Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2021

A Bangla Guild!

Hi! Meghmollar2017 has told me on my talk page that they are starting a group structured like ours at the Bangla wiki. I thought it was cool to learn that and wanted to share it with the group! I see that there is only one other interwiki link to our home page, to what seems to be a very dormant page on the Welsh wiki. Does anyone know if any other languages have groups dedicated to copy editing? Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, Tdslk, and congratulations on your well-deserved election to the Hall of Fame! Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 17:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

That's good news; I wish them all the best. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Please review my draft

Hi. My request on the article Draft:Asif Tariq was declined because of lack of sources. Unfortunately this is very difficult to find many sources as i am from very small town. The said subject is a renowned Kashmiri poet i worked hard on this article. Please help me by approving this article. I did my best. Hope in your help. Majid Saleem78 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Majid Saleem78, this space is for copy editing articles whose prose needs improving; we don't do source checking here. Have you tried consulting with the reviewer as to what can be considered reliable sources? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

They suggested me to be here for the cause Majid Saleem78 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Majid Saleem78, this is the Guild of Copy Editors, not the Teahouse. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see any evidence that the reviewer sent you here, but I saw something on your talk page asking you not to enlist random editors. IMO, WP:TOOSOON applies to the article. If you have a conflict of interest (if the article's subject is paying you to produce an article), you need to disclose it. All the best, Miniapolis 03:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How long are "in use" tags allowed?

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the "in use" tagging of articles for any extended period of time. For example, Censorship by Google has had that message for almost two days, pre-empting any other activity on it. What is the Guild's policy on how long they should last? @Csgir: courtesy ping. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Fuzheado, I have moved the tag - got otherwise occupied. Thanks. Csgir (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Csgir, thanks for that. It may be useful to put some guidelines here (or in the template itself) about how long the "in use" periods should be so as to clarify this for others. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The template is supposed to show a "Please remove" message if the article has not been edited for 24 hours. You did the right thing by courtesy pinging the editor in question; contacting an editor is usually the best way to resolve a good-faith question. If you have a more general concern, this could be a good topic for Template talk:In use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95, thanks, I didn't know that the template had that feature. Neat! -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How heavy do you edit?

Hello all. I'm working on my first copy edit with the guild, over at Dungeons & Dragons controversies. [1] How heavy do you copy edit? Of course, spelling, grammar, MOS, and changing a couple of words for clarity here and there are definitely implied. But do you also do some of the following?

• Divide dense sections into new headings/sub-headings
• Rename headings/sub-headings
• Move sections/paragraphs up/down
• Trim
• Expand lead
• Add images

I found myself doing all of these things. In fact, I felt the headings/structural changes were a prerequisite before doing prose-level copy editing. The people at my article don't seem to mind. But I wonder if I'm doing more of a peer review or some other article editing, rather than a copy edit. Thoughts from experienced guild copy editors? Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I'm the last person who should be answering this (as I tend to do similar things), but Baffle gab1978 replied to a question that I asked a while back, to which they said:

[...] because they enjoy copy-editing, which means editing copy; fixing typos, correcting grammar, making text clearer, improving style, flow and structure, etc. Copy-editors aren't expected to hunt for missing citations, deal with big copyvios, balance POVs, interpret poorly translated material, or make articles perfect (but they can do all of these things if they wish).

Emphasis in original. I don't mind doing some of these things (like interpretations or POV balances) because they sometimes rub me the wrong way if I leave them be, but they're not expected of you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I mostly just do minor and superficial edits (grammar, punctuation, style, overlinking stuff), but I think there can be a lot of value in more substantial edits. It's hard to define where "copyedit" ends and content creation/curation starts, but it's not important to know a boundary. I'd say go for it, and if you get pushback, then you can decide how much you care about the sort of changes you're making, and engage in discussion or back off accordingly. I've certainly seen changes in the name of copyediting that I just reverted, when the editor didn't understand the material well enough to preserve the meaning, for example. Oh, and I do a lot of adding images and references, too; that's usually appreciated, but I wouldn't call it copyediting. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I remove the tag? / Did I screw up?

I've been doing a lot of work copy editing Deepa Sashindran these past few days. I'm new to copy-editing for Wikipedia, and if anyone would enjoy giving some brief mentorship, any feedback on how I did and whether it's time to remove the tag or if more work is needed would be very helpful. In particular, I removed a number of sections from the article because they didn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia, but I'm not positive I made the right decision. Benevolent human (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

After a quick glance, your edits look good. When I copyedit backlog articles, I remove the tag first and explain in my edit summary that I'm beginning a copyedit. Aticles like that often have unencyclopedic content, so let your gut be your guide . Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice! Be well and stay safe. Benevolent human (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wiki Education Foundation

Several articles listed in Category:All articles needing copy edit have been "the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment". I have begun to look for information regarding that program's goals and directives. It seems that students are editing articles as an assignment. Does it appear that this motivation affects those users' approach to editing? azwaldo (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Moments after posting the question above, I found this: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Have y'all seen discussion of this program elsewhere? azwaldo (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm somewhat aware of the program, but whether or not an article is a student assignment shouldn't affect our copyediting. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 02:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

From past interactions with articles that had been assigned to a student, copy editing issues are less of a problem than the usage of reliable sources and potential copyvios. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback, and plan to continue looking for information about this program. This forum seemed, potentially, to have many folks who'd browsed such articles. Cheers. azwaldo (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

GOCE user script

Hi everyone,

Just thought I'd let you know that I wrote a user script that adds a link to the guild onto the sidebar. I am aware that bookmark and similar scripts exist, but this can be placed in either Navigation or Contribute and may be of some use for those who frequent this wonderful community. You can check it out here! (Not entirely sure if this is the appropriate place to put this, but I would appreciate any feedback and criticism!)

