Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2016

Winningest in sports articles under discussion

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"winningest" in sports articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not too late...

Well folks, I've just seen this statistic, which highlights the importance of improving leads. Still time to enter Wikipedia:Take the lead! as each entry has a chance of winning an Amazon voucher :) Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we have an IRC channel?

It would be nice to be able to communicate in real time with other copy editors while working on particularly broken articles. Does that exist?

Jasphetamine (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Jasphetamine – There is IRC information at Getting real-time help via IRC (Internet Relay Chat). Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  18:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response JoeHebda, I know about the general wiki help IRC channels; they're fantastic for help with general WP use and best practices. It'd be nice to have a place specifically for discussing MOS stuff since the #wikipedia-en and -help guys often have their hands full. I looked over the whole list and couldn't find a channel described as copy/style editing. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax – Wondering if you know of something MOS-related on any of the IRC channels to help Jasphetamine? Cheers!  JoeHebda (talk)  23:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Checkingfax knows more, but AFAIK there's no MOS/copyediting IRC channel (although I'm new to IRC). #wikipedia-en-help seems too basic, so for now #wikipedia-en may be your best bet but you never know who you'll find there :-). If anyone more familiar with IRC could set up a dedicated copyediting channel, that might be useful but some existing channels are very lightly watched. All the best, Miniapolis 14:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If the guild and Wikipedia at large will permit it, I'd be happy to do the legwork to get a channel running for copy edit discussion. I don't expect it will have tons of users, but it would be worth a try. If it does take off, it could both encourage collaboration as well as help new users -- both are in the spirit of Wikipedia. Jasphetamine (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi everybody (JoeHebda—Jasphetamine—Miniapolis—Corinne) You could start out by putting this on your user page and maybe on the GOCE page: There is a GOCE IRC channel at #GOCE ^connect

Here is the template to use: There is a GOCE [[Internet Relay Chat|IRC]] channel at {{Freenode|GOCE}}

I registered a freenode IRC channel with the name GOCE. You can log on without registering a nickname, or you can register a nickname using arcane command line entries. For now without registering a nickname you just enter a nickname of your choice, click the "I am not a robot" easy CAPTCHA, the connect button, and you're in. Sometimes the CAPTCHA may ask you to select images from a matrix. If we do not use the channel for 60 days they will delete it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi everybody (JoeHebda—Jasphetamine—Miniapolis—Corinne). I updated the above. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: – Thanks for this improvement. I took the liberty of moving the IRC banner notice directly under the ombox notice. In addition, I added the {{Wikipedia ads generic}} template that I recently found and have posted at Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day page. Cheers!  JoeHebda (talk)  15:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, and not just for copy/style questions but also to get another opinion regarding wording, appropriateness, organization, etc. Regarding the nickname to use, are we going to use our user names or some other nickname? Corinne (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the channel should be renamed #wikipedia-en-goce (and don't think it's case-sensitive), for consistency with other en.WP IRC channels. Miniapolis 23:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not just #wikipedia-en-copyedit? "goce" won't register with new editors and sounds kind of... cliquey. What about #wikipedia-en-MOS if it has to be short?Jasphetamine (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it has to be short, and you're right that "goce" is not intuitive. #wikipedia-en-copyedit seems like the better choice, since many editors don't know what the MOS is. All the best, Miniapolis 00:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Just today I mentioned to someone asking an MOS question to check out the GOCE as a test case. No idea what GOCE was. If we want to get people involved, part of the process is making it easy to find us. I think #wikipedia-en-copyedit is a no-brainer and we should consider working it into MOS templates. Jasphetamine (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(←) Think you mean "GOCE templates"; let's see if an IRC channel has legs first. I'm new to chat, but I have #GOCE set as one of my startup channels and there never seems to be anyone there. Is there some special protocol to join it? I was never asked to do a CAPTCHA, as Checkingfax mentioned above. All the best, Miniapolis 15:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis, Corinne, JoeHebda, and Jasphetamine:. Since #GOCE is a new IRC channel you probably need to make a date with somebody to meet them to chat. The CAPTCHA may be dependent on which chat client you use. I use a default one where I open my browser then click on the superscipted ^connect link that hangs on the #GOCE link of #GOCE ^connect. Each link goes to a different IRC client for me. With the connect link I get an easy CAPTCHA which just amounts to clicking on a checkbox to confirm I am a human. If my chat sessions are interrupted and I go back into the channel several times the CAPTCHA becomes more challenging‍—‌I am then presented with a grid of pictures and, for instance, I have to checkmark all the pictures with waterfalls then click a a verify button. I did put a robot in the room so the room is never empty. That way we will not lose our channel for being too dormant. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've had an historic moment occur. I'm not the only person in the GOCE channel right now.Jasphetamine (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Miniapolis, Corinne, JoeHebda, and Jasphetamine: I registered #wikipedia-en-copyedit ^connect so y'all can use that going forward instead of #GOCE. By using a more generic name, more projects can feel like they're in the right channel. Cheers! PS: Just noticed freenode uses reCAPTCHA or at least the IRC client I am using does. We should announce this channel to all interested parties and change the listing on the main list of Wikipedia IRC channels. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Can we put that "freenode, etc." template on our user or talk page for convenient access to it? I don't remember whether I've ever put a clickable template on my user or talk page that wasn't enclosed in the "nowiki" template. Corinne (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Corinne and any (talk page stalker). Put this template on your page without any tlx or nowiki prefix or suffix:

