Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
For older discussion, see archives: Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Putting the archive back on

I noticed today that somehow the links to the archive got lost when we split the "tasks" page out. I've added them back in as a box at the top of the Proofread Complete section. Galena11 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. That was my fault! I must have cut the instructions somehow when I was rearranging stuff. Thanks for taking care of it; I like the box! BuddingJournalist 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Below the mean

According to User:Dragons_flight/Category_tracker#Cleanup, the backlog has now fallen below the mean to 1052 articles (-35 in the last 24 hours)! Keep it up all! BuddingJournalist 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I wonder if the 77 I have done has helped (since I joined). *grin* Rintrah 15:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Articles tagged for "cleanup"

I have noticed that many (if not most) of the articles tagged for cleanup (Cleanup category) are in fact mostly in need of copy-editing. Also, the WP:Cleanup page says articles it lists need cleanup such as grammar, formatting, order, or confusion. Unfortunately, 21,680 are tagged for cleanup, 1.33% of the English Wikipedia's articles. People apparently often use the more general tag "cleanup" rather than "copy-edit". Let's not get disheartened, because every article we improve is worth just as much, regardless how many remain. But I think this is the whole of our work and we have to think of it this way. And we have to try other ways of improving those articles, as I said in #Recruitment. Thoughts? -Pgan002 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in all honesty, almost every article could benefit from a copy-edit by us. Just think of the copy-edit backlog as a way of prioritizing copy-edit requests (and it makes for better morale than the 21,000+ articles in "cleanup"). Also, many of those "cleanup" articles could probably use some reworking for sourcing/layout, or perhaps a complete rewrite, before a copy-edit would be helpful. BuddingJournalist 02:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Help..

Could you please help me to copyedit the article of Cúcuta?

Thanks,

--Ricardocolombia 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See if what I did is consistent with what you were trying to say. Unimaginative Username 06:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WikiProject tags in article space

Do the instructions here make it clear that editors should be placing tags on talk pages, and not on the article? I've had to remove several LoCE tags from article pages. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

hmmm ... I just read the instructions here, and they don't seem correct. WikiProject meta tags do not belong in article space; the correct template to place in article space while temporarily actively working on an article is {{inuse}}—the LoCE template only belongs on the talk page. The idea is that Wiki readers shouldn't be bothered with behind-the-scenes going-ons of WikiProjects or other meta issues. Can someone pls fix the instructions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the change, Rintrah; didn't you want to leave mention that the LoCE should be placed on the talk page during active copyediting? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done BuddingJournalist 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Thank You!

I must say, thank you for going to copy-edit Roswell (TV series), it really needs it.. So, thank you so much! Yay! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with an article: Gwoyeu Romatzyh

Hello everyone. I'm here to request some help for this article. It's been built up to its current state largely through the efforts of a relatively new editor, Nigel G. He's had me and a few other editors help him, but his work needs the attention of more users. Please, if you can, look over the article and try to improve it, even if it is just a minor edit. Thank you for your time. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • We're happy to assist wherever able. I've added this to the "Requests for Assistance" section of our Proofreading page, since that is where we get our "to dos". Whoops....looks like you added it already! Thanks! Galena11 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Request for assistance

I would like to request that a member or two here please review the Oklahoma City bombing article. It is currently in GAC and I just want somebody to look through some of my sentence structure, grammar, and the lead section. I believe the lead intro section could use some work (I put details out of order as it is in the article, don't know if that is acceptable). Even if you tell me how to fix any mistakes, that would be fine. If anyone here would be able to assist, I'd appreciate it greatly. --Nehrams2020 09:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look. Otheus 12:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Not too many technical problems, but overall, the lead is too big and filled with detail. I've cut it down a bit. I believe the order of the lead is the most important order; the organization of the article should generally follow it, but definitely not the other way around. (IMNSHO) --Otheus 13:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Re-worked the lead and first two sections. Otheus 14:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added this to our "Requests for Assistance" section on our proofreading page. Please post all future updates there. Thanks! Galena11 19:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for putting this in the wrong place. Thank you for your assistance, you signfiicantly improved the lead. I reformatted the citations to match your edits, and I appreciate your efforts. Keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fritz the Cat (film)

I would like to submit this as a Good Article, and eventually give it a featured article nomination. Please take a look at it, and work on the copyediting. If anyone has any specific questions or comments about the article as it is, feel free to bring them up on the talk page, and we'll discuss it. (Ibaranoff24 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

  • I'll post this in the "Requests for Assistance" section of our Proofreading page. Please place future updates/requests there. Thanks! Galena11 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Added request instructions to project page

Due to the recent number of requests added to our talk page, I've gone ahead and added instructions for posting requests to our proofreading page. Thanks! Galena11 18:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Barnstar?

Was the copyeditor's barnstar approved? If so, how can one award it to someone? Thanks! Galena11 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It was approved yesterday, and can be seen at the bottom of WP:BARNSTAR#General barnstars. I guess you just have to put the code from the table on the person's userpage. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 16:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just go to Wikipedia:Barnstars and it's at the bottom of the first list. The code to type is right there. And oh, why not, this is the code: {{subst:The Copyeditor's Barnstar|message ~~~~}}. Just replace "message" with whatever you want to say to the person to whom you are awarding the barnstar. Most people post them on the person's talkpage, and then that editor can choose where they want to display it. :-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] President of Colombia

Could you please help me to wikify the references of Alvaro Uribe. Most references are external links like "[2]" and not like "[1]".

Thanks,

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

[edit] William Monahan article gains support at FAC but needs a final once-over

Hello. The article on William Monahan has recently gone through a thorough copyedit as a result of suggestions at WP:FAC. It has been suggested that I receive a final once-over from you guys. Would you be willing to give the article a quick look and see if you can help to improve the prose in any way?-BillDeanCarter 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The prose is extremely good. This article ought to make it to FA, and it's bound to, as a lot of supporting votes have been cast.--Orthologist 15:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support vote.-BillDeanCarter 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors_ef8f.html"