Category talk:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Graph showing articles needing copy-edit by month[edit]

It shows 2100 articles needing copy-editing and then 500 for Jan, 150 for Feb etc, making a total of 4096 to do. But the 2100 is itself the total for all articles ie Jan to now, so we're counting them twice ! (There are only 2100 to do altogether, made up of 500 for Jan, 150 for Feb etc) I think I'm right ! thisisace 23:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed, I counted no more than 2233 articles. This is much less demoralizing. I don't know how, but someone please fix the bot that creates the graph! It may encourage people to edit the articles. -Pgan002 03:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just worked out it's not a bot - you give it the numbers and it draws it - so have updated it ! thisisace 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Updated today; 4,243 articles remaining! -Samy85 (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

February 2007[edit]

This might sound lame, but we should really try to fix the last 43 articles for February 07. I would look good to finish at least one month. Mm40 (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


I say we organize a big effort to reduce this back log to being respectable. I volunteer to lead this. I might be thinking big, but tell me your thoughts on my talk page. Mm40 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

June 2008 - Active members?[edit]

Hello everyone! This backlog has been huge, and the League of Copyeditors is about to be deleted. I know there are a few of us still out there who help out with copy-editing once in a while, so how about we all come together, try to get organized (like what Mm40 said a few months ago (above), and help pull in more people to join the effort? -Samuel tan85 (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Hi there. I would organize it, but I'm leaving for 7-8 weeks this Wednesday. You guys can either do it with me or without me. We could do it tomorrow, but that would require a lot of word spreading. Or we can just do it until we finish over time, Just because this is dead doesn't mean it can't be worked at.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  10:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm here too. I'm still working on a huge overhaul of a big article (Herpes Simplex) left over from LOCE days, but I'll be particpating in general CE here once I finish. Livitup (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a newish project for copy-editing and such, Wikipedia: Peer Review. There's a page in there where volunteers can put up their names. -Samy85 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing method and specific tags[edit]

Hey all. I've been thinking that for articles that are in such a bad shape that copy-editing can only do very limited improvement, we should try our best to improve the language and structure, and replace the copy-edit tag with more specific tags, like {{cleanup-rewrite}} or {{cleanup-jargon}} . This would apply especially to articles that are mostly unintelligible. Anyone have other ideas? -Samy85 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are 1000% right. Livitup (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
You are right, especially with some of the south Asian articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject or taskforce to deal with the copy edit backlog[edit]

Hey all! I've been trying to gauge interest in a taskforce or even a wikiproject dedicated to maintaining and working on the category of articles needing copy edit, which has backlog reaching to January 2007. Already there are a few people interested in the idea; if you're interested or want to help, drop a note at my talk page! When there are enough of us interested, we can put up a proposal for the wikiproject and start working out the details. :) -Samuel Tan 01:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Created an archive box and shifted the talk from 2005 to 2007 to the relevant archive.--Samuel Tan 09:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Feb 2007[edit]

I have reduced the February 2007 backlog to 13 articles, and one of those is pending deletion at AFD. I have encouraged AnnaFrance (talk · contribs) to help with clearing the January 2007 backlog. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorize by topic, not by date[edit]

I think it would be a lot more helpful if the list of articles needing copy edit could somehow be organized by topic, rather than age. Although copy editing is, to a certain extent, independent of the subject matter, no editing is entirely a standalone effort.

I occasionally do technical editing and manuscript review of books on computer topics. The editors always tell me to concentrate on just the technical aspects, and not to worry about grammar and spelling. But I can't help it. An error is an error.

If articles were categorized by topic, it would be easier to recruit volunteers who were interested in the subject matter. Nobody wants to spend hour and hours dragging their way through poorly-written articles on topics they don't care about anyway.

CaritasUbi (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, although I don't really mind to learn something new about different topics. Anyway, how can articles arranged by topic? Does someone of us has to do it or can it be done automatically?--Kojozone (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I would be happy with just a list by category. This information is readily available in the page, and would be a matter of extracting pages that were marked as needing copy editing. I'm not a PHP guy, so I don't know how easy this would be (those "Special:xxx" pages seem to do it, somehow).

--CaritasUbi (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

April 2007[edit]

The backlog for April 2007 is down to 13. I'd say we're getting there! However, there are some quite hopeless articles (the racer with his "career highlights" for example or that Indian Robin Hood politician). We should decide what to do there. On the other hand, the Winx minor character article seems to look quite good by now. I don't know if there are a lot more ways to improve it. Cheers--Kojozone (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What about proposing quite hopeless articles with poor references for deletion? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

2 years[edit]

We are now only two years behind. That is something ;)--Kojozone (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes me no sense[edit]

"This category is not shown on its member pages." How can a category have member pages? Unfree (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's saying that a page in this category won't display at the bottom that it's in this category. For example, you see that a page is in category:living people by looking at the list of categories, but this category won't appear in that list. Mm40 (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Undated articles[edit]

The list shows "Undated articles 9" but how do we see those 9 articles? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This list has grown to 17 articles. Apparently editors add the template without a date. How do we handle this?--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for copyediting in 1997[edit]

Here are two articles tagged for copyediting in 1997, but I think that the problems with these articles cannot be resolved by copyediting. What do other editors think? If you decide the copyedit template can be removed, do it.

I'd shoot these over to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. There is a Lemony Snicket group that could work on the Series of Unfortunate Events page, and the Majipoor inhabitants also might go to the fantasy group. Before considering deletion, it's worth considering whether an appropriate group knows of their existence. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
These articles are not candidates for deletion, but something other than copyediting is needed. One of my principles is to make sure any article I work on from these lists has an appropriate WikiProject template, whether or not the copyedit template can be removed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I read both your posts at once and my brain got muddled. Adding Wikiproject templates is a great idea. I don't know where to find them, or haven't looked hard enough -- can send me to the right place? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes the WikiProject is obvious, and having put them in for months, I often know what to use. Other times I can follow a link in the article and get the right template or templates from a linked article talk page. You have mentioned two good places to draw attention to the articles I cite above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of copyedit template[edit]

Suppose the editor who created an article removes the copyedit template without any further explanation, and removes it a second time after it is replaced? Along with doing that, the editor removes the notability template and the hoax template, also without any further explanation. I am the editor who initially posted the copyedit template, but others posted the notability and hoax templates. What is to be done now? I am too experienced an editor to get into an edit war, so I am asking for help and advice from other editors. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

A Request[edit]

If you copy-edit an article in any of the sub-categories of this category, and decide that you have resolved the style, grammar, or punctuation problems, please remove the copy-edit tag. Most of the articles in the older monthly categories have already been copy-edited and only need the tag removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sally Kellerman's article[edit]

May I please request someone to copy/edit the article on Sally Kellerman, that I have worked tremendously hard on. I am trying to make her article meet GA standards. Thank you. - unsigned comment by Avario87, 25 April 2014

Avario87, the best place to make these requests is the Guild of Copy Editors' Requests page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)