Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2014

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC).

Cimarron Strip

Any reason the music credit has been omitted from the episode list. The series was unique in being one of the first feature length TV westerns and having individually scored episodes hence the number of composers. I am sure they could/should be included. REVUpminster (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You could do it yourself or request it on the article talk page. A copy edit is simply a copy edit and doesn't necessarily expand the content. --Stfg (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

...or you could ping the copyeditor and ask them why they removed the content in question; "omit" and "remove" have different meanings :-). All the best, Miniapolis 12:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I overlooked it. --Stfg (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It was unclear in the OP. The one thing I've learned since getting the mop is that nothing on WP is as it seems at first glance :-). All the best, Miniapolis 00:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Noping

@Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor: Hello, I'm going through the 13K+ transclusions of {{Noping}} and am noticing that there are a lot of transclusions by this project. I'm here to inform you the the formatting used by the template has changed and is no longer {{Noping|username|text to display}}. The template now allows for up to five users to be listed in one shot (development is still in progress to clean up the formatting of how that is displayed and may allow for more users in the near future) and the new syntax is {{Noping|username 1|label1=text to display for user 1|username 2|label2=text to display for user 2|username 3|label3=text to display for user 3|username 4|label4=text to display for user 4|username 5|label5=text to display for user 5}} This means that you will be able to simply do something like {{Noping|Torchiest|Baffle gab1978|Jonesey95|The Utahraptor}} from now on. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to copy this over to our project's Talk page. We use this template in our newsletter to tell people who the project's coordinators are while avoiding spamming the coordinators with a zillion Notifications. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, too quick with the fingers. My brain thought this note was at Template Talk:Noping.... Thanks again for the note. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• No copying required. :p Technical 13 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Update: {{Noping|Torchiest|Baffle gab1978|Jonesey95|The Utahraptor}} produces Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor now. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

Can anyone edit the how-to guide pages, or do GOCE's reserve that right? SciGal (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can. If anyone doesn't like it, they can revert and then we can discuss. Or if you suspect it might be controversial, then you can raise it here first. --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just curious. SciGal (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Usage guide

Hi guys, I'm about to start a conversation over at WT:FAC on putting together a word usage guide based on some subset of Wikipedia articles. I know there's interest at FAC ... I don't know if there's interest anywhere else, but I hope there is, and I don't have any preconceptions that the guide has to be based just on word usage in Featured Articles. Please join us. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's start over. I made some comments over at WT:FAC, and Simon was less than pleased (initially), and I can see why. I'm a former coord here at GOCE, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think FAC is a "better" place to run this project than the GOCE ... I didn't mean that. I only meant two things: I know some people are interested over there, and I can't think of a better text corpus than FAs. (There's a whole thing about "descriptive" and "prescriptive" approaches to language that we can talk about, but the short version is: linguists in general push back against traditional notions of copyediting; they think that it's unscientific to have a few "style gurus" handing out advice that everyone follows. In theory, they prefer a descriptive approach to language: you pick a "corpus" or collection of texts, and then whatever is in the text is how you define what's "right". There are problems with that approach, the main one being that there aren't actually any pure descriptivists or prescriptivists, that's a fable. But word nerds will want us to have an answer to the question of what kind of corpus, actual or theoretical, we have in mind.)

Anyway ... if you guys would like to have a separate conversation here about a separate project, I'm all for that. Jonesey and Simon have asked to see some kind of implementation, and I'll try to have several available for you shortly. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I had and have no problem with the discussion taking place at WT:FAC, or anywhere you choose. Best keep it in one place. I do have a big problem with the idea of creating anything that might smack of a [[Wikipedia:Manual of Usage]]. I'll continue to participate at WT:FAC. --Stfg (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm against a [[Wikipedia:Manual of Usage]], too. - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tyop Contest Judging

Hey guys, the Tyop Contest has been underway for five days now and it's been great! The judges (me, Jeffrd10 and since today, Wizardman) have over 1,000 typos to confirm after only five days. If anyone is interested in helping to judge, even if for only a few minutes a day, respond here and I'll show you how to judge! Also, if anyone's interested in participating, signups are still open, and will be until the end of the contest!

See ya :)
Newyorkadam (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Request

I mean absolutely no offense to User:Breaker 355 (I always appreciate when contributors take time to review my work), but I noticed that this offer to copy edit the article Orchestral Works by Tomas Svoboda, followed by one edit to the article itself, are only this user's sixth and seventh edits to Wikipedia. This is not a problem within itself, but I am not sure I agree with the edit made to the article, as mentioned on its talk page. There have been no additional edits made to the article, or by this user in general, nor has there been a response on the article's talk page about my concern. This occurred only yesterday, so I am fine allowing more time, but may I just request that a more experienced member of GOCE keep an eye on this review? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've put it on my watch list. --Stfg (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it too; if there are no further edits in seven days someone can place the appropriate template on the user's talk page. By the look of the edit history the user won't stick around anyway (but who knows?). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries A.B. Breaker 355 has now reverted his/her edit to the article hereand removed the acceptance here. I'll still watch for a while. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will just wait for another review to take a look at the article. Thanks again, all! I really appreciate the work this group does. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Rollover words

What are rollover words? I saw them in the February Blitz. -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Edit: Found it!

Three userboxes your members may like

• User:Yunshui/Userbox citeconverter
• {{Userbox/NYT Wikipedia reference generator}}
• {{Userbox/Zotero}}
  
  

This user used the Wikipedia Citation Tool for Google Books before it broke in July 2021.

This user likes the New York Times Wikipedia reference generator.

This user adds inline citations quickly and easily with Zotero.

