Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Baffle gab1978 (talk | contribs) at 04:07, 12 December 2019 (→‎Women's rights in Iran: sp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Feedback requested on proposed bot

This is a follow-up to the previous discussion. I am courtesy pinging users who have previously replied to this topic, as well as all GOCE coordinators: @Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, Dhtwiki, and Masumrezarock100. All GOCE members are welcome to discuss or provide feedback.

I recently reached out to the offline friend I mentioned previously. He agreed to help out, and we discussed some details/functions of the bot he plans to code. They are as follows:

  • Fully automatic bot: The bot will be fully automatic, not semi-automatic. According to my friend, a semi-automatic bot requires an external site and is more difficult to implement; implementing a functioning whitelist can be difficult; and it is easier to abuse or make mistakes when using a semi-automatic bot. Therefore, a fully automatic bot is preferred. The bot will scan each request and look for certain templates, such as {{done}} or {{declined}}. It will archive requests based on the template it identifies.
  • One-day delay: There will be a one-day delay before the bot archives a request. This prevents vandalism (i.e. a user spamming {{done}} or {{declined}} templates on every request). This also provides room for GOCE coordinators and users to double check things before the bot archives them.
  • Reasoning templates: if requesters can add a reasoning template for each of their requests, it would significantly reduce the room for bot error. Instead of scanning text and variations (i.e. "GAN" vs "GA" vs "Good Article", etc.), the bot can simply look for reasoning templates to identify whether the request was for FAC, GAN, DYK, General Copy Edit, Other, etc. (or a combination). (Note: we would probably have to create entirely new templates for this.)
  • Inline icon templates: GOCE members should use inline icon templates, such as {{declined}} and {{withdrawn}}, when reacting to changes in the status of requests. This will help the bot identify these requests and archive them accordingly.
  • (Optional feature) Text archival: my friend was curious as to why the text of requests gets deleted. If desired, the text can be archived alongside the tables. They can be put in a separate section, or placed within the table. I personally think the former makes more sense. However, I do recognize that this would substantially increase the file size of the 2019 archive page, and would probably force it to be split into multiple pages (possibly by month). I'm curious to see everyone's stance on this.

