I find or how do I access the list[s] for those tagged in May or June? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I find articles using the advanced features of Wikipedia's search engine. Here are links for articles tagged in April, May and June 2017. They give a complete list for each month, an approximate size (don't use that word count, it includes content other than the prose), and a little bit of the lead for context. BTW, if you haven't looked at it already, there is lots of useful information at the Guild's how-to page. Hope that helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Excellent. Thank you. I am new. I will learn. I hope. Yes, I read it thoroughly, twice. I joined a couple of years ago, spent a month working through a large article and have done bits since. Hopefully I now have a grasp of what is required. But no doubt there is more to learn. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Always more to learn around here. I'm hip-deep in a 22,000-word monster, that's how I chose to start my year. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

On the right side of the drive page, you should see a box called "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit". Click the "show" link, and it will show you links to each month's category of articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, secret doors. Very useful. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

An overweening lust for barnstars

A simple query about word counts for the drive. I have looked everywhere, especially the FAQs, but can't find an answer; although no doubt someone will point me to one on a page which I thought that I had already looked at. In order to earn the Modest barnstar an editor needs to copy edit articles to a total of 4,000 words. If an editor copy edits 2,700 but all of the articles are requests or oldest does that entitle them to the Modest barnstar? And would that mean that they had 50 rollover words? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

In short, yes. For an example of how Barnstars are calculated for a drive, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November 2017/Barnstars. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Rubs hands avariciously and cackles. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

QC

Browsing the topics above, attempting to educate/amuse myself, I came across this suggestion: "If drive participants haven't taken part before then (sigh) every one of their submissions should be checked." It caused me to grimace, and then to chuckle. I note that the current policy is to QC 10% of all copy edits. I realise that everyone is busy with real life and/or the current drive, but I would appreciate some feedback on what I might be doing wrong and where I can improve. I suspect that I am tending to (I hope) improve articles without getting them anywhere near 'perfect - whatever that is; but am I getting the trade off right, or at least acceptable? Also I am probably demonstrating a consistent blithe ignorance with regard to a number of Wiki-policies. Correction and enlightenment would be welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're going too fast and not being thorough enough, but I haven't gone over your work due to time constraints. FWIW, I was thrilled when I started getting barnstars and what-not but in my experience it gets old fast. This is supposed to be a friendly competition, not an eating contest. I've been hanging around the GOCE for over seven years, and overenthusiastic newcomers were gently reined in when we had more editors available for QC. IMO, it would be better for the 'pedia in general and the GOCE in particular if you were a bit more thorough. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 14:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

I rewrote the article of the Battle of Warsaw (1705) some time ago and decided to seek help for my, not so perfect, grammar. I got the help from Guild of Copy Editors, from the user Gog the Mild, and he did an exellent work on the article, and fixed its' structure, grammar and other errors. We held a very good conversation in the talkpage and solved the anticipated issues that often comes with copy-editing well sourced articles (without having access to those sources himself). Once again thank you. Imonoz (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible contradiction in instructions