-- Djembayz (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hi, please can I note that every single newsletter just sent out (to my knowledge) has malformed code, the |} needs to be on a new line, instead, the entire talk page of everyone on the mailing list goes that shade of blue, like the Signpost here. Thanks, Matty.007 20:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it's the newsletter that's doing this. At least, it isn't doing it to my talk page. --Stfg (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

When I changed it, it worked. Thanks, Matty.007 20:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Stfg: it is in my test on your talk. Thanks, Matty.007 20:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Your test section appeared inside the newletter's box, and this is corrected by placing the |} on a new line. But it didn't affect the colour higher up the page than the newsletter. If it affects the colour higher up on your page, then something browser-dependent must be going on (mine's IE11). Anyway, you're right the |} does need to be on a new line. --Stfg (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience; that was my mistake. I was trying to place the four tildes for the timestamp (forgot to do that last time :-)); for some reason, my Firefox/XP setup does wacky things with table markup and I didn't catch it. If you put the |} on a new line, that'll fix it. All the best, Miniapolis 03:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

List of articles needing copyedit sorted by page size smallest->largest

Here's a list of articles needing copyedit sorted by page size smallest->largest! -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

How to add a Note?

I can't commit the time for signing up for a drive, but I just took a look at one of the articles in the "oldest" list (which I can't find any more), Baby Lloyd Stallworth. It sure is rambling, awkward, and guilty of other textual crimes and misdemeanors.

From §Biography:

After the group's initial breakup in 1957,with original group members Bobby Byrd, Sylvester Keels, NaFloyd Scott,Nash Knox, and Johnny Terry leaving the group due to the group's managers Clint Brantley and Ben Bart giving James Brown top billing,Brown was having trouble keeping The Flames together.

I thought of starting by parenthesizing that underlined list of names to make it easier for the reader to follow the structure, but the sentence would still be too long for comfort. Then I thought I'd like to try moving them out to a ^[Note] – which I believe I've seen used in the same article with <ref>s, for non-reference footnotes – but I can't figure out how. [[Help:Note]] redirects to Help:Footnotes, which only discusses references. Help, please? ({{ping}} me, please.) --Thnidu (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in a note, but some additional punctuation and sentence reordering will be necessary there. The article needs much more fixing than that one sentence. I would start at the top of the paragraph and work my way down, fixing it a sentence at a time, then go back over the whole thing and break it up into paragraphs that make sense. Not to worry, someone will get to it during the drive. It looks like a fun one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Try this: "After the group's initial breakup in 1957, the original group members Bobby Byrd, Sylvester Keels, NaFloyd Scott,Nash Knox, and Johnny Terry left the group because the group's managers Clint Brantley and Ben Bart gave James Brown top billing. Brown was having trouble keeping The Flames together." Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey95 and Baffle gab1978. --Thnidu (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick copy-edit?

Hi, I was wondering if someone could have a quick read over of this article, God of War III? It is currently at FAC and was suggested to have a copy-editor look over it (they suggested spending maybe an hour with the article). I would really like to not have to resubmit this for FAC (on its third nomination). If someone could do a quick read over and fix some things, that would be great, thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's up to individual editors if they want to action this, but I prefer folk to avoid sneaking in through the back door when there's a long queue outside the club. You know where the proper place to request copy-editing is; I suggest you use it. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just asking. --JDC808 ♫ 20:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Our current backlog on the Requests page is about six weeks. I'm not familiar with the FAC procedure, but for something as high-level as FAC, I would think that the nomination could be put on hold for that long and then resumed once the copy edit is complete. FAC evaluators probably understand that copy edit requests take time. I'll be happy to post an explanatory note on the article's FAC page if it will help. Thanks for your patience. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"I was just asking" --> and I was just replying. I'll second Jonesey95's reply; putting the FAC on hold or withdrawing whilst copy-editing occurs would seem to be a good idea. Please request in the proper place though JDC808; my reply was snarky for a reason. As of today, the article is 83,069 bytes long and by the look of the previous FAC review a "quick read over and fix some things" would be insufficient for FAC purposes so I suggest that you don't put that in your request. Please also note that we don't guarantee a pass at FAC, so a post-c/e WP:Peer review might be wise. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hachi: A Dog's Tale

I want to know why my recent edits to "Hachi: A Dog's Tale" were removed for no reason. Now, I see that the page has been marked for major editing. So what does this mean to the changes I made recently? The info that I posted was very relevant to the page, and moreover, I have spent considerable amount of time researching to gather that info. I don't want my efforts to go wasted. Sudhindranath (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The best place to start this conversation is at Talk:Hachi: A Dog's Tale. Please repost the above question there by clicking the "New section" link. As for the reasons behind each edit, the place to start is the article's history page, which you can see by clicking "View history" at the top of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You will then read the edit summaries which accompany the edits/revisions that concern you. Thanks. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 00:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:93rd Indiana Infantry Regiment

Can I just remove the GOCE reviewed tag from Talk:93rd Indiana Infantry Regiment, or is there something else to be done?--

I don't know if there is a proper procedure for this. I would leave it there as a record showing that this copy editing was needed, and then put an unindented {{fixed}} template (displays  Fixed) at the bottom of the section, followed by a short note saying that the copy editing has been completed. Other GOCE coordinators may have a different suggestion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know either. Putting {{Fixed}} by it would make things clear on the talk page, but would leave the article in Category:Articles reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors. The intro to that category states "Copy Editors and users participating in various cleanup efforts that involve significant rewriting or formatting of articles may target articles in this category in order to improve the overall quality of Wikipedia." If people really do that, or might do it, should we maybe remove the {{GOCEreviewed}} so that editors aren't drawn to consider cleanup that's no longer required? (But I'm not sure whether people ever do visit the category looking for work to do.) --Stfg (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Back in July 2012, the tag didn't have an "issues" parameter. Assuming it still needs copyediting, I'd remove {{GOCEreviewed}} and (sigh) tag the article with {{copy edit}}. All the best, Miniapolis 23:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is a case where any needed copy editing has been done. --Stfg (talk) 07:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