My friend wishes to remain anonymous at this time in case there are any major objections. He will not begin working on the bot until there is a general consensus here. I will eventually be co-nominating the bot to WP:BRFA with him. The approval process may take several weeks. If the bot gets approved, I will be the primary point of contact. (To reiterate my rationale behind the bot: manually archiving requests is unnecessary and tedious, and there are hundreds of requests every year. The bot would reduce room for human error and save the GOCE a lot of time, especially in the long run.) Please let me know if there are any concerns or suggestions at this time. Discussion is not mandatory from anyone, but I would definitely appreciate feedback. Thank you. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does require an external site. I suggest using Wikimedia toolforge. Masum Reza📞 04:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unclear. The bot will be fully automatic, not semi-automatic. My friend does not want to set up an external site. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, I don't see any need to archive the request texts. The detail in the table is enough. @Reidgreg: did a lot of analysis of 2018's requests. I suspect the table is fairly large even with the succinct detail it now holds. I imagine splitting the table into pages might make analysis a much trickier job? Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't get the ping, and must check my notification preferences . I agree with TT that the current system isn't broken, and am puzzled by the anonymity; we don't bite, and often agree to disagree on the way to consensus. Although I'm not knowledgeable about bots, I would heed Masumrezarock100's advice about Toolforge. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 13:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm 'that friend' and also Toolforge admin here. The reason developing a web interface is so much extra work is regarding the interface design (I would have to make it look nice don't I?), and security (anything that is passive, i.e. respond to an outside event instead of actively checking status could be an attack vector and must be secured; and authentication is a PITA that opens up a whole new lot of issues; and no, OAuth only solves part of them). Anonymity is because I don't want to be too involved in this besides technical help (code writing and running); Bobbychan remains the point of contact for its functionality. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhuyifei1999: and @Bobbychan193:, we only archive requests' text when there's been some discussion about it, such as a decline or hold discussion (example here). Future coordinators can then see how we handled that particular problem and it's also there for the requester to review. Text of straightforward requests doesn't need to be archived; it's in our tabled archive for all to see. Thank you both for working on this; although the current system isn't broken and serves us well, if we find a better way to do some chore that's going to benefit the Guild in the long run. It represents a major change in our practises though, and needs to be thoroughly discussed and reviewed before it's made permanent. Good luck. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Twofingered Typist, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978: Thanks for your responses. It seems that the general consensus on text archival is that the text is only archived when there was a non-straightforward discussion around it. In this case, would the use of a template after the discussion ends be appropriate? I imagine if someone wanted text to be archived, then inserting a template can help the bot identify that the text needs to be archived rather than deleted (in addition to archiving in the table format). Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If there's any kind of controversy about a request, that's going to come up before the request is completed, so there should be plenty of opportunity for discussion to be moved to the Requests talk page. If the 'straightforward' text is desired after it's been 'deleted', we can always use the 'completed' date to find the text in the page history. (I've sometimes done that when there are typos in dates or missing request reasons.) When I do the annual report, I export the archive tables into a single spreadsheet; extraneous data could make that a little more difficult but not an insurmountable problem. I'll review extant inline icon templates. We should probably create an edit notice like Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders so that requesters and copy editors can view the available templates (and I'm sure our kind coder friend would also like to know the ones we'll be using). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One place where preserving the request text might be useful would be in a 'log file' of the bot's actions, showing the original text and then the data added to the archives table, so that we can verify that the bot is doing what we want it to do. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contribs exists for exactly this reason. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reidgreg: Sounds good. Are you willing to help create the icon templates (or find existing ones we can use)? Also, could you or someone else handle creating the edit notice as well? To be honest, I am not familiar with either template creation or edit notices. Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to code an edit notice. If we want it to show for every edit, rather than just when using the Submit a Request button, an admin may have to move it to a special location (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests).
Thinking about implementation of the edit notice, I feel that request reason templates might be unnecessarily complicated. We'd have to list more than a dozen cryptic templates like {{GOCEGAN}} along with what they represent in the edit notice, so why not simply list the established acronyms instead? Simpler instructions are usually easier to follow, existing users of the request service wouldn't have to learn a new system, and newer requesters wouldn't have an additional burden (keeping in mind that some are referred by DYK or GAN reviewers, and may already be dealing with a lot). I'm wholly in favour of the inline icon "status" templates (will list some in a subsection below.) – Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Created an edit notice mockup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/RequestsIntro – Reidgreg (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reidgreg: why not simply list the established acronyms instead This is a really good idea actually. I'd imagine it will work, but I'll ask Zhuyifei to be sure. Nice mockup BTW. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, and probably easier than templates. However, if someone typos then it's a typo. The person might not notice it and the bot won't recognize it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We typically have 20 days to catch a typo before a request is completed. About a quarter of requests don't have a stated reason (or are for "general copy edit") in which case the field should be blank. Sometimes there will be two purposes like DYK and GAN or GAN and FAC. Is there anything else that we should track, like "grammar" or "translation"? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can match against multiple acronyms, until the first timestamp right? Also they must be capitalized. I don't want to match 'far' when it means something different ;) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status templates

This is a list of templates to be used by copy editors to indicate the status of a Request, and to point out data for the proposed request archiving bot.

  • {{Done}}  Done – Copy edit completed. This would trigger the bot to archive after a certain amount of time. The bot would use the signature/timestamp following the template to give credit on the "Copy editor's username" column of the archives table and list the completion date.
  • {{Working}}  Working – undergoing copy edit.
  • {{Declined}} no Declined – trigger archival – copy editor "n/a"
  • {{Withdrawn}}  Request withdrawn – trigger archival – copy editor "n/a"
  • {{Partly done}}  Partly done – to be used when deferring a request to another copy editor. When this is used, we would want the bot to credit each "partly done" copy editor and the "Done" copy editor on the "Copy editor's username" column of the archives table.
  • {{Not done}}  Not done – as partly done, but no credit given (ie: bot can ignore). Alternatively  Deferred to avoid the trauma of a big red X?
  • {{On hold}}  On hold – if a request must be held for a period but not so long as to decline.
  • {{Discussing}}  Discussion ongoing...
    – talk page discussion. (links to Requests talk; link doesn't appear on talk pages)
  • Maybe something like Not sure if a copy editor wants their work to be checked? The reviewer could check it and the original copy editor then use Done so that the bot gives credit to the original copy editor's signature. I think copy editors normally ask for reviews of their work – or raise other questions – on the Requests talk page, though, so maybe this isn't needed.

