Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

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



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)
Interesting thoughts you have shared here (and I had a good laugh too!). But as the saying goes – if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think this is actually an admonition to cooy-editors to be open when they have issues with their work. For instance, yesterday I zealously slapped "GOCEinuse" on a certain article, but due to the exigencies of work, here I am, 24 hours later and I am yet to get to the halfway point. What do I do? Either allow the tag to expire and retreat quietly or renew it and work harder to finish my task. After all I'm volunteering, right? (The "Working" template should have its own time frame). I think this is the only way to keep everyone motivated and to get things moving as quickly as possible. As for the Git-esque work flow? I can't imagine the horror. Bless. BroVic (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all your ideas, Jasphetamine. I have sometimes been chagrined to see the "GOCE in use" tag expire, but it motivates me to get back to work. I usually copy-edit a long article in large chunks, and when I decide to take a break, I remove the "GOCE in use" tag. That way, others can edit the article while I'm taking a break. I prefer working on an article alone; if I have any questions, I ask other GOCE editors or the requester. If you prefer editing longer articles with another editor, all you have to do is ask another editor to work with you, and divide up the work. I think we should leave the tags as they are.  – Corinne (talk) 15:14, 11 May 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)

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)