Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2015

Curtailing Maintenance Template Spam

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Curtailing Maintenance Template Spam. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

GOCE hangout?

Hey Folks, I'm one of the more recent additions to the project. I have not participated in a drive, but I do make it a point to focus on the oldest of the backlog where I think I can make a productive contribution.

Is this Talk page the primary place that other GOCE'rs hang out and discuss matters relevant to us? Happy New Year! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Guild. This is as good a place as any :-); I watch it, and am sure others do too. Happy New Year, have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 15:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Quick grammar question: period quotation mark.

I've written an article about a small mammal, the gray-tailed vole which is found only in the Pacific NW of N America. The article is, thus, in American English. On GA review, a question came up over where to put the period relative to the closing quotation mark. The sentence in question reads:

In Latin, the species name canicaudus derives from canens meaning "gray" and cauda meaning "tail."

The reviewer suggests the period should be outside the closing quotation marks. There is a very similar sentence preceding this, with the same concern:

The generic name, Microtus, derives from the Greek words μικρός meaning "small" + οὖς "ear."

Is it correct to have the period before the quotation mark? Thanks! Gaff (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gaff: WP:MOSLQ should answer your question. In this case, I believe that the period would go outside the quotation marks, since "tail" is only a single word. Thanks, --Biblioworm 00:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, outside. Although the so-called "logical quotation" style is unusual in American English, even there it's increasingly done in technical writing. It's the standard for Wikipedia in all variants of English. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Reflinks

Please remove the reference to Reflinks in the list of tools. This tool was withdrawn in December 2014. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The link is fine, as it points to the new reflinks tool at Labs: https://tools.wmflabs.org/fengtools/reflinks/ -- Diannaa (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The new tool works. I just edited an article with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The original tools also work as well as they are apparently being run outside of Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 Blitz ideas

Right now the GoCE Requests are 60, and the Category:All articles needing copy edit is 2,173. One suggestion is to work on just the GoCE requests. In the past. the Guild did a Blitz on Religion articles, and on the month of December 2013.

I have a different idea entirely. The letter L in the Category:All articles needing copy edit is 97 articles. I suggest that we work on those articles. There are 33 articles starting with the word "List" which I have worked on in the past, and this is why I suggested "L" words. The Lists are a challenge sometimes, and sometimes easy.

Any other ideas?--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my aching head; I did List of All My Children characters during the drive and thought I was gonna die first :-). Can't look at another list for a while ... All the best, Miniapolis 02:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Lists can be brutally long and tedious. I did one during the January drive, and I had to have a lie down after.

I think we should do Requests, with an appropriate explanation that they require careful editing by experienced editors, and commit to reviewing the edits. A couple of months after the August mess, I checked all of the unreviewed edits from that blitz, and I ended up returning only two articles out of about thirty-five to the Requests page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone should start a skeleton February Blitz article, so I can sign up as a reviewer, but not as a Blitzer.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The page (thanks to Biblioworm and Jonesey) is here. Miniapolis 15:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Blitz Newbie advice

Hi Folks, I'd like to participate in my first editing Blitz. Any advice for a newbie? I fear no article, it's the Editors that scare the heck out of me... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Well, you hardly look like a newbie to Wikipedia (over ten times longer than I've been around), but I suppose that you're talking about copy editing. :) Copy editing really isn't that difficult (depending on the article, of course), but this page might be useful. --Biblioworm 17:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, editing, yes, I've been around the block a few times. But as for a Blitz, I didn't want to violate any protocols or community rules, hence my question about the editing drives themselves. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A reminder ...

 ... of why we do what we do. Hope it swells our ranks a bit. All the best, Miniapolis 16:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's awesome! When they were discussing the "the" in The Beatles, at first I thought they were talking about "the the" errors, which I always fix, and I had to make a doubletake haha. -Newyorkadam (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Nice! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I didn't get mentioned!? (Just kidding. ;)) Seriously, though, it is quite a large accomplishment to get mentioned in such a popular newspaper. Keep up the great work, everyone! --Biblioworm 18:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's lovely! Where the reporter says "The copy editor army clearly feels a sense of pride and responsibility", I take that as praise and recognition. Keep up the good work all!  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Way to go, Miniapolis! Lfstevens (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Aw shucks, that's not why I put the link here. The reporter contacted me and Philg88; at first I thought it was trolling until I woke up enough to Google her and learn that she was on the level :-). With all the WP-bashing out there it's a nuanced, positive piece. All the best, Miniapolis 01:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We're famous! Congratulations for the well-deserved recognition, Miniapolis! Tdslk (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Odd request, but I need some help

An article that I wrote is currently undergoing a good article review. I've already addressed all the concerns, except for one: the lead section. The present lead is too short, according to WP:LEAD and the reviewer. I understand this. The reason I wrote the lead short is because the article is a summary article, so-to-speak. I wasn't sure how to "summarise summaries". I've been trying to think about how to write it, but I'm stumped. As people around here tend to be good with words and the like, I was wondering if anyone would help me write a proper lead for the article. I don't want the review to fail because of my own incompetence. Any assistance would be much appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead should not describe the article. It should summarize the article. I.e., not 'this article provides...' Instead something like "The historical background of ... begins with xyz. A, B and C are the most important factors that contributed to ..." Good luck. Lfstevens (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the lead summarizes what you wrote in the body, in 1-4 paragraphs. You've introduced notability. The following statement, "This article provides an overview of these demographic and historical factors in regions affected by the unrest", is precisely what the lead should contain - a concise overview of the main factors, which you expounded on in the body. You may find it helpful to look at articles on similar topics (perhaps Gaza–Israel conflict). Editors at the guild here would be happy to copy edit the article or lead if you'd like, but it would be best if you succinctly summarize the article in the lead first. Lapadite (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't need copyediting, as that's my own specialty. I shall take the advice provided to me with care. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 03:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article Nelson Mandela (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

An example of the best copyedit ever

I've just joined Wikipedia and the Guild. After reading Tony's extensive articles on 'How to copyedit', I was wondering if, over the years, there have been examples of articles that have been copyedited brilliantly that newbies like me can look at.