...and I removed the tag :-). All the best, Miniapolis 20:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

First copyediting attempt

Hello, I've just edited the China Zorilla page and was hoping someone could look over my edits before anyone removed the copyedit tag. Thanks! Weelilbit (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to copy-editing! Made a few edits. No real problems, but made comma use more consistent, eliminated red links, stripped a bunch of "also"s, etc. I pulled the tag. Hope you'll join our May copyediting drive. We have a lot to do! Lfstevens (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That kind of comma removal does more harm than good, converting clear structure to ambiguous structure in many cases. I put some back, aiming for consistency in the direction that helps, rather than the direction the hurts. Dicklyon (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Someone (but I'm not sure who) is contradicting someone else (but I'm not sure who) on the use of serial commas here. Please remember, guys, that we have the choice to use them or not, and the only requirement is consistency. --Stfg (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter

As per last time, the newsletter again doesn't close the colour properly, a |} was excluded at the end, hence the colour will continue down the pages in new posts of everyone on the mailing list. Thanks, Matty.007 16:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Just saw the above, but as this happened last newsletter, perhaps a note/it being fixed would be best. Thanks, Matty.007 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

heh

Hey @Jonesey95, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978: - it looks like the GOCE newsletter that just went out is missing a closing bracket somewhere and is applying the coloring of the newsletter to further sections of talk pages. See here for an example of what I mean. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My mistake; sorry. Miniapolis 02:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI: since the message was substituted and a template wasn't simply placed, even though Jones closed the tag in the newsletter, since it has already been delivered, this issue currently effects the talk page of every person the newsletter was delivered to. I would suggest using AWB to replace the last part of the message so that it's properly closed or something like that. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that @Kevin Gorman:; thanks for bringing this to our attention. It certainly looks as though something odd's going on here. To fix the problem, add |} to the final line of the section to close the table. This happened in March too here. Perhaps the new message delivery system is stripping that final line, but I don't send out the newsletters so I don't know. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I know how to fix it on an individual basis, but since I didn't send the newsletter, I don't want to try to AWB your entire target list fixing it :) Normally I actually probably would, but have a rather busy night. Many of the people effected by it won't know how to easily fix it themselves. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for inserting the closing bracket on the subpage, Jonesey; I thought it was a copy-paste error, but it shouldn't happen again. If anyone knows how to use AWB with this page to correct the error, please let me know. Miniapolis 13:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've some experience with AWB and can probably fix this tonight if I have time. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 17:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just wondering who this imposter was... then I realised! Matty.007 19:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

(←) No need now, Torchiest, but thanks for your kind offer. AGK noticed that I'd begun correcting them by hand (which would've taken the rest of my natural life), and corrected them all with a script (which I asked him to send to me, although I trust this will never happen again). Unfortunately, the problem was undetectable in preview mode. Sure you don't want your job back? :-) All the best, Miniapolis 22:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well that worked out, because the Internet has been out at my house most of the night. And I'm happy as private Wikicitizen now. ;) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I fixed this with T. Canens' massedit script (though there are several alternatives available, and AWB could have worked too). I have also added a reminder about closing table code to the MassMessage interface, to stop this happening again ;-). AGK [•] 07:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Just remember the newsletter is a table, not a template, and needs to be closed with |} not }}. Dont worry, I made an embarrassingly large number of mistakes when I first started sending out newsletters, it's all part of the processs! -- Diannaa (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa (and AGK). To do it once was bad enough. Twice was mortifying, and taught me not to do stuff in a hurry late at night :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for help with short/long dash

Diptanshu.D recently in good faith moved Template:WPANATOMY-welcome to Template:WPANATOMY long-dash welcome (the second version should have a long dash but I can't seem to copy-paste it right). This isn't a joint name (Smith long-dashh Wilson syndrome) and isn't a subclause (I was walking -- it's a lovely day, isn't it? -- to work), so I can't fathom why this happened. I was wondering if an editor knowledgeable in grammar could help out? The problem is that the new template can't be used at all, because no keyboard has a long dash that can be typed (at least in my knowledge). The edit was in good faith, but I'm not sure it's the right move. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would move it to a name with no dash at all: Template:WPANATOMY welcome. That way, people won't have to remember which type of dash to type. In any event, the first place this question should be raised is on the Talk page for the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I'll make that move. Sorry, I posted here because I know the small and long dash distinction is seen as quite important to some editors, so I thought I'd get some advice. --LT910001 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

While making the initial move I had also left a redirect on the previous location. So both short and long dash should have worked equally smoothly. A version without any dash should be better anyway. Diptanshu^Talk 03:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

For copying different types of dashes, I generally visit Dash and copy it from there. Diptanshu^Talk 03:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

People get worked up about dashes in article prose, but I wouldn't use them in template names. Templates are tricky enough without having to worry about that sort of thing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

They're called en dash and hyphen; a "long dash"—if there is such a thing—would probably be an em dash, which nobody has proposed here, but it would be a possibility, as would a spaced en dash. The en dash is on every Mac keyboard at option-hyphen, and is available in the wiki editor by clicking on it in the wiki markup pane below the editor window. But in this case I agree that no hyphen or dash is needed, and certainly not an unspaced hyphen or en dash. I also agree that in general dashes are not needed in contexts where they do not appear in the finished typography, such as in template names. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Guild Of Copy Editors At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at WIkimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the invitation and all the best, Miniapolis 13:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

nbsp

I often see this inserted between nuimbers. If I want to type "1 cm", an editor will helpfully insert the confusing and unreadable "1 nbsp cm" or something similar. Why is this done? --LT910001 (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a non-breaking space as described at WP:NBSP. The full code is " ". Rather than memorize and type that, you can click on it from among the choices at the bottom of the edit menu when "Wiki markup" is selected. Hope that helps you. SchreiberBike talk 04:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Common + Latin name question