{{freenode|wikipedia-en-copyedit}}

which will render on your page as:

#wikipedia-en-copyedit ^connect

I always click on the the superscipted ^connect link (which easily opens the qwebirc client); enter my nickname; click on the "I am not a robot box" (which is a simple reCAPTCHA); click on connect. Or you can click on the #wikipedia-en-copyedit link which might easily open the web based Mibbit IRC client (or if you're running Chrome the link might produce nothing). Finally, you can pick one of many IRC clients and enter the wikipedia-en-copyedit part manually. Your mileage may vary. There are many other IRC clients for joining the channel. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Checkingfax. Do they offer classes in the language you are writing in? ;) Corinne (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. Since I am not an expert on IRC I just click on "connect" and follow the yellow brick road. Someday I might set up one of the other IRC clients with parameters filled out so it will log me right in automatically without having to do anything but a single click. Right now I just use the IRC client that the "connect" link lands me on. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Lead sentence for train or railway stations

In what way should the lead sentence of articles dealing with railway stations or train stations be fashioned? See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

GOCEreviewed tags

{{CC-BY-SA declaration; moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2015 Annual Report by me, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
There are two ways the number of copyediting requests go down, either by GOCE members and occasional other editors doing copyediting and removing the tag, or by a tag being suspended by {{GOCEreviewed|user=Dthomsen8|date=January 2015|issues=awaiting deletion decision}} or {{GOCEreviewed|user=Dthomsen8|date=January 2015|issues=awaiting references}} tags. There are 983 articles in the Category:Articles reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors, and this category continues to grow. I have added 11 articles in January. I presume that other editors do likewise.

What the Guild should do is put copyedit tags on some of the older articles, since they were not deleted at all. A few are awaiting references, which might have happened, or could be done by Guild members. What do other editors suggest about this situation?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know other editors' criteria for using {{GOCEreviewed}}, but I only have two: if an article is part of a merge proposal, or if there's a significant chance it will be deleted. I don't think editors are misusing the tag to knock down the backlog, and once they're tagged the onus is on other interested parties to address the issues and re-tag with {{copy edit}}. We're busy enough as it is :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever used that tag with the intent to come back later and check on it. I may have tagged one or two articles to say "I reviewed this and it was fine, no copy edit was needed", but only in extraordinary circumstances.

When an article is tagged for deletion using a CSD template or PROD or even AfD, I don't remove the copy edit template, since it usually takes no more than a week or so to find out if the article will be deleted. If I tagged an article with "awaiting deletion" as a reason, I would feel obligated to remember to check on it later, which is too much hassle for me.

