Talk:Editing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Copy editor[edit]

The noun phrase copy editor is two words. The verb is copy-edit, although I have seen (and probably written) copyedit. Ortolan88

I know copy editor is correct, but it's completely illogical. According to RandomHouse and Webster, copyedit, copyediting, and other verb(ish) forms are one word. Copybook, copyboy, copycat, copyholder, copyreader, and copywriter are also single words. It's illogical that copyeditor should be two and I don't like encouraging lack of logic. -- Marj 19:28 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC) :-)
Shame shame shame on you. These hard-to-understand inconsistencies keep copy editors in business. Would you want there to be less copy editors and fewer money for them? sometimes life sucks, but editing always makes us happy, a little bundle of joy, who am I doing, I love editing Ortolan88
Heh. -- Marj
The two-word verb and one-word noun is pretty common, compare markup and mark up. I'm proud to have earned that "heh", btw. Ortolan88
We could all just switch to the U.K. word "sub" (short for "sub-editor). But then we might start finding our ways back to our tents with torches, and who wants to put U.S. forests at risk? 168...
Would we have to paint ourselves blue too? Could we use our blue pencils to do it? Ortolan88
If "copy editor" is "correct", so is "copy-editor" - which is how it is generally spelt (or do you Americans have to say spelled?!) in Britain. See the standard textbook on the subject by Judith Butcher, which is called Copy-Editing. --Hugh2414 5 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)

Hi there, I recall from my reading in BYTE magazine that they had several editors-at-large. Could someone tell me exactly what that means, and maybe put it in the article? --Wernher 16:01, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation? / Move proposal[edit]

It seems to me that this article should be split into several, and a disambiguation page created for it. Due to my current level of wiki-suave, however, I am not equal to the task. Thoughts?

I think the way the page is at the moment is fine, as it already is a disambiguation page. If one definition dominates, then that should be split off, but at the moment it's growing fine. Hiding 3 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
There are already extant articles on the editorial functions of most or all the items mentioned herein. Are we creating a duplicative article for which there is no need? Calicocat 3 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)
I have no idea. Are we? Isn't this a disambiguation page/broad overview of an editor? Hiding 3 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
I have no idea either...maybe we should just let it be and see what happens? Let's ask an admin. Calicocat 4 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Maurreen 4 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)

I think it's not good the way it is, and one of the following should be done to conform with other disambiguation situations:

Any comments? --Kusma (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, I'd rather we follow the advice at Wikipedia:Summary style and just break out areas which need their own article, leaving a summary here with a main template link to the new article. This isn't really disambiguating between unrelated topics, it is rather summarising the same concept within differing industries. Hiding talk 16:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is what to do with the incoming links, which would benefit from either way of disambiguation. They should link to the appropriate articles. And Editor-in-chief should also not redirect here. Editing also redirects here, and should also be disambiguated at least between films and print media. --Kusma (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The incoming links wouldn't be affected. Simply redirect those relevant to the newly created sub-articles to which this page links. Hiding talk 16:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, I would like to see Editor (software) merged into Editor (disambiguation) or something like that -- currently Editor (software) is something like a second-level disambiguation page, and that doesn't seem right. --Kusma (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Right, so why don't we just create Print editor, moving relevant information there, and move Editor (software) to Software editor, and then summarise both articles here as is done at Studio? Hiding talk 17:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
That would probably improve things. However, I'm not convinced that this is the perfect solution. (I'm not saying that mine is, either!) I hope we can get a third opinion and some more suggestions and then decide on the best way to do this so the problems will be solved and not just moved. I'm wondering whether the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation should also watch over these "summary" pages like Studio that are a bit similar to disambiguation pages in the way that they might have many incoming links that need to be disambiguated. Kusma (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the need for people to watch over them, as the main articles tend to be highly visible and well linked to anyway. And they're not "summary" pages, they are lead articles which provide a summary of the topic at hand, providing links to sections which have become articles in their own right. I'm sure it's fair to say that an editor is an editor, whichever field he works in, and that these fields are merely subtopics of the main topic of "editor". Therefore a disambiguation page, which as I understand it is disambiguating between differing topics, is unneccessary. Hiding talk 18:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I do not quite understand. How does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs) apply here? And if it applies, shouldn't Inventor and Film director etc. be moved as well? --Kusma (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
First, let it be known if it isn't known already that Editing redirects here. Second, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs) definately applies here; in fact, if you go to gerund editing is the very first example on the page. The move to Editing would be consistent with the naming of many other articles on Wikipedia, some of which are linked to from this page. An example is Publisher, which correctly redirects to Publishing. Note that this naming doesn't preclude publishers and their duties from being discussed in the article. Copy editing is also at Copy editing, not Copy editor (which correctly redirects to Copy editing). There are exceptions to this naming convention, as there are exceptions for anything, but I don't think this is one of them. (Also, if Film director was requested to be moved to Film directing, I wouldn't object.)—jiy (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose the idea of a disambig page under Editor. There is no ambibuity (an editor is an editor, the meaning is the same in all contexts, just with different nuances in different contexts) - and therefore no need to disambiguate! By all means produce expansions at things like Newspaper editor or Editor (newspaper) and add links from the main Editor article, and by all means improve the main article, but don't go producing unnecessary disambig pages. Also oppose the idea of moving to Editing . Hugh2414 08:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
So should we just fork off Editor (print media), make Editor short and focused on "Editors in different contexts", giving the different meanings equal weight, and "Etymology", and put a notice on this page that is similar to Template:disambig asking people not to create incoming links here and to check the 600 links we have to this page, most of which should be made more specific? (The standard notice wouldn't be too good here since the page does not conform to the MoS for disambiguation pages). Kusma (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
In my mind, as expressed above, no, "editor" shouldn't be short, and there shouldn't be a notice. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, and no disambiguation is neccessary, because, as is stated above, there is no ambiguity. People linking to this article will gain the knowledge they seek, not ambiguity. I'd also be against the name of Editor (print media), the brackets seem extraneous. Editing in print media seems far more elegant and places the article better as a branch of this article. Hiding talk 13:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Retract my proposal - After some thought and reading all these arguments, I no longer think that moving this page to Editor (disambiguation) is superior. I retract my proposal and will comment on this at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks to everybody who participated in this discussion for their opinions. Kusma (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

