Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators: Difference between revisions

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III.

I’m now editing my 2nd article in the May drive; and as happened in my 1st article, I found problems with the references, plus in this case a bibliography section as well.

1- Am I remembering correctly that when we edit articles for drives, we aren’t required to edit anything other than the text in the body of the article, infoboxes, and photo captions?

2- If so, do we need to write an alert on our submissions of completion, or will another editor always come along behind us to do those fixes?

3- Also if so, is it really fair to post a {{GOCE reviewed}} template—which I didn’t do on my March articles or my 1st May edit?

4- I almost forgot to add a question about text that’s actually in the body of the article: what if a section really needs updating, such as where predictive research findings about costume sales are mentioned but so long ago as to be irrelevant unless put into a larger context? Augnablik (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must be referring to the Halloween costume article; if a particular article is under discussion, it helps to link to it. What are the problems with the References and Bibliography sections, as I don’t see any other than some scrunched formatting under References? There is no requirement for copy editors to make sure all the references are correct, but where breakage is detected, there is no reason to not mend it if that can be done without much trouble. As far as writing an alert, one can mark citations with dead links ({{Dead link}}) or where referencing is otherwise insufficient ({{More footnotes needed}}, or {{Failed verification}}, among others); that is helpful, too. There is a difference between {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}, which is what is to be put on the talk page after a copy edit, and {{GOCEreviewed}}, which is for when one doesn’t see the need for a copy edit and doesn’t perform one. There are templates specifically for noting that an update is needed, e.g. {{Update}}, {{Update section}}, and {{Update inline}}. I hope that helps. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was because of my work on the Halloween costume article that I thought to raise the questions that I did, it wasn’t to focus on that particular article but to get generic guidance. That’s why I didn’t link it.

Among the problems with the References section is that there is one reference mentioned with just the author’s name but nothing else. The Bibliography section is poorly formatted for titles of the sources.

BUT NOW …

As I just tried to publish my most recent edits, I received notification that someone else has done editing and I can’t publish until the differences are resolved. And yet, I published the {{GOCE in use}} at the top of the article before I began working on it, so no one else should also be working on it. I would hate to lose all my edits, as I made a lot of formatting fixes on the Bibliography, and did some other fixes elsewhere. Could one of you coordinators step in here to shoo off the other editor before the 24-hour grace period ends in which unpublished edits can be made. Augnablik (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: The “someone else” who edited the article was a bot which dated a maintenance tag. (Which is weird, I thought that bots ignored articles with in-use templates.) The easiest thing would be to revert the bot edit and make your changes. The bot won’t be offended and will likely return a little later to make its edit again. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly my idea of the “easiest thing,” @Reidgreg, because I will lose all the edits I wanted to publish and have to make them all over again. Which I can do but prefer not to if there’s a way to avoid it. Augnablik (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: Do you mean you would lose your edits from closing your web browser window in which the edits were made? Just copy that into a text editor, make the revert (restoring your last edited version of the article) and then edit again and paste back from the text editor. If it’s giving you the edit-conflict split window, I’m sure you can just copy from one text box to the other but I don’t recall the specifics of what it looks like. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg, okay, it’s finally sorted out … thanks for stepping in about the editing conflict issue. Weirdness indeed was going on (perhaps Halloween gremlins had come out to haunt). For one thing, I found that the {{GOCE in use}} template had disappeared from the top of the article, so apparently that left the article open for the bot to sweep through.

For another thing, the directions at the top of the article about what to do in case of an editing conflict were confusing because of exactly where “below” really means the editor with the challenge has to go down the page. Anyway, after an hour or two I finally succeeded and now I’m ready to go on to a 3rd article in the current drive. Augnablik (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot showed up to date your templates, which were either undated or included non-standard punctuation ({{…}}). Your {{GOCEinuse}} template, of which “GOCE in use” is an alias, was within “nowiki” tags; so, it wouldn’t render nor probably be recognized by bots. Somewhere in the process, the “Short description” template was removed (and it should always be first in an article). Also, I see that User:Protobowladdict, whom I recognize as participating in guild activities, was editing, but without putting out the “inuse” template, which is really what it’s there for, to keep guild members from stepping on each other’s work during drives and blitzes. “Hutton” is probably Ronald Hutton, a scholar on pagan religions and folklore, but I couldn’t decide which book of his applied. The {{Full citation needed}} template might be appropriate in such cases. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still rather new to using templates, @Dhtwiki, so appreciate guidance about how to use them. At the same time, sometimes template-related things happen that I didn’t request, which is really confusing. I should probably mention that I try to avoid using the SE except when absolutely necessary, as I find it hard to focus on text editing with so much “code clutter.” Most of my need for template work, at least for references and comments like “citation needed,” has been possible for me to do in the VE. Regarding the “Halloween Costumes” article:

— About what you said about the bot showing up to date my templates or fix non-standard punctuation … other than retrieval dates I’ve placed on citation forms in the VE, the only other time I recall a date being involved on a template was on the Multiple Issues template I used at the top of the article to mention that there were major issues in need of fixing … but that date was automatically added. I didn’t add the parentheses around the curly brackets, though I do recall seeing that sort of thing several times when I went into the SE to look at something.

— Speaking of that particular template, you may have noticed when you went to look at the article that the text I typed on it appears in a different font than it should. I didn’t ask for that. Any idea why that happened?

