Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010

Separate sections for participants

I have another idea for this drive. Perhaps we should give each person a separate section header for their articles. I found it more and more of a hassle to sift through the massive pile of articles listed to get to my own set. Or would this make the TOC too unwieldy? Perhaps we could turn it off, or change its format? Thoughts? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 04:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been much of a massive pile, as most people were using the collapsing template to save space. I think a section header is an okay idea, except that the table of contents will have 60 entries if I meet my participation target. The way I did it was by selecting "edit page" (yes, the whole page) then Control-F (opens the "find" box), then the first couple letters of the first article I edited, and I was right there. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant in the actual editing. The project page itself looked pretty clean, overall. I just felt lazy and thought subsections would make life easier for me. No big deal either way. :) Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of ctrl+F, but not everyone knows about it. Furthermore, I'm concerned that, with so many participants, there will be edit conflicts if all submissions are in 1 section. Therefore, I agree that there should be a section for each participant. To fix the TOC, use {{TOC limit}}. How does that sound? Airplaneman ✈ 22:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Will make updating our totals easier and more manageable now that we have many more editors getting involved this time around. dtgriffith (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Try it on for size. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Another option that we can look at is an alphanumeric TOC. For example, if we use {{AlphanumericTOC|sections=|}} we will have a horizontal TOC listing A–Z as different headers and we can align it as desired. However, all of the names will need to be in alphabetical order as level 3 headers and each letter will need its own level 2 header. We can remove unused letters/section from the TOC to keep it clean. Check Glossary of American football for an idea of it in use. TheTito ^Discuss 09:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If nobody has any qualms with it, I'll go ahead and alpha the list and add in the horizontal TOC below the 5.2 section "Totals". It's a small change (alphaing and adding another layer to the headers) but I think it will help people who don't use/know about hotkeys. Everyone will still have their own sections so ECs will stay low. Here's what it would look like. TheTito ^Discuss 07:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. If we get complaints, we'll revert. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 08:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done TheTito ^Discuss 09:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Other awards

I added three new awards. The 10k is for doing at least one article of more than 10,000 words. I also tentatively added awards for the highest average article size and the most articles over 5,000 words. I don't know if we want to come up with new awards for these things. We could give the golden copy edit award for highest average size, most over 5,000 each, or both. Another thing to consider is if we want a minimum number of articles copy edited to receive the average size award. I don't think it would be fair if someone did one 15,000 word article, and someone did ten others averaging 10,000, and the first person were to win. But how many would be best? Ten? Twenty? More? Any other ideas on this? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 20:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

From a program point of view, the 10k award and the largest average size award are both designed to motivate people to do larger articles, which makes them somewhat redundant. Plus the largest average size award is going to require someone to do the calculations. Remember that at the same time, we have to count and verify the regular awards as well. And now the award is going to require problem solving and additional award criteria to work around the problem you just raised. All in all, I prefer the 10k award. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 22:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable. How about we scrap the average size award, but keep the award for most 5k or larger articles? That seems like a different way to motivate people, because right now, you can get the 10k award for doing one article, then go back to small articles, while the 5k award will keep editors motivated on bigger articles. It could be the new third column on the leaderboard. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We could call the most 5k articles edited barnstar the copy edit marathon barnstar perhaps. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good one. We can add that to the leaderboard. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another idea: how about an award for the all around biggest article copy edited? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 23:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a REALLY good idea. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would a huge barnstar among other small ones look good for that award? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I really like that idea. I was thinking a big barnstar would be cool, but it wouldn't be good to make it so giant it took up too much space. Adding small ones around it would give that same sense of size without being overwhelming. And maybe somehow make the big one look shinier, while the small ones are more flat and greyish, perhaps. But you seem to have the graphics design skills to do it. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking along the lines of this? I also meant smaller stars behind a large one; I didn't mean to go above the default 100px.

I think it is still missing something, but I cannot think of what it is. Possible a quill/pencil or something to signify the copyediting. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god, I love it! Maybe this is the one to put all the books around down in front? :) Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think books would signify quantity, this one is about single large item. I dunno, I hate decisions like this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe put a pedestal underneath it with GOCE or something written on it? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 20:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a "standard" pedestal/note/writing for GOCE, so that it can be used for the whole lot of stars. This would elevate them above others and give a little more status. I have no idea what it should look like though. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed designs

Below are some proposed designs for new awards:

[1] [2] [3] (old revisions without pedestal)

I can add a number banner (10k or something) to them or any other item that is suitable. If community likes these, I can create more effectively replacing most of the default ones or adding bunch of custom ones. I'd be great to have a list of all awards (current/proposed), perhaps made by someone more familiar with May awards. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Noraft had anything in mind, but I thought we could give out ribbons for placing 1st–5th on the leaderboard. Something like this perhaps. Those colors are standard for placing everywhere I've looked: blue, red, white, yellow, and green for the first five.

For the most 5k articles, I think we'd decided to call it the marathon barnstar, so maybe something with a stylized runner in front of it or something would be cool? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I do think your designs above are pretty nice! Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is not terribly important. I'm merely a project manager. I've offered H3llkn0wz the job of being the awards coordinator for the July drive. If he accepts, you can direct questions to him. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

New designs are looking good. I live the idea of creating a pedestal or ribbon that reads "GOCE" (or spelled out) to distinguish the set of stars from all others. dtgriffith (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to spell out the full "GOCE", but it is impossible to fit it in one line and still have it readable. I had to go with "GOCE".—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Updated with a little pedestal:

[4] [5] [6] (old revisions with blurrier font)

I am really unsure about the quality, I need a proper artist to take a look at this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're in luck, I am a creative professional. The lettering is tough to read for two reasons – the font is not designed to be used at a small size, and the yellow color with drop shadow are further blurring the font's edges. You should go for a typeface like Copperplate since you want the stylized look, it comes in some fairly heavy weights that are easy to read at this size. If you need any help on design let me know, it's what I do for a living. dtgriffith (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I love the new designs! However, I agree with dtgriffith, the "G" is especially hard to read if you have no idea what it is supposed to be in the first place. I'm concerned that GOCE is not well known enough, and am wondering if we could have the name of the Guild spelt out in full, in two decks. Although it will be small, I think it is still preferable to GOCE. I think a double deck should be able to fit in that space. - S Masters (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Updated:

[7] [8] [9] (old revisions with "better" font, non-spelled out)

If I try to spell out the full GOCE, it just takes up 1/4 of the space and is just as readable as previous "GOCE". Since the barnstar template would spell out the full GOCE anyway, I don't think this is a big issue. At least not big enough to sacrifice 1/4 of the image for text.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The amount of space required to spell out the name is all relative to the typeface. Try out a condensed or ultra-condensed sans-serif font with bold or black weight. Even something as plain as Helvetica Condensed Bold could fit the name across the pedestal in a tight single line. The new font in your example is an improvement, though I think the serifs combined the shadow effects and dark yellow actually detract. Try it with white or light-colored type, will contrast better against the gray. dtgriffith (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Making font lighter/whiter only blurs it with the pedestal. Without the shadow/some kind of outline it's illegible or looks like pixel-art. Orange (or any non-black/white colour) looks blurry. None of the fonts look crisp and need tweaking anyway. Below are some examples, though this pixel-by-pixel fiddling is honestly taking too long.

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you would be willing to send me your original layered files I could work with the text. I just need something compatible with the Adobe Creative Suite apps. dtgriffith (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay to start 'booking'

Is it okay to start adding articles that you are 'Working' on (i.e. going to work on from July 1) to your article list before the start date? I don't want to barring people from working on entries, but equally I don't want there to be any confusion and I do want to guarantee some articles are completed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The preferred procedure is to wait until the drive starts and you're actually going to work on the article, since someone might come along in the next three weeks and do some copy editing before the drive begins. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems fair I suppose, thanks for the reply. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jumping the gun

Derild4921 (talk · contribs) appears to have started before the drive officially begins. Is this against the rules? ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 01:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I saw the "Ju" in July and just thought it was June since that's the month it is now. I thought it was weird how no one had started yet except for me, but never realized why until NerdyScienceDude told me. I'm really sorry and I'll be careful not to do again somewhere else. Derild4921 01:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be sorry; its all good. Two or three people did the same thing in May, and you're not the first to do it for July. I routinely go through every week and zero the counts, as some people add working tags, others actually start working early, etc. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Two suggestions: the psychology of the gargantuan task; useful scripts

Dear colleagues

I was asked to join this excellent project. Could I make a few suggestions?