'Best copyedit' may refer to articles that have morphed through the most amount of copyedits, or an article that has had the widest spread of various form of copyedit, or an article that seemed perfectly fine to the naked eye, but actually deserved some subtle copyedits.

I can see that the Guild awards barnstars to members; aren't there any stars to articles themselves?

--dotbugfix (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you find the Guild from the Boston Globe article today? You seem to have gained a fair amount of knowledge quickly! I don't know about the best copyedit ever, but just a tip: if you want to link to something on Wikipedia, you can use brackets to link to them. For example, writing "[[Example]]" would link to the article "Example". However, if you want to link to an article and use different text to show the link, you can do "[[Example|Example linking text]]", with the bracket separating the article with the text to show. For example, "[[User:Dotbugfix|This is Dotbugfix's userpage]]" shows up like this: This is Dotbugfix's userpage. If you have any questions about Wikipedia feel free to post them here or on my talk page! Welcome to Wikipedia! -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Nope, it was the other way round - found the Boston Globe article while wandering about here! Thanks for the tip! I've used markdown before on GitHub etc. but looks like Wikipedia has some 'value added features' baked into it! Quick question: why isn't the (beta) WYSIWYG editor available on Talk pages? --dotbugfix (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

For about a year we had a "copy edit of the month" competition, although it's no longer happening. If you want to see the old award winners, you can follow the links here. You can also ask here if you have any questions about copy editing. Tdslk (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tdslk. The "copy edit of the month" pages were really helpful! One question: how do you link to a diff of a revision that you (or anyone) has made? --dotbugfix (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

How to link to a diff (this is one way to do it): Go to an article and click View History. Click the starting and ending radio buttons and then click Compare Selected Revisions. Copy the entire URL from your web browser's address bar. Paste that URL inside a single set of square brackets, then type a space just before the closing bracket and type a text description for the link. You'll end up with something that looks like this in the wikicode:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors&diff=650154985&oldid=650011296 dotbugfix's amazing edit]

And it will look like this in the rendered page: dotbugfix's amazing edit. There are other ways to link to a diff using templates, but this way always works for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dotbugfix. I've just refactored your post to change the ref into a wikilink to keep them together for readability. Hope you don't mind (but feel free to revert if you do). About stars for articles: featured articles display bronze stars at the top and good articles display green blobs with plus signs inside. The Guild doesn't award these -- Wikipedia has special, more formal processes for awarding them. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind that at all, Stfg! That's what a community wiki is all about, right? --dotbugfix (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I need help with Copyediting

So, I'm a newbie to Wikipedia. And Wikipedia suggested me Sadda Haq (TV series), and I started with the Copy Editing part. I want some advice from some experienced users here before I edit the page, if you don't mind. CyanoTex (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)CyanoTex — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyanoTex (talk • contribs) 11:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, and be sure to sign your talk-page posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to and checking Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style if you're not sure about something are good places to start. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 14:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your do not edit boilerplate tag

Unless this guild is going to actually do major edits as claimed....stop adding your do not edit boilerplate {{GOCEinuse}} to the top of pages. It's fine if you're actually doing major edits, but is a discouragement to others that might be interested in helping.--MONGO 02:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:MONGO#Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Peer review suggestions (sounds like that PR bot needs tweaking :-)). The page could probably use an FAC-quality copyedit, but I'd suggest not using {{GOCEinuse}}; most editors don't, anyway, for request articles. If there continue to be problems, we'll have to decline it until it stabilizes; however, I don't see any problems other than MONGO's premature tag removal. All the best, Miniapolis 14:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

After some early experiences of edit conflicts, including one very rude requester who told me his requested article was free for me to edit and ten minutes later created an edit conflict because he "couldn't resist", I always use {{GOCEinuse}}, both for requests and for tagged articles. But if I take a break of more than an hour or so, I replace it temporarily with {{Under construction}}, to signal that the copy edit is still incomplete while making room for other editors. I can't agree with the advice not to use GOCEinuse at all, but we shouldn't keep it there and inactive for too long. Currently the boilerplate asks editors to remove it if there has been no editing for "at least 24 hours", whereas {{In use}} just says "in several hours". I think 24 hours is too long and propose that we change the GOCE one to say the same as the standard one. --Stfg (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this last bit. We aren't special. Let's make the GOCE's template say the same thing as {{Under construction}} {{In use}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean that, Jonesey, or {{In use}}? I meant the latter. Under-construction doesn't avoid edit conflicts. --Stfg (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I meant {{In use}}. Corrected above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the under-construction documentation says it's for new articles; otherwise, I think we're supposed to use in-use ("several hours") or GOCEinuse ("24 hours"). For me, 24 hours is better than several; my editing is interspersed with RL, and I edit by section—a single long section (between saves) often takes a while. Frankly, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. All the best, Miniapolis 23:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed about the T-in-T, but I think it would be reasonable to change the wording to "in several hours". A full day is a long time to ask other editors to stay away from an article. I also edit section by section when it looks like an article is somewhat active, but if I let my edits take too long and end up with edit conflicts, that's life. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't use either. I start my session by removing the copyedit tag and commenting "begin ce. rem tag." It's worked well... Lfstevens (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I do the same, with a similar edit summary, and have found that that works best. The in-use tags (generic or GOCE) seem to annoy some editors—although {{GOCEinuse}} is handy for backlog articles, since I don't have to check the history when looking for an "unclaimed" article. All the best,Miniapolis 14:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There's also {{GOCEeffort}}, which tags that the article is being worked on but does not suggest that others keep away. I sometimes use it on large articles where I expect to be busy for a few days. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa. Yes, that's a nice "compromise" tag I forgot existed :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I also never use the "in use" tag. If an article is being actively edited I figure I should wait to do copy editing anyway. If it is a big, semi-popular article that could potentially get edited while I'm working on it, I go section-by-section, and for the 99% of articles that aren't changed very often, I just go ahead and edit. Perhaps we should deprecate the GOCEinuse tag? Tdslk (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comma usage in Misao Okawa article