— About the {{GOCE in use}} coding with <nowiki>, I didn’t put it there, at least not knowingly. Any idea why that happened?

— As for the missing short description, I also noticed on a VE form that one had been requested by another editor earlier but it wasn’t appearing … and I couldn’t figure out how to make it do so. Any idea why that happened, and how to fix it? Augnablik (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All templates that I have used have “date” parameters, which require “month year”, e.g. “May 2025”, as the info. In my experience, leave out that parameter and a bot will certainly date it. You like the visual editor? I don’t know what “SE” stands for, but I prefer the non–visual editor. Unwanted wiki markup is apt to creep in; so, there should be a way to check in whatever editor you use. The font you speak of seems to be a function of the Multiple Issues template; I fussed a bit with it without changing the font or its initial indentation. As far as the “in use” template, as I said before, unwanted wiki markup can creep in mysteriously, and it’s just best to check. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (edited Dhtwiki (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Finding out about the possibility of unwanted wiki markup creeping in is an eye-opener, Dhtwiki … wow. I’ve heard other editors disparage the Visual editor (VE) for various things … even though yes, I’ve always preferred it over the Source editor (SE, in Wikipedia jargon I’ve now learned) because I really prefer avoiding all that code clutter. For me, it greatly interferes with keeping the big picture of an article in mind at the same time as working on smaller bits of it.

And I just assumed that if there were two choices of editor platforms, each would do everything the other did, even though differently. This experience on the May drive is making me rethink how to go on from here, and the insights you’ve been giving me on the “Halloween costumes” article will probably be what tips the scale for me!

Come to think of it, I’ve rarely needed to use templates other than the one for citations, which is easy to use and works fairly well to do everything I’ve needed so far. But it turns out that the form is really nothing more than a menu from which to choose various templates — we who use the VE are just not aware of it.

That said, however, I did check in the SE about the problems in the Multiple Issues template but couldn’t find them … Augnablik (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhtwiki, I removed the earlier Multiple Issues template and posted a new one, mentioning that there was a discussion on the Talk page about the article overlap, and the citation issue. Again the same problem arose with the font …

…but this time I serendipitously succeeded in getting it to look the way it should by choosing the “collapsible” option for the template, the meaning of which I had no idea of until I saw the resultovid. It turns out that this hides the text of the message but gives the reader the option of clidking on a Show link to see it. If the reader does so, the link changes to Hide; and after reading the text shown, the reader can click on that to leave the template. Nice. Again, a great learning experience for me.

I still don’t know, however, a way to put a template on an existing citation to indicate that there is missing information. Citations # 3 and 20, both for the author by the name of Hutton, provide nothing than the name. Augnablik (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing I couldn’t figure what to do about on this article: although the markup shows a short description was added at the too of the article, it doesn’t show. Augnablik (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{full citation needed}} may be helpful for incomplete citations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But what I’m saying, @Jonesey95, is that I found there really is a short description provided in the markup code and yet it’s not appearing in the VE. 🤔 Augnablik (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The short description template appears for me in Visual Editor. If I click on it and then click edit, I see a pop-up window that shows me the current short description: “Costumes worn on or around Halloween”. The short description template’s content does not normally display in reading mode. See Wikipedia:Short description for an explanation of what they are and how they work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Short description is not rendered by default, but it can be. It is supposed to be at the very top, per WP:LAYOUT. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the editors who worked on the article earlier put a short description into the article. I saw it before, probably the VE form. But it’s just not appearing on the article. And I see that Jonesey95 said, just above your message, that it doesn’t normally display in reading mode, which seems completely counterintuitive to the whole idea of using a form to do things that those who use the SE would do there. Augnablik (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Jonesey also linked to the article telling what short description does. I don’t see it myself but know it is important somehow and just have to respect that. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhtwiki and @Jonesey95, did it appear that I had any problem with the expectation of there being a short description on articles? Augnablik (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many features that work in mysterious ways. Happily, the site is pretty well documented. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I made it sound as if you did have a problem. I was talking about my having to take it on faith. However, the linked article does give rationale for why the template exists, rationale that I was not aware of. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re avoiding the source editor because of markup clutter, you might consider enabling a syntax highlighter, such as User:Remember the dot/Syntax highlighter or User:Cacycle/wikEd. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I never heard of a syntax highlighter, @Dhtwiki, I had to look it up online … got it now … well, I appreciate your suggestion but my issue with the SE is not really having to differentiate one code from another. It’s having to see codes at all on the text I’m copy editing. For me they just get in the way visually.

By contrast, in a word processor — which is the same as the VE as far as look and feel — editors can easily see what they’re working on in relation to other text with a clear sense of how everything fits together part to whole. There’s no interruption of thought.

Someday, I know, our Wikitekkies will finish what they started with their VE overlay of markup code and make all editing work equally possible in both the SE and the VE. But for now, it’s frustrating to realize that working a lot in the SE is required in copy editing work for Wikipedia, which will cut down on my productivity. Augnablik (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhtwiki, I’ve just discovered how to add a major “critique template” to articles, and so that takes care of the first 3 questions in my original message. I can now simply mention remaining issues I notice in articles — like problems with references — and place it prominently so someone else will hopefully do something about the issues. Before being able to do that, I felt that the articles I edited were somehow not done thoroughly.