I'm interested in herbalism and natural medicine, eco-dying and other uses of plants. When I find lists of plants useful for whatever, I like to add the Latin names and do whatever other amount of cleanup my attention span will allow. I know that in technical writing, it is good standard practice to include the Latin name, usually in parentheses, to avoid ambiguity. I did a bit of this recently and got reverted on it by someone who found it unnecessary. I went looking for a guideline on it, and couldn't find one. All the discussion about common vs Latin names is about article titling. Anybody have advice or want to comment? Article in question is Eugenol and list in question is plant sources. List is rather a wreck, IMHO. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

When mentioning species in scientific articles, it's quite good to put the binomial in parentheses, and Eugenol#List of plants that contain the chemical has examples of that (cloves and nutmeg). It also has examples of using the binomial and appending the common name after a dash; imo this is less good. Finally, it has an example of using a binomial and then putting an alternative binomial in parentheses. That seems over the top except in the first sentence of the article about that species. This is only my 2 pence -- I don't know of any "official" guidance.

But I'm quite puzzled. The history of that article doesn't show you as having recently edited it, nor having been reverted. In future, please could you provide wikilinks, so that we don't have to go hunting for what you're referring to. --Stfg (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Style guide for writing about disability related topics

Input, opinions and comments are welcomed at WT:WikiProject Disability#Developing a style guide. The idea is to create a guideline for editors that steers the middle path between obviously offensive language on one side, while also avoiding political correctness for its own sake, which can be just as offensive, on the other side. (Note: This was initially incorrectly posted to the Requests talk page.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken link

Hi - I'm new to editing, and have noticed that the "Copy edit a random article in need of improvement" link on the main page, under "Quick links" appears to be broken? Was hoping to find a nice easy (and random) article to start with... -- Tomsw (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tomsw, and thank you for your interest in copy editing. It looks like this tool is being migrated to WP:Wikimedia Labs, but has not actually been created yet. In the meantime, if you go to Special:RandomInCategory and ask for a random article in the category All articles needing copy edit, you can browse random articles in need of copy edit. Hope this helps. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks for your help and direction :) -- Tomsw (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Interested in the English language?

I believe it is fairly safe to presume (or should it be "assume"?) that the members of this project would answer the above question positively, so I'm taking the liberty of announcing here that an initiative to start a WikiProject about English has been launched at Draft:WikiProject English. You're cordially invited to join in the fun and adventure of creating something new. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Members of this project...

...might be interested in this discussion. BMK (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing the name of this project?

This is a rather nonsensical bit on my part, but I find it odd that the title of this page is "WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors". Is the "WikiProject" really necessary? It seems redundant given that "Guild" already handles the meaning that "WikiProject" provides for other projects. Anyway, there is no requirement that WikiProjects have "WikiProject" in their names. It would look much nicer if it was merely "Guild of Copy Editors". RGloucester — ☎ 18:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the reason for the name, as far as I know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Commonly misused expressions

Business Insider has published a list of commonly misused expressions. A WWW search for words incorrectly used finds many other lists.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating! I've only ever seen three of those: "would of", "try and" and "I could care less". I disagree about "try and" -- it's idiomatic in speech (but unacceptable in writing). I thought "I could care less" was the American way of saying it; interesting to learn that isn't. Has anyone come across any of the others? --Stfg (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wavelength; I'm far more accepting of errors in speech than of those in writing; speech is usually more informal and ephemeral. The context also matters a lot, and 'm far more forgiving of someone whose first language isn't English. "Nip it in the butt" gave me a giggle. I've never heard that one. Do serious, sober, native English-speakers really say that? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Hone in on" is quite common (and dead wrong), at least in American speech. "On accident" is idiomatic; I've never seen it in writing, but I've heard it all of my life in spoken conversation (it's not something an "educated" person would say, but it is common). And "I could care less" is very common (and, if I may have a judgmental moment, indicative of people who do not think about what they are saying, since it is the exact opposite of what is meant). Some of the others seem like straw men meant only to make the article's reader feel superior; I can't recall seeing them in serious written communication. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals

There's a question over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals#Definite article or not which could use some input by the experts at the GoCE. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 21:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I've replied there. All the best, Miniapolis 22:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

GOCE at Wikimania 2014 in London

Guild of Copyeditors qr code

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bridges#Leaflet_for_Wikiproject_Bridges_at_Wikimania_2014 explains about leaflets for WikiProjects at Wikimania 2014. We are way to late to have a flyer made for us by this project, but perhaps some clever/artistic GOCE member could create one for me to use at Wikimania 2014. We need to recruit more copyeditors, and this is a real chance to do it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a really good idea, @Dthomsen8:. Anyone up for this? What are the deadline and the project brief? TechSpec? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

prefer August 6, start of the hackathon. See the other leaflets at the link above, and do likewise. Quick is better than fancy. GOCE has logos. Say contact USER talk:DTHOMSEN8 on en.Wikipedia. Maybe by August 7 I will be able to set a meetup, maybe for dinner.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: I can whip something up in Illustrator/Photoshop pretty quickly. What format do you want this in? SVG? PNG? PDF?  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And to be going on with here is a shiny new QR code, which links to the project page.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8, I've made a flyer and emailed a link to you. If you have problems downloading it (the first e-mail has a bad link), let me know and I'll post it here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

/Beautiful flyer, wonderful text, but it should have my name as contact for anyone at Wikimania 2014.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

OK I'll do that tonight; also I'll put the shortened url on there. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. So, Dthomsen8, how did it go? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar Award usage?

