Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Archives/2018

Delete Template:GOCE Silver Star Award?

Template:GOCE Silver Star Award appears to have been replaced completely by Template:GOCE Award. Is there any reason to keep it? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope; until I clicked on the link, I'd forgotten what it was for (and how much easier you made our lives with {{GOCE award}} :-). I'll G6 it; should I do the same with {{GOCE Award}}? {{GOCE award}} is yours; {{GOCE Award}} (case-sensitive) is the old top-of-the-leaderboard tag. All the best, Miniapolis 15:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

{{GOCE Award}} is still used on a bunch of talk pages. It will need to be substituted before it is deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

GOCE membership behaviour

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

---

I was just wondering if the GOCE has any policy regarding its members who, if under the auspices of the GOCE, persistently reveal an exaggerated sense of their own importance and abilities, and who bully and harass new and highly experienced users alike. I am aware that anyone can sign on to the GOCE project, the question therefore is: how can they be removed from it if the need arises? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The short answer is, we don't. If an editor is bullying and harassing, it would be far better if that behavior is addressed in the usual settings. If an editor is not doing a good job of copy editing, however, that is something we can deal with, ideally by reviewing the editor's work and helping them improve. Tdslk (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a particular editor you have in mind? Please remember that we're just another WikiProject :-). All the best, Miniapolis 14:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do possibly have someone in mind. Yes, I'm well aware that GOCE is 'just another WikiProject' , but removal from the list could be effective without needing admin intervention or an ugly thing at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Having one's username on the 'list' is entirely discretionary; many editors choose to list themselves here but there's no compulsion to do so; my account isn't listed there. When I was a coordinator, the only time I removed a username was when that account was banned and globally locked, and clearly couldn't edit. If there's a dispute between two or more editors, the first step is discussion on talk pages, the second is dispute resolution and/or RFC, and the last resorts are AN(I) and ARBCOM, to where no sane editor wants to be dragged. Site admins can enforce topic bans and page bans to disruptive editors, but afaik coordinators can't 'ban' editors from the Guild, per WP:OWN. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion here, background here. I agree with Kudpung that removal from the GOCE list—as was done at AfC (also a WikiProject)—is preferable to topic bans or blocks. However, I'd like to wait a few days—especially since it's the holiday season for many editors, who may be are probably busy elsewhere :-). All the best, Miniapolis 21:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• As I stated, I was trying to be helpful. Accusing one of bullying is bad at the best of times, but especially so when they were doing their best for the project. The 'background' is irrelevant; that was another issue. If Wikipedia editors are not prepared to let something go after four months, AND comments from many editors both on- and off-Wiki commending the manner in which one progresses from the issue, how does anyone expect experience to be gained. If willing editors are shut down at every opportunity for acting with entirely good intentions, who will be left to contribute? I was narrowly talked out of leaving several months ago. I was assured that a certain editor would be having nothing to do with me. Then I find them trying to undermine my work, with no helpful feedback given. Sanction me if you like. Do whatever you see fit. Get rid of the 'bully'. Or does the bully get rid of himself? And all because of one person. –Sb2001 22:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hardly "one person", since you've reacted with hostility to constructive criticism from a number of experienced editors. Sorry to be blunt, but at least try to fit in here or spend your time elsewhere; we're busy building (and maintaining) an encyclopedia. Miniapolis 23:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Only one person has made me consider leaving. And don't give me the 'we're busy ...' I am not interested in the greater aims of the encyclopaedia; only arguing: is that what you actually think? Jesus Christ—the time I have spent here working on improving Wikipedia. That is a bit of a slap in the face. As I said, anyway, Kudpung didn't even offer any advice. I was not hostile with Alex yesterday (well, not intentionally, anyway). This page is not for past (now non-) issues; as far as I am concerned, they are finished. –Sb2001 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don'tknow why Sb2001 has offered comments here. I was asking a general question concerning possible, constant patterns of expression and/or editing that are not conducive to the mission of GOCE (or Wikipedia) collaboration. I did not mention any names. That said, we have indeed removed several users from the AfC list and their rights from New Page Review for non-constructive participation - but not until friendly advice was repeatedly ignored. I have no intentions of removing anyone's rights at this moment in time, and if there are any issues with's Sb2001's participation, other admins and users will address them. Right now, Wikipedia is going through a series of high-level discussions on possible changes to policies and user groups which ultimately concern article quality. As most of my work is involved in these areas, it is useful for me to know how various projects handle certain issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with Sb2001 commenting here, and am relieved that only one copyeditor's work is being questioned at the moment; that hasn't always been the case :-). However, I find "I am not interested in the greater aims of the encyclopaedia" troubling as far as the eventual resolution of this issue is concerned. K.e.coffman, I think Sb2001 (whom I'm not pinging, to avoid throwing more fuel on the fire) is the one who feels "bullied" but for the life of me I don't understand why. When I started here about seven years ago I made plenty of mistakes (and still make my share), but I've always been happy to be set straight and can count the number of times I've been treated discourteously on the fingers of one hand. Kudpung came here to ask if we had a procedure in place to deal with problematic editors. As Baffle gab1978 and Tdslk said above, we have a membership list which editors can sign (or not) but anyone can copyedit; there are no editing rights to remove. I really appreciate Corinne's offer below to mentor. Happy holidays and all the best, Miniapolis 16:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I am going to deal with this one issue at a time. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings/areas where there appears to be a lack of clarity:

• However, I find "I am not interested in the greater aims of the encyclopaedia" troubling as far as the eventual resolution of this issue is concerned.

  I think there has been a misunderstanding here—I followed this with, 'Is that what you actually think?' Ie, I do care.

• I think Sb2001 ... is the one who feels "bullied".

  I never said—or suggested—that. Kudpung was the one who used the word 'bully', to describe me. I took offence; I did not direct it at anyone else.

• discourteous

  my objection is not a lack of courtesy; it is the lack of an explanation being offered. I shall take criticism, as long as it is followed by specific advice.

I shall get to some other stuff in the next section. I do not wish to enter into any sort of conflict. I am just writing this bluntly to move past it and resume work. –Sb2001 01:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but it might be time to WP:DROP this and reflect on your behavior. What started all this was a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude which seems to be ongoing and makes it difficult to work collegially. All the best, Miniapolis 15:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyedit in question

The copyedit did not make sense to me (requesting editor here). The edit deleted cited material, moved Bibliography into Further reading, and removed an inter-language wl template, among other things: diff. The c/e changes were not an improvement, IMO. Compare:

• Before: Ostensibly an "anti-partisan" training conference, the event marked an escalation of violence...
• After: The conference was seen to promote anti-partisan opinions. The event marked an escalation of violence... -- "was seen" by whom? And what are "anti-partisan opinions"? Etc.

