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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page Size[edit]

I followed the directions, but my tool box doesn't give me this option. Would it be in edit mode? Does it not work with beta? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did both of you clear your cache afterwards, like the directions specified? If so, I'll have to ask more questions to find out what's going on. Regarding the running total, you log it right where the directions are, under the example. I'll add two subsections to make it more clear. You log after the copyedit is done and you've cleared the tag from the page. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool thanx and yes on the cache, at least for me Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're still having the problem after clearing your cache? Can you copy and paste the contents of your monobook.js file here? And confirm that you're using the default skin?ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I can confirm that when I switched to beta, I lost it. Does not work with beta, that I can tell. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand, when we start I put my first Article at( # Completed (none) ), with "completed"=page name, and "(none)"=Page size(before the edit). And build a descending list from there with # for each page ? Is the "Total words: 0" going to increment manually or automatically ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manually. You'll have a running total, just have to add your most recent completion to the previous total. We'll check your math at the end. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even leaving Beta I still cannot get it to work Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, still no "page count" found Mlpearc MESSAGE 14:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got it to work in Vector. One more question the number we are working with is :File size:Prose size (including all HTML code):Wiki text:Prose size (text only): ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

running in Beta[edit]

so the page count doesn't work in beta? that's a bummer Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. I'm running on Beta and it works for me. If you are having a lot of problems, I think other editors can help you do a count for your articles. -- S Masters (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to the section, but I cannot make it work. Purged the cache too. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, Auntieruth55 and Noraft, Beta or not, it seems you the only two who's getting the page count. I'm not using beta and I am using monobook, and I still see nothing pertaining to "Page Count" Mlpearc MESSAGE 14:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it works. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting it in beta or otherwise, and in addition, I've since lost some of my other features (edit refs). Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now it works. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start Confusion[edit]

The instructions say "start anytime" and the caution box says do not start until May 1. I would suggest that if the goal is to get the work done then the initial instructions should be followed and let's get 'er done. I'm not real big on "who's getting the biggest award". Please clarify.... -- BullockTalk 19:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page, it clearly states the start and end dates and times of the drive. The confusion comes from the section on the bottom. The copy was taken from another drive at a stage when that drive was already in progress. I have changed the copy to better reflect what it is attempting to say. Correct me if I'm wrong. You are right in that we should just start now and get the work done, and there's nothing stopping anyone from doing that. However, the rules of the drive have been set, and we can't change it now. It will not seem fair to those who are thinking of participating, and it may put them off from doing so. -- S Masters (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Favor?[edit]

Big Bang (band) is a GA nominee waiting on a copyedit to be promoted. I'm the reviewer and I'm trying to get it done before the GA Backlog elimination drive ends. Can anyone help me out? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 09:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did the lead and the history section. The Artistry and influences section still needs attention. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Anyone else up for lending a hand? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I finished it. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word count[edit]

I'm confused by the word count measurements implied in the barnstar awards section (i.e. "At least 2,000 words", etc.). Is this supposed to be a measurement of the total number of words in each article, or of the delta number of words between the start and finish of the copyedit? I hope it is the former since I can see the latter might create incentives to be as wordy as possible, thus defeating the purpose of the copyedit. –Grondemar 18:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the initial number of words in each article before any editing is done. No wordiness worries! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 18:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, makes sense. Thanks! –Grondemar 19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Star Award[edit]