• Misao Okawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hopefully this is a relatively simple request, but I would appreciate it if a copy-editor could review the final couple of sentences in the Misao Okawa article, which have been repeatedly stripped of commas by another editor.

• Current version: On her 117th birthday she said that her life seemed short. When asked about the secret of her longevity she jokingly replied "I wonder about that too".

In my view, this lack of punctuation could cause confusion, and is grammatically incorrect, but I would appreciate a third opinion. My belief is that the sentence should be punctuated as follows (with the three additional commas highlighted in red to make them more clearly visible here):

• On her 117th birthday, she said that her life seemed short. When asked about the secret of her longevity, she jokingly replied "I wonder about that, too".

Maybe a colon (or comma) is also after "replied"? --DAJF (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@DAJF: "On her 117th birthday" and "When asked about the secret of her longevity" are adverb clauses, and clauses at the beginning of a sentence should have a comma separating them from the rest of the sentence. Concerning "too", that may just be a matter of opinion, but I personally tend to be rather liberal with commas. For the sake of readability, I think all the commas should be re-added. --Biblioworm 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

DAJF, thanks for contacting us. This page is for requesting that the GOCE copy-edit entire articles. If your question is restricted to these few sentences, can you please move this whole section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(Section moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests as per request)

OK, thanks. Moved as requested. And thanks for the feedback on the article. Hopefully the problem is now resolved. --DAJF (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I would omit the final comma, before "too". It doesn't look right to me, especially since it is quoted speech. If I were writing "I wonder about that, my friend" or "I wonder about that, dear", then I would use a comma, but I would not use a comma if I were saying "I wonder about that too" or "I wonder about that sometimes". I don't know if there is a rule, but that's what my gut says. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Just my 2p: the comma after birthday is optional because, although normally "clauses at the beginning of a sentence should have a comma separating them from the rest of the sentence", an exception is made in many guides (on both sides of the Atlantic) for short clauses. I'd have left it as it was previously. The comma after birthday is probably better included, per Biblioworm, and it does aid readability. A comma is definitely needed after replied: standard rule.

We don't insert a comma before "too", because this is a direct quote from a written source. ("I wonder about that too" and "I wonder about that sometimes" are different. The sometimes is just an ordinary adverb. OTOH the too isn't, as it means the same as "I, too, wonder about that", rather than "In addition to what we've just discussed, I wonder about that". But ... <shrug>) --Stfg (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

On second thoughts, "I wonder about that too" is ambiguous: either I wonder about that, as do other people, or I wonder about that, as well as about other things. Perhaps the comma would disambiguate it to the first meaning (?) --Stfg (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Can anybody help?

Can the GOCE help with eliminating closely paraphrased text, in particular to rephrase the problematic texts? There is an rather large article that had GA status, however someone found out that it contained some directly copied material that was there even years before it became GA. After an administrator checked, he found closely paraphrased text and opened a new GA review. However he didn't tell the users who had helped to improve the article, where to look for all instances of the problematic text. As the users could not probably have the same strict criteria as the reviewing administrator what to consider as closely paraphrased problematic text while comparing it to cited sources, the article remained largely unfixed. As a result, the article was delisted. --UA Victory (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Place a request on the GOCE's Requests page, along with a brief explanation and a link to the relevant review page(s), and we'll take a look. At some point, we'll need a link to the text that was paraphrased. If you do not have that yet, please obtain it and post it on the article's Talk page before posting a request for the GOCE. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the reviewing administrator provided only several samples of closely paraphrased text, which were quickly fixed. However, he refused to check the whole article and provide all samples of problematic text. --UA Victory (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We edit copy. We can't read minds, not even yours. And we generally steer away from the drama that pervades some parts of WP. If you have a dispute with another editor, there are forums for dispute resolution.

We are helpful editors, but you haven't given us any relevant details. If you want to be coy, that is your prerogative. If you want help, please gather and then provide information that will allow us to help you. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any dispute with another editor. The article is Russo-Georgian War. Here is the last GA review. The article needs to be checked in depth. Since it's quite large, then maybe the task should be split between several editors. --UA Victory (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@UA Victory: I've taken a look at the GAR and the DYK. The reviewer who noticed to close paraphrasing (Nikkimaria, who isn't an administraotr and is a she) pointed to enough examples to indicate that there is a problem, but could not be expected to go through the whole article checking it all. That is what you seem to be requesting. But it isn't a copy editing job either. What I suggest is that you and others developing the article do a thorough check for copyvio, fixing whatever you find. Then, when there's no more copyvio in it, if you like you can make a request at the WP:GOCE/REQ page and a copy editor will tweak the prose. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know Nikkimaria that well and I misremembered her user status. The problem is that large parts of the text are single-sentence informations each with unique cited source and sometimes 100% rephrase is quite difficult without distorting the facts. For example, the cited source says: "A resolution was adopted by the European Parliament in which Russia was heavily criticised for its actions", and this is rephrased as "The European Parliament passed a resolution condemning Russia." Should that qualify as copyvio? --UA Victory (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO, no. Did Nikkimaria (or another editor) cite that particular sentence as close paraphrasing? Miniapolis 14:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No, that particular sentence was not cited as a close paraphrasing.