Cheers, ritenerek^talk :) 09:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; it works from the navigation menu (haven't tried installing it on the contribute sidebar), and comes in handy. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 14:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

❤ – ritenerek^talk :) 18:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

How are words counted for drives and blitzes?

I'm confused if the word count counted is the word count of the article, or if it's the number of words you changed? I want to know because I want to participate in whenever the next drive or blitz is, but I want to know how to count the words to make sure I get a score counted perfectly. Also, when is the next drive or blitz? 4D4850 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, apologies for making two spelling mistakes in the last comment. Fixed now. 4D4850 (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @4D4850:, welcome to the GOCE. You count the number of copy-editable words that are in the article before your first c/e edit. You can either do this before you start your c/e or afterwards; to find the edit before your first one, use the article's History tab. To count the words, you can use the word-counting script here or you can use a word processor and exclude anything you didn't edit, such as maintenance templates, image codes, etc. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I get that, but is it the readable prose that's counted, or is it just the stuff that is copy-edited. Also, I haven't officially joined yet, but that's only because I'm currently at school. 4D4850 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Prosesize only captures readable prose. That said, if a significant portion comes from lists, or tables, you can use other tools to count those instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

4D4850, the readable prose before you start copy editing should be counted. (As described here.) – ritenerek^talk :) 19:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ritenerek! I was confused by the wording, which is why I asked this. 4D4850 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries, 4D4850! Hope you're enjoying Ubuntu, ritenerek^talk :) 19:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Ubuntu is fun. 4D4850 (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to locate tags for copy editing in articles automatically?

Sorry to ask another question, but is it possible to find the sections with copy edit tags automatically? It would be helpful for copy-editing long articles in the backlog. 4D4850 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If a single section is marked for copy editing, you can usually do a Find on the page for "copy" to be taken to the tagged section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're unable to find a ambox that has to do with copy editing, chances are that there are {{awkward}} templates that also categorise an article for copy editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we use grammarly on wikipedia?

I do a Lot of copyediting and have already tried many copyediting tools On wikipedia. However, I did not get any great results from them. and when I tried using Grammarly, it did not work at or respond at all in any way while on Wikipedia. i tried Grammarly with MS word and it gave me accurate results. according to "How to do copyediting", Grammarly should be compatible with Wikipedia. Can anyone help me with this?

Regards,
Wikiedit01995

Welcome! I've never used Grammarly but, like any AI (think Google Translate), it can make mistakes. I copyedit articles in a broad sense, correcting formatting and what-not according to the Manual of Style, and think Grammarly's focus is too narrow for WP. Since it's proprietary software, I don't think it could be easily integrated into the encyclopedia as a tool; Google Translate is used in one or more gadgets, I believe, but that's the exception that proves the rule. GT is better than nothing (I use it for foreign-language sources), but not by much. The GOCE emphasizes (or should ) the quality, not the quantity, of its copyedits. All the best, Miniapolis 15:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: The link that wikiedit01995 is referring to is Wikipedia:Basic copyediting. @Wikiedit01995: I wasn't aware that Grammarly worked on Wikipedia. As I've said before (either at the help desk or the Teahouse, I don't remember which), I would not use Grammarly primarily due to English variant issues, as well as correcting grammar where it shouldn't be corrected and potentially going against Wikipedia's Manual of Style (which can change with consensus). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, I didn't see any link but thought they were referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to; that and basic copyediting are what I usually recommend. In my experience, there are nuances to copyediting that no grammar or spell checker catch; a number of WP articles use two (or more) varieties of English, and part of our job is to bring that number down to one . I'm betraying my age, but am a bit concerned about new copyeditors wanting to rely on tools. Copyediting certainly isn't brain surgery, but if it was something that AI could do well I wouldn't be here. Tools are useful for vandal-fighting and the like, but this (IMO) requires human intelligence. All the best, Miniapolis 20:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried the [Grammar and Spell Checker — LanguageTool] add-on for Firefox? (I am not sure what add-ons are available for other browsers.) It works pretty well and will switch to the different laguage-variety-sets per content you are editing. it's available from Forum and at github.com. Also: there is a Free version! GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: I should have been more specific; there is no mention of Grammarly at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to, but there is one at Wikipedia:Basic copyediting § Common mistakes to fix. I agree with you in that machine checkers don't always pick up on things for copyediting, and at best tools for supplementary use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right Tenryuu, they're tools at best. My experience is they can make more "mistakes" than they correct. The user needs to understand English grammar to recognize this. Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"and" repetition

