Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Archives/2017

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Edit Issues

I had no idea what to do about this situation so I sent the following message to Jonesey95 yesterday. I was advised to post this either here or on the Requests talk page. So here it is. They have pinged the user in question with my message.

A new user - CoolieCoolster - has begun editing GOCE requests. Out of curiosity I checked a couple of them and found editorial issues with both, which I fixed. The articles were not tagged after the c/e was complete, nor was the requester notified it had been done. I tagged the two articles I looked at, and notified both individuals that CC and I had finished the c/e. Just so you know. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was copyediting wrong, but I thought I was simply supposed to look it over, make corrections, and then add the Done tag on the request page when finished. CoolieCoolster (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No apology needed; we're all learning, and we appreciate your help. Wikipedia:Basic copyediting and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to are helpful, and you'll pick up the Manual of Style as you go along. Have fun, happy holidays and all the best, Miniapolis 01:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I was simply concerned about the quality of the edits involved. I have no wish to do anything more than edit but I felt this needs to be drawn to somebody's attention. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can drop CoolieCoolster a note on their talk page; notifying the requester is desirable but not required, and if there are no complaints then it's all good—we need all the help we can get. While I'm thinking of it, I wish you wouldn't round off your drive/blitz totals; it's unprecedented in several years of drives and blitzes (even Lfstevens, who has an excuse if anyone does :-), doesn't do it), and seems unfair to the other editors who also like receiving barnstars and stuff. The bookkeeping is a bit of a pain, but we all have access to a calculator. Thanks for your hard work, happy holidays and all the best, Miniapolis 14:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Miniapolis: I will stick to editing then and see if anyone complains. I don't think it's my position to pursue this further. He was pinged with my message and has not replied.

I'm not sure what the problem is with rounding the article totals. I always round the count down and, in fact, in many cases only claim partial counts. I fail to see how this is "unfair" but if you want me to claim 1232 instead of 1200, that's fine. Happy holidays to you as well. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Rounding usually involves rounding up as well as down, and can be abused by copyeditors mistaking the sizzle for the steak when they see other copyeditors doing it. I just don't know why you do it, since you're the first one who has. As I said, I don't miss the bookkeeping when I'm not participating in a drive or blitz but haven't found the calculations difficult; it keeps us honest. All the best, Miniapolis 23:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: I find this a most unfortunate incident. Yes, Twofingered Typist's edits were further improvements to the articles (I have looked), but it's not unusual for major copy edits to be followed by minor tweaks, and frankly, minor tweaks is all that they were. Meanwhile, a new editor -- who has been doing valuable major copy edits, specialising in removing promotional and self-promotional gumph from previously dreadful articles -- has been stomped on, and has withdrawn from the guild, presumably as a result. Could do better, guys. And s/he deserves an apology. --Stfg (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that I ever raised this issue. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree whether or not my edits were "minor tweaks". There were at least four articles this user worked on which were not correctly tagged when completed. He/she clearly did not understand the process - that was the point, and I assume that overseeing that requests are handled correctly is one of the coordinator's roles. The user is still copy editing. I am done with this.Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Stfg is right, TT (whether or not you're "done with this"). Nobody wants to pile on anyone, but not that long ago you were a new copyeditor and I seem to remember a break-in period; that's why the biteyness of this bugged me. I'll ping CC about this thread. Happy New Year to everyone and all the best, Miniapolis 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

CC removed the {{User Copy Edit}} template from their user page and removed themself from the list of participants two days ago, and hasn't edited since. When I was the lead coordinator, there arose one or two occasions when we had to request an editor not to service requests because their writing skills were not up to it. This is not such a case. It's an editor with an edit count of less than 200, who has already done some very good work, but doesn't yet know all the tens of thousands of pages of policies and procedures. Nor do I, for that matter, and nor, I suspect, does anyone else here. Tagging articles after copy editing is a very minor and, I believe, optional thing. The right procedure here would have been to go to that user's talk page, thank them for their very useful work, and make them aware, for future reference, of any procedures they need to know but may not yet know. Or email a coordinator to ask them to do it. No need to expose them to talk of "editing issues". --Stfg (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This is unfortunate. I agree that we should not "bite the newcomers", and I think we can all agree that it takes time to learn about the notification templates and procedures of the GOCE, and we can all help a new editor with those kinds of things. But this is the Coordinators' talk page, after all, and Twofingered Typist is an experienced editor. If s/he sees "editing issues" that s/he had to fix (and I don't think s/he meant just failure to notify the requester that the copyedit had been competed), then, other than sending a private e-mail to the lead coordinator, this is the best place to mention them. Then Jonesey95, and the other coordinators, could take a look at the edits. If the new editor makes generally good edits, then it would not be out of place for one of us, probably best Jonesey95, to suggest a different wording or mention a guideline, for example. If the new editor makes too many poor edits, then Jonesey95 could suggest the editor work on things other than GOCE copyediting. I don't think it is necessary to ping the new editor in discussions like this. We certainly don't want to "bite the newcomer", but we should take the concerns of our fellow GOCE editors seriously. – Corinne (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