Targetting of articles

The most significant is that more than 7,000 articles is a gigantic mountain for even an army of copy-editors to make a dent in. In my experience, it would be much more satisfying for participants if the drive narrowed its target by (1) field, and (2) importance. Would it not be a good feeling to announce to the community after a month that some one thousand tagged articles the Elimination drive identified as top priority in the fields of A, B, C, D and E were copy-edited and detagged? It's more identifiable, more notable, than making a small, random dent in the backlog of all tagged articles. Prioritising within the 7,000 would also send a message to editors at large that we're choosy about how we allocate our time and expertise. It would create enthusiasm for a repeat performance in a second set of areas at a later stage. There might even be competitive pressure ("Please do cognitive psychology next time!")—now that would be nice. Tony (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree being specific is a good direction. It's not easy to choose the appropriate articles from such a huge choice array. Someone would still need to come up with the topic. Perhaps an award then for those that complete top/high importance articles? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you'll notice, there is a narrower target mentioned on the main page than just all 7,000+ articles (2nd paragraph):

The goal of this backlog elimination drive is to bring the number of outstanding copyedit tags to below 6000 and completely clear 2008 from the backlog queue.

-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 21:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to upset the applecart, but in future, could themes be considered rather than years in which they were tagged? A quick look reveals candidates such as films, albums, bands, BLPs, etc. Tony (talk)

I think themes may work fine for individual editors, but the topic chosen may not be of interest to everyone. I wouldn't participate in a drive to copyedit mathematics article, for example.

My suggestions below are relevant here. Five articles might be an imperceptible fraction of the 7,000, but they could be half of the articles within a category or associated with a wikiproject. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Scripts for a more thorough, easier job

The second matter is that three scripts are readily to copy-editors that each bring articles into compliance with the Manual of Style.

• The first is the en dash script, which is highly successful and produces very very few false positives (amazing, actually). Almost every article needs that button pressed. It takes no skill to apply, and while you visit edit-mode, why not? Compliance is with WP:MOSDASH.
• The second is the date-format harmoniser, which ensures that dates are all of a single format (dmy or mdy) in each article, as required by MOSNUM (basically, there are four rules). This does require a knowledge of which format should be used in which articles; but we should all be familiar with this anyway. In addition, it unlinks the rare instances where chronological items are still blue and have been missed by the community-driven bots (20th century, 3 June, etc). It must not be applied in articles that themselves are on a chronological topic (e.g., the 2001 article, or Deaths in 2005).
• The third is the common-terms unlinker, which unlinks such items as "American", "Australia", "UK", "film", "author", and "television series", in line with the requirements at WP:OVERLINK. While all of these terms can and should be manually unlinked by copy-editors—unless they are particularly relevant and useful—the use of the script requires some skill, and a few editors still find it problematic. I can provide more information on this one, if required.

To add any script to your userspace, you need to create a page entitled

User:YOURNAME/vector.js.

To import Greg U's dash script, just type:

importScript("User:GregU/dashes.js");

at the top of your vector page. Save, then reload the page to activate it. The button is the dash symbol in the drop-down menu at the top on the little arrow.

For documentation on Greg U's dash script see Here

The date-format harmoniser ... Please let me know if there any takers. Same for the unlink-common-terms script. I can arrange importation. Tony (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The dash one is as easy as you promised. I'd be willing to try out the other two.--~TPW 15:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already got the dash one, but would like the other two. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in the other two as well. - S Masters (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dash script works well. The other two would be great to check out. dtgriffith (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I will organise the details of importing the date-format harmoniser by the end of the month. The common-terms script is under renovation (it had a glitch), and does require careful scrunity when used. I'll report back on it. Tony (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest incorporating them into Wikipedia:AutoEd. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 10:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Targets and forecasts

Last drive we had 33 active participants that cleared 1175 copyedit tags (plus 59 articles with no tag: the requests). If we did exactly the same numbers this next drive, and they were all focused on the oldest articles, we'd clear 2008 through October. The fact that we've got nine more participants signed up so far pretty much guarantees we've got the firepower to clear 2008, as long as it is concentrated on 2008. As we sign up more editors, we can clear even more of the backlog. I think this is going to be a very, very successful drive. Thanks to everyone who is helping to make that a reality. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be a nark: could we watch those upper-case letters in subtitles? I'm finding a lot to correct in certain categories of articles—especially smaller ones. Tony (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was only applicable to articles. No? If I am mistaken, I'm happy to oblige. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 11:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm anally retentive enough the think that title case on talk pages will encourage newbies to do it in articles. :-) Tony (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Outcomes?

I just started looking at some of the articles..and there are some unusual ones to say the least. I wonder if it is worth tallying up somewhere other outcomes, such as article moves, merges, splits and renames. I wonder if Italian Brazilian should be renamed Italian immigration to Brazil. Is there a style guide on immigration anywhere? Or Ancient divers...which has multiple issues and really needs a rename and scope. And then there is Addicted (2002 film), whose main problem is the lack of out-of-universe material more than anything. Hence, I wonder if many of the requests are all over the place like this, then a merge with Peer Review is maybe a good outcome? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of the tags are legit, though many articles have multiple issues which can intertwine with each other, sometimes in such a way that a copy edit can't be done. In the last drive, I personally tagged a few articles for deletion, did some merges and redirects, and removed some tags from articles that didn't need copy editing. I didn't count those. I think the idea here is to stay focused on just copy editing. You can, however, always add additional tags and take extra actions, as I and at least a few others did before. But I think it would be too complicated to try to count more stuff outside of articles and words copy edited. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 04:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an important point. Rather than getting bogged down in articles that have multiple issues we are unlikely to fix quickly, can we have a log on a sub-page where participants list the articles they've done together with a reason if they've examined an article and passed over it? There's no point in copy-editing an article that might be deleted for bad sourcing. That is not our job. Yet we need to know what our colleagues have already done and already commented on.

Another question: if we didn't have a log and relied solely on the montly list overleaf, how long does it take for a detagged article to be removed from the list? Tony (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is removed from the list once the tag is removed.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a possible way to deal with that. Rather than create another list that would need to be continuously cross-referenced, what if we were to just update the month/year value for the copyedit tag to June 2010? Then it would still be in the tally, but out of the older areas that we're trying to clear out. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 05:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought the monthly lists were done by some bot, like, daily. Tony (talk)

The lists are maintained as categories, and called with {{Progress box}}. It updates as fast as the system updates its category listings (pretty fast, usually minutes). ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 08:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, it's instantaneous. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 12:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We have the {{GOCEreviewed}} tag available for articles we determine cannot be copy edited due to serious issues. Check it out, it's worth keeping in consideration. dtgriffith (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How about adding a field to track the number of articles each of us tags {{GOCEreviewed}}? It wouldn't be scored in any way, but it would be useful for all the reasons stated above. I also like the idea of redating the {{copyedit}}, but is there any reason that would be a bad idea?--~TPW 11:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern with re-dating the {{copyedit}} tag is that it tampers with the authenticity of an article's history. I get the sense this would not go over well on Wikipedia at large. There was some talk when we first created {{GOCEreviewed}} to create a category to track these articles but we had figured it was too much. Maybe we should revisit this idea if enough editors would find this useful. dtgriffith (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a valid concern. Template code is way beyond me, but if we made such a category could the progress box track them separately in some way?--~TPW 12:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know how many articles have been tagged with the {{GOCEreviewed}} template, just go to the template and click on "What links here." So far the template has been placed on less than 50 articles. Diannaa ^TALK 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic request

Hey all, I have an off-topic request that I'm posting here because, well, all of you have been really nice to me, and I hope my lucky streak continues. :) I have an FA candidate (St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao) that I wrote from scratch and I've been doing my damnedest to get up to quality (3 FACs and 2 peer reviews, total). It has now been languishing in FAC for a few weeks now, with only a couple editors having looked at it. I would be eternally grateful if some of you could go over and give it an honest review. I write very readable prose, so this won't be a tough read. Thanks in advance! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to help but I don't think I have been around long enough to give a proper FAC review. I will review from a more generalist perspective and leave any comments on the article's Talk page if anything catches my attention. It's the least I can do. dtgriffith (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I just finished reading the article and made a few notations on the Talk page. Looks great overall. Well done. dtgriffith (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dtgriffith: FAC reviewing, on whatever aspect of the criteria you choose, is an excellent introduction for copy-editing. We need reviewers! Tony (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I will keep FAC review in consideration as I develop a stronger comfort-level with the Wikipedia world. dtgriffith (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. We very much need reviewers. Articles sometimes sit for over a month in FAC before being dispensed with. One good thing about FAC is that it will help you develop a sense of what a high quality article looks like, and other reviewers comments will shape that as well. You can go in there, make a dozen MoS objections, and the reviewer will address them one by one. Or sometimes you see an article that looks great (either because you're late to the party and many improvements have already been made, or because the article is simply fantastic as written) and all you do is Support. You'll also see articles that shouldn't have been nominated, and they need more than just a shave and a haircut...plastic surgery is in order. Those ones you may Oppose straight off (always give your reasons, though). I hope you take FAC review on. It is very rewarding, I think. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy Editors' Backlog Drive with a Note From Jimbo

Don't forget to drop by and read the article on GOCE's backlog drive in the current issue of Wikipedia Signpost - featuring interviews with noraft, Diannaa, Jimbo Wales and myself. ;-) - S Masters (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit section-only tag

