Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2018

Can I ask...?

Is this a suitable forum to ask questions about the finer points of written English? For example, and this is a genuine question, does the sentence "In 1815, Napoleon was defeated." require that comma? I'm thinking FAC levels of English. If this is not the place to ask such questions, is there such a forum elsewhere on Wikipedia? FactotEm (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. The comma you mention is optional; just be consistent and careful in its use or non-use. I tend to add it in longer sentences, but in your example I'd (depending on context) change it to "Napoleon was defeated in 1815.", avoiding its use all together. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Magic. Thank you. FactotEm (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Although "be consistent" is good advice, there's nothing inconsistent about using a comma after a long introductory phrase, but not after a short one. And, at places in a sentence where some use a comma and some don't, it's fine to use it where omitting it might confuse the reader, even temporarily. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

And the old rule of thumb may apply that a copy editor should sense the reading pace of a user, i.e., a pause, created by the comma, aids absorption of the content. ;>) --Zefr (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Great point Zefr. It's a good idea to remember that comma placement should take the pacing of he article into account.

Sometimes, an early comma helps by breaking up a monotonous information dump. Sometimes you want a sentence to land harder.

Most times I find the best approach is to just have fresh eyes read it over -- collaboration is your friend. Jasphetamine (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Question on naming

Another editor has suggested seeking your input on a question about naming. The issue is whether an article on an adult woman should best refer to her by her first name only, for simplicity. The discussion is at Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names. Thanks for any attention you can give to this. --John (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi John. That's not exactly what the GOCE's role is here on Wikipedia. I'll take a look, but only to offer my personal opinion, not as some definitive voice. Tdslk (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal Copyediting

Hello all,

WikiJournals are peer reviewed academic journals that integrate their content into Wikipedia (example in WikiJournal and on Wikipedia). For many of the contributors, submitting an article is the first time they've used MediaWiki. Even though they use VisualEditor (via a submission portal here) there are often formatting and copyedit errors. We also get submissions from those for whom English isn't their first language. In particular, it is common for them to struggle with inserting their references inline. Examples:

• Lysine: Biosynthesis, Catabolism and Roles
• ShK toxin: history, structure and therapeutic applications for autoimmune diseases

Would anyone be interested in helping copyedit submissions (full list here)? Any aid appreciated! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I would, time permitting. All the best, Miniapolis 16:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Archiving

When completed requests are archived, should they be inserted in strict chronological order according to the date of the request, or merely added to the bottom of the page? Someone moved one of mine a few weeks ago to place it in the right place chronologically, but now when I went to move two 2018-01-08 requests (not mine), I saw that the requests were all out of order, so I didn't save my edit. I'm wondering if some editors may be less adept at inserting the details of a completed request at the right place in the long list, and might mess things up, and that we should therefore just let everyone add them to the bottom of the page and take care of putting them in chronological order later. What does everyone think about this?  – Corinne (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Archived requests can be placed at the bottom without breaking anything. The tables are sortable (which means that someone reorganizing the tables by date also doesn't break anything, as long as it's done right). – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to learn that the tables are sortable. (I was not suggesting that adding archived requests to the bottom of the list would break anything. I was suggesting that attempting to add them in the middle of the list might do so.) So, I'm glad to learn that things are the way they have always been, that we add completed requests to the bottom of the page.  – Corinne (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nominating for GAN, and subsequently asking for GOCE after nominating... allowed or no?