Hello. Here's a question about the usage of the Copyeditors Barnstar Award image. Is it common for team members to give themselves an award? I was surprised by the edit here, which seems a little unusual to me. However, I don't know the conventions for this project. Thx! jxm (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That particular edit looks like someone found something pretty and pinned it onto his/her user page. I wouldn't give it a second thought. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Bregant

Please help me: I created the article Bregant for explanation for members of a definite family like in German and Italian Wiki. Now you want me to do something, what I do not understand. Perhaps you can give me a hint. --Hamilkar1893 (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hamilkar1893: I've fixed up that page for you. You don't need to do anything else to it. Do you intend to do any more work on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Katharina Bregant? Do you intend to create an article about Ernst? --Stfg (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the article about Ernst and Katalin are already existig in German Wiki. Unlike the Generals i do not know, if the other three article are interesting for the english version of Wiki. Perhaps you can help--Hamilkar1893 (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"

There is a proposal to add a short paragraph to the "Avoiding personal attacks" section of the No personal attacks policy page. The discussion is Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks". Your participation is welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Rant about changing the NPA. ~ R.T.G 12:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@RTG:, this page is for discussing matters relating to the GOCE. It isn't the correct venue to discuss proposed policies; the Village pump is a more appropriate venue. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That's true. It's canvassing. Deleted. ~ R.T.G 21:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up our project pages

As I said in my June election pledge, I'm planning to copy-edit and clean up some of our Project pages between now and the end of the year. For a project that prides itself on the quality of its copy-edits, I think some of our pages are woefully confusing. Obviously they're the work of multiple editors and have become cluttered over the years; now is as good a time as any for dusting out the electronic cobwebs!

I'll start with the drive page, which I think needs clearer, more concise instructions. I've copied it into my user space here. Please feel free to comment; either here or on its talk page. I'll require the approval of at least two coordinators before I move it into project space.

Are there any GOCE Project pages you think need particular attention? Please list them below in this section and I'll work through them one-by-one. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The page I have envisioned making into a much better tool is the Task List. I have not had the energy to take it on, but I envision a step-by-step guide explaining exactly which pages need to be edited in order to open a blitz, close a blitz, open a drive, close a drive, and calculate and distribute barnstars. This would include instructions on creating and distributing newsletters, updating the various status pages and tables as well as the "current blitz/drive" tabs. There are a lot of little steps to opening a drive, for example, and it would be good to have a solid reference for how to do it.

If you're not interested in taking that on, focus on what interests you. I have your sandbox on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on changes happening there. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes both have Instructions for coordinators sections at the very bottom. It might be a good idea to centralise this information, though. I think we sometimes used to forget they were there :) --Stfg (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of the drive and blitz coordinator instructions (notifying the Signpost, posting on the reward board and the community bulletin board) are, I think, either obsolete (I don't think the Signpost promotes drives any more) or—given our recent QC problems—inadvisable. All the best, Miniapolis 13:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

While we're at it, I have a draft of an SVG version of the GOCE logo kicking around. Apparently it is on some sort of priority list for conversion. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philg88 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 September 2014‎

Thanks for the suggestions all; I'm certainly interested in getting as many of our pages as I can cleaned up / copy-edited. I'll start with the drive page as I've already coped that to my user space, and I'd prefer to tackle one page at a time, but I can make a "to do list" in my user space. If anyone else is interested in taking these on, please feel free to do so. Phil, thanks for doing the draft. If you'd like to upload it somewhere I'm sure we can discuss changing from the current PNG version, but I'm giving a non-comment comment at the moment; sorry. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

My cleaned-up version of the bi-monthly drive page is here; please feel free to do any further work you think is necessary. I've tried to make the instructions clearer and more concise, and I've juggled the layout somewhat. I've populated the page with old data to show how it would look if implemented. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good—less cluttered and less intimidating to new copyeditors. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Drives main page

I've copied the Drives main page to User:Baffle gab1978/Sandbox2 for editing; you can use the talk page there to make page-specific comments. Note though that it'll be deleted if and when the result is copied into project space. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Blitz main page

I've replaced the above with the blitz main page in User:Baffle gab1978/Sandbox. I've copied relevant text from the new version of the drives main page and am editing as relevant the blitzes. Please feel free to check and comment upon my editing; it should be ready to copy over in a few days from now. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I've now finished my initial work on the Blitz main page; comments appreciated before I copy it over. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Copied over. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Blitz page template

I've created a template for the blitzes; coordinators can more easily create blitz pages without having to fish out pages from old blitzes' histories. It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/Template; please feel free to make any edits necessary. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed copyedit and layout change at WP:AVOIDYOU

There is a copyedit and layout proposal at "Avoiding personal attacks". Guild member participation would be appreciated. Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I love copy editors

I like to write articles and reference the stuff in articles. I am a total bafoon when it comes to wikimarkup for the references. I couldn't do it without copy editors. How can I give every copy editor a barnstar?