I've attempted to discuss with Sb2001 on their Talk page: link. I still could not understand why he made a change to the bibliography, and the explanation for the removal of participants was not satisfactory (i.e. they were listed in the infobox, but not mentioned or cited in the body). Sb2001 also strongly recommended that I re-format my citations, which I could not make sense of. As the copyedit was done as a single change, rather than a series of edits, I chose to revert it, since I did not feel that it improved the article on the balance of things. Hope this clarifies.

For myself, I did not feet "bullied"; Sb2001 has been quite courteous. I was mostly surprised at the turn of events, as this has been a different experience compared to prior c/e requests I had placed. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverting those edits was reasonable. I do not understand why some of the information was removed, why an apparently useful template was removed from the infobox, and why an inter-language link was removed, for example. And this is just my personal style quibble, but I have never been a fan of "due to the fact that". Changing "Bibliography" to "Further reading" was wrong, given that short citations are used in the body of the article. There were a couple of useful edits, like changing "wanderer" to "wanderers" and adding {{'"}} to improve spacing. I have restored that particular edit.

We all have a lot to learn here at WP. Let's help each other do so in good faith. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Justifying a couple of those:

• ostensibly an "anti-partisan" training ... just seemed to raise a slight neutrality question—I tried to make it a little less assertive.

• an apparently useful template was removed.

  This mixed dmy and mdy dates. I changed it to a manually-entered range, because I didn't know if it was possible to change the template do dmy.

I think K.e.coffman's comments have been very helpful here. I now understand the objections, and I hope that any accusations of 'bullying', etc, have been refuted. –Sb2001 01:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Since Sb2001 has been editing on WP for five and a half years and seems to have the right attitude toward the project as a whole, I think he deserves help and support to become an even better copy-editor than he has been. I can understand completely why K.e.coffman reverted Sb2001's edits, but I'm willing to help. If Sb2001 can leave along the side of the road any hostility toward those who may criticize his edits and a somewhat inflated confidence – both of which are part of the problem here as they put off other editors – Sb2001, see humility – and is open to the idea, I would be glad to work with him as a mentor for a few weeks or months. I would point out which of his edits are good and which are not as good, giving reasons and suggesting alternatives. First, I would say that when an article is generally well written, as Mogilev Conference was, copy-editors should edit with a light touch, merely looking for spelling errors, incorrect verb tenses, missing words, capitalization issues, incorrect or missing punctuation, date format consistency, and perhaps noun usage errors, but not removing or substantially changing content without first consulting with the requesting editor. Adding, removing, or changing content is the job of the writer or writers of the article, not copy-editors.  – Corinne (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Corinne: thank you for your offer of mentoring. That would be very much appreciated, as it would allow me to understand my errors non-prejudicially. A lot of the 'hostility' on my part was because of one editor. At the end of August, I was assured by administrators that I would not be seeing any more of that person. Of course, had another administrator, or indeed any other experienced editor, offered me clear explanations for my wrongdoings, I would have gladly listened and effected change as a result. I look forwards to working with you. I have left a post on my talk page about my future, which may be interesting for some editors. Any comments are welcome. –Sb2001 01:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: I've boldly closed this discussion to avoid more dramah; the thread opener's question has been answered, SB2001 understands the requester's objections and has agreed to c/e mentoring from Corinne. Coordinators, revert this closure if you think it's unwarranted but imo, nobody's comments need further dissection and there's some copy-editing to be done. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Help needed

Resolved

I am hacking my way through Type 91 torpedo. Early on I realised that the last few items in the info box as edited were not displaying. It has proved beyond my skills to resolve. I would be grateful if someone could have a look and resolve it. And even more so if they could let me know what I was overlooking. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: There's documentation on the infobox template at Template:Infobox weapon. It looks like the specifications sections (which each start with comments) aren't shown unless an earlier template parameter is set. Specifically, you have to set |is_missile= to "yes" if the weapon is a self-propelled missile or torpedo; must be left blank otherwise. Give that a try and let us know! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. That did the trick. Counter intuitive setting missile to yes when its not a missile, but as someone said, there is always something to learn around here. Thanks. Note to self: read every word of the template documentation next time. Even (especially) the bits which clearly aren't relevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have just realised that I hadn't overlooked this parameter, because it wasn't there until you added it. Many thanks. I must stop beating myself up. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Was that sneaky of me? I tested it in preview but thought you'd like to make the actual change. I'm not sure if the original editor missed that parameter or if it was accidentally deleted at some point, but these things happen now and then. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It was good sneaky: "I do and I remember". Very thoughtful of you. I thought that I may have deleted it, but no, it had gone missing in one of this ill fated article's earlier incarnations. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

2017 Annual Report

Just to let you know, the last request from 2017 was finished so I ran numbers and threw together a preliminary report, here. It needs some work but I may not have time until Monday. If anyone else wants to take a go at it, please feel free. Oh, the funny chart is another distribution graph, I wanted to see how it compared to last year. Also, very impressed with everyone's work on Requests last year, I didn't spend a lot of time there and didn't realize what was going on and how you were keeping on top of it. Well done! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the 2016 and 2017 reports. @BlueMoonset: you might want to add your name to the authors since you contributed. I guess give a few days for everyone to have a look and make final changes, and someone with mass-mailing privileges can send an announcement/link for both of them. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg, if you think I should add my name, I'll do so. (You'll know how much of what I proposed was included.) I'll also try to review it in full in the next day or two; I have less time available for Wikipedia than usual through the end of next week. The Requests section ends with an unfinished sentence: The multiple peaks in 2017 represent the change in completion times before and after the April 17. You'll want to complete your thought there. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I think you added a bit, and I used some of what you added to the 2016 for the 2017. Plus more names under the header makes us look like a bigger organization. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Reidgreg. I've just added myself. (If the reports have already gone out, then consider it an addition for the historical record.) I'll try to be of more help next year. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