Please jump in with any other useful templates, and suggestions for their use (to be listed in the edit notice), as well as how they should be interpreted by the proposed bot. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One minor thing that could be added:
  • {{Unapproved}} no Not approved – similar to no Declined, but more specific: if a user makes a request outside of the scope of what the GOCE allows. Examples: IP user making a request on an article they did not contribute to, a user making more than two requests, etc.
Other than that I think the list is solid. I like the idea of giving multiple editors credit in scenarios like the ones you mentioned. Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of out-of-scope requests (e.g., "please fix / save / develop my article") we place the request on hold and discuss at REQ talk. In the case of excess requests, we normally ask the requester to remove the excess requests and wait 24 hours or so then, if necessary, remove them manually ourselves without archiving (see the Year in Singapore thread). The bot shouldn't get to remove anything other than dealt-with (completed, declined, abandoned etc.) requests discussed above. I'm sorry I sound like a broken record... :| Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. That makes sense. Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it redundant to have both On hold and Discussing? All or nearly all On hold situations are going to have discussion, so maybe that should be assumed? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess since the bot doesn’t react to either of those templates either way, it doesn’t really matter if we have one or both. Bobbychan193 (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamps

Regarding signature / timestamp, because a lot of people uses fancy signatures, there is no generic 'regular expression' to extract such information, does it make sense to require that one and only one link to a user page and timestamp may appear on the line with a status template? And for the requester, find the first timestamp and require only one and only one link to a user page and the line with the timestamp? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't imagine there will be multiple timestamps. For the lines where a username has to be extracted (initial post, partly done, done), it's possible an editor might ping or backlink someone (like the person who referred them here). Can the bot check the last userlink on a status line (i.e.: search the status line working from right to left)? To strip fancy signatures, say for [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User_talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] can't the bot take everything between [[User: and the pipe, and put it inside {{subst:u|Miniapolis}}? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about requiring the timestamp on the status line and the last user (or talk) link before the timestamp is taken? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuyifei is requesting responses to two of his questions. Specifically: How about requiring the timestamp on the status line and the last user (or talk) link before the timestamp is taken? and Yeah I can match against multiple acronyms, until the first timestamp right? Also they must be capitalized. I don't want to match 'far' when it means something different ;) If there is any confusion surrounding these questions, please let me know. Thanks. Bobbychan193 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both sound good, and yes the acronyms should be all caps. BTW, sometimes if an editor forgets to sign, we'll use {{subst:unsigned}}. Since it's substituted, I think the only difference is that the signature and timestamp are bracketed in <small>. I assume the bot wouldn't have any problems with that. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be doing the coding over the weekend. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→ Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/YiFeiBot 2 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures and edit notice

I trimmed the edit notice a bit (here). It could be set to collapse one or both boxes by default if it's still too long. Can it be improved at all? Do we want to track any copy edit purposes, aside from the acronyms? Can the basic procedure for completing requests be improved? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else we want the bot to do, like maybe flagging stale copy edits (undergoing copy edit for 7 days with no updates)? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging 'stale' requests would be useful to bring them to our attention; I don't always pick them up quickly. I'd prefer the actual checking and chasing-up process to remain a task for humans though. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trial period at BRFA

@Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and Zhuyifei1999: Just letting everyone know that the bot is currently in trial mode. Zhuyifei has requested to avoid manually archiving requests during this trial period. For more information, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/YiFeiBot 2. Bobbychan193 (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up a notice box on the Requests page and a line in the GOCE Ombox to not manually archive requests. Since this is going 'live' we should have the editnotice moved over. @Miniapolis: it requires an admin, so could you please perform a page move of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/RequestsIntro → Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. That way the edit notice should show up for any edits to the Requests page. Thanks. I believe it's as simple as a page move but if there are any issues please let me know. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I made a technical request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted; thanks for you hard work, Zhuyifei1999 and Bobbychan. An edit notice on the current request archive page might be useful too. It might have been useful to use mock-up pages first, but here we are. I'll be closely watching the bot's behaviour. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I didn't break anything; I moved the page as requested, and removed the sandbox message box. Let me know if I need to fix anything. All the best, Miniapolis 15:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. I've been keeping track of the GOCER and 2019 Archive page histories, and it appears that the bot is working properly! Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussions

For the sake of keeping all bot-related discussions in one area, I'm copy-pasting two discussions here from elsewhere on the talk page. Bobbychan193 (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving bot basics

I'm writing a short review here of how archiving works with the bot. We tried to get it to work along our established practises, the essentials of which will soon be are up in an edit notice.

  • Automatic archival of a request is made only after one of the following templates is used: {{done}}, {{declined}} or {{withdrawn}}. There's a 24-hour delay before archival so that a coordinator can review and remove the template if it was added prematurely.
  • The first signature in the section is used for the "requestor's" column of the archive table. The signatures following the {{done}} and any {{partly done}} templates give credit on the "copy editor" column. {{Unsigned}} can be used if an editor forgets to sign.
  • Acronyms for copy edit purposes can be anywhere in the section. So if the requester doesn't use a valid acronym, the copy editor can state it on the working or done line.