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

to all of you

Aw, thanks; we'd have nothing to copyedit without the content creators :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Långholmens spinnhus

I saw your notice on this page after I had made an edit. There was nothing to tell me not to make an edit until I went to the talk page to make my point, which is this: The name Kleberg with a page No. is used many times as a reference; however there is no detail about Kleberg or his works in the References section, or in any other section. Who is this person. Could someone please put the required info into the article. Jodosma (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This question has been answered at the article's Talk page, which was the right place for the question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

An idea to make creating Drive and Blitz pages easier

Hi all, I wonder whether using a template to create new Drive and Blitz pages would be wothwhile. It occurred to me that the entire blank page, which coordinators must cut-and-paste from existing drive page histories, could be put into Template space and simply invoked whenever needed. Something like {{subst:Create-GOCE-drive-page}} would be obscure enough to discourage misuse and specific enough to avoid accidental invocation. It might even be possible to automatically fill the variables, like start and end dates, using piped switches. So would this a) uoset anyone or contravene any community norms, or b) break and rules of the use of Template space? Would it be a useful way of creating these pages? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. I don't see what rules of template space it might break, but if it does break any, then it could be put in any page in GOCE project space. Substitution and template syntax can be used anywhere. --Stfg (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Simon. Thanks for thinking outside the box! All the best, Miniapolis 13:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all; I've asked on the help desk here whether this would cause an unexpected problems; the last thing I want is to have others cleaning up my mess. Stfg, I didn't realise substitution could work anywhere; thanks for telling me. If I can't copy the pages into template space, we could subst them from pages in Wikipedia space. This makes me realise I've a lot to learn about templates! :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about this suggestion while I was supposed to be listening to something else today. Could we / should we be clever enough to have input variables that consist of the current month, the backlog months that get extra credit, and the month of the previous drive (for linking to the previous drive's barnstars page)? I think it would be great if those things could be populated in all of the appropriate places. We always miss one or two. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey; I'd like to be able to put all the variables into the templates; I can't promise anything yet though. However, I've been playing in my user space; the simpler Blitz template is at User:Baffle gab1978/Create-new-Blitz-page and an example of the result is at User:Baffle gab1978/Sandbox2—feel free to play there if you wish. I'll start the documentation later tonight. I still want to eventually move these into Template space to keep the syntax as easy and memorable as possible. Despite asking on the Help Desk, I haven't heard any reasons I shouldn't move them there. Maybe {{GOCEBlitzpage}} and {{GOCEDrivepage}} would suffice; I doubt those names would cause any problems. Unfortunately, I haven't yet found a ways of adding the "Signing up" section creation link through the template syntax, so that'll have to be added manually until I can. Cheers,Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(←) The Blitz page-creation template is now "live" in template space; it's at {{GOCE-New-Blitz-page}}. I'll leave the backlog parameters for now, I can always tweak those later. Next I'll be working on a similar template for Drives. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC notice: Comma before Jr. or Sr.

There is an RfC proposing a clarification of the guideline about the use of comma before Jr. or Sr. in article titles. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Team of copyeditors keen to work with ESL editors

We desperately need to dramatically improve our coverage of non-Anglophone topics, such as African history, Chinese culture, Islamic law and women in India. The editors who are most qualified to write about these topics (and have access to the best sources) usually speak and write English as a second language (ESL). In a project and community dominated by native speakers of English, ESL editors face many additional challenges, including misunderstanding policy nuances, miscommunication with other editors and even blatant prejudice.

In a discussion about this issue, I suggested gathering a team of copyeditors who are keen to work with ESL editors. For ESL editors writing about historic buildings in Iran or education in Indonesia, seeing other editors appreciate and copyedit their work (so the articles attain GA or even FA status) would be powerful motivation to keep researching and contributing. Beyond copyediting, this team could help ESL editors improve their English and answer their questions about policy nuances.

Would the Guild of Copyeditors be interested in forming such a team? --Hildanknight (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be a great idea if we, indeed, had enough copyeditors. I read the thread which sparked this and couldn't help noticing that the editors suggesting copyeditor involvement are not, themselves, copyeditors. While the editor who slapped on a {{uw-english}} tag certainly reacted incorrectly (for whatever reason), any experienced copyeditor has cleaned up their share of articles written by ESL editors. The only time I run up the white flag is when the English is so rocky that I don't understand it myself. I have a lot of respect for ESL editors on en:WP, and am waiting for input from my fellow two GOCE coordinators. The GOCE is stretched pretty thin at the moment, and we have out hands full with the requests page and the backlog. Thanks for your concern and all the best, Miniapolis 16:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hildanknight:, I'm writing for myself here and not the Guild. I've no objection to any GOCE members taking part in this idea, but as Miniapolis says, good copy-editors seems to be a rarity these days. Some of the ESL editors I've worked with have better English-writing skills than some native speakers, but others have produced text so dreadfully confusing I've either removed it or given up. In fact, my current c/e seems to be partly the product of at least one ESL user. There's a point at which poorly-written English becomes indecypherable, at which the community starts to question the contributors' abilities to contribute here; competence is required. It's great that ESL editors contribute here, and yes of course we should welcome them, but if they don't have the necessary English skills to contribute or understand policies without becoming disruptive it's probably best to advise them to focus on the Wikipedia of their first language. That said, if anyone's interested in Hilda's proposal please feel free to get in touch. You might also get some interest from Wikiproject Clean-up. Good luck with your proposal. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking this, @Hildanknight:. This is something I am particularly interested in (heck, it's the last sentence on my user page!) I would be happy to put my name on a list of GOCE members enthusiastic about working with ELL editors. I've also made a suggestion on the talk page linked above for a related idea, a Wikipedia-based language exchange (see my mock up here and here), which might be of interest to some GOCE members, but would be separate from the project. If anyone has thoughts or interest in that, maybe see my description at Hildanknight's link so that the conversation can be held in one place. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and proposed the language exchange project I described above at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cross-Language Editing Exchange. If you think this is something worth creating, I would greatly appreciate it if you would add your name to the "support" list (and if you oppose it, feel free to explain why in the discussion section). Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: porcino vs porcini in Boletus edulis article

Discussion here regarding use of "porcini", the plural of "porcino", as a singular term: Talk:Boletus_edulis#RfC:_porcino_vs_porcini. Eric ^talk 15:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Stupid Question

