Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Archives/2019

Strike one

Thread moved to REQ talk by me because it's about a specific c/e request; permalink. Baffle gab1978 01:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Awards for submitters

I noticed that three editors have or are about to reach 100 ce requests successfully submitted through the Guild. I was thinking of marking the milestone by sending them Teamwork barnstars with something like this:

For [username] in recognition of collaborations with other editors to improve and promote articles. Specifically, for working with the Guild of Copy Editors and patiently bringing 100 Requests for copy edit. It has been a pleasure working with you over the years and we hope to continue to work together to improve the encyclopedia.

Does that sound alright? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice idea! All the best, Miniapolis 01:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. There are some (somewhat outdated-looking, IMO; no offense if you are the venerable editor who created them!) barnstar examples at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Barnstars. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I used some of the phrasing from the page Jonesey linked, and gave Teamwork Barnstars to:

• Another Believer – 133 requests as of 1 Jan 2018.
• BabbaQ – 100 requests reached on 25 Jan 2018.

A third editor is a few shy of the 100-mark. I'll update here if it doesn't archive first. The next-most are in the 70s. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Awarded a two more for editors who hit the 100-mark last year:

• Aoba47 – 100 requests reached on 27 August 2018
• NeoBatfreak – 100 requests reached in December 2018

That should be it for a while. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 report

I made some big updates to the report (EditWorker is on the last request but otherwise the data is all there). Link here. While I was at it I sent Teamwork Barnstars to Aoba47 and NeoBatfreak who passed 100 submitted requests.

The subject of an article I've been working on pled guilty in court this morning, so I've got to quickly update it and try and get the article on In the News. So I now leave the report for you folks for final polish and maybe a concluding note. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work adding the final stats and comments, Reidgreg; it's looking good now. I'll give it a look-over but if all other coordinators are happy, it's now up to the new boss to add final comments and approve for sending. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks great; thank you both. I think it's ready to send once we date the top. All the best, Miniapolis 02:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

We're just sending a link, right? I think the report may be too long to send :-). All the best, Miniapolis 02:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed; I've made a topsheet here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 03:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

One step ahead of me as usual; thanks, Baffle. I've dated the report and removed the tag; unless someone wants to add or change something, I'll send the topsheet in the next day or so (unless someone else wants to). Let me know if anyone else can use the mass-message flag. All the best, Miniapolis 16:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Great closing message, Miniapolis! It needed a personal message like that after all those stats. I tidied a little bit (and fixed a bad parser call I'd neglected). The only thing that's problematic on my browser is the layout of the 'monthly breakdown' section of Requests. I think the graph is too big for the column it's set within. I'm not sure of a fix for that. @Baffle gab1978: I tweaked the topsheet a bit to get the image inside the box, but it lost its centre alignment. Feel free to revert. (P.S.: I should be able to send the mass message.) – Reidgreg (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both; @Reidgreg:, I'll have a last look at the topsheet; we could always use the deprecated HTML tag <center>...</center>. I should add that I didn't see the image because I work mostly with images off! D'oh! Re. 'monthly breakdown'; would resizing the graph fix the problem? It displays fine in my browser , SeaMonkey and Firefox, I'll take a look in Midori too. I like the annual leaderboard, nice work. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 17:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Me, too! I probably wouldn't have noticed except that I wanted to verify that the image was freely licensed (it's a big no-no to post a fair-use image to hundreds of talk pages). I'll test it on my own talk page before sending; I'm a little concerned that the 'absolute' position might refer to the page rather than the box, but it seems to have worked when that was sent in previous years. The monthly breakdown table has a column break for me, and with three columns the chart then gets pushed off the screen (particularly the chart legend). I did the annual leaderboard at the suggestion of PopularOutcast; it tends to emphasize blitzes and drives, where there was more data (wordcounts), but with the data side-by-side you can get an idea of how much additional work is being done for the Requests. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(←) I've tweaked the colwidth to 20em 30em and adjusted the height and width of the graph. The monthly breakdown table was breaking for me too in Midori, but not the others; it looks better now but the graph is set right against the table now and imo looks better, with no horizontal scrolling. Feel free to tweak it to see what works best for you. What browser are you using? If it's a mainstream browser, we should make sure it looks good, but I don't see the point in worrying about Midori and the many other minor browsers. Baffle gab1978 19:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I've used the deprecated HTML tag <center>...</center> to center the topsheet table; this works nicely without shifting the image outside the box. Feel free to revert is it's thought to be a bad idea... Cheers, Baffle gab1978 19:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Finally, I seem to have centred the topsheet without HTML... please check it works for you, @Reidgreg:. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 19:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Both look good in Chrome and Safari. Will send the top sheet shortly. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sent, no errors reported, and I received mine. Phew, glad that's done. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report

I just wanted to leave a quick note to thank the contributors to the GOCE annual report for producing a meaningful and interesting report. We really do accomplish an awful lot! Thanks to each of you for the work you do keeping everything purring along smoothly. Cheers. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Trouble with the script