Hello, I just fixed a bunch of MOS:& violations to use "and". I did not think much of the resulting wording, since it stayed the same in principle, just without an abbreviation. It appears, however, that the initial (apparently bot-generated) phrasing was not ideal; specifically, there are a couple dozen instances of Special:Search/insource:/and Northern Asia \(excluding China\), and/ and even more of Special:Search/insource:/and Northern Asia \(excluding China\) and/. Since English is not my native language, at this point I would like someone else to comment on this and take action if necessary. This could probably also be done in a semi-automated fashion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Since we have enough to do as it is with requests, the backlog, and database reports from the typo team, you can tag sections (or articles) that you feel need additional copyediting. I'm leery of semi-automated find-and-replace for stuff like this because of possible collateral damage. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 23:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @1234qwer1234qwer4:; "It is found in Australia, Europe and Northern Asia (excluding China), and North America" is absolutely fine provided Europe and Northern Asia are to be considered a single unit together. I don't think automated "fixing" would be a good idea; it just seems like busywork to me. As Miniapolis says, we've enough to do right now. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked to clarify whether this needs any changes. I don't know how useful a generalising "we've enough to do" is, however, as this would hardly be an argument if this phrasing was a problem. Can you really speak for every member of this project? Solely being busy with other tasks yourself does not mean nobody is going to be interested in fulfilling a new request. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Tagging ~200 articles, mostly two-line stubs, for one phrasing I find not ideal and which could still be acceptable (I asked here for a reason...) is a bit of an overkill. Also, I'm not sure how to understand the "collateral damage", especially given that I proposed semi-automation rather than using a bot. As to "we have enough to do as it is", see my reply above. If you are the ruler of this project or something, I apologise. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This project has no "ruler"; I don't know any WikiProject that does. However, I've been a member of it for 10 years (a coordinator for much of that time) and have a pretty good idea of the workload and the help available. I don't know what you're looking for here; you did something, and were thanked for it. You suggested that we take on more work, and we politely declined. WP:VOLUNTEER. Miniapolis 14:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

What surprised me was the "we" in your initial reply. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We work as a group; Wikipedia is a collaborative project. When you post a comment at a WikiProject, it's not unrealistic to expect a reply from a representative of the project; it's different from a post to an individual editor. Miniapolis 19:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I would not like to be part of a group where somebody can decide that I am busy and can't do a requested task. This does not appear to be a problem in this particular case as the style was considered okay, but a simple explanation of that without involving the seeming business of anyone would be enough. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of UK office titles

Hi, FollowTheTortoise has started a discussion over at the MOS talk page proposing an exception to MOS:JOBTITLES for UK political offices. You can find the discussion here if you are interested.

Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I've replied there. All the best, Miniapolis 21:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

New article improvement newsletter

Dropping a line on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects that a new article improvement newsletter has opened for sign-ups and is sending out its first issue in the next couple of days. Discontent Content focuses on both the improvement of substandard articles and the maintenance of quality ones, and can be subscribed to at Wikipedia:Discontent Content/mailing list. Vaticidalprophet 05:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Introduction inquiry

Looking at the introductory text, I was wondering if anyone else might feel like it needs rephrasing?

"This WikiProject is dedicated to improving the quality of writing in articles on the English Wikipedia. The Guild welcomes new and experienced editors alike to join our project, participate in its activities, and copy edit Wikipedia articles to make them clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent; to make them say what they mean and mean what they say."

The portion that's been bolded is the area of concern. A semicolon is meant to separate two closely related independent clauses, but the second one doesn't fit the bill. The other function for cleanly separating list-groupings doesn't look to be the intended implementation either due to the structure. The portion after the semicolon seems like it's meant to rephrase/elaborate on the text immediately prior, which is something that'd work if a colon was used instead and the text beyond it was an independent clause. Alternatively, using a dash also seems like it'd do the trick.

Does anyone else agree with my observation? I'd have run an edit, but it's been this way for a decade and I just wanted to make sure that I'm not missing something.

Thanks for your time. Fact Scanner (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The semicolon in that sentence is a sort of comma with a field promotion, separating a comma-rich list that is the first item from a separate item. That said, the sentence is a little long and wandering. Propose a rewrite. Punch it up for us; make it better! – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the OP. The clause to the right of the semi-colon is closely related to that to the left of it; it neatly summarises the clause before it. A colon is a harder break than a semi-colon and is used to join two independent but related clauses; "I just ate an orange: my fingers are sticky." I'd also say the comma following "comprehensive" is unnecessary because there's already a comma following "activities". That sort of talk, however, gets one into trouble around these 'ere parts! :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

My issue with the usage of the semicolon is not primarily that the two clauses are not closely related but that the second clause is not an independent clause. Additionally, a colon implies a more direct relationship than a semicolon would. In this case, I feel that the portion of relevance leans more toward being explanatory/a restating rather than simply being closely related. Fact Scanner (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Aaah! Not a fan of the Oxford comma, I see. We Yanks seem to prefer it. It keeps one out of trouble. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick comment and explanation. Apologies for my own delayed response. I've written up a few sample options that might be suitable. It's worth acknowledging that these examples are made with the assumption that the 'activities' mentioned are synonymous with the content that's written after that point. These also repurpose the intent of the last portion as a sort of rephrasing of intent as opposed to an independent additional item. If these two things are an issue please let me know, and I'll make adjustments/new samples accordingly.