A very balanced view. But if an editor is to be discussed on-wiki they should be pinged. Otherwise it may come about that everyone and his dog knows what is being said about the editor, but not the editor himself. This coordinators' talk page is not private. Email is the way to go when discussions should be private. --Stfg (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've pinged CC; it's a busy time of year, so that may explain their absence. This simple issue spun out of control; a copyeditor, IMO, went beyond mentoring into WP:BITE-land. This is unfortunate (and ironic, since the editor has had issues of their own in the past), but it happens. I hope CC returns but in any case, I hope we've all learned that the GOCE is no place for the copyediting police. Miniapolis 00:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You have persuaded me that you are right, Stfg, about the need to ping someone who is being mentioned in a discussion. Thank you. Out of curiosity, I looked at the articles that CoolieCoolster has edited either solely or with follow-up by Twofingered Typist (found them in the Requests archives), and studied the edits by both. I think it is obvious that Twofingered Typist edits at a professional level, and caught things missed by CC. However, most of the edits made by CC were good, also. I think CC has the potential to be a consistently good copyeditor; it might help him/her, when s/he has some time, to look at TT's edits to those and other articles. I'm a little mystified, though, at the strong criticism of TT. I must be missing something. – Corinne (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

When I was actively copy editing and taking part in the drives, I would always keep articles I'd edited on my watch list for a week to see what happened to them. Very often, what happened to them was that Diannaa, who was doing much of the checking in those days, would make some further improvements, at the same time as ticking them off on the lists. No public criticism; no implication that I was creating a problem; no sensitivities trodden on; editor retained. That is all that needs doing in such cases. --Stfg (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Nicely said, Stfg. But perhaps the courtesy that Diannaa showed back then, and the kindness of your comment just now, could have also been shown Twofingerd Typist. TT is relatively new to WP, has not to my knowledge spoken ill of any editor, and was only raising a concern for coordinators to handle as they saw fit. His/her comment was not meant as a personal criticism of CoolieCoolster and was not mean-spirited; I would be really surprised if anyone here interpreted it as such. Perhaps TT could have been a little less harsh; perhaps s/he forgot that the editor might see it. A gentle "teaching" comment, or reminder, such as yours expressed early on was all that was needed. I think we should assume that most people are open to learning if spoken to kindly. It would be unfortunate if, in an effort to retain a new editor, we hurt and alienated a very nice and experienced editor. By the way, I have to disagree with Stfg in this comment:

I find this a most unfortunate incident. Yes, Twofingered Typist's edits were further improvements to the articles (I have looked), but it's not unusual for major copy edits to be followed by minor tweaks, and frankly, minor tweaks is all that they were.

I looked closely at all the edits, and I think it is incorrect to say that TT's follow-up edits were merely minor tweaks. It was not so much that CC's edits made were bad; most of them were good edits. If I had run across those after a "Done" template were placed on the Requests page, I would have been similarly concerned about whether CC considered the copy-edit complete. TT took over where CC left off. Leaving a copy-edit half done is unusual at GOCE, but of course, as both Stfg and I suggested above, any new editor can learn from looking at subsequent edits to the article; I have learned things in that way myself. But I think it was unfair to have jumped on TT like that. – Corinne (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, Corinne, but as I mentioned before, CC removed the GOCE infobox from his user page [1] and removed himself from the GOCE list of participants [2]. He also (though I didn't mention this before) felt it necessary to apologise for having "made mistakes while copy editing". What I don't see is any timely response to any of this, any encouragement to keep going, any thanks for the massive removal of cruft that he achieved in his editing.

I note that you ~~quote~~emphasise the part of my comment regarding "minor tweaks" ~~but not~~rather than the part of my comment acknowledging that TT's edits were improvements. I think that comments describing edits as improvements albeit "minor tweaks" are considerably less harsh than those publicly alleging "editorial issues".

It's great to see that CC has signed up for the January drive, and well done Jonesey for thanking him for that. It's also great to see that CC has made a proposal for a WikiProject to deal with promotional articles. (I'd quite possibly have signed up for that if I were still editing actively). So I think all is well now and it's well past time to move on from this. --Stfg (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

January drive

Just a heads-up that Jliutai123 has made only minor improvements to two sizable articles: Deaf rights movement and Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov. I left a note on their talk page. All the best, Miniapolis 14:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Archiving requests redux

Just a reminder that Jonesey95 and Corinne have unarchived, completed requests; coordinators and experienced editors have always been expected to do their own archiving (wish Twofingered Typist would do their own). This lead coordinator is not a dogsbody :-). All the best, Miniapolis 18:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I got them all. Thanks for the reminder. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the reminder, Miniapolis, but I'd like to add that this is the first time I have heard that experienced editors have always been expected to do their own archiving. I thought that was the job of the assistant coordinators (and I've been happy to do it). All the years I edited before, no one ever told me that, and I always saw the two assistant coordinators doing most of the archiving, so I assumed it was their job. Is that rule or custom written down somewhere? If so, I missed it. It's fine; I'm sure any experienced editor would be happy to do it, but how would anyone know it is a rule or custom if no one tells them and they see the assistant coordinators regularly doing the archiving? I also don't understand your first statement, that Jonesey95 and I "have unarchived, completed requests". I just looked at the requests list and did not see any completed requests that remained to be archived, and only one by Twofingered Typist that you archived just a few hours after I had done some archiving. I promise I'm not trying to be difficult; I'd just like to understand what you're saying. – Corinne (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

