Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2023

Protection

Maybe in the backlog pages, an icon for protection level could be included next to the page name to reduce occurrences of people trying to copyedit pages they aren't allowed to? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 14:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Grimmchild, I don't think that's possible; the backlogs are category pages, automatically generated by the addition of copyedit tags. All the best, Miniapolis 15:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Typo Team

Have we ever invited these folks to join the Guild? Love to see more new people join! Wikipedia:Typo Team Lfstevens (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Good idea, Lfstevens, and I don't know if we ever have. Trouble is, we have a lot of dead wood in the GOCE as it is. I'd love to see more participation in the drives and blitzes before we cast our net any wider at the moment, but am happy to see a link to us in the page's "See also" section. All the best, Miniapolis 14:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigmarigen castle

Sigmaringen Castle (German: Schloss Sigmaringen) was the princely castle and seat of government for the Princes of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Situated in the Swabian Alb region of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, this castle dominates the skyline of the town of Sigmaringen. The castle was rebuilt following a fire in 1893, and only the towers of the earlier medieval fortress remain. Schloss Sigmaringen was a family estate of the Swabian Hohenzollern family, a cadet branch of the Hohenzollern family, from which the German Emperors and kings of Prussia came. During the closing months of World War II, Schloss Sigmaringen was briefly the seat of the Vichy French Government after France was liberated by the Allies. The castle and museums may be visited throughout the year, but only on guided tours. It is still owned by the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family, although they no longer reside there. Corr12 (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Left a note at User talk:Corr12. All the best, Miniapolis 14:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Huge thank to Baffle gab1978 for the gargantuan copy-edit job

I wish to thank Baffle gab1978 and express my sincere gratitude for the tremendous copy-edit work they have done in the span of just a few weeks on Bosnian genocide denial and Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, both large articles on sensitive topics, based mostly on non-English language sources, and within the sensitive Balkan scope.౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Awww thanks, Santasa99, nice of you to say so. One does one's best... it's all part of the GOCE service... the bill's in the post! ;-) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Silk icon for yall

and the userbox if you want it: {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/silk}} 多多123 (✉ • ✎) 16:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT

We appear to be entering a new world. ChatGPT is a new AI from OpenAI that is blowing everyone's mind. I asked it if could copyedit and it said sure. So I picked a random article Henry O. Mayfield from the December list and gave it a shot. It came up with this:

Henry O. Mayfield was born in Florida in 1907 and received a primary education before moving to Jefferson County, Alabama. He worked in a foundry and became a miner, joining the United Mine Workers union. In the late 1930s, he became an organizer for the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and was part of a strike demanding better pay and working hours. Mayfield was also a singer in the East Birmingham Stars quartet and joined the NAACP in 1938. During World War II, he enlisted in the military and was arrested in 1950 as part of Birmingham's "Anti-Red Drive" for being a member of the Communist Party. Mayfield was involved in creating CPUSA-led trade unions for Black workers and helped establish the Right to Vote Club. He also worked with other Black activists, including Fredrick Douglass Patterson and W.E.B. Du Bois. The FBI surveilled Mayfield and other Black activists for their involvement in the Communist Party. Mayfield died in 1987.

Not perfect and too many details omitted, lots of run-on sentences, etc. Still kind of amazing. I'm going to try a sociology-related article. If it can handle those, we may be onto something. Lfstevens (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh good, at last I can take my WP redundancy package and retire as a copy-editor. Have fun, I'll see you all at the Hall of Fame bar! :-D Seriously, it looks interesting but I don't think it'll replace humans just yet. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Sooner or later, limitations will be found, but a tool is a tool, use it, wisely. Sistemx (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It works pretty well, and of course it still needs human supervision. But it's getting there. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Some updates:

I often see google books links in cites. I prefer to use the {{Google books}} template instead. Using this prompt:

"Please transform texts in this form: https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_History_of_Myanmar_since_Ancient_Times/V3kfNYXwaGsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=A+History+of+Myanmar+since+ancient+times.+Traditions+and+Transformations&printsec=frontcover into texts in this form WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2023 at Google Books Here's the source text:"

I was able to get it to do so correctly, despite the somewhat varying syntax that appears in such urls. Enjoy!