I can't get past Twofingered Typist, and am stumped. Any help appreciated and all the best, Miniapolis 23:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Miniapolis, there had been a blank line in PopularOutcast's list between the 10th and 11th entries, which set the count back to 1 from 10. That may have been why the script choked. I've eliminated the blank line; give it a try and let me know whether it worked or not. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, BlueMoonset, but I can't even get that far; TT is the one before, and I've tried everything I can think of (including moving all those *O and *Rs to the end of each line by hand :-)). Pinging Jonesey95 and Reidgreg. All the best, Miniapolis 00:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Miniapolis, I just noticed that the word count for WYCI near the bottom of TT's list had an extra open paren before it, which might cause a problem. It had been "((250)" before I edited it; of course, the misplaced "*O" could be a contributing factor, but the extra paren looked out of place, and would likely cause a parsing problem in some scripts where only a single paren on each side is expected. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a million, BlueMoonset; I finally noticed it about the same time you did :-). I'm slowly learning what makes the script hang and what doesn't make a difference. The barnstar page is here, with a link to {{GOCE award}} (Jonesey's handy-dandy, all-purpose barnstar-leaderboard awards page); if someone wouldn't mind giving 'em out at their convenience (I'll tick Baffle and me, since we don't get them), that would be wonderful. All the best, Miniapolis 02:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

And thanks too to Baffle gab1978 and Reidgreg for spot-checking. All the best, Miniapolis 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I compared the totals against the drive page and double-checked where there were discrepancies (the barnstar page was correct in each case). Will start giving out barnstars now. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Done (except for mine). – Reidgreg (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

February blitz

I'm guessing that the February blitz will be running February 17 through 23, since that's the only full week left in the pitifully short month of February. It looks like the page is already mostly set up, except what the goals are; once we have that, the Ombox can be modified to announce that the blitz is imminent. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The page is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2019. I put in the dates. Good call on the dates; February is always a short month, for some reason. As for a theme, how about Requests and Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from September 2018. That doesn't give us any easy articles, but both of those groups of articles need work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke, BlueMoonset and thanks, Jonesey for setting up the page. Requests and the September backlog sound fine. All the best, Miniapolis 23:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The remaining eight articles in that month might be a bit thin, and iirc they were all vetted for the Jan drive. October? At this rate we'll be out of backlog! :D If we want a theme, I noticed last month there are lots of India-related based articles in the backlog. Cheers. Baffle gab1978 00:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that Requests are challenging enough that there are enough for a one-week blitz. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Jonesey, although I'll be pleasantly surprised if we can clear the September backlog; the last few articles in any month are generally difficult. In my experience India-related articles can be time-consuming, and may not be the best choice for a blitz. YMMV, though :-). All the best, Miniapolis 14:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that India-related articles may be unsuitable for inexperienced copy-editors; some are fine but some can be difficult to interpret correctly and, yes, time-consuming. I'll accept whatever theme or months are decided upon; requests could always use some help and I can start vetting October at the weekend. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 05:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle. I undid my addition of the October backlog to the blitz page, though, because the request page needs work. All the best, Miniapolis 14:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(←) The barnstar page is up; if someone could give 'em out, that would be great (there's a link to {{GOCE award}} for copypasta). The March drive is open for business; thanks to Jonesey95 for creating the page and Reidgreg for a tweak. All the best, Miniapolis 18:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

For the code-savvy: I did a tweak to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/BlitzIntro and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Intro to determine the month-year for the link to the previous blitz/drive barnstar page for rollover words (in the edit notice when creating an article list for a blitz/drive). I think it's right, but checks are welcome. (This should also give the right link if the blitz is created during the previous drive month.) – Reidgreg (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Gorgeous. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ barnstar page checked and awards given except for mine. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

March NL

Hi all; although we've just released the Annual Report, I've set up a March newsletter page here using the March 2015 nl as a template. I'll add in Jan drive in the next few days and Feb blitz data as it becomes available. Feel free to add or adjust anything you wish to the draft. Quarterly feels like a good nl schedule to me; frequent enough to be relevant and distant enough from the Annual Report not to feel 'spammy'. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 04:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle, and I agree that three times a year (plus the annual report) is frequent enough. All the best, Miniapolis 14:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I like quarterly. I think it's good to have editions to announce the election process in early June and December, and having six months is a bit long so two more to make it quarterly. (It was late January before we finished the latest report, which left a decent period from the early December newsletter.)

BTW, out of curiosity, I took a random sample of 15 editors from the mailing list (about 2.5% of 575 names) and checked their contributions/activity. Of these, there were:

• 4 active users
• 4 semi-active (<40 edits in 2018)
• 4 inactive for 1 year
• 1 inactive for 2 years (listed as retired)
• 2 inactive for 3+ years

I'm not sure that we should concern ourselves with this; you never know when an editor is going to become active again. They may even have email notifications on and a newsletter could give them a little reminder blip that could draw them back into editing. If it is a concern, we could send out a resubscribe notice for editors to opt-in to a new mailing list. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That is a good point Reidgreg, I've seen many user talk pages filled with nothing but years-old notifications and newsletters, including ours. It might b a plan to go through the mailing list and remove accounts that have been inactive for (say) three years or longer. A note on the March newsletter might encourage more participation but I wouldn't bet the farm on it! What do the other coordinators think? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 18:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Distribution of newsletters to inactive editors is a Wikipedia-wide occurrence. If it becomes a problem, a group of editors/admins will embark on a project to do something about it. Until that happens, I would rather continue to distribute newsletters to inactive editors who have opted in at some point, in order to respect their past choices and to give them the reminder to come play with us in the event that they return to editing. (Also, you never know how many lurkers there are who hang on our every word but no longer edit WP.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jonesey, and we have enough to do as it is :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If there's no guideline on this then it probably isn't a problem. Considering that we don't have the authority to take editors off the membership list, we probably shouldn't remove editors from the mailing list either. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No problems, and thanks all for your comments. I didn't relish the thought of checking up on 500-or-so editors; I'd rather be copy-editing articles! :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 05:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(←) I've updated the NL with February stats and a progress report line. I've also added a reminder of the June election, which can be removed if it's unsuitable or makes the NL too long. Subject to checking, I think it's ready for dispatch. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Checked and sent; thanks very much, Baffle. If any coordinators who don't have the mass-message-sender flag (think only Jonesey and I have it) can use it, please let me know. All the best, Miniapolis 02:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries; I'll pass on the flag for now. Thanks for sending the NL. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March Drive

I just wanted to let you know that the March drive sign up page is accessible from the link embedded in the February Blitz section (above).