I want everyone to be aware: the Gold Star award is not being awarded to the person with the highest amount of wordage, it is awarded to the person who does the most copyedits. This means 1000 copyedits of 200 words each beats 300 copyedits of 1000 words each. This is to reward the person who has cleared the most tags and requests. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm in giving out two of these. One for the most words, and another for the most articles. However, if both end up being the same person, then they only get one. - S Masters (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, giving out a third one for most completed in the requests section would not be a bad idea either. Most of the articles there are much longer and take longer to complete, and we are trying to clear the whole queue. - S Masters (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three Gold Star Awards. Sounds like a good idea. Feel free to update the drive page, and I'd also make a formal announcement in a new section here. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just thought of something, though. We need a mechanism to track completed requests. Maybe have them put an asterisk next to the word count when they record it or something? That information will also need to be disseminated. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. We just need to count those with the completed tag/image and ignore those that do not have that. Wouldn't the asterisk be unnecessary? For the star, I will make those changes. :-) - S Masters (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean asterisk the ones from the request page? - S Masters (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is: How do we know how many requests a user has completed if they aren't indicating that a particular article in their running total was a request? They need to mark it somehow. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had a blur moment LOL. Yes, you are right, we need to mark it. Do you have time to update it or do you want me to do it? - S Masters (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. I'm pretty busy with RL work for the next few days. Thanks. Also, you may want to consider notifying some of the more prolific editors on their talk pages. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done it on the Drive page. I'll put a note in the talk pages of participants as well. - S Masters (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did Indiana class battleship from the Request page, but it did not have a copy-edit tag on it. I did Penelope Cruz from the requests page as well. That one had a copy-edit tag and is on my score sheet with its word count. Do I get credit for the word count on Indiana Class Battleship as well as the asterisk? Diannaa TALK 03:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All entries from the Requests page, regardless of whether it has a copyedit tag or not, counts as an entry from the Request page. So you can put an asterisk on all articles from the Request page, and they all count. One of the aims of the drive is to reduce the amount of outstanding requests we have, so well done! - S Masters (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British English in article, but not mentioned on talk page.[edit]

Hi there. I'm about to copyedit Tyranids, but I'd like some advice. Most of the article is written in British English (armour instead of armor), but the talk does not say anything. Furthermoe, thre prose is a bit indepth and mentiopns Games workshop, the creating copamny, a lot, so I wonder if this was just copied from the codex, or guide book for the race. I'm turning it to American English, but feel free to revert. Buggie111 (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can change it if you want. It is not a country specific article so it's not compulsory to stick to any particular style of English. As far as removing content, use your judgment and see if you think it needs to be removed. If you can justify it, then remove it. -- S Masters (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes[edit]

User talk:Mlpearc#Scott Baker copyedit! Please state findings here thank you. Mlpearc MESSAGE 01:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also think it is not fair for other editors to have more than ( 1 ) one artcile listed as  Working this can be seen as Hoarding. You can only work one at a time any way, and I don't think we are going to "run" out. Mlpearc MESSAGE 14:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, how can it be considered hoarding when there are eight thousand articles? I'm only doing it that way because it seems a waste of time to go back and forth for every single new article. If I do a big one, I'll do just one, but if I'm doing a handful of short ones, I figure it's more efficient to just list them all at once. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy, that was the point I was making, "we are not going to run out" of articles, and I did not single anybody out, I just don't want to come to log a completion and see an editor with 20  Working posted. If your working 5-10 articles a day and your setting up for ease and as a time saver as you say, thats fine. Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just finished copy editing Berkeley Poetry Conference, it needed a lot of punctuation and formatting fixes as well as a few word edits. I had noticed along the way that the {{copy edit}} tag disappeared, looking at the history I saw that Torchiest removed the tag literally within a minute of me hitting the submit button for adding the {{GOCEinuse}} tag. The edit summary stated "this article doesn't need any major copy editing anymore, removing tag" even though I had already listed this article as  Working on my totals list. I understand coincidences can happen, but I am concerned that this editor is making rash decisions overlooking legitimate copy edit needs like I found with this particular article. dtgriffith (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see this until today, and I wanted to apologize for the mix-up. I had looked at the version of the article that was tagged for a copy edit, and looking at the differences from that version to the most recent, I thought it had been fixed, as the peacock language had been removed, and formatting had been added. I didn't look too closely after seeing those corrections, but yes, I missed the other punctuation issues and such. Anyway, my mistake, and I'll try to be more careful in the future. Torchiest talk/contribs 00:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I didn't see it until today either. This one looks like it is taken care of. In the future, send me a talkback or tell me there's a dispute, please. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unity (comics) potential major issue[edit]