As above. Are you allowed to nominate an article for GAN, and list it for GOCE afterwards, so the two are active at the same time.  — Calvin999 14:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be best not in my view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thank you for replying. I saw a nomination which was listed for GOCE after it was nominated for GAN.  — Calvin999 22:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Calvin, there's nothing preventing you from doing so, but in my view it's probably best to have the c/e done before nominating articles for review because the GAN review might occur before the c/e, or during the c/e, which wastes the reviewers' time if they're unaware of the c/e request. It's good to see you're active again, btw. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Thank you for replying. I saw you had done a copyedit for an article which was already nominated for GAN, I just wanted to know if it was allowed for the reasons you've just given.  — Calvin999 22:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Calvin999. A few months ago our wait times were much higher, but now the average time to complete a GOCE request has fallen to 17 days, which is much faster than GAN wait times (I've been waiting 3 months!). However, GANs can be responded to in any order. It's probably not a problem, but if you want to be certain best to wait for us, we shouldn't be too long. Alternatively, I think there's a space for a comment on {{GA nominee}}. You could say under the |note= parameter that it's undergoing copyedit, so a potential reviewer will know to wait a bit. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you for replying. I saw a nomination which was listed for GOCE after it was nominated for GAN.  — Calvin999 22:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The instructions on the Requests page say: If you plan to nominate the article for good article, A-class or featured article status, please wait until the copy edit is complete before nominating it. That said, editors are free to do what they will, and if they end up with a failed GAN because they didn't follow our excellent advice, oh well. I would not decline an otherwise valid request just because it had already been nominated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Article quotes another Wikipedia article, with quotation marks

Polydipsia#Psychogenic_and_non-psychogenic_primary_polydipsia quotes text from Diabetes_insipidus#Diagnosis:

As discussed in the entry on diabetes insipidus, "Habit drinking <several lines snipped> the patient becomes dehydrated."

I don't know anything about these topics myself, so I hesitate to remove or change this info. I assume that the simplest thing to do is just remove the quotation marks and have this text repeated in both articles?

--189.60.63.116 (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I took a quick look at both articles and the polydipsia history, and can't tell if the source article was linked in the edit summary adding it to Polydipsia because I don't know when it was added. Per WP:CWW, the best thing to do would probably be to leave the quotes (and the in-text link, of course :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 15:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A clarification—I meant "leave the quotation marks" :-). All the best, Miniapolis 02:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the meaning of a {{GOCEinuse}} template?

I have been editing the article Pieve Vergonte and someone placed said template in the article. I'm a member of the guild, but I don't know what to make of the template. For me, it is saying that all guild members may be working on the article, but it may mean also that a single editor is editing the article and that I shouldn't edit. Also, the template may have been placed because I am working on the article. How should I interpret the template? In the guild, it says "Consider adding {{GOCEinuse}} to articles you are in the process of copy editing", but the template itself says, "This article or section is currently undergoing a major edit by the Guild of Copy Editors. As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed", which seems to be saying that editors who are not guild members should not edit, but guild members are working on it and are welcome to edit. It is kind of confusing the seemingly contradictory information. Maybe the template should specify instead the name of the guild member who is working on the article, so other members and editors would understand they shouldn't edit while it is up and avoiding issue if the template was placed earlier by another member? Thinker78 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We're in the middle of a one-week blitz to eliminate the May 2017 backlog (currently down to one article) and request articles. {{GOCEinuse}} is placed to minimize edit conflicts by an individual copyeditor who's working on an article. Although you can certainly add the tag to an article on which you're working, I passed up a backlog article to which you were making many small copyedits but had not removed the {{copy edit}} tag. Feel free to propose any changes to the GOCEinuse template on its talk page. All the best, Miniapolis 23:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the documentation for {{GOCEinuse}} to explain its use more fully. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Oldest backlogged articles link needs to be fixed

Fixed

The link "Oldest backlogged articles" under the section "How you can help" has become a red link, needs to be fixed. Thinker78 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: That happens when all the copy edit tags for the oldest month are removed. If I'm not mistaken, you finished the last article from May so thanks for that! I've updated it to what is now the oldest month's maintenance category. Thanks for bringing that to our attention, that's the first time I've fixed that! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Where is the link to the backlog list?