Nikkimaria for example cited this text from the article: "Georgia was first created in the tenth century, defined as the lands in which Christian rituals were performed in the Georgian language. After the Mongol invasions, the Kingdom of Georgia eventually was broken up into several principalities. In the nineteenth century, the Russian Empire gradually annexed the Georgian lands. In the aftermath of the Russian revolution, Georgia declared its independence on 26 May 1918." as opposed to the original text:

Georgia as an ethnic territory was first created in the tenth century, defined as the lands in which church services and prayers were held in the Georgian/Kartuli language. (...) The Mongol invasions in the early thirteenth century halted Georgia’s expansion and eventually led to the breakup of the state. (...) Georgia had furthermore broken up into several principalities in the fifteenth century, a fact which sealed its fate. (...) In 1801, the east Georgian kingdom was annexed to Russia and became the Tiflis province (gubernia). (...) Imeretia was conquered in 1810; (...) With the February revolution of 1917, the Soviets took power in Tbilisi and Baku. (...) Many factors, including Turkish pressure but also the fear of Bolsheviks, led the Transcaucasian Seim to declare independence from Russia on 22 April 1918, a move which was reluctantly accepted by the Armenians and Georgians, opposed by the Bolsheviks and SRs but enthusiastically supported by the Azeris. (...) A month later, the Transcaucasian Federation that had been created broke up into its constituent units, Georgia declaring its independence on 26 May."

IMO the first sentence seems more problematic and should be rephrased as "In the tenth century Georgia was established for the first time and was defined as the lands where Georgian language was used to perform Christian rituals." Should that be problematic rephrasing? --UA Victory (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Minapolis that the first example you gave is not problematic, and that the first sentence of the later example is where the problem lies there. The procedure of taking one sentence from a source and paraphrasing it into one sentence of the destination is that you retain the organization of the information, and that's why the paraphrase is close. Here the giveaway is that the date of creation and the lands it consisted of -- two separate facts that don't need to be in one sentence -- are in one sentence in both versions. Yes, the wording is too close as well, and another giveaway is to have retained the redundant "first created". Another danger with this procedure is that if one merely tweaks a sentence into another sentence, the second sentence often ends up sounding laboured. Usually it's best to find relevant facts from a few sources and assemble them in our own way. It's more difficult with history sections, because the natural order is chronological. It isn't copyvio to retain chronological order! But we can associate facts in different ways. Here's one attempt:

"Georgia was established in the tenth century. (make this even better if you can say from another source who established it) Consisting initially of the region where the Georgian language was used in Christian worship (or liturgy, if you prefer), it gradually expanded until the 13th-century Mongol invasions. Over the next two centuries, it became fragmented into a number of (or say how many, if you can source it) independent principalities. ..."

The 19th-century and Russian Revolution parts look OK to me. Again, if you can use another source to explain when and how it became a kingdom, that would help. HTH --Stfg (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable English-language sources about history of the region are quite scarce. Retrieving the new sources is not the problem, the problem is that the article already exceeds 100 KB suggested limit, includes several hundred cited sources and barely covers all aspects as briefly as possible.

Your attempt at rephrasing seems helpful, however it left room for some misinterpretation. Georgia initially included a part of Georgian-dominated lands and later included all of them. As I have said, sometimes it's quite difficult to completely rephrase without distorting the facts.

I don't think that retaining the original organisation of the information should be counted as copyvio, since it can be sometimes necessary to show the connection between two facts, such as explaining why Russia was condemned: "After Russia deployed its troops, it was condemned by the international community." Indeed, WP policy regarding close paraphrasing is really tricky and that's why I sought the help of more experienced editors who specialise in prose writing. --UA Victory (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The article as you quoted it said, "Georgia was first created in the tenth century, defined as the lands in which Christian rituals were performed in the Georgian language," and my paraphrase said, "Georgia was established in the tenth century. ... Consisting initially of the region where the Georgian language was used in Christian worship, ...". I fail to see how either one leaves room for any misinterpretation that the other doesn't, since they say the same thing, albeit in different ways. What you quoted from the original says nothing in the nature of "initially included a part of Georgian-dominated lands and later included all of them", so I don't believe it was I who introduced any such misunderstanding. But please yourself: my intention was to illustrate how to recognise and avoid close paraphrasing, not to write the article for you.

As to retaining the original organisation of the information, WP:Close paraphrasing says: "Although facts are not subject to copyright, a selection or arrangement of facts may be considered creative and therefore protected." (My emphasis.) Yes, it requires judgement, but it isn't all that lax. I already agreed the Russia bit was problem-free. --Stfg (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

One has to carefully read the entire chapter in the cited source to understand more or less the summarized history. In short, there were also other regions or kingdoms where the Georgian language was used or Georgians lived and later they became part of the unified Kingdom of Georgia. Your suggested paraphrase could imply that later expansions of Georgia led to expanding to non-Georgian areas. Sorry, I didn't want to draw anyone in prolonged discussions about history.

