Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Archive 4

Bart King

Greetings! I'm trying to get this article up to FA status. The main problem right now is that the prose is not quite up to snuff. Is there anyone in the league that can help copyedit this article to make the prose more compelling/brilliant? Thanks so much for any help you can give.--Eva ^bd 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

i'll take a look at it, sure thing. Although FA status is usually a matter of content and organization, and less of copy edits. BUt regardless, I'll help out.--rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 18:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've added this to our "Requests for Assistance" section of our proofreading list. Please track progress and add comments there. Thanks! Galena11 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lesbianism in erotica

This isn't quite a copyediting request (though if you want to copyedit the above article, go ahead), but a request for input. I'm asking here, because I know many people here probably are knowledgable about English usage and may wish to weigh in on this –

I'm trying to get consensus about usage the adjective "lesbian" and the noun "lesbianism" in the article Lesbianism in erotica and potentially head off an edit war between myself and User:Joie de Vivre. Basically, this user insists on very narrow usage of the words "lesbian" and "lesbianism" no matter what the context, restricting only to descriptions of self-identified "lesbians". It is my belief that "ordinary language" use of the word lesbian allows this term as a broad description of same-sex activity between women and that the phrase "lesbian sex" can be reasonably used to describe sex between bisexual women. I feel very strongly that English usage in Wikipedia should reflect generally accepted usage of the English language by the larger public and not usage that may be confined to a particular subculture.

Based on this, JdV had changed the title to "Sex between women in erotica" and rewrote the article to expunge nearly every instance of the word "lesbian". I think the results of JdV's edits were largely tendentious and clunky and have reverted them (though I've incorporated some of her edits after reverting).

If you have an opinion on this, please weigh in at Talk:Lesbianism_in_erotica: Renaming_article. Iamcuriousblue 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with using "lesbianism". In erotica, sexual acts between women are labeled as "lesbian"; it is a sub-genre of erotica called "lesbianism". The evidence is on the Web: just see some pornographic Web sites. The title "Lesbianism in erotica" is perhaps more useful for someone who wants to know about the term in context. But this argument is not one from English usage, and "lesbianism" is actually a misnomer for the genre and for most the acts which also involve men. On the other hand, "lesbian" certainly applies to more than just self-identified lesbians. My girlfriend, who is a sex researcher, has often made it a point that accepted definitions include behavior and arousal, not just self identification. And sexual preferences are on a continuum anyway. So the title "Sex between women in erotica" is more accurate and more descriptive to a general audience. I'm not sure where the emphasis should be in the article, but at least both titles should lead to the article, and both should be explained in it. -Pgan002 00:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

re: my copyedit of Catoplebas

Hi there, I've joined your group and CE'd my first article. Would someone like to take a look and see if I'm on the right track? --killing sparrows 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean Catoblepas, right? :) — Scientizzle 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Oh jeez, I want to be a copyeditor and I misspelled the title of the first article I asked for feedback on! --killing sparrows 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you did a solid job, fixing spelling & tenses and adding greater organization. For long quotes, <blockquote> works well. I made a few changes, too. I felt that the subject was too often referred to indirectly and adjusted the formatting of some ofthe publications. Keep up the good work! — Scientizzle 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the way you broke up the gaming section and moved the 'needing sources' tag to that section, as well as the blockquote thing. I can tell when something is cumbersome to read (the whole gaming thing makes my eyes roll, but I'm an old guy!) but I don't always see what needs to be done to fix it. My plan is to concentrate now on bio articles as there are many formatting/style things, birth/death dates, etc. common to these articles that almost always needs attention. If I do several I'll get a system down, learn the rules and then be quicker and more consistent. Thnx for your critique! --killing sparrows 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

President of Colombia

Could you please help me to wikify the references of Alvaro Uribe. Most references are external links like "[1]" and not like "".

Thanks, --Ricardo Ramírez 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article is now copy-edited to my satisfaction. -Pgan002 03:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • moved this to "Ready for final proofread". Cricketgirl 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with Shahbag

The article is inching towards an FA status and is being reviewed for a second time by peers. But, it still needs much copyedit (especially with citation template and dating web citations). A wholesomely coherent style of English and a completely cohesive flow of the article is mightily required at this point. Please, help. Aditya Kabir 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is now FA, has been added to general copyedit requests. Cricketgirl 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics bids

I posted a request for proofreading on this article on this project's FAC/FAR section, but as I saw some older requests apparently still unattended, I'm echoing my request on this talk page. Any volunteering help would be truly appreciated! Thank you. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is now FA, has been added to general copyedit requests. Cricketgirl 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Urgent help needed in Tamil language -to retain its FA status

I know most of you may be fully engaged and busy, but I wonder whether there is anyone who can help to polish and copyedit this article which currently in FARC. It may not be too difficult for anyone who is familiar with style manual and copyedit standards. Thanks a lot.--Aadal 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• This retained FA status, has been added to general copyedit requests. Cricketgirl 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Finished copyedit

I recently did a major rewrite and copyedit of Sofia Kovalevskaya and posted the 'was recently done...' template on the talk page of the article. Does it automatically get put on the proofread list? --killing sparrows 07:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you have to manually add it to the appropriate list. If you were the initial copy-editor, then add the article to the bottom of the Read for final proofread list (you may want to put some comments too, but this is not required). If the article was previously copyedited, and you proofread it, move the article from the Ready for final proofread list to the bottom of Proofread complete; instructions can be found at the top of that section. In any event, don't forget to sign the entry into either list. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And, in point-of-fact, that's the process I'm trying to streamline in my proposal. --Otheus 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Song Dynasty of China

Hello. I have recently put a lot of work into the Chinese Song Dynasty (960-1279 AD) article, and it looks very proficient and much more professional with the edits, additional information, and structural changes I have made. I have even nominated it for FA status.

However, as user:tony1 has pointed out, it still needs some tweaking and editing with some of the wording. I was wondering if you, the distinguished copyeditors (if time allows in your busy schedule), could have a look and apply those excellent editing skills. Honestly, it would be an enormous help. Thank you. --PericlesofAthens 00:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Passed FAC, now under general requests. Cricketgirl 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Swimming pool

Greetings, League of Copyeditors! I wasn't sure exactly where to go with this concern, and this seems like one of the appropriate places. It would seem that recently, several articles have been split off from Swimming pool: Swimming pool sanitation, Construction methods for private pools, Infinity pool. The main article seems to have been growing from IP contributions, so I ran a couple fragments of sentences through google. Despite my efforts, I couldn't find any evidence of web-based copyvio. The articles are essentially OK, except for a bit of POV, how-to creep, and all that unwikified text. I just wondered if there was a better place to post this concern. Those articles seem to contain a lot of unnecessary information. Point me in the right direction! Thanks, --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited Swimming pool to my satisfaction. I see no POV, and have not tested IP vio. -Pgan002 01:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

moved to general requests. Cricketgirl 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A copy editor's wet dream

Here is an article that several of you may want to work on together:

• Lunar New Year cross-strait charter

It is half-translated from its Chinese Wikipedia equivalent so far, but the 25 kb or so that is already done is in terrible shape. Good luck! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to general requests. Cricketgirl 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit on Deathstalker (novel)

Hi all - I'm currently undertaking a copyedit of the above article. It's not my first ce, but is my first under the aegis of the LoCE, so if anyone wants to drop in and offer help and/or advice, you'd be most welcome ;) EyeSerene^TALK 08:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Proof read request

I've just finished my second major copy-edit. I found the Freedom of the press in Italy a challenge. Could someone please proof read it for me to make sure it is okay. Also if you have any feedback on how I can improve my copy-edits could you please leave it on my talkpage? Is this the correct place to ask for a proof read? Thank you Mehmet Karatay 21:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

moved to proofread requests. Cricketgirl 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha

Galena11 was doing a wonderful job on copyediting of Ganesha but she not been active since May. I hope all is well with her. If she is inactive, is there some process for getting another member of the League working with us on that article? She was doing such a great job I am very disappointed that she has not been active, and thus am a bit concerned about her. I am unsure on process for handling this project now, so please advise. Buddhipriya 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

moved to requests page. Cricketgirl 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Language movement: EMERGENCY! HELP!! HELP!!!

The article Language movement has gone to it's FAC quite some time back. The principal obstacle in it's way of graduation is the copy. I myself am a bad copywriter, and none of the other editors working on the article are very good copyeditors either. Besides, two of the key editors interested in the article have somewhat gone out of business, and the copyeditors I have worked with before seem to be busy elsewhere. Please, lend a hand. It's an emergency. If copyedit is not done fast, it might fail the FAC. Aditya Kabir 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it today. However, ideally it would have been best to have copyedited it BEFORE it was submitted to FAC. Trusilver 21:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

moved to general requests. Cricketgirl 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New(ish) editor wishing to join

Hi! I am quite interested in joining your league (I love Leagues of stuff :D) and have an enthusiasm for nitpicking at other people's writing and getting everything 'just so'. I am a fairly new editor here, so I would appreciate any advice or criticism people can offer. I have recently copy-edited on these pages: Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, The Class (Erich Segal novel) and Commonwealth Saga (not finished yet). I have done other bits of tidying up here and there, but those are the first full pages I have worked on. Anyway I'll go and add my name to that there list and start familiarising myself with the other pages --carelesshx _talk 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Welcome! :-) -Pgan002 06:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Prioritizing

Speaking of prioritizing (above), some of the articles in the backlogs are more important than others. For example, among those that are about notable subjects, some articles are visited much more often than others. Maybe we should put a higher priority on copy-editing those? Is it easy to know how frequently a page has been visited recently? Plus, I'd say that it's better to have more articles at an acceptable quality than a few outstanding articles. Maybe that can direct our efforts too? -Pgan002 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Save time! Check for copyright violations before copyediting

Some advice: before you spend lots of time and effort copyediting an article that seems like it wasn't written for Wikipedia (reads like an advertisement, has an inappropriate tone, features weird non-Wiki markup, etc.), Google a few phrases to check for copyright violations. If the entire article is (and has always been) a copyright infringement, then you can either use {{db-copyvio}} or {{copyvio}}, and move on to another article. BuddingJournalist 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But since copyright applies only to the wording and not to the ideas, rewording the article will free it from copyright and free WP from legal issues. So I think it is very useful to copy-edit articles that may have copyrighted text. -Pgan002 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Copyeditor's Award

So, something kind of odd happened when we proposed this back in Jan. We had strong support, then one person said he didn't like it and archived the discussion. So I've re-proposed it.

Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#The Copyeditor's Award

If you like it, please go voice your support and encourage others to as well. Apparently we need more support than we received last time (11 supports, one oppose) for this to pass. If you don't like it, help us come up with an alternative. If you are new to the project, the discussion and collaboration that led to the design and text are in this talk page's archives. It would also help if someone could look into the differences between Personal User Awards and WikiProject Awards, as I'm not exactly sure what the criteria are for both, or for either of those vs an actual Barnstar. Thanks! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got a question: When does the award become official? Like, how many votes do we need for support or how many days? THanks, — ?Tohru Honda13? 02:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know, and have had a terrible time getting answers to that. What is clear is that we need a lot more support to get this through as a barnstar. We need everyone to go voice their support, and to get others who might support this to go check it out. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. And let's rename the Editor's Barnstar to "Deletionists' Barnstar". Judging from the description, that's what it's used for. Then we can call our barnstar the "Editor's Barnstar" or "Copy-editor's Barnstar". -Pgan002 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Copyeditor's is apt for what we've proposed. I don't understand the rationale behind the "Editor's Barnstar" - the description seems to support deletionism, but I think it should be for general editing. There is a proposal on the table to change at least the text of the "Editor's Barnstar", folks can reach it through the discussion linked above. Again, I'm not sure how much support we need to make these changes, but it seems we need a lot more than we've been getting. I would also really appreciate it if folks could help out with finding out how much support we need to get this through. I'm going to contact some folks directly, because questions on the talk page of the project have not garnered helpful responses. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget the deletionist approach, and take up a new approach. But, copyeditors should have a dedicated barnstar, and a beautiful one at that. Aditya Kabir 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What to do with template when there's more than one copyeditor?

In the past, when I've copyedited an article that's had several contributing editors (as is the case with the In Progress articles), I've simply added a semicolon after the last editor and done the four tildes. This way, all the editors are on one line. However, I've also seen cases where each copyeditor is adding a new version of the template. Personally, I think multiple boxes might start to make the talk page rather cluttered, which was the issue we tried to address by moving the template to the body of the talk page (rather than the top). Thoughts?Galena11 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Single Copyedit box with multiple copyeditors. Personally, I think if you come across multiple boxes, you should copy the copyeditors sig/datestamp into the first one.— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot to update Template:Copyedit progress

A discussion was started yesterday on the Talk page of /proofreading, but as that conversation seems to have run dormant, I figured it might have greater visibility here. See the original conversation. To recap: I would be creating a bot to automatically update Template:Copyedit progress with current information, similar to what my CbmBOT does for Category:Cleanup by month.

In order to progress with this, which I'm perfectly happy to do, the following process must occur:

1. First, a request to add a task (updating the template) to my existing bot must be filed – I'm choosing to do it this way rather than creating a new bot because the two tasks are essentially the same, just with different target; I am going to likely request a name change too. In order to do so, I need to have the specifics of how the bot needs to work – in other words, I need a defined set of rules as to how the numbers in the template are calculated/acquired.
2. The bot would be coded (again, this is dependent on me receiving the above information).
3. The bot would enter a trial period, pending approval.
4. The bot would become an active bot.

I figured people would appreciate not having to update the template manually, but if someone's really attached to doing it, let me know and I'll back off ;) –Dvandersluis 21:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor question

I came across a case recently on a page where someone was described in the following manner, "He is widely considered to be one of the greatest so and sos of all time..." The NPOV of the statement is not what I'm questioning here. Another editor changed it to "He is widely considered one of the greatest so and sos of all time..." Which is the correct wording? The second one just doesn't sound right to me wihtout the to be. I'd figured I'd ask here, this is probably just basic grammar but my knowledge of grammar concepts and terminology is weak. Like a lot of people I just know if a sentence is bad grammatically if it doesn't sound right. Aaron Bowen 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• IMHO, either is correct. "Widely considered" is a proper adverbial clause, but if I were editing this, I'd consider "to be" as implied and leave it out to avoid wordiness. :o) Galena11 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does it sound so awkward to me? It just doesn't sound right. It sounds like saying "I walked school", instead of "I walked to school." Maybe if I hear it more it will sound alright, I don't know. Aaron Bowen 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You can check by testing a similar but simpler construction, "he is considered rich". If that sounds OK -- and it does to me -- then it should still be OK after you add the adverb "widely" and modify "rich". Pgan002 23:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Organizational Proposal

I propose the following, for which I volunteer doing work on (I have the technical know-how):

• A new {{LoCE}} template that does what the current template does, using default parameters of current article name, user, month, etc.
• The new template includes a status parameter, which can have one of the following values:
  1. new (default)
  2. in-use/in progress (to be modified by bot after a week)
  3. abandoned (when the state has been for too-long in the "in-progress" state)
  4. ready for proofreading
  5. closed (finished, leaves the tag atop the page indicating when it was finished, results in null expansion)
• For each of these states, we have a unique category, like we currently have for the backlog. This way, each state ("in-use/in-progress/ready for final proofread") can be browsed independently, and status changes on the page result in automatic removal/addition to the proper category page.
• Also, to the template, for each copyeditor and proofreader, a category is added, allowing us to review our own work history. It might be a good idea to have a category for each state (in-use, copyedited, proofread).

--Otheus 14:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) / updated 06:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand everything in your proposal (ie. difference between new template and existing one -- is it just that the new would suborganize into categories?), but I highly agree that we need an organizational overhaul. The proofreading page has become hard to find information on, and instructions are buried in various places split between at least two different articles. I have had some ideas about how to better organize the page (organize info into a table, or table per "section"), but have not acted on them yet.

Somewhat relatedly, the problem might be that although we have many members, most do not see the discussion pages -- case in point, my proposal to automate statistic keeping (via a bot) from over a month ago, which was essentially never responded to -- and thus, things that ought to be community decisions end up either being just made solely by the proposer, or outright ignored. I have not really been involved heavily with any other WikiProjects prior to this one, so I don't really know how project organization works on the whole in WP, but maybe it's something to think about? —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm new here and don't really understand what you are getting at. Is this to repalce the current tag for articles needing copyediting, the one that anyone might add to an article, and then a bot would periodically update/reclassify it? Or are you talking about the one we use for copyedit in progress? --killing sparrows 07:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In terms of a bot, what I was proposing is something to automatically Template:Copyedit progress (the graph shown on the various project pages) based on the lists on the proofreading page. The proposed template I do believe would be instead of the existing one, but Otheus should probably explain it because it's his idea. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, let me rephrase from a non-technical viewpoint:

1. Someone adds the {{Cleanup}} tag to an article.
2. One of us comes along and adds the {{loce|status=in-progress}} tag to the article's talk page.
   • "in-progress" might also be "rejected" and look like this: {{loce|status=rejected|comment=Article is Original Research}}
   • Once the copyeditor finishes the article, s/he changes it to: {{loce|status=proofread}} to indicate it is ready to be proofread.
   • Once proofreading is done, the proofer changes the tag to {{loce|status=complete|date=~~~~~}} (but date can be automatically filled in), and then the article is moved to the "complete" category.
3. Meanwhile, a change in status implicitly changes the article's Category, and the category page contains all articles with that status. This way there is no need to come to this page and move an item from one list to another. It's also easier to track the progress of articles, the same way the {{copyedit}} tracks them now, by month.
4. It can also be set up so that each of us maintains a "task list". When we add the loce tag, it shows up in a category under our name. (I find this useful, because some pages are too long to copyedit in one session, and being ADD, I prefer to "flip" back and forth. Or I might want to proofread it for the next day.)
   • If you want to put an article on your todo list, you could just add by putting the following tag under the "cleanup" tag or somewhere on the talk page: {{susbt:loce-todo}} which would add it to a category, like "League of Copyeditors:todo-by-user/Otheus".

