Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2012

Text moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archive 1, originally from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Page history here. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Archives reinstated; please don't delete requests unless archiving

Archiving of completed requests has been resumed in a slightly different format. When completing requests, please could copy editors mark them as {{Done}} rather than deleting them. I'll then archive and delete. Alternatively, if you prefer, you can archive and delete. There are instructions on the archive page. --Stfg (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Replacements?

Is it okay if I don't want an article to be c/e and replace it with one that I desperately want a c/e done? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine. --Stfg (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Heads up! Very useful new gadget for sentence-level editing...

Hey all, I wanted to let you know about a neat user-script developed by User:EpochFail. It's a sentence-level editor called Wikignome, and it's great for copyediting and other minor gnome-y editing tasks. With it installed, you can just double-click on any wikitext to bring up a small editing screen, which will then allow you to edit, preview, and save – all without leaving the article.

It's still in beta, so please read the documentation and let Aaron know if you find any bugs. Just thought GOCE would be the perfect group to test out a tool like this :) Accedie^{talk to me} 01:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Requests page not a talk page

Hi everyone. Please could I ask you all to avoid treating the requests page as a talk page, but use it just to signal the status of requests, such as working, on hold, done, done but requesting review, abandoned, ... Discussion with requesters about the progress of the request, requests for information, and discussion about the articles themselves are generally better done on their talk pages. If we avoid putting such discussion on the request page, it would help avoid clutter and thereby make it clearer to other copy editors which requests are and which aren't looking for an editor/reviewer/archiver. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have been helping to unclutter the page today. It's appreciated. One trick worth knowing is that, when we c/e an article where we're going to need something from the article editors, like information or some text from a source, or if we want to give advice or explain something we've done, we can start a section on the article's talk page with a title like "GOCE copy edit June 2012", and then use subsections or bullets to raise these points. This is often very effective, as other editors apart from the requester frequently step in with help too, and you'll often end up with two or three editors helping you. It can also help GAN/FAC reviewers to understand the reasons for decisions made. --Stfg (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible clarification re "Done"

It should perhaps be clarified on the Requests page exactly what is meant by marking something "Done" - especially for those of us, like me, who tend to think of a copyedit as an ongoing process with variable levels of activity, and who keep an eye on articles they've copyedited to help out if/when they get to GA review, FA review, or similar. For the purposes of statistics on GOCE work and GA/FA status, it would actually be most helpful if people were, if in doubt, to declare a copyedit "done" when the article gets to the point of a GA or FA nomination. Allens (talk | contribs) 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with this one. Even after FA/GA, articles continue to evolve and sometimes decay. In that sense, they're never "done". Better to leave the meaning as "I copyedited the entire article. It's done for present purposes." Lfstevens (talk)

I see that I wasn't clear; I'm sorry. I was thinking of a guideline of "if you have finished the initial copyedit, and are waiting to do more until a GA or FA review, then please declare the article {{Done}} in the meantime". It's certainly the case that an article can need further copyediting after FA/GA; I wasn't saying otherwise. (I have most of the articles I've copyedited - definitely all that were from the Requests page - on my watchlist, incidentally, frequently for that exact reason.) Allens (talk | contribs) 19:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the right guideline. People come to the requests page for a particular purpose: mostly to prepare the prose for a GAN or a FAC, occasionally to prepare a userspace draft for a move to mainspace, and so on. I believe we should tag {{done}} when we've met that request. Like you, Allen, I usually go on watching articles and try to help out during the GAN/FAC reviews, but that's part of my relationship with the requester. GOCE probably doesn't need to be involved with it. The way the requests page looks at the moment, it's quite hard to determine which requests are looking for an editor, which are being actively worked on, and which are complete (which is also why I started the previous section). If everyone agrees, shall I try to enhance the last bullet of the "Instructions for copy editors" on the requests page along those lines, and perhaps add template links to {{working}} and {{on hold}} too? --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Column widths

Could we make the leftmost date field wide enough for it to display properly? The Remarks column has plenty of unused width. --Greenmaven (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

These things depend on several factors, such as your text size setting, the width of your browser window, and possibly on the browser itself (rendering algorithm). I've tried a few adjustments. How does it look on your screen now? --Stfg (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. --Greenmaven (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sortable column – 'Purpose'

Great to see it being implemented. Could we possibly get a 'legend' at the top of the page to describe for everyone what FL, GAN, FAC etc all stand for? --Greenmaven (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you think it's needed? Very few people will look at this page, mostly those interested in getting the history of past requests or to analyse GOCE's performance. People who should be here should know what these abbreviations mean. Also, they are copied from whatever is put in the requests, and they aren't linked there. --Stfg (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)