Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Archives/2012

Archiving proposal

I've had a little think about how to make archiving the requests pages more manageable, and have written up a proposal at User:Stfg/GOCE Requests Archives. What do you think? If it suits, I'm willing to do the donkey work. --Stfg (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A draft to show how it would work is now at User:Stfg/Sandbox2 (no longer there). (At the moment, it happens to be in order of request date, because I primed it by reading down the current requests page. This souldn't normally be so.) --Stfg (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks nice, but seems like a lot of work. User:Kirill Lokshin does a lot of maintenance work for Milhist and he's a very busy man so I've always assumed he automated some of the work; I'll ask him if he has any scripts that will help. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually it's not that much work. Once I open the section on the requests page to delete it, pretty much everything is there to copy-paste across. I'm reckoning it will be around 2 minutes per entry with practice. But If Kirill does have anything, I'd certainly welcome it. --Stfg (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an improvement on the old system, which was consuming up to half an hour per day. I think it could be tried this way; it seems a workable solution. But if there is a script that would help, or a bot, that would be even better. Worth investigating --Dianna (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note there was already discussion on that matter, it had gone as far as me laying out a "procedural flowchart" for an automation system on User:Chaosdruid/sandbox, as per my previous post Chaosdruid (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't overlook it, actually, but I wasn't sure how many people would bother to fill in the template, and whether we might not end up having to do that ourselves. My way, we do nothing till archive time, and that's just a quick copy-paste exercise, with no need to create a template and persuade people to use it. If I'm doing it, I prefer that. --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I did ask at WT:MIL if anyone had suggestions ... I haven't seen a reply. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan. --Stfg (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) I've now made the new archive live. Please feel free to archive requests if you like, or if it's too much of a chore, I'm happy to do it. I'm away on holiday next week, but can pick up any completed requests on my return. --Stfg (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE banners and archives

Hi

I have made a post concerning banners and their usage here, but am unsure of how it should be treated. IMHO at a minimum date should be included, or both date and username; if there is a desire to have the parameters included,I would not mind going through them and adding them.

On a secondary point, the archiving of the requests page seems to be falling behind, perhaps due to Stfg being away, but as a manual system has been implemented by him to the exclusion of an automated system, perhaps someone should have been ready to step in while he was away (especially as it is a drive month). I would normally be only too happy to do this, but I have had little time beyond RL and my Wikiproject Robotics and other commitments. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Utahraptor, for doing this week's. Chaosdruid, archiving is never urgent, and my method is simple enough that I can easily pick up a week or two's archiving and get it done in a few minutes after a holiday. By the way, I didn't implement anything "to the exclusion of" an automated system -- we've never had one. The use of a template would still have been manual work and (I suspect) error-prone, since it would have relied on many requesters and copy editors consistently getting multi-parameter template calls right. I know of copy editors here who are new to Wikipedia and not yet comfortable with templates. I don't mind looking after this, until a truly automatic system can be found. --Stfg (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Jona's replacements question

On the Requests talk page, User Ajona1992 has just asked "Is it okay if I don't want an article to be c/e and replace it with one that I desperately want a c/e done?" and I believe this question has been asked at least once before. Do we have a standard answer? (Personally, I can't see why he shouldn't, but I'm a newbie here). --Stfg (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he can replace it. The only rule we currently have is no more than 3 requests at any one time by the same editor. --SMasters (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've told him yes. --Stfg (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Utahraptor has resigned

The Utahraptor has resigned his position as lead coordinator of the Guild due to pressing real-life concerns that have to take priority right now. The problems he is facing are not due to his previous medical concerns, but rather are a new unrelated set of circumstances. He hopes to resume editing at some future time. He apologises for having to resign and regrets it very much. Our thoughts are with Utah at this difficult period in his life.

Please comment here as to what you think should happen next. Election? Appointment of pro tem lead? Ideas and discussion welcome. Thank you -- Dianna (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I know this is not correctly-timed, but I would like to take this opportunity to relinquish my position as GOCE coordinator after having been contemplating such a resignation for several weeks. I cannot readily commit myself to the required responsibilities which comes along with this position, as I have other more urgent tasks. Looking back over it all now, I should have asked myself if I would be able to exercise my roles, or whether GOCE needed me at all (I was never a strong copy-editor compared to Dank for that matter, and there aren't any clearly-defined jobs which I could perform as a coordinator). I will immediately remove my name from WP:GOCE/COORD. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your service, Phil. Diannaa, I have no objection if you or Simon would like to be the lead coord, or we could go without. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We came across a tie in the last election, so to compensate we accepted four assistant coordinators rather than three. Phil has done a good job, but I don't think we have to worry about finding a replacement for Phil. As for the position of lead coordinator, I'd like to propose that we do one of the following:

1. Run an emergency election. While this would probably be best, it'd be a bit tedious to organize. I've only managed to free up today and a couple hours of tomorrow (probably between 00:00 and 02:00 UTC), so I wouldn't be able to help with this very much.
2. Have me choose a replacement lead coordinator. This may not be our best option, since it's not a community decision, but it'd be easier to do than run an emergency election.