I see one drawback with doing that, though: for non-Wikipedia readers, it makes the encyclopedia look a little unprofessional. But it’s probably better that we admit the issues rather than just leave them for readers with discerning eyes to discover them and wonder … Augnablik (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the {{Multiple issues}} template is unusual, as it is almost always used to encompass several other challenge templates for a more compact or synoptic display. What you did with it probably belongs on the talk page. You are almost suggesting a {{Merge}}, given the amount of overlap you’ve detected, which would require discussion on appropriate talk pages in any case. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhtwiki … by using the multiple issues template up top on the article, I thought that I was “encompassing several other challenge templates for a more compact or synoptic display.“ Is it only the overlap issue with the “Halloween” article that shouldn’t have gone into that template, or do you think I still included too much and should have used smaller issues-related templates throughout the article?

As far as going to the article’s Talk page and bringing up the overlap issue, with the suggestion of a possible merge, I never thought of that but will be happy to do so — although in what I say there, I’d like to recommend that:

• The simplest and most logical thing to do about the overlap is to remove the information about the origins of Halloween from the “Halloween Costume” article, pointing readers who want to know about those to the “Halloween” article
• The duplicate mask image should be used only in the “Halloween Costumes” article

Augnablik (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You indeed should have included separate templates within the Multiple Issues one, or spread throughout the article. What you have now is text that belongs on the talk page, not at the top of the article (you earlier spoke of its not looking “unprofessional” and indeed it does at this point). You should move that text to the talk page, in order to preserve what you have found. I would not worry about article merges. You have done a thorough job copy editing, and that should be enough. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC) (edited 21:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

As I replied to another of your messages above, I did remove the Multiple Issues template and take the discussion of article overlap to the article’s Talk page. Thank you for the little accolade on the “Halloween costume” work; it was the proverbial icing on the cake for me after a grueling climb up the learning curve in March and so far in May. Now, sitting down to rest on a higher plateau with the cake, I have the delightful feeling that things are coming together at last. Augnablik (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new drive page. The October to December 2023 backlog and March to June 2025 requests are the focus. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed my barnstar calculations. If they look good, I will pass them out later. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars have been distributed, except for my own. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhtwiki’s are done. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I might be interested in reviewing articles, but it doesn’t seem like this is really done commonly so I wanted to double-check before I actually did anything. Thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By all means feel free to review. In general, we coordinators have not been reviewing articles as much as promised (10% of articles of new editors, especially). From time to time, there will be a request for a review from a new editor on one of the talk pages. Those certainly have been attended to with alacrity. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! GoldRomean (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you mark an article as having been reviewed, you should place any checkmarks and comments to the right of the editor’s initial entry, so that it can be more easily removed prior to the script, that calculates drive barnstars, being run, as well as sign any such review. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC) (edited 08:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Oh ok, sorry for the oversight! I’ll fix that asap. GoldRomean (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I’m back again. Is it ok to remove signups for blocked users (in this case, here, specifically)? I’m guessing their entries are invalid anyway since it’s their own articles, one’s a draft, they weren’t tagged for ce, and were deleted. Or just leave it and whoever calculates the results will figure it out? With thanks – GoldRomean (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can leave it for now. All the best, Miniapolis 23:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I chose “Women in Music” as an article to edit in the July drive and placed the GOCE in use template accordingly on July 2. On the 9th, I found a message on my Talk page: “I had started a copyedit of this as part of the July drive. Are you doing the same thing?” from Lfstevens. I replied that yes, I was, but I couldn’t understand why he would ask that question because I assumed the answer would be obvious.

The article’s History page revealed that on July 6 a bot had removed what it considered out-of-date in-use notification on the article (“JL-Bot talk contribs m 247,101 bytes −16 removing stale inuse template as last edited 1 days ago”) … even though my last edit had been just the previous day!

Lfstevens has ceded me ownership of the article, giving up claim to points. But that would not be fair because he made 14 edits in good faith. So, Coordinators, would you make a decision as to what you think should be done in this unusual situation?

I hope that trigger-happy bot can be a bit better trained as well. Augnablik (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators, I am happy to have @Augnablik retain ownership and points for this article. Plenty of other stuff to work on. Lfstevens (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would help others not working on the article to link to it from any discussion about it, e.g. Women in Music, which is a huge article (>15k word count); so, there’s plenty of word-count credit to go around. The two of you do as you wish. JL-Bot commonly removes the “inuse” template after 24 hours without an edit to the page, although it can be surprisingly and inconsistently lenient and not remove the template until many hours later. There is nothing to change there. You just have to remember the time limit. We have all had to deal with its somewhat remorseless behavior. You can remove—or comment out, as I do—the copy edit template before you start editing, which will take the article off any category of articles needing copy editing, and thus help avoid other editors thinking that it’s up for grabs. In that case, just make sure you finish your copy edit, or else put the previous c/e template back up. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This bot task is explained at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JL-Bot 6. The bot is set up to run once per day, according to the bot request for approval, and to remove GOCE in use templates that are more than 24 hours stale. Since the bot runs only once per day, it won’t remove the template after exactly 24 hours; it might be up to 48 hours, or even more if the bot doesn’t run for some reason. In this case, it removed the template after 32 hours with no edits. Everything appears to be working as designed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consulting your user contributions page (the tab I always keep open) and the article history page will quickly tell whether you have made the last edit to the article and might have some competition. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had no idea about this “competition.” I can see its value for something like a drive, to avoid our slacking off; but at the same time, it’s a bit weird to find there’s this disembodied enforcer out there, ready to pounce.

