Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

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

New Wikiproject[edit]

Hi all! I've started a new Wikiproject that might be of interest to some members here, the Interlanguage Editing and Learning Exchange. It is designed for people who are editing Wikipedia in a language they are learning. Hopefully, this will reduce the number of new articles that get slapped with a copy edit tag. I welcome feedback (including copy editing), and if anybody here wants to practice a foreign language by editing Wikipedia, you can even participate! Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Help plan a new software feature for easy subscription to newsletters[edit]

We are developing a MediaWiki extension that will enable users to subscribe to community newsletters much more easily. We are very excited to hear your feedback on the features we have planned. Feel free to share your thoughts here. - Tinaj1234 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Transitive verb "allow"[edit]

In my search for "allow to", I found 36 articles in which "allow to" needed to be changed to "allowed to". Along the way, I noticed a very large number of articles in which "allow to" indicated that editors have been predominantly influenced by cooking recipes in their understanding of how to use the verb "allow". (A recipe might say "Allow to simmer for ten minutes.") Wiktionary confirms that the verb "allow" is almost exclusively a transitive verb, requiring a direct object—a noun, a noun phrase, a gerund, or a pronoun (which can be a relative pronoun or an interrogative pronoun occurring somewhere before the verb in the same sentence). (A correct sentence can say "Allow the stew to simmer for ten minutes" or "Allow it to simmer for ten minutes" or "Allow simmering for ten minutes".) In the only exception mentioned by Wiktionary, the verb needs to be completed by a clause (or, at an inadvisable extreme, possibly a pronoun, with possible ambiguity). (A correct sentence can say "I allow that the stew is simmering" or, possibly and inadvisably, "I allow that".) Wiktionary does not include any usage in which "allow" is followed directly by an infinitive, but that is what I found in many articles. Those articles require more time and attention than what I am willing to spend, but someone else might be willing to make the needed improvements.
Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate your zeal, no WMF project (including Wiktionary) is a reliable source and this is a very minor issue bordering on a judgment call. Language (including grammar) is fluid and, frankly, we're up to our necks in articles with major prose issues. Your help with our backlog would also be appreciated. All the best, Miniapolis 22:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. For the convenience of other editors, I often use Wiktionary links in my posts and especially in my edit summaries, where we are prevented from linking to most external pages. Many other dictionaries can be accessed via http://www.onelook.com.
Thank you for the link. I have now added that page to my watchlist.
Wavelength (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Review of Copyedit[edit]

Hello guys, I'm a bit new to copyediting on Wikipedia so I would like to ask someone to review my work. I started copyediting a small article, namely the Battle of Mount Sterling. It still needs work in terms of content but I tried to make it comply with the style guide. Please let me know if you think it is done or if you have any improvements that can be done. Thanks in advance. Roemba (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, although a copyedit usually shortens (rather than lengthens) an article :-). A couple of notes:
  • Per MOS:HEADCAPS, section headers—like article titles—use sentence case ("Lead-up to the battle" and "The battle" were correct, although in the latter case "Battle" is better).
  • Since the copyedit is indeed finished, you've improved the referencing and I have no idea why {{Non-free}} was added, you can remove the maintenance tags. Nice job! Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 13:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to mention—when you change a section header, use {{Anchor}} to preserve links to the previous title (which are, I think, case-sensitive). All the best, Miniapolis 14:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I probably mixed up sentence and title case while copyediting, haha. I'll make sure to remove the maintenance tags. Thanks for the advice, it is much appreciated! Roemba (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
One other heads-up: MDY dates require punctuation both before and after the year, as in June 26, 2015, not June 26 2015
Anne, where does WP:THE imply that "The Battle" would be better? I can only see it talking about proper nouns. --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Learned something again, thx for the feedback. I think "The Battle" or "The battle" is not that much different although "The battle" is more consistent with the rest of the article and according to the MOS, this should be the lead for such an issue. Roemba (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that I was in the wrong place, Simon; what I meant was MOS:#Article titles (which also applies to section headers): "Do not use A, An, or The as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless it is an inseparable part of a name (The Hague) or it is part of the title of a work". All the best, Miniapolis 00:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. You meant that Battle by itself would be better than The battle, but you weren't proposing The Battle. Makes sense. Hmm, just Battle alone feels too terse here. IAR? --Stfg (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right, it is terse; either way would work. I copyedit by feel anyway :-). All the best, Miniapolis 14:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

How do you become a member? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! you can sign up here to receive our newsletters, and the July backlog-reduction drive begins in a few days. You'll never be bored :-). Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 22:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Add your name to our list of participants. You can also add our userbox to your userpage: {{User Copy Edit}} KieranTribe (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Legacy[edit]

Curious what you all think about figuring out how to notify Guild members that articles they once fixed have fallen back into disarray. It occurs to me that those editors may feel greater affinity for fixing them. Lfstevens (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

How would "have fallen back into disarray" be assessed? In any case, I would probably feel less affinity rather than more, on the basis that I did what I could at the time and if it doesn't stand up, well, I don't want to find myself dragged into rearguard actions. If done, receiving such notifications should be optional. --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, but I share Simon's opinion here. I don't monitor the quality of the articles I've worked on, although I'm disappointed if one comes back to the Requests page. Editors who want to monitor article quality will probably use their watchlists anyway. It's above my pay grade to chase my own tail, but YMMV. I can't think how this could be implemented; a template or a bot, perhaps? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I too am always disappointed to see something I've worked on get tagged again, even if it's years later, but it does happen. I don't have any particular implementation ideas. Maybe an icon on the watchlist entry saying that some tag had been added? Lfstevens (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting, though I'd say that if the editor is interested in maintaining it they'd use the watchlist. KieranTribe 19:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the reservations expressed here; it's easy to watchlist articles one is interested in (must be, because I do it :-)). I think we're all busy enough as it is. All the best, Miniapolis 22:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of an icon in the watchlist; for example, when you add something to the list, you can also have the option of choosing "notify me when such-and-such tag is in place." So this idea can extend beyond just copy edit tags. That said, I think most editors (like myself) actively watch the articles they want to for such issues, and if one uses edit summaries correctly, then the notification would be unnecessary. So it is a good idea, but at this point, I think that it might be adding an unnecessary layer onto everything. -Pax Verbum 19:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)