Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2010/Archive 1

July Drive barnstar issue

What are we going to do about the barnstar issue from the July Drive? Are we going to go back to doing what we did in May, are we going to repeat what we did in July, or are we going with the rollover words idea? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 04:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a better layout to separate the ideas proposed on July talk-page, before it spans too many pages. I placed the major ones below. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that the proposition below are not mutually exclusive, we can have all, none, or any combination of these. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Awards on per-drive basis

Main awards (4k modest, 8k working-man, 12k cleanup, etc.) should be awarded on per-drive basis, not cumulative with previous drives (as was done in July).

• Support, we should reward the work done for the drive, not the previous effort, which may or may not be repeated. If you edit 120k in July and 120k in September, you get the two Caretakers awards, but you don't get awarded twice if you edit 120k in July and 2k in September. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support; agreed though that there needs to be a cap of some kind. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Word-count reset after 100k words

The following discussion has concluded. Please do not modify this section. Result of discussion: Editors will receive only one award per drive, even if they go past 100K words, and any "unrewarded words" will rollover to the next drive.

As proposed by SMasters above. After 100k words, user receives Caretaker's, the counter is reset, and editors are eligible for awards again.

• Oppose. Awards are here to award a certain level of performance, not to serve as barnstar currency. Having roll-over words is already a big bonus for those passing word limits. Furthermore, life-awards add even more goals to reach. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So, when you reach 100K, why should you do more? What's the motivation? - S Masters (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Roll-over is better for these editors than smaller stars. Lfstevens (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think this proposal is coming across properly, and it is perhaps slightly taken out of context. This proposal serves to solve 2 problems. 1) We do not have to keep creating new stars over 100K. 2) Nobody will start the next drive with more than 20K rollover credits. There are many people here who are complaining that there is no level-playing field for newcomers, even though I have explained several times that it really does not work this way, as this is really an individual achievement award. In short, each editor competes against themselves. The competition part lays in the leaderboard. That is why I made this proposal. The rollover will still happens, but with a smaller number.

Current system: Editor 1 participates in Drive A and does 163K. They get 100K star and 63K rollovers the next drive. The next drive, they do 1 article of 50 words and no more, and they get the 60K award.
Proposed system: Editor 1 participates in Drive A and does 163K. They get 100K star plus 60K star. Fair enough, they did all the work. The next drive, they get 3K rollover. Now, if they do 1 article of 50 words, they get nothing.

In both scenarios, 2 stars are awarded, although at different times. This proposed system rewards editors where rewards are deserved, and prevents people doing little and getting a huge credit for it. It only affects a small handful of people who do go over 100K. - S Masters (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this actually affects all rollovers, not just those over 100K. - S Masters (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to add another scenario:
Current system: Editor 1 participates in Drive A and does 163K. They get 100K star and 63K rollovers the next drive. The next drive, they do 20K, and they get the 80K award.
Proposed system: Editor 1 participates in Drive A and does 163K. They get 100K star plus 60K star. Fair enough, they did all the work. The next drive, they get 3K rollover, and they do 20K, they get the 20K star. See the difference? -S Masters (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. This appears to be a very fair approach. dtgriffith ^[talk] 14:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Still Oppose. One star per drive makes more sense. Lfstevens (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