If this creature is described in the drive procedure information, I sure missed it. When Lfstevens told me that the in-use template had been removed, I thought it was due to vandalism! Augnablik (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the competition was mostly inadvertent, either a bot or some random editor making corrections despite the GOCEinuse template asking that they desist. However, “ready to pounce” is not too far off, regarding people looking for articles to edit during a drive or blitz, seeing the one you think you have marked as yours but the sign has been removed, and innocently enough taking it for themselves. Checking the article history is yet another way to determine recent editing activity, which helps prevent your “pouncing” on someone else’s article. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1-

I just noticed that the first (and so far, only) article I chose for the July drive — “Women in Music” — has been removed from the Articles List. Was this done automatically when JL-Bot 6 removed the GOCE in use template I had placed weeks ago on it? If so, I wasn’t aware when I replaced the template, and it would be helpful for those involved in drives to know they need to do the same. (In fact, I don’t recall seeing any alert in the general drive information for copy editors about that bot on the prowl for article claimed for the drive but not edited for the past 24 hours … which is an equally important alert that should be given.)

2-

That said, though, I’m realizing that the article is in such great need of editing, as apart from basic copy editing, that I don’t think it possible for me to finish by the end of July. As I recall, the copy editing drives don’t require actual editing as such, though I’ve done that on several occasions. I’m not quite sure I understand the guidance in the following paragraph about what to do in the case of cannot be completed due to other issues:

“If, after examining an article, you find that copy editing is inappropriate or cannot be completed due to other issues, you may consider removing extant {{copyedit}} tags and taking extra actions—like placing {{GOCEreviewed}} on the talk page, deleting inappropriate material, reporting suspected copyright violation and so on.”

Does this mean that if I give up on the article, the work I’ve done so far won’t count at all for the July drive? And is there some way to mark the article for major editing work? Augnablik (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article no longer appears on the “Articles List” for the month of November 2023, which category has been removed by now, because the copy edit tag, {{Copyedit|date=November 2023|reason=prosify lists, fix tone}}, was removed by User:Lfstevens on July 8. The GOCEinuse template will not affect that.

Given the amount of work you’ve done, just by number of edits, it would be wrong for you not to get at least some credit for drive participation, probably full credit (sharing such with LFstevens?), if only to indicate that you have participated, to preserve any rollover word count, and even if you feel that you haven’t done everything that needs doing (you can always continue editing after the drive is done).

Various other templates can be added to indicate that further, non-copy-editing, work is needed. See Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy for @Augnablik to get full credit, assuming the plan is to finish the task afte r the end of the month. Lfstevens (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Dhtwiki, thanks — just a few more questions to follow through on your reply.

— What would you say is “some credit” (par. 2)?

— I wish I could convince Lfstevens to divvy up points, but he keeps demurring. 🥲

— I guess I should remove the GOCE in use template, right, so others can work on it again and not just me?

— Is there a group like GOCE that handles full editing? Augnablik (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to my earlier message: although I said that my Women in Music article had disappeared from the Updates, I forgot that articles we’re working on but haven’t completed don’t show up. So that’s not a problem after all. Augnablik (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To take a wild guess, “some credit” might be 1/2 to 2/3 credit (~7,500–10,000 words), depending on how much you think Lfstevens did to help, if only by his deletions, giving you a more manageable article (unless you want to restore what they took out). There are more fine-grained ways of calculating effort, but I don’t think they are worth it.

Lfstevens is famous for doing a lot of work that they don’t take credit for on activity pages. I would not worry about their not taking their share. However, they have already listed some activity for this drive. If you have no other articles you have worked on for the drive, make sure you take some credit for this one, just to show continuous participation (as well as preserving any rollover word count).

The GOCEinuse template serves mainly to warn away other copy editors when the c/e tag is still up and thus the article is still on its relevant c/e category page and likely to be clicked on by other copy editors looking for work. Often it is ignored by non-guild editors, whose activity actually helps keep it in place, although I once had one punctilious editor complain that when I took a multi-hour break I should have removed the template, which does request that others desist from editing the templated page.

You can edit as fully and deeply as you like. It’s just that copy editors should not feel responsible for everything wrong with the page. If you feel rushed, as you have said, you can take care of the basic chores—such as making sure that what is in the article is reasonably clear, coherent, and concise—and leave taking deeper dives for outside of the drive or blitz time frame. If you fall in love with an article’s subject matter, you can consider joining a relevant subject-matter wiki project, which are likely listed on the talk page. You also might be interested in peer, GA, and FA reviewing, where being a conscientious editor is de rigueur. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC) (edited 10:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Very helpful, Dhtwiki. Okay, I’ll allot myself what I think is a fair share of wor ds, overlooking Lfstevens’ contributions, and remove the GOCE template on the article.

Again, though, I’d like to ask if there’s a Wikipedia group like GOCE but focused on editing rather than copy editing. As you’ve mentioned peer, GA, and FA reviewing, I’d think there would be. Augnablik (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I went to update the Articles list, I realized that if I put “Women in Music” in Completed status, that would mean the title would get archived, and that wouldn’t be accurate. How is this sort of situation handled? Augnablik (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marking an article as “completed” on the drive page, as well as noting total article and word counts in their entries, doesn’t do anything except make it easier to score your entry when barnstars are being calculated; it doesn’t archive any other entry (e.g. those on the requests page) and certainly not the article itself. It doesn’t stop you from further editing; however, it should mean that the article you worked on is free of ambiguity, misspellings, being ungrammatical, etc. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, then, I should finish all the basic copy editing before I sign out. Okay, fair enough.