When I gave the list my daily once-over, I noticed that you had a request marked "done" for a day or two and Jonesey had the decline. I should have said that coordinators are expected to do their own archiving, and experienced editors are encouraged to (it's in the next-to-last instruction for copyeditors at the top of the request page). I may be wrong, but until today I think I had archived every completed request since the first of the year (fortunately or otherwise, there haven't been many) and don't want to be considered the designated archivist. I enjoy copyediting, and don't want to spend too much time on maintenance. All the best, Miniapolis 00:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I didn't know about that section "Instructions for copy-editors". Maybe I read it a long time ago, but now I don't remember. Thanks for pointing it out. Regarding archiving, I didn't think requests had to be archived the same day they are done. I thought it wouldn't be a problem if I let a few accumulate and then archive them all at once. If you look at the revision history for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2016, you'll see that, in 2017, I archived on January 1, twice on January 6, on January 7, and on January 13. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, Corinne. I also had to hunt for that instruction; I began archiving my own stuff well before becoming a coordinator, which was a useful introduction to table syntax. The requests page seems so Sisyphean that I try to keep it as tidy as possible, but I always need practice in patience :-). All the best, Miniapolis 15:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I also had no idea we were expected to archive the requests we'd handled and, like Corinne, assumed for the past two plus years that was a task handled by the assistant coordinators after they gave an article the once over to make sure the c/e was adequate. Now I know this is expected I will archive the articles I c/e. Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I also didn't know that I was supposed to be archiving my own completed articles. I haven't done much archiving in general because editing the archive page tends to make my browser crash, especially when the list gets long. Tdslk (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinators are expected to do their own archiving; experienced editors on WP:GOCE/REQ are encouraged (not expected) to do so. I hear you, Tdslk, about the browser issues because they bug me too. Jonesey very kindly set up the 2017 archive in three-month sections (I had to redo last year's six-month sections as four-month ones, because it was taking me forever to archive), so hopefully it won't be as much of a problem. All the best, Miniapolis 22:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

January Blitz Drive

Is there any thought being given to expanding the backlog month to Include March 2016 and the GOCE requests to include ~~February~~January? We're nearly done the current objective. Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I know we've done that before, and I'd hate for our oldest article squadron to run out of targets for the final nine days. Any objections to enacting this today? (Also, pedantic nitpicking here, but it's the January "drive"; blitzes only last a week.) Tdslk (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the suggestion and all the best, Miniapolis 23:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

~~I will update~~ Miniapolis has updated the drive page to add March 2016 to the "extra credit" list of articles. (I also corrected a couple of words above; revert if you have objections.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Annual Report

This is a note to remind all of the coordinators that we need to put together a 2016 annual report. Here's the report from 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Slow work

I didn't want you all to think I've been slacking off. I had to edit Belén Rodriguez twice because my first set were lost, and the article had been written by at least one non-native speaker of English, so that took me a while, and now I'm working on Prince of Asturias, which is also written by a non-native speaker of English, as a translation from a Spanish article, and I'm making slow headway. It's not the same kind of copy-editing as we usually do at GOCE. It's very tedious and time-consuming. I have to think about what the original writer intended to say, and what the Spanish text probably said, judging from the word-for-word translation, and then put it into English. I don't even know if we should really be doing this kind of work at GOCE. – Corinne (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Corinne, FWIW I've had Those Kinds of Copyedits and when I can't stand it any more I tag the talk page with {{GOCEreviewed}} (including the issues= parameter). Copyediting is copyediting—not translation or fact-checking or all the other stuff we're asked to do because no one else wants to do it :-). We're volunteers, after all. Miniapolis 16:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

February newsletter

I have created a very rough newsletter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/February 2017. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey. I filled in the blanks, and when the blitz is bluelinked it should be ready to go. All the best, Miniapolis 21:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I created the blitz page and added a brief blurb about it to the newsletter. As soon as someone corrects the inevitable errata, I'll send it out. All the best, Miniapolis 19:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we never sent this out. I have updated it, including the addition of a bit of puffery on my own account. Hope nobody minds. I still have a warm glow about it.

If it looks good, I'll send it out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey. I forgot, but it's for the best since it'll include breaking news :-). All the best, Miniapolis 16:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February blitz ideas?

