Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

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

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)

Requests talk archives[edit]

I think Requests talk is the next archiving mess to deal with. These archive pages are a mish-mash of year/month combinations and aren't in any logical order. And I think it was me who set up archiving, so it's really my mess! :-o That page currently uses User:Cluebot III for archiving; I set it up the same way as my talk page for simplicity, and look where that's leading us!

When I'm back from my pending short break I propose to organise the archives into annual pages, as I've done with this page. A discussion on the future of archiving there would be useful; do we change the bot or the way it archives? What do folks (especially but not exclusively coordinators) think should occur there? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes please, annual archive pages, and set the bot to archive to the current year's annual archive page. Let me know if you want help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and thank you both; it took me a while to figure out why my own talk page had stopped archiving :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
yellow tickY Partly done. I've just merged the archives as annual digests and have requested speedy deletion of the relevent pages; also I've replaced the archive box with the template at the main GOCE talk page. I forgot I could copy by substing; you'd think I'd know that by now! I've yet to swap the archiving bot; I'll do that in the next few days as time permits. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Baffle. All the best, Miniapolis 16:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the date format that Cluebot uses, so archives should go to the new "2015" page now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jonesey. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Coordinators' talk archives[edit]

No worries; the other one to sort out is the Coordinators' talk page; it's been archived manually into numbered rather than dated pages, which I've yet to explore. Do you (plural) think it needs sorting out? It's not in quite the mess REQ/talk was, but it might be more useful as annual digests, and I think the live page needs reducing. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessary, Baffle, but it'd be a big help if you wouldn't mind. You're good at this, and the ArbCom clerk thang has a steep learning curve :-). Thanks again and all the best, Miniapolis 23:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

WP Guild - wikilinked in October 27 Tip-Of-The-Day[edit]

Greetings! FYI, the new TOTD for Tip of the day/October 27 Basic copyediting, mentions this WP in the Read more".

This tip was recently added at the TOTD Schedule Queue and posted at the Tips library. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Great; thanks for letting us know! All the best, Miniapolis 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Possessive "apostrophe-S" after Z sounds[edit]

I picked up on an edit made by User:GrammarFascist earlier today, wherein they changed Tommy Jones (footballer, born 1909) so that where it previously read "Jones‍ '​ debut for Wednesday" it now read "Jones's debut for Wednesday". Perhaps it was a little petty of me to revert such a minor change, but I noticed the aforementioned user has been making similar edits to a plethora of other articles. I was always taught that when a word ends with a "Z" sound, such as "Jones", it is not necessary to add an S after the apostrophe when creating the possessive. I certainly don't believe it is wrong to write "Jones's" instead of "Jones'", but the latter is what I was always taught to prefer. Can someone please advise both User:GrammarFascist and myself on this matter? – PeeJay 21:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm no English teacher, but I've always preferred the latter (Jones'). --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
There are various practices and no universally accepted rule. Suggest looking at MOS:POSS, and do follow the link to Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an “s” or “z” sound as well. On issues like this, where the world is full of "rules" invented by schoolma'ams for the entrapment of the unwary, it's best not to have strong views. Life is too short. All the MOS requires is that the article be consistent. --Stfg (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The MOS says either alternative is fine but be consistent throughout the article, see MOS#Posessives. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It's the same situation as with the serial comma. The only hard and fast rule is that it has to be consistent within a single article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
So we're all agreed that there was no reason for User:GrammarFascist to change the article in the first place? – PeeJay 04:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Debate over the __s' vs. __s's issue has been going on at Wikipedia going back at least as far as 2005: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 7#Possessives of words ending in .27s.27. That discussion covered several points that inform my preferring __s's to __s', in particular the fact that the only major style guide which recommends __s' is the Associated Press's... which is intended mainly for use in newspapers, where space has always been at a premium, for which reason there are several points on grammar where AP style prefers a shorter form regardless of other considerations. But Wikipedia is neither a paper encyclopedia nor a newspaper, so there's no reason for us to use a style intended for paper newspapers here. When two forms are both "acceptable", but one is more correct, I have gone with the form that is more correct. It's like who and whom; who is nowadays considered acceptable in all places where whom could be used, but whom is more correct in instances where who is not the only correct choice, so I also use whom where it is correct. I hope this clarifies things for you, PeeJay2K3. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Take the lead![edit]

Hi folks, am going to run this competition in January. see Wikipedia:Take the lead!. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

James Stunt[edit]

I am requesting copy edit of James Stunt to remove all COI. I am willing to help with this rewrite as much as possible and provide sources where needed but I am concerned that some one may tell me that I have a conflict of interest as well if I do the complete copyedit myself. This is why I humbly request a copy editor to edit it independently to wikipedia standards. Thanks. Skinssnapper (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Skinssnapper, I see that you posted this request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. That is the correct place to post it. As you can see on that page, the average waiting time is about a month, although it's been shorter recently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted attention to this page as an editor from wikipedia was concerned about it. I will attempt to correct the issues myself by the time one of your recognized copy editors reaches my request in the queue but I hope a copy edit from you guys will help more than it will from me. I appreciate your help. --Skinssnapper (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)