I realize that this in an incredibly stupid question, but can anyone tell me how to spell "Moebius" correctly? I keep guessing, but this is apparently a blind spot in the firefox spell checker because each attempt ends up red lined. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In German, the oe is a substitute for ö, so try that. On Windows: Alt+0246 , Mac: Option+u, then o. Or maybe mœbius will work (Alt+0156 / Option+q) Eric ^talk 02:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at the disambiguation page Moebius. It shows that all three of Moebius, Möbius and Mobius are used. It depends which person you're referring to. The spell checker's red underlines just mean it doesn't know that name, not that you've spelled it wrong. It happens a lot with names. HTH. --Stfg (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, with that I've got it right in the article now and have added it to the firefox dictionary. Since spelling was never my strong point I don't what I would do without you guys :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Drive page creation template now "live"

Following up our conversation here, I've moved the Drive page creation template I've been working on to {{GOCE-new-drive-page}} and have amended the coordinators' intstructions on the main Drives page accordingly; diff. Please feel free to make any necessary amendments, improvements or corrections to the template. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Miniapolis 14:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Some help on Capitalization/Quotation Marks

Hi! I have a question I seem to be too dense to figure out on my own. I've checked the capitalization guides, but cannot seem to discern the answer to the question regarding artistic movements, e.g. "New Rome School" or "Cubism". Should they be written like that, or like "new Rome school" and "cubism". And what about quotation marks? I'm so confused. Onel5969 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Think it's case-by-case, based on usage. I'd capitalize New Rome School, but cubism is in common-enough use that it doesn't seem to require capitalization. No quotes needed in either case. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 16:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove GOCE from ArticleHistory template?

There's a discussion about potentially removing WP:GOCE from the "ArticleHistory" template.

That discussion didn't start out that way but one user is suggesting that possibility as asserting it's not part of the "community process".

Please see discussion, at Template_talk:Article_history#Today.27s_Featured_Article_discussions.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I've commented there. All the best, Miniapolis 17:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Drive/Blitz FAQ page

Unless there are any objections I'll copy-edit the FAQ page because I think it's a bit long and rambling. I also wonder whether this is part of the aforementioned instruction creep, though I think most entries are pertinant. What do others think? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Do it. Let's make sure it is linked prominently from the Drive template so that we can keep that page reasonable in size and avoid redundancy there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the grunt work; the page is a bit wordy but most of the questions are still pertinent, so a once-over and link should do it. All the best, Miniapolis 23:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the Projects page redundant?

The project page seems to me to be part of the instruction creep that Miniapolis talks about here. Is anyone from the Guild still working on The Signpost articles or contextualising "turn of the century"? That seems a normal part of copy-editing to me. Drives and blitzes are explained on their own pages and the main page (or will once the redone version is copied over). Do other editors see a future use for this page? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Redundant and outdated. Let's scrap it. We need to slim down around here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Half done; I've tagged it for speedy deletion, but I don't know the correct criterion to use. I've also removed the tab atop our pages. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the CSD criteria and didn't see anything that matched. Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Proposed_deletion says that PROD should be used for articles that do not meet CSD but whose deletion is uncontroversial. Rather than boldly undo your undo of the PROD tag, I figured I'd ask here if anyone knows for sure the right template to use. I would lean toward PROD with the explanation that Baffle gab1978 provided with the DB tag. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Prod is used in mainspace only for articles, lists and dab pages and it's moot now; a deleting admin can customize a reason in cases like this (as was done here, with a link to this discussion). All the best, Miniapolis 14:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I try to stay away from the world of deletion, so I haven't learned much about it. Too much drama. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(←) Y...and it's gone. Thanks all. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Dead Link

Hello. There's a dead link in the 'How you can help' section. Unfortunately I can't work out how to edit it out, but I hope someone else will be able to assist. Hopefully the link is dead because you eliminated that part of the backlog! Cheers, Crinoline (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The link was contained within Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Left_panel. I updated it. And your assumption is correct: we cleared July 2013 during the latest Drive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Reorganising the Main page

Hi all. I'd like to rewrite and reorganise this project's main page. I think it should be outward-facing, informative and welcoming to new copy-editors. Wikiproject Military History does this quite well, albeit with layout problems; our main page comprises rhetorical questions (New to copy editing and need help? Want to join the Guild? What is copyediting? Want to request an edit?), unfocussed text and odd things like the progress chart. "Goals and scope" is probably the most focussed section there, though I think the "Top 10" is patronising. The "Tools" section is useful, but I must scroll right to the foot of the page to find it. The page, at best, is a jumble.

So I'd like to invite suggestions for reorganising, rewriting and simplifying the main page. What do you want to see there? What are its strengths and weaknesses? How can it be improved? Over to you. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My initial thoughts: I think the audience for the page should primarily be people who want to find out if getting involved in our project is a good fit for them.

Most of our activity is organized around drives and blitzes, both of which are usually focused on reducing the backlog of articles tagged for copy editing. We should lead with these activities.

After that, we should probably describe the skills that are needed to be a good copy editor, and maybe some examples of good copy editing work. We could also describe, briefly, the mechanics of how to copy edit an article (e.g. review the article to see if you can improve its prose, remove the copy edit tag, edit the article in sections if it is long, provide good edit summaries).

We should mention the Requests page at some point, with an invitation to editors to submit their requests, especially for articles pursuing GA and FA status. I don't have a strong opinion on where this section goes in the flow of the page.

So that's the main body of the page. We probably also want a few "status-update" sorts of items, like the monthly backlog list and some sort of "how are we doing", along with maybe the Ombox.