Is there any? Where can I find the backlog of articles? Thinker78 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

On the main page, there are links to the copy edit maintenance categories for each month in a table on the right under "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit". At the bottom of that table is a category which lists all articles. Although, if you want to copy edit an article that'll count for this week's blitz, pick something from the Requests page. (The target articles are Requests and the last tagged articles from May.) Hope that helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to overhaul the default tutorial

I've put up a proposal at the Village Pump to replace the old WP:I and WP:T with the superior Help:Intro. Any opinions welcomed there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with someone who causes problems

Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with an editor who introduces MoS-related errors into articles while attempting to remove errors? I've posted messages on the person's talk page (User talk:92.25.194.187) and undone several edits, but it has made no difference. The person continues to add things such as "from 1997-2015" ([1]) and use "it's" incorrectly (e.g. "with it's mother" [2]). I don't think it's malicious, but there's something wrong with about half of the person's edits, so action is required. EddieHugh (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Eddie, in the diffs you provided, the IP's edits are mostly helpful with a few—much fewer than half the changes—mistakes (which we all make on occasion). I haven't checked the editor's history though. We can't expect every editor to be familiar with the MOS, and the IP seems to have started editing a few weeks ago, though I agree the changes from "its" to "it's" and the hyphen issue are annoying. Maybe a note of thanks for her/his helpful edits and some good advice on the talk page, rather than the abrasive comments I see there at the moment, would help. Competence is required though; if it becomes more of a problem, a note to a friendly admin might be useful, and if s/he become a net negative (more disruptive than useful, which is not now), pop a note on the dramah board. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The person keeps doing the same things, despite having been told what's wrong and where to find the correct forms (in edit summaries as well as on the talk page). Some of the changes made are fine; I was hoping that revert notices would have an impact, so took to undoing changes even if some parts were not a problem. The person's just done the same thing ([3]), despite being told about this on the talk page four days ago, and yesterday, and in several edit summaries... I'll try a third time... EddieHugh (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That didn't work! A few minutes after I posted another message, the same thing was done again! [4], [5]. I'll try the next step. EddieHugh (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added a note on the talk page; I see you've done the same. Thanks for that; I agree some intervention may be needed, though I'm going offline now but I'll be back tomorrow. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This may be trite, but it helps me when I'm in such situations:

Everyone has something to teach me.

Some people teach me patience.

I've learned a lot on Wikipedia.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm never certain of communicating with IP editors. The last time this happened to me (failing to get their attention with revert edit summaries and messages on the IP and article's talk pages), I requested page protection for a week (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). I'd hoped that, unable to edit the article, the IP editor would look at the talk page and respond. They didn't, though it held off disruptive editing for a while. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

SchreiberBike: I agree, however... one thing I've learned from others is that if someone does the same thing having been told repeatedly that it's wrong, then that person will be very difficult to change/stop. After a day off, the IP is back with a mix of useful edits and another "it's": "higher ratings than it's neighbours". No communication from the person either. Polite/abrasive/any messages aren't going to do it and I don't think patience will either. (Reidgreg: this person does a small number of edits per article and then moves on, so page protection wouldn't work, unfortunately.) EddieHugh (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

IP now blocked, having repeated the same actions. EddieHugh (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Question at DYK

Hi, this hook has been proposed for the DYK section on the main page:

... that despite doing "what they could to prevent me", Virginia Woolf's mother, Julia Stephen had three pregnancies in quick succession due to the "imperfect art of contraception"?

I would like to explain in grammatical terms why this doesn't parse. It seems that the "prevent me" quote is referring to Julia Stephen, not to Virginia Woolf. Am I correct? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd rephrase the sentence (if I could), Virginia Woolf's mother, Julia Stephen, had three pregnancies in quick succession due to the "imperfect art of contraception", despite doing "what they could to prevent me". Is that a verbatim quote from the article, or can you lose the opening "that"? All the best, Miniapolis 00:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the "that" is a requirement for the hook. Thanks for your suggestion. Yoninah (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Miniapolis' suggestion reads better but I'm not sure about the first-person quote. What about: ... that Virginia Woolf's mother, Julia Stephen, had three pregnancies in quick succession due to the "imperfect art of contraception", despite doing, according to Woolf, "what they could to prevent me". Is that too clunky? (BTW: I took a quick look at Wikipedia:Did you know. While the #DYK rules state the hook be of the format "Did you know that...?" the subsection #The hook, which ought to be more specific, gives an example with that but doesn't mention it as a requirement.) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was actually just trying to get from you the grammatical rule that explains why the original construction is wrong, to explain it to another editor. This is what I came up with:

In grammatical construction, the first thing placed after the comma is the subject of the preceding clause. In this case, "Virginia Woolf's mother Julia Stephen" is the subject of "despite doing 'what they could to prevent me'". If you want the subject to be Virginia Woolf, you should say: ... that despite doing "what they could to prevent me", Virginia Woolf says her mother, Julia Stephen, had three pregnancies in quick succession due to the "imperfect art" of birth control in the nineteenth century?

Yoninah (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Query

I have a query for the guild's consideration, I have been editing articles related to government lately, and as per MOS:JOBTITLES any common noun has to be minisculized. But, I would like to just double check if this true. Shouldn't, the Prime Minister is the head of government, be changed to, the prime minister is the head of government? In a more contextual example, in the article, Cabinet Secretary of India, should every case of Cabinet Secretary, President and Prime Minister be minisculized?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 12:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

My reading of that MOS section is that almost all of the job titles in that article should be made lower case. I have been tripped up by this one in the past though, especially around the word "King". – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Are the requesters notified of completed backlogged articles?

The name of the requester doesn't appear in the list of backlogged articles, so I was wondering if they get notified when their requested article's copyedit is completed. Thinker78 (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

See the last bullet under "Instructions for copy editors" on the Requests page. Some copy-editors place the templates as recommended. I find that most requesters have the article and the Requests page on their watchlists and know when the article has been copy-edited. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: if you mean the backlogged articles tagged with {{copy edit}}, no, we don't usually notify the editor who placed the tag (and it may actually take a minute or two to wade through the page history to identify this editor). In many cases those maintenance tags are placed by editors who notice that the article needs work but are not a major contributor to the article. Our Requests page is intended for editors who are major contributors to articles, and gets perhaps 10× faster responses than tagging. But whether they go the requests route or the tagging route, as Jonesey noted, editors will usually keep the articles they edit the most on their watchlist and be apprised of the copy edit that way. If it's not on their watchlist, they may not be that interested in the article some months later when it clears the backlog. – Reidgreg (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Monthly progress chart

Should we remove the monthly progress chart that sits on the right side of our front page? It's getting unwieldy (it doubles the length of the page on my screen), and it duplicates info that is more clearly presented in the graph in the Progress section. Tdslk (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we should; it served a purpose in the past, but no longer does. All the best, Miniapolis 22:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's getting too long for the front page. Could it be collapsed by default or perhaps linked in text? Note that the table would only be rendered collapsed by Javascript-enabled browsers, but that's likely the majority of views these days. Are Guild c/e stats recorded elsewhere? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The chart has its own page, which is linked in the first sentence of the Progress section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Progress. Tdslk (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As an experiment, I have split the table into two parts. The first part (2009–2015) is collapsed by default. The second part shows recent progress. I don't know if it's an improvement. I am open to feedback, including the negative kind. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In the spirit of being difficult, I'd say that we should show end-of-year totals for all years before now-1 and show monthly numbers thereafter. That gives historical perspective but still emphasizes what's happening lately. Lfstevens (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Lfstevens, with thanks to Jonesey for the improvement. IMO, though, years of monthly totals are TMI and obscure the arguably-more-important year-over-year totals. Yeesh, when I came in the backlog was over 8,000 articles :-). All the best, Miniapolis 17:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I also like Lfsteven's suggestion. Tdslk (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Annual table added. That is much better; great suggestion. More feedback is welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Much better. And it's cool to see we've managed to drop the number every single year! Tdslk (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a definite improvement when viewed in my JS-enabled browser. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(←) Looks great, and it's good to see that when I came in the backlog was already down to 5,000 (think it was 8K when the LOCE became the GOCE) :-). Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the yearly progress; it's a better fit with summary style, plus more green! I trust the monthly totals will be retained somewhere (but not displayed on the main GOCE page). – Reidgreg (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Question on lead sentence in today's TFA