That's it. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: If you click on the template code in the edit notice, it should paste the code into the edit window. But you may have to move the text insertion point (cursor) to the bottom before clicking. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is the bot asleep today? There's a couple of done templates from 28th Sept still waiting for archiving, as of my timestamp. It has worked well so far. Baffle☿gab 20:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978: The trial period is over, so the bot is currently on hold. Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would explain it... thanks Bobbychan; I'll amend the page and manually archive them. It did a good job, I think. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it doesn't take too long to review the bot's performance-to-date – and that there are no problems – it can probably be brought back on soon enough. For now, I'd prefer to leave the no manual archiving notices in place, rather than cause any confusion by taking them down and back up again. I'll try to review the bot's edits after checking the drive awards. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I should point out I just archived a request that did not include a specific reason GAN, DYK etc... but was simply a request. Since there is no code (REQ, for example) can the bot still archive it? Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Twofingered Typist: When there is no specific reason, the bot simply leaves that column blank. Also, the bot is currently on hold because it is waiting for BAG approval. Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The summary is pretty much correct, except for edge cases about this 'signature detection' that has been clarified above. {{unsigned}} must be substituted if used for what the bot will recognize as a 'signature'; the bot will not parse the the templates to find signatures (and there are a family of unsigned templates...)

The template detection is case-insensitive regex-based. These are matches:

  • {{partly_done}}
  • {{ParTlY donE}}
  • <!--{{partly done}}-->
  • <nowiki>{{partly done}}</nowiki>

These are non-matches:

  • {{ partly done }}
  • {{tl|partly done}}

I should also clarify that the bot will expect a properly-formatted archive page (like Special:Permalink/870482277) before it runs. It will not create the page if it doesn't exist, and if one entry should be added to a non-existent page (or otherwise can't find the table to add to) then it will skip that entry and not archive the section. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you add {{subst:unsigned}}, please don't sign yours after {{subst:unsigned}}. It's always the last signature & user (or user talk) link that counts. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Zhuyifei1999; would it be okay to add this to an information sub-page? I'm thinking of writing one for the benefit of future requesters, copy-editors and coordinators once the bot is approved and running indefinitely. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I can clarify anything if needed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bot archiving

Hi there. I have noticed that the bot hasn't archived in 10 days. Is it back to manual archiving now? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trial period is over, so the bot is currently on hold. We are awaiting further notice from the Bot Approvals Group. Bobbychan193 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended trial

@Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, Willbb234, and Zhuyifei1999: Just letting everyone know that the bot has been granted an extended trial after Zhuyifei implemented Baffle's request for a more helpful edit summary. We should again avoid manually archiving requests during this trial period. As always, see the BRFA page for more information.

If a coordinator could update the banners/templates again, that'd be great. Thanks everyone. Bobbychan193 (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to the trial, but I found it interesting that the idea for an archiving bot was floated as early as 2011. Here we are eight years later. A lot of manual archiving work could've been saved, but even more future work will be saved thanks to Zhuyifei. Bobbychan193 (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notice is now back in the banner on the Requests page and struck the archiving instructions in the collapse box (of the same page). Trial is expected to conclude around 26 October. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both, an extended trial will be good to see how the bot copes with different situations (people do strange things on REQ sometimes!). I'm glad the edit summaries could be improved; it's good to see what's been archived without having to check diffs etc., and will be useful for problem-solving if we have any issues. Yes, we could have saved a lot of time but we got fewer c/e requests in those days and we've become skilled at archive management, and have established a practical archiving system through practice so it's all to the good. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks; I missed the banner before archiving Mandate for Palestine . All the best, Miniapolis 20:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome its return!! Thanks. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September requests

As we finish up the last of the requests from September, this will be a good test case for the bot. Zhuyifei is curious to see whether the bot will correctly delete the "September 2019" header. As such, we should ideally finish copy editing the remaining September requests by 10/26, because the extended trial will end on 10/27. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea and quite do-able with enough editors. I'll probably finish my current request by tomorrow and the remaining articles aren't huge – I think the Eurovision one is the longest but it's full of tables. The trial has gone well and I'm pleased with the edit summaries appearing in my watchlist. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bot approved!