How are we counting articles in the backlog that have a {{copy edit}} tag applied to only a particular section? I would imagine the full article word count cannot be used. I immediately came across a few of these in the "undated category", one of which had a two sentence section with the tag applied (I already edited the section and removed the tag). Should we count the words by setting up a user sandbox page containing only the section? Any thoughts? dtgriffith (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a few like that in the first drive. I listed them like this:

1.  Completed Michelle Bachmann#Political positions (609)
2.  Completed Try Sleeping with a Broken Heart#Release and chart performance (229)
3.  Completed Paladin (character class)#World of Warcraft (1057)
4.  Completed Titans Tomorrow#Titans of Tomorrow... Today! (763)

with just the specific section I edited. I would preview the section before making changes, and use the page size feature, which can count preview pages too. That's how I counted my words. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I had not realized the script could count in Preview mode. dtgriffith (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I've been taking a pass through the entire article even if only a section is flagged, and counting the words of the entire thing as well. Am I coloring outside the lines? Lfstevens (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit count question

I'm new to this project, so just to counter-check, I have to take note of the initial prose size of the article I'm editing, then after I'm done, I have to minus the initial edit count from the final edit count. Is that correct? BejinhanTalk 06:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, just not the prose size before you start, and that's it. If the article is 1295 words when you start working on it, you post 1295 words, regardless of how the size may change. We give credit for how much you had to read, not how much you change. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. BejinhanTalk 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Participation = 71 signups now

With this many participants, and adding about one per day, I fully expect to meet our target and completely clear 2008 from the backlog queue, as long as we can "concentrate our firepower" and work on the oldest items first. I'll send a message out to that effect a day or two before the drive begins. If we can top 100 participants, we'll clear a good chunk of 2009 as well. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is very encouraging, especially considering this is only the second drive. TheTito ^Discuss 09:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Very exciting to see the number of participants double since the May drive. Looking forward to seeing how much we can accomplish! dtgriffith (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Finding articles needing copy editing that match the editor's interests

I find an hour spent copy editing both more enjoyable and more productive if I know something about the article's subject. But it's tedious to search through all articles needing copy edit looking for something I know about. WolterBot already has the ability to connect cleanup tags to wikiprojects... Perhaps it could be used to create a list of articles tagged with {{copyedit}} by (active) wikiproject? I'll leave it's owner a note.

Alternatively or in addition, a note on the signup page about using CatScan to search categories for articles tagged with {{copyedit}} as described here would be useful.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. "Catscan", hehehe. Who thought of that name? Tony (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree. I'd spend more time actually copy editing the articles if didn't spend as much time trawling through the list looking for a suitable article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 23:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I see no reason we couldn't incorporate this. dtgriffith (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

NO promises, but I can make my bot build some lists for selected WP`s from cleanup cat. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 01:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed WolterBot's owner hasn't been active for a while [10] so it might be up to you, Hellknowz! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See also SuggestBot (the actual suggestions weren't that good for me, but good idea). H3llkn0wz, an ArticleAlertBot and WolterBot and AlexNewArtBot and all the other bots with inactive owners combined would be super helpful. —mono 04:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a section about CatScan, but a listing by wikiproject would still be easier to use, and I suspect a lot broader, too. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can build a page list, but there is a billion different projects out there. I need the talk page template names to classify the pages. There is no easy way to get a list of all WikiProject banner templates, so can someone make/start a list of them? Each template also has several redirects, but I can automatically get whatlinkshere redirects myself. I'm looking for something like {{WikiProject Academic Journals}} - WikiProject Academic Journals, {{WPAstronomy}} - WikiProject Astronomy, {{WikiProject Biology}} - WikiProject Biology... I have no idea how to do this automatically. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Catscan can also select articles using a wikiproject criterion. I will post instructions on the Guild home page. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I have put this up on the July drive home page as well. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sort of worried that CatScan may raise the overall number of articles edited, but cause us to miss our target of wiping out 2008. CatScan is going to suggest articles not limited to a particular date...so we see a more uniform drop across months/years. That's great too, but I'd really like to get the old article processed. I'm not saying don't use CatScan, I'm just a little concerned about the possible effect. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... One possibility would be to create a new category called "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from 2008" or whatever, and fill it with all the categories from Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from February 2008 through Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from December 2008, then change the instructions to suggest searching that category first. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good solution! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Awards

I wasn't sure if anyone else had figured out and settled on the remaining awards. I think we're pretty solid on three of the four, but we still need on for the most 5k articles edited. Anyone have any ideas for that? Any other awards still being planned? —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And any awards in case you edit a lot of articles with copy-edit tags, correct many spelling errors and stuff, but still don't remove the copy edit tags? ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests page

Can we list articles from the Requests page on our tally even if they have no copy-edit tag on them? I don't want these articles languishing until the drive is over. --Diannaa ^TALK 04:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should as I think it is only fair. Otherwise, there will be no motivation to work on them until the drive is over. - S Masters (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just put a copy-edit tag on them? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought we are not supposed to create more work by doing that? We didn't need to last drive. Most of these articles do not really need the tag but because they are going for GA or FA, it is desirable to have a copyedit done. Why not just allow them to be counted like last time? - S Masters (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Because last drive there were 60 that stretched back over a year. Now there are a just a few. Further, this drive isn't tracking/awarding for requests (as there is no request backlog), and new folks may not even understand how the request system works. Its simpler just to tag them and then there's no confusion. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 08:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's easier to just put an ombox on the request page, to let participants know that articles edited on the request page will count in the drive. This is straightforward and will not affect the tag stats. Either way (e.g. putting a tag on requested articles), we still need to inform participants. An ombox there will mean less confusion than an announcement on the drive page. - S Masters (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we all agree that copyedits from the request page will count in the drive. As the drive has already started, I will take the initiative and go ahead and put the ombox announcing this on the request page. - S Masters (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Any chance I could get my article, Road to the Multiverse, copyedited some time soon? It's on the requests page, and I'd hope to get it copyedited by the GOCE as soon as possible, as it is currently up for peer review, and I'd like to prevent any quarrels about grammar or spelling. Gage (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a quick look :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Word counter problem

If I use the the word counter on articles using bullets such as a list, not all words are counted. For an example go to List of The Price Is Right pricing games and use the word counter. Only 279 words are counted even though there are obviously more. Is there a solution to this problem? Derild4921☼ 15:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There doesnt seem to be a way round that. It does the same thing for certain blocks also - <li> for example </li>

for example

Plus it doesnt seem to count when I am in edit mode and have clicked "preview" - maybe this is a Firefox/Vista64 problem ? Chaosdruid (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't count lists, or text in tables. The table issue is especially problematic when doing an article that lists 24 episodes of a TV show, all in a table. In that case, you may copy the text, dump it into Word or OpenOffice, get the word count, and use that. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Even worse in cases like Goetic demons in popular culture, a 58kb article that the tool counts as 44 words. (OpenOffice gives a more reasonable 9513, excluding the notes and ToC.) Shimeru 18:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, are you planning on working on that Price is Right list? If not, I may take a crack at it tomorrow. Shimeru 00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm looking for some other articles, you can "take a crack at it" if you want. Derild4921☼ 00:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Only problem with that is that it counts things that aren't part of the prose such as <ref> etc.

I actually did something similar - I took the Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger into Word (which gave a 12,800+ count)- replaced all the * with nothings and then pasted back into User:Chaosdruid/word_counting and then counted it which gave me 12,701 which I rounded down to 12,700 - it took about 3 hours to edit it though - never read so much about something that I still don't know what it was lol

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It only counts what you select. If you just select from the beginning of the lead to the end of the prose on the article page (not the editing screen), it doesn't count references. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant that when using Word it counts all of this "..and that was the reason"<ref>Taylor, The bleachers pp.51-50</ref> including the ref, taylor and The bleachers giving eight words instead of four as its count Chaosdruid (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