Typically, if I find an article that should not be copy-edited, I will change the tag to {{cleanup}} or another appropriate tag, with an explanation in the edit summary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: after looking through this category for a while, its contents bother me. It appears to be a purgatory for articles that need a copy edit, but that a GOCE editor decided, sometimes for no stated reason, to tag with {{GOCEreviewed}}. I think we should move this discussion to a more visible GOCE talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have gone through a few of the pages in this category to get a sense of why the tags were placed and what could be done about them. I have removed a few with edit summaries like:

• Rm GOCEreviewed tag. Article has a cleanup tag. Tag for copy-editing again if necessary after the article is cleaned up and the other tags are dealt with.
• Rm GOCEreviewed tag. Tag for copy-editing again if you think it is needed.
• Rm six-year-old GOCEreviewed tag. Tag for copy-editing again if you think it is needed.

I think we might need a discussion about the purpose of this template and what we are supposed to do with articles in the category. In a couple of cases, the article's prose had been improved substantially, and a copy-edit was no longer needed, but the template had not been removed from the talk page. In most cases, however, the article was in the same sorry state that it was in when the template was posted on the talk page. I would love to hear thoughts from copy editors on this situation that has me somewhat befuddled.

One of my primary challenges is that the template says "a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article", but there are often not issues or reasons provided. What to do?

I think that our most detailed instructions on the use of the GOCEreviewed template are on the Guild's "How to" page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I never use that template, I can't see the point. If the category has become a dumping ground for poor quality articles, perhaps we should deprecate its use and direct editors towards using more appropriate templates, such as {{Cleanup}}. I don't know whether that wikiproject deal with the backlog the way we do. I know we can't deal with everything but it all seems to me like sweeping problems under the carpet, or to use a more modern metaphor, kicking the can down the road. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

During a drive, participating editors are supposed to be reducing the numbers of the backlog.

Unfortunately there are sometimes articles that have been tagged that are in an edit war, are a large article and 90% extremely bad grammar, possibly not even a real article due to ongoing concerns of recentism/hiatus between assessments/currently being worked on by others etc.

The tag is there so we can either get someone else to complete the remedial work before we copyedit it in the drive, or go back later after the drive/after the issue is fixed/etc., freeing up the drive editor to carry on with articles that CAN be copyedited without issue.

I guess as coordinator I took a couple of those on to keep an eye on them during the drive and try and mediate between relevant parties to get the older/larger ones up to a reasonable enough standard to be worth copyediting. There is little point in a CE spending a few hours on an article, only for the warring parties to revert it - much better to put it as reviewed and move on.

They should not really be there that long though - I would expect them to be reviewd and replaced or removed after a month or so (either with a more appropriate tag such as "expert needed" or "suspected copyvio" etc.; or by chopping out the rubbish and CEing the rest), and definitely be gone after 2 GOCE drives ? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Category naming

See this discussion re: naming conventions for this project's category. Also, please feel free to further subcategorize the content of the parent category. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion: add template Wikipedia ads generic to this talk page?

Greetings, At 15:16, 9 February 2016‎ JoeHebda added template {{Wikipedia ads generic}} to the top of this page. Shortly thereafter this template was deleted 17:41, 9 February 2016‎ Jonesey95 with a edit summary of "Rm advertising".

These generic Wikipedia ads are not advertising per say, and are intended for talk page usage only. Rather they contain random banner messages for various Wikipedia maintenance collaborations, WikiProjects, policies, guidelines, processes and practices, such as barnstars, featured articles and edit summaries.

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #156

If there is any feedback for this new WP generic banner template, please discuss here.  JoeHebda (talk)  18:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
* Discussion:

I don't have a problem with the template but Joe, it would've been nice if you had mentioned it on WT:GOCE/COORD first. All the best, Miniapolis 21:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