I'm working on my first article for the drive, and I'm a bit unsure of what to do. I copy edited the first half a dozen or so sections, but the last two thirds or so of the page is a giant time line of the story. It seems like the whole thing should just be removed, but I'm not sure. I'm going to set it aside and work on another article for now, but some advice, or perhaps a suggestion on where I should ask, would be greatly appreciated. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 03:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove it the article will lose most of its content. I would just finish the copyedit and leave the content as it is and not cut it. -- S Masters (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests section[edit]

Just a reminder that articles in the requests section may have already been copy-edited, such as Ralph Bakshi. Talk:Ralph Bakshi shows a copy-edit tag and it's been through GAN. In fact, if I remember correctly it was submitted to FAC last summer. Editors forget they placed requests here and don't remove them. Shall I remove any I know have been taken care of? Also, it's a good idea to check the talk page for the article milestones. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. Thank you. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm notifying editors at the moment. Some articles such as Parks and Recreation (season 1) have been through FAC and have been promoted. These should not be copyedited. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need to put a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for editors who watch the page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at the list, and there are definitely some others that are long finished. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 06:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real problem is the way the page is set up. People have to manually remove the request, which is easy to forget, and we're left with this problem. If instead there was a template for a copyedit request, we could have all the requests go into a category, and as soon as the tag was removed, it would pop back out of said category. People will be more likely to remove a tag from a talk page, than they will to remember to come back to a requests page and delete their requests (or someone else's request that they helped with). ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 09:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing our article lists[edit]

I had an idea. Many people in this drive saw how large the article lists became for participants in the GAN elimination drive for April. One reviewer came close to one hundred articles! This drive is going to get way more out of control, as it's clear there will be a number of copy editors that go into the hundreds of articles if they maintain their current pace. That's why I'm suggesting that everyone, or at least anyone that starts to get a really long list, uses the following templates around their current layout:

{{collapse top|Article list}}
{{Div col|cols=3}}
#{{completed}} [[Article A]] (1000)
#{{working}} [[Article B]] (1000)
#{{completed}} [[Article C]] (1000)
#{{completed}} [[Article D]] (1000)
#{{working}} [[Article E]] (1000)
{{Div col end}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Total words: 3000

Which comes out looking like this:

Article list
  1.  Completed Article A (1000)
  2.  Working Article B (1000)
  3.  Completed Article C (1000)
  4.  Completed Article D (1000)
  5.  Working Article E (1000)

Total words: 3000

That will make things a lot cleaner on that page. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 08:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way that we can add the "Article count: XX" to the visible area? Just an idea Bullock✉ 03:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. You'd just have update it manually, like the word count. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 06:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asterisks for credit[edit]

S Masters notified me that about placing asterisks on the copy-edited articles I've done, but I'm unsure how to execute this precisely. Just looking for some clarification. Fdssdf 05:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to place an asterisk, if the article you edited is from the Requests page. If it is from the Requests page, you put an asterisk regardless if the request has a {{copyedit}} tag or not, provided it is a full and complete edit, and you can remove the request entry from the page. If it's from the normal backlog (not the Requests page), you do not put an asterisk. You can see the instructions for placing asterisks under directions on the Drive page. Hope this clarifies. - S Masters (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you cleared it up. Thanks a bunch. Fdssdf 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You put an asterisk only on copyedits done from the Requests page, not from the {{copyedit}} backlog. The reason is that we have two separate backlogs to clear and there are awards for both backlogs. The asterisk is used to indicate that the article was from the Request page. - S Masters (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! The Utahraptor Talk 00:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Work So Far (Better than you think!)[edit]

