Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

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

Copy-editing poorly sourced articles[edit]

During the ongoing backlog reduction drive, I scanned through a fairly large number of copy-edit-tagged articles, and found that a large number of them also carry refimprove tags. I know that I personally avoid such, and I'm sure that others do too, because when a sentence is uncited, our hands are tied to a great degree with respect to re-writing it. How do folks here deal with this problem? Has there been discussion about this before? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, copyediting is copyediting and finding sources for content we haven't added is IMO above our pay grade. FWIW, I don't avoid articles with {{Refimprove}} tags; I have enough problems, and that ain't one of them :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Many editors mistake copy-editing for WP:Cleanup. It's generally a waste of time and effort to properly c/e something that's liable to change drastically; and as Miniapolis says is above my pay grade. Some might be worth the effort, but where a sizable article (particularly BLPs) is almost completely bereft of references, I normally remove the c/e tag with the edit summary; "article needs referencing properly; fix existing problems before requesting a copy-edit". Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that is more or less what I was thinking. If most people here agree with this approach, would it be reasonable to go through the list of articles in the guild's "backlog," and do exactly what Baffle gab1978 is suggesting? We might then make better progress with the portion of the backlog which is actually copy-editable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a big job, so thanks for offering to take some of it on; Baffle and I have been doing that for the drives, and {{GOCEreviewed}} is very handy to place on talkpages of articles from which we've removed {{copy edit}}. I think part of the problem is that some AfC editors and new-page patrollers tag everything for a copyedit, which is unrealistic. All the best, Miniapolis 13:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I am an exception, but the refimprove tag never puts me off, nor does the word "unassessed" in red bother me, nor do the bare URLs in the references stop me from copyediting and doing other improvements that I can do. The leaderboard says "Dthomsen8 (28)" articles, so I am making progress this month. I will say that I have not reached 4,000 words yet, which means I have been doing some rather small articles. Also, I have applied the {{GOCEreviewed|user=Dthomsen8|date=July 2015|issues=awaiting deletion decision}} to many articles tagged for deletion. I do point out articles that should be marked for copyediting which are not our responsibility. (See sections above.) The copyediting tag may bring me to articles that are too challenging for me to c/e, but that doesn't stop me from making other improvements instead. This has been my approach since starting with GoCE, but it is not what I would expect others to do. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
DThomsen8, I admire that, but my issue is slightly different. I have come across unsourced pieces written in very unencyclopedic language. I could clean up that language; but (and this might just be me) were I to do so, I feel like I am taking responsibility for it. This is especially true when the language is really poor, and so the rewrite has to be that much more extensive. If you feel comfortable with that, well, I'm not about to ask you to do otherwise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Perhaps Mangkunegara II is an example of what you have found. This article is very poorly written, confusing, and without any inline citations. The references are obscure books. Indonesian words like "pembangkangan" make the text hard to understand. Is this an example? If so, what is to be done?--DThomsen8 (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

For articles like that, {{GOCEreviewed}} works for me. Miniapolis 13:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is precisely the sort of content I am talking about, which is (unfortunately) common. If there are no objections here, I would be happy to go through these and add {{GOCEreviewed}} to all of them over a few weeks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Vanamonde, no objections from me, that would be most appreciated. I've one request though. Can you please add a note, such as "{{done}}; GOCE tags checked by ~~~~" or something similar to the monthy category page(s) as you work through them (if that's how you're selecting articles to check -- otherwise ignore me!) ? Thanks for taking on this thankless task. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Tidying Guild talk page archives[edit]

Hi all; as per my election pledge, I'm considering tidying some Guild talk page archives, starting with this page's archives. I propose here to merge the monthly-archived pages into yearly or six-monthly ones. Some of the archived pages are very short; merging them would considerably reduce the length of the archive box at the top of this page. I solicit your thoughts. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you start in August, and start with the oldest archives first. Cheers! --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yearly archive pages are much easier to search and require less maintenance. Go for it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks both; I'll start this task in a few days, after the Drive is over. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

() yellow tickY Partly done - I've copied the 2008 pages to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Archives/2008, and have marked the July, August, September, October and November pages for speedy deletion under {{Db-a10}}. There's no December archive and I doubt a history merge is necessary since the edits are just archiving bot edits and minor fixes; it's all in this page's history anyway. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle; G6 (housekeeping) is also a good rationale for this kind of thing. All the best, Miniapolis 14:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries; i wasn't sure which rationale to use; I'll remember that for next time, thanks. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

() I've merged all 2009 archives to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2009; all merged pages are about to be tagged for speedy deletion as per Miniapolis above:

2010 now done as per above. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
2011 done. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
2012 done. The archive box is starting to look much slimmer now. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
2013 done. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2014 done, and that's the task completed, as of my timestamp. I'll add a line to the coordinators' task list to merge annually per below; hopefully that will stop the archive box getting too bloated in future years. I'll take a look at how we archive our other talk pages in a few days. Cheers all, and thanks for the feedback and comments. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It looks like 2015 is still being archived by month. Are you willing to switch the Miszabot code to annual archives and merge 2015 in the same way? If not, I'll see if I can do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can probably do that, though I need to check the bot's codes first. I'll set it to archive monthly to an annual digest page; I was thinking to merge at the end of the year, but setting the bot would be (hopefuly) maintenance-free. Any suggestions for our other talk pages? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Future talk page archiving[edit]

It's nearly done; only 2014 to complete. What should we do with our talk archives in the future? We could:

  • continue archiving monthly with no changes;
  • continue archiving monthly, then merge these into annual digests each January;
  • the bot could be set to archive to a yearly digest each month...

There's probably more options than I care to think about; please feel free to suggest something I've overlooked. Future software implementation could render this redundant, of course, but I'm opening this discussion to see what others (esp, coordinators) think. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

An annual archive page should be fine. Thanks for doing this grunt work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and echo Jonesey's gratitude. All the best, Miniapolis 14:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I like the third and second options - monthly will stop the flood on the talk page, and then compressing that together is more than helpful. Esp with single month archives for that current year. KieranTribe 11:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on style in British English[edit]

A Request for Comments at Talk:Mid-Norfolk_Railway has raised the issue of whether nouns denoting institutions (e.g., society/Society and trust/Trust) take capital letters in British English when the full proper name is not used?

Any input is welcome. Ingafube (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

British Pakistani listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for British Pakistani to be moved to British Pakistanis. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

British Pakistanis listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for British Pakistanis to be moved to British Pakistanis. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Might interest some people.[edit]

[[1]] - this might interest some of our editors who like to c/e new pages and come across this nonsense for 60% of companies... Poor you, I say to that. KieranTribe 09:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)