Here's Jimmy: https://newatlas.com/technology/wikipedia-ai-gpt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki-gnomes desperately needed to fix broken citations

Careless use of the ReferenceExpander bot has led to references being contracted instead. For example, the bot sometimes follows a link that now redirects to a new, uninformative place, but since the link technically "works" the auto-generated citation omits the archive-URL and creates a footnote that is nicely templated but completely useless. It also removes all sorts of ancillary information included in manually-formatted citations, like quotations. If multiple citations were gathered into the same footnote, it creates a replacement based on only the first of them. It can see a citation to a chapter in an edited collection and replace the authors' names with the editors of the volume. It can see a URL for a news story and create a {{cite web}} footnote that omits the byline which had been manually included. We ran a database query and sorted the results by change in article size, to find instances where the bot likely had the wrong effect. It's a... rather long list. Some of the entries on it may be fine; some of those that were problematic may have already been fixed by routine work. But help turning those Ns to Ys would be greatly appreciated. XOR'easter (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @XOR'easter:, thanks for your message. While some Guild members may be able to help you, this WikiProject is mainly concerned with fixing prose issues such as grammar, spelling , punctuation and flow. You might like to ask at Cleanup as well. I'd also ask you to add section breaks every few-hundred of that rather long list, or maybe divide it into subpages of 500-or-so entries; it may help willing wikignomes to more easily locate the entries they're working worked on. Also, please remember some users may have slow internet access; old, aging or not-so-powerful devices; or both. Good luck and cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, what a mess. XOR'easter, I'll do what I can when I can. Baffle gab1978's suggestion about section breaks is a good one; when we archived requests manually, the archive page would crash until we divided it. All the best, Miniapolis 15:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've been around the site for years, but I had no idea where to call attention to a problem like this! I've started splitting up the table; we'll see how that goes. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

XOR'easter, I looked at the first one and AManWithNoPlan seems to have used Citation bot to fix it. Sorry, but a task of this size doesn't seem possible manually. All the best, Miniapolis 15:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Due to the complexity of the failure modes and the possibility of intervening edits, the only way to check is manually! The Libertarianism article, which is first on the list, wasn't fixed with Citation bot; the editor who ran ReferenceExpander recognized in that case that it wasn't working and reverted. Citation bot was run a couple months later. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

(←) Unfortunately, CB may also have issues. Miniapolis 15:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Are there some specific examples. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing specific; I just checked the bot's talk page, and appreciate what you do. Feel free to fix 'em all, because I'm busy enough. All the best, Miniapolis 13:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:ISBN

A discussion about the hyphenation of ISBNs, consistency, and established citation styles in WP is underway at WT:ISBN. – S. Rich (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sentence

I have already improved the following sentence, but it is not at all easy to make it as readable as possible; could anyone help me make it as readable as possible? "Iran Khodro Tabriz: is the leading Iranian vehicle manufacturer, with headquarters in Tehran.[81] The company's original name was "Iran National". In addition to Tehran, largest car factory in Iran have 5 automobile factories throughout the Iran. Iran Khodro until 2014 produced a capacity of 520,000[82] by building 150 Samand Arisan instead of the Bardo Pick-up Paykan[83] also this Iran Khodro site produces 100 IKCO Samand per day.[84]". Page: Azerbaijan (Iran); paragraph: "Economy"; subparagraph: "Heavy industries". JackkBrown (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @JackkBrown:, I'd go with the following (but I haven't checked the context or refs):

Iran Khodro Tabriz, whose headquarters is in Tehran, is the leading Iranian vehicle manufacturer; it has the country's largest car factory in Tehran and five other vehicle factories. The company's original name was "Iran National". Until 2014, Iran Khodro Tabriz had a capacity of 520,000 vehicles, building 150 Samand Arisan cars per day instead of the Bardo Pick-up Paykan. The site also produces 100 IKCO Samands per day.

I don't know what capacity the number 520,000 vehicles represents; per day, per week, per month, per quarter or per year? I'd also leave out "instead of the Bardo Pick-up Paykan" unless it's somehow relevant here; the company does have an article so it could go there. I could probably do better but I don't really have time right now. I hope that's useful. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 17:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! JackkBrown (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sentence (x2)

Would anyone know how to make the following sentence better and without the repetition "held"? "In April and May the Munich Frühlingsfest (spring festival) is held and the Tollwood Festival is held in December with 650,000 visitors." Page: Oktoberfest; paragraph: "Facts and data". JackkBrown (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, "In April and May, the Munich Frühlingsfest (spring festival) is held; the Tollwood Festival, with 650,000 visitors, is held in December." The repetition of "held" is unavoidable, but seems to work better with different phrasing. All the best, Miniapolis 13:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

What about the following:

The Munich Frühlingsfest (spring festival) is held in April and May. The Tollwood Festival is in December and attracts 650,000 visitors.