January drive barnstars

Regarding the January 2018 drive barnstars, Gog the Mild has had some concerns about their copy edit quality and has stated in talk page discussion a desire to only claim half for leaderboard positions: "So claiming 50% of Total Articles, Total Words, 5K+ Articles and Oldest Articles seems fitting". I think this user put in a tremendous effort and has shown a willingness to learn and improve. I certainly don't mind sharing the tie for 5k articles. But I can respect the user's wishes, if the leaderboard could be adjusted before awards are distributed. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Link to discussion. I would like to hear from Gog the Mild. If that editor wishes to apply for a manual adjustment or decline barnstars, they may do so on this page. Other editors have requested that they not be awarded barnstars, for various reasons. I have no problem giving credit for editing that has been done, or silently acknowledging that work and encouraging editors to copy-edit for their own reasons and its intrinsic rewards. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no wish to be awkward, nor to cause coordinators unnecessary work. I am more than happy to accept a coordinator decision on this, whether it be to award me no, full or half credit. I have an unreasonable lust for barnstars, but fear that many of the articles claimed are at the bottom end of what is acceptable, or even below it. (Even stripped of the 22 articles which at one time were on my Drive tally but which for various reasons I have withheld from the final submission.) As a newbie it is hard to judge this. I am pleased enough with many of my edits and applying a discount seemed to me a reasonable and honourable approach. It may be that I am being over humble or an overly harsh critic of my own work. That said, it seems, somehow, particularly inappropriate that I receive the golden typewriter for most articles copy edited. If it were to be decided otherwise I would certainly be happy about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I've checked more than 10% of your articles and feel that you got the quality up to a reasonable standard by the end of the drive. This is purely about what you want to do. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If you feel that my quality was appropriate, then I would like to be credited in full with whatever typewriters and barnstars that entitles me to. (It would seem that I have a misplaced lack of faith in the quality of my own work. That said, I can do better, and will do in future drives.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind. Sorry for the confusion. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like we're all squared away here, so I'm going to hand out the barnstars now. Tdslk (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

All done except mine. Tdslk (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I just sat down at my computer to give out these awards, and I found it already done. Teamwork! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

February blitz

The February blitz always sneaks up on us, since the month is so short. I think we should do it next week. I'll set up one based on Requests unless anyone has another idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, there are only 24 active requests. That might not be enough for a blitz. How about adding the nine painful articles from the May 2017 backlog month? Other ideas? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan; the last few articles of a monthly backlog are generally difficult, and I ran out of time last month :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2018 created. We start in 10 hours. Let's do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018 newsletter

I've written a newsletter for February 2018 which shows us getting a great start to the year. It also announces the election results and Annual Reports, and I listed these on the main Newsletters page. So hopefully good for another couple months. May want to hold off a few more days before sending it to the mailing list, just so the sign up for the March drive isn't redlinked. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of which, it's time to create the March drive page. How about June–August 2017? Requests look pretty good, but we always include them anyway for extra credit. All the best, Miniapolis 14:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And FYI, according to Jonesey's talk page they're on wikibreak until the 27th. Unless someone objects (or wants to do it :-)), I'll set up the drive page in the next day or so. All the best, Miniapolis 14:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to give it a try; I've got to learn how to do these things and pick up the slack when others aren't available. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank goodness for forms and simple instructions! It seems to be all set except step 5 which is to mass mail the newsletter with the drive invitation. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg, I adjusted the February blitz info; we ended with only 14 requests, not 16. I wasn't sure what to make of the discrepancy of 35 completed edits combining the totals of the participating editors, and the 33 completed daily edits per the table, so I didn't do anything with that; there were probably late reports that were included in the former but not in the latter, or perhaps articles included that were neither requests nor from May 2017. (For the upcoming drive, June through August makes sense to me, since June and July would be too few for an entire month.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: The Blitz ended 17 February at 23:59 UTC, so I went by this version of the Requests page which lists 16 – though looking at it again, now, one of them is marked done (but not archived at that time) so I believe it should be 15. (The following version of the page, with 14 incomplete requests listed, has a time stamp by BroVic at 01:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC).) The blitz progress chart may list 33 but I take the barnstar table as the official final count of 35 copy edits for the blitz. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg, if you'll look at my comment attached to the actual February 17 posting (see the diff here), you'll see that I pointed out that the copyedit for Irakli Tsereteli had been completed on February 17 and claimed in the editor's list of blitz-completed edits (at 13:32 that day), but they didn't remember to post the "Done" until 01:42 on February 18. It seems to me that it should count as a completed request, but if you disagree, then you would also need to adjust the totals for the blitz, not just the closing number. (If you did include Irakli Tsereteli in the barnstar total, then it should certainly be included in the final calculation of how many requests were left.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything. You can call me lazy, but I'm trying to get these things done with a minimum of effort. I'm not going to check every request to see if an editor might have done it in time but forgotten to list it, as well as going through all the archived requests and checking against the requests which are continually added. Nor am I going to search pages for things you might have "pointed out" with hidden wikicoded comments. I reported what was left on the requests page at the end of the blitz and I reported the final tallies for the blitz which came out a couple days later. I wouldn't expect the two to be in synch as there are editors doing requests without participating in the blitz. Anyways, I defend my process, but I don't particularly care whether that's a 14, 15 or 16 in the newsletter. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(←) This is why I don't like blitzes in general and request blitzes in particular; the bookkeeping (with new requests added daily) is hellish. BlueMoonset, I don't understand your great concern with our record-keeping; it's not like we're cooking the books or something. You weren't interested in serving as coordinator when I asked you, and Reidgreg does a lot. All the best, Miniapolis 23:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

My apologies to you both; I certainly didn't mean to come off as hectoring, but it seems that I did. Miniapolis, it didn't seem appropriate for me to run for coordinator since at the time I wasn't a member of GOCE; it wasn't that I had no interest in doing so. I was happy to see that in the event there was a full slate of one lead coordinator and four regular coordinators, so everyone was able to serve and no one was disappointed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I take it that you've since joined, BlueMoonset, and I'm glad you did; many eyes make light work. It's probably just me, but sometimes I can't get my head around Jonesey's hidden-text instructions :-). All the best, Miniapolis 14:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: what if I change the phrasing to more accurately describe the metrics used? Change "xx pending requests" to "xx articles listed on the requests page" and "completed xx copy edits" to "recorded xx copy edits". (I think most of us complete more copy edits than we record.) The previous newsletter had so many drives and blitzes that I varied the phrasing, but it shouldn't be too repetitive for this issue. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, hope I didn't jump the gun by sending out the newsletter :-). Great job, Reidgreg and BlueMoonset, thanks for your help. All the best, Miniapolis 00:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for Coordinating while I took a much-needed wikibreak (including a few days on an island with no internet service whatsoever; highly recommended). It looks like things run more smoothly when I am away than when I am here! – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