One word count barn star award per drive is what I favour. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Support This is what was supposed to happen for this drive. My fault for not explaining better. And @ Diannaa, this is just one star per drive. @ Everyone: Every decision I've made regarding rewards for these drives has been strictly for marketing purposes. This one is specifically to give former participants (especially high-vlume ones) another reason to return. Its all about providing people the right kind of motivation, and because different things motivate different people, we use multiple reward systems at the same time so everyone has a goal that drives them. Low-volume copyeditors are going for the regular incremental awards. High volume editors are going for the leaderboard. Former participants want to come back because of the rollover word counts, etc. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That all makes good sense. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Low-volume copyeditors are going for the regular incremental awards" Does that mean multiple stars per drive? If so, I oppose. Since the award moment comes at the end of the drive, I don't see a motivation effect from multiple stars. For that to work, you'd have to award a star each time it is earned, which is too much work. Lfstevens (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not mean multiple stars per drive. What I mean is that we have multiple reward systems in place, for different kinds of editors. Low-volume copyeditors are going for the 4k, 8k, 20k, etc awards. That's their goal: "I'll do a couple more thousand words, and hit the next level, and get a more 'exclusive' star." High-volume editors may be more focused on the leaderboard awards: "I was number one in total number of words, or total articles, etc." ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. "They get 100K star plus 60K star." that is 2 stars in a single drive. @Noraft, I still do not see how it wouldn't amount to 2 stars as you claim. I thought motivation to return was within the newly introduced life-time awards, plus significant roll-over words. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think we should always roll-over word count to below 4,000. For example, if an editor has, say, 95,000 words, 95,000 - 80,000 = 15,000. Then, we award the editor a Clean-up star (12,000) for the previous drive. The editor can now start at 3,000. This way we ensure that everyone has to work to get barnstars. What do you think? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 13:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should set a limit for roll-over words, but not award additional stars. Receiving two barnstars per drive defeats the purpose of a single award. The majority of users with roll-over words will be with small amounts anyway, it is only 100k+ editors that need to be "slowed down" a bit. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys are making this much more complicated than it really is. This part is not a competition. It is an individual goal. - S Masters (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is getting into dangerous implosion territory. Let's simplify this please. dtgriffith ^[talk] 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I re-read this thread and realize that I have already proposed this, but it appears to have been misunderstood. Please see above. However, the 4K is not correct. The minimum this can be is just under 20K. - S Masters (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Lifetime vs. July

I think some of us are getting confused over "lifetime" and "July". I think making it July only would be better. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 18:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how no one even pays the slightest attention to this section. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 01:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw it, but had commented above. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Where? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Lifetime to me means May + July + (end of) September (eventually). This makes it messy when it comes to calculations for the next drive. I have not given enough thought to a proper lifetime total at this stage. Generally, I am not against it, but I am not raving about it either. I think with the rollover, incentive to do more than 100K (the so-called "reset"), and the userbox mini-banner are more than enough. Having yet another lifetime thing does make it even more complicated. For the September drive page, if we do not have the totals from the last drive, someone will then have to go through each one and do the maths. This is a waste of time and effort. Why not just have it like we did the last drive. It worked well. - S Masters (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(Attention hereby paid.) I like the lifetime award. We can rely on the players to request it based on their own tally. The jury has work only when a request comes in. Set the level at 1M words to make it worth something. We won't see a winner in September... Lfstevens (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, if no one minds, I'll go ahead and change "Lifetime" to "July", for convenience. Next time we'll have "September". Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, I did that because the users were already awarded for their May words last drive. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 18:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Life-time is May + July + Sep + any following drive. This is distinct from just "July". Just to clarify for anyone what is meant, although I see OceanShores has cmtparently fixed any issues.. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

New goal

Our current goal is to wipe out 2008 from the queue and reduce the backlog to less than 6000. I think we can do better than that. How about we increase our goal to less than 5500 articles in the backlog? I think we can pull it off, if we work as hard as we did in the last drive. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That was probably leftover from the previous drive and just got copied here. I'm sure that goal will be adjusted lower. We can easily hit 5500. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 14:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we can hit below 5000, what do you think? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we started now, we could hit below 5,000 but by September we will have more article to tackle so it all depends how many more copy-edit tags will be posted up. Derild4921☼ 14:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a few volunteers should copy edit a few articles this month to keep the backlog from growing too much. I say volunteers because the credit for this month's copy edits won't count for your September credit. What do you say? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure enough people were copy editing between May and July that the total actually decreased. With enough active members it should probably decrease in August as well. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