That's the gist of my proposal. Note, the above tags and templates don't exist yet. They are proposals. --Otheus 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Response

• Approve. I think that, when this project started, the founders had no idea it would have the kind of response (and volume) that we've seen. An overhaul is due, and this sounds like a pretty user-friendly way to do it. Galena11 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Approve. I like the automatic update that moves articles to different categories as the template is updated, adds to todo lists and lets us break out articles we are working on. My only question is on the 'reject' aspect. shouldn't we really remove the 'loce' tag and add 'prod', 'AfD', 'note,' etc. as appropriate? I have been going through the baccklog from 2005 and have sent a few of those to AfD and removed/modified tags, changing to 'expand,' 'wikify,' 'cleanup,' as seemed appropriate. 'Copyedit,' 'cleanup,' and 'wikify' seem to be used rather interchangably by some users and much of the backlog might be cleared by determining what the article really needs but I don't feel right just removing the 'copyedit' tag without retagging appropriately.--killing sparrows 18:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You raise some very interesting questions. For the overlapping "copyedit"/"cleanup"/"wikify" tags, I propose an iterative approach -- ie, let's make our process better, and later on, try to extend that approach to the other tags. The cleanup project has a methodology, but I don't like it, because it involves more work than this ours did. As to adding "prof"/"AfD" as appropriate -- sure, but I would keep the loce/reject tag there in case, for instance, AfD fails, and eventually the article is expanded and re-requests copyedit. The loce tag will show that it's older than the newer copyedit request. --Otheus 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now: I like this idea, and we do need an overhaul, but I see a few shortcomings that I'm not sure how we'd get around with using categories instead of lists:
  1. Unless we create a subcategory of each category for every month, which is likely overkill, but I don't know, going to categories will seriously mess up the statistic keeping. We won't have any way to see how many articles were proofread/copyedited each month, and we won't be able to keep Template:Copyedit progress uptodate unless either every completed item was immediately kept track of in the template (which is counterproductive to this proposal), or someone would have to go through the history of each item in the categories to determine when they were added (very counterproductive). I obviously can only speak for myself, but I think that having a place to reflect on how much the project has done is a good thing.
     • Mrm, I don't see that. Once you add the loce tag, it places the article in a more-or-less permanent category AND one by month. Unless someone deliberately changes the loce tags on the talk pages, ... might have to work out what happens with archiving. --Otheus 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
       • If we do create a subcategory per month for every category, then we won't have a problem with this; however, it will create a lot of categories (which will increase each month by n, the number of main categories we have), which won't necessarily even be current -- for example, consider an article is copyedited in April 2007, and then further edited and in need of copyedit again in July 2007. Which category does it end up in? April 2007? July 2007? Both? We don't want to create a mess of tags on the article's talk page either, remember. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. With categories, we will no longer be able to effectively coordinate a group copyedit (ie. person 1 edits to X, person 2 edits to Y) which will either cause one person to have to deal with the article themselves, or overlap. We could always maintain lists for these articles, though.
  3. The FAC/FAR requests, requests for assistance, and work in progress lists cannot be replaced by categories, as they have attached comments/dates etc.
     • FAC/FAR, requests for assistance. True enough -- at least, better to have a page that shows up in the watchlist
     • Work-in-progress: what's the purpose of having this show up on a project page?
     • --Otheus 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
       • The point of having this on the project page is so that coordination between multiple editors can be arranged (Editor 1 edits article up to section X, and marks down that they've done such. Then Editor 2 can pick up at that point and report on their progress if they don't finish the the article). —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  One other side note, as the templates go on the Talk pages of articles, the categories would be populated with talk pages rather than the articles themselves (probably nitpicking).

  In short, I think we're on the right track, but there are a lot of things that still need to be worked out before this is ready to replace the current method. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this has not drawn further commentary since April, I'm going to remove the notices about the discussion from the project and requests pages. Cricketgirl 06:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

dash q.

Copyeditors: what is the best way to "style" a phrase like this:

…except for a 5 mile (8 km) stretch…

Is it fine like that? I don't think so. But there are so many other options:

…except for a 5-mile (8 km) stretch…
…except for a 5-mile (8-km) stretch…
…except for a five-mile (8 km) stretch…

etc.–Outriggr § 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

…except for a stretch of 5 miles (8 km)…

(imo, but the rest of the sentence is relevant) — Demong _talk 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) says that one shouldn't hyphenate with SI unit abbreviations. Thus, both "a 5-mile stretch" and "an 8-kilometer stretch" would be OK, but not "an 8-km stretch."—PaulTanenbaum 04:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. says in section 7.90 that numbers followed by an abbreviation should never be dashed, while number followed by a noun (e.g., kilometer, mile, etc.) would be hyphenated. This is consistent with NIST, just like PaulTanenbaum mentions above. --mariusstrom 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

cleanup vs copyedit

Hi! Question. I've taken a stab here and there at copyediting articles that are categorized as needed it, but have found it very difficult on a lot of them, due most frequently to lack of references, among other things. The page that lists articles needing a copyedit [2] notes that "a request for copyedit is most effective when the article is more-or-less complete, and fully cited". Is it appropriate to change the {{copyedit}} flag to {{cleanup}} and/or {{references}} in the case of a largely-unfinished article? — Demong _talk 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also been frustrated by a large amount of articles marked needed Copyedit that are not ready for Copyedit. I would suggest that the copy edit tag is removed, and replaced with something else as necessary. Copy edit should generally be the last thing done to a section, after the info is there. (This is harder when things can be changing constantly, but the info NEEDS to be complete before a copy edit can be useful) Rawgreenbean 17:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammar check... Is 'hunting weapon' standard English?

Two editors disagree over on the Hunting weapon page. I see that the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'weapon' with a meaning as having context of warfare or combat. A full text search of the OED does not find any usage of the term "hunting weapon". Therefore I believe that per standard English a person does not go hunting with a weapon. Because of this I favor changing the article title to be Hunting firearm to conform with standard English. I will refrain from restating the other editor's opinion. There has also been some discussion of this issue over on the Talk:Weapon#Disputed_definition page. Though, I wonder if someone might take a look at Hunting weapon and offer a third opinion on this question. SaltyBoatr 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

General "Thank You" to everyone

When I founded the LoC, I had very little hope that I could drum up enough people to really put a dent in the enormous amount of work that needed to be done. Yet almost immediately, editors started to throw themselves into the task in a way I found almost awe-inspiring. Being an airline pilot, it's not always easy for me to consistently be available online. And after an extended period of being away I came back to check on how the LoC was doing. I admit that I was expecting it to have fallen apart during the time I was away. Instead I see that it has surpassed my wildest expectations. Amazing work people, you have made my day. Trusilver 18:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And now, to keep everyone from getting too complacent seeing that the mind-boggling list of articles needing copyediting has been reduced down to one page... I'm going to start working at locating articles that are in need of copyediting and throwing them onto the stack, that seems to be where the most work is currently needed. Trusilver 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

LoCE Template

I noticed after proofreading an article recently that the LoCE template does not recognise signatures that include anything other than the basic default - I had to delete part of my sig to get it to display in the template. Is this intentional? EyeSerene^TALK 12:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone read this page? EyeSerene^TALK 11:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I read this page sometimes and a query of mine has been dealt with promptly in the past. I don't know enough to help with yours I'm afraid. Mehmet Karatay 12:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob - thanks for the response! I was starting to suspect this project was fading out ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Department of Style

Hello, AnonEmouse just referred me here after I made a comment on a beleagured FAC. Wikipedia is factional enough without me stirring it, but my observation was that we have editors who bring articles to FAC who are good at writing, who are then pulled apart at FAC for stylistic reasons. No spaces after punctuation and before citations, the use of endashes for dates etc. It strikes me that as a collaborative effort, perhaps the people who care about style to that degree, might set up a department where budding FAC'er can take their articles to have all the stylistic creases ironed out. Less conflict at FAC, more collaboration between disparate editors - wikilove all round. How about it? --Joopercoopers 12:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• It would undoubtably be useful for many editors, and it's something I might be interested in participating in. The only problem is that users should really be taught to fix stylistic problems themselves rather than getting other people to do it. Fixing stylistic problems is something that anyone can quickly learn to do, unlike the writing of good prose. Epbr123 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with the implied distinction between "stylistic" problems and "prose". Some issues are easier; some more difficult. Either way, standards of prose will always be the subject of tension in WP, because most people who have good things to contribute can't write to the "professional" standard required of FAs. So be it. Expect continual struggles in the FAC room. My wish is just that people would think twice about nominating—it's an avalanche. Tony 02:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony I agree with what you have to say about prose - but there is a distinction between well written prose and the particular way articles are expected to be formatted these days. Whilst I agree that every encouragement should be given to editors to equip themselves with the knowhow to write in this manner, I disagree that it's either easily or quickly taught. Additionally there are many aspects which are not written policy but are the defacto norm at FAC and are enforced as such. My understanding is the league of copyeditors is generally here to deal with prose issues and doubtless help enormously with that. Those of us, myself included, who would rather spend time writing articles rather than keeping abreast of the particular stylistic vogues, would be enormously grateful for a department specifically dealing with formatting issues. Or at least a help desk. Your 'thinking twice' before nominating would surely benefit from a specialist 'type setter'? --Joopercoopers 18:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On another note could someone tell me what the current thinking is regarding in-line citations in the lead? I remember a discussion where somemone argued that as the Lead is a summary of the article and so summarises referenced facts from the body of the article; that referencing wasn't required in the lead - personally I like this approach as it means that the summary style of the lead is visually unincumbered with citation links. WP:LEAD, WP:V, WP:ATT and WP:RS provide no guidance. BTW - I've been on wikibreak for a bit - does ATT now supercede V and RS or are they now all applicable? --Joopercoopers 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the matter and good examples either way. I just now wrote a new section WP:LEAD#Citations about this; comments welcome. Eubulides 17:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename "proofreading" page to "requests"

I would like to suggest that we rename the "proofreading" page to "requests", because it is about copy-editing requests in general, not only proofreading. It includes proofreading of articles that have been copy-edited and articles that require very little editing, but also requests for major copy-editing of specific pages. -Pgan002 22:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, no problem with that here. Trusilver 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, would do it myself (while I'm shifting everything else around) but I don't know how to. Cricketgirl 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Move content from "Useful links" to the other sections