References

If the article doesn't require major cleanup and only needs references to back it up, how do we calculate word count (since you guys only count prose size)? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think it'd be the same, but I'm not sure. Airplaneman ✈ 21:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It'd be the same; since the prose count is pre-copyedit, it would be pre-referencing as well. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Improving on references is not part of copy editing and therefore not part of this drive, unless you are talking about copy editing the references themselves. If you are certain the article does not require copy editing you should remove the {{copy edit}} tag, though it is worth getting a second opinion on the article first if you are new to this. You can always leave the article "as is" and move on to another. dtgriffith ^♬♪♩ 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So meaning all it matters is just rewrite stuff and don't care about references? In my views, reference is just as important as the flow and format of the article. In fact, fact checking is part of [[WP:COPYEDIT|basic copyediting process]. If adding reference to the article doesn't count, then that is really sad to hear. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to check the references. Some of these articles need more than just copyediting, but copyediting is the reason these articles were tagged and it is the focus of this drive. I have done some other minor fixes while I copyedited for this drive, but I ran into some truly pitiful articles that need far more help. After copyediting the existing article, I replaced the copyedit tag with new verify, notability, and expand tags where appropriate. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OhanaUnited, there is no reason to take a negative tone. We are here to work together and throw each other support as needed. No one said you cannot check or locate references, however, it is not the focus of this particular drive. Spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting, syntax and general readability fall under the copy editing focus. If an article is tagged for {{copy edit}} cleanup yet it only requires reference improvements, then it was possibly tagged incorrectly. Wikipedia:Basic copyediting refers to the formatting of references. dtgriffith ^♬♪♩ 01:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, references are important. So is wikifying. So are lots of other things, but those things are outside the scope of copyediting. We're not saying that those things aren't important. But this drive is to improve "Spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting, syntax and general readability" as dtgriffith has said. If you can improve the references to an article, that's great, please do so. But you won't receive credit for that in this drive. Now, to answer your specific question, when I come upon an article that has a {{copyedit}} tag but is no longer in need of copyediting, I remove the tag and move on to the next article without claiming credit for it. I did this with a dozen articles in the last drive. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your clarification. I'll use your definition of copyedit from now on. But I hope my previous efforts still get counted though. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the articles I've hit so far need far more than copy-editing, but that generally means an expert needs to get involved. I'm tagging but not going past copy-editing. That most of the pieces I've hit in my categories of interest are way down the notability/importance scale even if they aren't marked. Should we mark them? Lfstevens (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about assessment on the talk page banners, I would say "yes please". Since the articles of low-profile subjects, they probably don't get a lot of traffic. Doing as much as you can to improve an article before moving on is best for the article and the encyclopedia in general, even if you don't get credit for it in this drive. That's what I'm trying to do :) Airplaneman ✈ 05:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Biographical Directory of Federal Judges cleanup

Would the above category qualify for credit in this drive? I stumbled upon it while copyediting another article for the drive. I know the articles aren't specifically tagged for copyedits, but that is basically what every single article needs. Of all the articles listed in this category that I have viewed, the prose quality is extremely poor (he did this. she did that. his is this. she is that, etc.) For example, I gave Janet C. Hall a quick copyedit, and the article is now looking much better (IMO :D). Just wondering, Airplaneman ✈ 05:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it should count. If an article's prose is bad enough that it should have the copyedit tag, then it's essentially part of the backlog even if it doesn't actually have the tag. Just my opinion though. Shimeru 06:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It would only count if it already has a copyedit tag. Do not create more work by adding new tags, you can work on it after the drive has ended. Don't lose focus on the aim of the drive, which is to reduce the number of articles tagged with the copyedit tag. In particular, we are trying to completely eliminate articles from 2008. You can always work on other articles after the drive has ended. - S Masters (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to be clear that S Masters is making suggestions and stating the preferences of the drive coordination team, not telling anyone what to do. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I wrote that in a hurry. :-) - S Masters (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. The next question is, can {{Cleanup FJC Bio}} be made equivalent to the {{copyedit}} tag? Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 22:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the reason the question is being asked is because one or more editors has an interest in working on the FJC articles, and people naturally prefer to work on articles that interest them, but we need to keep the drive focused. There's a huge backlog of articles with the {{copyedit}} tag, that stretches back two and a half years. We're trying to clear a full year of that. Allowing other tags to count means that some effort will be diverted from our main task. Also, it opens the door to other such requests, which may divert effort as well. Thanks for your understanding. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. That's fine; I'll keep on copyediting ;) Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 04:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to clarify that when I said, "Do not create more work by adding new tags," I meant new copyedit tags. If we feel that other tags are necessary, please go ahead and add them. But for the purpose of the drive, our aim is to work on articles to a standard where it is possible to remove the copyedit tag. Hope this clarifies. - S Masters (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Spot Checks

We need to organize a system of spot checks to make sure people are properly removing {{copyedit}} tags from articles that have been adequately copyedited. I've been spot checking here and there, but we're going to need a more concerted effort, considering the number of participants. Any volunteers? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help. What exactly is the guideline or an article being copyedited enough? Derild4921☼ 15:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be willing to help. If an article has been copyedited correctly, that basically means that all spelling and wording is a-okay, organization is good to go, and formatting is in top shape. Basically, if the article doesn't need to have any of these improvements done to it, it's been dealt a fine job of copyediting. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the both of you. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. For the list below, do we place a check for the number of articles we've checked for that user, or do we place a check every time we check that user's articles (regardless of how many articles we check of that user)? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A check for each time checked. So if you've checked two of my articles one day, then another you check one more, it will look like:

1. User:Noraft

I'd recommend not checking two articles of a single editor consecutively. Do one, come back and do the next one a week later. I suspect complacency may set for some editors after doing a large number of articles, such that one is not as attentive on article 50 as article 1. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, makes sense. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and going along with the "don't check a user's articles consecutively because there is a chance that their editing quality will waver as time passes" idea, would it not be a good idea to place the date that a user was last checked next to their name below? For example:

1. User:Noraft 02:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The date can be in small font, to save space. It'll make it clear who hasn't been checked for a while as the list becomes longer and it comes time to double-up. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Spot Check Procedure

A good pattern is to randomly check articles of different editors, until you get one that is questionable. When that happens, check another article of the same editor. An editor with one poorly copyedited article might just have been rushed, but if there are two, there may be an issue with competence or motivation. All of that editor's contributions should then be checked. If you find an article that wasn't well edited, let me know, and I'll handle reapplying the tag and notifying the editor (that way we can say that more than one editor has reviewed the article and agrees that it shouldn't have had the tag removed). Below, a collapsed section exists where you can write the name of an editor (not article) that you've spot checked. Write {{checked}} () for one check and write it twice for two ( ). This way we don't have different checkers gravitating toward the same editors at the top or bottom of the list while neglecting the middle. Ideally over the course of the drive, each editor should have two articles checked. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Spot Checks
User:Diannaa User:SMasters

Target: 45 articles per day

I wanted to say great job so far to everyone who is participating. We need to maintain an average of 45 articles per day to hit our target of reducing the backlog to less than 6000 articles. Also, we need to concentrate more on 2008 articles if we're going to achieve our goal of clearing 2008 from the queue. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar suggestion

After having just copyedited a 4,700-word article, I'd like to suggest that the project consider creating a barnstar for the person who copyedits an article that is closest to -- but not quite -- 5,000 words.  ;) — e. ripley\^talk 02:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

One more while I'm thinking about it. Considering that the main goal of this month's backlog drive is to get rid of articles from 2008, it would be nice to have a barnstar for those who copyedited the most articles in direct support of whatever that month's specific goal is (in this case, it'd be for copyediting the most articles tagged since 2008). — e. ripley\^talk 02:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of articles that are close but not quite there, Chinatown is frustratingly close to 10,000 words (it's 9,982). I've been looking for a 10K+ article but haven't found anything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found a couple that are over 10k: Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, Global Positioning System, Iran – United States relations, and British National Party. Business ethics and Nobel Prize controversies might also qualify if counted in Word or OpenOffice; both have significant sections that are not counted by the page-size tool. All of these seem likely to be somewhat high-traffic articles, as well (as opposed to some of the long lists of relatively obscure stuff, like the Price is Right games I copyedited a few days ago). Enjoy. Any of them will probably take a couple of hours' effort to copyedit. Shimeru 22:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I took the Iran-US article, but it ended up taking 4 days. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The copyedit tag for the British National Party on exists in a section... so it's less than 10,000 words. BejinhanTalk 05:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you only copyedit the section, yes. I'd be surprised if the entire article doesn't warrant a copyedit, though. Anyway, I believe the other three have been done, which leaves the BNP or the possible business ethics and Nobel articles. Of course, there might be others that I didn't find. Shimeru 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality?

Our current approach is to reward editors who pick low-hanging fruit. We reward output: # articles; # words, # requests, etc. What about quality? How about categories like these (suggestion welcome):

• Best article
• Best stub
• Best BLP
• Best writing
• Biggest improvement by a copy-editor
• Biggest repaired embarrassment
• You get the idea

Editors nominate their best work. Judges pick the winners. I'd prefer it if we could use something objective like increased page views or reader ratings, but WP would have to help us out there. One low tech alternative would be for GOCE folks to vote by editing some page to express their opinions.

I find that bigger pages require disproportionately more work to upgrade than shorter pages, because the topics tend to be more complicated. We encourage editors to focus on short, even trivial articles that hardly anyone reads anyway. The bigger, worse articles are easy to skip... Not good. Lfstevens (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea and it is certainly worth rewarding quality over quantity. Unfortunately, that becomes a very subjective and cumbersome process, especially voting. I agree that several editors/reviewers should collaborate and pick the best examples and award 'stars accordingly. But I suggest this being in the form of agreeing on best work by rough consensus instead. Of course, if you can organize and manage this... :P —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two barnstars for big articles. Any article over 10,000 words earns a barnstar, and the most articles over 5,000 words is another barnstar. The five people that do the most 5,000 word articles are getting awards as well. That's half a dozen awards right there.

Also, I would like to point out something that is a bit counter intuitive. The short articles aren't necessarily easier. The reason is because the really big articles are at least generally coherent, with perhaps some clarity issues that can be resolved through context. The small articles, however, are often written by people who don't speak English as a first language, and require a fair amount of deciphering to figure out what is being said at all. I've copy edited many articles about small Indian villages that were rather intractable.