<ec>:That seems fair, maybe send a message around to the participants of the previous drive and open up a section on the September drive page for people who want to volunteer. Derild4921☼ 14:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe we could just open it on this talk page and direct the members here? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to be too pessimistic here, but July got a lot of exposure, newsletter, Jimbo signing, etc. September, start of school/uni year, may not attract that many participants. Not to say that we should lower our standards, better set the plank too high than too low. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite that, I still think we can lower our expectations, if only slightly. May was a success, even though it was exam month for most students. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 15:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder too that articles are also stacking up on the Requests Page; we have a user hoping for help taking their Good article to a Brilliant article in advance of FA. I would look after it but my specialty is more turning Krap into OK and OK into GA. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My specialty is turning complete crap into regular crap, then regular crap to OK. So I don't think I would be of much help. ;) But seriously, how would you feel about setting the goal to below 5500? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 16:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a lofty goal helps people work harder because they think we're not gonna make it. It helps motivate them, in my opinion. So yes I would agree. Maybe we should set a goal of removing 1000 articles from the queue? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

We hit 1,289 last drive. Should we set the goal as 1,250 from the queue number on 31 August? We need to determine this quickly as we need to set this very soon, before we send out the invites. - S Masters (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How about 5,000? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 14:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable goal to me. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, 5,000 it is then. – S Masters (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should set more aggressive goals that:

Hit more articles and words than July.

Clear more months than July. A lot more, given that 2008 is mostly done.

Neither of these goals is dependent on the inflow of new articles. We should expect that number to grow as people realize that we're actually attacking tagged articles. I'm sure we're "marketing" copyediting to the projects that we're members of and tagging articles that we substantially improve. Lfstevens (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of more articles but is words neccassary? Besides, it's going to take a while to add up every word people copyedited. Derild4921☼ 18:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think more articles might be unlikely -- a lot of the shortest articles in the backlog were copyedited during the July drive, which suggests each article will take longer to edit on average in September. On a personal note, I'm going to be away for over half of September, so my personal output won't be anywhere near 80 articles or 200k words this time around; I'm going to aim for about 1/4 that. Shimeru 21:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been systematically doing shorter artices (10K or less) and am currently drawing from the November 2008 listings. Last drive I did June 2008 "S" through November 2008 "H". If you want a short article they will be in Dec 2008 and newer. We will have to work on a balance of short articles and old articles if we want to meet both targets. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest trying to clear at least a quarter of 2009 too. There are comparatively very few in the 2008 backlog. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 23:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

