Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:GOCE)
Jump to: navigation, search

Style guide for writing about disability related topics[edit]

Input, opinions and comments are welcomed at WT:WikiProject Disability#Developing a style guide. The idea is to create a guideline for editors that steers the middle path between obviously offensive language on one side, while also avoiding political correctness for its own sake, which can be just as offensive, on the other side. (Note: This was initially incorrectly posted to the Requests talk page.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

Hi - I'm new to editing, and have noticed that the "Copy edit a random article in need of improvement" link on the main page, under "Quick links" appears to be broken? Was hoping to find a nice easy (and random) article to start with... -- Tomsw (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tomsw, and thank you for your interest in copy editing. It looks like this tool is being migrated to WP:Wikimedia Labs, but has not actually been created yet. In the meantime, if you go to Special:RandomInCategory and ask for a random article in the category All articles needing copy edit, you can browse random articles in need of copy edit. Hope this helps. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks for your help and direction :) -- Tomsw (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Interested in the English language?[edit]

I believe it is fairly safe to presume (or should it be "assume"?) that the members of this project would answer the above question positively, so I'm taking the liberty of announcing here that an initiative to start a WikiProject about English has been launched at Draft:WikiProject English. You're cordially invited to join in the fun and adventure of creating something new. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Members of this project...[edit]

...might be interested in this discussion. BMK (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing the name of this project?[edit]

This is a rather nonsensical bit on my part, but I find it odd that the title of this page is "WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors". Is the "WikiProject" really necessary? It seems redundant given that "Guild" already handles the meaning that "WikiProject" provides for other projects. Anyway, there is no requirement that WikiProjects have "WikiProject" in their names. It would look much nicer if it was merely "Guild of Copy Editors". RGloucester 18:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the reason for the name, as far as I know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Commonly misused expressions[edit]

Business Insider has published a list of commonly misused expressions. A WWW search for words incorrectly used finds many other lists.
Wavelength (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating! I've only ever seen three of those: "would of", "try and" and "I could care less". I disagree about "try and" -- it's idiomatic in speech (but unacceptable in writing). I thought "I could care less" was the American way of saying it; interesting to learn that isn't. Has anyone come across any of the others? --Stfg (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Wavelength; I'm far more accepting of errors in speech than of those in writing; speech is usually more informal and ephemeral. The context also matters a lot, and 'm far more forgiving of someone whose first language isn't English. "Nip it in the butt" gave me a giggle. I've never heard that one. Do serious, sober, native English-speakers really say that? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"Hone in on" is quite common (and dead wrong), at least in American speech. "On accident" is idiomatic; I've never seen it in writing, but I've heard it all of my life in spoken conversation (it's not something an "educated" person would say, but it is common). And "I could care less" is very common (and, if I may have a judgmental moment, indicative of people who do not think about what they are saying, since it is the exact opposite of what is meant). Some of the others seem like straw men meant only to make the article's reader feel superior; I can't recall seeing them in serious written communication. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)