Ideas are welcome for the February blitz. We should probably do it February 12–18 to avoid crunching up against the end of the month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Requests? The queue is long again. All the best, Miniapolis 15:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking Requests for sure, and maybe also March 2016, which has only 15 articles left in it. It would be fun to start a drive with only 11 months in the backlog. Anyone else? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Those sound good to me. Also, as a quick note, I'll be mostly away from the Wiki for the next two weeks. Tdslk (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

CoolieCoolster wants an (unspecified) theme, but since WP:GOCE/REQ is very long and there are only a few March articles left—gotta tell ya, though, I don't have it in me to do the dregs of another month right now :-)—that's probably the way we should go. All the best, Miniapolis 00:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think an article theme would be more interesting than requests, however I can see that requests are piling up quickly, so handing those would probably be better in the long run. CoolieCoolster (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Barnstars have been distributed (except mine). – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done, and thanks. All the best, Miniapolis 15:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

CE coordinators/admins: Acrolinx copyediting software?

Hello CE Friends

I take part in WikiProject Medicine where I learned of text editing software from the organization, Acrolinx, which impresses as a useful auto-copyediting program. It was presented to the community in this video from UC-San Francisco where medical students are trained on WP editing. See reference to Acrolinx over minutes 20-22. For CE coordinators and admins, is Acrolinx sufficiently of interest to have a collaboration with them whereby we could use the software for WP copyediting and provide feedback? I have asked a similar question on the WPMED Talk page where a fellow editor pinged WP software developers; no reply yet. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In the video, the presenter mentions Acrolinx as a "non-profit", but its "About" business page and video certainly look commercial. Still, there appears to be a precedent for WP collaboration which might be extended to other WP editing management. --Zefr (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So is this basically an advanced spelling/grammar checker? There's nothing stopping any editor from using such a tool for assistance. The collaboration you have in mind would be something like running the text through Acrolinx to fix basic errors, then we fix any remaining mistakes? I could see how the company (I agree it doesn't seem like a nonprofit) could benefit from identifying what errors their product misses, but it would be on them to show that their product is good enough to actually reduce, rather than increase, the effort it takes us to copy edit an article. Tdslk (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I had the impression from the video example and from the company's website that the trick to the software actually offered prose improvement quickly and efficiently. Maybe a round-table discussion could be organized with the UC-San Francisco WP team to see how useful it actually is. The video segment discussing Acrolinx gave the impression it was useful and educational even for the advanced medical student and faculty users for WP editing. I sense it would require WP platform admins to approve/organize such an effort, if at all deemed useful. Meanwhile, it serves as interesting fyi. --Zefr (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for help!

Many thanks for keeping the drive afloat during my unscheduled four-day wikibreak; we lost heat and power in a windstorm (climate change, you know), and another storm is coming up the US east coast. Hypothermia is awful when you're old, but we're thinking good thoughts :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Stay warm! It's good to have a distributed team. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

March barnstars

The March barnstar table is ready and checked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2017/Barnstars. I will give them out soon unless someone beats me to it.

To give out stars, visit the editor's talk page, create a new section with a title like "March 2017 GOCE drive awards", and then paste in appropriate versions of the {{GOCE award}} template. Read the "Examples" section of the template's documentation to understand how to use it. If the documentation is not clear, or if you have any questions, either post here or update the documentation.

Once you have given out a barnstar, add a {{y}} template after the editor's name (for the leaderboard awards) or the participation award name (for the "Totals" table) on the Barnstars page so that we can track whose awards have been delivered. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for running the script; it gives me fits :-). All the best, Miniapolis 17:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

April blitz

It looks like a Requests blitz is in order for April 16–22. Any thoughts? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Tdslk (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Miniapolis 22:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April 2017, and Ombox updated. Proofreading of the Blitz page is welcome. I did it very quickly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

May drive

Oofah, it's time for another drive; if I had my way, the blitzes would be history :-). How about everything in the backlog up to (and including) August 2016, and the March requests? All the best, Miniapolis 17:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We need to include September 2016 as well; we handled well over 200 old articles in each of the last two drives. I count 287 old articles including September, which should be enough.

Yes to March requests. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; I didn't want to set the bar too high :-). Miniapolis 01:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

April blitz barnstars

The barnstar page is up; if someone could give 'em out (with {{GOCE award}}—it's easy), that would be great. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 20:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I should have time to do it about six or seven hours from this time stamp. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Miniapolis 01:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Done except for my own. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

June blitz ideas?

The request backlog is medium, but I don't have any great ideas for other theme ideas right now. Thoughts? Tdslk (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

We're in the same boat; the requests list is under control at the moment, but after moving hay all day my brain (not to mention my back :-)) is fried. Ideas welcome. All the best, Miniapolis 02:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

How about BLPs? They are probably one of the most important types of article on Wikipedia to hold to a high standard, so some work on the 268 articles needing copy edit out of those may be a worthy goal for the next blitz. Keira 1996 03:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

BLPs sounds like an interesting idea. Remind me on August 1, and I'll set that up for us. I'm too worn out right now to set up anything besides Requests. Let's knock that list down a bit. The June blitz is available for sign-up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to nominate Corinne after the nomination deadline

I am seeking consensus from current (and emeritus, if they wish to chime in) coordinators to allow the nomination of Corinne as a Coordinator in this month's election, four hours after the nomination deadline. See this discussion. Pinging Miniapolis, Tdslk, SMasters, Diannaa, Torchiest. I support this post-deadline nomination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No objection. It would be great to have Corinne continue! Tdslk (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong with it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay by me. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Me too. I've spoken with her off-wiki, and it was my impression that she intends to continue. Miniapolis 14:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks everyone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonesey95, for initiating this, and thank you Miniapolis, Tdslk, Torchiest, and Diannaa for your support. It is much appreciated. – Corinne (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming wikibreak