March barnstars are ready to give out

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2018/Barnstars

Use Template:GOCE award to give out awards. It's easy and fun! – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Corinne

Terrible news on AN. Miniapolis 21:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Corinne hasn't been here since mid-February, and I last had an email from her in mid-January. I had been meaning to check on her. Note to self: Carpe diem, goddammit. Miniapolis 22:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Dammit, indeed. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm saddened to hear this; I just found the AN thread. Corinne was one of our most prolific and thorough copy-editors, a reliable and helpful coordinator, and a fine contributor to WP. I'm sure we'll all miss her input here. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, we certainly will. Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Very sad news. Corinne was a positive presence around the Guild and will be missed. Tdslk (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

What I loved about her (and it's painful to use the past tense) was the total lack of drahmah. If anyone was here to build an encyclopedia, it was Corinne. All the best, Miniapolis 01:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that the Ombox needs to be updated, and I thought that we should include something about Corinne, as I am sure not every member of the Guild follows this talk page. Does that sound appropriate to others? Tdslk (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's OK with me, as long as we have verified that it is true, to the extent that we are able to do such things. We could also include a note in our newsletter, which I would be happy to put together in the next week or so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with both. Carol, who said she was Corinne's sister, posted her real name at ANI (not knowing her username) and I recognized it from our email correspondence. Corinne hadn't edited since mid-February (most unlike her), and my last email from her was in mid-January. Although I haven't found an obituary online, I'm afraid it's true. All the best, Miniapolis 17:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the obituary link I posted on your talk page? It's not much but it seems like a reliable source to me. Tdslk (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks. I remember her mentioning Hendersonville in an email, because an acquaintance of mine used to live there. All the best, Miniapolis 01:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text for Ombox (edit as you see fit):

We have received the sad news that GOCE Coordinator and frequent Requests copy editor Corinne died during March. We will miss her enthusiastic, friendly approach to copy editing and to all of her interactions on Wikipedia. The Guild of Copy Editors extends it condolences to all who knew her.

You are welcome to edit the words immediately above, so that we don't make a big long thread with lots of versions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I changed "drama-free" to "friendly" to use a positive adjective instead of a "not negative" adjective. Otherwise I like it. Tdslk (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Good change. It's fine as is. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 01:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Emeritus status?

With all due respect, shouldn't we change Corinne to a coordinator emeritus both on her user page and at WP:GOCE/COORD, since Corinne isn't still a coordinator? I think that that would both be more accurate than her current status and would be a greater honor to her memory than still showing her as a coordinator until her term would expire. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 03:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. Looking at the list of former coordinators, it seems to me that we should also offer the emeritus status to Baffle gab1978, if they would be willing to accept it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Since her userpage is protected (per WP:DWG), I can take care of that. All the best, Miniapolis 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Looked at Corinne's userpage, and because she also has a coordinator userbox I couldn't bring myself to do it. Baffle should definitely be a coordinator emeritus. All the best, Miniapolis 13:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Whatever we decide to do, we should retain the fact that Corinne won in the December 2017 election and served in early 2018 as a coordinator, at least in the table at the bottom of the page. Perhaps we should create a category other than "emeritus" for Corinne, since it implies (at least in academia) that the person is still pursuing their activities; for me, there's a bit of cognitive dissonance. I think having Baffle gab1978 as an emeritus makes all sorts of sense, though the final paragraph of the "How are we selected?" section of WP:GOCE/COORD would need to be modified to allow editors other than lead coordinators to be included, and (if done right away) the selection process modified as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with BlueMoonset; I think something like a badge of honour may be more appropriate than emeritus status for coordinators who've passed away. Also I'm happy for Corinne to retain her coordinator status until July; there's no tendency to remove the status from inactive living coordinators. Thank you for offering me emeritus status; I'll respectfully decline because I'm planning (RL permitting) to return as a coord in July (and I've no desire to lead), I've no wish for unnecessary changes to long-standing Guild practices and I'm already a Hall of Fame member... :) I am, however, well-chuffed with the offer; thank you. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(←) Since Corinne was such a great help with requests, I feel that we need to do something to honor her contributions. HOF, maybe? All the best, Miniapolis 00:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

HOF makes sense for Corinne, probably more sense than my original suggestion of Coordinator Emeritus. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 14:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Corinne deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame. Tdslk (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

HOF with a posthumous note? I don't mind her name staying on the rolls for the remainder of her term, so long as this doesn't cause any confusion (e.g.: if someone should try to contact her as a coord). – Reidgreg (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

HOF would be a fitting tribute, noting that she died in office as coordinator. All the best, Miniapolis 22:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with HOF as better than emeritus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Added to WP:GOCE/HOF; feel free to tweak. All the best, Miniapolis 17:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I added a note to her talk page as well, in case her family is monitoring it. Tdslk (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

April blitz

Ideas for an April blitz? It will need to be either next week or the last week of April. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If a Requests blitz, could it also include articles tagged in August 2017? There are only a half-dozen left but they're pretty tough. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Good idea; the last few articles in a backlog month are always brutal :-). All the best, Miniapolis 21:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April 2018 created, and I updated the Ombox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April 2018/Barnstars are ready to give out, if anyone wants to (optionally) check my calculations and then have some fun distributing stars. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Obsolete wording on this page about Lead and Coordinator voting?