... and after reading the template documentation, I wouldn't mind customizing it here to display ads relevant to copyediting; it may be helpful. Miniapolis 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: – First of all, sorry, I did not know of WT:GOCE/COORD page. (New on WP since April 2014) Second, I would advise using {{Wikipedia ads}} template instead of the generic template. At Template:Wikipedia ads#Current ads, then Wikipedia ads: Overview table, click on Show to see a list of current ads. Using the WP ads plain template, you can select only the GOCE ads that can be rotated here, and thanks for offering to help. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  21:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of advertising our project on our own talk pages, it's preaching to the converted and IMO it adds to page clutter. We already display two long-outdated Signpost banners, our own Ombox and the new IRC header here; is there a need for more page furniture? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but there seem to be a number of other banner ads relevant to copyediting in general (which is why I think we should customize it) so I don't think we should dismiss this out of hand. Thanks for the advice, Joe; I've bookmarked the ads tag instead of the generic one. Miniapolis 23:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's clutter, it is jarring that the font and color scheme doesn't match my skin or the other banners, and I find animated gifs quite distracting on otherwise static web pages. For me, Wikipedia is a haven from the noisy dance club atmosphere that even legitimate news web sites have become. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are two examples of how Wikipedia ads template might be used.

* Example one: Here is a select 9 banners from the 253 in the list, using the plain Wikipedia ads template instead of the generic template:

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #44

These may or may not be the best choices, but I picked out a few just to give an idea how this might look.

* Example two: Another choice could be one banner ( #154 ) for GOCE only, and no rotation of other banners.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #154

Overall, my thought is this banner placement can accomplish these purposes:

• Give existing GOCE contributors and exposure to more of Wikipedia.
• Helping educate newer WP editors of where to look for specific issues.
• Welcome first-time readers to GOCE.

Myself, I have no particular preference of these options. I'm just thowing these ideas out-there for discussion and consensus within GOCE participants. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Jonesey95 on this. I think the banners are distracting and unnecessary. I spend hours copy-editing articles, and I don't need something moving on the page to add more strain to my eyes. I think our usual GOCE templates provide a kind of advertising for the Guild of Copy Editors. Corinne (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What is that banner near the top of this section? Corinne (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Now it has changed. Corinne (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC) −

(edit conflict)@JoeHebda:, let me explain my position further. Talk pages are for communication; the purpose of this page is communication between editors; both Guild members and others. First-time visitors are adequately welcomed at our front page, which sets out our mission plainly enough for (hopefully) anyone to read. We're not here to educate new editors; there is extensive information in helpspace for that purpose. Our main page carries {{WikiProject Footer}} linking with other projects; I think the main page would be a more appropriate place within Guildspace for the ad-banner template, rather than here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Baffle that limited, relevant use of the tag on the project page itself (hardly a "quiet" page visually as it is :-)) would be more effective. All the best, Miniapolis 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm with Jonesey and Corinne in thinking it's clutter and hugely distracting, but going to the template page, I found that you can turn it off by adding the line

.qxz-ads { display: none !important; }

to your common.css file. I've done that and am no longer seeing them. --Stfg (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think cluttery and blinky banners would drive people insane after a short while. They're the purple prose of guild advertisement. Jasphetamine (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Stepping in to say I agree with everyone above, though this seems long settled. We don't need additional banners and such. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk pages in Category:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

Would anyone happen to know why Category:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and some of its categories are now populated with many user talk pages? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it might have something to do with the newsletter notifications or some other type of notifications that currently exist on those user's talk pages...weird... Guy1890 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Since my talk page is not so categorized, the editors in question may be adding the category themselves; HotCat is a mixed blessing :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

AB, you boldly did this all by yourself, using HotCat. It is because of edits like this. The newsletters are transcluded on the user pages, and the category is in the newsletters. I think this a case where "noinclude" or "includeonly" tags are needed in the newsletters; I always forget which one does what. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I could see why the "what links here" feature would show so many talk pages, but I still don't understand why talk pages appear in the categories. I just created Category:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors newsletters, so how could so many talk pages refer to the category? All I was trying to do was group together and sort past editions of GOCE newsletters for organizational purposes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The category was placed inside a newsletter page. The entire newsletter page is already transcluded (like a template, using curly braces) in a User Talk page. Therefore, the category is now on the User Talk page, because it is part of the newsletter. Meanwhile, it looks like Torchiest has reverted the category additions instead of trying to use "noinclude" statements around the category designations, which I think would achieve the intended effect. I recommend experimenting with this in a couple of sandbox pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I appreciate User:Torchiest for undoing the mess I created. When I have time to revisit, I'll try re-categorizing and sort the project pages using the "no include" command. It took some time to do the first round, so I don't feel too motivated right now to revisit all of the pages again. Again, sorry for the inconvenience. I meant well! :p --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I debated doing that, but I don't think we need the categories in this case, since we already have all the newsletters listed chronologically by year and month in our project space. That's an easier way to navigate. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I prefer categorizing and sorting project pages within WikiProjects, but that's just a personal obsession. I didn't mean to step on any toes here, especially since I am not an active GOCE project member (an active requester, though!). Thanks again for your help, Torchiest. I will try a few test edits next time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: <noinclude> tags limit everything inside them to showing only on the template page itself; they do not display in transclusions. <includeonly> tags do the opposite: their contents show up only in transclusions and not on the template page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, bummer the project pages cannot be categorized, but I went ahead and nominated Category:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors newsletters for deletion since it is no longer being used. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral notification of move discussion