This is yet another piece of information that would be helpful to put in the GOCE contributor directions so you coordinators don’t get pesky questions from drive participants who aren’t telepathic. 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

😂 What’s happened with that humongous article is that I’ve actually ended up pretty much doing a complete copy edit after all. Including some more actual full-fledged editing.

Once I got past a certain point slogging through the marsh, it became possible to speed up a bit. Now it looks as if I’ll be able to legitimately claim the entire amount of words by midnight on the 31st — along with a shorter article I worked on when I’d pretty much given up on the first one.

From my experience of working in three drives now, I’ve come to see that it’s really hard for me to separate copy editing from full-fledged editing. It’s because of that, that I knew I couldn’t finish everything by the end of the drive. I guess it will help for me to develop “tunnel vision” of sorts during drive months. Augnablik (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m about to start writing up on the article Talk page of “Women in Music” the many things I believe are needed to make it all it could be, incorporating the full-fledged editing work that I did in addition to the copy editing. Which I had to leave undone for much of the article, such as standardizing what information to include for each of the women in music.

As I’d had to delay that somewhat due to real-life priorities edging in at the same time, I had a little time to think about this task before I got started. And one idea that came to me was to contact the editors personally to encourage returning to the article. I wondered, has this been done before, and if so did it seem to bring better results than just writing on article Talk pages?

Augnablik (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, posting on the article talk page would be more effective. Miniapolis 20:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is the possibility of “pinging” individual editors from a talk page article by using such a tool as {{Reply to}} or as suggested at Help:Notifications. It is a widely used convention and certainly less cumbersome and intrusive than, say, notifying editors via their user talk pages. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new blitz page, the blitz to run from the 17th to the 23rd. I have December 2023 (12 articles) and January 2024 (78) as the backlog months, along with all requests (60). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thank you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With considerable help from Jonesey95, the barnstar table is complete. After checking, they should be ready to be distributed. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected my article and the grand totals. All the best, Miniapolis 17:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars given out; sorry I’ve been busy IRL. Guess it’s time to think about the September drive. Howzabout the December 2023 – February 2024 backlog and June and July requests? All the best, Miniapolis 19:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both, for actually checking the table. The “WorkingMay” in Mini’s entry was supposed to be Working{{mby}} (i.e. WorkingY), but my aggressive spell checker changed it without much of a heads up. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new drive page, with December 2023 to February 2024 as the backlog months, and June to July 2025 as the requests months, as Miniapolis suggested above. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With 10 articles left in the February 2024 backlog and a week-and-a-half to go in the drive, should we add March 2024 to the backlog months that receive bonuses? Dhtwiki (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should. All the best, Miniapolis 16:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstar page is done, and they’re ready for distribution. All the best, Miniapolis 17:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did some; would appreciate a quick check to make sure I did it right before I help with more. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work you guys do with the script and stuff! The numbers for Rosaece are showing as 0s on the chart, despite them having a few copy edits (link to them on the drive page). I guess the numbers could be done manually, but any idea why it happened? Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done all except for me and the editor above gave editor above a minor (based on manual calculations) 🙂 GoldRomean (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks to Miniapolis for running the script. Your barnstar has been delivered. I don’t know why Rosaece’s entry totals were at zero, since their drive entry was well formed. I have added their totals at the barnstar page, where I audited the totals. I got 693,541 for the total word count, after adding in Rosaece’s individual values. Strange, since 693,541 – 688,746 = 4795, the last individual word count. It may be that I just goofed, but I place those numbers here for reference, in case I lose my computer calculator’s “paper tape” before further checking. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. I went back to my GOCE-input.txt file, and can’t see any reason why Rosaece’s entry wasn’t computed by the script. It can be temperamental; I couldn’t get it to work (once I found it; I changed computers earlier this year) until I changed the path (which changed with my computer – long story), but it saves us a lot of time and effort and I mentally thank Torchiest every time I use it. All the best, Miniapolis 14:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

A quick note on progress tracking. It is possible, via Module:Tabular data, to have the same data source (a .tab file) for the graphs and table. I just want to note that this is a possibility—I think there would be positives and negatives to this approach. If it’s something people are interested in considering, I could fiddle around with formatting and logistics. If not, we can leave it.

This is the bare-bones invocation of that module:

{{#invoke:Tabular data|wikitable
|WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2025.tab}}

Also, I would be happy to write up a short documentation page to explain the workflow of starting and updating Data files, if that would be helpful. The general documentation for tabular data and the new chart extension is kind of scattered.

(pinging User:LightlySeared who might not be watching this page but was involved in putting the new graphs together in July) Wracking ^talk! 03:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the standpoint of updating the table, it is slightly more convenient to be able to do that in one place, although the alternative is not much harder. What are the negatives? It is also helpful at initial setup, as was done for this month, to create blank entries for all the future updates in any month.

Documenting the process of setting up the charts on Commons, and linking to a particular drive or blitz page, would be very helpful. It wasn’t too hard for me to merely copy July’s drive page markup to the September page and change the month. However, when I looked to set up complementary pages at Commons, I did not see how it should be done.