Somehow I have never noticed the clause "The candidate receiving the highest number of votes becomes the lead coordinator". I can't recall that we have operated this way in the last few years. In the election where I first became Lead Coordinator, I received fewer votes than any other candidate. That was over four years ago. We should probably change that wording. Thoughts? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the wording should be changed. Good catch! Tdslk (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. Now who wants to be lead coordinator? :-) All the best, Miniapolis 22:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked over that old election, and think that you (Jonesey95) were the only candidate who wanted to be lead coordinator; Baffle and I were happy to take a step back. Historically, the editor who wants to be lead coordinator generally is :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. That seems to be how it has ended up in the past four or five years at least. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I find the "first among equals" implication of the lead's job appealing, but it would result in an awful lot of ties (since just about everyone running gets support from all the voters), and who has time for run-off elections? I wouldn't say I want to be lead, but I'd be willing, and I wouldn't be offended if someone else received more support for the job. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

May barnstars

The barnstar page is up; the script doesn't seem to like piped links, italics or long formatnumber strings (more than one line), and the drive instructions should be tweaked to reflect this :-). If someone would give them out, that would be great. All the best, Miniapolis 15:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Tweaked the new-drive-page template instructions to include avoiding long calculation strings; shorter strings seem to be okay. All the best, Miniapolis 16:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My bad; I should replace that with numerals after previewing at the end of the month. Thanks for running the script! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I double-checked and found that the script used a disambiguation number in an article title for the wordcount for one article. Fixed that and distributed awards except for mine (and for Miniapolis, who declines to receive drive awards). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ombox

Hi all, it would be nice if an elected coordinator could publicise the current Guild election page on the Ombox. Otherwise I'll be happy to boldly add it in a few days' time. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 12:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the poke :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June newsletter

I was thinking we should have newsletter ready when the May drive results are done. So it'd include March, April and May, and announce the June elections. I wanted to check two things:

1. @BlueMoonset: would you be interested in writing this one? If you'd like a turn, you're welcome to. Otherwise I'd be happy to do it.
2. Would someone who knew her better care to write something about Corinne?

Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg, thanks for the offer. Now isn't a great time, as I have some commitments that have to take precedence. Maybe later in the year? I'm happy to look over the draft version when it's ready, if that would help. I didn't know Corinne except via a few talk-page exchanges, so I wouldn't be a good choice to write about her. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Although I didn't know Corinne particularly well (but we corresponded via email), I'll be happy to write something. I miss her. All the best, Miniapolis 22:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The June newsletter is all laid out. It needs the final drive statistics from the May barnstars page when those results come in, and a note about Corinne. Feel free to change anything. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I added a tribute to Corinne, and noted on the election page that nominations are now open. All the best, Miniapolis 23:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies to Miniapolis; I have no idea how that revert happened (I certainly didn't mean to do it), but obviously I missed something I shouldn't have missed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries, BlueMoonset; I wanted Corinne's tribute to precede the cheerful rah-rah later in the newsletter :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Good call, Miniapolis. Thanks for that. @BlueMoonset: I realize that the backlog was reduced by 50.59% in May, but do you think it's necessary to say it was "more than halved"? It's pretty close, it started with an odd number so it can't have been exactly halved, and the numbers are right there if anyone wants an exact figure. Anyways, I think it's ready for a proof-read before sending it out. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg, if it had been 724, then halved would have been fine. Since it was 716, a decrease of 733, I thought it was worth "more than" in celebrating the achievement, but if you think it's overdoing the hype, that's fine too. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave that to the proof-reader. So it just needs a check and maybe someone with admin rights can mass mail it to the mailing list? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Tweaked and sent. Thanks for a great job, Reidgreg! All the best, Miniapolis 13:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June blitz

We should probably run the blitz next week. Any theme ideas? We could take a stab at clearing October 2017 (currently 56 articles) or the Requests page. Tdslk (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the October backlog; 56 articles is doable. All the best, Miniapolis 20:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. Template:GOCE-new-blitz-page is an easy way to create a blitz page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you included requests, as well? I look forward to doing a request or two during blitzes. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I too had been looking forward to doing a few requests for the blitz. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, requests can be done at any time (not just when they get you a barnstar :-)). IMO, too broad a focus turns a blitz into a drive; any blitz should probably be October or requests (keeping in mind that we do request blitzes a lot), but not both. All the best, Miniapolis 13:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Any copy editing can be done at any time; and, although I do enjoy getting them, I don't really work for barnstars during blitzes, where the requirements are halved but the time limit is < 1/4 and there are no bonus words. I don't always see something of interest to copy edit on the requests page. Now I do. We have done both in the (very recent, IIRC) past. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's fine with me, since I'm indifferent to blitzes in general :-); I just thought it would be boring to do yet another requests blitz. All the best, Miniapolis 22:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The Requests page is getting a bit full, though, and is starting to exceed the 30-day maximum wait time we'd had until the end of May. On the other hand, I know there is pressure to keep the backlog from rebounding. How about we have both requests and the oldest backlog month, so there are a variety of article qualities, from FA to start-class, allowing an easier entry point for new copy editors? Editors are going to copy edit whatever they want to anyways, so let's reward efforts on both fronts. I have some time and can set up a blitz later today if there are no objections. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Alright, June 2018 blitz set up with a note in the Ombox. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Reidgreg. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Blitz awards given out and Ombox updated. Three copy editors completed 10k articles, nicely done! If someone could send mine, that'd be great. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

July drive

How about the October – December 2017 backlog and June requests? I can set up the drive page and tweak the ombox when we determine the drive's scope (or in the next day or two, whichever comes first :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 13:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Jonesey95 beat you to it. July drive. Will remove May requests as they seem to be done. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sensitive topic: When to remove the notice about Corinne from the Ombox

The notice about Corinne's death in March has been in the Ombox for about three months. I have been thinking that July 1, the end of her term as coordinator, may be an appropriate time to remove the message. This is a sensitive topic, however, and I do not at all want to come across as simply taking care of business. I welcome your thoughts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that that would be appropriate. Tdslk (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

So do I, but I don't want to be the one to do it :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds right. I say we leave it to whatever schmuck becomes lead. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Western Roman Empire request

I seem to have started a debate at the bottom of the Requests page. I hadn't anticipated that. I flag it up here in case you prefer to move it to the Talk Page. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I suspect discussion would best be moved to the article talk page rather than here. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I'm okay with it as is, although JohnWickTwo seems to think you've accepted the copyedit request and you need to clarify that one way or the other. All the best, Miniapolis 22:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I've commented on the discussion at REQ and will close and move it to REQ talk in a few hours. Briefly, the article is stable and I see no reason a copy-edit cannot go ahead. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 newsletter

Hi all, I've created a mini-newsletter for August; feel free to edit, correct and complete details. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/August 2018. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, Baffle. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 17:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to crunch some numbers from the Requests page before it goes out. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah the numbers I came up with would require too much explanation for a newsletter. I added the July drive numbers and tried to follow Bafflegab's example of a more informal tone. It's probably good to go now or we could hold off a week or so if that's a better way to promote the August blitz. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

July barnstars

The July barnstars are here; thanks to Jonesey95 for creating the page. All the best, Miniapolis 21:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Miniapolis, Jonesey. I'll double-check the numbers (there were a couple article titles with parenthetic dates) and send out the barnstars. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Awards have been distributed except for mine. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar script

I noticed a couple issues cropped up with the barnstar script again. This is not a big deal, I'm aware of it and watch for it, but I thought it'd been fixed.