There's my two cents; thoughts? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a lead coordinator? What is their extra workload above those of the coordinators? Chaosdruid (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be someone to organize and follow through with ideas and direct the other coordinators. That's where the lead coordinator comes in. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) I'd like to put myself out of contention, please. Dianna and Dank are both proven lead coordinators and know what goes on where around wikipedia. I don't have so much background, and don't want to acquire it (too much stress). I would happily support either as lead, and gladly work with either. Because of recent events elsewhere, I think that any appointment of a lead should be subject to the approval of the members, either by election or by putting forward a proposal and seeking consensus on the GOCE talk page. Both courses could consume quite a bit of energy, so Dan's suggestion to do without is quite attractive, but only for this term. I don't think we should lose the lead role for ever, for the reasons The Utahraptor has given, and others. Whatever is decided about the lead (so long as it's not me), I shall gladly accept it and will continue to be available to do as many of the routine tasks as necessary, including opening and closing drives as well as looking after the requests page archives. P.S. I've just typed 3 paragraphs, and this is a fourth. Can anyone see why the machinery has run them together? (It isn't the {{od2}}, as I've tried it without that.) --Stfg (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you guys want to do is fine, Diannaa or I could be lead or we could go without. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Phil. Utahraptor had plans to try to grow and improve the Guild and there likely would have been tasks assigned to you moving forward. Unfortunately his resignation means we will remain on cruise control for the remainder of the term. I can definitely help out with running the copy edit drives but I will not be taking requests or helping out at the requests page any more. I've got to pursue my own interests as far as choice of articles to edit, or it sucks all the fun out of volunteering here. But I can help keep the Guild afloat until such time as alternate leadership can be found. We can likely do fine without a lead coordinator for the remainder of the term. --Dianna (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. As it is, the Guild has been expanding and improving for the past year or so. Taking a small break and just maintaining the Guild as it is right now would probably be best in this situation. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny category

Do we know why Category:Monthly clean up category (Wikipedia articles needing copy edit) counter has been created? It seems to me to almost duplicate Category:All articles needing copy edit (which it contains, as well as all the monthly categories), just adding three others:

• Category:Pages with several capitalization mistakes (seems unnecessary to me)
• Category:Pages written in poor English (empty category that used to be populated by a now deleted template)
• Category:Articles containing possible transcription errors, which contains articles needing subject knowledge and/or source access, not copy editing.

Am I missing something, or should we get rid of this category? --Stfg (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Category:Pages written in poor English can be deleted as the template to which it refers was deleted in June 2011. I have gone ahead and done that.

I don't know why a separate template would be needed for capitalization mistakes, but it looks like it has been around since 2007. Do you think the template is redundant? If so it could be nominated for deletion at TFD, and a copy edit tag could be used in its place. It seems really lightly used; I was unaware of it myself until now.

User:Rich Farmbrough set up the Category:Monthly clean up category (Wikipedia articles needing copy edit) counter thingy in 2010, apparently as a parent category for all these sorta-related subcategories. Transcription errors don't have anything to do with us, and I think they should not be grouped in with copy edits. The way to fix this is to remove it from the category. Should we go ahead and do that, do you think? -- Dianna (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the poor English category. I think correcting capitalization is part of copy editing, but perhaps the template could be reimplemented to invoke {{Copy edit|for=capitalization}}, or else we could TFD it and I could manually replace all invocations with that (there are only 18 at the moment, so it would take just minutes). What do you prefer? Since we agree about the transcription errors, the overarching category would then have been reduced to what we already have, so we could lose it. What do you reckon? --Stfg (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Am glad to see that my actions again shone a light on certain problems in certain areas with Wikipedia. I also don't see the difference between GOCE drives and Wikipedia:Cleanup. But I guess every little bit helps? Maybe when the dust clears, I'll return. — WylieCoyote (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I find it laughable than an editor is sooo quick to tag an article for capitalization mistakes, when most of the articles that I have fixed, in addition to copy-editing (but nobody noticed THAT), have had very few and take just minutes to fix. It's easier for me to fix these when I come across them than tag it and let someone else do the work. — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, CAWylie. Several points:

1. The cleanup template was recently nominated for deletion and was kept; there was no consensus to delete. Here is a link to the deletion discussion.
2. It would be great if everyone had time to do the necessaries to the articles rather than tagging. But we do have some editors who specialise in tagging: it's called WP:New page patrol. New pages only stay in the queue for review for 30 days, and there can be a considerable backlog, so new page patrollers typically don't actually perform the needed work on the articles, but tag them so other specialists can find them. It's one of the strengths of the wiki that people can specialize: some people hunt vandals, some do copy edits, some work on templates and code, and so on. Under the best of circumstances, this leads to some synergy and makes good use of our only resource: our volunteer's time.
3. The reality is that there are huge backlogs all over the wiki, and ours is only a small fraction of them. For example, we have 235,000 articles that have no references; 172,000 needing coordinates (down from a quarter of a million last year); and so on.
4. People did indeed notice your work copy editing articles and we are very glad to have you with us. -- Dianna (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

@Stfg: I think we need to nominate the capitalization template for deletion. Users will continue to use the tag if we do not, and the type of problem it describes actually falls in the sphere of copy editing. As CAWylie points out, the ones he worked on needed extensive copy edits as well. Please go ahead and nominate, and if the template is deleted, we can go ahead and eliminate Rich's umbrella category. I will fix the categorization of the transcription errors category so it is separate. -- Dianna (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Done at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_21#Template:Capitalization. --Stfg (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