Due to an upcoming family visit, I'll be on wikibreak for a week or so (from Saturday, June 24 through Saturday, July 1) and will be unavailable to close the blitz or open the July drive (August–October 2016 backlog plus requests?). I should be back later on July 2. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 00:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy your well-earned break! Tdslk (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I will be around this weekend and can take down the blitz and set up the July drive. I will be away at the start of the drive for a few days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both. All the best, Miniapolis 12:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a reminder that two of your Coordinators will be away for a few days. Please update the daily backlog counts on the drive page at 00:00 UTC each day. That's 28 PM ET and 5 PM PT for you folks in the US. If you want to see the formatting, take a look at the May drive page. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe you mean 8 pm ET :). I'll be around. Tdslk (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Corrected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

New Coordinator topicons

Hi! I just made new topicons for the Guild of Copy Editors Coordinators, Lead Coordinators, and Coordinators Emeriti. You can see them here:

Pinging all users who fit any of these three categories: @Jonesey95, Corinne, Keira1996, Miniapolis, Tdslk, SMasters, Diannaa, and Torchiest:

Please let me know what you think of these icons.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 05:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Very nice! I have added one to my page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

... and I've done the same. Thanks, Noah! All the best, Miniapolis 14:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

As have I! Thank you Noah, these are great and much appreciated. Keira 1996 12:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the creative initiative, Noah, but the topicons I see when I click on the three links above, or even the one at the top of Diannaa's user page, are so small that I can't see what they look like or how they are different from the existing ones. Can you tell me how I can see a larger image? Also, I'm just curious what you felt needed improving in the existing topicons, which I thought looked pretty nice. Thanks. – Corinne (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you've misunderstood what to use them for, Corinne. They're supposed to be tiny, as they live at the top of the user page. See User:Diannaa for an example that displays several topicons at the top. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dianna. Since it seemed Noah had created new topicons, I wanted to compare the new ones to the existing ones, but found that impossible due to their small size. – Corinne (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

These new icons use the existing images, for example file:GOCE Coordinator Emeritus.png, but add coding so that the image is tiny and is correctly positioned at the top of the user page in the top icon row. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for explaining. Would you mind checking the formatting of the four small icons at the top of my user page? I just added the Coordinator topicon, but it looks different from the others. I didn't know what else to use. – Corinne (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks perfect on my conputer (MacBook running Mavericks, both Chrome and Safari look perfect; also looks perfect on the Chromebook running Chrome) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa, Miniapolis, and Corinne: I'm glad that you like my topicons! I didn't realize that other topicons exist for coordinators; I created these to fill what I thought was a gap. I apologize for creating redundant templates. If you could provide links to the other topicons, I would greatly appreciate that! Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, Noah, your topicons are the first for coordinators. Thanks again and all the best, Miniapolis 14:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Now I think I understand. I didn't realize that a topicon is only a small image that is normally placed at the top of a user page. The image that is in the GOCE user box and the same plain image of the GOCE coordinator "seal" are, I guess, just that – images, and not topicons. Did I get that right? I was still curious, though, to see if the image used in the topicon was the same as the larger image. – Corinne (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it is. Miniapolis 22:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Thanks for letting me know that the topicons are, in fact, the first GOCE Coordinator topicons! @Corinne: The image used in each topicon is (or at least is intended to be) the same image as the one in the corresponding userbox. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 00:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Great! We've both learned something. ^{Noah Do you mean "what the topicons are"? If you actually meant "that", then I don't fully understand your first sentence.} – Corinne (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: I have modified my previous post (additions underlined). Please let me know if this resolves the problem. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 00:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. Now it is clear to me. – Corinne (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

On Wikibreak and apologies

As you may have noticed, I've not been active for the past couple of weeks. Stuff has happened in real life (honestly, why does it always have to coincide with me being active on Wikipedia again?) so I won't be around very much for another week or so. I'm about to drop my current request as I doubt that I'll find the time to copy edit the entire article on Microsoft! I should be back and ready to help out again soon. Sorry, and thank you for all that you do! Keira 1996 12:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Have the best possible week, Keira1996, and we look forward to your return. – Corinne (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm back - thanks Corinne. I'll start having a look at things that need doing later today, after I catch up on my personal backlog. Keira 1996 03:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Odd IP copyedit requests

BlueMoonset has noticed a spike in copyedit requests by new IPs who haven't worked on the relevant pages, which may explain some of the current bloat at WP:GOCE/REQ. Under the circumstances, we probably need to limit requests to registered users only (at least until the apparent trolling stops). Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2017#A fair number of IPs are Requesting copyedits for articles they haven't worked on. All the best, Miniapolis 19:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

July barnstar page ...