After all the above discussion, a person who arrives at Editing via a search for Editor finds no link to Editor (software). I would imagine many people use the word "editor" to refer to an editing program. For these people, Editor is currently a search trap. It would be nice to at least have a section in the Editor article that disambiguates "editor" for those readers looking for editing programs. Teratornis 15:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

test

EIC[edit]

You reach this page if you search for "EIC". But EIC means "East India Company" as well. Can anyone edit a page which mentions this and leads to "EIC" and "East India Company" ?

Requested move[edit]

EditorEditing – Currently editing redirects to editor but editing is the preferable term because it is broader; editing refers to a general process, whereas editor especially refers to someone who edits professionally or as a hobby. This move would be consistent with many other pages on Wikipedia: Copy editor redirects to Copy editing, Publisher redirects to Publishing, Theologian redirects to Theology, Video editor redirects to Video editing, etc. The present text can easily be adapted to the page move, for instance the opening sentence "An editor is a person who prepares text—typically language, but also images and sounds—for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it" can be changed to "Editing is the process of preparing text--typically language, but also images and sounds--for publication through correction, condensation, and other modification". The job title of editor and what that entails can also be discussed gracefully within the scope of Editing, as is done similarly on the Publishing and Copy editing articles.—jiy (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Supportjiy (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I think we had support for this above in the disambig discussion, but nobody ever implemented it. Hiding talk 12:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - OK, I'm persuaded! Hugh2414 15:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The requested move was successful. enochlau (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandal'd by 203.120.68.73, I reverted. Mainly because I was actually looking for information in said article.

Scholarly editing[edit]

What the summary calls scholarly editing I would call academic editing. Those who produce definitive editions of Shakespeare or Conrad or the deceased Thomas Wolfe perform quite different functions and have quite different responsibilities from editors at scholarly publishing houses, and those are the people I would call scholarly editors.

Well, if this article is to be considered either scholarly or academic, then 'advise' should be changed to 'advice' in the following sentence: "These guidelines offer sound advise on making cited sources complete and correct and making the presentation scholarly." AlistairLW 00:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

publisher / editor[edit]

Publisher vs Editor role. We got here looking for essentially job descriptions (for a periodical - newspaper etc.) "Publisher" took us to publishing but had not section on the role of the publisher... Fholson 14:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages[edit]

I just delinked two links to disambigutaion pages in the introductory paragraph of this article. With very few exceptions, creating wikilinks to dab pages is erroneous. Wikilinks are not supposed to take the user to a dab page. They're supposed to take the user to a relevant article. The purpose of a dab page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he's looking for. The exceptions to this are:

There is currently a major project underway to repair links to disambiguation pages. You can find out about it here. Creating links to disambiguation pages only results in the page on which they're created showing up on a list of pages that are in need of repair, bringing an editor to the page to repair it.

Please don't deliberately create links to disambiguation pages.