...and apparently wrongly. See the TFD: I thought I was being helpful, but Rich Farmbrough is being bitey and not AGFing at all. I've had enough of being bitten for helping people, and will take a short wikibreak. Sorry, Dianna. --Stfg (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing with people just sucks all the fun out of the project, doesn't it? Have a good break; see you soon. I will mind the store. -- Dianna (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Not intending to be bitey, just a suggestion that if you want to delete something I created, or even just have questions about it, it's best to simply ask me. Often I have speedied things that are no longer necessary, for example, which is much less effort for all concerned than having an XfD about it. Moreover, without being "owny" I do spend more time and effort on these categories and templates than anyone else, so I am pretty well informed about them - my bots maintain the monthly categories and date the tags, I wrote the progress box template, the category templates, and contributed to pretty much every clean-up template. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

User:Helpful Pixie Bot main backlog
Total	46294

The counter categories are hidden categories (they would be doubly hidden if I could do that) whose purpose is to establish the number of legitimate sub-categories of parents of monthly clean-up categories (there is a little more work to do on them in temrs of automation, but they basically function well). This enables the counts in the progress boxes to be accurate - which is not that critical for the huge cats but it is good for the smaller categories that when you see 2 undated articles the progress box says 2. It also enable me to maintain the backlog box on the right, which is invaluable to clue me in when someone futzes with one of the categories or templates as happened today. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

One problem, which may already be obvious if you have had the time to read the above discussion, is that articles tagged for Category:Articles containing possible transcription errors actually have nothing to do with copy editing, but they are being lumped in with the work we do perform. For example, they appear in a search performed using CatScan. I think I understand the function of Category:Monthly clean up category (Wikipedia articles needing copy edit) counter and if you say it is necessary I will take your word for it. -- Dianna (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree, and ideally I would like the category trees to be squeaky clean, each parent monthly clean up category containing only monthly sub categories (except for "as of" which has years and stuff), the "all" categories being deleted and then the only exceptions being categories which need clean up in the appropriate places... but this is Wikipedia and there is no point being Canute like about that sort of stuff (although there are editors who disagree ). The Category:Articles containing possible transcription errors does need a parent category though, I'm not wholly sure that it is a good category to populate from {{Sic}}. Rich Farmbrough, 17:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

(←) @Rich: thank you for coming here to respond. Like Dianna, I'll take your word for it about Category:Monthly clean up category (Wikipedia articles needing copy edit) counter. You did not create Template:Capitalization. I messaged you about the TFD because its creator has not edited for over three years. It's presence or absence from the category is immaterial to the category's ability to fulfil its function. If I were to echo your response to the TFD by saying, "So, bite, deny, patronize. Why not AGF? ...", how would you have felt? The remark "you get your bread, capitals specialist get their jam" is particularly offensive as it compartmentalizes people (into very tiny compartments, at that) and patronizes them. We who go and service the cleanup categories are dealing with the real dross of wikipedia. Some of it is tedious beyond measure. It's like paying taxes and sweeping the back yard, not bread and jam. "Orphan", as you described it, was a constructive attempt to help things along by getting the grunt work done, very sorry. I accept the need for discussing things, but did you discuss with GOCE before creating the category and deciding what to put in it? It has wrought havoc here over the past 48 hours, and we too would probably like to be allowed a voice in creations and deletions (why distinguish?) that affect our lives. --Stfg (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I say no intention to bite, and I am certainly familiar with dross articles, when I can't cope with them I call in GOCE. Probably I was wrong in that there are no capitalisation specialists, (though that is in some cases harder than it seems) it is usually a straightforward mechanical task. Orphaning a template is something I have done myself, but it is frowned on by the TfD community (yes there is a community there) and worth avoiding for that reason alone. Rich Farmbrough, 17:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

Thank you. I will remember that in future. (Not that proposing deletion of templates or categories will ever be an everyday occurrence for me.) --Stfg (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The category with the transcription errors might be better served being grouped with something having to do with sources. The {sic} tag means that there is a direct quote—or the name of a book or some such—that the tagger believes has been incorrectly quoted. The category for capitalization errors might be left where it was if the deletion discussion ends up being a "keep". Though I have no idea who has been drawing articles from there and working on them; I for one was unaware before this discussion opened that such a category even existed. -- Dianna (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

When I converted it the other day, there were 6 occurrences dated Jan2012, 3 dated Feb2012 and 9 dated March2012. There were none earlier, so I suspect there are people doing the job. Whether they find it from the category or in some other way, I don't know how to discover. One of those 18 had already been dealt with but the editor hadn't removed the tag. However, I still wonder whether this volume justifies a category of its own, rather than using the copyedit categories. I believe only the {sic|?} form of sic goes into Rich's super-category, so it is a clean-up requirement -- but still not a copy editing requirement, so I think it doesn't belong there anyway. So the super-category is either identical in content to Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, or to that plus Category:Pages with several capitalization mistakes, depending on the fate of the latter. --Stfg (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Would like to add that up to now we've taken our article counts from Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, and I don't see any justification for that to be disrupted. If we're going to look after articles with capitalization issues, that category is where they should go, IMHO. If the community won't help us to that extent, I'll be happy to undo the "orphaning" when I get back from the break, and we won't have the the hit we took on Wednesday when I did that. --Stfg (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan copy edit request