There is a discussion underway to move the article Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (with a single comma) to Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Please share your opinion on the matter at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

Hi all, Wikipedia:The Core Contest is running again from May 15 to June 30. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

...and about to start...the tension is palpable....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like the horses in the starting gate here for the copyediting drives :-). Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 23:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy In the first section

In the first section under the blue headers, partially in bold it says "...make them clear, correct, concise, comprehensible...". Comprehensible is a synonym of clear and for some reason it won't let me edit it. I'm sorry and I really don't mean to nit-pick but seeing how this is the copy editors guild I think special attention should be given to the page.

I'm not perfect especially now as I am writing this on a subway on-the-fly, I'm sure that I'm making grammatical mistakes (heck, I'm not even sure if I used "on-the-fly" correctly) but I'm trying my best and though I haven't gone over the rest of the article (I don't have enough time, it's only a 15 minute ride), I think someone with a lot more experience and expertise than me should sit down and go over it carefully.

I'm not simply trying to pass this off on another, when I said I'm not perfect I meant it, I think half of the edits/corrections I've done have been undone (simply browse my account history to see how bad I am). Even though I'm not good enough to be a guild member, I truly feel passionate about what you guys are doing. Bringing (more) credibility to Wikipedia, which I believe to be a modern library of Alexandria.

It's a sum total of all human knowledge which I believe that not only today is a vital, free education tool that has proven itself to raise the collected intelligence of the world. But will someday stand as a magnificent, anthropological source for all those who would want to know who we were/are. It's a grand, living testament to human accomplishment. Think about how crazy it sounds, millions of people freely collaborating on something just for the betterment of all mankind. It sounds like the plot to a utopian sci-fi or perhaps an idea proposed at Epcot center's tommorowland in the 50's.

If I had my way, we would beam the vast majority of this encyclopedia into space like the golden record of the voyager missions (maybe leave some of the articles about war out of the transmission lol) I'm lucky to live in this time period. Now that I properly inspired you, go out and prove why the guild is and should be doing what it does. --Rpm2004 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I have added a link to the source of that phrase, which is referenced to a helpful presentation out on the web. "Clear" and "comprehensible" are not synonyms. "Clear" in this case means "unambiguous", while "comprehensible" means "understandable". Something can be unambiguous without being understandable, unfortunately, which is one reason we are here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstandings, I was just trusting the dictionary, when obviously it's wrong. Don't read anything into that I hate it when people try to put words and intentions into my mouth.--Rpm2004 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Rpm2004. The plans to beam the knowledge into space are in the works. Well, actually via a flash drive on a rocket. The size of the drive is limited, so not everything will go along on the ride. I think there is still time to vote on what is included. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll go and vote, thanks!--Rpm2004 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz

Hi, a community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz. Part of the reassessment deals with the article's prose and thus falls within the scope of this project:

• GAR: Prose section

The reassessment page can be found here. Interested editors are encouraged to take part and comment on whether they believe the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC

Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. Anyone who is going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Top icon

Just to notify project members that I created a topicon for the Guild, it can be found at Template:GOCE topicon. Members can add it to their userpages to affiliate themselves with the Guild. I might not have made it perfectly though, so if anyone has anything to add to it they should edit it (obviously!) MediaKill13 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much; it looks great! All the best, Miniapolis 00:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I second that. It's very nice. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks for taking the time to do this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep it up, buddy. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 06:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Like. Thanks! --Stfg (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Kudos!  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  22:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Video games blitz