I want to tell everyone that they're doing a great job so far. While it appears that we've only done 163 articles so far, in reality we've done 264. Remember that new articles are being tagged with {{copyedit}} every day: 101 so far in May. The fact that we're staying ahead of new tags is important. One of my personal goals is to get December 2007 cleared out (its embarrassing to me to have 2007 in our backlog), and we're pretty close on that, with 3 articles left (I've got one of those almost done). The first day we had a record number of articles done, and I'm hoping that's because it was the weekend. If so, we should see those kind of numbers again. The requests queue is dropping as well. Awesome job, everyone. Keep it up! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 16:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you exactly why those three articles are still sitting there: the prose size given is nowhere near the actual amount of text requiring copy editing. All those articles are off by a factor of ten, approximately. I'm guessing each month has a handful of "undesirables" such as those. They might have a better chance of getting attention after the drive is over. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I do plan on tearing it up again this weekend. :) Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to see this drive working out, I wish I had more available time to spend on it but doing whatever I can. It figures that I picked the one long article to work on this week that is a major target for daily vandalism! Great job everyone! dtgriffith (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have taken one of the December 2007 articles, someone please grab the other. I now have 2 working articles, I will alternate work on both of them which should take me a couple days. This is a long article with little "points" but that's not the idea, Please someone step up and take the other. Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 18:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

problem with an article[edit]

I really don't know what to do about Siena College, Taytay. I've cleaned it up a bit, but it is unintelligible to me. Help? Plus it says 784 words, and that's BS. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the word count, you are aware it does not count bullets, blockquotes, and other things, right? After you hit the page size button, all the counted areas become highlighted. You can scroll through and see. Regarding the problem with the article, it was written by someone whose first language is not English. I'm sure a copyeditor here will be willing to help you out. If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, I think this article requires a rewrite, which I'm not willing to do. Some of it, I have no idea what they are trying to tell us. I can fix the some of it, but it won't be perfect, and it will still need a copy editor once it's fixed. My inclination would be to reduce it to the history and a general description, add an info box, and refer readers to the website. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your call...go for it. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 21:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've cleaned it up. It's not great, but it is sensible now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching multiple categories[edit]

I'd be more motivated if I could see the intersection of the copyedit lists with other categories in which I have specific interest. Is there a way to do such a thing? While I'm being unreasonable it would be nice to put the wordcounts on the "needing copyedit" pages next to the article. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Goal[edit]

I optimistically set the original goal for 4000, not realizing how much work it would take. I'd like to revise the goal to 7500, which is reachable, especially since there are more editors participating now. I also hope to see January and February 2008 closed down, just as an unofficial goal. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. This is a massive task, but I think 7500 is achievable, based on our current rate of progress. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to go crazy clearing small articles from the queue over the next few days. That will pad our stats. --Diannaa TALK 02:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The graphs are beautiful and are a real motivator. Thanks, Noraft. Perhaps we could institute a graph with a weekly update on the GOCE main page? --Diannaa TALK 02:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the graphs would serve as a great motivator after the drive concludes. dtgriffith (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All credit for the graphs go to User:SMasters. Since he's an active participant in the project, maybe he'd be willing to that. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll see where it can go on the main page. Glad you all like the graphs. :-) - S Masters (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests Backlog[edit]

I've found and removed some GAs from the backlog. We're down to 19. When we get down to 10, I'm going to remove the backlog tag. Congrats, everyone. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia changes disable prosesize.js[edit]

This morning I found the new Wikipedia changes in affect on my account. Though it looks great, it utilizes the Vector skin thereby disabling the prosesize.js script we are using for this elimination drive. I found it easy to restore – in your Settings under the Appearance tab, change the Skin to MonoBook and prosesize.js will become available again. dtgriffith (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or use the "Take me back" link at the top of the page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I use Modern and never had an interruption in the prose size script. Other folks have it working in Vector, BTW... ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also use Modern and have had no problems. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 14:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it working in Vector now. I had originally understood it would only work in MonoBook. Thanks! dtgriffith (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also got it working in Vector. You just have to re-do the installation to the vector.js. I don't know about Vector, though. The font is kinda tiny :( Diannaa TALK 02:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan & Feb[edit]