It is not available at the Drive tab when you select Current or Next Drive. The last Drive is the only one showing. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'll be extra careful with brackets etc... so I don't screw things up again as I did in the last Drive!  :-)

Fixed, thanks. We probably could use a little bit of code there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey, for fixing Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/tabs. FWIW, I found the March drive through the ombox link. God is in the details, and there are plenty here :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding code to automate the current or next blitz/drive tab links, I've been ruminating on it for a while. The simple/easy thing, code-wise, would be for it to point to the next drive/blitz as soon as the current drive/blitz month ends. (ie: on Feb 1 [and until April 1] the drive link points to the March drive.) I may be overthinking it, but there may be a couple issues:

1. Often this is going to create redlinks, as the new page won't be set up (nor should it be). This may require some polite replies to new copy editors 'helpfully' pointing out the red links to us. Or if the pages are set up well ahead of time, some may jump the gun and start working on the drive before it officially begins. (On the other hand, the redlinks could be useful, as editors can watchlist them for a reminder of when the drive/blitz is getting ready to start.)
2. We still have to revisit the drive page a bit for the first few days of the blitz month – for late additions, tidying and whatnot – and might be considering that to be the "current" drive even when it's over. So there's a period of a few days there where a link to the last drive is more useful than a link to the next one.

So, I'm just not sure that this would save us trouble from updating it manually. Thoughts? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm with you, Reidgreg. The status quo isn't tidy, but IMO the alternatives would be worse. All the best, Miniapolis 02:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think in this instance, automation isn't the best idea and changing the links manually isn't much work. If the Guild is ever abandoned like the LOCE was, leaving the last drive/blitz linked would probably be best practice, whereas script may need to be deactivated in that event, or if we or future coords decided to stop running drives or blitzes, and links manually fixed if one event is skipped. How would this work anyway – would the script invoke an existing bot or would it be specific to the task? Would such a script be considered a bot, like the talk page archiving bots? Bots need approval from the Bot Approval Group. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I was imagining something like the code at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Intro, but I hadn't thought it all the way through yet. It's very easy to do manually as long as one of us remembers to run through the monthly task list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It was a good idea for a little coding, but the edit intros are pointing backwards (for rollover words). We can pretty much count on the previous drive/blitz existing but can't say the same for the next one. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(←) The barnstar table is (finally) here; if someone would give them out, that would be great. Reidgreg, it was pilot error on my part and not you; somehow I ended up with two input files, in different directories (don't ask, but FWIW the script doesn't seem to like piped links). Thank you and Baffle for checking articles, and BlueMoonset for helping with the progress chart. All the best, Miniapolis 14:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I verified the barnstar page and updated the leaderboards for 5k counts. However, some of the copy edits at the bottom of the page marked as "completed" had failed review. I think we should discount Mike Gapes by Themajesticcow, and some or all of the copy edits by DaedalusGodOfWisdom (a new editor with 18 mainspace edits). I'll hold on those and start giving out the rest of the barnstars in a bit (after a bite). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Reidgreg; I adjusted Themajesticcow's total, so they get a minor instead of a modest. You're right about DaedalusGodOfWisdom, and I'll leave notes on their talk pages. All the best, Miniapolis 19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

All barnstars distributed, except my own. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Miniapolis 22:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on the reviews; I was concerned so I checked further. It's hardly even-handed but I usually check editors whose user names I don't recognise first—established copy-editors can usually be trusted to do a good job. Perhaps we should write a guide to reviewing... Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, Baffle, but I'm wary of instruction creep and we already have WP:CE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to. All the best, Miniapolis 13:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

June NL and April blitz

Hi, I've created the April Blitz and the June newsletter pages, both of which can be updated / completed as needed. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for both. I was thinking about the week of April 14–20, which butts up against Easter and Passover this year. Although requests are an easy fallback, is there a way to see if many articles in a particular category are tagged (pinging Jonesey95, who I'm pretty sure has done this)? That, IMO, is more fun – and appropriate for a blitz – than requests. All the best, Miniapolis 13:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the theme lists have been generated by combining "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit" and the theme category in a PetScan search, then manually weeding out the false positives. For example, here are the raw results for sports. Tdslk (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tdslk; I didn't know that PetScan had replaced CatScan :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I updated the newsletter draft to reflect the fact that the next drive is in May, not June, but maybe that paragraph should be completely recast to be a report on what will be a just-completed drive? Also, would the June newsletter be the place to announce the (upcoming) June blitz, as well as the GOCE coordinator voting? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, BlueMoonset. Thank you, that's what you get for typing drafts of newsletters at 5am! :D There's plenty of time to fix things, but it's good to get it done early nonetheless. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Some suggestions are below. The category depth is sometimes tweaked to get reasonable results. Sometimes articles only seem obliquely tied to a parent or grandparent (or great-grandparent) category, which can make the list look a little jumbled, but which can also provide a little variety for editors. And they all need copy-editing in any case.