The "Useful links" section is a mix and rehash of other things in the page -- it contains a howto link and three "tasks" links. So, I suggest that we rename the "How to use templates for copy-editing" section to "How to copy-edit", and move there the "How to copyedit" link from the "Useful links" section. Also, move the other links to the "Tasks" section. After a slight re-ordering, we would have:

1. How to request a copy-edit
2. How to join and current members
3. Tasks
4. How to copy-edit
   1. Before copy-editing an article
   2. After copy-editing an article
   3. After proofreading a copy-edited article
5. Progress

Comments? -Pgan002 09:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice on Picking what to Copy-Edit

Do people find themselves more successful when they're copy-editing articles that they have familiarity with, or something somewhat unknown? I've got mixed opinions on this: working on an unknown subject lets me focus more on the copy-editing and less on the fact checking, and lets me learn something; however, working on a known/familiar subject lets me copy-edit and look at the facts, which may distract me from the copy-editing process. The how-to page for copy-editing says that fact checking isn't necessarily involved in copy-editing on Wikipedia. What are your thoughts on this? --mariusstrom 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind copyediting articles I know little or nothing about, but even then (maybe especially then) I always find it difficult to avoid fact-checking and trying to find sources when a sentence so obviously needs that. It does prolong the copyedit though - ideally I'd expect the article's regular editors to supply missing sources/clarifications etc on the talk page, whilst I concentrate on the prose and MoS compliance. Personally I found out the hard way that the most useful guidance is to check for potential edit-warring before taking on an article - I walked smack into the middle of one of WP's most awesome recent edit wars (see the talk page on Sino-Indian War; it even made the news!). Lesson learned ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that brings about an interesting point. If you're familiar with something, you may not think it needs a reference, whereas if you're doing an unfamiliar review, you'll probably more accurately point out things that need citations. That's probably something to keep in mind. Thanks! --mariusstrom 19:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point you've raised though - I suppose it's a question of what is/is not a copyedit (at least under the LoCE banner). Consensus here seems to be that ideally a copyedit should put the final polish on an article after it has been taken as far as it can by its editors, but in practice I'd bet most copyeditors end up doing much more than that ;) EyeSerene^TALK 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer editing topics I don't know much about, for all the same reasons above. It does bring its own problems though. Sometimes a change in wording or sentence structure can introduce factual errors - this is less likely to happen if you know the subject you are editing. There are often cases where information is unclear or missing entirely; if you know the subject you can easily add that information or reword it, but as an outsider you can't. The level of fact-checking and so that I do depends on where I found the page. If it's from the LoCE page then I don't do fact-check and I don't add {{ref}} tags because that's all supposed to be done before it gets here. If I'm just working from the backlog, though, I'll do a bit of fact-checking as well. --carelesshx _talk 12:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Related to the heading, but not quite to your question - I usually edit topics that I find more interesting, or more notable for the world from my subjective judgment. For example, I prefer to improve Azimuth or Argentine literature over Anjel or Angry Kid. But if someone has asked for help with an article, that often has more weight. We should be fighting the backlog of those requested copy-edits first. -Pgan002 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding that a sort of balance between knowing the article and not knowing it works well. For example, I'm currently editing an article on Anti-Fairies (The Fairly OddParents). I know nothing about the Anti-Fairies, having never seen that particular show, but I have seen enough eposides to figure out what it means if a sentance is unclear. That way I'm learning, but am able to use my meagre background info to make unclear sentences clear. But then, I only recently joined, so I may be so far off the mark none of you have any idea what I'm saying.--Song 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hey all, what do you think of this image. Cheers--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

File:LoCiconRevised.svg

Nice work Cronholm! SVG too... EyeSerene^TALK 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to tweak it in any way?--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 10:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I noticed was that the definition of the quill-pen is not quite as clear as in the original PNG. I don't know if this is a real issue though... anyone else care to comment? EyeSerene^TALK 11:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly add the definition back in. I very slightly blurred it, introduced a central gradient, and didn't add the tan coloring in the original. I will wait a while and change it if there are no more opinions from the League.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 13:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it the way it is. Good work, Cronholm. Best regards.--Song 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the graphic. If I were to be an art critic about it, I might suggest the broom be in the background and the pen in the foreground; but, really it is quite nice as is. I'm new to the group and hope to slowly start some work round here. --Kenneth M Burke 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. this pic suffers from multiple mediaeiki bugs (it doesn't render properly and renders espcially badly when not a thumb), the inkscape svg has the broom in the back. I may have to rasterize a png to get this to work. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 19:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You might as well just keep the PNG if you're just going to press "vectorize" in a program link inkscape. With complicated images such as this one the result is often yucky and eliminates one of the selling points of SVG: Easy editing. -Indolences 04:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant rasterize the current svg to a high quality png, as opposed to vectorizing using trace bitmap. Cheers--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 05:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. That sounds OK I guess. -Indolences 07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Proofreading?

Hi all. I'm new to the League, and I've already started work, but I have a few questions. After I'm done with an article, can I request it for proofreading? Is there a template I can use? Best regards.--Song 23:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you believe you may have missed something, or if you did a lot of work, feel free to list it. There isn't a template for this, as it's simply adding a link to the article in the listing. (Just follow the pattern.) --Sigma 7 03:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sigma. At first I didn't understand, but I read the page over and it now makes sense. Once again, thank you. Best regards.--Song 05:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

HUGE Job

I've got an enormous job for somebody to do. Cleaning up and streamlining the LOCE project pages is something I have been trying to get accomplished for three months now. Unfortunately, I have yet to find the time to get it done. Now I have talked coerced bribed my daughter into going through the membership page sorting it by active and inactive participants, but that isn't even a fraction of the work that needs accomplished. Therefore I'm going to go fishing... Is there anyone out there that would be interested in taking on this task, particularly for the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading page? Trusilver 06:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tell me what I need to do. I don't know how, but I can learn! (Plus I have an excellent adopter :-))--Song 02:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, I need someone to start archiving Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading and getting rid of all the clutter so that it can be usable again. Trusilver 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long, but Gimme danger was out of town and I wasn't sure how to go about doing that. I don't really have a lot of time, but I will do my best. I think I may have time later today or tommorow.--Song 18:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How to request

I am new to the project and am familiarizing myself with the process. In reading all the details of the project, just thought that maybe something more should be said about how to request. Almost customer-oriented information such as, "Editors choose their articles based on their knowledge, skills, and interests," "Longer articles are likely to be time consuming," "Please ensure the article has been cleaned up and is ready for copyediting," "Recently our backlog has been lengthy, please be patient for more challenging articles." Stuff like that maybe, depending on what more experienced users at the project might believe is useful for those that request copyediting. --Kenneth M Burke 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cúcuta

Could you please help me to wikify the article of Cúcuta.

Thanks,

Ricardo Ramírez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.29.129.225 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists

I've suggested most of the maintenance categories be eliminated in favor of a technique based on using whatlinkshere. Articles needing copyedit is an example I've used. Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists. If no one speaks up, I'll be bold and change the template. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the template?

{{Template:WP LoCE
|September 2007
|Copyeditor}}

This has a weird picture now. What happened to the rest of the quill? Cricketgirl 10:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a scaling problem with the image - I think it's losing layers when it's resized. Beyond that, I'm not sure... but I've replaced the svg version with the original png in the template until the image is fixed (by someone with more savvy than me re image design!). EyeSerene^TALK 10:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

You do great work, you guys fro the WikiProject League of Copyeditors! Since I'm in trouble with the Grutte Pier article, can you help me with it? (I'm not a native speaker of English, nor writer, and especially my grammar sucks, and so does the grammar of most contributors to that article). -The Bold Guy- 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A very special request

Yes, yes, I read the notice on the top. But this is for a featured topic, and I was hoping to get more of a general opinion, as I'm no copyeditor myself :). At WikiProject Ice Hockey, certain users have started a drive towards a featured topic. We're progressing excellently, as the subpage can tell. (11 FL's and two GA's, but were missing key articles). Now, would those article require light copyediting? I am really wondering. Also, Stanley Cup needed a good copyediting (FAC), but I never responded to the calls (noobishness at that time, I'm afraid), so Stanley Cup is a definite yes, but what about the others? Maxim_(talk) 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a notice or something...

Can we include something in the instructions about how the LoCE is not a peer editing organization? I've encountered three articles in the "Ready for Final Proofread" section which are in need of major reference and/or citation work. Maybe I'm supposed to ignore these matters, but to me they are inextricably linked to the work I do in improving articles. (Which is to say that I can't in good conscience look only at the copyediting if the facts are not clearly sourced.)

I'm willing to help copyedit, but I'd like to know what I'm getting myself into if in fact I'm going to wind up doing a peer review. – Scartol · Talk 23:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Criteria page was developed to stress exactly that point. When you find articles requesting copy-editing that still have major content issues, you should deny the copy-edit as per the instructions on the documentation page. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Long Needed help in Ayyavazhi

Friends, This Ayyavazhi article is here from seven months before. I want to nominate it for a FAC. I am not well-versed with the English knbowledge and so can't do the copy-edit for myself and so I request the copy-edit over here. It carries many foot notes so the copy-edit is been delayed for a long time. But any one pls help me copy-editing this article. This article is selected for the Release CD Version 0.7 too. So pls help any one. Thanks. - Paul Raj 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Need a answer

I was woundering if i can edit the Roswell site like expaned it more if that will be ok with you guys Roswell one of my fav shows and i hate to see its site no have much stuff on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healingtears14 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. EyeSerene^TALK 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To pipe or not to pipe?