• Articles of exactly 5,000 words were not counted as 5k articles. (Similarly a 10,000-word article would only be counted as one 5k, a 15,000 word article as two 5ks.) In other words, the threshold for the 5k loop was set too high. This should be an easy fix to the line Do While nTempWordCount > 5000 by using either 4999 or >= (but not both).
• The script would mistake parenthetic disambiguation years in article titles for the word count. It seemed to me that the easiest fix was to replace the function InStr with InStrRev which searches the line from right to left, thus taking the right-most parenthetic as the wordcount (and ignoring any parenthetic disambiguators or comments). My amateurish fix was to the following lines:
  • nStart = InStr(1, strText, "(", 1) + 1
    • replace with → nFinish = InStrRev(strText, ")", -1, 1)
  • nFinish = InStr (nStart, strText, ")", 1)
    • replace with → nStart = InStrRev(strText, "(", nFinish, 1) + 1

The two functions take their parameters in a different order, so watch for that. The -1 tells it to start searching from the end of the string. I think that's right but unfortunately I don't have a platform which will run .vbs scripts so I can't debug it myself.

• To keep the Totals line at the bottom of the sortable table, could the line strLine = "| Totals" be changed to strLine = "|{{Hs|Zzz}}Totals". Actually, can apply that to all of the lines at the bottom until the |-.

Again, this is not a big deal, but my hope is that it might run a little smoother and require less cleanup of the input file. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Do While nTempWordCount >= 5000 would be my solution, as that's the quantity you really mean, while Do While nTempWordCount > 4999 would give a misleading result for a fractional quantity (4999.5), as unlikely as it is that that would be encountered.

If I were writing a one-off regex to search for a string to use as a word count, I would exclude any text between double square-brackets (\[\[.*\]\]) and search for paren-delimited text that contained only numerical values and expected punctuation (\([ ,0-9]+\)). Would getting editors to use distinctive delimiters for comments ("...", <!--...-->, etc.) be of any help here? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Torchiest, who wrote the original script, before making any changes to what I have :-). Miniapolis 00:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters which fix is used for the 5000 words issue, as there should never be a fractional value at that stage in the code. There's a 150% multiplier in there, but it comes after that step. And even if there were a 4999.5 value, I'd round up and include it, so > 4999 would be valid. The InStrRev fixes are good, and in fact can be somewhat simplified:

nFinish = InStrRev(strText, ")")

nStart = InStrRev(strText, "(", nFinish) + 1

You could instead request that people use a particular combination of brackets around their word count numbers to make it easier to find and keep the InStr function, but any kind of mass change in behavior like that will be tough to get full compliance on. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 10:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for your help; it's helping me overcome my Fear of the Script :-). All the best, Miniapolis 16:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

August blitz

We should probably do the blitz next week. Thoughts for a theme? The Requests page is under control (only three articles left from July, all being worked on). We could work on the oldest month in the backlog, January, with 81 articles. Tdslk (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Works for me, although I'll be scarce here due to back-to-back family visits :-). All the best, Miniapolis 12:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Works for me too. I can set it up, but I have very little time for WP in August. A backlog blitz is easy to set up and maintain. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't thought of a theme to inspire new copy editors. I looked at August observances but don't see building a blitz around Get Ready for Kindergarten Month or Psoriasis Awareness Month. An incategory search shows nearly a quarter of the old articles are BLPs, but that's too many to list and I think we did that for the last subject-focused theme. So I guess January. That gives 80 articles to choose from so there should be enough variety for a blitz. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the blitz is set up, the tabs and ombox updated, and I linked it in the newsletter. If one of the admin-types who isn't too busy would like to send the newsletter out, it's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/August 2018. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Done, and thanks. All the best, Miniapolis 22:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(←) I've signed up as a reviewer and will review from Wednesday onwards. I'm not taking part in the blitz myself. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 00:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: I also do a bit of that, if you happen to see my name in the page history. I stopped adding the review line when I realized it might make extra cleanup work before running the barnstar script. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I see; thanks for informing me. I didn't realise that would cause a problem; how else should I record my reviews -- on the blitz's talk page? Baffle gab1978 21:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an answer for you there. I'd seen other coordinators in the page histories doing minor cleanup of copy edits, and tried to follow their example. If I saw another coordinator's name there, I knew that they were on top of it and I could move on to another copy edit. It's all been pretty informal – and, ironically, uncoordinated – but it seems to be the practise. I suspect that is now used more to point out editors who might be interested in becoming coordinators. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; if my reviews interfere with the script I'll happily remove them—or another coordinator is welcome to—please let me know. I often used to review copy-edits in the manner I've done this time without problem; see September 2014. The style goes back to at least 2011. Baffle gab1978 20:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I reviewed Triangleman3's 10k copy edit (took me a while) and one each for Curdigirl and Gog the Mild. A couple of the editors who signed-up copy edited articles which weren't in the target month, so they didn't claim them. Gbolahan Adebayo is really new (50 edits) and tried to take on some Requests; I left him a note on his talk page. I don't think there were any other surprises. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, Jonesey never bothered to run the barnstar script for blitzes because there's no 50-percent bonus to worry about. All the best, Miniapolis 16:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Also the math is usually a LOT easier, since the article counts are so low. Thanks for picking up the slack for me while I have some big IRL changes (all good, BTW!). – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, I think I did it once before, so it can't be too difficult ... okay, 10 awards distributed, just mine left. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC). Miniapolis gave out the last one, all done. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar script (again)

Reidgreg and Jonesey95, have either of you tried running the barnstar script yet? I thought I had the hang of it, but I can't get the damn thing to work (to give you an idea how FUBAR this is, I can't even get through Jonesey; it just generates zeros and expands and I have to end the scripthost .exe thing in task manager). Pinging Torchiest (sorry, Joe). All the best, Miniapolis 14:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have anything that will run a Windows script. I'll try doing it manually. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's a slightly outdated version of the instructions I wrote for myself. Check to make sure that you are doing these steps.