Thank you for yours and LightlySeared’s efforts in getting this done. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC) (edited 06:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! I wanted to be cautious here and not implement these changes unilaterally. I do think the negatives are outweighed by the positives. As for the negatives, I see it primarily as related to the newness and unfamiliarity of the interface (Module:Tabular data is technically still in beta), as well as some possible limitations in display (e.g., I’m not sure if we could get the little ticker symbols to display). Wracking ^talk! 07:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ticker symbols definitely don’t work, by my testing and my understanding of the documentation. Basically the only options are characters in Unicode. Which would leave ↑ and ↓, I think, as the closest things that do work, by formatting the change as a string.

However, that would break the charts. LightlySeared (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I actually haven’t played around with charts much since, and not all with the tables themselves, as I have been kinda busy off-wiki. And I am waiting on proper formatting options, as well as the transforms to be implemented properly. As far as I understand the current documentation, it then should be possible to extract the yearly progress chart from the monthly one.

If you need assistance in writing documentation, I’d be more than happy to help. LightlySeared (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve gone ahead and started writing some documentation in my sandbox. It will be fleshed out a bit more over the coming week. Ideas on where to put the manual afterwards? LightlySeared (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first attempt at writing the documentation is ready for use. I’ve currently set it up so that it would be split into one short intro page and two sub-pages, but that’s up for debate. At the moment the question is usability as a guide to the new system. LightlySeared (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LightlySeared Thank you for your work! This looks great. I apologize for going a bit MIA—I took a look just now and added some links to related pages. Of course feel free to revise/revert. Wracking ^talk! 23:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Looks good. The phabricator task I didn’t know about. Well, one more thing to throw on the pile of “not yet finished things in charts and tables”. LightlySeared (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to dredge up this topic again, but I have cleared my sandbox for future use by BOLDly moving the tutorials to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Tables and charts and two sub-pages (Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Tables and charts/Detailed Tutorials and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Tables and charts/Prepared Templates), in case anyone needs to reference them in the future.

In general, creating the necessary pages should hopefully work fine with these guides, I’ve just done so for the January drive. LightlySeared (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LightlySeared: Thank you for doing this. It looks quite comprehensive. Give me some time to set something up. If I can’t, then I may come back here for help. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the September 2025 newsletter. I should be able to fill in the incomplete statistical elements on my own. Does anyone see anything else that needs adding? Dhtwiki (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The newsletter should be ready to send later today. Please consider checking for any glaring errors that I have missed. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to say Don’t forget you can unsubscribe at any time? I feel like the note at the bottom is enough. Also, add a total of 26,652 words…? Otherwise, looks good to me. Thank you for your work on it! GoldRomean (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the suggested changes, which make sense. Thank you. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter sent at 23:45 UTC to 837 accounts via Special:MassMessage. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a blitz page for October. We have two full weeks left to us, the 12th to the 18th and the 19th to the 25th. I have made March and April 2024 the backlog months. I have included all requests. What week should it be, and should the theme remain as I’ve outlined it? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I prefer the 12th to the 18th, to give us more of a breather before the November drive. All the best, Miniapolis 23:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will set things up to begin next Sunday. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstar table has been filled out and is ready for checking and distribution. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 15:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Miniapolis and Dhtwiki! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is any way to protect against mismatches between the variety of English posted in articles as what to follow in the article and what’s actually ended up there.

I thought to ask because I’ve now seen so many mismatches of this sort on articles I’ve edited during GOCE clean-up campaigns that it’s become a bit discouraging. Editors don’t always understand, follow, or in some cases even notice, posted “Use British English format” or “Use American English format” notifications. Which of course means there can be a format mishmash in the same article through no fault of the main author, and without the author being aware.

When I asked this same question of my mentor, he said: “I don’t know of any existing way to enforce the agreed format and of course many articles don’t have the relevant templates, they just start out with whatever their creator used. Similarly with date formats and citation methods.”

Then he added: “If you feel strongly about the issue, you could raise it at WP:VPI, since there could be a technical solution whereby editors were reminded about the existing conventions within an article when they go into edit mode.”

Before I follow through on that, I thought to ask you coordinators the same question. 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know of any way to “protect” against WP:ENGVAR mismatches. We do the best we can, and copyeditors learn to not sweat the small stuff; I often get exasperated here, but have yet to be discouraged :-). WP:VPI sounds like a good idea. All the best, Miniapolis 23:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A much better word choice, yours. Augnablik (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augnablik, when you c/e articles, you can change spellings to the appopriate variety and tag the artice with {{Use American English}}, {{Use British English}}, etc. These templates inform future editors of which variety to use and ensure bots don’t “correct” spellings they consider incorrect. Persistently non-complying editors can be taken to task through WP disciplinary processes but we can’t force compliance so don’t lose sleep over the matter. Basically, chill. 🙂 Cheers, 🅑🅐🅖 ☿ 🅴🅻🅵🅵🅰🅱 04:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But @Baffle gab1978, that’s exactly what I was referring to: not following posted templates. No sleep lost over it so far, though.Augnablik (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB purports to check articles against their “Use X English” templates. I have never used it. Use it at your own risk. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @[[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95], I took a quick look at what you suggested and will give it a test run soon.