Hey folks, I'd love to get some input over at Talk:Murder of Yvonne Fletcher#Lead sentence. Here's the original and a version I wrote. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@The ed17:, I'd prefer the longer version; the second, shorter version doesn't tell the reader the shot fired from the embassy killed Fletcher. I don't see a need for the comma after the date, which makes an unnecessary pause in the flow of the sentence; it doesn't denote a sub-clause and it's not mandated by the MOS. The paragraph is a bit muddled; "and died shortly afterwards" seems misplaced. Did she die shortly after being shot or shortly after the demonstration against Gaddafi?

We could restructure the paragraph:

The murder of Yvonne Fletcher, a Metropolitan Police officer, occurred on 17 April 1984 when she was fatally wounded by a shot fired by an unknown gunman from inside the Libyan embassy in St James's Square, London. Fletcher, who died shortly afterwards, had been deployed to monitor a demonstration against the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Her death resulted in an eleven-day siege of the embassy, at the end of which those inside were expelled from the United Kingdom, which severed diplomatic relations with Libya.

Feel free to use this, or a variant, as you wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 07:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: I feel your version is clearer and reads much better than the others. For my own curiosity, though, should the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi possibly be either "the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi" or "Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi"? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Reidgreg:; I noticed the article's header was improved during its stay on the main page. I'm not sure of the grammatical rules involved (grammar is instinctive), though I think the use of a comma in single-item noun phrases is more common in US English than in UK English. I've certainly never been taught to use a comma between terms in a description-name construction, whereas in the reverse situation it's always done (Yvonne Fletcher, a Metropolitan Police officer,). Come to think of it; a Metropolitan Police officer is a dependent clause in parenthesis whereas Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is a single-item noun phrase that doesn't need a comma to separate it, otherwise it looks as though we're writing about two distinct people. I hope that make sense; feel free to correct me, my brain hurts now! :D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 02:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: I think my problem (i.e.: knee-jerk reaction) is that when preceded by the it feels like there's a tone issue as in the Muammar Gaddafi. This makes me want to either remove the the or use the comma for separation. I'm probably overthinking it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, now i see what you're saying; you were taking issue with the the rather than the odd comma. Can I just say "D'oh!" here? ;) If an editor insisted on using the I'd leave it there; either version would be acceptable to me (in fact, one could argue using the Libyan leader is more correct because there's only one leader of Libya), but I'd definitely remove the comma! I'm sorry to have misinterpreted your reply; it happens! :D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 14:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Quick grammar check: "meeting hostilities"

I'd like a quick check from someone with better English than me: is "meeting hostilities" the right phrase to use here?

Spain abandoned El Piñal, its trading port in China, after meeting hostilities from the Portuguese

See ALT1 at the bottom of Template:Did you know nominations/El Piñal? If not correct, I'd appreciate a suggestion for a more correct term. HaEr48 (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not "incorrect", but I prefer "encountering hostility". All the best, Miniapolis 13:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that either phrase is insufficiently descriptive of what actually happened. If there is a historical record to show that one party attacked the other, or blockaded a port, or killed some people, that is what you should state. "Hostility" has a modern meaning that has little to do with physical violence, but I expect that this historical situation involved some sort of physical violence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: it wasn't clear that there was direct physical violence on the island itself, but there were hostilities, for example in form of blockades and preparations for military conflict. I feel "meeting hostilities" was generic enough to be true in a DYK hook, and for more details the reader can click on the article. @Miniapolis: thanks for the suggestion, I changed it as you suggested. HaEr48 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Outdated link

I'm new to Wikipedia copyediting, and I find Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit very useful. I just wanted to note the link to oldest articles needing copy edit on the project page is outdated (all the August articles have been completed :)), and I couldn't figure out how to fix it. TeraTIX 01:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed! – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Automatically remove red links from page

