Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

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

Reorganising the Main page[edit]

Hi all. I'd like to rewrite and reorganise this project's main page. I think it should be outward-facing, informative and welcoming to new copy-editors. Wikiproject Military History does this quite well, albeit with layout problems; our main page comprises rhetorical questions (New to copy editing and need help? Want to join the Guild? What is copyediting? Want to request an edit?), unfocussed text and odd things like the progress chart. "Goals and scope" is probably the most focussed section there, though I think the "Top 10" is patronising. The "Tools" section is useful, but I must scroll right to the foot of the page to find it. The page, at best, is a jumble.

So I'd like to invite suggestions for reorganising, rewriting and simplifying the main page. What do you want to see there? What are its strengths and weaknesses? How can it be improved? Over to you. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My initial thoughts: I think the audience for the page should primarily be people who want to find out if getting involved in our project is a good fit for them.
Most of our activity is organized around drives and blitzes, both of which are usually focused on reducing the backlog of articles tagged for copy editing. We should lead with these activities.
After that, we should probably describe the skills that are needed to be a good copy editor, and maybe some examples of good copy editing work. We could also describe, briefly, the mechanics of how to copy edit an article (e.g. review the article to see if you can improve its prose, remove the copy edit tag, edit the article in sections if it is long, provide good edit summaries).
We should mention the Requests page at some point, with an invitation to editors to submit their requests, especially for articles pursuing GA and FA status. I don't have a strong opinion on where this section goes in the flow of the page.
So that's the main body of the page. We probably also want a few "status-update" sorts of items, like the monthly backlog list and some sort of "how are we doing", along with maybe the Ombox.
That's my late-night two cents, anyway. I'm open to other things being included, but I think the basic items above should be the focus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to add to all that (which I agree with), imo the requests should be placed to give them some prominence, because this is what we contribute to the quality end of the encyclopedia. --Stfg (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on these thankless tasks, Baffle; you've done a great job so far, and I trust your judgement. You're right, the page as it is now is cluttered. It's also, IMO, too long; the top 10 reasons and the progress chart can probably go, and the "Tools" section should be moved up. While we obviously need to publicize the requests page for potential contributors, I'd also like to see an emphasis for new copyeditors on learning the ropes with becklog articles before tackling a GAN or FAC. The drives and blitzes are fun but overemphasizing them, I think, tends to attract editors who may lose sight of the ultimate objects of our game: timely copyedits of requested articles (particularly GANs and FACs) and the ongoing whittling of the backlog. Thanks again and all the best, Miniapolis 13:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for all the comments so far; I'll copy the page's elements into my sandbox later this evening and start working on it there. I'm not totally opposed to the progress chart, but I think it could have its own sub-page—I think it's a useful tool for generating stats etc. Further comments are welcome, and I'll be taking my time to make a decent job of it. My mock-up is here in my Sandbox; all the component pages are in their project-space equivalent locations in my user space. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

() My bastard creation rewritten and redesigned Guild Home page is available here in my Sandbox. I've mostly tweaked the Left panel, I'll mess with the other elements when the Blitz is over. Feel free to tweak and correct as needed, or to implement any ideas or designs you want to try out. The Ombox and other elements are copied to my talk page, so don't worry when you see old updates there! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks very good. Thanks again and all the best, Miniapolis 16:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
To be honest I have an issue with the wording "Who runs the Guild?" - to me it smacks of leadership and politics and all that other rubbish - especially as no one actually runs it, but several people help/helped keep things running who are neither emeritii, coords, or lead coord.; most notably with page designs, tabs, templates (design and maintenance) - in fact I guess it has mostly been a self running "true democracy". Is there not some other way of putting it?
It also seems that things would move away from information into more aims and who we are etc.; for example, it seems that there is a lot of repetition about "what we do" - This is a page for people to know where things are like tools for them to use and how to find things, not a recruiting self-advertisement.
I have only taken a cursory look, but that is how it seems to me at first glance. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Really do appreciate the work done though - I know from personal experience how simple-looking things can sometimes take many hours and hours and what seems like forever to actually make work!
Chaosdruid, are you feeling bold and/or lucid enough to suggest new text that could be dropped in? I read it over, and I suggest changing the header to something that sounds more coordinator-ish and participatory, like "Who coordinates Guild activities?" I didn't have any problems with the prose portion, but if you have suggestions for improvements, definitely suggest them here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That wording sounds great! And it brings focus to the coordinators straight away :¬)
In my defence I did only glance read it first time through, but to be honest it seems fine now I read it a little more thoroughly. If I think of anything specific I'll get back to you. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: porcino vs porcini in Boletus edulis article[edit]

Discussion here regarding use of "porcini", the plural of "porcino", as a singular term: Talk:Boletus_edulis#RfC:_porcino_vs_porcini. Eric talk 15:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Stupid Question[edit]

I realize that this in an incredibly stupid question, but can anyone tell me how to spell "Moebius" correctly? I keep guessing, but this is apparently a blind spot in the firefox spell checker because each attempt ends up red lined. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In German, the oe is a substitute for ö, so try that. On Windows: Alt+0246 , Mac: Option+u, then o. Or maybe mœbius will work (Alt+0156 / Option+q) Eric talk 02:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at the disambiguation page Moebius. It shows that all three of Moebius, Möbius and Mobius are used. It depends which person you're referring to. The spell checker's red underlines just mean it doesn't know that name, not that you've spelled it wrong. It happens a lot with names. HTH. --Stfg (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, with that I've got it right in the article now and have added it to the firefox dictionary. Since spelling was never my strong point I don't what I would do without you guys :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Drive page creation template now "live"[edit]

Following up our conversation here, I've moved the Drive page creation template I've been working on to {{GOCE-new-drive-page}} and have amended the coordinators' intstructions on the main Drives page accordingly; diff. Please feel free to make any necessary amendments, improvements or corrections to the template. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Miniapolis 14:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Some help on Capitalization/Quotation Marks[edit]

Hi! I have a question I seem to be too dense to figure out on my own. I've checked the capitalization guides, but cannot seem to discern the answer to the question regarding artistic movements, e.g. "New Rome School" or "Cubism". Should they be written like that, or like "new Rome school" and "cubism". And what about quotation marks? I'm so confused. Onel5969 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Think it's case-by-case, based on usage. I'd capitalize New Rome School, but cubism is in common-enough use that it doesn't seem to require capitalization. No quotes needed in either case. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 16:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)