... incredibly, is here. If someone could give them out over the next few days, that would be wonderful. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 23:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I had some time and thought I might try giving out the awards, and was checking through the wordcounts to make sure everything matched (i.e. making sure the totals on the drive page matched those on the barnstar page). I caught an interesting discrepancy. From David Thibault:

2. Completed Peace Agreement of Hat Yai (1989) (427)

Instead of using 427 as the wordcount, it used 1989 for a slightly higher total on the barnstars page. There was a similar discrepency with Lfstevens' totals, which corresponds with the numbers on this line:

21. Completed Siege of Rogatica (1941) (789) *O

It looks like those were the only two articles with parentheic years in the titles. It doesn't change the barnstars or anything, no big deal, but I thought I'd report it. I'll manually tidy the barnstars page (including leaderboard) and start distributing awards. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I always have terrible trouble with the script, but it's the only way we can do the math now; back in the day, when there was less drive participation and fewer articles edited, it was done manually with a calculator (not by me—I was a noob then :-)). I didn't want to wait until Jonesey95 got back on the 7th to get started. All the best, Miniapolis 13:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

My computer must be about that old, because its java won't run the scripts. I did a calculator tally of Lfstevens' list, and that's a long list! Awards are now distributed, except for my own (and Miniapolis, who swept fourth place). I'd been stressing over some reviews but got that sorted amicably and feeling much better after awarding barnstars. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, and don't worry about me; in accordance with the top of the barnstar page, Baffle gab1978 and I have enough barnstars :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Blitz and drive instruction refinement

There'd been some discussion about updating the instructions regarding removal of the {{copy edit}} tag. These changes would be to the main blitz and drive pages, and to a lesser degree the templates which generate the individual blitz and drive pages. Here is an overview of changes I'd noted from the discussions:

Change the main instructions from bullet-point lists (unordered) to numbered lists, as appropriate for step-by-step instructions.
Add a note to check the page history for recent copy-editing activity.
Remove the copy edit tag when beginning work on the article.
Record the working line before removing the copy edit tag (safety mechanism for abandoned copy edits).
Only work on one article at a time

So the revised instructions (main blitz/drive page) would be ordered as:

Sign up
- Record rollover words, if any
Find an article
- Check page history
Obtain the word count
Record – working
- Remove any extant copy edit tag
- Do not start another article until this one is completed
Copy edit
Record – completed

The template-generated instructions for individual blitzes and drives have a section for recording totals which is all one subject, and seem to work better as bulleted lists as they include more specific advice, dos and don'ts.

It might be worth adding a small note to the how-to page, something like: Note that it is permissible to remove the copy edit tag to avoid edit conflicts while actively copy editing an article as part of a GOCE blitz or drive.

Does the above sound about right? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and I'll tweak the how-to page. All the best, Miniapolis 22:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. Tdslk (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, did the main and template blitz/drive pages, and a little tidying. The instructions on the main pages are starting to look a bit wordy, but I suppose that's to be expected. Feel free to revert or further refine. I just wanted to try and head-off confusion/conflicts, especially with new copy editors. (Miniapolis, thanks for the Special:PermanentLink in your edit summary, that's a trick I'll have to use.) – Reidgreg (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I did some edits to reduce wordiness. The easiest part was deleting the duplicate copy of instructions for installing the word count script! I wonder if we can delete the fourth paragraph: "You do not need to be a member of the Guild of Copy Editors...." As far as I'm concerned, everyone who participates is a member. Tdslk (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and I agree. All the best, Miniapolis 16:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I just boldly removed the Hall of Fame and "member" paragraphs from the main drive page as well. Tdslk (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

August blitz?

Next week will be the last full week of August, so we should probably make like a seven-reindeer sled and get our blitzen on. Ideas for a theme? Tdslk (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, we need a blitz next week. BLPs were suggested for the June blitz, but I was too tired to make it happen. Last August, the theme was "biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year". I'll see if I can dig up the petscan query. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I dropped a year. It was August 2015. Here's the Petscan query for BLPs in the oldest two months of the backlog. As of today, it gives 48 articles. Does that look good to everyone? Here's the list as of today:

Title	Page ID	Size (bytes)	Last change
Abdulla Issa	52684644	46607	20170807192650
Abdullah ibn Masud	2255895	20516	20170814183825
Agha Syed Hamid Ali Shah Moosavi	51858396	6705	20170805054815
Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov	21221032	31091	20170805211511
Ana Sladetic	53089356	7255	20170731145605
Bahirji Naik	36765567	5169	20170730141456
Bethany Joy Lenz	30863510	39139	20170816162356
Bjørnar Iversen	53134692	5848	20170817010941
Carmen Miranda	50758	98648	20170816234759
Christine McVie	36647	39618	20170815114804
Daniel Johnston	299437	25034	20170815143137
Dmytro Firtash	30055277	52761	20170806201536
Eitel Brothers	36863490	30057	20170728214323
Emir Vildić	29966062	10398	20170626015409
Gauri Pathare	52970779	7745	20170611125822
George F. Close	52642196	5066	20170709060816
Gustavo Morales	53263752	8184	20170811125743
Henry Conger Pratt	28734623	36362	20170811033732
Hokky Situngkir	51737978	7220	20170803080526
Jahandar Shah	368637	8007	20170815181139
Jim Tavaré	2959927	8285	20170811083601
Julian Marcus Trono	27327039	5741	20170810110147
Kavasji Naegamvala	48682625	7286	20170802164505
Kavisekhara Dr Umar Alisha	13627965	10488	20170808112451
Ladislaus the Posthumous	161735	44771	20170811204456
Lucien Scheler	53094745	9726	20170606223216
Mark Jonathan Davis	5051879	8924	20170807072432
Mehrsa Baradaran	52089716	9876	20170809100921
Mohamed Enani	52747155	11315	20170709073052
Mohydeen Izzat Quandour	20592978	6571	20170708024052
Paul Enenche	48915954	6662	20170727114353
Peter and Rosemary Grant	584186	23825	20170815032433
Prahlad Pandey	41790375	6324	20170701144225
Ram Singh	52761965	6240	20170813171021
Ramya	4419381	22487	20170724032158
Rastko Ćirić	52068412	9375	20170806015359
Rebecca Jackson	11589576	7744	20170729181511
Richard Koch	3460773	17843	20170814234234
Robert Lyn Nelson	42751791	7831	20170807060417
Satish	47243011	19484	20170806205951
Spice 1	3104710	7893	20170814164804
Sreekandan Nair	51857090	5530	20170722192324
Tanaya Henry	33244619	10811	20170809163756
Tareque Sayeed	52908407	6029	20170806070254
Vinicius de Moraes	586138	21218	20170817004725
Wei-Heng Chen	53054842	5107	20170720080020
Wolfgang Haber	53056968	6343	20170612225406
Z. Karvalics László	51001281	6405	20170811130420

If that works for the coordinators, I'll create the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Tdslk (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Me too. Miniapolis 13:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

September drive

Guess it's that time again. How about the January–March backlog (boy, it's nice not having to include the year :-)) and the August requests? All the best, Miniapolis 16:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Tdslk (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Blitz barnstars ready

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August 2017/Barnstars; if someone would please give 'em out, that would be great. If I have time and no one beats me to it, I'll create the September drive page. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Can get to this in around 3 hours unless someone beats me to it as well. Keira 1996 04:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Done -- didn't participate in this Blitz, of course, so no need for anyone to go sorting mine. Thanks Miniapolis for sorting the table! Keira 1996 07:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator wikibreak

Just FYI to my fellow coordinators, I'm on a two-week wikibreak with zero WP access starting about 24 hours from this timestamp. I will be happy to calculate and give out the drive barnstars on October 5 or 6 if you're willing to wait that long after the drive. Thanks for all of your hard work! – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy the break and all the best, Miniapolis 23:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy your vacation. – Corinne (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Discord

Afternoon all. I've been in the WP:DISCORD server for the past week or so, and recently spoke to ferret about the possibility of having a GOCE channel (which has now been, perhaps a tad preemptively, created) -- obviously the IRC channel didn't go well, but I believe discord as a platform for off-wiki, IM-style discussion is a better one primarily due to the fact past messages remain regardless of whether or not you are online. Would the interest be there, do we think? Keira 1996 02:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

OMG, it's all I can do to manage IRC :-). Seriously, though, I'd never heard of Discord until now but if it's easier to use I'll give it a go after my RL obligations during the next couple of days. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 15:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's mostly used by gaming communities and whatnot, but it's basically IRC with voice, a cool layout, embedded pictures, and it logs old messages and those when you weren't online. What could we do to publicize its existence (if we choose to use) -- possibly mention it in the next newsletter? Not had one of those in a while. Keira 1996 15:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the #wikipedia-en-copyedit channel is still on Freenode AFAIK and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to move. As for the newsletters ... well, we coordinators have been working hard and use the ombox to publicize the drives and blitzes. Miniapolis 23:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Aye, but it is utterly dead (and I boldly removed it from the WP:IRC page a few weeks ago -- since we removed it from our pages a while back). I'll poke User:ferret to remove the channel in a few. Keira 1996 16:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Um, Keira, as someone newly returned from a wikibreak you may have overreached yourself; the Freenode IRC channel is still a hidden comment on the ombox. I don't think you should've asked Ferret to remove the channel, since you're not the lead coordinator (neither am I) :-). All the best, Miniapolis 15:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

All good, if the project ever wants one just pop in and ask. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

September drive barnstars page ...