Let's get January and February cleared out for sure. We've even got a shot at March if we're coordinated! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the wee ones in March right now. :) --Diannaa TALK 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request that also has a copyedit tag[edit]

What happens to the number tally when an article on the Request page also has a {{copyedit}} tag? Do we get any additional credit? I just finished Sassanid Empire, and at 11,176 words, it nearly killed me! :-o - S Masters (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forget it. I still get to put 1 on Request and 1 on total articles, so it won't make any difference. The long session with the 11K words must have fried my brains LOL - S Masters (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yes, I saw you were doing that, and I salute your efforts. What a monster article! It was definitely not light reading material either. Torchiest talk/contribs 12:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. :-) Yes, it was a lot of work. - S Masters (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worked one that was 12,286 words long. My brain is still a little fried. So I understand. ;-) The Utahraptor Talk 23:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE template? wtf?[edit]

Is the template about to be deleted? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. What makes you say that? The Utahraptor Talk 22:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, I don't use it. I agree with the arguments at the deletion discussion. I've copyedited in excess of 100 (probably more but wasn't counting) articles in the past year and used the template no more than five times. I think it's intrusive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It comes up with a template that says the template is up for deletion and join the discssion. I usually use it in the small box (when I use it), but I always leave comments as well. I think it helps, especially if I've done an overhaul, not just a few minor edits, so that the editors can come back to me and say, why, or why not, or help some more, or whatever. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well in my opinion, it shouldn't be deleted. I think it should be kept. This template is very commonly used after a copy edit, so if it were deleted, cleanup of the invalid template would be a big struggle and a mess. The Utahraptor Talk 23:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it should be kept, as I do, then please help put your comments in the discussion. If not for that template, I would not have known about the guild, and I would not have copy edited hundreds of articles as a result of joining the Guild. - S Masters (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's the perfect way to advertise the Guild. By the looks of it there are a lot of "keeps" and very few "deletes" so I think the template is safe. The Utahraptor Talk 23:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the amount of drama on Wikipedia surrounding these sorts of things unbelievable. I fully support the whole democratic method of finding consensus and working together to create a better product and better articles. To arbitrarily propose a heavily used template for deletion because one person doesn't like it is so unnecessary, it's creating drama for the sake of drama. This could have been handled in a much more constructive manner, such as a Talk page post citing issues that need to be improved upon. Just my humble opinion. dtgriffith (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. I'd like the template to be shorter, but hey, no bid deal. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to swing back over there and comment on the latest proposals, that would be helpful. Torchiest talk/contribs 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Push[edit]

At our current rate, we aren't likely to clear out January and February, much less March. We also would need to average a little over 50 copyedits a day to make the goal of 7500. Let's at least concentrate on clearing January and February. If you've claimed a request, please finish it up. We're in the home stretch. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to do a lot of copy editing this weekend. With luck I could possibly copy edit four or five articles per day, maybe more if I work all day. The Utahraptor Talk 00:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also going to try to give another major effort for the finale weekend. Torchiest talk/contribs 01:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have one fairly long request that has been marked as Working all week, I am about half way through it. Some important life events have had to take priority, I am hoping to complete this article before the weekend which I won't be available at all. I'll do what I can. dtgriffith (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very much appreciate everyone's efforts. Maybe we'll make 7500 after all, if we have a couple more days like the record (79). Be advised that Severe weather, ER (TV series), and Siege of Damascus (634)‎ are available on the requests page, because the people who said they'd do them never did them. I'd love to see the requests queue cleared entirely, as that will make it easy to stay on top of copyedit requests going into the future. I think I'll organize another drive for July and see if we can't get down under 6500. The backlog hasn't been at 6500 for a couple years. If I can double the participants, we might even get under 6000! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try as well, although my finals are complicating things. I am working on ER; I've been procrastinating, but I've gotten through the first half. I'll try to finish off the rest today. liquidluck✽talk 04:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fetchcomms said he/she would do Severe Weather, so I stopped. I'll do Siege of Damascus. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Fetchcomms said he/she was about to do Severe Weather, after having it claimed 16 days and never touching it. And he only said that because I released it. You told him to go ahead, but he still hasn't touched it. We're going to have some strict rules regarding claiming of articles in the next drive. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A July effort may be noble, but I for one think people may be a bit burnt out. Maybe an August or September heave-ho would allow time for people to sufficiently recuperate. In any event, you organize another go-round, and I'll be there regardless. I like tackling the "biggun's". NielsenGW (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with this.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take weather. A month off to recover and if you get some new blood then they might not be tired. I'll play when ever the party is... Bullock ✉ 02:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for the next contest[edit]