Rublamb (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: @Rublamb: They're both very good versions. I'd avoid the "held" repetition, so I'd be more inclined to the second choice (for now I've published the first one); I'll decide soon. JackkBrown (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sentence (x3)

In Italian the following sentence, grammatically, is different; in English is it correct as written or does it need some adjustment? Accordingly "weighing [the] anchor", connotes raising it, the apparatus used to avoid striking the ship's hull. JackkBrown (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown:, it's not correct. The first part would be "Accordingly, "weighing [the] anchor" connotes raising the anchor" (remove the misplaced comma). The second part, "the apparatus used to avoid [the anchor?] striking the ship's hull", seems like a fragment of another sentence or statement. I'd replace "avoid" with "prevent". Without any context, I can't tell what the sentence is meant to be saying. I don't speak or read Italian so I can't help with translations, sorry. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: no, unfortunately I explained it wrong. I meant that the same sentence, written in Italian, would be different; it is not a translation. Also, when I read that on the "Gallows" page, I thought it was one sentence, not this chaos. JackkBrown (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I see, thanks for explaining. Looking at the article's history, this sentence was recently messed up here. I've now fixed the botched sentence. I hope that's useful; sorry for the misunderstanding. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: it's really strange that that modification (a play on words) – here – wasn't checked by anyone. As for you, you did a great job, thank you very much! JackkBrown (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Lighting up your watchlists

I am fixing syntax errors in a batch of about 60 old GOCE drive pages. This is a one-time run, but if you have old drive pages on your watchlist, you'll see a bunch of edits today. If I have my wits about me, there should be just one edit per page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I am done with the batch of drive pages. Some pages may see a follow-up visit by a bot or human editor to tidy up obsolete font tags. I may take a look at the blitz pages next, so fair warning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Blitz pages

I'll be working on the blitz pages in the next 12 hours or so, so you might see some more noise. This should be a one-time run. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

All done! I left some obsolete font tags in about half a dozen pages; a bot will come by to update them at some point. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Loh Kean Yew

Similar to past case when Akane Yamaguchi required cleanup by guild of copy editors, this time the problem has arisen with Loh Kean Yew. While mentioning the important achivement results in career section is definitely ok, explaining his route in every insignificant tournament or when he lost in the preliminary rounds itself is uncalled for. Also per WP:NOTNEWS we should be careful of which event needs to be explained in Career section. Even in Achievements section, the reporting is limited to being a medalist or having a podium finish. I therefore request you people to have a look in this article and do something in order to improve it. Thankyou. zoglophie 09:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but the editorial changes you're requesting are beyond the scope of the GOCE. List it at WP:GOCE/REQ and we'll do what we can. All the best, Miniapolis 13:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sentence (x4)

Good evening, could someone help me improve this sentence? "A trolleybus system, whose 8-kilometre-long (5.0 mi) first route, will connect the city center (including Pescara Centrale railway station) with Montesilvano has been constructed, and new Van Hool trolleybuses for it delivered, and is expected to open for service after testing and driver training, in 2023 or 2024. It is proposed to extend the system later to the Abruzzo International Airport and Parcheggio Sud." JackkBrown (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

"A new trolleybus system is set to become operational. The system's initial, 8-kilometre-long (5.0 mi) route has been constructed. It connects the city center, including the Pescara Centrale railway station, with Montesilvano. New Van Hool trolleybuses for use on the route have been delivered. Once these have been tested and driver training completed, service will start, possibly in 2023 or 2024. A future extension to the Abruzzo International Airport and Parcheggio Sud has been proposed." Dhtwiki (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: thank you very much! JackkBrown (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

References

ChatGPT

Here is the article on Corydalis filistipes.

Here is what ChatGPT returned, prompted by "describe Corydalis filistipes in the style of wikipedia":

Corydalis filistipes is an herbaceous perennial plant species that falls under the Corydalis genus, known for its distinct fern-like foliage and characteristic flowers. This plant typically reaches a height ranging from 30 to 60 centimeters.

The basal rosette of Corydalis filistipes showcases finely divided leaves, which contribute to its feathery and delicate appearance. These bluish-green leaves exhibit a fern-like structure, enhancing the plant's aesthetic appeal. The flowers of Corydalis filistipes emerge on slender stems that rise above the foliage. The inflorescence consists of multiple hanging, tubular-shaped flowers, usually displaying pale pink to lilac hues.

Notably, the unique floral arrangement of Corydalis filistipes features an upper petal that forms a distinct helmet-like structure, while the lower petal extends into a slender spur. This characteristic arrangement is consistent with other species within the Corydalis genus.

Corydalis filistipes is indigenous to specific regions in Western Asia, particularly Iran and Iraq. It thrives in habitats with partial shade or shade and prefers well-drained soil conditions. The plant exhibits self-seeding tendencies, facilitating its naturalization and spread in suitable environments.