Dianna, Dank: we have a request to copy edit Pakistan, a very reasonable request in that the article has just failed FAC and one reason is prose. The reviewer suggested coming to us, in fact. But ... the article has very recently been edited by two editors (Darkness Shines and TopGun) who are the subject of an IBAN for battleground behaviour, and several others who are known to be active on one or other side of that battleground (the whole area of the politics and recent-ish history of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh). The recent edit histories of both the article and its talk page leave room for doubt as to whether a copy edit would survive a month before being badly munged by this. Do you think we should accept the request without comment, place a warning to check the article and talk page history for stability before diving in, put the request on hold for a time to see whether it settles, decline it, or what? --Stfg (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a "too fluid", "too much motion", "too much rapid change", or even just "battleground" type of template that could be put on the talk page? Something to the effect of "An editor of the GOCE reviewed your article and suggests that there may be too much volatility in this article to justify a major copyedit at this time, when this article appears more stable please resubmit this article for copyediting"? Can we make one? animated? with little tanks and planes shooting at each other? (ok, maybe that's too much.... how about just a jug of liquid sloshing back and forth?) :) --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 16:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This image perhaps? Too subtle? :) --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 17:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A difference between tagged articles and those on the request pages is that the tagger may merely want to note the problem before moving on, whereas requesters often plan to take the article forward and regard the copy edit as a stage in this project. In this case, FAC. So I think we need to communicate directly and personally with requesters rather than just dropping something on the article's talk page. --Stfg (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I do look at a variety of articles at FAC (as long as they have something in them that might be considered "history"), but I don't handle them if some issue other than prose is going to keep them from passing. So, the question of just how bad an article has to be before I don't work on it doesn't really come up for me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It has got worse in the last couple of weeks, if anything. I've tagged the request as on hold and put a note on the article's talk page. --Stfg (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone around at 00:00 UTC Saturday night?

That's an impossible 1 a.m. for me. Would anyone be able to start the backlog elimination drive, please? The main things to do are to remove the "drive not begun" box from the top of the Totals section and to make a note of the numbers of tagged articles for May, June & July 2011 and Total (refresh the box first). Either do the Progress box or pop the numbers on my talk page. We also need to close the Election, but I think that can wait till the morning if wanted. --Stfg (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's 7pm where I live. I can probably take care of it if no one else is available. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Torchiest. Appreciated. --Stfg (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Request placed on hold

Hi all. I placed WP:GOCE/REQ#Blue Stars Drum and Bugle Corps on hold because Dementia13 checked it out and discovered some conflict going on there that is likely to lead to a copy edit being wasted. My inclination is to decline the request on the basis that we aren't here to umpire edit wars. What do you all think? Dementia13, this isn't intended to obstruct you from continuing along the lines you've begun, if you'd like to. --Stfg (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

To me, that doesn't look like a copy editing issue, and like you said, it's really not for us to jump in and try to moderate a content dispute. We have no special authority. Of course, if anyone wants to individually work on it and try to make improvements, obviously that's fine. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Torchiest, I'll tell the requester and remove it. (I think Allen is on a RL teaching assignmet for a few weeks). --Stfg (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy Edit of the Month

I've begun a new page for the upcoming monthly contest here. Everyone else is welcome to start adding more information or structure, or comment on how to set things up. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Great start. When the whole thing is designed and set up, we can send out a newsletter inviting participation, and put something in the ombox. --Stfg (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Mid-July newsletter

I started it here. Others welcome to make changes and/or finish it up. I figure we should try to get it out either Sunday or Monday. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have checked it and have no edits to suggest; it looks fine as is. I have bot access and will be available to send it out when you are ready. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I trimmed it a little and made a judgment call in favor of humor ... "fabulous prizes" ... feel free to revert. Thanks guys!! - Dank (push to talk) 08:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yay, I woke up this morning thinking I had to do a newsletter, and there is was done! Thanks Torchiest and Dank, it's great. I believe Allen is busy on a teaching assignment at present, so let's send it out now, if that's OK Dianna. --Stfg (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I made a few more changes to the new contest page, so I think it's presentable enough now. Release the Kraken. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay! Ready for launch. Everyone feel free to help me with Step 1. -- Dianna (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

August newsletter

Are we planning to send out another newsletter at the end of the month? I guess we normally get it out a few days into the next month, but should we change it up with the inaugural CEotM contest? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's probably better to send it out early, to launch the new contest. We could put links in the om-box for the July drive results. -- Dianna (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I slapped something together here. I'm sure it will need some changes. Should we try to get it out on the 30th or 31st? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing that. Good idea to send one out now. Perhaps we could do another after we've generated the barnstars, giving the final results, and re-advertising the competition? I've slightly edited it and added something about the requests. I'll check with Demiurge now; it may be that all pre-July requests will be done by the end of today. --Stfg (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that didn't happen and I don't think we need wait for it. Dianna, if you're happy, I think it's good to go. --Stfg (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it looks fine. Time for a bot run! -- Dianna (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And this time you didn't even need help with step 1 :)) Thanks Dianna. --Stfg (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Signpost notifications

At some point, weekly notifications in the Signpost are likely to be perceived less as "providing information" and more as "nagging". I just removed this from the upcoming issue: "The July Copyedit Drive ends Tuesday, so make your final edits count!". I don't have any strong feelings about where to draw the line; my guess would be that if people haven't started participating within the last two weeks of a month after getting notices every week, they're probably not going to, and probably don't want to be reminded. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. OK, a 30 July Signpost is a bit late to recruit more editors to a drive, but this is a sidebar entry on its project reports subpage, not appearing on its main page at all. More status report than nag, IMO. By the way, we only notify the Signpost once per drive (I did this one's on 21 June). We should be grateful to Mabeenot for making these entries each week without our having to lift a finger for it. --Stfg (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be a status report if it contained information that hadn't been repeated 4 times in the Signpost already; does it contain new information? And, I think each wikiproject is responsible for their own public image. It seems a little unseemly, since we're the project that does the most to remove redundant information from articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, Dan, let's have a closer look at how that message will affect our image. Of the minority of Signpost readers who will notice it, I'd fairly confidently expect the majority to pass over it with at most an "Oh, that lot are a bit enthusiastic!" (which isn't a bad image anyway), and a basically friendly chuckle. Then there may be one or two whose memories are jogged to do something to protect their rollover words, or to finish off an article that fell into limbo in the excitement of the opening of the Olympics, or whatever -- who knows? And yes, since you've spotted it, there may be some who find it "nagging" and are a bit irritated by it. Bit I think overall it's a net positive, and the irritation is merely irritation and basically harmless, so I'll live with it, actually. Besides, if we don't "put ourselves out there", we won't have an image at all, will we?