Submitting an article for review (GA, A-class, FA, whatever) isn't a shout out to the GOCE exactly, but it is an invitation to the community to fiddle with an article and make it better. I copyedit most of the articles that show up at the A-class review for WP:SHIPS; could those articles be counted in the total in some future copyediting push or contest? - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one could organize something along those lines. Me, I'm worried about the articles that need copyediting that were tagged over a year ago, so my energies are directed there. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to copy edit Friuli[edit]

I noticed that there are two separate articles for this region of Italy. Friuli should redirect to Friuli – Venezia Giulia, since they are the same thing. I'm still waiting on consensus from other editors. Feel free to go to Friuli's talk page and discuss it. The Utahraptor Talk 01:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see your note until I finished the copy edit. Be Bold. The material I reviewed can be used to fill in any gaps in the other article. V/R Bullock ✉ 20:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips. I redirected it, and also made sure to redirect the talk page. The Utahraptor Talk 02:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star[edit]

Thank you so much ɳorɑfʈ Talk! for creating the Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star. I wasn't sure if people would be getting that ugly question mark, and surely nobody would be looking forward to that LOL! The award looks very regal and befitting the amount of work required to achieve this honor. Nice work! - S Masters (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 10:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The drive has ended. Thank you, everyone![edit]

I've moved the progress page to a subdirectory so that it will be near impossible to post new numbers accidentally. I've got a busy next couple days, so everyone take a well-deserved break, and I'll have a final report and barnstars out by next week. Great job everyone! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was fun! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Noraft, for heading up this stupendous effort! I am looking forward to continuing the work without the additional record-keeping. :) Diannaa TALK 01:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Even though we only took out about a tenth of the articles needing work, I still think this was a great idea. I think another drive, with more publicity in advance, would be good, after taking a break for a few months. Torchiest talk/contribs 01:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 400 articles a month on average going up. You take 3 months off and its like the drive never happened. We need to stay on top of this. I'm planning on running drives every other month until the backlog is cleared completely. I'm thinking that we can get publicity by welcoming new wikipedians and mentioning the drive. If you think about it, if we had twice the participants, we would have edited twice the articles. I think if I can get 60 active participants for the next drive, we can clear all of 2008. And that would be something. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not as if an average month doesn't include a fair number of copy edit tags being handled and removed outside of our work, and GOCE members copy edit even when there is no drive. I'm sure the net gain per month is less than 400. The best way to know for sure is to see how much the total number of tags goes up in the next month. Torchiest talk/[Special:Contributions/Torchiest|contribs]] 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ɳorɑfʈ, you throw a great party...thanks for all the support along the way. With 30 active GOCE participants in this drive and 400 new articles added a month, guess my slice is 14 or so just to keep the ground we already paid for. I would also encourage everyone to start using the GOCE banner on the medium and large articles, although contentious, it is how I found the Guild. With the banner only being on about 600 out of 3,000,000 articles, or 0.02%, we're not bringing in enough new blood. It was a pleasure and I truly enjoyed the camaraderie. Those of you who went over 100K words deserve a purple heart. Thanks Bullock ✉ 04:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huge shout out to ɳorɑfʈ for organizing the drive, and to Diannaa for all your help and support. I am especially pleased with the huge drop on the Requests page. It was all that I hoped for and so much more! The close to 10% drop is a fine achievement, and I am so pleased that we have been able to make a nice dent in this area. I hope everyone keeps copyediting regardless if there's a drive going on. See you all (after our much deserved break) at the next drive! — S Masters (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When is the next drive, by the way? Is it possible we could do another one in July? The Utahraptor Talk 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it took some work to organize, and thanks for doing it. Before we break our arms and dislocate our shoulders patting ourselves on the back, however, we should note that there are still 7600 to go. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we doubled the participants, we'd be unlikely to get anything like double the output. How many newbies would put the incredible commitment into this that some of our stars did? I strongly agree about bannering talk pages. I'd say put it on any page you sign, even if your comment had nothing to do with copyediting. We need A LOT more members.