Flaws I note:

- no links

- name not italicized

- no sources (article has 4, 2 in Chinese)

- no uses

I'm guessing that ChatGPT will start stealing traffic if it hasn't already. (Anybody know?) Lfstevens (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT says "...indigenous to specific regions in Western Asia...", where the Wikipedia article says "found only on Ulleung Island in North Gyeongsang Province, South Korea." That's a big difference. So, it seems a reasonably well written article, but it needs to be checked. What traffic will ChatGPT start stealing? Will Wikipedia start to fill up with well written but specious articles that won't attract copy editing tags, and our backlog thus decrease? I might be able to live with that. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What does copy editing entail?

Hi y'all, I have been doing an edit on Raza Library, and I am wondering: is it ok if I leave information unverified before I say that the edit has been completed? Or should I look through sources and remove citation needed tags. The page still has info from when it was made in 2007 that never got cited. Zorblin (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to has a bunch of useful links explaining what we're expected to do. Citation-needed tags may indicate that the content is original research, and you shouldn't remove them; if the tag date is old and the content is apparently OR, I remove the content with a note in the edit summary. Not everything needs a citation; WP:V notes what has to be cited: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged". A citation-needed tag is such a challenge. All the best, Miniapolis 23:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @Zorblin:, welcome to the Guild. Copy-editing is improving the prose in articles, fixing errors in spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and grammar, and generally improving flow and readability – it should be a "final polish". Copy-edit isn't cleanup, it doesn't involve finding citations, adding or removing content, or any other content work, although you're free to do any of those things if you wish to. If an article has text marked uncited since 2007, I'd just remove that content per WP:Verify because it's clear it's never going to be cited; just explain the reason for removal in the edit summary. Thanks for your work and thanks for asking. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Can you review the page before I remove the GOCE tag? Zorblin (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! for my next page I am realizing that it is a lot less work than I previously thought, since I like correcting errors anyways. So for the next time, I just clean up the language and structure?

If I am understanding correctly, this case is special because the article is so old and has remained for 16 years with completely original research that is only partially verifiable. I found a lot of instances of citogenesis. Zorblin (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the page; definite improvement, you've removed much of the uncited material and done a good job of copy-editing—and thank you for finding those sources. You can certainly remove the c/e tag now. This article isn't a special case, the rules of Wikipedia apply equally to every article. Uncited text—especially in BLP articles—can always be tagged and/or removed per policy. Yes, pretty much, unless you don't think the text is worthwhile copy-editing. If you judge an article is not worthwhile copy-editing because of a lack of citations, is the centre of an edit war, or is difficult to understand, you can remove the c/e tag and/or tag it with {{Cleanup}} at your discretion. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Podcast about copy-editing

Hi all; I've come across an Australian podcast you might find interesting; it's a convo with a professional copy-editor—maybe useful and quite funny in parts (well, I thought so; YMMV!). Link here.

For more than three decades, Benjamin Dreyer has edited manuscripts from some of the world's most renowned authors, helping them disentangle their bad sentences, fix their punctuation, and weed out overused words. Benjamin has some simple advice for making the written word stronger and clearer, but he also thinks some old, cherished rules should be thrown in the bin. But the veteran copy editor is not a member of the grammar police.

References

Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

noooo my podcasts to listen to list is already so long!!

added to the list anyways :p Aiue (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Script to highlight reading difficulty

I wanted to let you know that I wrote a script to highlight sentences by their reading difficulty with different colors. It goes through articles sentence by sentence. Difficult sentences are colored red and easy sentences are colored green. The script also shows the readability score of the article as a whole at the top. It includes a list of sentences ordered by lowest readability to help identify where the most attention may be needed. The script is found at User:Phlsph7/Readability.js and the documentation is at User:Phlsph7/Readability.

The script measures readability using the Flesch reading ease score. It only considers two factors: words per sentence and syllables per word. According to it, texts with long sentences and long words have low readability. This measure is very superficial and often does not reflect the actual difficulty of the text. For this reason, the script should only be used as a rough guide for potential improvements. It cannot replace human judgment.

Copyeditors can use the script to quickly identify articles and passages that may need to be improved. To make the text more accessible, it is usually beneficial to replace very long sentences with several shorter ones. In the process, unnecessary words can be removed and complex words can be replaced with simpler synonyms.