Under Instructions for participants, it apparently says that after finding the article, to obtain the word count and then copyedit. But under Dos and dont's, it says, "Only count what you copy edit". Why obtaining the article's word count before copyediting if I should only count what I copyedit? Then what should I put inside the round brackets? I think the instructions need to be clarified. Thinker78 (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: I think the idea is that you start out with the full wordcount and (afterwards) adjust if necessary (as per Dos and Don'ts). Sometimes you adjust down if some sections are not ready for copy edit or if only certain section(s) are tagged. Sometimes you adjust upwards if there are extensive lists or tables needing copy edit (or lists needing to be converted to prose). We use the wordcount from before the copy edit as copy editing tends to make the prose more concise. I get the paradox (i.e.: apparent contradiction) that you may not be able to determine how much of the article you're going to copy edit when you begin. But the full wordcount is a good place to start when you put the article on the {{working}} line; you can adjust the figure if necessary when changing that to {{completed}}, and possibly add a second set of parenthesis with a short note like (partial count) or (extensive lists). Does this make sense? I think we were trying to keep the instructions simple. – Reidgreg (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I was going to try to reverse engineer how is done by working your edit counts, but ran into trouble when trying to use the script. I participated in a blitz and I only had to put the word total of the article before I copyedited it. It looks like it is different with the drives. Where do I put the word count of the article as it was before I copyedit? Do I do a word count after I finish editing? Where do I put that number if so? Thanks for your help. Thinker78 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's just to keep editors from gaming the system to get a barnstar. Sometimes only an article section is tagged for copyediting, and it would be inappropriate to use the word count for the whole article. BTW, please don't use extra parentheses on article lines; they mess up the script we run to generate the barnstar table :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Still left without knowing what word counts should I use and where. :( Thinker78 (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I added {{subst:js|User:Dr pda/prosesize.js}} to my .js page years ago (think it was the first script I ever used), and have never had a problem. It's not perfect; it doesn't do bullet lists, tables (I copypaste them into a word processor with a word-count feature to get the count) or sections. Once you have the script installed, though, you can get section word counts in edit mode by clicking "Show preview" and then clicking the now-blue "Page size" link on the left. Are you using Visual Editor? If so, YMMV. All the best, Miniapolis 13:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I used the script in my blitz participation and worked fine, but now I am not being able to run it successfully. Thinker78 (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I thought we'd fixed the script problem with a comment in parenthesis before the wordcount. (The bigger issue at the time were disambiguation years in some article titles, which the script was mistaking for the wordcount. It was resolved by checking each line right-to-left so that it identified the right-most parenthetic number as the wordcount.) Are there still problems? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg, I won't know until I run it again (which hopefully won't be for a while :-)). Torchiest told us in an email, "The code looks for numbers in parentheses to get the article word counts, and is designed to ignore disambiguation parentheses, but it gets confused if there are more than two sets of parentheses on a single line, so you'll need to remove extras." All the best, Miniapolis 13:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: The procedure should be the same for drives and blitzes, using # {{Working}} [[]] () with the article title in wikilinks and the wordcount in parenthesis. The only difference for drives is to add *O or *R on the end of the line for old articles and requests, which get a 50% bonus to the wordcount (automatically calculated, do not add the bonus yourself). Basically: count what you copy edit, don't count what you don't copy edit. I can't offer technical help with javascript. If you had the script working in the past, you may remember that it highlighted in yellow the prose that it was counting. Those are the same parts of the article you should look at for a manual count (many text editors and word processors have a word count feature if you copy and paste the text over). Just be careful not to count the table of contents, section headers, captions, lists and tables that do not require copy edit, or the references, external links or see also sections (which should be simple lists). – Reidgreg (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: You say, "The procedure should be the same for drives and blitzes" and "count what you copy edit, don't count what you don't copy edit". But in the blitz instructions it says, "Obtain the article's word count... This should be the word count before you start editing the article". Are the blitzes instructions bad or what is the meaning of this contradiction? What word count should I put inside the parentheses? Thinker78 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

(←) The word count before you begin the copyedit. Miniapolis 01:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In the drive instructions it says, "Only count what you copy edit... Don't count words in articles or sections that you have not copy edited". What does this refer to? Because what I'm understanding is that the word count of an article before I begin the copyedit shouldn't be counted. What am I getting wrong? Thinker78 (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You count the words in the article (or section of the article) before you begin. That is the number you use. The number of words you add or remove will not affect the count. That phrasing refers to only counting the pre-edit word count from the portions of the article you are editing if only a section or sections require copy editing. In other words, if an article has 1000 words, but only a single section with 200 words is marked as needing copy editing, you only count 200 words because you haven't copy edited the entire article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you choose an article and copy-edit the whole article, record that article in your section of the drive page, along with the article's word count (the number of words in the article). To find the right word count for your drive section, count the number of words in the article before you started copy-editing. You can use the View History link to find the version of the article as it existed before you started editing.

If you choose an article and find that only one section needs copy-editing, record the article in your section of the drive page and use the length of the article's section as the word count for which you take credit on the drive page.