New totals layout

I made changes to the instructions on how to create your totals section. It's a lot cleaner than before, but if anyone can think of any ways to improve it, or to make the instructions clearer, either be bold or discuss it here. Thanks! —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this can be much more simplified with an editbox. (Let's pray this works.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Commented <inputbox> due to wikiEd preview problems.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty nifty. Only thing is, you still need to add it (the subpage transclusion) to the main project page, and it seems like there could be some confusion about how to do that. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/Edit Intro would have all the info with section edit link and template for substitution with {{PAGENAME}} in it, so it would be a matter of saving the page, then clicking the link, pasting the bit, and saving once more. I'm just not sure how to add ~~~ or {{PAGENAME}} so users get to save with those with their values, but so they don't get wikied when I save the template. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there some policy against creating so many new namespaces? The whole reason for having some of the longer lists kept somewhere else was to reduce the load time of the drive page. Having all these new pages transcluded onto the drive page defeats this purpose. – S Masters (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I re-read the above and realized that this has already taken place. I seriously think that we should discuss this further before it is implemented. I am not sure that creating all these new namespaces is a good idea. – S Masters (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Linking to user space worked fine. It will work as long as the drive is closed off promptly at the end so the numbers cannot be changed after the conclusion of the drive. If the transcluded pages impact the load time of the page it defeats the whole purpose of storing the data elsewhere, which was to improve load time of the drive home page. Technically minded people need to have their say here as to which way this should be done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The load times we are talking about is the "click edit, wait for source to be retrieved by browser". Having the page as a bunch of transclusions makes the main page fast to load. Secondly, as users will only edit their own page, they won't have any load time problems. Finally, only the user sub-page and the main page will be updated due to transclusion, and this is not resource-heavy. The main page is kept fully rendered and cached by squids, so it won't see any performance impact anyway. The only issue is the number of pages created, but since WP uses indexed SQL, this won't slow down any searching.
So from technical point of view this would only produce insignificant strain during the saving of the user sub-page. From user perspective, they get a very fast sub-page load/save time. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Why don't we move most of the welcome, instructions plus scripts, and awards to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/, and have it as the main home page for all drives. Then we do not have to scroll so much every time we open the page. The info is fairly much the same for each drive, and most of us only read it once. – S Masters (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I would have several pages, each dealing with their own thing - "intro" with all the basic info and links, "awards" with all award info and such, "new participants" for info on subpage creation and all the links, and the biggest "progress" with all the totals, goals, leaderboard. Then previous drive totals/charts can live in archive sub-pages. Then just make a template for a top navigational menu. Will un-clutter everything, and make nice separation for "one-time read" stuff. Wouldn't take longer than half-an-hour to organise this.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Call me old-fashioned, but I think we should stick with what we did in the last drive. If you copy edit thirty or more articles, you move it into your own userspace subpage. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting your sub-page after an arbitrary number of articles seems a bit weird. And that doesn't answer the page load time issue either; though I cannot say I complained about that much. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we probably shouldn't have a set number. How about as soon as the slower servers are affected we tell the people with the highest article counts to create a user subpage? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 17:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "servers are affected"? There is no viewing impact on the servers whether subpages are used or not. The servers keep the page rendered and send it out as requested. It does not matter if the source is a bunch transclusions or just a long list. The only server slowdown is when the main page is purged/refreshed when users update their sub-pages, but this is totally insignificant.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How about we just use links to the subpages, instead of transcluding them onto the project page? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 17:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would than not defeat the purpose of the totals page? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking, maybe we can use the project page as mere directory. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 17:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think many editors prefer to have everyone's totals visible for quick browsing and such. In any case, no one else has yet proposed to remove the individual numbers completely. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Should I proceed to move the bulk of the information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/? Any objections? – S Masters (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like how we have to click to see someone's totals. Being able to see where the playing field is up to motivates me to do more. If I am being left behind, I try to catch up. The page loads all this information anyway. It doesn't just load it when one clicks on the "show" link. If anything, this requires additional coding on the page and makes it take even longer to load. – S Masters (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that people were complaining that the page had gotten too long and messy to scroll through, so I thought keeping the totals compressed would help with general viewability. But if enough people prefer seeing all the totals, I have no objections. My main goal is just trying to keep the page navigable and readable. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 13:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Keeping it simple is probably the best thing to do, so I still think we should do what we did in the last drive. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As I recall in the creation of the May drive, the whole idea of listing articles on the page was to help others quickly identify what was being worked on if there were any questions. Tracking in our own subpages only moves further from this concept. Let's reign this in, keep it simple and enjoyable, not extra work. dtgriffith ^[talk] 13:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as being too major of an issue. If an article is short, it should be quickly copy-edited, limiting the chance of overlap or edit conflict. If it is long, the GOCE hold tag should be at the top, so it's easy to see if it's already in progress. I'm not sure if you're saying you'd like to eliminate the collapsed lists completely, or just the subpages, or something else entirely. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 13:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep the collapsible idea and throw out the subpage idea. In fact I'm planning on tagging mine from the last drive for speedy deletion soon. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the collapsibles with the totals listed underneath like we did in the last drive. Then move the bulk of the instructions, scripts and barnstars to a main drive page (as opposed to the drive month's page). This should help the page load a lot quicker. – S Masters (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a main drive page yet, or will it have to be created? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I also like the A-Z directory box thing - not sure what it's called. That will help in scrolling. That way, we are also editing sections, e.g. I will be updating my figures under the S section only. That eliminates the need for multiple subpages. There is no main drive page yet. As there have been no objections since I brought this up, I will go ahead and create it now. – S Masters (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have moved the bulk of the info to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives. The drive page is now a lot shorter. – S Masters (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks a lot cleaner, too. I like it. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already implemented the AlphaNumericTOC. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