I've been looking for a definitive answer to a small editing question specific to Wikipedia, but I can't seem to find it in the Manual of Style or elsewhere. Perhaps one or more editors here can help me. Some articles have many wiki-links that cause re-direct messages on the target pages because the article syntax differs from the target page syntax. An example from real life is British East India Company (article syntax) wiki-linking to Honourable East India Company (target page syntax). When I find links like this, should I change them or leave them alone? I have changed several instances of "British East India Company" to "Honourable East India Company | British East India Company." I don't mind doing these pipe fixes, but are they a good thing to do or a bad thing? Finetooth 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I realise this is rather a late reply, but to offer my 2p worth I think it depends on the context of the article. A reader should see whatever best fits context and common usage; in many circumstances this will mean piping links. In your example, I didn't even know its proper name was the Honourable East India Company until I read your post, but I'm familiar with the British East India Company. For me the piped link there would certainly make more sense. EyeSerene^TALK 20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This might also be useful information; generally it's not worth it to change redirects, though if you're editing the page for other reasons it doesn't matter much. Mike Christie (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. This is quite helpful. Finetooth 03:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

You do great work, you guys fro the WikiProject League of Copyeditors! Since I'm in trouble with the Grutte Pier article, can you help me with it? (I'm not a native speaker of English, nor writer, and especially my grammar sucks, and so does the grammar of most contributors to that article). -The Bold Guy- 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request

I'm looking for someone who knows nothing about football. Leave a note on my talk page if you want to help. Buc 06:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do I sign up?

I can't find where... Please help me! Thank you.--victor falk 08:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link. It's on the main project page under the heading of "Members and joining". Lara❤Love 13:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

thx --victor falk 14:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditor's template

I've re-added the usage instructions of copyedit template as it was deleted by someone ....Gprince007 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review sorting

A proposal to sort all peer reviews and other article quality-related requests has been proposed on the Village pump. All input is welcome. ~ Sebi 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliminate mandatory proofread?

I've been pondering the backlog we have and suggest that we eliminate the mandatory proofread for each article. Instead, primary copyeditors could use their discretion whether to post an article for proof or just move it to the "Complete" section. I know that proofing is a standard "best practice", but I think it would be more effective to give more articles a once-over than fewer articles a twice-over. I don't know if this would affect the new template structure, tho. Thoughts? Galena11 15:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Moved to Requests discussion page. Galena11 14:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tighter request guidelines

A discussion is in progress at the /Criteria subpage on codifying and tightening the regulations on what requests the league will accept for copyediting, with a view towards clearing the currengly enormous backlog that we have and enable us to complete copyedits faster and more efficiently. Please take a look at the discussion at the link above. Happy‑melon 21:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning for Copyediting

I've been copy editing Wikipedia almost every day for years (usually anonymously), but this is a first. I was warned and threatened with a block because I made just one change to an article: I corrected the spelling of 'corruption'. Can someone get these admins to understand how this insane this is? -Animesouth 22:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's important not to blow this out of proportion. Your spelling correction was harmless in itself, but the objections seem to be that you corrected an unsourced defamatory statement in a biographical article about a living person. Per WP:BLP, it might have been best to just delete the sentence entirely, but not everyone is familiar with every policy and I do think you deserved the benefit of WP:AGF ;) EyeSerene^TALK 12:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's what it comes down to: "Yes, you fixed it, but you didn't it fix it well enough, so we're going to accuse you of libel. You've vandalized the article and the next time you will be blocked. For correcting the spelling of one word." Copyeditors cannot be held responsible for content. There is no legal precedent for accusing a copyeditor for libel. This is one of the areas in which Wikipedia is extremely behind print publishing: understanding the difference between content editing and copy editing. -Animesouth 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this and thought I'd chime in as a former newspaper editor... there is certainly legal precedent to accuse a copy editor for libel. In a true libel case where the accuser is really upset, it's not unlikely to see the writer, the copy editor, the section editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the owner, even an intern, all held responsible either because they are responsible for content or because they potentially saw the allegedly libelous comment and didn't do anything about it. Just a heads-up. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Roll Call?

Right now we seem to have only a handful of active copyeditors responding to requests, while our 'participants' page would have us believe we have over a hundred copyeditors. I propose to send a roll-call message to all those listed on the "active participants" section of the participants list, in the hope that we can encourage some more activity from other members. Comments/suggestions? Happy‑melon 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a message asking all members to commit to c/e *one* article a week? (I'm trying to do that.) According to the present info, there are 267 active members and 2616 articles in the backlog, so if everyone c/e'd one a week, the backlog would be cleared in ten weeks (with only that ten weeks' new articles remaining). A definite goal and a modest, achievable commitment might help get things moving. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2007

(UTC)

I've been trying to do 3-4 article copy edits every time I log on. Sometimes, if the article's massive, I end up doing just one. That Random Article button could be very dangerous! There's an actual list? -Animesouth (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Requests. Dig in! There are new procedures and templates, so be sure to read HappyMelon's new documentation page and follow the steps. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas all around. Perhaps hold a drive and award barnstars. That always seems to help. Past that, 1 a week seems a modest, but respectable goal. I'll commit to that. Lara❤Love 07:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lara❤Love, see the next section for an idea for recognition. What do you think? (and thanks for the commitment!) Unimaginative Username (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging participation by displaying stats

Another idea from the <lame> idea factory </lame>: Many web sites, forums, etc. display a user's stats (posts), with some sort of status gained by the more-frequent contributors. Some WPans do this already: <userbox> "This user has over 5,000 edits" </userbox> etc. Of course, quantity ≠ quality, but we can pull something useful from this: Presently the Members page is arranged by seniority. There could also be a display by number of *complete articles* copy-edited and/or proofread through the League system (not just making one or two spelling or punctuation edits to an article as you browse). Surely this would be very easy to scrape from the Requests page, as editors sign as copy-edited or proofread (Betacommandbot again?). This display needn't show the inactive. Perhaps the top 25 copy-editors (or some other number), or perhaps all of those who have edited more than three (two, one, five, whatever) articles... perhaps rankings based on total since the League's founding, total YTD, and total for the month. Where to display these, I'm not exactly sure, but a little recognition may motivate the inactive (doesn't motivate this user, of course). Possible problem would be someone "inflating" stats by doing brief, inadequate c/e's, but it hasn't been a problem so far, and, of course, you're signing your name to the c/e or proofread.

Well, just another suggestion to try to get more inactive members involved. Feedback? Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh god don't tempt me! The temptation to say "I can do this with another complicated template network" is strong, but I shall resist :D. I can think of ways to do this with a bot, using "what links here" for {{LOCEcopy}} and {{LOCEproof}}. The server load of such a bot would be very minimal. Maybe I'll ask Betacommand if/when he completes the first bot request. Great idea though. Happy‑melon 12:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Coding-dummy that I am, that was sort of what I was thinking of - the bot just retrieves the c/e and p/r tags, count's em, sorts 'em, and displays the list... One note: Your full doc page suggests placing the LoCE at the *bottom* of the talk page. That might have some advantages while it's in progress -- catch the eye of people at that talk page -- but once it's complete, I've been moving it to the top (last of the top templates), as per the old way. Reason: 1) The pretty beige template fits nicely with all the other pretty beige templates at the top of the article, and (2) The lower Talk gets archived frequently, losing the tag (and also screwing up our new bot). Keeping it at the top lets the article's present and future editors know which copy-editor to blame, thank, question, throw rotten eggs at, etc. See, for example, Talk:Kraków. OK? Unimaginative Username (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

More templates!

On a similar vein, I was bored recently so I've created another complicated template network, this time for the members page. Comments and suggestions are warmly welcomed at the talk page. Happy‑melon 22:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to both of the above: I feel that the templates and the instructions for responding to requests have gotten incredibly complicated. ("ADD REVIEW UPDATES BELOW - SHOULD BE INDENTED *EXACTLY ONE* COLON" – I'm baffled.) The result is that I'm doing more casual copyedits and peer reviews, because the intricacy of this project's templates have become overwhelming. I wonder why a simple template transclusion setup like the one used at FAC wouldn't work here? – Scartol • Tok 20:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Scartol is on to something. I keep finding other things to do rather than learning the new system. This is not a complaint, just a fact. Finetooth (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, Scartol - perhaps another template network is a little unnecessary. However I think that the bot request I filed a few weeks ago would accomplish a similar result in a much more user-friendly way. However, I feel more strongly that the system now in place for requests is a tremendous improvement over the old method which was dependent almost entirely on the clerical activity of two or three dedicated members. Confusion and mistakes are inevitable in any major change - a major bug was caught only yesterday. However, the important thing it that we learn from people's confusion and errors and correct them to make the system more reliable and user-friendly. So thanks for pointing out that unnecessary caveat, Scartol - I'll now go and correct it such that it is no longer necessary to ensure that comments are indented "exactly one colon". Happy‑melon 14:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen another comment or two suggesting the applicability of KISS principles, and of UU's Corollary: "The more complicated any process is, or the more steps required to complete the process, the fewer the people who will complete the process". :) No offense to the fine work you've done, which has improved many areas... let's add "user-friendliness", for both requesters and c/e's, to the criteria. Thanks again for all your efforts, Unimaginative Username (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've overcome my internal resistance and used the new system while copyediting St Kilda, Scotland. I made some mistakes with the system along the way, and that helped me to see how it works. I found it helpful to cut-and-paste the new LoCE codes into a box on my user page; that way, I can find them quickly without screen scrolling. Instead of trying to explain this in words, I'll show you. Maybe others would find this self-help idea useful. Finetooth (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Useful templates

:{{LOCEcopy|user=~~~|date=~~~~~}}

:{{LOCEproof|user=~~~|date=~~~~~}}

{{LOCEinuse}}

|copy=yes

Seeking copy-editors

I am a 16-year-old Singaporean and a near-native speaker of English. Since joining Wikipedia in February 2006, I have made over 2500 edits, which include writing a GA - I Not Stupid - and three DYKs - Money No Enough, The Best Bet and Megan Zheng.

