Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

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



Just curious[edit]

I was editing random articles and noticed one with a {{cleanup}} tag dated January 2010. That got me to wondering - why are 'cleanup' and 'copyedit' separate projects? The cleanup project page lists page layout, wikification, spelling, grammar and typographical errors, tone, and sourcing as topics which they cover. That seems to overlap with copyedit extensively. Is this just a historical thing? Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I agree that there is a fair bit of crossover between the two tags, but I like the well-defined scope of the Guild, so I'm hesitant to have another, broader, tag under our purview. Should we ever actually eliminate the backlog, we could start an effort to reevaluate cleanup-tagged articles and see which should really be tagged for copyediting, but that would be a huge task by itself. Tdslk (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Copy editing is a subset of cleanup. Our project is challenging and busy enough without enlarging its scope. If you would like to revive Wikipedia:Cleanup, go for it! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

We have failed to clear the copyediting backlog for years on end. The last thing we need to do is to dig the hole deeper. Over the last 6 months, we have reduced the backlog by an amazing 50 articles (of 1800). Maybe someday we can expand our scope.... Lfstevens (talk)

Thanks for the answers. As I said, I was just curious about how the 2 projects differ. Copy edit as a subset of cleanup makes sense. Leschnei (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll echo Tdslk, Jonesey and Lfstevens that we're plenty busy enough, and there aren't that many active copyeditors. The cleanup project may have gone the way of WikiProject Wikify; the task was so Sisyphean that editors (including me) gave up. WP:VOLUNTEER. All the best, Miniapolis 14:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are requests only shown as being worked on by one editor when they're finished?[edit]

I'm just wondering if there isn't a loosen the ketchup bottle effect inherent in using the current request system as a tally, if it might act as a disincentive to people who want to work on articles but know they likely can't finish them, and in a worst-case scenario give people an incentive to try to cheat the system by "Finishing" requests quickly to get a tally up, which passes the workload onto the senior people who review articles being "Finished." Jasphetamine (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think most editors who copy-edit articles at GOCE are doing so to make a contribution to the encyclopedia and not to rack up points. I also think the coordinators, particularly the lead coordinator, will soon become aware of any editor who is doing hasty but incomplete work in order to raise a tally of completed requests and can deal with him or her appropriately.  – Corinne (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what tally you are referring to, Jasphetamine. Can you explain where this tally is recorded? I don't see a system that can be "cheated". Please help me understand what you are saying. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2017 worries me because after that recent RfA had to be elevated to beuro for a controversial opinion, people might now start trying to find new and innovate ways of having a tabulated quantified tally of their contributions to Wiki. Now if the community does what it did in that RfA, which i fully supported, and said we're gonna stop obsessing over edit counts so much, it doesn't mean they won't want something counted. I can't think of a greater hill to be king of going into a next-gen RfA than of the GOCE hill. Requested, worked, guideline check, and there is a name solidly locked in a table. This is more of a thought experiment cause solved with a very practical solution. It would be quite easy to game the Request system with sandbagged articles dropped at set time and dates to be Work tagged by a stats-farmer, who tidies up a small project and finishes it. Cranks onto the next one.
That is the kinda dramatic exciting possibility. For me it is more about, once again, breaking out of a blanket GOCE wide culture of solitary c/e. The intro guide still says the reason we tag requests working is so nobody else will take them, not "So that anyone else interested would know who to ask permission to assist." Jasphetamine (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I have not perceived any such counting-focused activity here at GOCE. In fact, I have a counter-example: the editor who copy-edits the most tagged articles in our drives (many hundreds of articles, twice per year) does not record those edits on the drive pages. I don't know what motivates that editor, but it is not the glory of being counted. Similarly, the editors who copy-edit the most requests do not do so for barnstars or counting statistics or user role hats, as far as I can see. It seems that you are looking for a problem where one does not yet exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I hope it doesn't come across as looking for problems because I like problems; I like thought experiments that help me better understand stuff. I saw stat tracking on one page, I saw that it is a single-user, that bounties happen, etc, and some bored neurons in my mind had a chat and I posted this query. Thanks for responding, I'm glad there isn't a culture of edits-for-kudos. That counter-example is really interesting. The more ya know! Jasphetamine (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Old copy edit requests for League of Copyeditors[edit]

Is Category:Old copy edit requests for League of Copyeditors still useful for this project? The category is populated by transclusions of {{LOCErequest}}, yet LOCE was marked historical in 2008 and redirected in 2009. If the category is not still useful, could we remove all transclusions of the template and delete it and the category? -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Black Falcon; I just saw this today, and will get on it. All the best, Miniapolis 13:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of this! -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

October Blitz?[edit]

Is there an October Blitz?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Not yet. Do you have a theme idea? Tdslk (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
What about GOCE requests? There's quite a backlog. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Probably the best idea. Let's do it next week. I'll set up the page soon unless there are objections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Tdslk (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Corinne, Keira1996, and Miniapolis: any comments? I know that Miniapolis is not the biggest fan of blitzes, but I think there is consensus to keep doing them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that I haven't gotten involved in any blitzes – I don't even know where to find them, so I don't have an opinion on whether to keep doing them or not.  – Corinne (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, @Corinne:. The main blitz page is here, and links to specific blitzes are posted in the announcement box when they are made. Tdslk (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Sorry for inactivity lately, always here if you ping. Keira1996 06:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I never mind a requests blitz :-), but have been a bit busy IRL lately. All the best, Miniapolis 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

All set up. This is my periodic reminder to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Ombox to your Watchlist, because it is the most reliable way to learn about blitzes and drives. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How’s my English?[edit]

Hello. Since I was advised to leave a note here, I would like to get some suggestions from you on this page. Thank you. ~ Itsused(Talk·Contribs) 12:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Have you created or substantially edited pages you want us to look at? If so, please tag them with {{copy edit}}. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)