The bot has been approved at BRFA! Thanks to all who contributed/participated, and thanks for patiently waiting! Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thank you so much to you and your friend! Tdslk (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978 and Twofingered Typist: ;) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great news~ Thanks for all your work on this. It'll be a huge help to the GOCE members. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flu (film)

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section moved from the Request page (diff) by me. Baffle☿gab 20:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since no editors would like to take a stab in pruning this article's excessively long plot summary, I'm just gonna go ahead and give the regulars on here to do the honors. Just by a cursory glance you can tell that the summary is its own movie, so just give it a copy edit in accordance with WP:FILMPLOT. Thanks! You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At 4648 words long, I suspect this is way above and beyond the scope of a GOCE edit. A few words here or there, sure. But prune to 400–700 words ...? Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the requester hasn't edited the article, at least under this account name. I've trimmed it to 3,264 words, if that's any use. Baffle☿gab 20:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Twofingered Typist: I know right? Even I couldn't bring it down to the required length (which is why I sent this here), it's impossible. At any rate, I think your colleague's c/e will suffice since the plot is too complicated to summarize in the required length anyway. But if you must bring it down a bit further or perform certain tweaks on it, please do so; otherwise, consider this request resolved. Thanks you two. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@You've gone incognito: It's now 2,714 words; you can probably take it from there—nothing's impossible, just remove text that's unimportant to the plot. Can this be archived now? Baffle☿gab 23:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should do. Thanks y'all. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@You've gone incognito: I knocked it down to about 900 words; sorry it took me a while to get around to it. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Canterbury

Hi, I've placed the above request on hold because it displays the {{notability}} template; there's also not much text to copy-edit. I suggest declining this; the requester can always make a new request once its notability is established. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't waste time on articles with valid notability concerns; instead, I tag the talk page with {{GOCEreviewed}}. All the best, Miniapolis 13:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Declined; feel free to revert. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Failon

Hi all, I've placed the request for this article on hold. It has the multiple issues template and biographical information is entirely uncited. Also, the requester describes it as "A rambling puff piece I happened to come across..." diff. I think we should decline it. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not suitable for a copy edit before other, larger issues are resolved. Tdslk (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I would decline this one. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, too much unsourced BLP, decline. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. All the best, Miniapolis 13:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Thanks all; request declined. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Daniel Hardcastle

I've placed this request on hold because the article is currently in draftspace pending an unsalting. I'm happy for it to wait a while since the subject is notable and it looks to be in fair condition; of course we can assess it once it's moved to mainspace. Courtesy pinging requester @Dmartin969:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: It's been moved to the mainspace, should I create a new request, or will you update the original? dmartin969 04:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly struck out the "on hold" notice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problems; thanks Jonesey. Dmartin, you don't need to do anything as long as you're happy. I wasn't sure how long the move would take. Most of the requests to c/e drafts we get are declined but this article looks fine to me. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually doubtful about this guy's notability; he doesn't seem to have much coverage in mainstream media. A quick G-search brought up a note about his YouTube account being unverified but not much else. I've added the {{notability}} template; feel free to remove it if independent, third-party, non-trivial sources are found. Baffle☿gab 02:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two Bad Ideas

...is about par for me for a Wednesday. But seriously, for the record, we had two requests to copy edit the same article: Bad Idea (Ariana Grande song). I boldly deleted the second request and explained the situation to the requester. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tdslk, that's fine. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Curaçao uprising

A user labeled {{Done}} for 1969 Curaçao uprising, but I don't think they went through the whole article. Perhaps a coordinator should double-check their work. I also noticed a few minor errors that I've fixed. Hope this helps. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, Bobbychan, I've struck the 'done template. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Littlemore Priory scandals