Either way, it doesn't really matter, since the ultimate goal of this (and future drives) is to completely eliminate the backlog. As long as we keep moving towards that goal, it doesn't really matter what order articles are being dealt with. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with picking some of your own criteria and giving out awards of your own for anyone you think is deserving. That's what I did last time with the 10k award. The more fun and prizes, the better. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 12:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We're going to miss our 2008 target

There are 1194 articles left in 2008, which means if we average 50 articles a day, they ALL have to be 2008 articles. We're going to have to really concentrate our firepower to meet that goal. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not over yet. We still have about 23 days left of the drive. We're not even half way through. Noraft is right, everybody; we need to concentrate our firepower on the 2008 articles. We can do this; it will just take a little more effort and perhaps a few more people. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate when people sign up and then do nothing. Its such a let down to have so many people sign up, but only about a third actually doing something.Derild4921☼ 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I know, I wish everybody would participate. I'm doing my best; just a few minutes ago I was working on three articles at once, opened in new tabs, of course. Now I'm just down to the two longest. In fact, I'd better get back to work. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 23:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys are pretty antsy. Today is only July 8. Don't write off all the people who haven't started yet. There's still time. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's almost exactly what I said when I said "we still have about 23 days left of the drive." I guess I should've repeated that when Derild make the comment about the people that hadn't started yet. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 23:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen our numbers the last two days? This isn't the first drive I've coordinated or participated in. I know the pattern, and we're in trouble. Every day the daily goal goes up, and the actual daily total is 40 essays below the daily target right now, and the gap is getting wider. If any of you have friends listed as participants that are inactive, nudge them, please. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've actually put anti-vandalism above this, even though this is supposed to be my main focus. From now on, after I post my vandal edit of the day on my user page I'm coming here to copy edit articles instead of going back to recent changes. I'm giving it all I've got, starting tomorrow (I'm busy for the rest of tonight). The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 00:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I keep on losing focus in the middle of copyediting something. >.< I always seem to open something else in the middle of an article. A 3,000 word article took me a whole day yesterday. I haven't even finished half of a 6,800 word article this entire day. I'll try to get some others more active. Derild4921☼ 00:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've started, even though I haven't updated my stats. I recommend sending out a note (use EdwardsBot, it's easier) to everyone... —mono(how's my driving?) 03:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, Derild4921. The way I deal with keeping myself focused is by doing some short articles (less than 1,000 words) between each big article. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a big emphasis on numbers here. I would like to point out that quality should be stressed over quantity, but I am aware that some who signed up are not even copyediting. For me, personally, I'm in the middle of trying to figure out the best way to deal with Grid computing, which is on the long side. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 05:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am doing my best to squeeze in edits when I can as I can. Summertime is tough time for those of us with families and kids out of school as far as having time to ourselves. Every time since July 1st I have sat down at the computer thinking I had at least an hour to dedicate to this project something unexpected pulls me away. I may not hit 100,000 words his month but I will not disappoint. dtgriffith ^[talk] 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• So far I've copy edited six articles in less than 24 hours. I'm going to work on the next three after I take a short break. I'm giving it all I've got at this point. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 15:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, do requested articles count towards the word counts?Derild4921☼ 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Any article that needs copy editing, regardless of whether or not it was on the request page, counts as credit. So yes, requested articles do count. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note we are moving at twice the pace we were in the May drive, so don't get disheartened. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a barnstar for the brave soul who edits the most 2008 articles? Lfstevens (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a barnstar for the most articles edited. I don't think there's a separate one for 2008 articles, but people should be concentrating on 2008 articles anyway. --Slon02 (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It did seem strange to me that right from the start there were people not concentrating on 2008 but, after that was pointed out, it has got better though: 13 July - 74 articles done and only 28 in 2008 group, 16 July - 39 done and 18 from 2008, 24 July - 44 done and 36 from 2008. It seems we might miss it but at least we tried :¬) Ah well - best I get on with some more lol

Also apologies for my absence in the middle of it all, I had the robotics project to sort out (8000+ articles gone through) as well as an ongoing problem with the MilHist project that took a lot of my time and attention - and there was RL which always gets in the way. I am clear, hopefully, until the end now Chaosdruid (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Counter broken?

The "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit" sidebar on the backlog drive's page seems to be off a bit. For instance, I cleared out the "undated" category last night yet it still read 4 undated articles even after refreshing the sidebar. Today, the sidebar reads 7 undated articles but there are only 3 in the undated category. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you forget to remove the copy edit tag on the article? If so, that's why. You need to remove the tag before it can't be seen in the category anymore. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 23:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Might have something to do with this. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 05:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I remembered to remove the tags and it's not a problem with the category being up to date (the number in the category looks correct). It's just the counter on the side of this page doesn't match the category. They don't match up even after refreshing, clearing the cache, and waiting a full day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just took a look at it. Perhaps there is something wrong, after all...may want to report it to an administrator. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not just our table. Category:Articles lacking sources, [Category:Articles that may contain original research, Category:Unreferenced BLPs all have discrepancies in the "undated" section. There are more, I expect. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Can participants please attend to dashes?

I've snooped around to avoid doing anything constructive myself. A number of spot-checks have revealed that participants are not correcting the hyphen and dash errors that are so prevalent in WP articles. The usual ones are:

• Hyphens used instead of en dashes in ranges ("2002–04" and "pp. 14–21", not "2002-04" or "pp. 14-21")
• Spaced em dashes as interrupters, like this — rather than – spaced en dashes (unspaced em dashes—like this—are fine as an alternative)
• Double hyphens (–, not --).

This can be done manually, or there's a good script (GregU's) that you may wish to load. I'll reprint the instructions given above on this page:

To add any script to your userspace, you need to create a page entitled

User:YOURNAME/vector.js.

To import Greg U's dash script, just type:

importScript("User:GregU/dashes.js");

at the top of your vector page. Save, then, critically, reload the page to activate it. The button is the dash symbol in the drop-down menu at the top of each page, on the little arrow.

For documentation on Greg U's dash script see Here.

Thanks, and good luck to everyone. Tony (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been a victim of doing this myself; another option that I have used in the past and is something that may help editors is to run AWB on an article after it is done being copyedited by hand. AFAIK, AWB does a nice job with correcting hyphen errors (though it is still a good idea to learn how to correct them yourself, of course; I consider it as more of a backup to catch any errors I might have missed). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• A great script for suggesting things to do for an article is User:AndyZ/peerreviewer, which also includes an "autoformat" feature which corrects most MoS errors. —mono(how's my driving?) 20:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That dash script was really good - thanks for the heads up on it :¬)

The other one seems to just suggest things that may need attention - it had warned me about American v British in an article and I didn't find what it was suggesting after looking for ten minutes using viour and vior etc. in the Firefox find...Is there a way for it to highlight the suggestions or is it not capable of that?

AWB is ok ish - but it does seem to take more time. Once you put say "it's" to "it is" in the find and replace you have to go through and stop it from changing all the ones in the quotes and that is probably about the same time as it would take to do it manually; I often find using Firefox's search function is quickest. WP:KISS lol Chaosdruid (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

All participants - please confirm article is not already receiving attention

When you locate an article of interest and before you begin the copy edit, please look at the article's edit history and confirm it is not already actively receiving attention by another editor participating in this Backlog Elimination Drive. I have been diligent about not stepping on other editors' toes and I hope others will do the same. When I have to break from a major copy edit for more than a few hours, I remove the {{GOCEinuse}} tag so I do not disrupt editors outside of this drive whom have other contributions to make. Thanks! dtgriffith ^[talk] 20:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming this was brought up due to my accidental "toe-stepping," as you put it, on Transfer of learning, correct? The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 20:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am just raising awareness as a similar occurrence took place during the last drive. Since we are all focused on the declining number of 2008 articles, there is more of a chance of this happening. In a recent search for my next article to work on I had come stumbled across quite a few other editors had already started. dtgriffith ^[talk] 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I always check the users list on the Elimination Drive page to make sure there isn't a  Working on there - I think that is probably the best way as you can remove the inuse tag and still have the  Working to let others in the drive know what is going on.

Also apologies - I have been on a planned week of sorting out another project assessments backlog and learning AWB but should have more time from Thursday on... Chaosdruid (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've created a template for this purpose: {{GOCEuc}}, which accepts the parameter |contest=yes, printing as:

Have fun! —mono 01:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mono, great idea on the new contest template, that should become very useful.

Chaosdruid, I do mark each article with  Working on the Totals section right as I begin the copy edit. I think it's easy to miss now because of the collapsible lists and the large number of participants, whereas in the May Drive, everyone's list was out in the open and easier to skim through. If we have any future drives we ought to look at new ways to improve on this tracking system. dtgriffith ^[talk] 13:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it really hurt if a couple of articles are looked over by two editors? It's almost bound to happen, with a drive like this, and I wonder whether it's worth spending extra time tracking articles being worked on in order to avoid it, as opposed to spending that time working on more articles. Maybe there's some duplication of effort, but is it really a serious problem? Shimeru 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on the size (and hence time spent) and number of the articles. I know that it my particular happening it was a whole 3 hours that was spent with two of us working on the same article and in that time it was a pretty heavy slog due to lots of strange English - probably an average of three grammatical edits per sentence. It could have easily been seven or eight smaller articles that were done instead of the duplication. There is also the wish to clear out 2008 and if this happens to six or eight editors that is a significant problem in terms of articles removed from the 2008 lists.