I hope to get some feedback on potential problems and how the script may be improved. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

See discussion at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

None of the sentences in the example shown is poorly written. However, the "green" sentence has an ambiguous "It" as its subject. Context makes clear that the development of the theory of impetus is meant, but that sentence could stand being recast. The copy editing problems with that passage are not being caught by the script: e.g. Philoponus is credited with a theory of impetus, so Buridan should not be said to have "developed the concept of impetus"; the mention of Islamic science should come before the mention of Buridan; etc. The Flesch tests have been widely used to make insurance contracts and military training manuals more readable. Wikipedia is something else and would probably suffer from a concerted effort to make certain articles more readable. Take, for example, the Physics article, from which your example is taken, which is quite readable by the non-specialist (but also somewhat disarranged, especially with regard to detailing Aristotelian physics outside the subsection on ancient physics); there are surely other articles on physics that are quite abstruse and should remain so. One improvement you might make is to not have proper names count against readability, especially multi-syllabic ancient and medieval ones. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed feedback! You are right, the Flesch reading ease score ignores many aspects that are central to copyediting. It can't really tell you whether an individual sentence is good or bad. The main purpose of the script is to help editors quickly identify where problems could be. For example, if a copyeditor doesn't have the time to read an article from start to end, they could focus only on the paragraphs that are mainly red. It doesn't automatically mean that there is something wrong with them. But the chances of catching overly long and convoluted sentences are much higher.

Concerning the example, the last sentence is in need of copyediting. Maybe something along the lines Islamic scholars inherited Aristotelian physics from the Greeks and refined it further during the Islamic Golden Age. They developed early forms of the scientific method by emphasizing observation and a priori reasoning.

The idea of excluding proper names is good from a copywriter's point of view. I'm not sure that there is an easy way to implement this. Maybe excluding all words in the middle of a sentence that start with an uppercase letter might work as an approximation. But this could be confusing to other script users since it is not the Flesch reading ease score anymore and the numbers they get are different from what they would expect. The point of implementing the Flesch reading ease score was that it is widely used. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The mention of Islamic science seemed out of place more than anything else, as did mentions of several other developments. To adjust any arrangement would, of course, likely involve editing the sentence itself. The system flags generic descriptors in author and editor fields in citations, which means some sort of dictionary lookup is performed. I though that you might be able to take advantage of that through some API. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Having a way to look up names might go a long way. With checking generic names, I assume you mean this. I don't think that they use a name dictionary to do this. Probably, they just check whether the author field contains a generic descriptor. For example, if it contains the string "editor" somewhere, it gets flagged. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I had assumed that a dictionary would be checked, a list of common words optimized for searching, rather than proper names being searched, or the limited list that you've linked to, although the latter could well be the case. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Dthomsen8 has passed

It's just been brought to my attention on my talk page prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) passed away in November 2022. As requested, I've removed his account from our mailing list. He will be missed by the Wikipedia community. Best regards, Baffle☿gab 14:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for passing along the sad news, Baffle. All the best, Miniapolis 17:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

A very prolific copy editor, and apparently a designer of his own line of "Wikipedia editor" clothing, if I am reading things correctly. I would have loved to have met him. RIP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

He's someone who encouraged me early on. I'm sorry to hear of his passing. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he was a regular drive participant a few years ago. I know it's a while away but perhaps a short paragraph could go in the September newsletter. I'll be willing to write something later on if no-one else does. Best regards, Baffle☿gab 01:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, Baffle. All the best, Miniapolis 13:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Would a piece for The Signpost be acceptable, as we did when TT passed? I don't know if anyone else will write one. Baffle☿gab 22:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That would be nice, Baffle, in addition to what we add to the September newsletter. All the best, Miniapolis 00:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

He was apparently quite active with Philadelphia Wikipedians, and I suspect that they, however they are organized online, would be able to contribute, although I don't see much activity on his user page yet. I may have to put up another candle on my page. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't want to tread an anyone's toes here. I may pop a note on the Philly WikiProject's talk page this evening. Baffle☿gab 13:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I have posted notes at Pennsylvania and Philadelphia wikiprojects. I'll wait a week for responses then I'll go ahead if there's no response there. Baffle☿gab 14:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No responses from those WikiProjects yet. I've created a draft obituary in my talk sandbox, feel free to add / remove / correct text. When done, i'll submit to The Signpost. Baffle☿gab 02:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added a bit of text, but the important addition is the citation of a detailed Philadelphia Inquirer story, which can certainly be further drawn on. On his talk page, there's also a picture of him in one of his trademark caps, which makes him a fashion designer as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

(←) Thanks everyone; I'm about finished adding to the obit but please go ahead if anything's missing. Please check it over for silly errors and then it can be submitted. I know the writing is poor atm. Thanks, Baffle☿gab 02:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm now happy with the obituary and will submit in about 24 hours, so this is the last call for checks, additions and corrections. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Your name should be there, as the author who has done by far most of the work. The current byline is: By Guild of Copy Editors coordinators, which does lead to a page where you are still listed as a coordinator (and I need to figure out how to update that). However, once that is corrected, you will not be mentioned, even by inference. Please consider a more suitable byline, such as your account name alone. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC) (edited 05:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC))

(Aside to Dhtwiki: See the "twice per year" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Task list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC))