CC-BY-SA declaration; this section moved from the Request page (Priory scandals diff) by me. Reidgreg (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist and Reidgreg: With respect, this is bullshit, actually. As if skipping GA (one random guy reviewing) and going straight to FAC (multiple, usually experienced editors reviewing) is a bad thing. I would request the nominator to demonstrate his experience with FAC before continuing the copyedit. ——SN54129 16:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On edit: I see the nom has one good article. What gives? 2FT, and you agreed with this? ——SN54129 16:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Even with FACs, editors should feel free to be bold and make improvements. I do feel that the pre-copy edit version of the article had some problematic passages and its prose could be improved before its FTA appearance. I'll open this up to other editors for comment while I consider whether it's worthwhile to list specifics. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Reidgreg there is no established certainty that you would recognise a problematic passsage; your request here was little more than trolling. "Those who can't, teach": or in this case, "those who can't, fuck about with it" :D ——SN54129 16:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: @Reidgreg: "[B]ullshit" is not a word I would use in the same sentence with "respect". I did not "fuck" with the article! You're just being immature. It had typos, run-on sentences and a very choppy flow in places. I have now, I believe, improved the article and stand by every change I made. Every edit was made in good faith. I am not working on it any further. I'll remind SN54129 that just because a couple of editors have decided an article meets FAC requirements does not mean the article cannot be improved. You do not own the article. Twofingered Typist (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the GGoCE's prowess was as great as its faith in itsellf, there would be no need for FAC. ——SN54129 17:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, this would be a good time to slow your roll and assume good faith. Reidgreg placed the article in question on the GOCE's Requests list after volunteering to review and copy-edit more than two dozen TFA candidates. That editor judged a few of them to need more copy-editing than they could perform in a short period before the TFA deadline. See Reidgreg's talk page for some details. For you to come to this page and start blurting obscenities at hard-working volunteer copy editors is simply not appropriate. If you have problems with or questions about an editor's changes, the normal procedure is to discuss them at the article's talk page or the editor's talk page. I see no evidence that you attempted to do so, but I may be missing something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything amiss here. Per WP:OWN, anyone is welcome to seek improvements to an article, featured or not. I'd like to thank Reidgreg for doing so in this case, and Twofingered Typist for volunteering to take on the task! Tdslk (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got to own what's been directed at me. I was pressed for time and approached this without consultation, in a way which may have been surprising or unwelcome, and this is the not-unpredictable result. @Serial Number 54129: I appreciate your candor and will certainly consider this in how I approach TFAs in the future. Beyond that, I support the copy edit which addressed many prose issues. FA criteria 1. a. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard isn't much to go on, but there are numerous essays such as Writing better articles, Use plain English, and How to improve your writing which offer more practical guidance. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Serial Number 54129: Pinging Gog the Mild, who suggested listing TFA candidates on the requests list; no good deed goes unpunished, I guess. SN54129, I hope that by the time you return from your wikibreak you've lost that battleground attitude. GtM, you should probably disclose your new copyedit practice for TFA candidates on the TFA page; some editors have a jaundiced view (somewhat justified) of the GOCE. Hell, though, we all do our best as volunteers and very little here—certainly not this—is life-or-death. All the best, Miniapolis 16:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was a rotten day yesterday, very miserable. I seem to recall only having, generally, good things to say about GoCE and some of its members. Have a good weekend all, ——SN54129 16:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this, but I'm sleepy and this needs some thought. I'm probably going to wind up saying something about how TFT, Gog and Reidgreg do great work, but also that it wouldn't hurt for people to get a better understanding of the stresses that FA writers have to deal with. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Serial Number 54129 . I trust that your day is going somewhat better today? Much of this is probably my fault. Sadly, in my world many things are. Where to start?
Some history. The WP:ERRORS team review every main page before it goes live, often under pressure and often at short notice. They do a sterling job, but still there were complaints, sometimes pointed, that basic errors were getting through in articles which were meant to be "some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" and displayed on what was Wikipedia's shop window to the world. I volunteered/was volunteered (I forget which, it was traumatic) to do a little something about this. I seemed to possess the basic defensible requirements. (14 FAs over the past 11 months (maybe 15 by the end of tomorrow); 6 of which have been TFAs in the past 9 months; nearly 500,000 words of "formal" copy editing for GOCE over the past 2 years; including a couple of dozen explicit requests for pre-FAC copy edits. I am not trying to "big myself up" here, but to suggest that it was not an unreasonable thought that I had some experience in this area. In particular I have repeatedly been through the process of seeing my beloved creations eviscerated during the TFA process. I have also had some experience of calming the nerves of editors who are having their first experience of TFA. I digress.) So I reviewed every article coming up for TFA and gave it a light touch copy edit where necessary; and, for some, a rather heavier touch. It seemed to me that this sort of work really fell under GOCE's remit, so I kept them informed, and frequently sent articles which were a bit out of my areas of expertise (eg films, video games, US politicians, BLPs of media stars) to Requests. It seemed to work well.