Is it possible to make a category that specifically mentions the drive ? That way it could have the cat while in use and refence that when a new drive editor tries to edit it - something like "July Drive 2010" which could be used to create a page susbst into the main drrive page so it would be easily visible. If the editor has to take a timeout they can remove the GOCEinuse, putting it back in the public edit domain, and leave the cat for us to see that they are planning on returning to it later or the next day. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a whole lot of work for something that is very temporary. Why not just leave the GOCEinuse template there and everyone can see that someone is already working on the article. It allows for "several hours". And if not, just use the newly created tag above. If you can't finish the edit for a much longer period, leave a note on the talk page. In the case of any "accidents", where 2 editors work on the same article around the same time, for the last drive, they were allowed to share the credit. - S Masters (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I just used the new GOCEuc tag above as I know it will be almost 24 hours before I can resume the article I am working on, which is fairly long and written in an overly complex manner. I think this tag does the job without going overboard. Moving forward I will leave a note on the Talk page when needed as suggested. dtgriffith ^[talk] 03:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to ask, how was credit shared last time? I wasn't aware of this. dtgriffith ^[talk] 04:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, I can't remember if it actually happened (although I think it did), or if it was merely discussed, but consensus was that both editors would be allowed to take credit for the same article (same full word count at the start). It would be viewed as a form of collaborative effort, and therefore not a bad thing. - S Masters (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Gold Star Award Leaderboard

What happens if there are already 5 editors in the leaderboard for the top number of articles category and there's a 6th editor with the same number of articles as #5? BejinhanTalk 12:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Add a slash / and your details after. The award will be given to both (or more if there are any others on the same spot). - S Masters (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Participation

If anyone is wondering why we've got three times as many signups as the May drive yet are only posting double the numbers, its because only 58 out of 95 editors who signed up have actually participated by copyediting a single article. A good minority of the 58 have only copyedited one. About a week ago we sent something to everyone who had not yet participated, but that produced little response. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 08:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Could be others like me... I've actually started an article but been too busy in real life to finish yet so haven't posted... Hoping to be more active from mid-next week onwards when I'll have more time. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we send out a drive halfway point newsletter. It would be a subtle reminder without being too spammy. If everyone agrees, I could get started on a draft. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think now would be a great time for a newsletter. It was about this time May's halfway newsletter was sent out. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 00:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The initial draft is here. Please feel free to review and edit the copy, y'all. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind I've started to go through it and fix it up a bit. I have a few errands to run today, but I will check in on it every once in a while and make sure it looks good. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 15:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It is almost ready to go, so I have notified Noraft and hopefully he will be able to send it out via AWB. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'd be glad to help develop the final newsletter, too, when the time comes for that. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 18:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter looks good. I wouldn't be surprised if the time of year wasn't playing a role in availability to commit to this drive, at least wherever it is summertime right now. I, for one, am finding it very difficult to allocate much time to this due to my child's time off and needs. I just know when school is back in session this September my availability should increase quite a bit. I will continue to squeeze in what I can when possible. dtgriffith ^[talk] 13:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, DT, and you can be sure spending the summer with your child is a lot more important than the drive (WP:no deadline and all). We are getting lots done and there will be plenty left to do come September. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sharing credit question

Just a question on how credit should be handled for two editors working on the same article. It was suggested by SMasters that both editors might each receive full credit, however, we want to be certain. I had started a major copy edit on Transfer of learning, however, unanticipated real life events (and now a scheduled medical thing) are preventing me from putting in the necessary time to complete this long article. The Raptor is working on the article to push it along as it needs to be completed. As I am able, I will continue to contribute to the article until we decide it is complete. dtgriffith ^[talk] 14:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Both taking full credit is fine. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"All articles needing copy edit" hidden category

I'm confused here. I did a search for articles needing copyediting, and I found some that sounded interesting. On some of the pages, though, there is no {{copyedit}} template. It says at the bottom of the editing page that the article is in the hidden category "All articles needing copy edit". Can someone explain what that means? Are those articles included in the 6,742 that need copyediting? Do we get credit for them? Is it possible to remove them from that category (one of them has no problems with the prose, and I was surprised to see it there because I promoted it to GA earlier this year)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be transcluded on a template. If you could you give some specific articles we could look at, we can try to figure it out. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Shaquille O'Neal, for example. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This {{Article issues |confusing=June 2010 |crystal=June 2010 |refimprove=June 2010 }}

is somehow putting articles into incorrect categories. I was unable to remove the article from the copy-edit category unless all the tags were removed. There is something wrong with the "article issues" template or the "confusing" template or both. We better report this but I don't know who to tell. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

When I have a problem with a major template like this, I usually go to the template's page, then look through the edit history to find someone who has actually edited the template's code. That's usually a good starting point. Or you can just post on the template talk page. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To make things more confusing, articles don't even need to have a template at all to be included in "All articles needing copy edit". During the GAN backlog drive, I reviewed Whale tail (yes, Wikipedia has an article about visible underwear). It came up when I searched through "All articles needing copy edit", although it's not in the hidden "All articles needing copy edit". Aside from GA, the only category it's in is "Articles with possible transciption errors", but other articles from that category are not listed in "All articles needing copy edit". Strange, but perhaps too strange to even bother worrying about. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting pretty big....

There's been a lot of copy editing by a lot of people. In fact, there's been so much the main project page is starting to slow down my server. Anybody else having this problem? The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait… you load Wikipedia from your own server? :) I would think the effects of copyediting would be negligible, at best, since editors are cutting down on other activities to go help out here. I'm not experiencing slow server issues. Airplaneman ✈ 22:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, did I word that wrong? I'm not much of a computer person. If the phrase "It slows down my computer" sounds better, then that's what I meant. If it's the same thing, then sorry, I don't know the first thing about computers, not even terms (well, except random access memory, but who doesn't know that one) The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved my "done" list into user space. Maybe some of the other biggies could do the same. I will send out a few messages. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What would you consider a "big" copy edit list? One with 50+ articles? The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 23:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I sent a message to the top seven contributors so the cut-off was yourself at 38. Plus I put a general notice at the start of the "Totals" section. GaryColemanfan and lfstevens did theirs and it already seems peppier. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try and get some numbers on my totals tomorrow, so as soon as my number reaches 40 copy edits I'll move it. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 03:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion for the next drive (if there is a next drive) is that we shift to a table, like this:

Editor	Articles	Words	Articles >5k	Requests	Working	2008 articles	May 2010	July 2010
The Raptor Let's talk	100	10000	10	10	Families Acting for Innocent Relatives	10	50	60
Diannaa (Talk)	90	20000	11	9	Fencer of Minerva	10	5	20

and have all the details in user subpages. Lfstevens (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the table idea, as all the collapsible sections indeed overwhelmed the page. However, I still think the table should list all the articles the editors do, in a <small> list. I know (totally not from personal experience) that listing the articles you did motivates the editors to show off and do even more articles. I think a couple more seconds of wait time and a couple more KB of page size is a reasonable sacrifice if people get more work done.

Also, separate sections for May and July drives as well as other categories (which I suspect we will expand) aren't really essential enough to be in columns, besides, it scares off new editors who may not have any of those. I think words and articles are the only sortable columns one would really need to compare to others. We keep the leaderboard for other categories anyway. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor	Articles	Words	Working	Done
The Raptor Let's talk	100 May: 78	10000 May: 2000	Families Acting for Innocent Relatives	Cat (666) Dog (1337) Bird (2567)
Diannaa (Talk)	90	20000	Fencer of Minerva	Horse (666) Cow (1337) Sheep (2567) Poodle (135)

The problem is, small text in a column works fine with three or four articles, but it doesn't work so well with, say, 80 (my July count), much less 248 (Dianaa's). That turns into a pretty hefty chunk of text on the page. Shimeru 19:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the way it has been set up is fine, but what we could do next time is have everyone set up a sub page with their entire list, and then just transclude it, the same as we did with the biggest lists this time. So I could be, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2010/Torchiest. We could move all the data inside the collapsed section to keep the list shorter. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 20:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Torchiest's idea is great, and simpler to use. New users would be afraid to work a table and won't know how to repair it if they bust it. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Easier way to deliver GOCE Newsletters