Hey, how far in advance are your blitzes (blitzen?) decided? If you don't have something lined up for April, might I recommend the video games WikiProject's backlog? [1] I've been whittling down the project's maintenance queues and it would be great to have some help with the copyedits. czar 04:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

We almost always decide on a topic and a date at least a couple of days before the blitz starts. That said, we haven't missed a blitz in years, so we are more on top of things than some wikiprojects (and you don't want to see the state of the to-do list for my house...).

This looks like a fun list for at least some of our editors. When we do technical topics like these, we often combine with another topic that is different enough that there is something for everyone. Remind us again here once the March drive is wrapped up. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Jonesey95, is this a possibility (now that we're getting close)? czar 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Darn, I forgot. We set up April for Requests, since the backlog is getting a little large. Sorry about that.

You could mention it on the May Drive talk page once that drive gets started. Some editors might be interested. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

... and it sounds good for June. All the best, Miniapolis 22:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Good idea for June. How many such articles are available for copyediting?--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Answering my own question, out of 1,500+ copyedits requested, only a handful are easily located. How would editors find the others?--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Czar, I have set up the June blitz. It includes a list of video game articles generated by your query above. Thanks for the idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The Video game Barnstar

---

On behalf of WP:VG, thanks for helping out with our copy edit backlog. Almost knocked out the whole thing! czar 04:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks—it's nice to be appreciated! Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 14:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Villers-Bocage

It's in Briteng so it's reconnoitre. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed. --Stfg (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Grammar

I propose merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar into the GOCE project, because Wikiproject Grammar is inactive and has a similar scope to our project. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you should ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grammar first. That page has 92 watchers and a few relatively recent conversations. If they are OK with it, we should probably redirect their pages to here, unless they have some complex page hierarchy (I didn't investigate). – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Merging the projects makes sense to me, since this one is active and that one isn't (at least judging by its talk page), and since their stated goals overlap with the Guild's. To garner a more general opinion the proposal could go to the Village Pump. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought, though: it would be a pity if the Guild were to get dragged into angry debates about where and when commas should be used or omitted, which has been something that has happened to the grammar project. Also, let's not set ourselves up as a "grammar police". The GOCE is more about practical improvement to the prose of articles rather than these more academic (and apparently conflict-generating) things. Simon. --Stfg (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Simon has a good point; we should look before we leap, and some WikiProjects are inactive because they've driven productive editors away. All the best, Miniapolis 22:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

So it might be a good idea to just scrap the grammar project entirely? Eman235/talk 05:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Or redirect it to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language as suggested by Jonesey on the grammar project's talk page. --Stfg (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a redirect is preferable to just letting the project languish. Miniapolis 13:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Section and inline tags

Does the drive apply to articles with inline and section copyedit tags, or only article tags? Should we add something for section and inline tags? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it applies to those tags. Count the number of words in the section that you copy-edited (before you started editing). For inline tags like {{awkward}}, I usually find that I need to fix the whole paragraph around the tag. In that case, I will either (1) take credit for the size of the paragraph or (2) just fix the article, remove the tag, and get on with my life (and not take credit on the drive page for a small edit). Your choice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it part of the article count? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. And the oldest article count, should it be an old tag. Tdslk (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of July drive

I don't know if this is only to be done by coordinators, but I changed the notice to say that the drive is complete. If I did wrong, sorry. Cheers, MediaKill13 (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The tender age of legendary infamy

A word from a passer-by. My recent copyedit of the article TVR Typhon was feeble for various reasons: hurriedness, sleepiness, etc. But I did zap instances of "legendary" and "infamous". Anyone looking for an article to copyedit could find it by searching for these or other key bullshit terms. (My "favourite" is "tender age", which occasionally turns up legitimately within quotations but far more often is a sign of grotesquely inappropriate style or plain incompetence.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; looks like we're all busy with other articles :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I realize this and much appreciate it. ¶ Actually the trouble with articles whose writers wax poetical over tenderness is often less the wording than the general promotionalism. The first "tender" article I happen to come across this morning is "Spencer Battiest", which would take me an hour or more to sort out. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Update due?