Yes, I agree that a wikiproject is responsible for its own public image, so why did you remove the message first and tell us second?

The "unseemly" bit seems to depend on a bit of sophistry that relies on overlooking the distinction between linguistic redundancy and "redundant" actions affecting our operations. On the latter, I suggest the criterion is positivity of effect, not necessity vs. redundancy.

The upcoming Signpost goes out on the 30th, I believe, so there is a little time for discussion. I plan to restore the entry tomorrow unless someone beats me to it or convinces me not to. Best, --Stfg (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem sure, so I restored it. Regards, - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that people have been reading the sidebar, even for articles that aren't published yet! Just so you know, I collect information for the sidebar from a variety of places, not just the suggestions people leave at our workspace. I tend to include whatever drives are ongoing for the month, which typically means alternating GOCE and WikiProject Wikify. Let me know if you want something else. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

August mid-month newsletter

I started a draft here. It will probably need a good amount of tuning and rewriting, pending final decisions on the next drive's setup. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Torchiest, that's a great start. Let's hold it for a few days in case we resolve questions currently on the discussion page, but if necessary we can make it a tad less detailed. We can also pick our time according to when it would be most helpful to jog memories on the contest. --Stfg (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that tomorrow would be about right to send it out. With regard to Lfstevens's view about the oldest being just three months, we could defer that decision by changing "the articles tagged in July, August, September, and October 2011" to "the articles tagged longest ago". Torchiest, on your points about leaderboard depth and categories, because those things were discussed and there was quite a consensus a couple of months ago, we should probably only make those changes if there's an equally strong consensus to do so. That hasn't happened yet, but if you want to ping that discussion back to life, please feel free, and we can revise the newletter to not set that decision in concrete either. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I can live with it the way it is for the next drive. I'll bring it up again in a couple months though. It could become my personal perennial proposal. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I eagerly await the next round! OK, I've edited it a little bit. If you're happy, then I think it's ready to go, Dianna, if you'd be so kind? --Stfg (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looks good now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Horrible blunder

<groan!> When I asked the Signpost for a blurb for the September drive, I gave a link to the September 2011 drive! I've altered the link in the Signpost Projects Report and temporarily changed the September 2011 drive page to be a redirect to the September 2012 page, which we can revert in a few days, and watchlisted it. I've checked that nobody has signed up for the 2011 drive (they haven't). Can you think of anything else I should do? <goes and hides behind furniture with tail between legs> --Stfg (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Simon. Not to worry; because the newspaper is transcluded, when you edited the Signpost, you also edited all the copies that had already been delivered. Don't worry, be happy. -- Dianna (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

<wag, wag> Thanks, Dianna. Nice video! Probly no harm in leaving the redirect in place for a while, I guess. --Stfg (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah; no harm in leaving it in place for a few days. -- Dianna (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

September newsletter

I wrote up the first draft here. I made some modifications to trim the wordiness a bit, since there are three events instead of one as we've had in the past; I hope that's okay. I think I corrected all the links and information correctly. Of course, everyone is invited to make changes and discuss. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Torchiest. That's a good layout for so many events. I'm happy with it as is. --Stfg (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have checked it too. Please let me know which day you want it sent out. -- Dianna (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with you sending it out any time this weekend, as long as it's more than five hours from now. I like the pep too. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Likewise. Any time you like. Thanks, Dianna. --Stfg (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thine Antique Pen

Please take a look here. I'd appreciate additional comments on what I've outlined there. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's good. TAP is clearly a good-faith editor, so I think advice like you gave is all that is needed. I've added a bit more about deleting material that I hope will be helpful. --Stfg (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Another

I'm afraid we have another problematic one. I've checked two by WikiCopter, and they are completely unacceptable. Will check all the rest tomorrow. He has also done a request, which I'll check tomorrow too, but there may not be much we can do there, as there appears to be a little edit war going on the requester and a MilHist regular, not involving WikiCopter. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

On reflection I've passed one, having corrected a bit of stupidity. It was very marginal. I've left a message here. --Stfg (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've now checked all seven, and that was the only unacceptable one. Much of his work is very good. The troublesome one was probably a machine translation, so I've left advice about {{Rough translation}}. I don't think we need do any more. --Stfg (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see it wasn't too serious. This stuff is my least favorite part of coordinating. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, mine too. --Stfg (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Next newsletter (September 2012)