EdoDodo has suggested that we use a new bot, MessageDeliveryBot, to deliver our newsletters as a trial run for the bot. So what I was thinking was, the bot could deliver our end-of-month newsletter to all participants. What do you think? Should we give it a try? And if it's successful, should we continue using MessageDeilveryBot? The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 17:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it. My opinion is we should try it. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Airplaneman ✈ 02:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Submit one and I'll approve it... —mono 20:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Think we could do the same with the barnstars? The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 21:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess. Take, for example, everyone who earned the "Working Man's Barstar". Tell the bot to deliver that barnstar to those who earned it. So yea, I guess it would work. Airplaneman ✈ 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... Up to you, but maybe users would prefer to receive their barnstar from a real person rather than a bot. - EdoDodo ^talk 01:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree. However, the newsletter delivery would be OK. —mono 01:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done delivering the newsletter, went smoothly. - EdoDodo ^talk 18:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :). - EdoDodo ^talk 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Help: I need a 5K+ article to work on

I need a 5K+ article to get onto the leaderboard. I already have 2 but I need one more, and I've been searching everywhere but I can't seem to find one. If anyone happens to find one and does not have the time to do it, please let me know. I will happily take it. Thanks! :-) - S Masters (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was working on this one but then I stopped because I needed a rest in RL so i stopped. Feel free to take it! Derild4921☼ 18:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will continue with it. - S Masters (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A tip: Check out all the lists under copyedit. A large number of them are over 5k words. BejinhanTalk 03:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been, but I have only been looking at those from 2008. So many come close but are just short of 5K. I just noticed that the one above is actually from 2009 and not 2008. I am trying to focus on 2008 as it is one of the main objectives of the drive. - S Masters (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I found one: Modern animation in the United States, 6518, September 2008. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will have a look at it. - S Masters (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For future reference: I found all of my 10k articles by using the article finder on the main page of the drive. Just enter the "Articles needing copy edits" (or something) in the categories box, select to sort by page size, then select "descending". You'll have all of the largest articles needing a copy edit, and you can skim through the list for something you'll want. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Didn't think of working it out that way. :-) - S Masters (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Extend deadline?

TEK (talk • e-mail) and mono have posted on my talk page with the idea that we should extend the deadline on the drive into August. Is anyone else in favour? What would the extension be? One week? Two weeks? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say two weeks is more favorable. TEK (talk • e-mail) 03:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly benefit me, as I have very limited internet access for a while _{in fact it's lucky I'm even on now.} And I don't see how it would be a bad thing. So I vote extend the deadline two weeks. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 03:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My only concern here would be that we will be moving the goalpost midway through the game. If we do this, we have to take a snapshot of the leaderboard and if participants choose not to continue, we should award them with their branstars as it stood at the end of the month. For those who wish to continue, we would award them their barnstars as it stands at the end of the extension period. This is only fair. In order words, we will most probably end up awarding more barnstars than originally planned, but this is not a bad thing if we get more articles done. All in all, I am in favour of an extension of 2 weeks, provided that those who do not continue are not penalised for not doing so. - S Masters (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how much my !vote is worth given how little I've contributed so far, but I'd also favour +2 weeks. SMasters suggests an excellent course of action; my hunch is it wouldn't actually result in many extra barnstars anyway. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd favour +2 weeks - I only came across the drive a couple of days ago, so I've only just joined and got started. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I've changed my mind - moving the goalposts is likely to be a demotivator for people who have set themselves firm targets. And if 2008 doesn't get cleared, plenty of great work will still have been done. So I think it should be left as it is - personally, I'll join in the next one from the start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Per what S Masters said. Also what's the purpose of the dateline being extended anyway? BejinhanTalk 13:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a semi-related sidenote, it could be good to have another drive in another season, perhaps in the autumn or winter. I doubt I am the only editor who finds they are alot more active and have more free time in those seasons, as the summer has alot more going on in it than one would suspect. --Taelus (Talk) 06:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I also vote for a 2 week extension though I have much more time in the summer to be on. Derild4921☼ 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not against an extension though I would prefer to see a new drive in a few months, perhaps set up in a new way with new goals to keep things interesting. I have been unable to contribute to this drive as much as I would have liked, this summer has been full of family things and now medical things that constantly pull me away from editing. dtgriffith ^[talk] 13:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd favor a one week extension. I think that isn't too much to ask the leaderboard folks. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Er... but why, exactly? Is it a matter of not having cleared the 2008 backlog? If so, what happens if it's still not cleared in a week, or two weeks? Do we extend "July" into September in order to avoid admitting that we didn't meet what was, after all, a fairly ambitious benchmark? Or is it for some reason preferable to extend this drive as opposed to holding another in a month or two, as you did the last time? (If so, I don't see it; by all indications, July's drive made more progress than May's.) Do people just wish they'd been able to do more, now that the month's almost out, and think that adding a week or two will make a difference? (But people will always be busy with real life, and it's not as though it's impossible to copyedit outside of a drive.)

I'm not opposed, exactly, but I don't see the logic in extending it at this late point. I'd lean toward letting it end as planned and starting a new one, unless there's something concrete to be gained that I'm just missing. Shimeru 00:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am with you, Shimeru, the only real gain I can see is a that a few editors may move up a tier in the barnstar award. The more I think about it and after reading your position, I fully agree: let the drive end as scheduled and plan another big event in a few months. dtgriffith ^[talk] 00:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I will come down on the "opposed" side. If we do an extension it makes us look needy, if you know what I mean. I think we should just wrap it up as planned and realise summer might not be the best time to hold a drive in the future. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

After giving this more thought, I am also in favour of not extending this. We will probably have another drive in a couple of months' time, so we will eventually wipe out 2008. - S Masters (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I also think its best to end this at the original agreed time. We had a good crack at it, and have done alot of articles, thus the remainder can be handled in another drive in the near future. :) --Taelus (Talk) 10:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A month's is a nice quantifiable amount to measure against other drives. I'd leave it at that and see how it pans out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My absence

I want to apologize for my absence the last week. Real Life has reared its ugly head and made it difficult for me to participate. I want to thank those who have stepped in to keep the progress chart updated. I should be back August 2. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I can identify on the real life thing. I hope everything works out well for you. Take care. dtgriffith ^[talk] 04:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We will keep a chair warm for you. See you soon. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we reach a consensus about this deadline extension?

The following discussion has concluded. Please do not modify this section. Result of discussion: End the drive as originally scheduled.

Alright, since there's been talk about extending the deadline of this drive one or two weeks, I've decided to attempt to reach a consensus about this. If you support, write Extend for (insert amount of time here). If you oppose, simply write Oppose as you normally would in these situations. Post your votes below.

Extend

1. Extend for two weeks. As I said earlier, I don't see how this is a bad thing, plus it will help us knock a few more articles off the queue, so I say let's extend. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 12:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Extend - With the qualification that the people on the leaderboard are guaranteed awards for how things stand at the end of July. There are a lot of people signed up, and it's easy to communicate with them. There is no guarantee that nearly as many people would sign up for a future drive, since this one happens to come at a convenient time for a lot of people. What's the harm in saying, "We're doing great, so let's leave open the option to keep going for a couple more weeks"? I, for one, would be happy to keep going to upgrade my barnstar (I'm around 65,000 words right now and would shoot for at least 80,000 or 100,000).

Oppose

1. Oppose. Moving the goalposts is a demotivator - and there's nothing stopping people carrying on trying to get all the 2008 ones done anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Extending the drive might give the wrong impression that we don't feel the drive has been successful. It has of course been wildly successful even though our ambitious targets were not reached. There will be other drives. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose The reason to extend is so that the 2008 backlog can be cleared. It's quite unnecessary since another drive can be held another time. We've been told that it's a July drive and then now it's going to be extended. No thanks. Bejinhan talks 13:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose July 31 was the agreed upon end date during the planning phase, let's stick to it. Another drive can follow soon. dtgriffith ^[talk] 15:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose. After seeing the comments above, I have changed my mind. Let's plan another drive in September. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose, I agree with the above comments. We should focus on our successes and use them to have another drive in the near future, rather than focus on our small failures. (It was a very ambitious goal after all!) --Taelus (Talk) 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose, Even though I would like a better word count barnstar than what I have now, I agree that there was a deadline set and that it would not be right to adjust it. The drive has been good so far, and it's not over yet. We can still clear a lot of the remaining 2008 articles in the next day or two (wishful thinking). --Slon02 (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose As per other editors - changing the goalposts would imply things which give the wrong message and more weight to wrong messages. It is a shame as it seems that RL and other commitmentts have stopped many, including myself due to Wikidrama and other project's problems, from doing as much as we may have intended and took me out of the race for that barnstar for highest total word count (damn you shimeru, damn you ! lol). I would suggest that the intent be diverted into making the next a much sooner event than later as the willingness to do the work is not, at least in my part, based on barnstars. All editors who put in more than 4,000 get one anyway :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Final newsletter