Another problem: Call me selfish, but I found myself sticking to articles that I'd at least heard of, and that I had at least a notional interest in (although I didn't require subject knowledge—e.g., Individualist anarchism in Europe. Gak.) The problem is that I found only one or two on each month's list that fell into such a category. I would have trouble finding another couple dozen that do.

Finally, I think it would be useful to think about the impact of our work, which I'd say is inversely related to the obscurity of the article (IAIE wouldn't rate too highly....) It would be truly awesome if we could sort the list of requests by some measure of popularity—number of readers in the last month/quarter seems reasonable. Is that something we could do with a template change? If that's a bridge too far, does anyone have thoughts on whether it makes more sense to hit the oldest (arguably least interesting although most embarrassing to the guild) or the newest (fresh on at least some reader's mind?) Lfstevens (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't mean that my article won't be copyedited any time soon, especially since I missed May 31 by seven minutes... Gage (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics[edit]

  • The copyedit tag was removed from 1175 articles during the drive, and added to 415 articles during the drive, for a total gain of 760 articles.
  • December 2007 and January 2008 were cleared completely.
  • A total of 1,089,298 words of text were reviewed and copyedited during the drive. Four users accounted for about half of those words. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing next drive: July![edit]

The next Backlog Elimination Drive will be held in July. The mechanics will be the same, with some changes. The award requirements will be raised just a bit, to start at 4,000 words up to 100,000. The Diligence Barnstar will be added. There will be a special referral award for total number of words of all the editors who join the drive because of you. Rules will be added to prevent "claim-staking" that causes articles to go unedited (i.e. if using  Doing... or  Working, one must commence editing immediately after placing the tag). I'll be announcing this in the June 14 Signpost, which is featuring the May drive, and the GOCE in the WikiProject Report section.

Getting mention of the GOCE in the Signpost is huge. That could really help expand participation next go round. Torchiest talk/contribs 12:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if we could keep the backlog from growing during the no-drive month of June... Lfstevens (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if everyone focused on the February and March 2008 tagged articles during the down month, we could clear those out before the next major drive started. It's less than a hundred articles. If we each did one from each month between now and July, we'd basically wipe them out. Torchiest talk/contribs 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will take some of those articles on as time permits. First I need to finish the request I have had open for like 10 days. Just never enough time! dtgriffith (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made this month my anti-vandalism month, and have been watching Recent Changes almost nonstop for the past two days. But when time permits I'll fit a copy edit or two in wherever I can. The Utahraptor Talk 00:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I started well and then Real Life (TM) intervened and I sort of ground to a halt after the first week. But I'll keep plugging away through June and hopefully be able to get more done in July... Brickie (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July Drive is Active[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010 is up. I've still got to do some work to the rules and other things, but you can start signing up now. Bring a friend, if you can. The number one way to do that is to mention that there are barnstars to be had. We really need to do a better job of marketing this next one. My target is 60 active participants. Will be talking more about all this on the GOCE talk page.

In an unrelated and non-topical request, I'm having trouble getting St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao through an FAC, for lack of opinions. It would be a great personal favor to me if some folks could head over to its FAC page and give their unbiased opinions as to its suitability for Featured Article status.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives/May_2010&oldid=1136051164"