The following example helps alleviate the pacing of the sentence you'd brought up. It uses a dash instead of a semicolon to imply a more emphatic elaboration through the text that follows it without the need for rephrasing. Alternatively, a colon can be used instead without rephrasing if the text after it is meant to be an elaboration. This applies for the second sample as well.

• This WikiProject is dedicated to improving the quality of writing in articles on the English Wikipedia. The Guild welcomes new and experienced editors alike to join our project and participate in this pursuit. Members copy edit Wikipedia articles to make them clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent — to make them say what they mean and mean what they say.

This example is similar to the previous one, but it rearranges the copy to make the five Cs the matter of emphasis, which is potentially suitable as a means of conveying that the preceding text calls for that which is an exemplification of those guidelines.

• This WikiProject is dedicated to improving the quality of writing in articles on the English Wikipedia. The Guild welcomes new and experienced editors alike to join our project and participate in this pursuit. Members copy edit Wikipedia articles to make them say what they mean and mean what they say — to make them clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent.

The following is another rearrangement that allows the introduction to end on the five Cs and is adapted to make them the explanatory fruits (or means) of members' pursuits.

• This WikiProject is dedicated to improving the quality of writing in articles on the English Wikipedia. The Guild welcomes new and experienced editors alike to join our project and participate in its activities. Members revise Wikipedia articles to more effectively say what they mean and mean what they say, resulting in copy that is clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent.

These are what I have for now. Thanks again. Fact Scanner (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Although the passage could use some polishing, I'd rather spend my limited WP time actually improving articles. IMO, this is much ado over not too much All the best, Miniapolis 20:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to participate in drives and blitzes without being required to be members of the guild. So, "Members copy edit..." is not a good change to make. The simplest change, for me, is to have the sentence read:

The Guild welcomes new and experienced editors alike to join our project; participate in its activities; and copy edit Wikipedia articles to make them clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent, to make them say what they mean and mean what they say.

which involves only changes to punctuation. I tried to switch the "join" and "participate" clauses, in order to imply that one may participate without joining; but it didn't read well. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinates and Infobox

I have noticed on several pages with infoboxes that the coordinate listings that are normally on top of the infoboxes seem to be overlapping the top of the infoboxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk • contribs)

See multiple threads at WP:VPT. It's a bug that should be fixed soon. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

For the associated Phabricator ticket, see T281974. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the links to the threads and ticket. Originally, I thought that I accidentally deleted some formatting or spacing, but then I noticed that there were other pages with the same issue. Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

GOCE template AfD

Hello GOCE editors. The GOCE template has been nominated for deletion here. Discussion welcome. --Kbabej (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I've commented there. All the best, Miniapolis 22:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI, there was also a recent RfC about deleting the ENGVAR banner templates. It got about the same reaction. If anyone hears of any other such discussions, please let me know. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The TfD has been closed as keep (but possibly trim). Shall we discuss a possible rephrasing (and reduction of the icon size)? If there's a better talk page for such discussion, please link to it here so that interested parties can find it. Thanks – Reidgreg (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

GOCE coordinators (Dhtwiki—Miniapolis—Jonesey95—Twofingered Typist) and Reidgreg, I've started a new discussion on the template's talk page. Other interested parties are welcome to participate and discuss. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to utilize a redirect to this project space

WP:PACE currently redirects to this project. It appears that the redirect is a product of this page move when the project changed names 12 years ago. Today I published an essay I wrote almost that long ago: "WP:Edit at your own pace." I'd really like to have WP:PACE redirect to that essay. I almost boldly performed the change myself, but since this project is decidedly NOT inactive, I thought it best to ask. Is there any objection here? BusterD (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

None at all that I can see. That's one weird redirect—it's not intuitive at all. Give the other coords and interested parties a day or two to weigh in, and (assuming there are no objections) it's all yours. Nice essay! All the best, Miniapolis 02:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I support this redirect. Even the prior name for it ("WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit") doesn't really fit the acronym; ANCE? PANCE? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice review, Miniapolis. I'm in no hurry, but I've always imagined the essay at PACE. I'll allow several days here just in case. Several of those who've previously edited the redirect are active editors, though the creator hasn't edited since 2015. BusterD (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support; that makes sense to me. I've gone ahead and boldly updated the few links that used the PACE redirect to GOCE. There are three remaining; one is this page and two are old Peer review and Featured Article Candidate archive lists. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 08:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This is  Done. Thanks for the new essay! – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Belated support targeting redirect to that excellent essay. (Had it been something like proposed articles for copy edit [PACE]?) – Reidgreg (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the very nice comments, folks. I wrote it 12 years ago and decided it was time to publish it, because I couldn't see any need to improve it further. If, however, someone else saw any... copyediting needs... I would not complain about improvement. (I'm kinda partial to my version of the old story however.) Appreciate all you do! BusterD (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Growth features and tasks for newcomers

Hello GOCE -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm the product manager for the Wikimedia Foundation's Growth team, which works on features meant to increase the retention of new editors. The features give newcomers clear tasks to do to get started, and connect them with an experienced mentor to answer their questions.