• Sports (currently 74 articles), as suggested by Tdslk above.
• Entertainment (currently 57 articles)
• Living people (currently 156 articles)
• India (currently 67 articles)
• Women (currently 59 articles)
• Religion (currently 48 articles)
• Geography, roughly (currently 55 articles)

We have sometimes gone with a combination of topics. If we are not doing requests, we probably need 80 to 100 articles on the starting list. If we are doing Requests and a topic, we probably need a minimum of 40 or so articles in addition to the Requests in order to make it through a week. We have 32 requests right now, which is probably not quite enough for a blitz, given our current level of enthusiasm (high!). See the August 2017 blitz page history for one way to set up a topic-focused blitz. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Jonesey95. Since baseball season is just starting and the Buffalo Sabres' season is (mercifully) ending, I wouldn't mind going with sports; it's not quite 80 articles, but it may be enough. Thoughts? All the best, Miniapolis 13:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sports would be fine with me; how about Entertainment as a backup? I'll have a look through both cats tonight. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Before, I thought we could do the 75 most-viewed articles, but looking at your ideas, I think that sports and entertainment would be great. (Living people is huge! ) – Ben79487 19:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added the lists to the blitz page (thanks, Jonesey95), but for some reason I couldn't tuck them under the instructions and had to add them after the template. I don't know (yet) how to make the blitz page editable as a page rather than a template. All the best, Miniapolis 22:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I've got your back, but I'm pretty tired, so I might not have put the article list in the right place. The fix was to put "subst:" in front of the template name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody! This is a pretty good collection of articles to work with, with 118 articles. This drive doesn't need the copyedit progress box, right? (What I mean is {{Progress box|Wikipedia articles needing copy edit|Wikipedia articles needing copy edit|All articles needing copy edit|state=expanded}}.) – Ben79487 05:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

No, blitzes do not get the progress box. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! – Ben79487 03:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: the progress box, I think the numbered article lists give us enough info for later on (newsletters, etc). I'm not against it, but it presumes someone wants to update it each day at 0:00 UTC, given that they'd have to manually count them or use a search algorithm to discount the completed ones from the lists. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(←) I've been doing most of the progress-box updating for the drives (since midnight UTC is early evening where I live), and have no intention of doing it for blitzes too :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the unintended snark above; I confused the progress box with the graphs and didn't want to start doing graphs (and leaderboards) for blitzes. The barnstar page is here, with a link to Jonesey's all-in-one barnstar tag; if someone would give 'em out, that would be great. I'll add the numbers to the June NL page. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 16:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That link went to the April blitz page, I think you meant to link to here. I can give the barnstars out later this evening if no one beats me to it. Tdslk (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Tdslk, and for giving out the barnstars (I'll do yours). All the best, Miniapolis 00:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Tdslk (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(←) I think the June NL is about ready, subject to checking and corrections. I've adjusted the March requests downwards, taking the number of entries marked *R in the Drive page, as I've done for June. Feel free to correct/revert if that's the wrong measure. Its just awaiting the June Blitz dates now. It's kinda long; do we need a topsheet? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle; it can go out after we set up the June blitz, and I don't think its length requires a topsheet. All the best, Miniapolis 14:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks great to me. I added a couple of tweaks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

May drive

It's that time again :-). How about the November and December backlogs and April requests? All the best, Miniapolis 15:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks about right! Tdslk (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We may be able to add January 2019 toward the end of the month, but let's concentrate on finishing 2018 first. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep sounds good, I was about to amend the page but it's already been done, so thanks to whoever it was! :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We'll probably have added January by then, but I'll be on wikibreak from midday Friday to midday Tuesday. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 13:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The barnstar page is up; if someone would give 'em out, that would be great (a link to the one-stop {{GOCE award}} tag is above the leaderboard). Although A21sauce claimed 26 completed articles, only 21 had word counts. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 16:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll do it! Tdslk (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Except mine. Tdslk (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all! Another whizbanger of a drive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

June blitz

Guess it's time, and the third week of the month (June 16–22) works well before the July drive. Any suggestions for topics? All the best, Miniapolis 20:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, PetScan seems to be down again (502 bad gateway). Tdslk or Jonesey95, maybe you'll have better luck . Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 15:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It's working for me. Perhaps it was just a temporary outage? Tdslk (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the third week would be good for the blitz. I don't have any fresh ideas for blitz themes. It looks like our Requests backlog is moderate. Among tagged articles, there's the usual diversity. There are enough from any sufficiently broad category that we could declare a theme: pop culture, geography, politics, etc. Plenty of South Asia-related articles. Tdslk (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Inspired by the onset of summer here, what if we made the theme nature/the environment (plus the Requests backlog)? Looking at the tagged articles, I think we could pull out fifty or so articles that are broadly related to nature. (It would have to be manual, though, Category:Nature is, unsurprisingly, a very high-level category that overlaps with about 250 articles on the copy edit backlog, most of which don't have a clear relationship to the topic.) Tdslk (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tdslk, environmental topics sound good; there should be a good range of articles and it's a subject that's always in the news so topical too. Sorry for my recent lack of participation; RL has been a bit busier this month. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both for your responses. I was thinking of a seasonal theme too, and will see if I can get PetScan to work . All the best, Miniapolis 13:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll pop it into the newsletter and then it can go out, otherwise it'll be outdated! :D Baffle☿gab 16:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