Can I count on any help from the GOCE in rewriting closely paraphrased prose? Should I post a request on the request's page? --UA Victory (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, for the reason you've just implied. You didn't ask for us to read that entire chapter. I merely looked at the limited source text and article text that you presented here, and illustrated how to avoid close paraphrase of that very limited excerpt. I don't believe I changed any of the meaning of those excerpts, nor introduced any misunderstanding, but I didn't look at the article, nor at any of the sources, to address anything not covered in those excerpts. That's what one needs to do when developing an article -- and by the way, it's much easier to avoid close paraphrase of large tracts than of single sentences. But few copy editors will accept a brief to go into the sources in that kind of depth and do that kind of rewrite. That's what subject experts (who should know how reliable the sources are, and where to look for more, etc) should do, and most copy editors couldn't. You're more likely to get that kind of help from members of whichever Wikiprojects are interested in the article. --Stfg (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I should perhaps add that I picked up on the words "halted Georgia’s expansion" in the source. But in doing so I didn't say anything about the extent of the expansion, and I still don't believe I implied anything that the source extract didn't imply. --Stfg (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(←) IMO, it's unrealistic to expect the GOCE (or anyone else not actually creating the article) to wade through all the source material to avoid copyvios. Sorry. Miniapolis 23:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to rephrase the article. What is your opinion on those examples whether should they be counted as copyvios?

The source says: "Following a process of ethnic cleansing and mass expulsion, its population has been reduced to 216,000, from 525,000 in 1989." The article: " After an ethnic cleansing of Georgians, the population of Abkhazia was 216,000 (a decrease from 525,000 in 1989)."

The source: "Russia's Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, called the demand by the Western states "a tall order"." The articles says: "This was called "a tall order" by Vitaly Churkin, Russia's Ambassador to the UN." --UA Victory (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeline verb tense

I have a simple format/layout question which I cannot answer after almost an hour of searching in various MOS/Guideline pages. I know there's the Help desk, but I think the Guild has the most knowledgeable editors on this subject and provide a quicker answer.

What tense is used for timelines? If there is a second part of the event that occurs after the date of the event in the timeline but is now in the past, which tense is used? Which of the following is in line with Wikipedia standards (or at least grammatically correct)?

21 March

(Present/present) A Wikipedia editor asks a question on a talk page. The question is later answered on 22 March.

21 March

(Past/past) A Wikipedia editor asked a question on a talk page. The question was later answered on 22 March.

21 March

(Present/past) A Wikipedia editor asks a question on a talk page. The question was later answered on 22 March.

21 March

(Present/future) A Wikipedia editor asks a question on a talk page. The question will be answered on 22 March.

The MOS/guideline pages I have searched include:

• Wikipedia:Timeline standards — It does not have a guideline/essay template at the top, and it does not have the appearance of a guideline page (ie. not much prose explaining things). A short discussion on its talk page does not give a clear answer/consensus.
• MOS:LIST — Skimmed through the page, the "Timelines" section doesn't have much content. The example uses the past tense, but the example sentences "A thing happened", "Not much happened", and "Something else happened" are generic and I can't tell if the tense is intentional or just what the author wrote.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists — Nothing useful/relevant.

Please note: I'm asking which is correct according to Wikipedia editing guidelines...if there is any. If this issue is not addressed (as my search suggests), then I can start a discussion on an appropriate talk page (is MOS:LIST the best option?). I'm expanding and cleaning up a timeline (which uses the above date formatting) to soon nominate as a featured list. At first, I used the present/past but after realizing that using past after present does not seem appropriate, I changed to present/present (which seems to me to be the best combination). Sometime in the next week or two, I will list the article for a copyedit, so if I can fix this issue, it will save a guild member some work. Thanks for your assistance!! AHeneen (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Either of the first two looks right to me. The important part is to be consistent throughout the article.

I think if you bring this up at MOS in the hope of establishing the One True Way, you will come away disappointed. Consistency within articles is strongly supported (well, mostly strongly supported, don't get me started on date formats in articles and citations), but consistency from article to article is not something that is part of the culture around here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Google for timeline tense site:en.wikipedia.org [1] gives a few more places where this has been discussed on-wiki. I vaguely remember getting involved in a discussion somewhere, but can no longer find where. There were supports for both of your first two, so it may be difficult to get an agreed standard. Actually I agree 100% with Jonesey95. --Stfg (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Since it involves word usage in the encyclopedia...

...members of this project may be interested in this discussion. BMK (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

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

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"

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

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

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

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)

Jeff Kent and the word "Unprecedented"

(Moved from WP:GOCE/REQ#Lynn Bomar) Miniapolis 18:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I intend to remove the word "Unprecedented" from various sports articles, that discuss records or accomplishments. I am starting with the Jeff Kent article to give an example, but many sports related articles have the misuse of this word. I am placing this here in order to solicit feedback. If there is a better place for this, please advise.

The word "unprecedented" is widely misused. It does NOT mean any particular record or accomplishment that was never done before. The best example of this misuse is when a player beats a record by 1, and someone calls that unprecedented. Setting a new record value is not a precedent - even if it is a new record and amazing. Example: when Maris beat Ruth HR record by 1, that was not a precedent (Ruth himself had prior records of 54, 59, 60 - and then after McGwire and Bonds both beat Maris). All sports records have this - being eventually overcome by some new numerical value. The same is true with the number of consecutive times doing something, like 6 years of 100+ RBI. Amazing yes, maybe even a record - but still not unprecedented (in particular because the consecutive streak that was broken was similar in nature just less).

