Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2013

Need no copyediting, but do need something?

"...or which needed no copy editing; they don't count." They don't count, but what do we do besides removing the copyedit tag? Anything?--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I clarified this statement. Yes, you should remove the copyedit tag and save the article. Then go find another one! (p.s. In my experience, I have always found a little something to copy edit in any article.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even without credit, I will leave the {{GOCEreviewed|category=no}} template on the talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working

Can editors add a Working entry in the drive page before the drive formally starts, like this?

# {{Working}} [[Dark chocolate]] (yummy!) (1234) *O

We would be like Sooners in one way, but just ready to start editing particular articles when the drive starts.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK with me. Note that someone else may not see your Working note and may poach your article. If that happens, don't get territorial; instead, smile and move on to another one. We have a few thousand of them; you're sure to find something fun to work on. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD or PROD articles

The following list of articles from Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from August 2013 are tagged for deletion:

Our copyediting resources are limited. In July I copyedited an article which was later deleted, a waste of my time better spent elsewhere. I suggest that the guild discourage the members from copyediting any articles tagged for deletion, when there are thousands more awaiting copyediting not tagged for deletiom.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add the {{GOCEreviewed|category=no}} template and remove the copyedit tag from these and other articles during the drive.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request articles target...

...is currently June 2013, but we're well into July. Is it okay if I change "June" to "August"? All the best, Miniapolis 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good catch. And yes, it's OK to be bold with edits to these pages if you are pretty sure you're right. One of the coordinators will probably see your edit and adjust it if there is some nuance you're not seeing. It gets a little subtle sometimes with all of these months flying around. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, yes, there is always at least one month that isn't set correctly at the beginning. Thanks for catching it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest articles

Should the oldest articles include July 2011 and May 2012? - Dthomsen8

Articles pop back into an old month in the category when someone reverts back to a version that includes the copyedit tag with an old date. For example, if we copy edited an article tagged "July 2011" and removed the tag six months ago, and then someone reverts the article today to a seven-month-old version, the article will pop back into the "July 2011" subcategory of the copy edit category. That's how I understand it, at least.

To fix the problem, you'll have to use your brain. One fix is to look at the article's history and try to figure out a way to get the copy edits back into the article while preserving the intent of the reverter (this assumes that the reverter did something useful). There are other fixes as well, depending on the individual situation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line, resolve it by history, but maybe no credit unless real copyediting is needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a proper copyedit request?

I removed the copyedit tag {{copy edit|for=TIME TO BOLDLY EDIT. THERE ARE THREE CREDIBLE SOURCES ON THE TALK PAGE THAT ASSERT CHRIS EVERT ABORTED JIMMY CONNORS CHILD. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST. JUST THE FACTS.|date=September 2013}} because this is not a proper request for the [[Wikipedia:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors to do. Please do not shout (ie all caps), and make this request in another way.

I posted this on Talk:Jimmy Connors, and got called names in reply. Am I correct about not copyediting?--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's a content issue. --Stfg (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Grammar

Template talk:Grammar does not need copyediting, but I don't know how to get it off the list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It transcludes User:Lasse Havelund/Grammar2 which contains the statement <includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:All articles needing copy edit]]}}}</includeonly>. But I'm puzzled, because I can't see either the template or the user subpage in Category:All articles needing copy edit. Where exactly are you seeing it? --Stfg (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found it just after Grabow Riot in the letter G.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (How could I have missed that?!) It was that noinclude statement. I've commented it out, informed Lasse, and done a dummy edit on Template Talk:Grammar. This seems to have fixed it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Stfg!--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody please...

go and unplug JudyCS's Internet access? She's making the rest of us look bad! Just kidding, JudyCS... keep up the great work! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Apocalyptic Cult "Rosary Prayer Group”

Italian Apocalyptic Cult "Rosary Prayer Group” is tagged for copyediting, but other remedies may be better. It is mainly a content and cleanup problem, and too much work for GOCE members, at least to start. Can someone please attend to it?--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that and also with your removal of the c/e tag. As you know, it has been prodded. In addition, the Italian Wikipedia article on the same subject was deleted as copyvio on the same date that this article was created. The same author created both articles. I have asked Moonriddengirl for advice and will watchlist it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl has now tagged for copyvio investigation and left a note on the article's talk page. Good catch, Dthomsen8. --Stfg (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of virtualization development copy edit?

I'm thinking that Timeline of virtualization development doesn't just need a copy edit to the existing article. I believe that all of the content in and below the "Overview" section should be removed from this article after verifying that equivalent content exists in Virtualization or in one of the many articles linked in the "Other types" section of Virtualization. The Overview section is {{Off-topic}}. Once that checking and removal is done, the article will probably be easier to copy edit and clean up. It's past my bedtime right now, but maybe someone else here will have the energy for it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody wants to do this (and it's quite a big ask), it would be fair to de-tag it and mark it {{GOCEreviewed}}, I think. --Stfg (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a quite a big task, too. Go ahead with the suggestion to de-tag it and mark it {{GOCEreviewed}}. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done so. It was a small task, and not a very big ask ;) --Stfg (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a version of my note above on the article's Talk page. Amusingly enough, there are a couple of similar notes that are multiple years old. That article is a nice quiet corner of WP, if you're looking for somewhere to hide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning

The last of the oldest articles is Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. I would do it, if I could figure out what is needed, but I do not see why it is tagged, Two days left, someone should do it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, I'll do it. There's plenty to do, really. It's full of colloquialisms ("Pirk stuffs himself with hamburgers") and hyperbole ("the timeline is wrecked beyond repair"; "he was an abysmally incompetent nuclear engineer"). --Stfg (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our skills. Thank you for going ahead on this one.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last call

The September drive is over, and we cleared the backlog! I have closed the drive. It's OK to enter any final changes and stats, despite the Big Red Warning. Your Drive Coordinators will start working on a drive summary in a few hours (around 0400 UTC), so please make sure you have your final list of articles entered by then. Remember that the Leaderboard does not update automatically, so please check your stats. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first drive. What happens with whatever article is in my working slot? I don't see myself finishing it by tomorrow, but does it go into the next drive's completed list? Esox id^{talk•contribs} 01:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can finish it if you want. I don't think you'll get credit for it for this drive, though I might be overruled here by one of the more veteran coordinators. You're allowed to copy edit outside of the bimonthly drives; plenty of us do it just for fun.

You could also reapply the {{copy edit}} tag and leave it for someone else to work on at a later date. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just noticed that this isn't a monthly event. I'll finish the article, and will certainly do some more copyediting again. Cheers - Esox id^{talk•contribs} 23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We hold month-long backlog drives every second month. We hold week-long "blitzes" in the other months, focused on a specific set of articles (the focus changes from blitz to blitz). October's blitz has not been scheduled yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]