However, I'd like to see the totals uncollapsible. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 14:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

SMasters, it looks good. Great idea! dtgriffith ^[talk] 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I would also like to see the totals uncollapsible as well. Can we revert this to how it was like in the last drive? Otherwise, we would have to spend a lot of time clicking just to see how many articles people are up to. – S Masters (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that totals should be uncollapsed. Also, do we really need 2 boxes? Why don't we make it a template before too many users have put up their tables? We can then fiddle with design to our content without re-editing everyone's box. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There was only one box in the last drive. I'm not great at templates. Can you come up with a sample? – S Masters (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that what you had in mind? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 16:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, just with user-friendly field names, article list that users enter themselves, and the fields with no values not displayed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I need a little help on that... Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 16:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

All done. I added a new template for the articles (see User:Ocean Shores/GOCE article and the template history). Shall we move both into this namespace then? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 17:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's going to be faster/shorter/clearer to write that template instead of just the {{Working}} and your article/words.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

It's now moved to Template:GOCE articlelist. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How are we going to update our numbers with this template? If we all transclude the same template how are we going to adapt it to our needs? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 17:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, exactly? You fill in the fields with your own data, and the template displays what you want. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we want "done" or "completed"? Do we keep the article entries template? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Completed. - S Masters (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Great job with the templates. Since I'm picky, it would be cool to make working and completed take the article name and word count as parameters and return a nicely formatted table along with the date. Lfstevens (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This template is not necessary. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 18:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let's stick to what we had last drive. - S Masters (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User sub-pages

The following discussion has concluded. Please do not modify this section. Result of discussion: There will be no user sub-pages used for the drive.

Since the above discussion is addressing several proposals, we should at least arrive at concrete decisions for major issues. The total/info pages are being separated at this time, so at least that is moving. So: should individual user totals (words, articles, etc.) be stored in a separate sub-page for each user?

• Support. As explained above. This significantly improves load/save times, and removes a lot of clutter. Server load while saving is insignificant and there is no viewing impact (because page is cached in rendered state). Users would use the form above to create a new page with pre-loaded template, then add a transclusion to the main page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per not actually putting forward the cons. Come to think of it, we create about 70 new sub-pages, which will need archiving afterwards. Everyone's totals were in sections, so there's no load/save time/edit conflicting. Viewing doesn't change. I think I am too over-zealous with the whole submit form idea that I'm just proposing over-complicating things that do not necessarily need fixing.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Faster load/save times and eliminates probability of edit conflicts. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above rationale. We ended up with 85 KB on the last drive, and it takes but a few seconds to load. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 15:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Oppose per above rationale. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seems completely unnecessary based on the per user section editing. dtgriffith ^[talk] 14:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. A recent Good Articles backlog elimination drive had 74 very active participants and they did not have any problems. Not all of our signups participate. Why create 100+ new pages just for a one month drive? It does not make any difference on our computers as it has to load the whole page anyway. – S Masters (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose except for users with lots of articles. There is no point creating a sub-page for someone who only edits one or two articles.
  • Question :Would we request deletion of the sub-pages after the drive ends? Is there any problem associated with creating and keeping all these pages? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Answer: I was just about to request deletion of my subpage from July, so yeah. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It is O.K. per licensing to delete the pages unless more than one person edits a page. Although, I must admit, we would need to archive them to preserve record of who did what, which is going to be really hard with sub-pages. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Answer: If you blank the page, a bot will come along and tag it for speedy deletion, but I believe an administrator needs to do the actual deletion (another reason to oppose this idea). So they will probably not be happy when they have to delete all these pages. By the way, someone needs to move all the subpages from the last drive back to the drive page. For example, mine is in my sandbox! – S Masters (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't believe we had any subpages for the July drive. Perhaps you could be a little more specific? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 15:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Some of us made sub-pages in user space. @ SMasters, I am not sure this is necessary as we do not need a permanent record of the articles edited. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Only for people above aroun 30 articles Derild4921☼ 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support partially. Late again, but we should simply include a request in the instructions for heavy editors to use subpages. I see no reason to delete them afterwards, as pages are cheap/free and the historical record is useful. Lfstevens (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Decision