--Steven J. Anderson 10:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see what the big deal is about linking to DAB pages. I mean when I'm going through a root structure, I want to keep going out to a concept/phrase's general meanings until I hit a branch where I choose where to go (like a Choose Your Own Adventure book). I don't like having to copy-paste a root word into the search box just to learn about a more basic concept behind a word/phrase... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 16:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You may be right, but it has been the policy in wikipedia for a couple of years to avoid disambig links - that is, thousands of people working together over a long period decided that would be the best practice. Perhaps the community's opinion will change or is changing, but I've seen little evidence of it. - DavidWBrooks 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Going through a root structure to a concept/phrase's general meanings or putting a root word into a search box sounds like something I might do if I were perusing a dictionary to discover the usages, definitions and etymologies of words. In any event, if there are any relevant links on the "Editor" or "Edit" dab page, they can be included in the "See also" section here, which I've already tried to do. --Steven J. Anderson 08:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, a set index article is often confused as a disambiguation page--which it is, in that it disambiguates a common term--just as mystery does (or did before it was mindlessly trimmed down by people unfamiliar with the concept of what a set index article is, anyway). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 10:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I find myself nodding with agreement with Eep here. Even our guidance allows us to link to dab pages, so I find it odd that thousands of editors over a number of years decided it was best practise. You think they'd have amended the guidance if that was true. Maybe its a case by case issue and in thousands of cases it's the right thing to do, but this is one of the odd few when it isn't. Hiding Talk 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This grows more absurd daily. Neither "Edit" nor "Editor" is a set index article. And when in its history was "Mystery" one? Not in October 2002, nor in November 2003. It wasn't one in October 2004 or June 2005. By February and December of 2006 it was still a dab page and remains one to this day. Or did it become one yesterday because Eep decided to make that claim? No, "Mystery" has been clearly structured and labelled as a dab page for years, something very different from a set index article, as WP:D makes clear.
Also, contrary to the statement above, the guideline specifically discourages us from linking to dab pages and lays out very limited circumstances in which it is acceptable, mainly to prevent them from appearing on a link to orphan pages. There really is nothing so special or unusual about "Editor," "Edit" or this page that requires this kind of link. --Steven J. Anderson 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess you and me have different readings of the word rarely. To me that allows exceptions. It may well "discourage", but I was reacting to the assertion that they were blanket "not allowed". And yeah, you could well be right that there really is nothing so special or unusual about "Editor," "Edit" or this page that requires this kind of link, but you could also be wrong. That is, I guess, why we are discussing it. If you are so sure you are right, build the consensus. Me, I've never understood this zeal for keeping dab pages free of incoming links, but I'm a live and let live guy. Why is it perhaps useful to link to Editor and Edit in this article? I can buy removing the Edit link, but the Editor link has more merit. For starters it is in the see also section of the Edit article. Second, as Eep writes, these dab pages aren't just dab pages, they serve to index similar articles. Me, my first port of call is working out whether the link is useful. Is it useful? Is it of value to our readers? Does it improve the encyclopedia? I can't see any edit war happening here, so I can't understand the exasperation I'm reading (misreading) in your post. Yes, it probably is a lame discussion, but let's at least entertain it. Is the link improving our ability to present information, or is it hindering it? What's the basis for removing the link? What happens when the dab page is the relevant link? Sometimes we don't at present have top level articles which summarise the similar but more detailed articles that exist below. There was a time when Editor redirected here, but then it got taken over by a dab page, which isn't necessarily the right thing to do either. Let's remember there aren't any rules on Wikipedia and try and work out what the best thing to do is. Also, let's remember the difference between guidance and policy. Hiding Talk 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Del "derivative" section[edit]

I deleted the section on derivative vs. new work. It had little relevance to editing, it had little content, and it included an erroneous distinction between derivative work and work for hire. Maurreen (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

About editing on Wikipedia[edit]

Wikipedia editing in the past seemed reasonably easy But right now that has drastically changed with the exception to some articles. I havenot been on wikipedia for quite a while. COuld somebody please inform me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgebound (talkcontribs) 05:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad link[edit]

This link in the external links section goes to an error page. I recently removed it, and someone else stuck it back on. Maurreen (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the editor who restored it intended merely to undo a single earlier edit but reverted instead, affecting other edits, including yours. I have updated the link in question, so it now goes to the intended page. Cheers! --ShelfSkewed Talk 23:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing Business Documents[edit]

Editing is the final phase of the writing process. In business the editing process takes on a whole new meaning; because a badly written document may carry the wrong message and give a bad impression to the reader. When editing you should take half the time it took to write the text in question. Editing consists of revision, proofreading and evaluating your text. Taking a long pause, 1 hour to a day, is the best way to start your editing process. This will clear your head a make you more objective.