In school, I usually score A1s in English - I topped my school in English last year and almost repeated that feat this year. Nevertheless, I know that my English still needs considerable polishing; my sentence structures are awkward and I struggle with the more subtle aspects of English grammar. Contributing to Wikipedia has helped me further improve my writing skills and command of English to a certain extent.

I am looking for a copy-editor who:

• Is a native speaker of British English. It goes without saying that the copy-editor's command of English should be far better than mine, and since I contribute to Singapore-related articles, and Singapore was once a British colony, British English should be used in Singapore-related articles.
• Has actively contributed to the English Wikipedia for at least three months and made at least 1000 edits. This criterion ensures that the copy-editor is reasonably familiar with Wikipedia's content policies.
• Has an IRC (freenode), MSN Messenger or Google Talk account, logs in to it almost every day and is not afraid to disclose the account to me. If I want a copy-editor to look through articles I write, I could simply file a request with the League of Copyeditors, although they usually take a long time to respond to requests. Having copy-editing done in real-time through instant messaging has several advantages. There are times when the copy-editor may need me to clarify the intended meaning of a sentence or provide some background information or context. Moreover, the copy-editor could explain why a sentence is grammatically incorrect, instead of just correcting the error.
• Is aged between 16 and 25 (inclusive) and friendly. Singaporeans are notorious for focusing on the result rather than the process, but I will do my best to avoid being a slave-driver. The copy-editor should be a friend, not just a copy-editor, and should be able to explain to me the more subtle aspects of English grammar in an easy-to-understand manner.

Anyone who meets the above criteria and is interested should post on my talk page, where we can make the necessary arrangements (such as exchanging IRC/MSN/GTalk handles).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Proofreading for articles with the copyedit tag

I've just commented out this section on our main page, which instructs editors to list articles from the backlog of Wikipedia articles needing copy edit on the requests page, presumably for proofreading. I think this is unnecessary and will clog up the requests page even further. I see the League's two main activities as almost completely distinct: creating "brilliant prose" in articles where it is specifically requested, and working to bring the prose of other articles to an "acceptable" standard. To that end, I think the League's efforts are wasted in proofreading articles which are not part of the requests process. Comments? Happy‑melon 10:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support. Last sentence is great. Would add that IMHO, first priority should go to FAC, GAC, and reviews of same; also, to highly visible articles. Obscure articles with gr and punc errors can wait until(if) the backlog is cleared. Oh, and I c/e "rticle" for you in the title of this section :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ROFL - the title was originally just "Articles with the copyedit tag" - when adding the "Proofreading for" I only managed half of the process of lowercasing the "A" :D. I agree with your priority list, but of course we can't force that on anyone. Happy‑melon 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree can't force the priorities, but if a consensus is gained, it could be an internal policy of the League to "encourage" c/e's to give some priority to FAC, GAC, and those where the authors have indicated a firm commitment to take to GA/FA, when choosing which articles they wish to c/e. Just a thought. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

FA articles

I propose that we deny copyedits to articles which attain featured status before their request is acted upon; the justification being that if they did not already feature "brilliant prose", they would not have passed FAC. This would not prejudice FA articles being nominated if their prose could do with touching up. I've also put this idea on the criteria page. Happy‑melon 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Check the (LoCE) history of William Cooley. FA in October; I raised that same question at its Request listing; Malachirality (I think) replied that it still looked like it could use a touch-up; I looked at it, agreed, and did a substantial c/e. I don't want to be seen as second-guessing the FA reviewers, so I would suggest that articles in that situation (promoted to FA before c/e request is acted upon) be given a quick once-over by a League member. If it is indeed brilliant and compelling, it can be taken off the list or moved to Proofread for another quick scan. (Malachirality did the latter for Lee Smith (baseball)). If it appears to need c/e still, then it should probably be done, without any offense intended to the judgment of the FA reviewers.

If you check my previous comment right above your post of this at the criteria page, I noted then that many FA, including those appearing on the Main Page, have punc and gr errors. Not trying to increase our load even more (arrgh!), but it almost seems that at least a scan by the League should be a part of FAC. FA reviewers could be very good at judging whether an article is laid out properly and presents the facts well, without necessarily being highly skilled in our arcane art :) Bottom line: I say, case-by-case basis. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that suggestion seems to me like you're trying to make a point. I whole-heartedly agree though with the later suggestions that the League ought to have a role to play in approving FA nominations. Very few mere mortals can keep up with the ever-changing MOS, never mind achieve that elusive "brilliant prose". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My Two Cents

First let me apologize to Happy-melon (and anyone else involved), because I have such profound respect for the incredible amount of work that has gone into the new system – and I don't want to sound belligerent. If you tell me that the current setup has the potential to eliminate busywork, fine. However, I think the requests page right now is impenetrable for many users, and as a copyeditor I'm simply lost.

In my opinion, the requests page should be as simple as humanly possible. To start, I think the instructions should be cleaned up to use as few words as possible, and with a link to the backlog prominently featured at the top. (I'm willing to do this if others are amenable – it will have to wait for a couple of weeks, as I'm in the middle of a big project right now.)

But the more important issue, in my mind, is the process itself and the amount of clutter on the requests page. In my ideal vision, the actual requests section of the page would look like this (all pages are random examples):

Copyedit Requests

• Chinua Achebe – user, date requested
• Honoré de Balzac – user, date requested

Ready for Final Proofread

• Mary Wollstonecraft – copyeditor, date copyedited

That's it – no comments, information at a minimum. Any discussion or comments can be placed on the article's talk page.

As a copyeditor, I can come in, see an article which interests me (or find the oldest request), go to its talk page, read the request, do the copyedit, leave comments on the article's talk page, and move the article's name down on the requests page to "Ready for Final Proofread".

I don't understand the importance of flagging articles according to FAC, GA, etc., as it seems to me that the articles requested first should get first priority, period.

If the templates are necessary (and I'll let other folks who have assessed their usefulness decide), I think they should be very simple and be easy to apply (for requesters) and process (for copyeditors). As it is now – someone else said this already – I just keep finding other things to do. – Scartol • Tok 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you make some valid points here, Scartol, and fortunately concede the ones I would have fought over. I think anyone who was familiar with the level of maintenance required for the old system agrees that the new system is an infinite improvement - the mess that WP:LOCE/P was, and still is, is a result of that maintenance not being carried out thoroughly or regularly enough. However I will be happy to concede that the new system is more complicated than the old, and probably not explained as well as it could be. I have made every effort to leave a 'breadcrumb trail' through the system - someone who knows only that they have to add {{LOCErequest}} to the article's talk page can probably bumble through the listing process from there, and has a fair chance of doing everything right just by following the instructions in the various messageboxes. If anyone has any suggestions for altering the wording that appears at any stage of that process, just give me a shout - I know where to find everything and so I can change it very easily. In particular, however, if anyone wants to edit the instructions that appear on WP:LOCE/R, please do so! You can find all the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base/RDoc, and I'll be the first to admit that they could be simpler. If you know what they're supposed to say (and I do ask that you do know what instructions they have to give before diving in there) and you think they don't, change it!.

With regards your ideal formating of WP:LOCE/R, I can implement that with just one edit, if needs be (that flexibility is, IMO, reason enough to prefer the new system). However I'm not sure if other League members would approve. If there is consensus to prefer this format, it can be easily introduced. The ability to automatically sort requests by type (FA, FAC, GAC, GA, etc) is a key benefit of the new system that many editors seem to appreciate - many members (I suspect) believe that the League should prioritise requests in (roughly) FAR, FAC, GAC, FA, GA, NA order, and so personally choose copyedits from certain categories. Other members choose topics that they are familiar with or that interest them, and others (like yourself) simply start at the bottom of the list and work from there. You might want to check out the oldest list, which lists the oldest requests with no sorting by category. Happy‑melon 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have boldly changed and I hope improved Steps 3 and 4 of the copyediting instructions at Base/RDoc. I plan to make other changes to clarify the step-by-step instructions for proofreading. Please beta test what I've done and comment. I don't want to make more changes until other editors have verified that what I've done is actually an improvement. Finetooth (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Support continuing categorization, for the reasons Happy-melon cited. Also, a parallel discussion has been underway of the Review Process, which included this discussion of the League's part in the process, including this excerpt:

Almost by definition, the only stable points in an article's life are when it's nominated for either GA or FA. So surely that's when the limited resources of the LoCE could be best deployed. Why would anyone want to invest the effort to copyedit an article that may change out of all recogniton in a couple of weeks and need to be copyedited all over again? --Malleus Fatuorum