The November TFAs were posted late, and I didn't think that I would be able to get through them. So I enrolled the assistance of Reidgreg, in whom I have almost limitless faith - no reason why anyone else should have, but I consider their copy editing skills to be of the highest order. I coordinated a rather more systematic than usual approach on their talk page - here. You can see that for Littlemore Priory scandals I commented "Promoted three months ago by an experienced nominator. Few edits since. However, I think that it could do with a copy edit. Do you fancy it, or shall I put it on Requests?" Reidgreg was bold and put it on Requests himself. But he is a, more or less, innocent third party in all this. GOCE are probably fourth party onlookers. (I would normally have looked at it myself, but I was feeling a little pressed; unnecessarily so, but still.) If you are unhappy with the process, that would probably be more appropriately directed at me. And apologies if the lack of information has caused you unnecessary angst.
@Reidgreg, Dank, and Miniapolis: Apologies that this has become more contentious than it needed to be. If you feel that there is anything further that I need to or could usefully explain, or if anything above seems incomplete or inaccurate, please let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to respond to this: that all sounds right to me, Gog. - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly providing food for thought. At times like this I have to restrain myself from getting too cosmic ... I think there are implications here for how standard Wikipedia dogma fails all of us sometimes. But the question of the moment is simply: were TFT's edits out of line in some way? I'll go have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Part of this was (at the time, anyway) simply a misunderstanding between SN and TFT. When SN made, for instance, this reversion, it didn't mean that he was rejecting every one of TFT's edits (including the one that corrected "seeping" to "sleeping"), it meant that he preferred to work from the original version forward rather than working from the edited version backwards. TFT got the wrong idea of the nature of SN's objections, I think (and things spiraled a bit after that). I don't know what to say yet, because I don't know what people want ... maybe Gog has the same questions, I don't know. If you guys (non-sexist "guys") could have any result you wanted, what would it be? More to do, or less? More recognition for your good work and more integration with what FA and GA writers are doing, or more autonomy and less pushback? There are probably lots of workable options here, but you have to know what you want, and then we have to communicate that effectively. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dank, it's good to see you on here again. Most of this dispute has gone over my head, so forgive me if I'm talking out-of-turn here. Of course it would be nice if all WP articles had perfect grammar, spelling, article structure, etc, but that's never going to happen in such a dynamic project.
Yes I do make mistakes in spelling etc. (who doesn't?). If I'm working on a c/e and my work is reverted or conflicted, I check the diff to discover the reason. If I don't think it's a reasonable reversion (i.e. I made a silly error, made a typo, changed the meaning of a sentence, etc.), I normally try to discuss the problem with the reverting editor, I don't involve myself in content disputes or edit wars. If the problem seems to be entrenched ownership or IDHT, I'll usually abandon the c/e and move on; I have better things to do. Yes we have to communicate effectively and that goes both ways. As Jonesey95 and Miniapolis (voices of reason for whom I have much respect) point out, we're all volunteers who do our best to improve articles but some (thankfully few) editors will never be satisfied with that. I know nothing about the TFA process but if that process is malfunctioning that's neither the GOCE's fault nor it's problem. I wouldn't want to see TFA / FA / GA integrated with the Guild; I think we generally work well with those projects but we don't take our crap to their doors so they shouldn't bring their crap to ours. Baffle☿gab 18:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good to see you too. FWIW ... that's exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for, and I suspect that FA writers can work with that. We just need to know. Depending on how much post-FAC copyediting we're looking at, there may need to be some discussions about minor copyediting points, but I don't see any stoppers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am poking my nose in again here with a suggestion that I have made a few times, and that has worked well for me. Sometimes when I am about to begin a copy edit on an FAC or other article that people may have grown attached to, I do a three-step process. See this talk page conversation for an example. I did the following:
  1. Posted a new section on the requested article's talk page, informing watchers that I was about to begin a requested copy edit.
  2. Followed up with "Some problems I found while copy-editing:" (that I was unable to resolve on my own)
  3. Concluded with a statement that "I am done with my copy edits" and an offer to watch the page for a while in case anyone had questions. I sometimes ask editors to ping me or put a note on my User Talk page instead, since I do not like to watch article-space pages.
This process notifies all page watchers that some action is about to occur on a page, which can head off reverts and edit conflicts. It also gives watchers an opportunity to say "Please don't start your copy-edit because [insert reason]", or "Please remember to use British English", or whatever. It then notifies those same watchers when the copy-editing process is done so that they can look for things that I missed. One final note: I usually try to give the article the benefit of the doubt when deciding whether to change a stylistic choice (like serial commas, or the use/omission of an optional "that"), since editors tend to be attached to style. If a particular style choice is inconsistently applied within the article, I will try to make it consistent, keeping my touch light. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Regarding Dank's question, I prefer more autonomy and less pushback. In recent years, there's been an increased emphasis by some editors on the number of GAs, FAs, etc. on their user pages. The issue comes up frequently at RfA, and looks to me like the new editcountitis; it's not good for the overall encyclopedia if nominators are warring with copyeditors, instead of cooperating. FWIW, I copyedit in general accordance with the MoS (with an occasional dash of IAR) rather than whatever shifting consensus exists at GAN and FAC. Remember that we're all volunteers here, and can come and go as we please. All the best, Miniapolis 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered this conversation is still ongoing. For the record my edits were rejected twice—all of them—the first time with no explanation. This has now been resolved and no further edits have been made to the page. SN54129 has moved on, it's time we all did. We all have better things to do here. I do think that Jonesey95's suggestion that a note be placed on a TFA talk page when a copy edit is to begin is a good idea. I for one will do this in future. Regards to all, Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Novaković