Screenshot of suggested edits module in Czech Wikipedia

In the past year, we have found evidence that the Growth features have a positive impact on newcomer engagement, and this has led us to deploy the features to a total of 33 wikis, including some large ones like French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and Japanese Wikipedias. So far, so good! Because we've seen the features lead to good outcomes, we started the conversation around what it would be like to try them on English Wikipedia, and they are actually available to test out now.

I'm posting here because you all have lots of experience working on the many small tasks that add up to make Wikipedia better. The most important part of the Growth features is the "newcomer tasks" module, which points out articles that need easy edits, such as copyedits or adding wikilinks. The tasks are sourced from maintenance templates that already exist on the articles in the wiki (templates like Template:Copy edit). Because you all have been doing an amazing job shrinking the backlog with that template (there are now only about 500 articles with that template), we're planning to bring in more tasks for newcomers using other templates (specifically: Template:Awkward, Template:Copy edit inline, Template:Copy edit section, Template: Inappropriate person, Template:In-universe, Template:Tone, Template:Advert, Template:Peacock).

• I hope some of you can check out the project, follow along on the talk page, try out the features, and be part of this effort going forward.
• As this effort moves forward, you all may notice newcomers doing more copy edits, and they'll have the edit tag "Newcomer task".
• And because your expertise is around copyedit tasks, I'm hoping for any advice or guidance around which templates to use to source these tasks. We want there to be plenty for newcomers to do (like several thousands), but we also want them to be appropriate for newcomers.

-- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

MMiller (WMF): I am wary of associating the copy edit tags with new editors. Copy editing is not easy for most editors, and Wikipedia's guidelines make it a special challenge. Do you have a set of training modules that help editors understand the Manual of Style?

As for tags that might make for good newcomer tasks, maybe {{orphan}} or {{unreferenced}}? There are probably others that are more straightforward tasks that require less WP knowledge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

When I started, I found WP:Typo Team was a much easier place to jump in, before I had familiarity with copy editing to encyclopedic style. Rather than following maintenance tags, editors at that project would follow bot-generated reports or search for specific misspellings. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Reidgreg that the Typo Team would probably be a better place for new editors to start; I began editing by fixing typos before I discovered the GOCE. Copyediting (as opposed to proofreading) isn't as easy as it may appear Thanks for your interest and all the best, Miniapolis 17:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, @Jonesey95 and @Reidgreg. It definitely makes sense to hear that copyediting is a nuanced challenge, especially on English Wikipedia where the policies are highly developed. On smaller wikis with smaller editor bases, we've had good success encouraging newcomers to copy edit, probably because those wikis have a lot of clear improvements to make. We are going to be using {{unreferenced}} for "references" tasks.

I think that what newcomers really need is clear direction to specific edits that need their attention, rather than an open-ended directive to copy edit an article in general. Like what you were saying about Typo Team, we have this initiative called "structured tasks", in which we will use algorithms to identify specific edits for newcomers. Our first one is for adding wikilinks (it will be piloted soon in some non-English Wikipedias), but we've also thought about one for identifying misspellings, and we've talked about it with User:Beland, who developed some of their bot-generated reports. Hopefully this puts us on a better track in the future. I'm eager to hear any additional thoughts you have. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @MMiller (WMF):, as an experienced c/e and a former GOCE coordinator, I see lots of new editors of differing abilities come to the Guild. Some make really good copy-editors and (hopefully) stick around, some do a fair job of fixing obvious problems (typos grammar, etc) but often miss out WP-specifics like ENGVAR and MOS-defined issues. The Guild's talk page archives have plenty of examples of editors who miss loads of problems and even introduce new errors into articles. Anyone can do copy-editing but not everyone can do good copy-editing! The CLEANUP project might also be a good place to funnel new editors; cleanup, however, is also a nuanced task the requires competence with both English language and WP policies and guidelines. It would be nice if you could funnel experienced and competent editors our way, and maybe a few who are keen to learn and could gain copy-editing experience with constructive feedback. :) Good luck and cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, @Baffle gab1978. I appreciate that there is the big gap between copy-editing and good copy-editing. It's going to be really interesting to see how newcomers on English Wikipedia do with the task. I'm particularly looking forward to seeing, because although we've deployed the Growth features on 35 Wikipedias, I haven't yet been able to look at actual diffs in my native language (though our native-language contacts in those other wikis say that the newcomers' revisions are generally constructive).

I think something important you're touching on is: what is the appropriate leveling we should do with these tasks, such that we can encourage users to start with really simple tasks, and then level-up the competent editors to more challenging work? One catch-22 here is that we don't (yet) have a great way to discover really simple tasks, because if it's easy to produce a list of them (e.g. misspellings), then the vibrant English community has likely fixed them already with a bot or with AWB. We're going to keep thinking about ways to generate those simple tasks.