Thanks for the poke, Jonesey . All the best, Miniapolis 14:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Dhtwiki; I suppose I should fix that, though I'm happy to be part of the collective. :) You updated the coordinators list on 1 July so I'm not sure why you're seeing me listed there. Maybe your browser cache needs refreshing. Will submit tonight. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't updated the "left panel" list. There is a "right panel", as well, which is full of statistics, and which has been somewhat neglected. The last "Monthly progress chart (2020 and later)" entry is for May 31, 2023. I'll try to make an entry for June soon (which is also on Jonesey's to-do list, which I now have on my watchlist). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) (edited 23:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC))

(←) I've submitted the obituary here. Best regards, Baffle☿gab 02:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

David's obituary has been published here. Thank you everyone for your comments and contributions. Best regards, Baffle☿gab 00:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Discord

Me and @Schminnte: have setup a GOCE discord server for more convenient discussions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Zippybonzo:; I think it's best practise to keep discussions about Guild matters public and on wiki. Private discussions on off-wiki channels may alienate uninvited editors and invite accusations of scrutiny avoidance. Email is available for private communication. That said, I'm no longer a coordinator. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I know, however it makes some communication quicker, it is by no means a substitute for onwiki discussion, but a supplement to allow quick discussion and questions to occur, without having to create a section here. I will make it clear that discussion there is not in any way a substitute but instead intended to allow for some discussions that don't need a full thread opening here to occur. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Featured Articles and Copy Edits

I've recently been in discussions concerning copy edits on Featured Articles. It seems that many copy edits to FA are simply rejected for not being significant enough, simply because the original form of the article passed the FA review process.

As an example, I'd love to get some GoCE opinions about just the lead section of Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652). I myself noticed a large number of both underuse and overuse of commas, and lots of awkward phrasing and sentence structures. Two of the article editors who watch it have told me to discuss all copy editing changes on the talk page before they approve them.

To me, that's completely absurd. I had to painstakingly gather sources to explain why an advevial clause starting a sentence necessitates a comma, and there's no way I could do that for more than a handful of edits, heaven forbid an entire article copy edit.

I normally don't edit FAs, but the lead on this one made my eyes twitch it was so poorly written. Have any GoCE members encountered similar issues before? 71.11.5.2 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking specifically about this edit, I didn't keep an exact count, but I'd say at least 80% of the changes in that edit were either incorrect or unnecessary. There were a few actual mistakes that you fixed, like removing a comma from "both the king of Scotland, and the king of England.", but I can see why the editors at the talk page rejected this edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I realized afterwards that some of my edits weren't correct, but my bigger issue is that the editors watching the page revert even simple copy edits like this one, which is simply adding a needed comma. It seems like any copy edits would be rejected unless discussed on the talk page first. 71.11.5.2 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi @71.11.5.2:, I took a look at the article's lede, it seems mostly correct in grammar and punctuation but I did note some missing commas and some oddly placed ones. I also see an unnecessary 'that' and some editorializing. though it's not nearly as horrible as some FAs I've seen.

IP, I agree with some of your changes here but the first change alters the meaning of the sentence: it changes the actor from the pre-emptive military incursion to the New Model Army; in that sentence I'd have used "that was" without a preceding comma rather than "which" with one. That may have been the main reason for the reversion.

I have been in similar situations. In the case of reversion of a requested copy-edit, I usually discuss with the reverting editor involved. If they insist their version is best, I usually abandon the c/e attempt, inform the requester and move on. Life's too short and arguing the toss is beyond my pay level. I see you've discussed this with the editors, who are very experienced (and one is a former regular GOCE copy-editor), though that doesn't mean they're always correct. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The overall vibe just left me with a bad taste in my mouth. It just bothers me that FA are supposed to be some of the best work on the project, and they usually are, but if anyone tries to fix mistakes it seems like edits are getting reverted. My own edit is a bad example, because I definitely introduced errors, but look at something like this. Why is that being reverted? 71.11.5.2 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is no fun to be reverted. One thing to keep in mind is consistency: if you are going to change one sentence-starting adverbial phrase to have a comma after it (which is a matter of style, not a firm rule), you have to change all of them. The same goes for spaced or unspaced dashes, or serial commas, or varieties of English spelling. Typically, an FA will have settled on a style and will have pretty good consistency throughout, making it easy to fix a few outliers. Make sure to say something like "add serial commas for consistency with the rest of the article" in your edit summary, and try not to miss any of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

In reading the lead, I noticed the imbalance in paragraph size, which I would have tried to correct. This sentence struck me as confusing: The First and Second English Civil Wars, in which English Royalists, loyal to Charles I, fought Parliamentarians for control of the country, took place between 1642 and 1648. I would have either recast it or replaced the first and last commas with dashes. In general, the numerous parentheticals remind me of some English prose written before the 19th century, which can become unreadable if done too much or not done correctly (e.g. Roper's The Life of Sir Thomas More), but results in impressive conciseness if done well (e.g. Edward Gibbon, IIRC). Also, I myself would also have added the serial comma. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

There was one sentence with ~5 commas and a semicolon. That might be fine for academic writing, but for the lead on a Wiki article? It really needs to be written at a lower complexity level. And the sentence you mentioned - it's just not good clear and concise writing.