If you have trouble counting the words in an article or section, one option is to copy and paste the words into Microsoft Word or another program and use its Word Count feature. Don't worry if one program gives you a slightly different count compared to another. Don't overthink it or make it more complicated than it is. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I get it now. I suggest modifying the instructions to include this information if someone else comes with the same confusion as me. Thanks for the replies! Thinker78 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible missing words in script instructions

I was reading the instructions on how to use the word counting script. It says, "if you do not have JavaScript enabled and either do not wish to or cannot, go to Special:Preferences and click on the Appearance tab. In the very first section, Skin and click on Custom JavaScript next to the name of the selected skin." I think some words may be missing or something I'm not understanding. "In the very first section, Skin and click on..."? What does that mean? Maybe it should say, "In the very first section, 'Skin', click on..."? Thinker78 (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Like me (who knows what she doesn't know :-)), you may want to stick with the default Vector skin and just follow the instructions (which have been around for years). All the best, Miniapolis 13:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, being the Guild of Copy Editors, if the instruction needs a copyedit it should be copyedited, my humble opinion. I haven't done it myself because it is not clear to me what does the instruction mean. Thinker78 (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right. With the line In the very first section, Skin and click on Custom JavaScript next to the name of the selected skin. I changed: Skin and click → Skin, click – there and on the main Blitz page. (BTW: in the mainspace we'd use italics for words-as-words but I feel the style choice of bold works well with these instructions in the Wikipedia namespace.) I'm not sure what else to suggest. Is there any chance it might be a javascript problem at your end? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There may be a javascript problem in my end, but I wouldn't be able to tell. When I did the blitz I ran the script using the developer mode in Firefox, clicking F12, according to another instructions, which I tried using again in this drive, but now I'm getting the error "too many arguments". Update: I found out what I was doing wrong. I was entering the script in the wrong line. :D Thinker78 (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What do I do when I find an article that has issues and so can't be copyedited?

I have found articles with information that can be removed for lacking citations which therefore I think shouldn't be copyedited. I then use a Gocereviewed template. Should I report those articles? Or just with the template suffices? Thinker78 (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

An example is always helpful. Can you please link to an example article?

If the article's prose is in good shape after you remove text that should be removed, you can remove the copy edit template. Put something in the edit summary that explains what you did and why you did it, with a longer explanation on the talk page if you think it is needed. There is no need to "report" the article anywhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I will add that if the article is a biography of a living (or recently dead) person (BLP), please follow the guidelines at WP:BLP. If there's text that is unreferenced and possibly defamatory, or is private information, please remove the offending text (if possible, and without drawing attention to it) and contact an administrator listed at this page off-wiki. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Example article Thinker78 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In that article, you did a good bit of copy-editing that improved the article. I did not see any significant sections that you removed. I don't think that your edits to that article are an example of your original statement, "I have found articles with information that can be removed for lacking citations which therefore I think shouldn't be copyedited." You correctly removed the copy edit template after you were done with your work.

I will make one suggestion that I would make to any new Wikipedia copy-editor: keep in mind that the articles that have been in our backlog for the longest time are typically still there for a reason. They are longer (more words) than the average article in our backlog, or messier, or somehow more difficult to copy-edit. If you find yourself looking at an article and are unsure how to proceed, sometimes it is best to leave it alone and gain experience by working on a more straightforward edit. Those can often be found in some of the newer backlog months (e.g. for this drive, November 2017, December 2017, or January 2018). Articles in the very newest month or two are also sometimes tricky, because they may not have had many eyeballs on them yet and may be a total disaster. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I did some work on the article and realized about the unreliable source while working on it. Although I hadn't finished copyediting, I stopped, and placed the Gocereviewed template. I will follow your advice and leave alone articles that I don't know what to do with them. Thinker78 (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar of diligence

I think the Barnstar of Diligence should be revamped because it is too simple for 60k. It looks like the 8,000 edits barnstar. Thinker78 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The word diligence has a nominal meaning of carefulness and long-term effort; it comes from the Latin root diligentia which also means economy, frugality and thrift. So I feel it fitting that the Barnstar of Diligence is unadorned. It stands out on its colour scheme which sets it apart from the usual brown or bronze barnstars. To swap it out with another barnstar would probably mean creating (another) custom one, and I'm not sure that's worth the effort. The GOCE only awarded the Barnstar of Diligence once in the past six months – editors tend to fall into either the higher or lower ranges. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that we're way too busy as it is :-). WP:VOLUNTEER. Miniapolis 13:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Instructions problem

The instruction about recording your work happens twice. Most likely editing error. Please fix. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