Hi all; I've just put the request (diff) for the article above on hold because it is referenced entirely from sources connected to the subject (subject's university dissertation, subject's bios on employers' websites, etc.). I've tagged it appropriately. Courtesy pinging @Serbianboy:; can you find appropriate reliable, third-party references to confirm this person's notability? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Baffle gab1978:, Igor Novaković is political and security analyst that is often quoted in the media Serbian and Balkan media, also he is academic and participant of various conferences as the moderator and the speaker. I am sending to you several sources in hope that it will prove that he is relevant:

These are just several. I could use all of these sources, but I am not sure where to put it in his Wiki page. VuXman talk 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Serbianboy. Copyedits are usually requested for stable articles (not new ones) which are ready to be nominated for Good Article or Featured Article. I agree with Baffle gab1978 that the article's subject may not meet WP:NACADEMIC, which seems to be the appropriate subject-specific guideline. The responsibility for adding sources is with the person who adds the material; please don't expect us to format a long list of citations for you. YouTube videos are generally unacceptable sources because of copyright concerns, and Wikipedia is not the place for a resume. If you are being paid to write this article, you must disclose that. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance. All the best, Miniapolis 20:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serbianboy has been on English Wikipedia since March 2009, which is long enough to have learnt its notability policies. The article as it stands is quite readable and doesn't seem to need a copy-edit. None of the sources above I checked have significant coverage of the subject and no, I don't fancy watching hours of Youtube videos to research this guy! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to cite to online videos, please use {{cite AV media}} with the |minutes= parameter to indicate at what point in the video the material backing up the citation is presented. (The same way one would use |page= or {{rp}} to give the page number in a book.) – Reidgreg (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked the request Declined; please revert if necessary. The bot should archive in 24 hours. The prose looks fine to me anyway. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tribunal (The Outer Limits)

I've placed this request on hold because the article consists of only a plot summary, has no citations and has a ten-year-old {{Notability}} template. Courtesy pinging requester @NeoBatFreak: for comment; can you find any suitable sources for this article? Suggest declining with a possible trip to AfD. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @NeoBatfreak: (fixed user name). Also, I noticed that this and other Outer Limits articles use the {{cquote}} template, which articles are not supposed to use, per the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definite deny. Too bad, that was a decent show, but even the main article for the series doesn't have a lot of good sources. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked the request Declined; please revert if necessary, the bot should remove it in 24 hrs. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of newspapers

Hi all; I've just placed the request for Lists of newspapers (diff) on hold because the requester wants us to c/e "every list of newspapers of every country"; essentially 195 list articles depending on the definition of a country and whether they have newspapers. I suggest we decline this super-request, though I'm not adverse to doing individual list articles that have significant prose content. Courtesy-pinging the requester @Thinker78:. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on a dozen articles at random. None of them have significant prose content. This looks like a proposal better suited for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media. Maybe someone at one of those projects would be willing to work on this project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; this is beyond what the GOCE can do, and would tie up the project at the expense of other editors. All the best, Miniapolis 14:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this is not a task that for which the GOCE is best suited. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for responding; request declined. I admit I didn't check the nature of the articles involved before placing the hold. I know it's 'instruction creep' but since a few editors have tried to add them, I've added "You may add one article for each request. "Super-requests" in involving multiple articles will be declined." to the panel; feel free to revert if you wish. I've self-reverted per WP:BEANS. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rights in Iran

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section coped from Requests page here by me, Baffle☿gab 04:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I am working on Women's rights in Iran, but the lead of the article needs to rewrite. Is there anyone who desire to give it try?Thanks!-- Saff V. (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need rewriting? Because it exposes the lack of women rights in the country? Careful, you have been warned previously for your editing in the article. I'm not interested in cleaning up after you again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you angry because I have asked for copy edit the lead which was included the tag, "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents"? You are warned against hounding me from page to page.Saff V. (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And how am I exactly hounding you? Sorry to disappoint but aspersions and threats aren't gonna startle me anytime soon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a discussion page. Please move discussions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests or to Talk:Women's rights in Iran. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←)  Working I'll take it, I'm good at wading unnecessarily into content disputes... ;) Baffle☿gab 02:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Baffle☿gab 03:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests&oldid=930390841"