But if anyone makes the edits, they shouldn't have to explain in any depth why the simplified sentence is better than the one filled with commas. 71.11.5.2 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"iron core": hyphenate or not?

The question came up in Talk:Arthur O. Austin/GA1 whether "iron core" should be hyphenated in "Equipment included 4 iron core 60 Hz transformers". I figured you folks would know. @Kj cheetham:. RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Without the hyphen. Also, spell out four. Rublamb (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I would add a couple of hyphens, and a comma for good measure: "Equipment included four iron-core, 60-Hz transformers". Dhtwiki (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@RoySmith:: with hyphen; "Equipment included four iron-core, 60 Hz transformers." Reasoning—iron-core is a compound adjective that describes the transformers, and if there are four transformers and the transformers' cores don't have four irons or 4 irons... Otherwise, say "four-iron-core transformers" if the transformers' cores contain golfing equipment. We also may use a comma to separate adjectives. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I've gone with one hyphen, one comma, and "four". "60 Hz" is standard engineering style, with no hyphen, so I think that's what makes sense here. RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree. You could have 60-Hertz but I don't believe we hyphenate numbers with abbreviated units. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I just want to say

Thank you for the chuckle:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Grammarly

I started using Grammarly after reading the GOCE's suggestions for copy editing. However, several times there has been a glitch where edits are made, but not in the right way. For example, a comma is inserted in the middle of a word instead of after the word. Or a new phrasing is inserted randomly in the sentence or even in the middle of a word. After several instances of this over a couple of months, I went to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). The response I received was that Grammarly was a known issue. I was referred to this essay: Wikipedia:Don't use Grammarly. Obviously, one solution is to only use Grammarly by cutting and pasting into its online editor, rather than using while in Wikipedia. Are the other editors less problematic? Should we update the copy editing suggestions to explain the potential problems? Rublamb (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Does the GOCE suggest using Grammarly? If so, we shouldn't. Luddite that I am, IMO AI is an oxymoron. All the best, Miniapolis 17:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It is recommended in Wikipedia:Basic copyediting which is suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to. I had not used it prior to seeing it there. I had found it useful as a starting point for catching spelling mistakes. But given the issues I have found with it, I do not think it should be recommended. I don't know about the other similar product suggestions; maybe others have experience using them. Rublamb (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

My position is the use of spelling checkers, online tools and AI is fine providing the output is manually checked for factual accuracy, grammar, spelling and ENGVAR, and the output is corrected where necessary. The copy-editor is fully responsible for their edits and saying "I used Grammarly / AI / some other tool" is no excuse for shoddy copy-editing. I still think manual copy-editing is best because every article is different. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. However, editors who are new to GOCE may use these tools and assume that they are reliable because of the guide to copy editing. If GOCE is going to endorse the use of these tools against the recommendation of VPT, it should only be done with an explanation of the potential for bugs and quirks so that accidental mistakes don't happen. In other words, something along the lines of your first sentence with an added warning about known periodic bugs. Rublamb (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I've added a note at Wikipedia:Basic copyediting to that effect. That page isn't part of the GOCE but it should give accurate, helpful and up-to-date advice. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Those are reasonable changes, but my encounter with Grammarly, via an editor using the paid-for version, left me with the impression that it's so flawed that its use should be positively discouraged, especially given the heavy amount of advertising for its use that I've encountered. I'm now somewhat shocked that it's been the first software mentioned under "Useful tools" at the "Basic copyediting" article. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(←) I agree with Dhtwiki about Grammarly in particular and AI editing tools in general for copyediting; there are just too many fine points for them to be helpful. Yeeno added the mention a couple of years ago and, given the problems that have sprung up with Grammarly, I'm going to remove it. All the best, Miniapolis 13:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Before it gets archived, the VPT thread is here. Miniapolis 13:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Said you're working on a request but don't want to do it anymore?

