Talk:Proofreading

Untitled
There was a program called 'proofreader' which was probably the first commercial spell checking software for personal computers; I was redirected here from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofreader and I'm not sure whether a disambiguation page should be created or how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.65.215 (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that 'typo' is often intentionally mispelled, but with it a part of another article how could I do that without derailing the main thing? Kizor 18:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You mean "misspelled"? ;-) Not quite sure what you're saying, so I'm not quite sure how to answer-- that the word "typo" itself is misspelled? or r u saying that some words r intentionally misspelled thru rapid typing, as in this sentence?  Also not sure what part of what other article you have in mind.  I'm thinkin' you probably just need to be bold and add what you think needs to be added, and people like me will take a look & do what we think needs doing, too.  Thanks for checking. Elf | Talk 22:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Was the New York Post error really and Proofreading error? The editor didn't overlook this while proofreading, they just jumped the gun. I think this is better classified as an editorial and factual error.


 * Agreed, I just took it out. Andre 13:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article is extremely spare and lacking in important historical information and sources regarding proofreading, editing, and typesetting. Not at all helpful or professional.

UK Schools
I've removed the section on UK schools, because: (1) I've been through the UK education system and have never heard of these marks; (2) The section has no references and I haven't been able to locate any; (3) There is no Ministry of Education in the UK (there is the Department for Education and Skills). 64.103.37.69 11:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam links
Chapterhouse is, I'm sure, a perfectly respectable commercial organisation, and no doubt the courses it runs on proofreading and copy-editing are very good value for money. But it is a commercial organisation and it is not appropriate to provide a link to it in the External links section - still less to sneak a reference into the body of the text! I will continue to keep an eye open, and delete such references whenever they occur. The SfEP, however, is a professional body, and I have reinstated the link to that. Gnusmas 18:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree, although I don't think it's inappropriate to link all commercial organizations. The bar should be relatively high, though: They ought to give the reader some particularly useful information about the subject. For example, it's appropriate to link the commercial website of Prozac in the article on Fluoxetine, due to the fact that it's by far the most well-known form of Fluoxetine... but it wouldn't be appropriate to link a random e-commerce site that happened to sell Fluoxetine. --Delirium 18:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Superscript text

"DP Proofreading Guidelines"
What is this italiziced phrase at the end of the first paragraph of the first section? --Steve Bob 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Someone with IP 68.106.117.246 went through this article and deleted all the hyperlinks. This may be vandalism, though I'm not sure what to do about it, apart from undoing these changes which I did. Pete Harris 11:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the name of the action that concludes proofreading?
It think that the action that concludes proofreading should be mentioned. In French we call it "bon à tirer". I do not know the name in English. Is it "ready to print" or "print ready" or "right to print"? Pierre de Lyon (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing Aspect of Proofreading
There is an aspect of proofreading that is missing here, I think. I've worked for more than 20 years in book publishing here in New York City and I have the impression that proofreading is a comparison job -- you must have both the original manuscript and the new typeset version in order to proofread. Therefore, proofreading is basically comparing the new to the old to make sure that the new came out as it should.

Reading a document to correct errors of grammar, punctuation and the like is copy editing or line editing, not proofreading.

I do have some documentation (principally the proofreading manual Mark My Words) to support this view, but I thought I would make the comment first here before making changes in the article itself. I'll try to get to making the changes in a few days. Kslarsen (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Another missing aspect is that in biology (specifically enzyme kinetics) proofreading is the mechanism of which enzymatically catalyzed reactions increase their accuracy over the limited initial selection levels by utilizing energetic compunds. I will try to write something about this later. 130.238.40.170 (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As it is a Journalism WikiProject Article, the Biology is inappropriate here and should be moved to its own article. Besides, the biology-philes would likely want more detail. Blondtraillite (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm pushy. I just decided to not wait and seperate the two. I have copied 130.238.40.170's text into a new article called Proofreading (biology), reassigned the link in the DNA article's Polymerases section and added a link in DNA Replication. I also added a disambiguation line (that needs a little work) in case any of my fellow science geeks come to the journalism article by accident. This should help keep information in the right categories/portals. Blondtraillite (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kslarsen about the description of proofreading - I do think the primary audience would those looking for the professional meaning of proofreading (especially if this is in the WikiProject "Journalism").

Oh, the irony
I think someone should decide whether or not "proofreading" should be hyphenated, and then proofread this article accordingly.


 * Good point. I vote for deleting the hyphen and making it proofreading throughout (as in Merriam Webster, Collins dictionaries, etc). Any objections?  GNUSMAS :  TALK  06:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would second your choice, Gnusmas. Same as my Collins dictionary and that is the spelling I was taught in proofreading/copyediting classes. It could be my naviete but I always assumed that the non-hyphenated spelling was the industry standard.--Blondtraillite (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  GNUSMAS :  TALK  07:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Reading" Template
Although reading is a necessary skill in proofreading (well, maybe not necessary. I have proofread in a language I do not speak but I make no warrants on the quality of that one), it is not a type of reading: it is a specialized skill that is part of the pre-press process. This is why I removed it from the "Reading" Template. Now that it is no longer on the Reading template, I feel the template is no longer appropriate on this article. As such, I am removing it.--Blondtraillite (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * on a side note, I haven't gotten around to improving the article as my school notes have been destroyed, my "professional proofreading" is not a verifiable source and I just don't feel like I have the time to research it. My classes had no books, only a photocopy of the marks and oral instruction (for which we took notes). Did anyone learn with actual reliable books or other verifiable sources that they still have handy? And can cite them in the rewrite of this article?