Precedent really means something LIKE that has never happened before, to the point where its a new category of item, people don't know how to handle the situation, or it changes the way things are. For a precedent, there is no example or similar event that is like it, so this new event will often be used as the model for how to treat things down the road. Example: Discussing Curt Floyd challenging his contract that led to the advent of Free Agency. That is definitely a precedent. It changed things, there was nothing like it, and the Free Agency period came into baseball, changed the nature of sports contracts in baseball, etc. Subsequent free agents, unless they have some special circumstance, are not unprecedented, even if the dollar amounts of their contracts seem outrageous.

Babe Ruth and his home runs in the early 20s could be seen as unprecedented, in part because the popularity of baseball increased dramatically, and that he hit more home runs than entire teams so he was dominant. But also the rules changed. Prior to Ruth, if a batter had a walk of HR with men on base, the play ended when the run scored that won the game. So, the batter might only get credit for a single and 1 RBI. Because of Ruth and the popularity of his home runs, the rules were changed so that the batter got the entire results of his at-bat, meaning the HR and all RBI.

Merriam-Webster defines Unprecedented as "without Precedent, novel, unexampled" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unprecedented And the definition of Precedent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precedent) - it has the following. So to be UN-precedented, the situation has to be where a Precedent does not exist. Key words are 'similar' or 'example'.

 : a similar action or event that happened at an earlier time
 : something done or said that can be used as an example or rule to be followed in the future
 : the usual or traditional way of doing something

So I will look for sports related articles and replace unprecedented with a better word (either record, or a superlative like amazing), or just remove it where I can.

Thanks for your consideration and comments/feedback Entirelybs (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Go for it if you want, but don't be surprised if you're reverted. Arcane points like this tend to lead to edit wars; if you really want to improve articles, there's really wonky stuff around here that needs work. All the best, Miniapolis 18:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I was reverted by BMK, who suggested I get 'consensus' before mass edits, and also to provide some supporting argument/references, which I have. Entirelybs (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dictionaries should describe how words are used in practice; it isn't required that people must use words only in the ways that dictionaries describe. The problem with many occurrences of "unprecedented" isn't so much that they don't obey the word's etymology, but that they are journalistic (or marketing) hyperbole. I looked at one example where BMK reverted you. You had changed "unprecedented" to "amazing". That just replaces some journalistic hyperbole with a rather horrid colloquialism. Better just delete the adjective altogether. Plus, I agree with Miniapolis on this. --Stfg (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Perhaps I was reaching to find a suitable way to get 'unprecedented' removed and yet have something in. I concur that in many/most cases, it could just be removed entirely. Encyclopedias should be about facts not opinions. I concur with your assessment of why it is used, but would add that it's often by fans that want to make their team/player/city more impressive than someone elses. Anyway, I will wait for more replies before resuming any questionable mass-edit campaigns. Thanks guys/gals. Entirelybs (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, BMK and I have butted heads in the past but "amazing" has no place in a WP article. I sympathize (and agree) with your desire for precision—one of the beauties of English is that there are usually enough words to choose from to express exactly what is meant—but part of the problem may lie in the sources themselves; if a RS uses "unprecedented", an inexperienced editor may repeat the word verbatim in an article. Journalists don't always get it right :-). Thanks for your desire to help, since we're chronically shorthanded around here. All the best, Miniapolis 22:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Reviews of old unreviewed FAs

I don't know if you have heard about the work going on at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox? Editors who are still active and nominated articles for FA between 2004 and 2011, are being asked to review them and check they still meet the current featured article criteria. This is an informal process, without deadlines, designed to ensure those articles with the FA star still exemplify our very best work. I have been asked to review seven articles for which I was the primary author and nominator. I have updated, checked links and copyright status of images etc on four of mine so far: Mendip Hills, Bath, Somerset, Exmoor and River Parrett. I still need to update the demographics section on Somerset and I haven't yet started on: Buildings and architecture of Bristol and Sweet Track. I feel fairly confident the ones I've done still meet most of the FA criteria; however my prose tends to let me down on occasions. Would it be possible to ask for copy editing of several of these at once or do they need to go through the standard request process?— Rod ^talk 20:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I'm sorry but the harvest is great and the laborers few. Although anyone is free to copyedit what they like, IMO WP:GOCE/REQ is your best bet; the wait time is shorter than I've seen it in almost five years. All the best, Miniapolis 21:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. I recognise the size of the task. I have added two to the request page and will add the others once those have been reviewed.— Rod ^talk 08:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding; we're doing our best, but as you can see from our backlogs we're shorthanded. FWIW, I plan to spend next month on the requests page :-). All the best, Miniapolis 14:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

London Heathrow Airport listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for London Heathrow Airport to be moved to Heathrow Airport. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

This was c/e'd on 7th May 2011, according to the GOCE template on its talk page. I don't think we need to worry about the move discussion. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy-editing poorly sourced articles