(←) Thanks, Baffle. Nature will be the theme. I have a long list (similar to Tdslk's, I'm sure) in my sandbox, which I'll prune to 70–80 articles before creating the blitz page in a day or so. Then we can send the newsletter with the blitz bluelinked. All the best, Miniapolis 01:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added it as "nature and the environment", and all requests; May might be finished or almost finished by then. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The barnstar page is up; if someone wouldn't mind giving 'em out, that would be great. Time to start thinking about the July drive, I guess. Howzabout the January–March backlog and the May requests, or the January–February backlog and all requests? (FWIW, I prefer the latter.) All the best, Miniapolis 18:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think the latter would be good, REQ could use some more attention atm. I'm back in mainspace but less active at this time of year, especially when the sun is shining. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed for the latter, we can always open up March if Jan–Feb get finished. Blitz numbers check out, awards distributed (except my own). – Reidgreg (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Great; thanks, Reidgreg. Glad you're back in mainspace, Baffle. I'm busy IRL tomorrow (working a primary election), but will create the drive page Wednesday unless someone beats me to it. All the best, Miniapolis 01:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Set up drive page, updated ombox and tabs, and tested the auto-generated links to the rollover words from the previous drive. I think that's everything, but if you spot something I missed please jump in and fix it. (I left Jonesey off the contact list and presumed to list myself as lead.) – Reidgreg (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

July Drive

Is it time to add March 2019 article and July copy edit requests to the July drive? Still a few days to go until it's over. Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's wait for the last three from February to be taken before adding March as an old month. Requests always count for the 50% bonus so no need to specifically add July Requests to the targets. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Makes sense. I only mention July Requests because the drive instructions read "...to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page dating from May and June 2019." Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

As per the drive talk page, the last Feb article has been claimed and is undergoing copy edit, so I opened up March. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

July barnstar table

... is here, with links to the award templates. All the best, Miniapolis 20:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Thanks! Numbers checked out; the script does a better job of adding than our editors do. Made one small tweak for a partial wordcount and updated the leaderboard with final numbers. Awards distributed (except mine). – Reidgreg (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot to double-check the rollover words from May; fixed two totals and upgraded Csgir's barnstar. Should be good now. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

August blitz

Since the blitz didn't start on August 11, I'm guessing that it'll be set for August 18. (If we wait until August 25, the blitz would end at 23:59 on August 31, and the September drive start two minutes later at 00:01 September 1, probably not the best timing.) No ideas as to topics, and there are 29 Requests as yet unreviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, BluMoonset; I'll create the page later unless I'm beaten to it... Requests and general backlog sounds good to me. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 17:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I put it in for Requests and March backlog. We had a huge turnout in July, let's hope that continues. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I updated the blitz page to indicate that the blitz had begun and filled out the starting totals (they were the same 20 minutes before midnight UTC and about 90 minutes after, so I'm confident that they're right); I also updated the Ombox, though someone may want to refine the wording a bit. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Two of our new copy editors made substantial copy edits to backlog articles which were tagged in August rather than March. Anyone mind giving them full credit for their first blitz? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Tdslk (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Easy mistake to make. No worries. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, all awards distributed (except my own). – Reidgreg (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

September NL

Hi all, I've started the September newsletter, which can be updated and added to at our leisure. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I've completed the September newsletter (not before time!) and it's now ready for review. I've have added text about the bot archiving at the Requests page; feel free to amend and/or remove as necessary. It's a bit longer than normal; do you think we need a cover sheet? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle. Great job, and I don't think it's long enough to need a topsheet. Let me or Jonesey95 know when you want it sent. All the best, Miniapolis 15:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, your friendly neighborhood coordinator-on-sabbatical (thanks for taking me up on my offer to not serve this term; it was the right choice). I tidied the newsletter just a bit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both; I'll check it over tonight and then it can go out. Sorry it's a bit delayed; RL and all that, plus we've had some great autumn weather here. :) Thanks for the tweaks, Jonesey; your break is well-deserved but feel free to coordinate anay time. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I made some additional edits for conciseness and added a few more links about the bot. Will watch here for your final check. (I also have mass message rights.) – Reidgreg (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I've checked it over, made a minor tweak (joined two sentences with a semi-colon)... I think it's good to go now; thanks for the links Reidgreg. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sent. Good timing, BTW, to spread the word about the bot. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this together! Tdslk (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Greetings from MILHIST!

Hello, all! I'm here to inquire about the possibility of coordinating a milhist drive in the spring with with the Guild of Copyeditors. The proposal is located here, if you'd like more information. Note that at this time nothing is set in stone, I'm merely attempting to get a feel for how much interest there would be for a spring drive and if there is enough to move forward where should the effort be concentrated since as we all know getting people to work on drive related events is difficult at best :) Drop me a line if you have any questions, and if there is interested from this project's members in a cross project drive we'll keep you informed of the developments (if any) at MILHIST. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @TomStar81:, I like the idea; let's see what the other coordinators think. :) Please let us know if you start a centralised discussion. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great to me too; I enjoy copyediting MILHIST articles. All the best, Miniapolis 12:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Our backlog is short enough that it's become problematic – articles tagged for multiple issues that have to be dealt with before a copy edit – so it might be good to set the backlog aside for a month. I checked the last three years and we generally get 20+ copy editors in March who complete 250+ copy edits. My main concern is having a range of assessment/quality levels. Not all of those copy edits are going to be at GA and FA standards, and I wouldn't want a situation where a Milhist editor feels a new copy editor is making non-constructive edits to their high-quality article. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely support this idea! Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the GOCE asked MILHIST to keep them in the loop concerning the proposed March Madness 2020 drive I wanted to let the GOCE know that we've cleared our September Coordinator election. As you know, it usually takes a few days for everyone elected to the position of Coordinator for any project to settle in, but if there is still interest in our project for the proposed drive I'll start putting a formal proposal together. At the moment WikiProject Women in Red is uncertain as to whether or not they will join in our proposed drive, and I have heard nothing back from WikiProject Biography, so if we do press forward I would fine tune this somewhat to focus more on quality content and prose related issues within our articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, TomStar81; I still want to help. All the best, Miniapolis 13:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