At first, though, I thought you were referring to another editor because the name started off with User:OhConfucius! Augnablik (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a drive page for November, which starts next Saturday. The four backlog months, four being a large number of months, total 238 articles. Requests total 42, with 4 being worked on. Together they add up to 280, which is only 15 more than the 265 articles copy edited in September. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstar table is up; thanks, Dhtwiki, for getting it started. I hope to distribute the barnstars and awards later today. All the best, Miniapolis 16:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the table that shows rollover words from the previous drive, could you make the names of the columns stay visible no matter how far down we scroll? There’s a name for this feature in the computer world but I can’t recall it at the moment.

This feature would make it much easier for editors whose names appear way down on the list. I’m speaking from the experience I just went through today when I went to my name. It was so far down that I couldn’t be absolutely sure which column to look in to get my rollover words, so I had to go all the way back to the top of the table and come back down again inch by inch to where my name was. Augnablik (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this feature would also help those who simply wanted to check their final data from the previous drive. Augnablik (talk 07:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My table headers are “sticky”, and I finally remembered why; in Preferences → Testing and development, I checked “Make headers of tables display as long as the table is in view, i.e. ‘sticky’ (requires Chrome v91+, Firefox v59+, or Safari)” a while back. When we used to archive requests manually (thanks, YiFeiBot 2), sticky headers were a godsend :-). All the best, Miniapolis 14:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From your reply, Miniapolis, I guess “sticky headers” is the name of the feature I was describing. But I didn’t quite get what else you were saying. If you meant that in order to have the feature work, I’d have to change my Wikipedia personal preferences, I didn’t see anything similar to Preferences → Testing and development among them. What did I miss? Augnablik (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s under Preferences → Gadgets → Testing and Development. Or type “Make headers of tables display” into the search bar in your preferences, that should leave only that option. LightlySeared (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the clarification, Lightly Seared. I wouldn’t have expected that in Wikipedia, the feature had to be personally activated rather than built into the construction of the table, though. By the way, I found the name of the feature I couldn’t recall was Freeze Panes.

So now, a slightly different request: in the directions for each new backlog elimination drive, how about making a note of how to get sticky panes in viewing long tables? I’m sure it can be done without adding a lot of confusing clutter to the screen. Augnablik (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe such a note could / should be added to barnstar table pages if that’s where the difficulty lies – lengthy and complex tables are sometimes difficult to navigate. Putting this on the drive’s instructions page seems like instruction creep. Cheers, 🅑🅐🅖 ☿ 🅴🅻🅵🅵🅰🅱 06:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🤗 Augnablik (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a nomination and voting page for next month’s election of coordinators for the first six months of 2026, as well as making a relevant entry at the main coordinators page. Please check for correctness. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The week of the 14th sounds right, as starting on the 7th is too soon, and the 21st starts Christmas week. April–June 2024 of the backlog and all Requests. sounds right, too. Let me know what you think. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new blitz page. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dates and focus sound good. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 14:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstar page is ready to be checked and for barnstars to be given out. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 21:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have mostly completed the newsletter for December (except for recording the number of requests handled since January). Please check to see if any further changes need to be made. It should go out in the next few days, in order to promote both the upcoming blitz and ongoing coordinator nominations and future voting. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 14:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter sent at 02:25 UTC to 847 accounts via Special:MassMessage. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a new drive page. It takes six months to give a total of 246 articles as the bonus backlog. Wow. There are only 27 articles, two months’ worth, on the requests page. Again, wow. Take a look and see if anything needs changing. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A drive-by tagger has tagged 100+ articles about TV stations with the copy edit tag. It has swelled the ranks of the December 2025 backlog category but left us with a bunch of short articles in the backlog that might not need a lot of editing.

Here’s a query for the 100 shortest (in KB) articles in the backlog. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging them, Jonesey. Since they can’t configure preferences to prompt an edit summary as a TA, I left them a welcome encouraging them to register. Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 23:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The account is now blocked, for “tagbombing”, among other things. How do we mass revert the copy editing tags? Dhtwiki (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the tagging has been reverted. The shortest article query is back to normal, with #100 at around 8,000 KB. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After noticing in the most recent newsletter that there was going to be an election and how to nominate candidates, I don’t recall receiving any word about where and how to vote for coordinators. Today when I clicked on the link to nominate candidates — the only link I saw that was connected to the election — I found at the page where I was taken that there were 4 coordinator candidates and 1 for lead coordinator.

In the green box at the top of that page, I saw this: “Voting is open. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:00 UTC, until December 31, 23:59 UTC.” But under “Sample nomination,” I saw (in red): “Voting is not yet open.”

Since tomorrow would be the last day to vote if the election is being held, I wonder what’s what. Did I miss something? Augnablik (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no voting during the nomination period (when a nomination would be submitted). Voting ends tomorrow. Miniapolis 15:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we vote? Augnablik (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2026/1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jonesey95. I just couldn’t “get” how we were supposed to do the voting, if it was actually on that page, which I thought was just for nominations. I was expecting a link to go somewhere else. Finally when I went back to that page as per your advice and saw all the ”Support” comments, it clicked. Augnablik (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could make explicit in the June 2026 newsletter, the next that will address such elections, that voting will take place on the same page as nominations. Remind me if I forget when putting the next newsletter together. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think I’ll forget, Dhtwiki, after all my confusion. 😅