Well, looking at the all-oppose votes above, I went ahead and changed the instructions. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 19:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the discussions are closed only upon expiration of a reasonable amount of time. Half a day is not an acceptable period. Many editors have work/study/activities that are inside this timeframe and may not have had a chance to comment yet. Even though the result will most likely be "oppose", it is only August 9 and we have 21 days. There is no requirement to have your totals displayed before that date. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Drive coordinators

ɳorɑfʈ has resurfaced (he was in the process of moving) and has agreed to head up the drive again. The Raptor and SMasters will be assisting. I will be gone from Sept 5 to 13 so had best give up my spot as assistant coordinator this time. Though I will of course edit and participate when in town. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in being an assistant coordinator. Although September will see me busy with school, I'll try to get a few copy-edits in on weekends. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 22:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Coordinating a drive is a little more than just copy editing articles. That's what the majority of participants will be doing. Coordinators work to keep the drive running smoothly. Noraft, and occasionally S Masters and I, will be updating the totals charts and things like that. Will you be able to do that? I'll also be busy with school (especially because I'm taking two AP classes) but there will be time on the weekends for coordination. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like too much. Yeah, I'll manage that. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 13:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll talk it through with the other two coordinators and see what they think. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the "Chart by Noraft" could become the "Chart by Ocean Shores" this month. :) Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 13:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. You'd be a co-coordinator. Noraft has already agreed to be the main coordinator. But hey, you never know. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So I'll add my name to the drive page then? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 13:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

S Masters doesn't mind, but I'd wait for a response from Diannaa or Noraft before putting your name up. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa opposes the idea, so we'll wait for a response from Noraft. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa has given the thumbs-up, I guess, and Noraft said you could be our spot checker; that is, you're in charge of making sure copy edits are top-notch and virtually error-free. If you need more instructions contact me or any of the other coordinators. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 01:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me who does the updates to the chart, as long as they are done within an hour or two of midnight UTC. Sooner the better. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

MessageDeliveryBot

Do you think we could use MDB to deliver invitations to the drive? Or is it better to receive them from a person rather than a bot? Thoughts? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Having a user deliver it would make the invitation seem more personal, but using MDB would save a lot of time. I could run the errand of posting invitations, though. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 17:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think definitely in person, otherwise it is merely advertising. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, I just wanted to be sure. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 17:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So I'll do the delivering then? I plan to start on August 15th, so I would have ample time to deliver. But, I'll need a list of users to deliver to. Is that OK? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 18:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants and invite every Guild member, to start. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind getting a delivery from a bot. You can always put on the message that the invitation is from several people - perhaps all the coordinators. In this way, it still seems personal. Please do not leave out anyone from Category:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors members and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants. The lists may overlap each each other, so you need to check that they are not duplicated. Don't forget old participants from both past drives. – S Masters (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

MS Excel tells me that there are 244 users on the list, but 285 user in the category. And which is the template I should use? Should I subst it? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 18:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the lists overlap. Some are on one and some on both pages. You can find the template here (the first entry). Cheers. – S Masters (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean the 2nd? The 1st was for thanking May participants. But the template still looks unfinished to me, so I'll help if you need any. Again, should I substitute it? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 18:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one doing the invite. I'm just pointing out where you can find a template for the GOCE. It might be a bit early to send it out now. People will forget when the drive starts. I think we should do it 2 weeks before the drive starts. – S Masters (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 19:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The template is currently under development at User:Ocean Shores/GOCE message. Please feel free to help. Thanks, Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's finished now. :) Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 22:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please give us a few days to make changes. I want to add some key motivation points including barnstars and recruitment. It will also need to be moved, as the mailout will be transcluded. I am also trying to put together the actual mailing list for you, but I am really busy at work and need a couple of days to do this. Thanks! – S Masters (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

