Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

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



Poorly written article by non-native English speaker[edit]

What do you do when you come across an article like Tere Mere Beech? I can't understand it well enough to copy-edit it. I'm not sure there's anything salvageable there.

Thanks! – gwendy (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead section looks salvageable. I've seen much worse. The Plot section content should be moved to Cast, and looks salvageable with some judicious cutting. The Summary section is actually the Plot, and it seems too long and detailed and needs considerable work. I didn't read the whole Summary section, but taking a look at Episode 5, it looks incomprehensible and might need to be shortened to a sentence or two. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I recently copy edited the article in question without knowing that this discussion existed. Has this caused any problems related to this discussion? If so, please let me know. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Diligent work, Noah Kastin. You did not cause any trouble at all, as far as I can tell, and improved the article quite a bit. At this point, it needs attention from someone who knows the show. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Practical impact of the GOCE "working" and "in use" templates and mild modification suggestion[edit]

I'm somewhat confused by the way "Working" is currently used in response to requests. The introductory guidelines to the request page seem to imply a few things I find overall damaging to streamlined collaborative workflow. I wasn't sure which GOCE talk page to bring this up on so I stuck it here. Let me know if I fraked up by doing so.

"When you accept a request, place an indented  Working template immediately beneath the request and sign your post with four tildes so other copy editors know not to accept it."

This encourages the skimming of the requests page for untemplated requests, which is a good way for casting the widest net possible, but many pages are now way too much work for this kind of resource allocation. The speed at which article requests could be processed could drastically increase if the template would also include a rating from the initial accepting GOCE member gauging the scale of the project thus giving the  Working template not only the ability to elegantly communicate "One person job, I've got this" but also "This needs more eyeballs on it if it is going to get done before the sun dies." or "I'm pretty sure this is way above my paygrade, lets speedy reject?"

For example "Working - Additional help needed (Scale:Large)" or "Working - Additional help needed (Advisement:WAMP)" wouldn't clutter up the request page, as it is still one line of text. However, people skimming down would have at-a-glance information about the page.

I know that it could be said if you take a request page and need more help or some advice about what to do with the request we already have an established process in which an editor should go to various talk pages, or ping various people, or use yet more templates. This ping-pong approach to resource allocation is antiquated and clumsy, and could be easily streamlined.

Why is {in-use} only 24 hours? That is enough time for a short workday, short commute, short leisure time, short edits, and sleep. That is a wonderful Pleasant Valley Sunday vision of modern life but isn't very friendly to students or professionals who sometimes have to put in an 18 hour workday, or it is Friday so after work you wind up drinking and taking stimulants until 7am. Using my 6am Friday alarm clock to Sunday afternoon hangover-fade hypothesis, which I just came up with but I swear is super scientific, 60 hours would be the ideal cut-off. One way or another, 24 hours is too short. "In use" should also feature the assessment information I suggested in the previous section. "At-a-glance whenever and wherever elegant" is an ethos I think would be a net positive for GOCE.

Jasphetamine (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting ideas. I encourage you to spend some time working on one or more Requests (I do not see your name in the list of Archived requests for 2016 or 2017, but I see that you are working on one now – thank you!) to see if your suggestions are practical. In my experience, I would not want someone else working on a Requested article at the same time as me, since people's editing styles vary, and I expect that frustrating edit conflicts would be frequent enough to be bothersome. That said, any editor is welcome to ask for additional assistance with a page for any reason. I have seen it happen a few times on the requests page recently. Also, GOCE Coordinators monitor articles in "Working" status to ensure that the requests don't get too stale.
As for the {{GOCEinuse}} template, I never use it, but since nobody can "own" an article on WP, marking a somewhat busy article for much longer than a few hours could be seen as "own-y". If I am editing a "busy" article, I try to edit in small chunks in order to limit edit conflicts. You might take a look at Template talk:In use and Template:Under construction for more options. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your response @Jonesey95:! First off, I suspect you're right, {{GOCEinuse}} is maybe just best left alone.
Regarding your concern: the reason I specified that the original Request accepting editor would be the one who does the initial assessment that would go into the extended "Working" template I proposed is so that an editor such as yourself would not lose any existing efficacy in your workflow. You would be able to assess your project as no help needed, say... "Working - No help needed" or whatever. Those such as myself who would rather approach a Request to fix a very long article collaboratively would simply be given a new, elegant way to invite collaboration -- at no productivity cost to editors with your work style.
As a recent example of the practicality of two people poking at the same article at once, see Talk:Sarawak Blackmane accepted the Request, I offered help, and we were able to quickly sort out where we'd be working so we didn't have conflict issues.
My last suggestion hoping to encourage more GOCE member collaboration hasn't taken off, but I've got a lot of practice at failure so hey, why not float another idea. Jasphetamine (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
If it is working for you, that's excellent. Keep it up. Welcome to the party. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April-June Archive Table[edit]

I set up an April-June archive table so that editors can continue to archive their articles. I hope nobody minds. I leave the housekeeping, if any, for the January-March table for those who know. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much; my browser starts to burp if the archive gets too big :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest[edit]

Right folks, I am setting this up to run May 15 to June 30 again...with the usual Amazon vouchers up for grabs. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. All the best, Miniapolis 13:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Has been" vs "was"[edit]

Hello,

I reviewed a DYK nomination that I think could use a second opinion. The proposed hook is:

... that Heneral Luna, a biographical film directed by Jerrold Tarog, has been regarded by Esquire Philippines as his breakthrough film?

I explained that "has been" doesn't sound correct to me and passed the hook as:

... that Heneral Luna, a biographical film directed by Jerrold Tarog, was regarded by Esquire Philippines as his breakthrough film?

I would like someone else to review this grammar issue and thought this page is the best place to find a good answer, but please write comments on the DYK nomination page: Template:Did you know nominations/Jerrold Tarog. Thanks! AHeneen (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

They're both bad solutions. You can chop out that mess and just have
"... Esquire Philippines commented that the biopic Heneral Luna was director Jerrold Tarog's breakthrough film"
Otherwise, just go with "was described by" if you're linking to an old article and you don't want to be super declarative because you aren't sure the source still holds that opinion. if it is something like... I dunno whether or not The Matrix was the Wachowski's breakout, which is a little more cut and dry, you might say "is regarded." Essentially unless Esquire magazine redacted their original statement, you don't have to use past tense describing their opinion. That said softer language will make you slightly less wrong if it turns out the source has revised their stance from the original one. Jasphetamine (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A new project needs you[edit]

Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.

Please join and participate.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)