Tomorrow is the last day of the drive. Do you think we should start on a final newsletter so I can send a request to MessageDeliveryBot? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 16:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Whenever you're ready feel free to submit the request. Make sure you set the date to 01/08/2010 so that the request will run at a couple of minutes past midnight UTC, so just after the drive finishes. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We can start a rough draft using the May wrap-up as a guide. I would like to list everyone who won a barnstar as a bit of extra glory. That means the newletter can't be finalised until after the drive finishes. Do you want to start on the initial draft, Raptor? It's up to you; I did the previous ones but am not adverse to change. Thank you, everybody. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have somewhere to be pretty much all day tomorrow, and will only be on in the morning. But I'll see what I can do. I'll let you know when/if I can start the draft. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 03:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well don't forget that you can always transclude a template in the message, which can be kept up to date as needed. - EdoDodo ^talk 01:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have started the final newsletter. Here is the link in case anybody's interested in working on it. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have cleared somewhere over 1200 articles during the drive... maybe closer to 1250. That's about 17-18% of the backlog, or 1/6. Not too bad. Shimeru 21:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to keep the Signpost updated on the final results. I'd like to include some of the results in this week's WikiProject Report. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have prepared a list of barnstar winners and it is available for viewing here. If you notice any errors please make the necessary corrections. Thanks to all for an excellent result on the July Drive. :-) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it tomorrow. It's pretty late where I live. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 04:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The next one

When? —mono 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably a month from now, just like we did in May. So September will probably be the next drive month. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Saw the end letter, and there's a barnstar issue

We shouldn't be awarding someone the same barnstar they got for the May drive. They should only get one if they went to the next level. For example: I only copyedited one article (400 words), and it wasn't enough to put me at the next level. I shouldn't get a barnstar at all. However, in the newsletter, I'm listed as getting a Working Man's Barnstar, presumably for my work in the May drive. The May numbers are added to an editor's July numbers, but only insofar as qualifying for higher barnstars. The idea was to motivate people to return, as they could then hit that star they almost got last time... ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 11:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have gotten this wrong. But that's not the way the way I interpreted it. By your interpretation I should not get a barnstar for word count as I did not move to the next level (there is no next level). That hardly seems reasonable after spending 4 to 8 hours a day working on edits. The barnstars will have to stand now, as they have already gone out. Again, my apologies --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way you interpret it people are penalised for returning instead of being rewarded. That's why I did it the other way; it encourages people to come back. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What I originally proposed was that when you got to the top level, you'd flip and start working up from zero again. If you had 50,000 before, then got 100,000 more, you'd get the top award, plus a second for the extra. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We're attempting to engage the competitive spirit here, and the closest metaphor is sports, in which each season offers a fresh start, which levels the playing field. E.g., my cumulative numbers are high, but I didn't make the leaderboard this time around. Don't reward slackers like me! Have more awards there like the one for on long articles, e.g., BLPs, stubs, requests, 2008 tags, rookie-of-the-drive, all-stars, most-improved, hall-of-fame, etc. That encourages people to specialize/take ownership. Golf and the Tour de France have daily/round leaders as well as overall leaders. Good idea, when we're looking for sustained effort.

We should absolutely have awards for those who did the most to contribute to the goal of the drive (2008 tags)! It's getting more and more painful to work on those articles as the more interesting ones get cleaned up. Lfstevens (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's how I thought it was going to work. You would add together your totals for May and July. Whatever amount you got in May, subtract that barnstar word count from your grand total, then get a barnstar for the remaining amount.

Thus, I did 125,000 in May, and just ~4,500 in July. I would subtract 80,000 for the "value" of my previous award, the Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker award, and have ~49,000 left, which would qualify me for the Modern GOCE award this time. This way, people would get to "cash in" their extra words from the previous drive, but not get to count their first drive's totals twice. The way it is, I got the highest award twice, and I did far less the second go round. But it is nice to get recognition for all those extra words from last time too. I think that's the fairest way to do it, and I hope my explanation makes sense. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Put more simply, subtract the value of the award given in the first drive, and add the remaining word count to this drive's total. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This made me think of rollover minutes. It does eliminate the need for ever-higher award levels for those who stay with the drive. Instead, you'd just get more awards at various levels. I should say that I'm happy to count articles that editors fix between drives, too. If someone is into it, we should recognize them. Lfstevens (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollover words, exactly! As for between drive recognition, I'd definitely support the idea, but it would probably be good to keep that completely separate from the drives themselves, otherwise things will get even more complicated. Maybe just keep an eye out for anyone that does a really big or complicated copy edit and award accordingly. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 01:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as I agree that it is "nice" to have your May words (not that I had any) count together with July words for a star; I don't think we should continue this in further drives. Firstly, the number of people with awards will just keep growing, even if they do close to nothing in new drives. You should get an award for the amount of work you did in that drive, period. To compliment over-achievers, the idea by Torchiest is probably the best — have the word count remainder carry over, so editors don't stop editing after reaching the barnstar word requirement. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Or you could create another type of barnstar to award to returning members (either all of them or those who contribute some minimum amount, like 10 articles or 10,000 words or whatever). Then base the word-count barnstar on just that month's contributions, so someone like me can't lazily edit one article and end up with the highest star. ^_- Shimeru 19:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I somehow missed the cumulative word count being applied to the barnstar award (my mind has been heavily preoccupied with medical stuff lately), so I thought the award I received earlier was a mistake at first. Maybe it's me, but this all seems far more complex than it needs to be. Why not simply award barnstars per drive? Keep each drive a level playing field with everyone starting at zero. dtgriffith ^[talk] 04:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea is to encourage return participation. I like the concept of the rollover words. I think it will work. We can also make a userbox badge that says something like, "This user participated in the GOCE Xxxxx 2010 etc." – S Masters (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI I answered way up above. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought from a new kid on the block. First off, I want to thank you for the work and effort put forth serving as leaders and pointguards during this drive. Your assistance is greatly appreciated and has not gone unnoticed. Regarding the barnstars and whatnot, I think it would be nice if you would have awards for 1. current drive and 2. combined drive. Veterans would have an opportunity to earn awards in both divisions, while newbies would be able to receive recognition for their work on par with the veterans. I felt defeated before I even started. It was like we were running a marathon, but newbies were penalized with an extra mile and forced to begin the race at the back of the pack. I think the starting line should be consistent for all participants. Level the playing field. (Don'tcha just love sports metaphors?) Cindamuse (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that was actually done, although I can understand how it could have been confusing. The word count awards were to be given (in some form, which we've been discussing) for combined word counts between the two drives. The gold star leader board awards were given for copy editing done only in this drive. So, you were actually only competing with other edits for the work in this drive. The combined drive amounts were really for people's independent tallies, where they were, in a sense, competing with themselves. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 14:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How about categories? People could sign up for beginner, intermediate, or advanced category. Returnees would have to sign up for intermediate or advanced. Newcomers could self-assign to whatever category they feel they belong in. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion we should just keep it as it is. However, we shouldn't count the number of words we copy edited in the last drive. If something happens to me in September (e.g. I get in a car crash and am hospitalized for the entire month), and I don't copy edit, I still get a barnstar, even though I did nothing. Use the number of words from that drive only. No other drives should be included. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 23:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should definitely reset all word counts for the next drive, and then possibly try the rollover words idea for subsequent drives. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe starting with a level playing field for each drive is the simplest, most fair approach. If you want to reward return participation, I agree with Cindamuse's recommendation with the Current Drive and Combined Drive awards. If an editor skips a month, then nothing is rewarded in the Combined category. Too much complexity can result in a good initiative losing participants and falling apart. I would rather see this thing blossom. dtgriffith ^[talk] 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That just gave me an idea: lifetime achievement awards! We should start all totals fresh every time, but add a new set of awards for huge total word counts in all drives, say, increments of 500,000 words. We could possibly do the same for article counts, in increments of maybe 500 or 1000 articles. Lifetime totals could be checked at the end of each drive. That would keep people pushing for the huge awards, but not interfere with individual drives, and making keeping track of it simple. Extremely motivated newbies could even earn a lifetime achievement award in their first drive. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is okay, but increments of 500,000 would definitely turn me off. I put a lot of time into the July drive and ended up at 65,000 words. I wouldn't be willing to do that 7 times just for a barnstar. I really like two of the ideas proposed so far: (1) Rollover words - The idea that I did 65,000 words and got the reward for 60,000, so I could start the next drive at 5,000 for my total word count (not for the leaderboard, though). I think it would really help at the end of the drive, when people are willing to do a bit more but can't reasonably expect to reach the next barnstar level (I just didn't have it in me to do 15,000 more words at that point). It doesn't put new participants at a disadvantage, but it gives people an incentive to return. It should be noted that my 5,000 rollover words wouldn't automatically qualify me for a barnstar unless I actually did some copyediting in the next drive. (2) Current and combined awards - Get a barnstar for what you do that month, but also have that counted toward a separate award. I have 65,000 now, and if I added 35,000 in the next drive, I would get a barnstar for my 35,000 and for my 100,000 total. Again, there's no disadvantage to newcomers, but participants are given an incentive to return. It's essentially the same as a lifetime achievement award, but maybe with smaller increments (40,000 or 50,000, perhaps?—although the minimum cutoff would have to be at least 100,000...maybe 150,000). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We have lift-off

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2010 has now been created so please continue planning discussions on its talk page. Thanks so much again to eveyone who worked so hard in July. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)