About the barnstars, I experimented with a new system, and the complete listing is at User:Ocean Shores/Sandbox. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 03:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I just thought of something. Maybe we could send them out now, then send out a reminder a couple days before the drive? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 12:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I really think we should wait just for a few more days. It will not make that much of a difference. We do need to resolve the mechanics issue ASAP. No point sending out an invite to 300+ editors for them to come here and find that the page is under construction, and we are still debating how to implement the Totals page. Let's sort this out once and for all over the next few days, then send it out, with a reminder 5-7 days before the drive begins. – S Masters (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest the week of August 16-23. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 13:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, we'll sort everything out first. But in case it's important I will be taking a Wikibreak Wednesday and Thursday. I've been Wikistressed lately and hopefully the trip will help me clear my mind. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the invite to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2010/Newsletter 1 and will be editing it from here. Cheers. – S Masters (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you didn't use the "move" button? :) Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit tired and didn't think of doing that! LOL Plus, it's been a very busy night in here. :-) - S Masters (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New barnstar design

I've proposed a new barnstar design, currently under development at User:Ocean Shores/Sandbox. Any ideas or suggestions? Please comment on my sandbox talk page. Thanks! Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 17:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I've posted a comment on the talk page. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering why there is a need to replace existing barnstars with the GOCE logo. These are barnstars that people might be missing and are looking to acquire. I'm not sure that there is any advantage from taking that element away. – S Masters (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I just thought the old barnstars looked too old-fashioned and un-unified. If the naming and word requirements are fine, I'm looking forward to having it implemented for this drive. Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 03:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The barnstars are unified – right across Wikipedia, not just this project. They are purposely designed to look old-fashioned - it is a feature of Wikipedia barnstars, and is seen as a good thing. Some editors aim to acquire different barnstars which they do not have. I do not see any advantage in changing them. It might even be counter-productive. I think we will need to put this to the vote if we are to change these. Further, we will be using existing barnstar names (without their traditionally associated images) and "owning" them for this project. I think we will only open our doors for unnecessary criticism. My 2 cents. – S Masters (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I like the barnstar set we've been using, and I like specifically collecting barnstars. They are unique to wikipedia. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 12:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful criticism. So they'll be deprecated, then? Or are we still taking them out for voting? Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've started a consensus vote below. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut

Seriously, we need a shortcut linking to this page. Any ideas? (WP:GOCE/201009?) Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 13:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Just put it on your watchlist, with all the activity here it won't be hard to find. Derild4921☼ 14:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we do indeed need a link to this page for people who do not already have this page on watchlist, so that we can attract a bit more opinions and comment; perhaps an artist or two for some new barnstars. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There is actually a link to this page in the om box I placed on the drive main page on August 5. Or did you have another location in mind? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's decide on the barnstar thing

The following discussion has concluded. Please do not modify this section. Result of discussion: Stick with the regular barnstar concept.

Ocean Shores has proposed that we use a new barnstar idea that can be found here. Let's reach a consensus about this new proposal. Will we go through with it, or will we stick with our old barnstar concept?

Ocean Shores' idea

If you support Ocean Shores' idea, sign your name below:

1. Support. As the designer of the new set, of course. This is gonna be funny when my name ends up being the only one in here... Ocean Shores (Formerly TEK) 14:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Support with a better idea Why don't we add the real barnstar images opposite from the GOCE logo? it won't... AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 16:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Regular barnstar concept

If you think we should stick with the regular barnstar concept, sign your name below:

1. Support. Ocean Shores' idea is a good one, but I still think receiving the actual Wikipedia barnstar is better. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Support. (edit conflict) Original barnstars. I don't see a reason to change the layout of the barnstar frame. We should be focusing on new barnstar designs, rather than fiddling with table colours. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. For the reasons given in the discussion above. – S Masters (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Support For consistency and the fact that barnstars are the standard for awards. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Maintain consistency. Not against upgrading barnstar designs, however. dtgriffith ^[talk] 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)