That's my late-night two cents, anyway. I'm open to other things being included, but I think the basic items above should be the focus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to all that (which I agree with), imo the requests should be placed to give them some prominence, because this is what we contribute to the quality end of the encyclopedia. --Stfg (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on these thankless tasks, Baffle; you've done a great job so far, and I trust your judgement. You're right, the page as it is now is cluttered. It's also, IMO, too long; the top 10 reasons and the progress chart can probably go, and the "Tools" section should be moved up. While we obviously need to publicize the requests page for potential contributors, I'd also like to see an emphasis for new copyeditors on learning the ropes with becklog articles before tackling a GAN or FAC. The drives and blitzes are fun but overemphasizing them, I think, tends to attract editors who may lose sight of the ultimate objects of our game: timely copyedits of requested articles (particularly GANs and FACs) and the ongoing whittling of the backlog. Thanks again and all the best, Miniapolis 13:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all the comments so far; I'll copy the page's elements into my sandbox later this evening and start working on it there. I'm not totally opposed to the progress chart, but I think it could have its own sub-page—I think it's a useful tool for generating stats etc. Further comments are welcome, and I'll be taking my time to make a decent job of it. My mock-up is here in my Sandbox; all the component pages are in their project-space equivalent locations in my user space. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(←) My bastard creation rewritten and redesigned Guild Home page is available here in my Sandbox. I've mostly tweaked the Left panel, I'll mess with the other elements when the Blitz is over. Feel free to tweak and correct as needed, or to implement any ideas or designs you want to try out. The Ombox and other elements are copied to my talk page, so don't worry when you see old updates there! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks very good. Thanks again and all the best, Miniapolis 16:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I have an issue with the wording "Who runs the Guild?" - to me it smacks of leadership and politics and all that other rubbish - especially as no one actually runs it, but several people help/helped keep things running who are neither emeritii, coords, or lead coord.; most notably with page designs, tabs, templates (design and maintenance) - in fact I guess it has mostly been a self running "true democracy". Is there not some other way of putting it?

It also seems that things would move away from information into more aims and who we are etc.; for example, it seems that there is a lot of repetition about "what we do" - This is a page for people to know where things are like tools for them to use and how to find things, not a recruiting self-advertisement.

I have only taken a cursory look, but that is how it seems to me at first glance. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Really do appreciate the work done though - I know from personal experience how simple-looking things can sometimes take many hours and hours and what seems like forever to actually make work!

Chaosdruid, are you feeling bold and/or lucid enough to suggest new text that could be dropped in? I read it over, and I suggest changing the header to something that sounds more coordinator-ish and participatory, like "Who coordinates Guild activities?" I didn't have any problems with the prose portion, but if you have suggestions for improvements, definitely suggest them here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That wording sounds great! And it brings focus to the coordinators straight away :¬)

In my defence I did only glance read it first time through, but to be honest it seems fine now I read it a little more thoroughly. If I think of anything specific I'll get back to you. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(←) Thanks to everyone for the recent comments above, and for doing the additional work to the page. I think the left panel is now ready to copy over. Anyway, I've coped the unwieldy Monthly Progress chart to its own page here, from where it can be transcluded or linked to as needed. I'm never keen to throw away potentially-useful stats. I wonder whether it could be more usefully split into years or condensed to show yearly changes; that's something I might experiment with in the future; if anyone wants to do that, please feel free. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done; I've boldy copied the new versions of the right, left panels, and the progress chart is now on the right under the right panel (I should really merge them, but think it would be better on its own page). Also i've rejigged the way the main page transcludes the elements. If any of my changes cause problems, feel free to revert them forthwith. It'll probably be a good idea to revert the Main page changes too, since the old versions will display differently. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking this on. I gave the left panel a quick polish.

I think the progress chart on the right side of the main page is too long and too busy, and on my smallish screen, the dates wrap, making it even longer. I'm happy with having it on its own page (with a full-size graph?) and not on the right panel, but I'm open to other opinions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this reply, @Jonesey95:. I agree; the table can only grow as we update the stats. I'll take it off the right panel. I was thinking about either splitting it into years,making a minor version displaying only Dec 31 figures, or making it collapsible (if it isn't already - i normally work without javascript on). I think a fully-featured "Progress" page is a good idea; it would make a useful place to display all our stats. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've now collapsed the table, but I can't seem to make it dispay centrally under the sidebar; when I changed 'right' to 'center' on {{right|{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Progress}}}} it appeared where I didn't want it to. Anyway i hope that looks a little neater; otherwise we might need to do something more radical. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Luis de Lacy

Luis de Lacy is on the backlog list, having been tagged for {{copy edit}} since August 2013. It was indeed a mess in many ways. I've put a lot of work into cleaning it up, but much of that involved checking refs, tracking down dead links, and other such stuff that's rather beyond the language copyediting that I'm used to. So, in line with How to, I'm asking "other GOCE members on the project's talk page to double-check [my] work" there. If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the first couple of paragraphs and found some puffery, like this statement: "No Irish family has attained greater fame in the military history of Europe". (This statement was also plagiarized from the cited source – not by you, of course.) I removed a similar statement from the lead paragraph.

You have done a lot to improve the article. It clearly needed cleanup, not just copy editing, and you've improved it quite a bit. You could do another pass through it, looking for consistency (dashes, hyphens, or colons after the dates?) and unreferenced NPOV words like "hero" and "martyr". It is not Wikipedia's place to say that someone was a hero or a martyr or the most famous or the best at something; statements like that need citations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Requests page restyled

Hi all; I've taken the liberty of restyling the Guidelines section of the Requests page to match to Main page. My change removes the blue background and changes the sections to the blue Section header used in /Coordinators etc. I tried this a few days ago, but the code __NOEDITSECTION__ in Section header removed the edit links for the entire Requests page, so I removed it. If this change causes any problems (I haven't found any yet), please feel free to BRD revert the Guidelines page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, Baffle; losing that blue background sure enhances readability. Thanks again and all the best, Miniapolis 15:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)