Perhaps once we have some edits coming in from these features, I can return here and some of the GOCE members can take a look at the diffs to see if they are a net positive for the articles. Would you be willing to help with that? MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, MMiller. I understand your difficulty in finding easy tasks for newbies; even the less-challenging tasks like fixing typos can be fraught with traps such as spelling variants (ENGVAR etc.)—particularly for those for whom English is a second or third language. The GOCE does attract new editors, especially during our regular c/e events called Drives and Blitzes. They don't tend to stick around for long though. I could review some new editors' work here; I used to regularly check copy-edits during events. I'm not, however, as active on WP as I used to be so maybe some of the other experienced members would like to help out too. It should be interesting anyway. Good luck and cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Growth team feature test begins tomorrow (June 8)

Hello everyone -- in the past weeks, lots of English community members have tried out the features, and we've heard largely positive reactions and ideas. We also have 16 mentors signed up (we don't need more for this test, but we will need more in the future!) After discussing it with the most involved community members, we set a date to begin testing the features on this wiki. Our plan is to start giving the Growth features to 2% of newcomers starting tomorrow, June 8. This means that for all new accounts created starting tomorrow, 2% of them will have the Growth features and the rest will not. Because English Wikipedia gets about 130,000 new accounts per month, we expect this will amount to 2,600 newcomers having the features over the course of the month.

I'm glad several of you helped me understand the nuance of what happens at GOCE and how you use templates. Though with the 2% test, we won't expect to see a ton of activity from newcomers, we will be suggesting that they work on articles that have copyedit templates (and similar types of templates) on them. It will be important to hear from you all about whether the work they're doing seems to be a net positive or net negative on the world on copyediting. Edits from newcomers with the Growth features will be visible in Recent Changes and watchlists with the tag #Newcomer task.

While the test is running, the Growth team will monitor newcomer activity to identify if anything negative is occurring (like an increase in vandalism) -- if something goes wrong, we'll be able to quickly make changes. At the end of about four weeks, we'll reflect on the data and ask mentors about their experiences to decide how to proceed, in terms of whether to increase the number of newcomers who receive the features. I'll also check back in here to see if anyone has noticed anything in particular about newcomers' copyedits coming from the feature.

I hope this sounds good to everyone here -- we think we've planned this carefully with community input, but I definitely want to hear if anyone has questions or concerns. I'll plan to post again tomorrow to confirm that the test has started. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

MMiller (WMF): I do not understand this choice. Pretty much everyone above asked you, in one way or another, not to do this, based on our experiences and with stated reasoning. We provided alternative suggestions that we viewed as more suitable. And you are going ahead with your original plan. While I am the current lead coordinator for this WikiProject, that role gives me no real authority, but as I see it, the consensus of multiple long-time GOCE participants and coordinators above is that the {{copy edit}} template was a poor choice for your project.

Are you aware that the relationship between the English Wikipedia community and the WMF has been strained over the years, primarily due to a perception that WMF staff do not listen to the English Wikipedia community? Perhaps there was some more comprehensive consultation that took place, but if not, the above discussion and decision appears to be another example of the cause of our strained relationship.

All of that said, we at the GOCE pride ourselves in being a low-drama corner of en.WP, so I am not going to raise a giant stink. All I ask is that you provide diffs of the copy edits that result from your project so that experienced GOCE copy editors can assess them. Thanks in advance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jonesey95 -- thanks for your reply. It definitely was not my intention to ignore your thoughts! My thinking was that since this is a trial of the features only going to 2% of newcomers, it would show us whether or not using {{copy edit}} is a good idea. Reading the conversation through again, and thinking it through again, I realize now that that template is where the focus of GOCE work goes, and that perhaps adding newcomers to the mix would disrupt the careful and deliberate work.

Maybe there's a simple solution: I see that {{copy edit}} is only on about 500 articles -- we can easily remove that template from the mix, and instead direct newcomers to articles that have other templates, like {{Advert}}, {{Press release}}, {{Fan POV}}, and {{Tone}} (which have thousands of articles between them). Our objective is to point newcomers toward articles that we know need work in some way. Do you think that would be a good course of action?

And even if we remove {{copy edit}}, I am still happy to post some diffs of the sorts of edits that go toward articles with those other templates, and we can evaluate them together to better understand what newcomers can and can't do in the realm of editing.

How does this sound?

It's definitely important that we listen closely to community members as try these features out on enwiki, so I appreciate you speaking up. If you're interested in seeing (and hopefully participating!) in the main body of the community conversation around this feature, please check out the project page and talk page. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for listening. I hope that you will feel welcome to post some diffs here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jonesey95. We've removed {{copy edit}}, as well as {{copy edit inline}} and {{copy edit section}} from our feed. Hopefully that means you won't see many newcomers from the Growth features working on the articles on which GOCE focuses. I'll be back in a few weeks with diffs from edits resulting from those other templates I mentioned. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry...

Sorry that I haven't been able to edit lately; real life keeps getting in the way. Just thought I'd let you guys know that it's nothing against GOCE or any of its members... i hope to be able to do some copyedit work, but no promises ;) --sithjarjar ^{(talk | contribs | email)} 23:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No apology needed; one of the things I love about WP is being able to take a break when I need to. We'll be here when you get back. All the best, Miniapolis 01:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, a user above wrote this relevant essay about editing when willing and available. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries, @SithJarJar666:, we're all volunteers here and can dib in and out as we wish. I'm currently taking a break from copy-editing and I'm now working on removing old {{Unreferenced-BLP}} tags. I'm glad you're still interested in copy-editing; welcome back. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. When’s the June blitz, do you know? Has it been planned yet? --sithjarjar ^{(talk | contribs | email)} 16:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@SithJarJar666: I don't think we've started deciding on which week to hold the blitz. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Minor backlogs

