Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

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

Starting sentences with "Though,"[edit]

Hi, I'm reviewing an article (false killer whale) that has multiple instances of "Though," to start sentences. Examples include

  • "Though, the name "false killer whale" comes from the apparent similarity between the skull of it and the killer whale."
  • "Though, individuals in populations around the world can have different skull structures and vary in average length, with Japanese false killer whales being 10–20% larger than South African false killer whales."

Can someone help me articulate why this seems incorrect? Is it because "though" is being used as a coordinating conjunction? Thanks. Enwebb (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

According to current but well established thinking in descriptive linguistics, the "coordinating conjunctions" of old/poor grammar books are coordinators. The great majority of the "subordinating conjunctions" of these books (and many of their adverbs) are prepositions; a tiny minority are subordinators. See this (PDF) by Geoff Pullum.
Though and although are prepositions. Though doesn't always need a complement:
  • The assignment was bloody hard! I handed it in on time though.
But I haven't encountered it used as you show it used above. If we remove the comma from your first example, we have:
  • Though the name "false killer whale" comes from the apparent similarity between the skull of it and the killer whale.
which looks like a subordinate clause in search of a main clause, for example, the idly imagined:
  • Though the name "false killer whale" comes from the apparent similarity between the skull of it and the killer whale, the two have no other significant resemblances.
which would be OK.
Without looking at the article, I can't be sure what the writer wants to say. If you substitute however for though, the result is grammatical; but for all I know it may traduce the intended meaning.
There are other infelicities; for example, not between the skull of it and the killer whale but between its skull and that of the killer whale.
I suggest that you don't inflict grammatical terms on the writers, but instead jump in with your editorial machete. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I had a slightly queasy feeling when I wrote what's above. Yes, in my idiolect, clause-initial "Though" meaning "However" is ungrammatical, might it be grammatical for others?
Yes it may. I looked up ". Though ." in the BYU corpus NOW (News on the Web). This brought a huge number of examples, among them:
  • Jeff M Smith -- from the Heritage Foundation -- said it was important to acknowledge that a peaceful transition of power via a democratic election is still a rare commodity in Pakistan and thus would be a positive step forward. Though, even that has been put in doubt by "some very troubling accounts" of electoral tampering and manipulation, he said.
  • Maher found the net for John O'Connor's charges after the break, while Peter Osborne and Myles did likewise at the opposite end. Though, Lannleire always looked to have too much for Seans, whose championship future was sealed anyhow after Naomh Malachi defeated St. Nicholas in the group's other encounter.
  • Mascaras are beautiful as well; however, the effect eyelash extensions provide can not be achieved by mascara, and we all know that! You probably have seen pictures of eyelash extensions before and after, and evidently, it left you baffled with the outcome. Though, there are varieties of eyelash extension designs such as the pen eye, natural eye, cat eye and the doll eye eyelash extensions.
  • The northern parts of the state such as Hanumangarh, Sri Ganganagar, Alwar, and Sikar may also witness isolated thunderstorm or light rain activities. Though, these activities would more or less be the Pre-Monsoon activities and would be for short duration and in patches.
-- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Blitz instructions[edit]

@Thinker78: I reverted some of your edits to the blitz instructions. From your edit summary:

moved and added info to instruction. I don't know if there is any reason this instruction was before the actual copyedit of the article as opposed to the drive instructions.

There was a reason the blitz instructions said to remove the {{copy edit}} tag before copy editing the article: it helps to avoid edit conflicts with other copy editors. When the tag is removed, the article no longer appears in the maintenance category used to find articles needing copy edit. Using {{Goce in use}} and checking the page history are also great ways to prevent edit conflicts, but we really need to use every available tool – edit conflicts of in-depth copy editing can be quite frustrating and might discourage new copy editors. So it was decided that this practice was best for blitzes and drives.

So long as participants place the article they're copy editing on the working line of their section of the blitz (or drive) page, if for any reason they have to abandon the copy edit, a GOCE coordinator will see that and either replace the copy edit tag or finish the copy edit themselves. Coordinators also tend to check the work of new participants on blitzes and drives.

Also, {{GOCEreviewed}} is used when a copy editor takes a thorough look at an article and determines that a copy edit cannot be completed at that time due to other issues which must be dealt with first. {{GOCE}} (a redirect to {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}) is used for completed copy edits. They serve different purposes; either is optional.

Since a lot of the instructions are repeated on various pages, it's probably best to discuss any non-trivial changes and make sure the instructions are simple and consistent. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Should the drive's instructions be changed then? Because the instruction says to remove the copyedit tag after finishing. Thinker78 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I've tweaked the drive instructions. The original guideline (to remove the tag after the copyedit) discouraged editors from gaming the system by beginning a copyedit and taking credit for a full article. Miniapolis 14:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to#Removal of copy edit tag may also have some conflicting instructions. Thinker78 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
That section is fine as is, IMO. Removing the tag before beginning a copyedit is appropriate for experienced copyeditors or during drives and blitzes, when edit conflicts and redundant work are very real possibilities. Miniapolis 13:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The Guild Is A Great Idea. Wikipedia problem: Racist/sexist editors that have an influence on the site.[edit]

Please consider evaluating editors for biases (sexism, racism, etc). Several of my colleagues have been blocked for years, etc, simply for correcting sexism, anti-black stereotypes, historically inaccurate articles that downplay the role of European / anglo political-military aggression as it relates to Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America, Pacific/Atlantic Islands, India, etc. Personally, there are two in particular that specifically targeted me, and banned me (I'm on a 2-year ban). My colleagues and I are not rude, unprofessional, do not post curse words, do not post anything that could be considered immoral, unethical, historically inaccurate. Thanks for your time. PS: An additional tragedy when such biased editors bully, ban other editors is that the Wikipedia articles in question are utilized by students, educators, media, and spreads bias, inaccurate information that perpetuates negative stereotypes, hatred, discrimination, logical fallacies, etc. This has been one of the ongoing Wikipedia problems for at least 8 years, and I've personally reached out to the founder, and other Wikipedia related organizations but gotten no written, verbal, responses. -- (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)-- (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It is possible that the reasons you have gotten no responses include posting your messages on talk pages that are not the right venue, posting messages that include no evidence, and posting messages with no links to relevant discussions. This is a page for discussion of copy editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@, I echo Jonesey's comments; this is not a page for discussing editorial biases or site-wide problems; try the Village Pumps. Moreover, if you're a blocked/banned editor, you shouldn't be socking on enWP, but I expect you already know that. Baffle gab1978 21:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead of People's Vote[edit]

Editors of this project may be interested in this discussion: Talk:People's Vote#"various representatives of civil society"? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they've sorted out an NPOV choice of phrasing. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)