1) Copy the user tracking section of the drive page into the GOCE-input.txt file.
2) Clean up the raw data as best you can. 
a) Remove any unused lines such as "# {{Completed}} [[]] ()".
b) Remove extra commentary and text. (e.g. {{y}} username etc.)
c) Remove entirely sections of users who did not do any copyediting.
3) Run the script.
4) It will almost certainly not work the first time; you'll get an error window saying what happened (it will probably say error in line 157). Click OK.
5) Open the results file in a text editor and see where it stopped.
6) a) Look at the next user's section in the raw text and correct the problem. If it gets stuck on line 157, look at the output file to see the last editor it processed. The next editor has a typo. Look for incorrect punctuation like [ or { instead of (. Look for dual parens and extra text. Look for *0 (zero) instead of *O. 
b) (only if there are problems:) The code looks for numbers in parentheses at the end of each line to get the article word counts, so it gets confused if there are parenthetical notes after the word count.
c) (only if there are problems:) Look for problems like "'''*O'''" (remove bolding), "R*" (should be *R), unclosed parens around word counts or square brackets around word counts instead of parens.
7) Repeat steps 3-6 until no error window pops up.
8) Copy the entire results file (GOCE-output.txt) to the barnstars subpage for the completed drive.

I don't have access to a Windows computer today, although I might be able to wrangle one tomorrow. Post here if you get stuck and I'll make some time about 16 hours from now to see if I can make it work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm just about done. I need to put in the overall totals for the table, look up the barnstars, and fix the leaderboard. I was the one who kept saying "awards will be given out shortly" so I have to follow through. If you do get the script working, though, and you have time, please do check its results against my numbers. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the barnstar page is saved if anyone wants to check it. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both, and the barnstar page looks good. I always go back to Torchiest's original email from three years ago to try to ensure that I don't forget anything. I couldn't even get through Jonesey's one article the first time; all the script generated was the start of the table and the headers. Thought the problem might have been my raw-data filename, but I re-saved it by copying the filename from the script and it still didn't work. Since there's no such thing as a stupid question (says me :-)), I'm going to ask: should I add Rev to every InStr in the script? I copy-pasted

nFinish = InStrRev(strText, ")")

nStart = InStrRev(strText, "(", nFinish) + 1

in only one part of my script, and that may be the problem. It's good to know that we can still do this manually (as the coordinators did when I came in) if needed. Thanks for any help and all the best, Miniapolis 18:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Since it's the object of the game (and Reidgreg did the heavy lifting on the barnstar page), I'll give out the barnstars :-). Miniapolis 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Annual Report

Hi all, I've created early the annual report, which can be added to at leisure. Most of the old data and text are removed but some may still remain; I copied over the 2014 report. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 23:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Does that mean the formatting from the last two years was so bad you had to go to an earlier version? I probably won't do any work on it until December but thanks for setting it up. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all; we use the same template each year so it makes little difference which version is used. An early start means we can add Drive/Blitz and other stats at leisure. I also forgot to link the page; Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Membership/News/2018_Annual_Report. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool. BTW, how are we for newsletters? The last one was at the beginning of August, so it's been two months. I was assuming we'd have one in late November or early December to announce the December elections. So if we don't want them to bunch up we could do a quick one now (and have five for the year) or just wait until then (and have four). – Reidgreg (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll set one up for a late-Nov release. Early notice of elections sounds like a good idea. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 11:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It's here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 12:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

October blitz

Shall we have a blitz next week? I'm afraid if we wait until the week following (Oct 21–27), we won't have much of a break before the November drive. I'm terrible with themes, but the Requests page is getting a bit long (which hopefully means there's variety). – Reidgreg (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, and for once I can spare more time for the project. How about food and drink for a theme? I've set up the page Page here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries; I used the handy-dandy template {{GOCE-new-blitz-page}}. I couldn't find much in Food and Drink using PetScan; it's obviously changed somewhat in the last few years. One knows one's done something wrong when Varicose Veins appears at the top of the list! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 20:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle; pinging Jonesey95, who has put together project-specific blitz-article lists in the past (and can teach us how to fish :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 23:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I filtered out varicose veins and got eight hits:

1. Colocasia esculenta
2. Cuisine of Karnataka
3. Po (food)
4. Yukpo
5. History of Brahmin diet
6. Economic Survey of India 2011
7. Ground meat
8. Formula restaurant

It's a start and, with requests, should keep us busy enough. All the best, Miniapolis 23:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Miniapolis; I'm open to any other categories with a good quantity of articles needing c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I find only seven articles with the WikiProject Food and Drink template on their talk page; link here for those curious about the PetScan configuration. I explored a bit, checking Category:Living people (266 results, too big) and Category:Geography by first-level administrative country subdivision (83 results that, with some filtering, could become a coherent grouping of articles about places). I think that the Geography articles, if someone is willing to sort through them and make a manual list, would make a good blitz list. Articles like Hinkley groundwater contamination and Jockey Club Ti-I College and KBDI-TV would need to be removed, since they are not really about places per se.

What is needed, if you want to do an article list, is for someone to manually go through the list of 83 results and copy out the actual places, then put it in a format like the one I used in this blitz page. I don't have time right now, but I might be able to do it over the next 24 hours if there is interest. Thoughts? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey; I think 'Geography by first-level administrative country subdivision ' is a good subject for a blitz. I'll have a go at filtering tonight, it'll distract me from the washing up! :D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 19:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I've also added the Food and Drink articles as a theme; feel free to remove these if it's felt excessive. No varicose veins though; they're a bit chewy for my liking! :D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 21:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Great work, all! Should we append the instructions at the top of the article list to include using {{done}} for finished copyedits? This is our habit from the Requests page but is not actually stated here. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That's mostly my fault - I use that template from habit and because I normally work with images disabled in my browser, thus I see text "Green tick" not the image of the {{y}} template. I'm easy though; we can change it if 'Done' is clearer/easier for everyone. I'm happy with either as long as the completion is clearly marked. Baffle gab1978 20:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha. I also have images turned off (slow connection) and wasn't aware of the green tick. Given there are only two things to indicate, there shouldn't be any confusion. (I've had lots of fun at DYK reviews where they use several different ticks without accompanying text.) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've done the final update to the tally table; I'd be happy if another coord could double-check my work if possible - It wouldn't surprise me if I've made a balls-up somewhere! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI: I marked one working article as done and another (Baldwin II by Gog the Mild) is not being claimed. I want to check the edits from a newer copy editor today. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, everything checked, and the tally numbers look good. It's tricky counting them when requests keep coming in. I'll get to work on the barnstars page, etc. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Barnstar page is up and everything given out except for my own. Cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Award given to Reidgreg. Tdslk (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

November drive

It's that time again. How about the April–June backlog and October requests? All the best, Miniapolis 01:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95! I've updated the Ombox. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the working tags have all been cleared, if someone could please run the barnstar script.