I haven't written anything up yet, because I'm not sure how to proceed. No one has voted in the Copy Edit of the Month contest other than myself so far, and it's supposed to end tonight. What do you think about just extending it through the end of the month, and then keeping the voting open for a month for all future contests? That way, we can put in the next newsletter that you don't have to have made a submission to vote in the August contest, and also tell people they can submit anything they've already done for the drive in the September contest. Of course, if we get no more participation in either of them in the next two weeks, I will be okay with shuttering the contests, though it pains me to contemplate it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I voted yesterday too, but that's still only two. Yes, I think your suggestions are good: let's extend the voting period till the end of the month and have those messages in the newsletter. I did wonder if people would mostly contribute later in the month, waiting to choose their best edits. Well, let's hope. I would hate to abandon the contests too. By the way, I'm intending to send a barnstar to everyone who didn't win the August contest, thanking them for their contributions. Obviously that can't be done till the voting is closed, though. --Stfg (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that. I'll start a newsletter here in a bit, or someone else can give it a whirl, and we can send it out over the weekend. I think the participation barnstar is a good idea as well. Maybe the modest or minor? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, rough draft of the next newsletter is here. Please check it over and make any changes you want, and I'll be okay with all of them. This can be sent out this weekend as soon as it's ready. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have checked it over and found nothing that needs tweeking. -- Dianna (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's just the ticket. No tweaks needed. Ready to go as far as I'm concerned. --Stfg (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012 barnstars page made -- needs checking

Here's the draft barnstars page for this month. It needs checking, please, before we send out the barnstars. You'll see that his time I've separated the actual words from the bonus count, so that it's clearer why word counts on the basic barnstars and the leaderboard barnstars are different.

In the following cases I had to correct wrong totals: TBrandley, Dthomsen8, Electric catfish and Soulparadox. Lfstevens did much (very much) more than he has claimed, so let's just acccept his number. In all the other cases, my total agrees with theirs, so I don't think those need another check. I'd be grateful for checks that the leaderboard and all the barnstars are correct.

The totals for Dementia13 exclude List of Game & Watch games at present. It would be nice to allow that one as Dementia13 did much of it. I've left a message asking whether the intention is to complete it.

Thanks for any help. --Stfg (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have checked everything related to the leaderboard and found no errors. Slight modifications will be needed if Dementia13 is given credit for List of Game & Watch games. I would be in favour of them getting credit; it was a valiant effort. -- Dianna (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I looked at that article multiple times and ran away in terror. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've moved my entry to the bottom of the page to separate it from yours, Torchiest, and have put a score half-way down, between Wahrmund and Electriccatfish2. Torchiest, would it be OK for you to issue barnstars to the bottom 14, beginning with Electric..., and I'll do the top half? --Stfg (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Silly me! Hold that, please. The leaderboard positions may change. --Stfg (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Perhaps we could deliver barnstars to everyone not on the leaderboards? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Actually, we can do those on the leaderboards too, except for Dementia13, Thine Antique Pen and myself. The first two are in my half, so if you just leave me out for now, we're OK. --Stfg (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I was about to start doing them, and I noticed that you forgot to add the 10k award to the lists. I added them myself, and realized they were for the exact same five people who were on the leaderboard for longest article. Should we just skip them? Seems a bit silly to give essentially two awards for the same thing at this point. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, in July all the 10K+s were on the leaderboard too. My feeling is that we should give what we've promised to give this time, but abandon the 10K+ from the next drive on. What do you reckon? (BTW I've got something in RL this evening, and will be offline in about an hour's time, until tomorrow). --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add the 10ks to the list. We can hammer out what to keep and what to abandon on the main GOCE talk page, when I bring up my perennial proposal. ;) I looked back at the previous drive from July, and of the six longest articles that on the leaderboard, four were over 10k, so it was a significant but not complete overlap. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Once we've tidied up drive matters, I'm going to start a slightly more radical discussion than usual about the future. Looking forward to another flowering of the perennial :) --Stfg (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

(←) Dementia13 will complete that article, so I've done as we agreed. The barnstars file is up-to-date, so we're clear to finish the job now. --Stfg (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

August CE of the Month contest results

Okay, sooo... three way tie for first with one vote each. Not exactly what I had hope for or expected. Any thoughts on how to handle that? Should we hand out gold awards to all three, and silver awards to everyone else? Re-open voting and beg for participation? Call it a wash? Something else? I know it's a bit of a strange situation since Stfg and I both "won" technically. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, somehow I overlooked this the other day. Sorry. Our problem may be that people might justifiably feel that they should only vote if they look through the entries quite diligently, and maybe not many people want to do that. I'm wondering now whether coordinators should in future exclude themselves from competition and execise a casting vote by joint consensus. (Only a casting vote -- people can still vote.) We could then revert to a 2-week voting period, which is desirable because if people receive recognition for month 1 before the end of month 2, then they may encouraged to make a submission in month 2. I don't mind about August for myself, but I've no idea how Baffle might feel. Whatever you decide, I'd like to give barnstars informally to everyone who doesn't get a big one. I'm not very keen on Minor and Modest because their names slightly damn with faint praise. Working Wikipedian? --Stfg (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, in-depth review of the copy edits was the idea, but maybe it's just too much non-editing "work" to look through them all and make a decision. I would be fine with both of us just bowing out and declaring Baffle the winner for this month, then issuing participation barnstars to everyone else; WW sounds good. Personally, I'm not really trying to "win" myself, just to encourage people to hopefully learn and improve their skills, and hopefully bolster our reputation and avoid the appearance of rushing work. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there was a bit of a debacle with the Good Articles Wikiproject a few months ago when it ran a backlog drive. You know we've had similar problems here and there in our own drives. That's my only big concern. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant! I wasn't aware of the GA drive and its issues, but that's the kind of thing I've had on my mind, and we're thinking in the same kind of direction. OK, let's do that for the August competition, and then start a discussion in a day or two. --Stfg (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

September drive wrap-up newsletter drafted

It's here, ready for improvement. --Stfg (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have checked it and did a minor improvement. -- Dianna (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. Dianna, your improvements are good. Shall we send it out now? --Stfg (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Myxogastria request on hold: decline?