Hi GOCE,

I have been looking around (Inlcuding in the WP:WikiProject Red Link Recovery) for information on how to remove all red links from an article (The article in question 2002 WPA World Nine-ball Championship, was translated from the German Wikipedia; which has red links, and more pool players on), as the ones that have been translated are non-notable. The only thing I've seen is that it may be possible via AWB; but didn't go into details. Is there any way to change this information (as I may need to use this more than once, and manually it's quite the job)? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note, this question was also asked at the Help Desk Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lee; the quickest way I can think of is copying the article's raw wikicode into a word processor and using its 'search and replace' facility to find instances of [[ and ]]; you can replace them on a case-by-case basis and you'd also need to remove any piped content manually. Maybe someone else can suggest a quicker method; I only edit in the wikitext window. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 10:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Lee, why would you want to do that? Remove all, I mean. I translate from German a lot, have the German article in a second window and decide case-by-case like this:

• If a link is red in German, I remove it (unless I think it may soon be created in English).
• If a link is blue, I create an ill-link ({{ill}}), and encourage everybody to do the same. It shows that the subject is notable in German (or some other language), it offers a direct link to that other article for those who read the language, and it automatically turns to a normal blue link when created in English. If you want to be extra helpful you don't simply use the German article name but the best name for the English Wikipedia. Examples in most of "my" articles, look at Volker David Kirchner (on his birthday) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This is very helpful! Thank you. I will go through this and make the changes. Is there a way of simply removing non-notable players from the article, though? (Without copy-paste?) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I remove hidden copyedit category from article?

I reviewed the article Chittaranjan and found out that it probably shouldn't be copyedited because it needs additional citations for verification. There was no copyedit tag on it but I discovered that the article is in the November 2017 list of articles that need to be copyedited and that the page has a hidden category which includes it in the list but I fail to see how it is removed. Can someone explain how is this page removed from the list of November articles needing copyedit? 06:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Thinker78 (talk)

This puzzled me too when I started. In this article, only a section (Chittaranjan#Facilities) is tagged for copyediting. If there's no article-wide tag at the top, I do a control-F for "copy" and that usually takes me to the tag (or tags—you can tell if there's more than one by the number of hits). I love section tags; a section's worth of work removes an entire article from the backlog :-). Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 13:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Could I get a second pair of eyes on this?

I've finished up copy editing Kashmir Martyrs' Day (I think) and would appreciate a second pair of experienced eyes to have a look and see if I've missed anything or messed up. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome the the Guild and thanks for your work @LampGenie01: diff; my comments are below:

• I wouldn't have removed most of the material unless there are copyvio problems. Instead, break it into smaller paragraphs so you can actually see what's being said. Once you've broken up the wall of text, you can remove waffle (meaningless text used for padding) and fix any errors in grammar, spelling etc.
• You removed at least three references to online source material. I haven't checked the sources but unless they're completely inappropriate (spam etc) it's usually best to leave citations alone and mark with {{not in source}} if the source doesn't say what the article says.
• Finally, using a light touch in copy-editing is best if you're not sure what you're doing.

I hope you don't take the above to heart; we all start somewhere! instead please read through the advice listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to. I've restored the article and will break it up per above. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 21:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Baffle. Sorry about the mess I made. I obviously tried to run before I could walk there. I appreciate your constructive criticism and will certainly take it on board. I'll also take a look at both the how to guide and your copy of the article when I get back from work. Thanks again :) LampGenie01 (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem, as I said we all start somewhere; my first few c/e attempts were a mess too. ;) I hope you'll stay with the Guild and work on more articles in the backlog; it's a great way to hone your skills. Thanks for your reply, Cheers, Baffle gab1978 19:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Starting sentences with "Though,"

Hi, I'm reviewing an article (false killer whale) that has multiple instances of "Though," to start sentences. Examples include

• "Though, the name "false killer whale" comes from the apparent similarity between the skull of it and the killer whale."
• "Though, individuals in populations around the world can have different skull structures and vary in average length, with Japanese false killer whales being 10–20% larger than South African false killer whales."