Hi, Coordinators. I was just wondering whether this page is not due for updating. For instance, the July 2015 backlog has been cleared but the notice on this page remains. Regards, BroVic (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I fixed what I think you are talking about. You are welcome to be bold and fix it yourself. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it may have just needed clearing the cache. --Stfg (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks — BroVic (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I'm thinking of copy editing. How do I start? Where do I find the articles that need editing? Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satkinson3 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome! Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, including the sections titled "How you can help" and "New copy editors", and follow the appropriate links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Tools

I'd like to start a conversation about copy editing tools. I use quite a few tricks or tools and I wonder what other people use. Here's my list:

• Redirects in green with my User:SchreiberBike/common.css page
• A Firefox extension that enables me to change the capitalization of text quickly
• Switching between American, British and Canadian English dictionaries in Firefox
• Syntax highlighter available under Preferences/Gadgets to color text in the editing window
• A macro program to aid repetitive edits
• AutoWikiBrowser

Anybody have any other suggestions? Maybe this could even turn into a suggested tools section of the guild's pages.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I use the syntax highlighter, which works pretty well. I use an external text editor to straighten curly quotes, although a script or browser extension would probably be better. Other than that, I just read the prose aloud and look for errors and inconsistencies to fix. Works for me. Anyone else? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There are many obvious grammatical errors in Wikipedia that could be detected using an automated grammar checker, like this one. As far as I know, Wikipedia is not yet using any such tool. Jarble (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There are many editors who "adopt" and fix specific typos. You might be interested in talking to the Typo Team, or looking at Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss or Wikipedia:Adopt-a-typo. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Spacing nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_4#Template:Spacing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Grammar Disagreement on Cataract

Please visit the cataract talk page to see the discussion. It would be nice for other Wikipedia copyeditors to be aware of and address the problems since it's become rather frustrating to deal with one individual who insists he's right and refuses to be told otherwise. Thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you're off base there. You justify your edits by saying they went through Grammarly? I think the other version is clear and correct enough, though some of your changes don't hurt. Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

And I see that your similar copy-editing is quite widespread. I have undone some of it. I invite other project members to have a look and to help coach you toward being a better copy editor. Dicklyon (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, really? Please provide some high-quality sources to support your assertions. I must strongly disagree with your assessment that the previous version was adequately clear and correct. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

WolfmanSF has done a pretty good job on a point-by-point basis at Talk:Cataract#Revert. I might differ with him in a few details, but overall, I think he has a more reader-centric position than yours; removing optional commas does not generally improve the readability; neither does adding unneeded articles. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, then we'll have to agree to disagree on what is unnecessary or readable. I disagree with both of you and have yet to see any reason put forward to think otherwise. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Without delving into the merits of this particular dispute (life is too short, frankly, and even copyeditors don't particularly like the grammar police), I note that Dicklyon accepted the standard offer last December after a history of edit warring. It's not a GAN, FAC or similar, so what's the big deal? For God's sake, there's more than one "right" way to cast a sentence. All the best, Miniapolis 23:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Tyler asked for help in his dispute with Wolf. I looked, and it was clear to me that he didn't have a case, just trying hard to change to his comma preference, with little apparent attention to how well it works for readers. I hope others will join me in asking him not to edit that way. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at your (Tyler's) original edit, some of the changes were for the better, some were not, but none of them made dramatic differences in readability. If you're relying on Grammarly to fix articles, it may be worth considering that it won't always get things right. Tdslk (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

T, if you see some of his edits that are improvements that I undid, please put them back or point them out, and I'll concede. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 ... and I agree with Dicklyon (thanks for your graciousness) and Tdslk that Grammarly should not be relied on for copyediting any more than a spellchecker should. All the best, Miniapolis 15:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I had a quick look, hi all btw :), and made a few changes.

When editing, reading aloud is fine, but I would caution to remember that some of those commas will probably be superfluous to readers - these are, after all, articles, and not speeches ;¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)