We have a request to copy edit Myxogastria, a class of slime mold. I don't think someone without specialist expertise can hope to do a fair job on this. The article is very full of jargon. The taxobox places higher taxa at different taxonomic levels than their articles do. While we can broadly understand "The continuous classification of new taxa reveals that the group is not carefully examined", putting this into the right words requires sensitiviy to how the scientific community would react to the choice of words. In "Among the 1012 taxa only a few species are common: 305 were only discovered in a single location or groupings ..." (my italics), the italicised part makes no sense; to give it sense, "groupings" needs to be understood, but a question about this from someone on the talk page was treated frivolously, as were other questions. "Only a few characteristics are diagnostic for a small number of species" is utterly meaningless. I'm inclined to decline the request and advise seeking help from Wikiproject Fungi. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I skimmed it and didn't find it too intimidating, honestly. Also, I don't think English is Kubris' first language, so what may have seemed like a dismissal is probably sincere confusion. I don't have time to comment further just now but I think it's doable. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the on-hold, but advised that some knowledge of biology and German could be desirable. --Stfg (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Created drive page; drafted newsletter

I've created the November drive page, slightly changing the procedure for checking, as we haven't really operated as a chaired committee for some time. Is it OK? Otherwise it's the same (E&OE). Please would you check it.

Then I've drafted a newsletter with invitations for blitz and drive. Please would you check and revise however you wish. --Stfg (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I made a few minor changes to the newsletter, but otherwise I'm fine with both. Once Dianna takes a look and is satisfied, she can send it out right away, since we need it out before Saturday night. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with those changes, thanks. Howzabout you Dianna? --Stfg (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, no changes from me. I will start teh bot. — Dianna (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Blitz format

Do we need to change anything about the way we're listing completed articles there? I realized after I added the new instructions that we should either remove the part about changing doing to done, or remove the individual lists at the bottom. Really, the only reason I had for adding doing was to keep people from overlapping on their work. Once an article is claimed, if it is added to a list at the bottom, it doesn't matter when it's done, so we could just change it to a simple {{y}} (Y) when an article is picked and then forget about it. Any other thoughts on how to organize it? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, keep it simple. I'm sure we'll both keep an eye open for articles getting booked then forgotten. By the way, should we add an instruction to book only one article at a time and only when starting the edit immediately? There were some bad cases of hanging articles in the last drive, and too much of that would clobber a blitz. --Stfg (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I changed it up. Add more if you'd like. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's great the way it now is. --Stfg (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Just realised: this way we won't have any indication of what to put in the progress box. Perhaps we should either revert to the previous system or ask people to remove completed ones from the list? --Stfg (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I planned on just manually counting the remaining items on the lists. The number will jump when a new project is added, but we can retroactively adjust all the numbers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That way, we'll count articles not booked rather than articles not completed. Are you happy with that? --Stfg (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we use the honor system and assume any articles booked will be completed almost immediately, it should be pretty close to the same thing. But we can also check individual lists and just subtract those I suppose. I don't have super strong preferences on it, as long as it's internally consistent. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can assume that. It isn't a question of trust, but 2012 Summer Olympics, for example, is over 5700 words. Perhaps we could ask perticipants to delete them from the list on completion, and late each evening, I'll trawl the list for any overlooked? --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We may be getting off on a tangent here. I just realized we're discussing something which might not really be an issue. We talked about but didn't implement any changes in the normal way that people record their articles. So we can still look at their individual lists (which should show working and completed) and compare those to the master lists. Another option is to literally double check (YY) articles that have had the tags removed and are complete. Or go back to the doing/done distinction. Deleting from the list achieves the same basic thing as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood what you were saying before, then. People's individual sections are for recording their word counts and totals, but not very practical for watching the progress of the project. For that we need something to make up for the fact that the lists are not self-maintaining like the categories are. In the lists, I think I like {{doing}} then deleting best. --Stfg (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm thinking your approach is best now. What it amounts to is that we only have to look at ones on the master lists that are checked but not yet deleted. I'll add a little line saying to delete completed articles from the main lists. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good like that. --Stfg (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

One last point. For the daily totals, should we adjust all the daily totals up if and when a new project is added, or just count it as a big jump on the day they're added? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Adjust up seems good to me. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's my preference as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Turn of the century

Hallo, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Projects#Turn_of_the_century you do not give any guidance as to what phrase should be used instead of "turn of the (last) century". An editor has been adding the, to my mind horrendous, wording "turn of the 19th and 20th centuries". (example.) I think that in some cases no clarification is needed (eg an article like Chapeltown, Leeds where the text refers to "the 1880s", "the next decade", "the turn of the century" in quick succession), but in other cases I suggest that "the end of the nth century" or "the beginning of the nth century" is probably the best and simplest wording. It might be useful to offer advice on that project page. (The editor seems to have stopped for now, as requested on his/her talkpage.) PamD 16:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I copied this to our main talk page to get as much input as possible. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Checking check