Can someone help me articulate why this seems incorrect? Is it because "though" is being used as a coordinating conjunction? Thanks. Enwebb (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

According to current but well established thinking in descriptive linguistics, the "coordinating conjunctions" of old/poor grammar books are coordinators. The great majority of the "subordinating conjunctions" of these books (and many of their adverbs) are prepositions; a tiny minority are subordinators. See this (PDF) by Geoff Pullum.

Though and although are prepositions. Though doesn't always need a complement:

• The assignment was bloody hard! I handed it in on time though.

But I haven't encountered it used as you show it used above. If we remove the comma from your first example, we have:

• Though the name "false killer whale" comes from the apparent similarity between the skull of it and the killer whale.

which looks like a subordinate clause in search of a main clause, for example, the idly imagined:

• Though the name "false killer whale" comes from the apparent similarity between the skull of it and the killer whale, the two have no other significant resemblances.

which would be OK.

Without looking at the article, I can't be sure what the writer wants to say. If you substitute however for though, the result is grammatical; but for all I know it may traduce the intended meaning.

There are other infelicities; for example, not between the skull of it and the killer whale but between its skull and that of the killer whale.

I suggest that you don't inflict grammatical terms on the writers, but instead jump in with your editorial machete. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I had a slightly queasy feeling when I wrote what's above. Yes, in my idiolect, clause-initial "Though" meaning "However" is ungrammatical, might it be grammatical for others?

Yes it may. I looked up ". Though ." in the BYU corpus NOW (News on the Web). This brought a huge number of examples, among them:

• Jeff M Smith -- from the Heritage Foundation -- said it was important to acknowledge that a peaceful transition of power via a democratic election is still a rare commodity in Pakistan and thus would be a positive step forward. Though, even that has been put in doubt by "some very troubling accounts" of electoral tampering and manipulation, he said.

• Maher found the net for John O'Connor's charges after the break, while Peter Osborne and Myles did likewise at the opposite end. Though, Lannleire always looked to have too much for Seans, whose championship future was sealed anyhow after Naomh Malachi defeated St. Nicholas in the group's other encounter.

• Mascaras are beautiful as well; however, the effect eyelash extensions provide can not be achieved by mascara, and we all know that! You probably have seen pictures of eyelash extensions before and after, and evidently, it left you baffled with the outcome. Though, there are varieties of eyelash extension designs such as the pen eye, natural eye, cat eye and the doll eye eyelash extensions.

• The northern parts of the state such as Hanumangarh, Sri Ganganagar, Alwar, and Sikar may also witness isolated thunderstorm or light rain activities. Though, these activities would more or less be the Pre-Monsoon activities and would be for short duration and in patches.

-- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Blitz instructions

@Thinker78: I reverted some of your edits to the blitz instructions. From your edit summary:

moved and added info to instruction. I don't know if there is any reason this instruction was before the actual copyedit of the article as opposed to the drive instructions.

There was a reason the blitz instructions said to remove the {{copy edit}} tag before copy editing the article: it helps to avoid edit conflicts with other copy editors. When the tag is removed, the article no longer appears in the maintenance category used to find articles needing copy edit. Using {{Goce in use}} and checking the page history are also great ways to prevent edit conflicts, but we really need to use every available tool – edit conflicts of in-depth copy editing can be quite frustrating and might discourage new copy editors. So it was decided that this practice was best for blitzes and drives.

So long as participants place the article they're copy editing on the working line of their section of the blitz (or drive) page, if for any reason they have to abandon the copy edit, a GOCE coordinator will see that and either replace the copy edit tag or finish the copy edit themselves. Coordinators also tend to check the work of new participants on blitzes and drives.

Also, {{GOCEreviewed}} is used when a copy editor takes a thorough look at an article and determines that a copy edit cannot be completed at that time due to other issues which must be dealt with first. {{GOCE}} (a redirect to {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}) is used for completed copy edits. They serve different purposes; either is optional.