September drive

September drive set for March, April, May backlog and August Requests. Anyone mind if I change {{GAN changes}} to display dmy dates (in the progress table), for consistency with the rest of the page? I checked a few from the archives and it seems like we almost always use dmy dates. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Consistency is generally the best choice. Go for it. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The barnstar table and leaderboard are up, with thanks to Baffle for creating the page. All the best, Miniapolis 14:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll double check the figures in a bit. Checked, distributing awards. all awards distributed (except my own). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Why universities are hiring “Wikipedeans-in-Residence”

I thought you might find this article interesting.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

https://www.macleans.ca/education/why-universities-are-hiring-wikipedeans-in-residence/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR17q2T7sXtV6wqa86xdWzQW_ASgnWNU7xb2t1Cw0F9bjNEyBiMpUP3XgNU#Echobox=1570117058

Good article, TT, and thanks for the link; when I lived in New York City as a teenage Canadophile, I subscribed to Maclean's . All the best, Miniapolis 13:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

One of Jacobs’s students managed to successfully sneak incorrect facts past a moderator by sourcing a made-up scholarly article, which gave the student’s edits the illusion of accuracy.

And yet despite the above, the article casts Wikipedians as sinister for being cautious regarding student edits. Very good, Maclean's, publish ways for vandals to sabotage the project. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Added article to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah; WP:BEANS. Maybe there's no such thing as bad publicity? Miniapolis 22:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) (who obviously doesn't monitor WP:AIV)

China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits

I guess we should not be surprised at this development.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"But it may now be confronted by another force: the growing online power of states [in this case China] whose geopolitical struggles to define the truth now extend onto places like Wikipedia that have grown too large, too important, for them to ignore."

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49921173?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=social&fbclid=IwAR3N5QJyDzYfVd3Uq8CJC_TDlUuXcKMnqJ7goPsUEQpCyUzQkSVwHR_0YT8

October blitz

Would we be good for a blitz 13–19 October? It's square in the middle of the month, though various North American holidays coincide on the Monday (Columbus Day, American Indigenous People's Day, Canadian Thanksgiving). If there are no ideas for themes, we can do Requests and the remaining April backlog. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with those dates; suggesting Category:Science and technology and Requests off the top of my head and I'll try and check that in CatScan or whatever it's called these days! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I found eight articles needing c/e under 'Science and technology' but 22 under Category:Technology and 17 under Category:Science=39. Looking randomly, they need triaging for suitability, so this will be reduced. Other themes may be more suitable for blitzing. Baffle☿gab 19:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

After triage, "Science" is down to 11 articles. Baffle☿gab 20:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Dates are good by me and thanks for looking for a theme, Baffle; I have terrible trouble with PetScan or whatever it is now :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I set up the blitz page (October 2019 blitz). I think it's safe to advertise it for sign-up before the article list is finalized. @Baffle gab1978: can you please add the article list to the collapse box? Will that be enough articles for the newer editors to work on, or should we find additional themes? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think another theme would be a good thing; is Category:Transportation okay? I'll have another look tonight,see what's there to be c/e'd. Baffle☿gab 22:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(←) Sounds good, Baffle, and thanks. All the best, Miniapolis 22:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No probs; there's 26 articles for c/e in Transport, though probably fewer after triage. All three topics plus requests should be be enough for a week. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I found eleven at level 3 after triage (level 4 threw up some irrelevant results), so we have a grand total of 37 themed articles. Oh well... I've populated the article list. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

There was only one incomplete copy edit, so I finished it and distributed the awards (except mine). Thanks all for another successful blitz! – Reidgreg (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hurrah! And REQ is now at 19 requests, the lowest in a while. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

November drive

It's that time again . How about the April–June backlogs and October requests? All the best, Miniapolis 02:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like that makes the most sense. April through June is still fewer than 200. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup, sounds fine to me. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Also agree. Tdslk (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree, and thanks for setting up the drive page, Baffle. BTW, the requests archival bot finished its second trial, so we can manually archive again. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, and noted about the bot. I'm happy with its performance and I'm glad the edit summaries were improved, though it is yet to cope with some of the odd things humans do on REQ... Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article copyedits

As many of you may know, several months ago Gog the Mild had himself volunteered to "triage" the scheduled TFAs for prose quality, perform cleanup and sent them to WP:GOCER as needed. Gog was elected a coordinator at WP:MILHIST in September (congrats again!) and I thought to try to relieve him of this duty for the November TFA schedule.

I ended up doing a full copy edit on most of the month's articles (I'm just not used to doing a light skim when looking for mistakes), and Gog picked up a few as well. Most were of the expected high quality, with scrutiny turning up just a couple passages to rewrite (as well as MOS fixes). Maybe one in ten had larger problems with the tone of the writing, where the prose was a little too wordy and clever instead of concise encyclopedic summary style. I've listed four of these articles at requests; they're scheduled for TFA in mid- and late November.