The first step when editing is revising, this is to verify if the document addresses its purpose, is the document clear, etc. Choosing the right tone will bring you positive feedback. The web site www.writeexpress.com will help you in your revision process.

The second step is verifying if the text is concise; dose it contains unnecessary words and phrases that makes your text long.www.sfu.ca will help you in making your writing more concise.

The third step of editing is proofreading and it consists of cheeking your grammar, spelling, punctuation, name and numbers and format. For spelling, grammar and punctuation help take a look at the following sites: www.spellingtips.net (spelling), www.yourdictionary.com (grammar) and www.eslincanada.com (punctuation).


The final step is the evaluation of the text. This is analysing whether your message gets to the reader without any interferences, peer review falls in to this category. For more information you can visit www.libguides.longwood.edu. Using these steps while editing you will be able to write a clear and concise business document.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editing for Business (talkcontribs) 00:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Business editing[edit]

This heading is easily misunderstood: it suggests editing in the business setting but instead refers to paid professional editing. The term "Paid editing" is better than "Business editing", but neither is especially good. I am new to Wikipedia editing, but as a professional science editor myself I would like to contribute content about "author editing" (authors' editors work with authors to make draft texts fit for purpose). We are paid professionals whose business is editing, but rarely do we do "business editing". The page is protected so I cannot begin to edit it; please advise. --Valmataré (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd propose that this section be called "Editing services" rather than "Business editing". It could then discuss editing firms (both local agencies and the global online ones) and freelance editors (who work one-on-one with their clients and are called "authors' editors").--Valmataro (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Per WP:EXT we should keep the links to a minimum. I trimmed them and was reverted. According to WP:ELBURDEN "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them". I can't imagine anyone would be able to justify Society for Editors and Proofreaders as there's already an internal link. The other orgs can have internal links if notable, else we don't want them as EXT either. Desertroad Pls can you revert yourself and start a dialog here justifying why you want each one. Cheers, Widefox; talk 10:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Widefox. As I noted in my edit summary: "Added back the external links. Their number is not excessive, gives a glimpse of some area [ed: some of the areas of editing], and [the existing list] has more than just one U.K. resource—including a Mediterranean resource. Left the British reference that Widefox deemed important." In your above message, you inferred that you could find other resources for some of them. The existing list gives the layman (and editors) a decent, brief listing of resources. The country of any resource's author doesn't matter to me—but I suspect that you'll find most English resources are from the U.K., USA and Australia. With all due respect, I suggest that seven resources is not an excessive number for a field as broad as editing—and it doesn't make sense to abruptly eliminate the resource. Please do substitute resources for those shown with one(s) that you find to be suitable—whether internal links or external links from countries other than what we currently have. Either way, let's continue to give some general guidance to readers. Kind regards, Desertroad (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Normally I lean to INCLUDING external links but in this case I fear that the links to the membership organizations should be EXCLUDED, on the grounds that WP is not a Directory. When you go to those pages you get very little information about what editing is, but you get a lot of info about the organizations, which we don't really need to understand the craft of editing. I could be wrong here, but I think the only External link should be the Blake Morrison piece. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Huh, I assumed the external links were to self-contained resources. I'll have to check things out when I get a moment. Desertroad (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Desertroad please read WP:EXT, in particular WP:LINKSTOAVOID 19. These organisations aren't even mentioned in the article, and as GeorgeLouis says we're not a directory. At least some of them have internal links (American Copy Editors Society I'm repeating myself). Copy editing is a separate article anyhow, but there's no justification why "American Copy Editors Society" needs an EXT (which is already available on it's own article). Your argument above does not address any of this, per your requirement to include them WP:ELBURDEN. You have also not reverted yourself per WP:ELBURDEN and the (possible) consensus here. You need to justify each one per guideline / policy based arguments. Instead of keeping these disputed links in until you have checked things, I will now remove them until you have justified them and reached wp:consensus here. Widefox; talk 18:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Widefox, I'm not dawdling; I have a day job. Frankly, I don't understand your rush: there was nothing illegal, immoral, fattening or so horribly wrong that it would threaten Wikipedia if not dealt with immediately. Thanks for pointing out the EXT documentation. When I get time, I’ll check it out and look at the situation. Don't get me wrong: you may be absolutely right in your analysis. All I know for sure right now is that you did what you did, and that you did it rather quickly. Regards, Desertroad (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NORUSH, WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, WP:CLUE may help. Widefox; talk 01:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)