Since a lot of the instructions are repeated on various pages, it's probably best to discuss any non-trivial changes and make sure the instructions are simple and consistent. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Should the drive's instructions be changed then? Because the instruction says to remove the copyedit tag after finishing. Thinker78 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked the drive instructions. The original guideline (to remove the tag after the copyedit) discouraged editors from gaming the system by beginning a copyedit and taking credit for a full article. Miniapolis 14:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to#Removal of copy edit tag may also have some conflicting instructions. Thinker78 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

That section is fine as is, IMO. Removing the tag before beginning a copyedit is appropriate for experienced copyeditors or during drives and blitzes, when edit conflicts and redundant work are very real possibilities. Miniapolis 13:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The Guild Is A Great Idea. Wikipedia problem: Racist/sexist editors that have an influence on the site.

Please consider evaluating editors for biases (sexism, racism, etc). Several of my colleagues have been blocked for years, etc, simply for correcting sexism, anti-black stereotypes, historically inaccurate articles that downplay the role of European / anglo political-military aggression as it relates to Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America, Pacific/Atlantic Islands, India, etc. Personally, there are two in particular that specifically targeted me, and banned me (I'm on a 2-year ban). My colleagues and I are not rude, unprofessional, do not post curse words, do not post anything that could be considered immoral, unethical, historically inaccurate. Thanks for your time. PS: An additional tragedy when such biased editors bully, ban other editors is that the Wikipedia articles in question are utilized by students, educators, media, and spreads bias, inaccurate information that perpetuates negative stereotypes, hatred, discrimination, logical fallacies, etc. This has been one of the ongoing Wikipedia problems for at least 8 years, and I've personally reached out to the founder, and other Wikipedia related organizations but gotten no written, verbal, responses. --68.173.189.62 (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)--68.173.189.62 (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It is possible that the reasons you have gotten no responses include posting your messages on talk pages that are not the right venue, posting messages that include no evidence, and posting messages with no links to relevant discussions. This is a page for discussion of copy editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@68.173.189.62:, I echo Jonesey's comments; this is not a page for discussing editorial biases or site-wide problems; try the Village Pumps. Moreover, if you're a blocked/banned editor, you shouldn't be socking on enWP, but I expect you already know that. Baffle gab1978 21:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead of People's Vote

Editors of this project may be interested in this discussion: Talk:People's Vote#"various representatives of civil society"? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they've sorted out an NPOV choice of phrasing. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Commas and post-nominal abbreviations

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Side matter: commas between post-nominal abbreviations – Gist: Is "OFM Cap FSA Scot FRHistS" five post-nominals, or three? (Hint: it's three.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"Bi-monthly" events

On the front page:

The Guild organizes regular events to help us achieve our goals. These are:

bi-monthly Backlog Elimination Drives, in which Wikipedians earn awards for improving the standard of prose in articles from the backlog;

bi-monthly themed Project Blitzes, similar to Drives but shorter and more focused.

Does no one else see the irony of using an ambiguous term that could mean "twice a month" or "every two months" on the project page for the Copyeditors' Guild?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 01:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for the suggestion. Please sign up for the January drive if you enjoy copy-editing. Also, please move the closing bold tag inside the wikilinks in your signature, as I have done here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, "bimonthly" is every two months (as I learned from reading comic books as a kid :-)). "Semimonthly" is twice a month (replacing, according to my dictionary, an older alternate meaning of "bimonthly"). All the best, Miniapolis 18:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Dictionaries say bimonthly (along with biweekly and biyearly) can mean either. Calidum 18:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Biannual and biennial are different (twice a year and every two years, respectively) but bimonthly has varied usage. According to Wiktionary (wikt:bimonthly), the equivalent terms are semimonthly and bimestrial (mensis being Latin for month). I'd cautiously guess that that sounds too much like other words derived from the same root which menfolk tend to shy away from in conversation. Or maybe the Romans used a ten-month calendar. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)