During the ongoing backlog reduction drive, I scanned through a fairly large number of copy-edit-tagged articles, and found that a large number of them also carry refimprove tags. I know that I personally avoid such, and I'm sure that others do too, because when a sentence is uncited, our hands are tied to a great degree with respect to re-writing it. How do folks here deal with this problem? Has there been discussion about this before? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, copyediting is copyediting and finding sources for content we haven't added is IMO above our pay grade. FWIW, I don't avoid articles with {{Refimprove}} tags; I have enough problems, and that ain't one of them :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Many editors mistake copy-editing for WP:Cleanup. It's generally a waste of time and effort to properly c/e something that's liable to change drastically; and as Miniapolis says is above my pay grade. Some might be worth the effort, but where a sizable article (particularly BLPs) is almost completely bereft of references, I normally remove the c/e tag with the edit summary; "article needs referencing properly; fix existing problems before requesting a copy-edit". Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that is more or less what I was thinking. If most people here agree with this approach, would it be reasonable to go through the list of articles in the guild's "backlog," and do exactly what Baffle gab1978 is suggesting? We might then make better progress with the portion of the backlog which is actually copy-editable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a big job, so thanks for offering to take some of it on; Baffle and I have been doing that for the drives, and {{GOCEreviewed}} is very handy to place on talkpages of articles from which we've removed {{copy edit}}. I think part of the problem is that some AfC editors and new-page patrollers tag everything for a copyedit, which is unrealistic. All the best, Miniapolis 13:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I am an exception, but the refimprove tag never puts me off, nor does the word "unassessed" in red bother me, nor do the bare URLs in the references stop me from copyediting and doing other improvements that I can do. The leaderboard says "Dthomsen8 (28)" articles, so I am making progress this month. I will say that I have not reached 4,000 words yet, which means I have been doing some rather small articles. Also, I have applied the {{GOCEreviewed|user=Dthomsen8|date=July 2015|issues=awaiting deletion decision}} to many articles tagged for deletion. I do point out articles that should be marked for copyediting which are not our responsibility. (See sections above.) The copyediting tag may bring me to articles that are too challenging for me to c/e, but that doesn't stop me from making other improvements instead. This has been my approach since starting with GoCE, but it is not what I would expect others to do. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

DThomsen8, I admire that, but my issue is slightly different. I have come across unsourced pieces written in very unencyclopedic language. I could clean up that language; but (and this might just be me) were I to do so, I feel like I am taking responsibility for it. This is especially true when the language is really poor, and so the rewrite has to be that much more extensive. If you feel comfortable with that, well, I'm not about to ask you to do otherwise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Mangkunegara II is an example of what you have found. This article is very poorly written, confusing, and without any inline citations. The references are obscure books. Indonesian words like "pembangkangan" make the text hard to understand. Is this an example? If so, what is to be done?--DThomsen8 (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

For articles like that, {{GOCEreviewed}} works for me. Miniapolis 13:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is precisely the sort of content I am talking about, which is (unfortunately) common. If there are no objections here, I would be happy to go through these and add {{GOCEreviewed}} to all of them over a few weeks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Vanamonde, no objections from me, that would be most appreciated. I've one request though. Can you please add a note, such as "{{done}}; GOCE tags checked by ~~~~" or something similar to the monthy category page(s) as you work through them (if that's how you're selecting articles to check -- otherwise ignore me!) ? Thanks for taking on this thankless task. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on style in British English

A Request for Comments at Talk:Mid-Norfolk_Railway has raised the issue of whether nouns denoting institutions (e.g., society/Society and trust/Trust) take capital letters in British English when the full proper name is not used?

Any input is welcome. Ingafube (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

British Pakistani listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for British Pakistani to be moved to British Pakistanis. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

British Pakistanis listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for British Pakistanis to be moved to British Pakistanis. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Might interest some people.

[[2]] - this might interest some of our editors who like to c/e new pages and come across this nonsense for 60% of companies... Poor you, I say to that. KieranTribe 09:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WP Guild - wikilinked in October 27 Tip-Of-The-Day

Greetings! FYI, the new TOTD for Tip of the day/October 27 Basic copyediting, mentions this WP in the Read more".

This tip was recently added at the TOTD Schedule Queue and posted at the Tips library. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Great; thanks for letting us know! All the best, Miniapolis 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Take the lead!

Hi folks, am going to run this competition in January. see Wikipedia:Take the lead!. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

James Stunt

I am requesting copy edit of James Stunt to remove all COI. I am willing to help with this rewrite as much as possible and provide sources where needed but I am concerned that some one may tell me that I have a conflict of interest as well if I do the complete copyedit myself. This is why I humbly request a copy editor to edit it independently to wikipedia standards. Thanks. Skinssnapper (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Skinssnapper, I see that you posted this request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. That is the correct place to post it. As you can see on that page, the average waiting time is about a month, although it's been shorter recently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted attention to this page as an editor from wikipedia was concerned about it. I will attempt to correct the issues myself by the time one of your recognized copy editors reaches my request in the queue but I hope a copy edit from you guys will help more than it will from me. I appreciate your help. --Skinssnapper (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Possessive "apostrophe-S" after Z sounds

I picked up on an edit made by User:GrammarFascist earlier today, wherein they changed Tommy Jones (footballer, born 1909) so that where it previously read "Jones' debut for Wednesday" it now read "Jones's debut for Wednesday". Perhaps it was a little petty of me to revert such a minor change, but I noticed the aforementioned user has been making similar edits to a plethora of other articles. I was always taught that when a word ends with a "Z" sound, such as "Jones", it is not necessary to add an S after the apostrophe when creating the possessive. I certainly don't believe it is wrong to write "Jones's" instead of "Jones'", but the latter is what I was always taught to prefer. Can someone please advise both User:GrammarFascist and myself on this matter? – PeeJay 21:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm no English teacher, but I've always preferred the latter (Jones'). --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There are various practices and no universally accepted rule. Suggest looking at MOS:POSS, and do follow the link to Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an “s” or “z” sound as well. On issues like this, where the world is full of "rules" invented by schoolma'ams for the entrapment of the unwary, it's best not to have strong views. Life is too short. All the MOS requires is that the article be consistent. --Stfg (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The MOS says either alternative is fine but be consistent throughout the article, see MOS#Posessives. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the same situation as with the serial comma. The only hard and fast rule is that it has to be consistent within a single article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So we're all agreed that there was no reason for User:GrammarFascist to change the article in the first place? – PeeJay 04:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Debate over the __s' vs. __s's issue has been going on at Wikipedia going back at least as far as 2005: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 7#Possessives of words ending in .27s.27. That discussion covered several points that inform my preferring __s's to __s', in particular the fact that the only major style guide which recommends __s' is the Associated Press's... which is intended mainly for use in newspapers, where space has always been at a premium, for which reason there are several points on grammar where AP style prefers a shorter form regardless of other considerations. But Wikipedia is neither a paper encyclopedia nor a newspaper, so there's no reason for us to use a style intended for paper newspapers here. When two forms are both "acceptable", but one is more correct, I have gone with the form that is more correct. It's like who and whom; who is nowadays considered acceptable in all places where whom could be used, but whom is more correct in instances where who is not the only correct choice, so I also use whom where it is correct. I hope this clarifies things for you, PeeJay2K3. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Apostrophe + s after singular nouns. Apostrophe after plural nouns. Gus's wife visited her kids' houses. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Tidying Guild talk page archives