The deleted Overtime (Economics of Proofreading) section
It can be seen here at the bottom of the section. The point is that overtime can be scheduled in a way that specifically affects proofreading. Anyone working in the field will recognize the phenomenon discussed when they read it, as it is SOP in production departments. BruceSwanson (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The deleted Temp Proofreaders section
It can be seen here. The sentence. . . initiative that may either make no difference in the length of their assignment. . . should read. . . initiative that may either make no difference in the length of an assignment. . . BruceSwanson (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talk • contribs) 06:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion archived, can be read No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 18 here. --Ckatz chat spy  09:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Four additional deleted sections
Can be found here.BruceSwanson (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Reduced article to stub
I wrote the original long-version of this article over a period of some months. It didn't meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and I didn't really intended it to. Rather than see it reduced in bits and pieces over time, I have moved it here in its original length and where I will be adding to it. I've also listed it as an External Link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talk • contribs)


 * Reverted; there is no need to delete the entire article. Other editors can continue the process of revising the article to bring it into compliance. Plus, we wouldn't normally link to Knol articles. --Ckatz chat spy  18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete the External Link if you like. Other editors can still continue the process of revising the article to bring it into compliance. BruceSwanson (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, there is no need to erase the entire article. I have trimmed out some of the most problematic material, but what remains is more in line with an encyclopedic treatment and can be used as a starting point for revisions. There is no need to reduce it to a stub simply because you are upset over your material being removed. --Ckatz chat spy  19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the template messages. We are not obligated to let them stay there forever while waiting for "other editors" who will never arrive, if the past is any guide. Doing so empowers people who don't exist. Either continue editing to the point of making the template-messages unnecessary, or I will. As far as I can see, the only way to do that is reduce it to a stub, as everything else beyond the stub is my own unverifiable original research. The fact that it sounds reasonable doesn't make it so by Wikipedia standards. BruceSwanson (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This article has been written by someone who has no idea what they are talking about
Bugs in programming code? I am versed in many computer languages. The person who has put this article together hasn't a clue what they are talking about

Also the line that says errors by or bugs in computer code, an error though coding would be as a result of the programmer's lack of knowledge or having types something incorrectly therefore being human error. A computer only does what ITS TOLD TO DO its upto you to know what your doing

VinDibs (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Potential New External Link
Here is a proofreading link I found on Scribd. I don't know if Wikipedia links to Scribd (I'm new here), but the article is relevant and non-commercial. The author claims to have written the bulk of the Wikipedia Proofreading article. I'm wondering if it would be a legitimate external link. Xichi (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Proofreader's marks
currently redirects here. Maybe they already have a home elsewhere I couldn't find but Wiki needs an overview somewhere about the more common ones—e.g., "stet", separatrix (| or /), strikethrough (-)—given together with some commentary on their use in the field. — Llywelyn II   01:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was looking for them today, and found them at List of proofreader's marks. I changed a few redirects. Ardric47 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Proof-editing
The proof-editing article states that it is a new term- my searches of the term cannot find sources about it as a standalone, notable term. One source given is that of the page creator(and another editor associated with them) and the other two merely define the term without indicating how it is notable. Suggest a merge with proofreading, where any slight technical differences between proofreading and proofediting can be discussed until such time that this new term is in wider use. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that based on Wikipedia's definition of notable, proof-editing is not notable. It is new though, and increasing in popularity amongst freelancers who do proofreading and copy-editing and exists as a sort of in-between state. I think a good solution is, as 331dot suggests, to merge it with proofreading. Perhaps shortening it in the process, and also bringing the Vs copy-editing distinction into this section too to enable a comparison of editing, copy-editing, proof-editing and proofreading, as this is the complete picture in the world of freelance on-screen proofreading/editing. The proofreading section appears to be strong on detail on the traditional publishing process side of proofreading, but either light, absent or poor quality on the digital/on-screen proofreading that is increasingly replacing the traditional processes in the UK as even traditional publishers are replacing their full-time staff with freelancers and shortening the processes. Proof-editing is an increasingly important part of this, so I would hope that it could warrant its own page. Petehaigh (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I also think that the merge would be a good idea. --XXThePhischXx (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Modern proofreading: BRD discussion
Earlier this month, boldly edited the article with a change that removed much of the history and etymology of the term, replacing it with material about proofreading today. Per WP:BRD, I have reverted that edit pending discussion. I regret that that it has taken until now to do so: it has just come up on my watch list.

I recognise Espoo's good faith in that bold edit but it seems to me to have been excessive in the amount of valid, sourced, material that it cut, and in the amount of unsourced wp:advocacy material it added. It also incorrectly limited the scope of proof-reading to language (which is relatively easy, the difficult work is checking mathematical and scientific formulae and notation). It may well be that Espoo's material has a place in the article (I presume citations can be found with a little effort) but if so, then it should be appended to existing material, not replace it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Think it about this a little more, it seems to me that Espoo's text is a good description of copy editing. Is this just another case of these terms being confused inadvertently? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed that describes how the terms "proof-reading" and "copy-editing" have become merged in common usage
Yesterday I added a statement in which I asserted that the terms "proof-reading" and "copy-editing" have become interchangeable in common usage. Rightfully so, that edit has been reverted. I see this phenomenon in widespread use (strike one: WP:OR); offered as citation an example of "proof reading" being used to describe the copy-editing process (strike two: WP:SYNTH) and finally the hosting site is deprecated. Three strikes and I'm out. Can anyone do better? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)