... is here; if someone would please give them out (I don't get one), I'd really appreciate it. For me, running the script is always a harrowing experience :-). Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 19:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I can do it. Thanks for running the script! Tdslk (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Tdslk (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, double-checked the awards, gave Tdslk his leaderboard award, fixed some redlinks (awards given for October Blitz instead of September Drive), and marked awards as given on Barnstar chart. One exception: Forceradical is on Wikivacation and not re-opening his talk page until his return, which is scheduled for today, so I'll try to keep an eye on that. – Reidgreg 12:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC). Ah, forgot to double the wordcount for earning those 3 awards from blitz to drive levels. Now done. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my mess! I clearly should have paid closer attention to what I was doing. Tdslk (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, it was just minor details. You gave the right barnstars to everyone. And some editors might have appreciated the useful links for the next blitz. – Reidgreg (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Article titles ending with parenthetic numbers have again resulted in some bad totals. With, for example, SS Bratstvo (1963) (1,397), the script used 1963 as the wordcount instead of 1397. This affected four articles, slightly inflating word counts, but not so much as to change the given awards. (I've manually fixed the counts on the barnstars page.) I'd like to take a look at the script if someone could send me a link to it. Thanks. – Reidgreg 14:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC). BTW, on the May 2017 drive there were two articles with titles like this. With one, the number from the title was used for a (slightly) inaccurate word count total; with the other, there was a "(partial count)" comment and the proper word count was used. A comment like that may provide a workaround until the script can be debugged. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I had a wonderful break. Now it's time to get back to RL and dig through the piles that were waiting for me upon my return. Reidgreg, if you would like to take a look at the script, send me an e-mail message through WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

October blitz barnstars, November drive

The blitz barnstar page is here; if someone would give them out, that would be great. It's time for the November drive; how about January–March and October requests? All the best, Miniapolis 16:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a moment so I'll get on it! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Reidgreg (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC) And Jonesey gave me mine, so all done now. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

November drive page is up, and Ombox is updated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

November barnstars

The barnstars page is here; if someone would give them out, that would be great. Torchiest's script doesn't seem to like the format-number markup for total words. I use my computer's calculator to tally as I go along, and once I manually calculated the totals for the couple of editors who used fomatnum or whatever the hell it is, the script ran (except for piped links and extra parentheses). I'm going to tweak the drive instructions to make our lives a bit easier :-). Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 21:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I have an updated version of the script that I will try out if I have time today. It might be more tolerant of extra text. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. When you're confident of it, please email it to the coordinators (it may have to be sent as a .txt file, since Gmail apparently won't send .vbs scripts as attachments). All the best, Miniapolis 23:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have given out all of the barnstars except my own. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Reidgreg (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

December blitz

It is time to think about the December blitz. We should get it started soon so that it does not overlap with Christmas / New Year's Eve. (showing my Western bias...) – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Any ideas? If not, I'll set up a Requests blitz for next week. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

December newsletter

No ideas for a theme, but I'll take a look at some old newsletters and see if I can put something together. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC). So there hasn't been a newsletter since February. Should we have a December newsletter, an end-of-year report, or both? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's work on an end-of-year report that covers the last two years, with the goal of getting it out in January. We didn't do an annual report that covered 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just about finished a March–December newsletter. I feel bad that I didn't notice their absence, but any tasks like this that nobody else wants to do, give them to me. If I can finish this tonight (and give you coordinators time to check it) it can serve as advertising for the blitz and election, and then can do more stats in the annual (biennial?) report. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I saved it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/December 2017. It's a little repetitive but I think it's all there. Could use a "message from the coordinators" or maybe a statement about the super-low backlog, etc. Whew. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I merged some of the information BlueMoonset found that I'd missed. While I've got a lot of the blitz and drive info in front of me, I'm going to get a start on the 2016 and 2017 annual reports. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Great job on the newsletter, Reidgreg. Thanks very much and all the best, Miniapolis 16:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I second that, Reidgreg. – Corinne (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thirded. Tdslk (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Has this been sent? I assumed one of our admin-coordinators would send it (I don't mind going to mass mailing requests but that might have a delay). – Reidgreg (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I will take a look at it today. I have the ability to send it, but I wanted to at least read it first. It's a busy time for me IRL. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Done and sent. Thanks for putting this together. I know it was a lot of work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And... I just saw a copy-editing error in it. Sigh. Such is life. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Was it this sentence: By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles.? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

2016 Annual Report

I've put up a very rough version for a Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2016 Annual Report. It's messy, there's probably too much data, etc. (some tables are presented two ways or have data from 2017 since I was working on both reports). It's mostly about drives, blitzes, and requests, and could use some behind-the-scenes information from those in the know and some kind of a closing statement. I suspect Jonesey may have additional data as well. I left some boxes with what the previous report had where I wasn't sure what to do.

No rush at this point, so give it a think when you have time. You can throw anything for 2017's report at me as well. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. It looks good, but perhaps we should make our lives easier and make it a combined 2016–17 report (which it is de facto, anyway :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 19:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I've become inclined toward separate reports so it's a little easier to see year-by-year progress, between these and past reports for anyone who wants to compare. I'll most likely get rid of the extra charts and trim the tables, and other tidying. One metric I didn't have was the population of Category:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors members from the end of 2016, so I used figures from the membership page instead. I guess what I'm most concerned about is representing the Coordinators of that period and having some of their impressions of that year. (Also need a look-back at 2017 and forward to 2018 for the next report). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Election page (unused) deletion notice

I've just nominated an unused election page for speedy deletion. I'd created this using the old convention for December elections of "XXXX"; i.e. "2017", which I didn't know would change; rather than the new convention; "XXXX/1". Therefore the 2017 page was never used, and I'm requesting its deletion as an unwanted page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)