Hi all; as per my election pledge, I'm considering tidying some Guild talk page archives, starting with this page's archives. I propose here to merge the monthly-archived pages into yearly or six-monthly ones. Some of the archived pages are very short; merging them would considerably reduce the length of the archive box at the top of this page. I solicit your thoughts. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you start in August, and start with the oldest archives first. Cheers! --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yearly archive pages are much easier to search and require less maintenance. Go for it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both; I'll start this task in a few days, after the Drive is over. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(←)  Partly done - I've copied the 2008 pages to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Archives/2008, and have marked the July, August, September, October and November pages for speedy deletion under {{Db-a10}}. There's no December archive and I doubt a history merge is necessary since the edits are just archiving bot edits and minor fixes; it's all in this page's history anyway. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle; G6 (housekeeping) is also a good rationale for this kind of thing. All the best, Miniapolis 14:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries; i wasn't sure which rationale to use; I'll remember that for next time, thanks. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

(←) I've merged all 2009 archives to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2009; all merged pages are about to be tagged for speedy deletion as per Miniapolis above:

• 2009

2010 now done as per above. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

2011 done. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

2012 done. The archive box is starting to look much slimmer now. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

2013 done. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

2014 done, and that's the task completed, as of my timestamp. I'll add a line to the coordinators' task list to merge annually per below; hopefully that will stop the archive box getting too bloated in future years. I'll take a look at how we archive our other talk pages in a few days. Cheers all, and thanks for the feedback and comments. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like 2015 is still being archived by month. Are you willing to switch the Miszabot code to annual archives and merge 2015 in the same way? If not, I'll see if I can do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can probably do that, though I need to check the bot's codes first. I'll set it to archive monthly to an annual digest page; I was thinking to merge at the end of the year, but setting the bot would be (hopefuly) maintenance-free. Any suggestions for our other talk pages? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Future talk page archiving

It's nearly done; only 2014 to complete. What should we do with our talk archives in the future? We could:

• continue archiving monthly with no changes;
• continue archiving monthly, then merge these into annual digests each January;
• the bot could be set to archive to a yearly digest each month...

There's probably more options than I care to think about; please feel free to suggest something I've overlooked. Future software implementation could render this redundant, of course, but I'm opening this discussion to see what others (esp, coordinators) think. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

An annual archive page should be fine. Thanks for doing this grunt work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and echo Jonesey's gratitude. All the best, Miniapolis 14:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the third and second options - monthly will stop the flood on the talk page, and then compressing that together is more than helpful. Esp with single month archives for that current year. KieranTribe 11:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Requests talk archives

I think Requests talk is the next archiving mess to deal with. These archive pages are a mish-mash of year/month combinations and aren't in any logical order. And I think it was me who set up archiving, so it's really my mess! :-o That page currently uses User:Cluebot III for archiving; I set it up the same way as my talk page for simplicity, and look where that's leading us!

When I'm back from my pending short break I propose to organise the archives into annual pages, as I've done with this page. A discussion on the future of archiving there would be useful; do we change the bot or the way it archives? What do folks (especially but not exclusively coordinators) think should occur there? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes please, annual archive pages, and set the bot to archive to the current year's annual archive page. Let me know if you want help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and thank you both; it took me a while to figure out why my own talk page had stopped archiving :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Y Partly done. I've just merged the archives as annual digests and have requested speedy deletion of the relevent pages; also I've replaced the archive box with the template at the main GOCE talk page. I forgot I could copy by substing; you'd think I'd know that by now! I've yet to swap the archiving bot; I'll do that in the next few days as time permits. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Baffle. All the best, Miniapolis 16:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the date format that Cluebot uses, so archives should go to the new "2015" page now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Coordinators' talk archives

No worries; the other one to sort out is the Coordinators' talk page; it's been archived manually into numbered rather than dated pages, which I've yet to explore. Do you (plural) think it needs sorting out? It's not in quite the mess REQ/talk was, but it might be more useful as annual digests, and I think the live page needs reducing. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessary, Baffle, but it'd be a big help if you wouldn't mind. You're good at this, and the ArbCom clerk thang has a steep learning curve :-). Thanks again and all the best, Miniapolis 23:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've started copying texts over from the extant numbered system into annual digests; you can follow progress on my talk page as the links turn blue. Once it's all copied and sorted I'll link the pages with the usual archivebox here, and nom the old system for speedy deletion. It'll take a few days. If anyone wants to keep the extant system, now's the time to speak up, here or on my talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, Baffle. All the best, Miniapolis 16:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with the speedy deletion of the old archive system, linked here? I hesitated because unlike the other talk pages I've consolidated it's a complete, intact system. If there are no objections, I'll get on and nom these pages in the next week; I'll also set bot archiving for the new system. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)