Torchiest, Dianna, please have a look at this (which I've fixed) and at the copy edit claimed, which left all this to do. I'm inclined to disallow and gently recommend alternative outlets. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like they mostly handled the overlinking problem. I notice also that the copy edit tag wasn't removed, and they only claimed about half the total word count. All in all, a puzzling entry. Perhaps leave a message saying the copy edit was incomplete and can't be counted, and offer to double check other entries before they're added. It could be just a one off attempt. But I'd welcome Dianna's thoughts on it as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say wait until they edit again, or possibly put a welcome of some kind on their talk with links to our help pages to get them started. -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've now checked another: Aqua-lung. Here's their diff, and here's what I found still to do. I'm not worried that the copyedit was thin, as the article has improved over the months and there wasn't really much needing to be done, but some gobbledygook was left untouched and there are two careless changes of meaning. I'm not at all sure what is right to do here. Much of what he does is good, and then he goes and throws a spanner in by introducing errors. Any ideas? --Stfg (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

As you say much of their work is good, so I think just a message by email or on their talk to let them know what you found. The copy edit was not all that bad, in my opinion. They did a lot of good work. The introduction of errors should be pointed out. -- Dianna (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. --Stfg (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Draft mid-drive newletter

I've drafted one here. Comments and copy edits please? --Stfg (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, you're bringing up the seasons again? I'd hoped to never think of that shameful incident again. On a more serious note, should we announce the winners of the September CEM, since we had two clear ones instead of a muddle like last time? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't resist Although, as I said, you aren't the ... ahem ... guy who gets all the blame. I've added the September winners. Could you take a look to see if it's OK? --Stfg (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have looked and think it's okay. Awaiting further instructions -- Dianna (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Fire away. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Draft election page

I've created a page for the upcoming election here. Torchiest and I discussed and agreed that two assistant coordinators are enough. We didn't discuss when to open for nominations -- is there any reason to delay this? Any other comments? Simon --Stfg (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there's no need to wait. We may as well open it up now thus giving more people a chance to see it and possible run for a position. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree nominations should start right away. -- Dianna (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, and Ombox updated. We can also include it in the next newsletter. --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have let the Signpost know, so they can put it in the wikiproject sidebar of their next newsletter. -- Dianna (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Stfg (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing November drive

I won't be around this evening to close the drive. Can someone else take care of it? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I will be around, and will look after it. -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dianna. I should be able to get the barnstars done tomorrow. --Stfg (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(←) Barnstars file drafted here. Torchiest, please would you check that I've assigned the correct barnstars and pulled all the needed barnstars from the leaderboard, I don't think there's any need to check the totals, as I've recalculated them all and they either agreed with the editor's version or were double-checked and came out higher. I've put a line in the middle -- I'll issue the top half if you do the bottom half. No rush for all this, as I'm knackered now and out all day tomorrow, so I'll only be issuing my share on Monday. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check it Sunday. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter drafted

Here is a draft for a drive wrap-up and election announcement newsletter. Could you check it over please? --Stfg (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I like the way you focused on the positives in the drive. I hope we can at least continue to tread water. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have checked it over and made a few tweeks. I am going out to shovel the snow and then will send it out after that if everyone thinks it's ready. -- Dianna (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I like the tweaks, Dianna, and am happy for it to go out. --Stfg (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes?

With the current term down to its final four weeks, I'm wondering if there are any changes we could begin to implement or discuss in preparation for the incoming group of coordinators. Particularly, I'm curious about my idea from a couple months ago about restructuring the CEM contest to become a billboard for requests that are completed and reach GA and FA status. Alternately, maybe the billboard could just become a subsection or subpage of the requests page.

The idea, to reiterate, would be to list all requested articles completed on a monthly basis and give out recognition to the editors that helped with the most. This would allow us to encourage helping in that area while ensuring that only quality results are recognized, rather than unvetted work. To be clear, this would be a list of articles that were assessed to a higher grade in that month, regardless of whether the actual copy editing occurred in that month or not. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

December newsletter

I started the mid-month newsletter here. I think I corrected all the months etc from the copy paste of the October newsletter, but double check please, and double check the January drive page, which I just created. We should probably try to get this out before the end of the week, so people can join the blitz for next week. Anything else need adding? Do the goals sound okay for the next drive? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I just realized I forgot to mention the coordinators election, and don't have anything written up for the Annual Report. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that work, Torchiest. I've just checked out the alternative CatScan mentioned here to see if it would work for the original blitz idea, but that hung as well, so ... At the start of the second paragraph of the January drive page, the target months are set at Jan, Feb, March, but at the end of the same paragraph you only list Jan, Feb. Those three months are quite a lot of articles, but I guess maybe if the blitz goes well it might be feasible. Anyway, I'll defer to you on that.

I've added a paragraph about the election. Shall we generate the Annual Report after Christmas? I'll have some time then, though I'll need help with graphics, and the future prosects section should ideally come from you. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

All of that sounds good. I'm hoping for a good result from the blitz, such that we end up having essentially February and March 2012 only for the drive. The after-Christmas timeline works for me. That will give me time to organize and make concise my ideas. But we should definitely get the newsletter out quickly, so that it's still timely on the nomination bit. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you do the honours please, Dianna? --Stfg (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay :) -- Dianna (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Weekend changes

I'll be around to flip all the switches and turn all the knobs for the election and blitz. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Even if no other candidates stand, I think we should allow the election to run its course, so that questions can be asked. --Stfg (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I may not have a chance to close the blitz in a couple hours, if someone else can take care of it please. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I should be able to do that. --Stfg (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Now done. I'll be issuing the barnstars tomorrow. --Stfg (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)