I'm not entirely sure about continuing this process in the future; I won't be able to give it as much time as I did this month. Most of the articles were in reasonably good shape, so putting a lot of effort into fixing a single grammatical mistake that most readers would skip over may not be a great use of time. I think I may go with a triage practice that Gog developed to focus on those in most need of attention. In any case, there's probably 3+ weeks before the December TFAs are scheduled, so some time to think about it. I would greatly welcome any thoughts about this. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You may, or may not, find it helpful to look at the "working page". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

With deference to the Coordinators, who make the rules, it might be worth discussing whether it's OK to have one editor with four open requests on the page when the stated limit is two. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and they're also drive-by requests by someone who is not a major contributor to those articles. I wouldn't be a tyrant if I couldn't ignore all rules (IAR). – Reidgreg (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am sure that I ignored a few rules when I was a Coordinator too, so I don't have a problem with it, just to be clear. Rule on, benevolent tyrant(s)! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

With respect to taking on a load like this, I can tell you that I copy-edited The Signpost regularly for a period of six or eight months when it was published more frequently, and it became a burden for me. Even though FAs are usually a joy to copy-edit because of their high quality and interesting material, they tend to be long, and taking on a pile of them every month could lead to burnout for a single editor. You might need helpers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. I could do some, but not all of them. If there were a place where these were listed and we could volunteer as able that would be cool. In terms of the Requests page, I wouldn't object to a rule that, because they will be featured prominently, as many future TFAs can be added to the page as need our help. As it stands, though, editors not familiar with the situation might get upset when we limit how many articles they get but it looks like another editor gets unlimited requests. Perhaps if we put the TFAs in a separate category? Tdslk (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Just dropping a comment here that we should also consider bot archiving if we decide to use the Requests page. TFA is already a bot-recognized acronym, so that's good. I imagine we could have a subsection on the page with a header of "Future TFAs" or something, possibly with a description or disclaimer as well. I think @Zhuyifei1999 could totally program the bot to avoid archiving the header as well. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(←) Drive-by comment; I think the Guild has enough to do without looking for work. It's the task of TFA nominators to ensure their charges are in tippy-top condition and it's the task of TFA reviewers to reject them if they're not. That said, I wouldn't object to a TFA Drive or Blitz since the backlog is fairly well-controlled. I don't, however, see a need to flood REQ with TFA requests (because they would ask us to 'polish' every TFA!); it's not the Guild's fault if the TFA process is broken. I can't find the discussion right now (Miniapolis and Jonesey95 might remember) but a separate page for FA requests has been tried in the past and didn't work. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Baffle, and see this leading to a two-tier requests page: TFA candidates and the great unwashed. TFA requests have always been done as part of the general queue, and I see no good reason to change. All the best, Miniapolis 21:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember a separate page or a discussion about it, and my memory is still pretty decent. If it existed, it was probably before my tenure as a GOCE editor and coordinator, which started in early 2013. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It was abandoned deleted in 2012 here. Egads. Baffle☿gab 00:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Good detective work, Baffle. I didn't remember it either, but that was before my coordinator days. Diannaa's still around doing copyvio work, but I miss Stfg. All the best, Miniapolis 13:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Miniapolis, I miss Stfg too, he was a real asset to the Guild and to WP. Before my time too but I must have come across the issue when I was fixing up the talk archive pages... funny how some things stick with you. :) Cheers on a very loud pre-bonfire-night weekend here! Baffle☿gab 20:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I have edited a number of these TFA GOCE requests—something I find quite refreshing. I have no problem with them being added and dealt with like any other request, but I do see the point about adding to workload. We seem to be managing what is being asked of us now, but of course that can change in a heartbeat. Interestingly, I checked back on the TFAs we've done and the moment they appear the articles attract an "avalanche" (very scientific } of edits rendering them unstable and possibly undoing some of our efforts. I assume this happens with all TFAs whether the GOCE edits it or not. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist's observation re the "avalanche" is accurate, but the TFA team seem to have quite an effective system for countering this and for reverting articles back to their pre-TFA status a couple of days after the avalanche hits. Bar a few "improvements", which usually are. Having had six TFAs myself in the past seven months I have been impressed by it. A couple of times I have been called on to calm down editors who think that they are seeing their precious articles butchered, and no one has yet come back to me saying that these reassurances didn't live up to the reality. In short, any pre-TFA copy editing will almost certainly be preserved into the post-TFA form of the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New prose size script

See this discussion about an updated version of the prose size script that many of us use. I haven't tested it yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019 TFAs

As some of you have noticed, Gog the Mild (talk) posted a couple of December's TFAs to the Requests page. The rest are listed at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2019 and Gog triaged them at the corresponding talk page. That talk page would be the place to coordinate if anyone wants to check them out or do some light copy editing. I haven't looked at them yet, hoping to help keep the backlog under 500 through the end of the month. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Election time

The coordinator election for the first half of 2020 needs to be opened and announced. Let me know if you need help. Thanks for letting me take a half-year off! – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; noms are opened and I'll adjust the Ombox accordingly (now done). There's so many elections around atm, I find it hard to keep track... :D Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

December nl

It's here; needs the drive and blitz stats, stats, December Blitz dates and progress stat added. I've written a piece about the archiving bot too; feel free to work on that too. So much for my plan to keep on top of the newsletter tasks... I'll sort it out when I'm back to regular editing in a few days. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle; especially at this time of year, though, there's no way I can go back to September and October and get numbers and I may be speaking for the other coordinators as well. Thanks also for putting the table on the barnstar page, but the script we use generates its own table so no need for that; you've been busy enough, which is appreciated. All the best, Miniapolis 15:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Baffle and Jonesey! The coordinator nominations and need for a newsletter to announce the elections had completely slipped my mind. I've set up a preliminary December blitz page (hope 15–21 December isn't too late) and will try to fill the blanks in the newsletter now. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I crossed out the last two articles marked as working on the November drive. If someone could run the barnstar script so I could get those numbers for the newsletter, that'd be great! Thanks in advance! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The barnstar table is up. All the best, Miniapolis 21:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done, and Reidgreg kindly gave me my own barnstars. Tdslk (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I added the numbers and a sentence noting our new record low in the backlog. Tdslk (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tdslk: I overwrote some of your numbers in the newsletter. When counting the number of backlog articles completed as part of a blitz/drive, I use the number of backlog articles recorded by editors on the blitz/drive rather than the net reduction of the backlog. (The net reduction of the backlog includes work by other editors not participating in Guild activities, and in cases the net total might go up if a lot of articles are tagged. I feel that these external factors can obscure the blitz/drive results.) I used the net change in the "Progress report" paragraph of the newsletter, and moved the record low there. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks, Reidgreg! Tdslk (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright, Miniapolis did the barnstar page, Tdslk gave out the awards, and I plugged in the last number for the newsletter. Teamwork! Please feel free to check the December newsletter and blitz page, and I'll probably send the newsletter on Weds. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Newsletter sent, no errors reported in the logs. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all. Miniapolis 20:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