I recently discovered two copyediting-related backlogs. One is Category:Wikipedia articles with incorrect tenses, produced by {{cleanup tense}} - essentially a specific kind of grammar problem which presumably anyone could tackle. The other is a bunch of articles tagged {{MOS}}, which in some way violate the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. These might require some figuring out of what's wrong, and some familiarity with or willingness to read the manual. Would Guild members be interested in tackling one or both of these backlogs? It looks like there's only a few hundred in each, and I can't imagine they are added to nearly as quickly as the main {{copyedit}} backlog. -- Beland (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think {{MOS}} is for us, as it can be wide-ranging, but {{cleanup tense}} may be a good fit. About a year ago, we added {{Inappropriate person}} to the templates that place articles in our copy editing categories, via this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Jonesey. The MOS can be a battleground, and I don't want to bite off more than we can chew right now. All the best, Miniapolis 19:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Should I go ahead and add Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit to {{cleanup tense}}? -- Beland (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 02:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

If we could wait until after the blitz closes (two days), I think that would be best. I think the change will mix up the month counts in the blitz backlog months (and I've already made too many mistakes in that counting during this blitz). – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(←) Good idea, Jonesey95. All the best, Miniapolis 12:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Done with this edit, which adds 198 articles over 97 months to the usual drop-down menu that appears on drive (but not blitz?) pages. It will be interesting to see how the next drive and blitz themes will be spelled out. There should be a mention of the template's inclusion on the project page, under "What we do" (do we have all the other involved templates listed there?). Dhtwiki (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the template to the project page. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Questions template?

User:Tenryuu has an inventive template at User:Tenryuu/GOCE talk for asking questions during a copyedit on the talk page. But it links to their own copyediting process, and mentions things only specific to them. I made a more neutral one at User:Mcguy15/sandbox/1. Do you guys think this would be useful, and do you think I could move it to the Template space? Thanks! — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 16:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I oppose it being put into templatespace because:

1. Copy editors are not expected to ask questions of requesters. It is an optional thing I do myself, and others in the GOCE do not need to reflect that to do perform the guild's duties. Putting it into WP:GOCE/T makes it look official when that is not the case.
2. Some requesters prefer not to answer questions, and they're not obliged to.
3. I use my template sparingly: if I've worked with the requester before I don't use it. The template shouldn't appear more than is needed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

While I understand that, I just think it would be a useful tool for a lot of copyeditors, despite how often it's used. A note could be placed at WP:GOCE/T clarifying it's simply optional. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to respect Tenryuu's wishes about their subpage. All the best, Miniapolis 22:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Miniapolis and I'm not sure it would be useful to the wider Guild. It's fine for a copy-editor to ask questions about ambiguous points in articles but the most acceptable and easiest way is to just ask the requester on the appropriate talk page. Templates lead to clutter and some regular editors resent being templated unnecessarily. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty, sounds good! — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Most-plagiarized poems

I have a couple drafts I'm trying to finish about humorous poems that went viral in the mid-1990s ("A Grandchild's Guide to Using Grandpa's Computer" a.k.a. "If Dr. Seuss Were a Technical Writer" and "Candidate for a Pullet Surprise" a.k.a. "Owed to a Spell Chequer" – give them a read for a little nostalgia and feel free to improve them if interested). I was hoping to submit a DYK about them being (probably) the most-plagiarized poems in the English language, due to the vast number of websites which hosted them with improper attribution. I've been looking for a high-quality source for that... the poems are apparently discussed in books on (internet) publishing ethics, but I've yet to find anything. I've asked at the language reference desk and thought I might also ask here, if one of you fine wordsmiths might have an idea? Thanks, and I hope you're at least rewarded with a chuckle for your time. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Back after an absence

Hi folks! I wanted to jump in with some copyediting after a bit of an absence, but thought it would be good to check in here. Any major changes that might be helpful for me to know? Last time I was active was in late 2016. Hope you all are well! Pax Verbum 05:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back, @Pax85:, I recognize your handle... has it really been that long? What's changed? Not much really. The c/e tag backlog is shorter these days but the requests page is still busy, the blitzes and drives are still somewhat popular, and there's honey still for tea. A few coordinators have come and gone... and I'm still skulking in the shadows! Have a mooch around the various talk page archives for the dramah and gossip you've missed. Have fun and Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, @Baffle gab1978:. I'll take a look around and I look forward to the drive starting in a couple of days! Good to be back! Pax Verbum 04:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

We have also added a few maintenance tags to the list of tags that apply the copy-editing categories, so you may have a difficult time finding the tag that indicates the need for copy editing. The list of tags that apply the categories is available at the top of the September drive page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi friends: I am currently working on the Yahoo! Japan copy-edit for the September drive. As you can see, it is all sorts of a mess. Someone on the talk page suggested removing the services section. At the very least, I think a good restructure is in order as it is quite unwieldy and hard on the eyes. I have worked on one possible restructure of the section in my sandbox. Can someone kindly take a look and tell me what they think? Thank you so much! -Pax Verbum 20:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This weekend promises to be a bit busy for me, so I went ahead and made a bold move and published the changes in the article. Feel free to critique! -Pax Verbum 05:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pax85: I didn't see many errors in your revision; the one I corrected was it's → its, as it's supposed to be a possessive pronoun rather than a contraction of "it is". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu: Thank you for that. It's one of those cases of typing fast and the pinky finger automatically reaching over for that dang apostrophe... -Pax Verbum 03:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for review

