Talk:Copywriting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merging 'copy' (written) with 'copywriting' seems incorrect, to me.

Though 'copy' does describe the commercially purposed work produced by a copywriter (of which I am one myself), 'copy' is also in general parlance to describe that editorially purposed work which is filed by a journalist to a paper or magazine. But this work is quite different in nature from the work of the 'copywriter'.

Fair enough, but the use of "copy" for non-advertising uses is covered in Copy (written), and otherwise the two articles cover identical subjects. Thus, I support the proposed merge. Jlittlet 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not support the proposal to merge. Copywriting is largely a promotional commercial activity, while Copy (written) refers to any form of written text that an editor works on, covering a much wider range. Gnusmas 07:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This looks to me like a consensus NOT to merge these two. Furthermore, I have done a substantial edit to [{Copy (written)]] to make it more distinct. I am therefore removing the merge tags. Gnusmas 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at "Jenny Brown" and "11 Ways..." as inappropriate external links. Both offer services for hire. Brown is obvious, 11 Ways only slightly less so. Will delete 9.22.06 if no comments prior. Globaledits 02:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Copywriter

Now here is a merge which makes sense! There seems no reason for two separate articles, one about the activity and one about the people who do it. It should all be collected under Copywriting, as Proofreader is subsumed within Proofreading. Gnusmas 07:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.240.39 (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC) No one seems interested in discussing this. Maybe not surprising, as it's so obviously a good idea! I have incorporated the content of Copywriter into Copywriting. I will turn Copywriter into a redirect in 5 days if no one objects. Gnusmas 22:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! I have done it. Snalwibma 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 26 group link - spam?

There's a link to 26.org.uk on this page and on the copywriter page. The site seems to deal with copywriting among other things, but it's hard to tell because it's members-only. As such, I think its presence here could well be spammy. Not-for-profit it may be, but a quick look reveals they charge £26 a year to be a member. Unless anyone objects with a day or two, I'll pull it. That leaves the page with no other links, so I can do some reseach and add some.Bedesboy 19:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There were a lot of spammy links-- I left that one as the least spammy. I'm OK with losing it. Other options might be the One Club for Art and Copy site. The topic unfortunately attracts a lot of WP:COI. Jokestress 20:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it out, in that case - the only merit I can see it having is that it's not-for-profit. It's not really a site specifically about copywriting. Finding other links could be tough, as from what I can see most information on copywriting is tied to the pro pages of individual writers - it's a fundamentally commercial business. Maybe we could add links to famous copywriters' WP pages - David Ogilvy, David Abbott and so on. None of those guys are working anymore.Bedesboy 08:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)