For some reason, you seem to be the only person having a problem with the instructions. What, exactly, is it this time? Miniapolis 13:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Rough day, Miniapolis? It happens. You will have to be patient with me or ignore me if you want because if I see something I think is wrong or that I don't understand I will point it out. In this case, it was not clear to me if the instruction #5 "Record your work in the "Totals" section of the drive page" was the same as the instrucion #10 "Record your completed work in the "Totals" section of the drive page". It looks like it is not but I spent a good while trying to figure it out. So, in my opinion, it is confusing and I suggest that it should be edited. Btw, I don't know if the wikicode "{{Green|<nowiki># {{Completed}}" is intended to be seen like that. (Only person? Check the page history). Thinker78 (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Sorry, Thinker. We are sometimes a little busier during blitzes and drives. I have been meaning to take a serious review of the instructions and other pages. It's a struggle finding a balance between simplicity and thoroughness. Thanks for pointing out that coding error (my fault, I'd missed a nowiki brace in my copy&paste).

To answer your question, yes, you record your work on the drive (or blitz) page twice for each copy edit: once when beginning a copy edit and once when you've completed it. (If you're immediately starting another copy edit, of course, you can record the completed copy edit and the next one you're starting at the same time.) It's important to record when you start a copy edit so that everyone knows what you're doing, to help avoid edit conflicts, and so the coordinators know the work is unfinished if you have to abandon the copy edit. This is also a convenient time when you have the article's word count (which can be obtained later, but it's simpler at that stage). Recording the completed copy edit is important so that the coordinators know when you've finished so they can check your work, give you credit, and gauge the progress of the drive (or blitz). So there are reasons. I suppose instead of Record twice it could be Record the article you are beginning and Record your completed copy edit.

I'll try to get around to a thorough review of the instructions and other pages, maybe next week if a few of the chainsaws I'm currently juggling have landed by then. This is my responsibility/fault so feel free to contact me directly with any other instruction issues. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: and @Miniapolis:, please also read Thinker78's comments on my talk page here—short version-I reverted to an earlier version of the instructions to clarify / simplify and tweaked and updated the text. Thinker complained about this and I self-reverted. Thinker wants a talk page discussion; well here we all are, ready to discuss changes. I'm sure it's a pure coincidence that he signed up for this Blitz but his subsection remains bereft of entries (diff, but has time for this sort of thing. Baffle gab1978 00:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing: not a lot of copyediting, just complaints about how we do things. I'm starting to think that they may be trolling us. All the best, Miniapolis 12:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Baffle, read the note of Reidgreg above. It is my intention to discuss the instructions after the Blitz finishes. I haven't had time to participate in the Blitz. I know from experience that copyediting an article might take 8 hours. It is my intention to copyedit. When I sign up to the events I believe I will have time but something comes up and then I can't participate. Thinker78 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice (response on Miniapolis' talk page)

CC-BY-SA notice; below response copied from Miniapolis' talk page here by me.

Hi Miniapolis. I left the above to try to let you know in a humorous way that you are not being very nice. I asked a legitimate question and for some reason you replied the way you did, which left me feeling discouraged, saddened and disappointed. I will then proceed to remind you about Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The fact that you say that I may be trolling seems to be a personal attack. What is personal attack? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." FYI I have sometimes spent eight consecutive hours copyediting articles in the guild. The fact that you are an administrator concerns me. If you didn't have time to deal with my question you could have left a polite note like Reidgreg did, not writing what you did. A simple "Can't focus on instructions right now due to blitz" would have sufficed. Thinker78 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:BAIT. Miniapolis 01:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Miniapolis is very helpful, and volunteers thousands of hours to The Project in many areas. Along with that comes experience to notice certain editing patterns that may indicate problems. Miniapolis simply pointed this out to caution myself and the other coordinators. I became a coordinator in part to help attend to matters like this so that truly competent editors like Miniapolis can use their time more productively. So please, let's drop that and discuss what you feel could be improved in the instructions. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

That was the source of my exasperation; they seemed to be obsessing about the instructions, and their complaints were becoming Whac-A-Mole; when one was addressed, they would pop up with another. It was turning into a timesink. Anyone else remember Carriearchdale? All the best, Miniapolis 16:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)