BTW, I set the last May 2018 articles and Requests as themes for the December blitz. That'll get the backlog down to seven months for the end of the year, and the sooner the requests are done the sooner we'll have that data for the year-end report. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The barnstar page is up; if someone would give them out, that would be great. All the best, Miniapolis 23:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll give it a quick check and send them out. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Awards are out except for my own. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave Reidgreg their well-earned rewards. Tdslk (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Election and Nov nl

I've announced the 2019/1 election on the Ombox. I'm also going to prep the November NL for dispatch; coords please add and/or tweak it as required. Also I've created the December Blitz page here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 00:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Except for December Blitz dates, the nl is ready for checking. Baffle gab1978 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'd suggest the week of the 16th for the Blitz. Tdslk (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle and Tdslk; I penciled in December 16–22 for the blitz (best to get 'er done by Christmas :-)). I can send it when ready (Baffle and Reidgreg, would you like the mass message sender flag?). All the best, Miniapolis 14:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all; I'll add the dates in a bit it looks ready to send now. Miniapolis, thanks for asking but I'll say no for now; though it may be useful in the future. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 18:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Starting the blitz during the drive month has some minor issues; for example, the sign-up edit notice does not point to the previous blitz barnstar page to get rollover words. Rather than fixing that, It'd be simpler to wait until December before announcing the blitz is ready for sign-up. And then we could also include results from the November drive, which is conspicuously unmentioned in the present newsletter. The worst that happens is people have 13 days to make coordinator nominations instead of 15. Miniapolis: I should re-read the procedures and maybe harden my password security, but yes, that sounds like something I could do and not have to bother admins. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for noting my oversight, Reidgreg. D'oh! It'll only take a few mins to insert some Nov drive text, and a few days' delay won't hurt. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I fixed a problem with the October barnstar page which had the wrong total (my fault); it now records 61 copy edits. The September barnstar page lists 294 copy edits. I'm not sure where the newsletter figures of 57 and 295 come from. I have, for the moment, changed them to be consistent with the barnstar pages/official results. The "helped remove xx c/e templates" seems to refer to the net backlog change. I used to put more data in newsletters (e.g.: total wordcounts) but it seemed like there was a move to simplify. Backlog numbers might not make a lot of sense without more context. Also, as the newsletters are promotional, I hoped to keep in a lot of positive and encouraging news while the bouncing nature of the backlog might have the opposite effect. I've also added the August blitz, which wasn't included in the (early) August newsletter, and made some other tweaks. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Reidgreg for your feedback and for checking the text. I probably miscounted the September figures; my mistake. Yes, I referred to the net difference between the backlog at the start and end of dives and blitzes, which is the reason I wrote 'helped to remove' rather than 'removed'. A high level of detail is useful when referring back to the newsletters for the annual report, which i was slowly building up in October; can't remember where I got to now. I do see your point about encouraging news but the nature of our system means the figures will always be cyclical and I think most people will understand that, so I don't think we don't need to spin the figures. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought to focus the GOCE newsletter on GOCE activities, and keep it fairly brief while showing how much we have going on. As the backlog total is affected by many factors outside of the Guild's purview, I'm not sure it makes too much sense to give these figures outside of milestones and record lows. The year-end report is a different matter; I'd add more data there. I've worked on it a bit while looking at data for the newsletter (thanks for getting request totals from the request page history, btw!), but I'm not going to do too much since a lot of data has to either wait for year-end or mid-January (when the last 2018 requests are expected to be completed). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries and thanks for tweaking the report; I'll continue tweaking it so feel free to correct / redact / restructure as necessary. A few lines about Corrine seem to be needed but I'm not good with these things, and I'd be grateful if another coordinator (perhaps Miniapolis) would write them, but I'll understand if you'd rather leave them out. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 01:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a little about Corinne under § Membership, which I took from Miniapolis's message in the newsletter. When data is in, I thought we could frame is as those people who joined the Guild and then those we lost. BTW, on this year's drives we completed one more backlog article and one more request than on last year's drives. That's a literal quantum leap forward (i.e.: the smallest measurable gain). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Team GOCE

Well, Gog the Mild beat me to it, but I had this typed to send for after the newsletter went out.

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Awarded to the GOCE Coordinator Team – Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk – for their enthusiastic support, making sure that the Guild Hall didn't burn down under my administration and for generally making me look like a competent leader. On one occasion I merely mentioned a preference to have a blitz on a particular week, and within an hour the page was set up and several options were presented for themes. It has been a privilege to direct the considerable energies of such a fine group of highly accomplished editors. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Teamwork is definitely what makes the GOCE work. Great job, everyone! Onward to 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. We do good work :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yay; go us! :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 00:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 blitz

Its been requested that we expand the scope of the blitz to include another backlog month. Normally, I like to keep it focused on the oldest articles of the backlog/requests page, particularly to clear those for the new year. However, we have a few new copy editors signed up for this blitz and there are only seven articles from May 2018 (all of them tough) and less than a dozen requests below the GA level. Maybe it's not a bad idea to also include June so there are more easier copy edits and possibly more of those who signed up will find one they can complete. Thoughts? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. It's always good to have something that less experienced copy editors can feel confident working on. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, there should be enough range to keep most editors happy. Now the backlog is smaller we don't have quite the choice for themes we once did. Swings and roundabouts, etc. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 19:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Works for me too. Backlog articles are easier to cut one's teeth on, but the last few articles of a month are always demanding. All the best, Miniapolis 23:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, gang, I know it was last minute (or last day). And thanks Miniapolis for adding it to the blitz. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

A Holiday Message

	Holiday Greetings and Best Wishes for a very Happy New Year to each of you. Cheers!! Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

January drive

It's that time again :-). How about the June–August backlog and December requests? Happy holidays and all the best, Miniapolis 16:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 18:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I made the page a couple of days ago. Please check it for errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Done; I've checked it and made a few grammatical tweaks and I must remember to adjust the templates accordingly. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 03:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both; I'll tweak the ombox. Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 18:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all! – Reidgreg (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)