. Couldn't agree more. Been there, done that: c/e a mid-class article, and within several weeks, it's unrecognizable. Waste of a c/e. But of course, each editor is free to choose. Thanks to Scartol for raising many good points. Finetooth, have just logged on and not had a chance to test your changes, but thanks for the efforts. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a little time trying to understand the templating system, and I suppose I have an inkling of how it all works now. I expect other members or potential members may be daunted by all the dense code through which they must wade. (How about some basic instructions for copyeditors at the top for easy reference, like those at WP:GAN? As it is, requesting an article is made clear, but the instructions for doing a CE are buried.) When I have some more time I'll have a look at Finetooth's changes. Thanks to everyone for your receptiveness. – Scartol • Tok 03:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I was the one who asked Happy-melon to move the c/editor's instructions to a separate page, with a link to it, because the combination of instructions to requesters and instructions to c/e'rs was creating a long string of colored boxes to wade through before actually getting to the list. I thought it would be easier for the public (the requesters) to use the page if we removed our internal instructions, and that the link would suffice. The suggestion received support from another active editor. Discussion here. I'm certainly open to reversal of this, or to any other methods to simplify the page for everyone. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood. But I think so long as there's a "Jump to list" link, we can have a big lead section for instructions. I hate to keep cheerleading for the GAN page, but I've always found it to be a straightforward and easy-to-use process (not uncomplicated, but understandable). I'll defer to the community, but I support including them up front. – Scartol • Tok 16:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've finished what I had in mind for making the copyeditor's instructions more transparent. The main changes involved directly linking to lists. The confusion I had at first was mainly with phrases like "this list". In my revision, an editor doesn't have to think about what "this list" means; just push the button and up it pops. These changes should be helpful whether the instructions stay where they are or get moved up front. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

<out>I *love* anything where all I have to do is push buttons! Looking forward to using your new system as soon as I finish the articles presently involved in. Oh, and to Scartol • Tok and Finetooth, as well as Happy-melon, one of my suggested priorities was to *force* requesters at least to see the Criteria before they got to the place to make the request. Can't make them *read* the Criteria, much less obey them :) but let's not let anyone jump past the Criteria before requesting a copy-edit. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like a few swipes with a dust cloth than a system. I got into this particular issue as a johnny-come-lately after Happy-melon and Unimaginative Username and others had done a great deal of good work in correcting problems with the old system. My small changes are meant only to smooth a few wrinkles. If any of them don't work or cause problems, I won't be offended if they get modified or reverted. Finetooth (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy-melon did all of the coding, as far as I know, and solicited the input. The rest of us just gave feedback -- always the easier part :) Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• The push-button navigation links to the "Requests-base" page for deletion are great! Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Condensed MOS

I have seen some discussion about the complicated and coma-inducing nature of the manual of style. Several times there has been sentiments to the effect of "Oh I wish we had a condensed version..." - it seems to me that this would be an ideal addition to the League's armoury.

I interpret condensed to mean literally two columns: "right" and "wrong", with examples to demonstrate each common formatting mistake found in the mainspace, divided along the same lines as the real MOS - we could even link section headings to the relevant sections in the MOS. With liberal use of <span id=XXX> tags it could become a valuable referencing tool and cheatsheet to aid our copyediting process. Comments? Happy‑melon 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've created a small personal list of quick reference tools on my user page, and I'm sure other editors have done the same. User:Epbr123 has a style and grammar checklist that I've found particularly helpful. I'd be cautious, though, about insisting absolutely on any single interpretation of the MOS. A condensation for the LoCE could be useful if it always deferred to the full MOS, which to some extent defers to the preferences of an article's main authors and editors. Finetooth (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit bulky, but it has to cover a lot of ground. I just create browser bookmarks to the various sections as I use them. My only real complaint so far is that there is a section on Numbers and a supplementary MoS for numbers and dates, so sometimes have to check both. No constructive suggestions there. Open to any cheat sheet. Oh, and for the codingly-challenged, what is a <span id=XXX>? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Roll call (continued)

I plan to distribute a roll-call in the next couple of days to try and increase the number of active editors on this project. I'll use WP:AWB to drop a note on the talk page of every user on the members page active section, apart from the few we know to be active. So two questions:

What to drop on the talk pages?

I propose something like this:

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evidenced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contribution to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage.

Comments? Feel free to edit the wording if you want. Happy‑melon 16:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone is already on the active members list, why do they still need to do this, or are you creating a new "active members" list? And why not send something to those on the inactive list, to encourage them to become active?

A deeper thought is whether to include some type of pep talk, both positive (League participation is frequently requested at FAC and GAC, frequently helps articles pass FA and GA, etc. -- see the Template idea I left on your Talk page) and negative (size of the backlog, some estimate of how few members are presently active, complaints from authors about League being slow to respond? not sure about that?) Just an idea. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I intend to move the whole "active" section to "inactive" and start a new "active" list. I think I'll run a comparison of members on this list and users in Category:WikiProject League of Copyeditors participants, and assume any on the inactive list here with no Userbox have genuinely left. But I'll be generous :D. Pep talk would be a good idea - feel free to add some, or I will later. Happy‑melon 11:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What "instructions" to leave on the WP:LOCE/M page?

I'm in favour of this fairly idiot-proof solution:

Of course the tildes will be expanded to their sig and the current date. I'm a great fan of chronological ordering, as it's much more useful to see who the oldest users are. You can see a small example of this system at the very bottom of the members page. Comments on this?Happy‑melon 16:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but the present instructions say to add it to the *bottom* of the list. ?? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Easy to change :D Happy‑melon 11:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing "completed" copyedits?

Recently I went through a handful of the older, shorter articles marked with a {copyedit} tag and cleaned them up. While they're not exactly examples of graceful and sparkling prose, I did feel that they were now adequate enough to warrant removal of the tag. I'm wondering if I could get a second set of eyes to quickly proof these articles and confirm my judgment. I'm also wondering if there's some formal process for accomplishing that here (and if there isn't, whether or not there should be one). My feeling is that as the person responsible for the copyedit, I'm naturally inclined to look favorably upon my own work, and a quick second opinion would be helpful.

The articles in question: Fallen Empires, Guruvayur Keshavan, Earth house. I've also made minor edits to Hellfire trigger but a key sentence in that entry is too incoherent to me for me to confidently rephrase it without potentially altering the meaning. - Orphic (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't understand the Hellfire article either. Googling it and going to [3] indicates that it *increases* the trigger-return pressure; that one must use two hands, holding the gun at the hip, to fire; and that that it therefore cannot be aimed - the "awkward position" referred to in the WP article. It would need almost a complete re-write, if you think it's worth it. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm just about Wiki-pooped for now, but made a minor change to the intro of Earth house, and you may want to have another look at "creates for an organic design requiring spatial sense and creativity" - perhaps redundant and recursive. Yes, we all agree that copy-editors need proofreading, too, and there is a process for that here. As for the articles you've done, not sure what list they came from, so can't answer the question about formal process. How did you find these articles? If on the "old" Requests page, one method would be to move them to the new page, put your copy-edit template on it as per the directions there, then move it to the "Ready for proofread" section. Oh, and Welcome! to Wikipedia and to the League of Copy-Editors! Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• These were articles who had a {copyedit} tag attached to them and were thus added to [4]. I saw the requests page, but as I wasn't really seeking to get the copyedited articles up to anything like GA status (and honestly, would be embarrassed at their inadequacy if evaluated by such a standard), I wasn't really sure if they belonged there. My question was more, if you browsed to this article today, would you attach a new {copyedit} tag on it? Perhaps I'm being a smidgen too obsessive, as there are plenty of poor articles without a {copyedit} tag [5], so at some point surely the extra process involved isn't worth the gains. *shrug*. - Orphic (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ahh, yes. (by the way, link #2 didn't work - there were two "t's" in "editt". You know how touchy these things are :) There have been extensive discussions of where to focus the League's meager resources, for example, here, and elsewhere on the same page. The project page where the tagged articles are listed includes this statement: "A request for copyedit is most effective when the article is more-or-less complete, and fully cited." You're correct that many of the articles with the {copyedit] tag don't meet this criterion and need much more than just a copy-edit, so they shouldn't be put on the formal Requests page. Nonetheless, a quick clean-up of such articles is still doing the community a service. As you seem well-qualified, you can use your discretion in removing the tags. Surely they'll be vastly improved over the previous tagged state! I'm not aware of a formal process for a proofread of the copy-edit of articles so tagged, but if you aren't confident, I don't see anything wrong with an informal process like your request here. Other c/e'rs can look them over as time permits. I think much of the effort goes to the backlog of formal requests, especially since reviews for FA and GA frequently recommend that the authors request a League c/e before the review continues. It's also your individual discretion as to whether any inadequate or poorly-written articles are worth the effort (can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, etc.). Lastly, feel free to put your own "copy-edited by ..." tag on any article tagged for c/e, if you think the article overall is good enough that you'd like your name emblazoned on it :) Either the new tag {{LOCEcopy|user=~~~|date=~~~~~}} or the old one: {{WP LoCE || ~~~~)}}. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Roll call III

I've got approval to use MelonBot to distribute the rollcall discussed above - it's chuntering away at it as I write this. I first used MelonBot's other feature to sort the old member list by most recent edit, and I cut off people who've edited during this month (December). So all those who haven't got a rollcall, it's because you're clearly dedicated contributors who can quite easily read this and know to go to WP:LOCE/M and check in on your own, without having to be prompted :D. Don't forget though! Happy‑melon 18:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

While the clean-up of the LoCE pages that a roll call provides is nice, I really wouldn't worry too much about a huge participation drive. Everything seems to go in cycles around here. When the LoCE first started, the backlog of articles needing copyediting was so great that I didn't think anything short of a Herculean effort was going to keep it from growing larger - to say nothing of shrinking it. Now the backlog stays pretty much under control. When the work builds back up, that's when people always seem to come out of the woodwork to deal with it.