By the way, is there some reason we don’t use the voting procedure used in other Wikipedia elections, like I think for the Arbitration Committee, where we click on whether we support, are neutral, or oppose a candidate? Just curious. Augnablik (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s likely because unlike the ArbCom, the GOCE is a small, self-organised WikiProject; nothing we do directly affects other users beyond our pages. And few people care enough about the way we organise ourselves providing we stick to the rules. Yes, the red Voting is not yet open in the sample nom section should have been changed to Voting is open. But it wasn’t. 🅑🅐🅖 ☿ 🅴🅻🅵🅵🅰🅱 06:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By my question, Baffle Gab, I didn’t mean “why aren’t WE like EVERYONE ELSE in Wikipedia when we hold elections?” but just that it seemed rather odd to have to type “Support.” Maybe there are more options in our elections so voters can also add “Don’t support” and “Neutral,” if they wish … but if so, clickable buttons for these three options seem more efficient, with space available somewhere to give reasons. Especially if there are ever more candidates than positions. Augnablik (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can think of our system as more akin to the administrator selection process, which also lacks clicky buttons. Voters are free to type Oppose or Neutral, but we generally don’t do that here. Voters can engage with the candidates, give or withhold their support, and communicate their opinions to the community. If we had 30 candidates and 300 voters, something more technical might be worthwhile. The Wikimedia backend was less capable when GOCE coord elections began. We can’t use SecurePoll, which is restricted to Important Big Things. Also, the clicking of buttons requires less mental effort than engaging with the community by writing something, signing a post and saving the edit. That said, if you find a simpler, friendlier election system in use on WP, please let the coordinators know and they might consider it for use here. Cheers, 🅑🅐🅖 ☿ 🅴🅻🅵🅵🅰🅱 00:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are there ways I can help other than through ways not mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Task list? Because all of the tasks from there seem to have already been completed. Also, is this the best way to discuss these matters from fellow coordinators? Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the list! I put quite a bit of work into it when I was a coordinator. It is normal, around the start of the month, to have a flurry of tasks. After that, only the daily tasks need to be attended to. During drives, the main task is to update the drive table shortly after 00:00 UTC time each day. Other than that, copy edit some articles, or take your dog for a walk, or do something else that brings you joy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the drive table? Are you referring to the leaderboard? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The table in the section called “Progress chart”. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s conscientious of you, as that is a detailed list. Even if tasks seem completed, they can always be checked. I try to update the drive progress page as close to midnight UTC as possible, but sometimes I miss. You could keep an eye out for that, or even make the next update yourself (in a couple of hours) just to get your hand in. What we need most is daily perusal of the requests page, reviewing of new editors’ work, and keeping an eye on the various talk pages for requests from editors there. How are you at statistical analysis? We have a detailed annual report, which has been going out in January. See the previous report, and what you can contribute this year. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added the next day to the chart. Did I complete it correctly? Also, why don’t we get a bot to do this? Also, is there a current report being worked on for next year, or has one not been made yet?Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to bring forward the total-articles of the previous day, which results in an increase day-to-day, probably because of tags added during the current month. There is no annual report started. The usual practice is to copy the previous report to the new page and make appropriate adjustments. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor662, you almost got it right. First minor problem: you added the {{GAN changes}} template at 11:10 PM UTC time. You need to wait until after midnight. Second minor problem that Dhtwiki fixed for you: you need to put the previous day’s fifth parameter value into the current day’s sixth parameter value. See the template’s documentation, which I finally wrote after many years, for details (and anyone here is welcome to correct the inevitable errors in the new documentation).

I don’t see that it is necessary to post the template after midnight, as the day itself is hard-coded. Where you want to be careful is near the end of the month, because the month is interpreted by a template. After midnight then may leave you with February 31 (or is it March 3?). Dhtwiki (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re the annual report: Copy and paste the 2024 report to the 2025 report, and then update it. It helps to replace known invalid values and dates with text like TKTKTK (“to come” in publishing jargon) so that old values don’t get carried forward in error. There are links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, you can see it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2025 Annual Report Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, looking at all this, it looks like a lot… did you see what I asked about whether we can get bots to help us? It might help us quite a bit. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The part that seems the hardest to me, and the part that I have only attempted to accomplish or watched others accomplish, is summarizing the requests activity: e.g. numbers of requesters and copy editors and mean days between request and copy edit end, which I think are probably accomplished by moving data onto spreadsheets and applying appropriate tools. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other parts are mostly a matter of merely copying data, that is already calculated, from other pages, such as drive and blitz barnstar pages. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have counted the old-article total correctly. I made a slight change because I got a different total closer to midnight UTC. Readings are apt to change over the course of an even few minutes. My ideal is to take totals as close to UTC midnight as possible and post them slightly after. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, since I figured the backlog for the number of people needing articles copyedited is going up, I thought, perhaps we should team up with other wikiprojects? For drives as a specific examples, we could have it so that members in their Wikiproject also gain points and their own barnstars (but they have to only edit articles within their subject area, or get extra points for that) or something along those lines. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That backlog is apt to increase day-to-day, even during drives and blitzes. The hope is that it will have decreased considerably by the end of any such activity. We do team up with other wikiprojsects somewhat, but not for drives and blitzes (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report). We have ~850 people who have expressed enough interest in this project that they have put their names on the mailing list, but only a small fraction are involved in any drive or blitz (pity the coordinators who have to calculate and distribute barnstars for a large fraction). Some effort to get them involved in copy editing and removing tags, but without being involved in the usual activities, might yield results. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]