A while ago, I was on the requests page. I accepted a request for a page, but I've found I can't be working on it anymore. What do I do here? I can't just delete my comment, as the requestor has probably seen it already. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@ThatOneWolf: You will want to read this section of "Instructions for copy editors" on WP:GOCER:

• If you have accepted a request but cannot fulfill it for any reason, please amend it with either:
  • a note of the sections you have completed so someone else can complete the copy edit, or;
  • a suitable template: {{Not done}}, {{Partly done}}, or Abandoned (not a template!).
  • If the article is unstable, experiencing rapid development, an ongoing edit war or apparent ownership issues, open a discussion on Requests talk to inform project coordinators.
  • Acceptances that appear to have been abandoned will be checked after a reasonable period, usually one week after the timestamp. In cases of complete inactivity we will ask for an update on your talk page. If no response is received within one further week, the {{Working}} template will be removed so other editors may complete the copy edit.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

that vs which?

I'm doing a GA review of Pulsar planet. Could somebody please look at the following and see if they should use "which" instead of "that":

• Lead: Pulsar planets are planets that are orbiting pulsars.
• Lead: planets made of diamond that were formed
• Formation: "First generation" planets are planets that orbited the star before it went supernova
• Formation: They also contain heavy elements that are essential building blocks
• Habitability: electron-positron pairs that are generated by the pulsar's magnetic field

Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I'll number your fragments of inquiry in the same order. I'll preface this by saying that I don't see a preferred style of English mentioned for the article (e.g., American vs. British), so I'll opt for American English as it tends to be more restrictive in when that or which may be used.

1. Use that; the article is talking about a specific kind of planet.
2. Use that; the conjunction is connecting were formed with exotic bodies earlier on. I would personally demarcate such as planets made of diamond with commas to show that it is a parenthetical thought and not necessary in the sentence.
3. Use that; we're talking about particular planets.
4. Depends; if heavy elements are as a group important building blocks for planets, use which; if only a specific few are required, use that.
5. Leaning towards which (preceded by a comma); this sounds like a generality amongst all pulsars, but I am not well-versed in the subject.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Good GA review, RoySmith. FWIW (as a seat-of-the-pants copyeditor) I prefer "which" in all those examples, but "that" is grammatical and that's all that's required of a GAN. All the best, Miniapolis 22:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I use "that" when what follows is defining and "which" for non-defining or illustrative text. So:

1. "that", as not all planets orbit pulsars.
2. either "planets, made of diamond, that were formed; or "planets that are made of diamond and that were formed".
3. "that", as, again, not all planets are of this type.
4. "that" or "which", depending whether some or all heavy elements are involved. I use a preceding comma when I use "which"; it's one way to tell of its suitability.
5. "that", as, most likely, not all electron-positron pairs are generated this way.

Dhtwiki (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• RoySmith has the correct usage. (90% of people on Wikipedia don't know this). Proper English precludes the use of "which" being used for specific subjects or objects. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If "which" is used for non-restrictive relative clauses, then it must relate to something already well specified. So, I don't understand your comment. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Mentorship reassignment request for new copy editor

A new user @Myuniqueniche requested help at my talk page but they seem to be in copy editing and getting stuck in guideline manual of style nuances. I wish and request some one experienced copy editor takes over and mentors Myuniqueniche.

Bookku (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, but judging by the number of issues on their TP it may be a WP:CIR situation; every so often, a problem editor shows up here. All the best, Miniapolis 15:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Bookku:, judging by their replies on their talk page, that editor doesn't seem to be fluent in English so you could direct them to a Wikipedia in a language in which they are fluent at List of Wikipedias. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for evaluation and guidance. Bookku (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

A first attempt at copy editing

Hi, I've been lurking in the guild for a long time, and finally had a go at my first article, problematic smartphone use. I'd appreciate it if someone could check my work and share any pointers, obvious errors and omissions, withering criticism etc. I am aware that as well as c/e I've done some extra work, such as checking/fixing/updating references (I can't help it!) and I wonder if I have been perhaps a bit too enthusiastic with the secateurs, by removing some uncited/waffly/redundant material. Cheers, — Jon (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

You've made many edits, with explicit edit summaries; that's always a good sign. Improving the referencing often becomes part of the copy edit, as consulting such, and finding that they're in an improvable state, is often how articles are bettered.

• Remember to use logical quotes, unless including punctuation (usually sentence-ending periods) that is a part of the quote: "Habits are a product of reinforcement learning, one of our brain's most ancient and reliable systems," seems to violate that.
• The lead could stand some improvement. I would change the first sentences to read:

Problematic smartphone use is a term used to describe a form of psychological or behavioral dependence on cell phones that is closely related to other forms of digital media overuse, such as social media addiction or internet addiction disorder.

Commonly known as "smartphone addiction", the term "problematic smartphone use" was proposed by researchers to describe a similar presentation of behaviors, while moving away from the labeling it an addiction framework.

Otherwise, your work seems fine. Thank you for your efforts. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy § RFC

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy § RFC. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)