Good afternoon everyone. I just did some copyediting on SEAT Ibiza. Can anyone please review it, and let me know if they find anything else, before I take the copyedit tag off, and put it on my drive list as completed? Thanks. Prairie Astronomer ^{Contributions} 20:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Also please review Argentine Antarctica. Thanks Prairie Astronomer ^{Contributions} 21:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Prairie Astronomer: I reviewed SEAT Ibiza. You made a couple of small improvements, but there was a lot more to be done. I probably didn't catch everything. Your edits to Argentine Antarctica are clearly improvements, and I do not see any obvious errors that you made. As with the Ibiza article, there are many more improvements that are still needed there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95 So, no recommendations on Argentine Antarctica, and I can put it as complete on the drive page? Prairie Astronomer ^{Contributions} 19:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. Argentine Antarctica needs additional copy-editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Moravia review

I believe the article Coat of arms of Moravia is correct, but can anyone review it for me? I never even edited it, but I read over it while trying to find something for the elimination drive. Thanks. Prairie Astronomer ^{Contributions} 00:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm going to give it a full copyedit (including a reassessment; it's way past start-class ). The pickings are getting slim in the April backlog. All the best, Miniapolis 14:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I did a partial C/E, but ran out of time. GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Does that mean I don't get to copyedit it and there are errors? Prairie Astronomer ^{Contributions} 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

For drives and blitzes, one editor per article gets the credit; I removed the tag and am doing my standard (careful) copyedit. To avoid situations like this, Stfg suggested years ago to remove the tag before beginning and I've found that that works well. Let's not lose sight of why we're doing this; it's not the barnstars All the best, Miniapolis 13:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

You guys can have any credit or split it. I'm good. GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

GenQuest, "credit" is given for full copyedits. All the best, Miniapolis 13:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A section copy edit request

Greetings,

Requesting some copy edit support @ newly added article section #2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault.

Thanks for the support

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This has already been answered at WT:GOCER. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship peer review copyedit request

Hello, I'm CactiStaccingCrane (talk), and I'm the main editor of the article. I noticed that a lot of reviewers in the article's FAC has mentioned that the article need a lot of copy editing, and thus a copyedit maybe needed. Here's the peer review page: Wikipedia:Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive1; failed FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SpaceX Starship/archive1. Date: 02:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi CactiStaccingCrane. Please leave a request over at the requests page, and use the Submit a Request button provided there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay. My mistakes CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Take the lead!

Right folks, we're running this competition again after 5 long years - see Wikipedia:Take the lead! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Starting in a matter of hours now.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GOCE pending

Template:GOCE pending has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

I didn't nominate it. This is a courtesy posting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sad news about Twofingered Typist

Please see User talk:Twofingered Typist#Obituary. He was a highly productive member of the GOCE, and a member of the Hall of Fame. He will be missed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

OMG, what a shock. I'm so sorry. Miniapolis 15:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh jeez, I just logged on to read this sad news. He will be much missed by Wikipedians and the GoCE. Baffle☿gab 17:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This is upsetting news. I hope his family is faring well in these times. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What sad news to hear. is there a way we could commemorate him somehow? I'd say put him in the Hall of Fame, but he's already (quite deservedly) there! Is there a way to determine his "career stats" from drives and blitzes for inclusion in the Signpost obituary? I could do it by hand, but if someone knows how to do it automatically that would be more likely to be accurate. Tdslk (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tdslk; we need to come up with a fitting obituary for the Signpost. More important than numbers might be the tremendous help he's been at WP:REQ, the GOCE's front line. We have big shoes to fill. All the best, Miniapolis 23:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

We could find out how many articles he's copy-edited at REQ from the archives; I seem to remember he was the most prolific c/e of last year. The old annual reports could be gleaned for stats also. Baffle☿gab 23:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Terrible news. Highly productive is right. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This is sad news. I only joined GOCE this month and realised I was squeezed between two legends on the roster. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I nominated TFT for GOCE HOF and could sing his praises, but right now I just feel sad. He truly added to the Wikipedia community and made it a better place. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I asked Smallbones for the deadline for the next Signpost (they said about a month from now); we need to come up with a fitting obituary. All the best, Miniapolis 00:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible at all to put a memorial box or the HOF box transcluded on the main GOCE page? I think it would be nice for their memory to be a little more noticeable for their contributions, Two Fingered Typist but also Corinne and others. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that TFT is listed at Deceased Wikipedians. (Thanks TheSandDoctor and Miniapolis.) Numbers shouldn't enter into it, but I was impressed to find that TFT completed about 1600 of the 6000 requests in the archives (which go back to 2011, years before he joined). – Reidgreg (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Not gab: I'ḿ baffled. But not really. We all go one day, maybe today, maybe tomorrow, but it's better to go happy than in a sorrow. Thanks for your many a service Twofingered Typist, who knows what would have happened if you were a ten fingered typist! Thinker78 (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)