Oh... and good work as always. I have been so busy these last few months that I don't have time to do any more than jump in and look around every once in a while, but I have been in awe of what you have been doing lately. Keep up the good work. Trusilver (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

New LOCE member, need some help

Hey there League. I'm a new member and I attempted my first copyedit and I think I've done a pretty good job with the article Sitakunda Upazila. However, on the talk page, the LoCErequest template doesn't look right (I didn't put it there). The instructions for moving it from "request" to "proofreader" say to click on Add comments, but I don't see that anywhere in the template. Am I missing something really simple? I really don't want to mess up this project and I feel like I've made a baffoon of myself:-), so before I go changing around templates, I thought I should just stop everything and ask for assistance. Hope someone more experienced can help me out! (i.e.: show me where I screwed up.) Thanks, Keeper | 76 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The mistake is not yours, but whoever first requested the copyedit. Essentially the template {{LOCErequest}}, which is on the talk page, has no way of knowing whether or not the required code has been added to the requests listing page - templates can't check for that, although it would be nice if they could. So the template (stage 1 of listing) can't tell whether stage 2 (listing at WP:LOCE/B) has been completed. But it can check whether stage 3 (creation of a subpage to hold the review updates and comments) has been done. So whoever listed the article added the template, followed the next instruction and added the code to the requests listing page, but then ran away without creating the subpage; the LOCErequest template sees that stage 3 is not complete, and assumes that stage 2 is incomplete also, and so the copy code is still required. I have now created the subpage, so the template will display correctly - if that happens again in future, take a look at WP:LOCE/B. You're sure to find the article listed along with dire warnings about the request not being processed until the subpage has been created (which are currently rubbish, but I'm half tempted to make them real because this is happening a fair bit). Just follow the "edit this page" link and say "no comments left by lister" or something like that, where it says "leave comments below. Then copyedit your article, and add the {{LOCEcopy}} template in the top section of the subpage, where it says "Leave review updates below". Simple :D!! You did exactly the right thing coming to ask here - if you'd started digging in the template code you'd have been quickly throttled by the gremlins I put in to guard them from unwary editors... or at least wouldn't have been able to make head or tail of them!! Welcome to the League, anyway, and good luck with your career here - your first copyedit looks extremely good. Happy‑melon 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

EVERYBODY -- Don't worry ::dONT worry about it I've taken care of all the problems. Smith Jones (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that. Happy‑melon 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Happy-melon. I really truly appreciate your help, and I will hopefully make sense of this stuff yet. I'm used to the other, simpler project that I've been involved in, WP:DPL, and wasn't expecting any trouble here! Hopefully I grasp the templating stuff. I've watchlisted the right pages and read the right pages now so I hope I can be helpful to this part of the project. I really like copyediting; (maybe I'm one of these?. Maybe I just really like clean, easy to read prose. I'll never tell! Cheers to you, happy editing, Keeper | 76 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the requesting party. Sorry about the glitch. This was first request directly to LOCE, using the template and all, and I am sorry that I have missed the detail. The apology goes doubly to Keeper76, who did such a wonderful job of c/e on the article. Thanks, people. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, no real harm done. Happy‑melon 16:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC-help project

Discussions have been going on at the FAC talk page and the Content Review Workshop talk page about ways to give users with articles close to FA status an easier way to get help from a copy-editor. Basically, the project would be in many ways a sub-project of this one. Members of the project would focus on only the small group of articles which satisfy all FA criteria except for the fact that they need a good copy-edit and an MoS check. If you want to help get more articles to FA status, please place your sig on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles page. Thanks! Wrad (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on punctuation

I've been a copy editor for 30 years. I love it and I think I know my stuff, although I recognize that my expertise is Associated Press and, to a lesser extent, Chicago Manual of Style and that style differs internationally. I started a topic on the manual of style talk page about "logical quotation," which has not resulted in any consensus about what Wikipedia's style is. There seems to be a lack of consistency throughout Wikipedia. I just found this project and I'd like to join, but first I want to ask: Does the League have a position on whether periods and commas go inside or outside quotation marks? I don't want to get involved in fruitless editing wars and it seems that this project ought to be the final arbiter. Maybe not, but I can hope. I was going by what I saw somewhere in Wikipedia: use the style of the country closest to the subject matter, e.g., American punctuation in Seinfeld. In another place, there's this thing about "logical quotation," which looks to be tech writing. I'll look forward to hearing the wisdom from this group. — InkQuill 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The basic guide for style is the Wikipedia Manual of Style (WP:MOS), and it differs to some degree from the Associated Press style or the Chicago Manual and others. I always refer to it when I'm unsure about a style question, and this typically happens several times a day. The MOS doesn't answer every question clearly, but with your level of experience, you'll be able to sort out the reasonable from the unreasonable and the logical from the illogical in most cases. Not everyone editing Wikipedia is familiar with the style manual, and that accounts for much of the inconsistency that you are seeing. That inconsistency, among other things, is why the encyclopedia needs us. The basic punctuation guidelines can be quickly reached via the shortcut WP:PUNC. The main guideline on the use of quotation marks is found under the subhead, "Inside or outside". It says, "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation (this system is referred to as logical quotation)." This is the opposite of AP style and seems wrong at first to someone who has been doing it the other way. The main punctuation guideline isn't related to an article's nationality, if we can speak of such a thing, but other style questions sometimes are, such as the spelling of words such as center in U.S.-related articles and centre if the article is UK-related. Most of the exceptions to the main guidelines can be found in the MOS or other sub-guidelines attached to it. The MOS, like the rest of the encyclopedia, is somewhat flexible and is subject to periodic revision, and sometimes heated disagreements occur among editors about particular points. Someone with your experience would be a valuable "catch" for the League, and I hope you will join us. Please let me know here or on my user talk page if I can be of any assistance. Finetooth (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration?

I don't know if this project has ever done this, but one way we can make this project more active and more respected is by having a collaboration. We could team up on one article for say, two weeks, and get it to FA, then move to the next one. I've often found that collaborations increase camaraderie among editors and strengthen WikiProjects. Wrad (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While this is often a good idea, it's not really the function of the League to shepherd articles all the way like this. We come in when we're asked, and polish the prose for a single version of the article, in the hope that it will facilitate the article's movement up the classification ladder. A better collaboration would be "Copyedit and proofread all FAC requests", or "Clear the category Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from January 2007. I would be up for a collaboration more like these, but I think a key part of the morale-boosting effect is that the community is actively involved in deciding what to collaborate on, so these are just a few suggestions. Happy‑melon 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, something like that to make everybody feel good. Wrad (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LoCE and ArticleHistory

I was playing with incorporating the LoCE templates into ArticleHistory. The info currently in the regular {{WP LoCE}} template could be displayed as:

NOTE: Commented out Dec 3 2021 by User:GreenC due to problems it creates with [[Wikipedia:Featured articles/mismatches]] 
{{User:Gimmetrow/ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=17:33, 13 August 2006
|action1result=listed
|action2=PR
|action2date=4 December 2006
|action3=WPR
|action3date=13:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
|action3result=copyedited
|action4=FAC
|action4date=18:43, 15 December 2007
|action4link=WP:WP
|action4result=promoted
|currentstatus=FA
}}

What do you think? Gimmetrow 05:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it important to credit the copyeditor as {{WP LoCE}} currently does, or would using the oldid immediately after the copyedit be sufficient? Gimmetrow 21:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The hard space (&nbsp;): a proposal for better markup

Members of the League of Copyeditors will be very welcome to join a discussion at WT:MOS. We present a completed proposal for new hard-space markup, and we call for your suggestions.

See a full draft of the proposal. Click "show":

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems with a copyeditor

User Drphilharmonic does a lot of text editing on Wikipedia for "logic, grammar, syntax". This editor recently edited some articles which are on my regular watchlist. In my opinion, his (or her?) work can be divided between four kinds of changes:

• useful improvements (e.g., removing informal contractions),
• unnecessary imposition of his personal preferences (e.g., substituting "in general" for "generally" or "as a consequence" for "consequently"),
• introduction of new punctuation errors into the text (e.g., hyphenating "relatively-few patients"), and
• inappropriate changes to the meaning (e.g., changing "treatments are medically necessary" to "medical treatments are necessary").

I tried to engage him in a conversation about my concerns on his talk page, but his responses have been both insulting and irrelevant. I have asked him to rephrase his rude remarks to address my specific concerns, but I don't really expect to make much progress.

I can certainly fix the couple of articles on my list, but copyediting seems to be his primary activity on Wikipedia. Consequently, errors of both form and content are being introduced into dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of articles. I'm sure that he fully intends to improve every article he touches, but he doesn't seem to understand that his personal views on punctuation are not exactly the standard views. Wikipedia needs good copyeditors. Does anyone here have any suggestions for me? I'm just not sure what to do next. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't really have any processes I'm aware of for dealing with editors who are acting in good faith and yet still causing net damage to the encyclopedia. Kudos to you for your coolheadedness - there's little you can do but keep trying! If you still can't get any constructive response out of him, post back here and maybe a couple of League members can have a chat. Happy‑melon 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If appeals to reason don't work, can't he just be blocked from editing? The interests of the encyclopedia outweigh those of any one misguided editor. Nihil novi (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests backlog stats

This graph might be of interest - I wrote a short script to parse the history of WP:LOCE/B to track the increase in requests of each type. Does anyone have any bright ideas as to where the massive drop in mid-December came from? A massive clearing drive? Happy‑melon 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page clutter

Please put a small=yes option on Template:LOCErequest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Happy‑melon 17:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Effort

I'm sure you've all noticed the ridiculios amount of copy-editing needed. I say we organise a really huge effort to get it to respecable amounts. Come discuss on my talk page. Mm40 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks.

Good article icon

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)