YiFeiBot

I don't know if anyone else has run into this, but I just finished a c/e for the article Valiant Hearts: The Great War. I went to mark it "Done" for archiving purposes and discovered that we don't have an acronym for a request for a "simple" copy edit. The requester did not indicate they were going to do anything further with the article, so to solve this I "modified" their request slightly so it can be archived. Should we perhaps consider adding an additional acronym like CEO (copy edit only) or SCE (simple copy edit)? Ideas? Or have I missed something? Also pinging @Bobbychan193 and Zhuyifei1999. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You're talking about this diff right? If the requester did not specify the request is for a GAN, I do not recommend labeling it as such. As for the bot, if it does not detect any acronyms, it will simply leave the "Purpose" column in the table blank. The bot will still work as normal.

If people want to add an additional acronym, I'm sure Zhuyifei can easily tweak the code to add it. Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah what bobbychan said. Additionally, acronym may appear pretty much anywhere within the section so even if an acronym should be added to the section it does not have to be made on the requester's comment. It is case-sensitive regex matching so Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests/Automation mostly (case-sensitive rather than insensitive) applies. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I missed the bit about the bot leaving the "Purpose" column blank. Ignore everything else - it's unnecessary! I'll fix the request in question. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

If you did happen to learn that the article was nominated or about to be nominated for GA, and the requester neglected to mention it or use the acronym, you could add some text with "GAN" on your {{working}} or {{done}} line and the bot would use that in the archive. There shouldn't be a need to modify the requester's text. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd note that some copy-editors—particularly new or infrequent c/es and requesters—will be unfamiliar with this new nuance and won't know to add the correct code. I think it's fine to add or correct the codes providing it doesn't change the requester's meaning but if anyone's offended or objects I'll stop. Also, REQ isn't a talk page so it doesn't come under WP:TALK, which does provide exceptions. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Baffle here; I think that inserting an acronym in parentheses, like (GAN), to a requester's text is minimally disruptive. If there is consensus against doing this, I will also stop. Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Limitations?

CC-BY-SA declaration; conversation copied from current election talk page here by me, Baffle☿gab 05:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

According to the page, there are "2–4 open positions" for non-lead coordinators. What is the reasoning for having only 2–4 open positions? And is it possible to expand this limit to, say, five positions? Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that's probably how many assistant coordinators the wikiproject founders thought they'd need, and I don't think it would be good to have loads of coordinators. I'm open to changing it though; the coordinators' talk page or the main talk page would be the best places to start a discussion. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't have a problem with an extra coordinator or two. People get experience, which may make them realize that it's no big deal being lead coordinator of a project like this; there's always enough help to get everything done. All the best, Miniapolis 02:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add a coordinator, especially if someone sees a gap that they want to fill within the coordinators' responsibilities. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Anything is possible; we've made exceptions to the election rules in the past. It does look like we have an abundance of experienced nominees. Plus we have a few non-coords who help out with coordinator tasks – Bobbychan193 and BlueMoonset – either of whom I'd endorse. If more than five nominees have a large amount of support, and no one steps down, I don't see a problem with expanding the roster to accommodate the number of coordinators elected. I'd expect at least a three- or four-way tie in terms of support cast, and who wants to figure that out? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg pretty much hit the nail on the head here; this was exactly my reasoning. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

December Blitz

I'm about to start a c/e on the second last May article tagged for an edit. Should we add June to the current blitz since it's only Wednesday? Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Support adding June. Let me check a few tags. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple general copy edits on the Requests page, but most are for promoted content or are longer articles. I've gone ahead and added June. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I checked the last two 'working' copy edits, and manually filled in the barnstar table that Jonesey95 set up, if anyone wants to check it. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Didn't check it (I'm sure it's fine ), and they're given out. Happy holidays and all the best, Miniapolis 23:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Bot and barnstars

FYI, I checked the request-archiving bot's edits for 1–23 December and I didn't notice any hiccups in its operations. (Miniapolis: it did not break when placing a late GAN on the done line.) In appreciation for work on the bot and elsewhere around the Guild, I've left barnstars at User talk:Zhuyifei1999, User talk:Bobbychan193 and User talk:BlueMoonset. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Me neither; I'm very pleased with its performance so far, though a current request may need a joint credit and will need manual archiving. The barnstars are well-deserved. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Annual report

...is here; I've added most of the data already available from drive, blitz and our other records, newsletters etc. A Big Thanks to all of my fellow coordinators for their record-keeping, which makes the Annual Report so much easier to compile. I've asked Boobychan and will ask Zhuyifei to contribute some text or a brief interview about the bot for the report; I hope that's ok (we can collapse it). Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)