Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2020

Welcome templates?
Hello all! What if we had a template containing basic copy editing tutorial links and other helpful GOCE-related links that we could use to welcome new participants? I've been sticking hand-crafted welcome messages on new participants talks, but its rather long and tedious. If so, how does one go about creating a template? Is that a special perm? Comments appreciated. Thanks! Puddleglum  2.0  18:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No special permission needed to write anything here, but, unless you're a programmer, or really, really into wiki markup (so that you could write one yourself), it is probably best to find a templeteer and request one to be made. Just tell them what you want it to say.  You can find temp writers at the Village pump tech-tab.  Good luck,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 19:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks. To everyone: before I go request it, is this a good idea? Thank you! Puddleglum  2.0   19:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The easiest thing for you to do is to create something at User:Puddleglum2.0/sandbox. It doesn't have to be a template. It can be a paragraph with a bulleted list, or whatever you want. Throw a GOCE-related image in there if you want, or just a link to one if you don't know how to insert images. I'm happy to wrap some template code around it to make it look reasonable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the general idea of welcoming newcomers to the Guild, which seems to be a first stop for some, but it seems a bit redundant. Our our main page is our major "here's our Wikiproject,; this is what we do, here's how you can help" stop; is something missing from it? Is that page useful and welcoming to newcomers? There are lots of welcoming templates at Welcoming committee/Welcome templates that could be adapted to your needs if you're comfortable with Wikicode. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  21:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do like the idea of personally contacting people that add their name to the member list (or newsletter list). I've been in the habit of thanking people whenever they sign up as a token personal acknowledgment; a note on their talk page would no doubt be even better. You're right that most of the information they could need is on our front page. Maybe the message could be something simple like, "Thanks for joining, please see our front page to learn more about how you can help." Tdslk (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just figured the message would serve as a friendly hello and make the help links more prominent and easily accessible. No, I don't think anything is missing but I think new users would benefit from having the help links in an easily accessible place and they get a notification that will have the links. A quick clean list also looks more friendly and inviting. (At least to me.) Anyway, just thoughts, I've started collecting links here if y'all want to take a look. Thanks,  Puddleglum  2.0   00:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hi
I'm not totally sure if I'm allowed to do this, haha! Just delete this if its against the rules

Ive been a long time lurker. Half of my edits are anonymous, but I've recently decided to start getting more into wikipedia to practice my writing and my research.

Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself! I hope I can get to know you all better while we do this! TerribleTy2727 (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome! We're always excited to get new members. I see you have signed up for our current drive, which is a great way to start participating! Tdslk (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and the GOCE. I find copy-editing articles is a good way to keep my writing skills, such as they are, from getting rusty. I hope you'll enjoy editing here. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  04:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Be sure to study our WP:MOS so you can help copyedit toward our consensus style. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Would you like to add yourself to our member list? That is where we keep track of all our members. Thanks for helping out! Puddleglum  2.0   16:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the warm welcome guys! I've already read through the MOS and have it at the side. In addition, I've also worked through most of Tony1's exercises which I found enormously helpful. I added my self on the member list like... 1 or 2 years ago. But that was on an older account that I don't use for various reasons. Would it be ok to just change my username? My original was just 'TerribleTy27'. TerribleTy2727 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that's fine, go ahead. Happy editing and cheers,  Baffle☿gab  23:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Need copy editing for two articles
I have nominated two articles for GA (article 1, article 2). Could anyone copy edit them? Also, as a sidenote, a copy editing of Nova Vulgata would be greatly appreciated :) (please ping me to answer) Veverve (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to the GOCE. This is the wrong venue for copy-edit requests so I will move the first two to the Requests page; there's a limit of two requests per person/account at any one time, so the third request will have to wait. You can add them there next time. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  23:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Veverve (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem; your requests are here. Feel free to add the third request once one of the others has been completed. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  23:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Small Inconsistency
Hi all, I was just reading the main page and noticed that the section on our coordinators is outdated. Is this for historical reference, is there a reason? I just wanted to make sure it was wrong before I did anything. Thanks! Puddleglum  2.0  20:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing, Puddleglum, It shows how often I visit the Guild homepage. I've updated it now. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  22:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem, thank you for fixing it! Puddleglum  2.0   19:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

On the state of the backlog
Hi everyone, I want to continue here some thoughts I started on the talk page for our last drive about the backlog of articles tagged as needing copy editing. First of all, congratulations to everyone for a terrific drive! Thanks to our efforts last month, the backlog reached a new record low, with only 323 articles left, and the oldest of them tagged within the past six months. That is fantastic, and, as it happens, precisely 8,000 fewer articles than were in the backlog at the start of our very first drive in May of 2010. As someone who has participated in umpteen drives, it makes me really happy to see this.

However, I want to raise the following proposition: "The goal of the Guild is not to reduce the amount of articles tagged as needing copy editing, but to reduce the amount of articles that need copy editing." Thus, as exciting as it would be to try and go for zero articles left with the copy editing tag, I don't see achieving that (if it is even possible in practice) as meaning that there is no more work left for us to do. There is always work to do on Wikipedia by definition, that is why there are missing puzzle pieces in the logo, and this certainly includes the need for copy editing. Rather than wait for articles to be tagged and brought to our attention, as we have until now, I wonder if there are ways we can start to proactively identify articles that need copy editing. One possibility would be to look at articles with other, related tags. There are a few that we have never treated as part of our workload, but which seem to me to be relevant to the Guild:

1. Articles needing cleanup. This is sort of the default tag to flag an article as needing work. It's vagueness is a bit problematic, but a quick sample suggests that a meaningful percentage of these articles require copy editing. Sometimes this is even explicitly stated. For example, a cleanup tag was added to Dyke White in 2012 with the given reason being "Needs copy editing, fixing style of references, finding sources or marking them as needed". Currently there are almost 20,000 articles with this tag, and a conservative estimate that 10% of these need copy editing would give us almost 2,000 articles where we can be of help.

2. Articles with style issues. This seems to be an eclectic category that includes articles with any of 27 different tags. Some of the tags more closely align with the interests of the Guild than others, but the MOS tag ("This article needs editing for compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style") seems to be particularly relevant. I don't see just the MOS articles in a category, but this search finds | 296 results that we could tackle.

Anyway, those are just my personal thoughts. I would love to hear other ideas about how to identify articles that the Guild could help improve, and if you think we should just stick with the articles tagged for copy editing, I would welcome hearing from that perspective. Regards, Tdslk (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Tdslk; thanks for raising these points. Yes, that's a fantastic Drive result so a big thanks should go to everyone who helped out. It would be nice to see a zero backlog but I think we shouldn't be complacent; I've seen it double between drives! A line or two in the March nl would be welcome.


 * I've found articles tagged with Cleanup usually need more than a simple copy-edit. The tag you quote above is a good example of this; I haven't checked the article but it seems to me going hunting for citations and combing through problematic text with complex problems adding cn goes far beyond the Guild's remit. In fact, I've frequently added Cleanup to articles tagged with Copy edit that fall into the above group. GOCE is not Cleanup, which exists to deal with these articles in the same way the GOCE deals with copy-editing. Perhaps Cleanup could take a hint or two from us... :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  03:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. Although for better or worse I've always seen a Copy edit tag as a request for general improvement, I prefer that taggers be more specific (without tag-bombing). I don't see us going out of business anytime soon All the best,  Mini  apolis  16:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Annual Report
Do we put a notice that informs members of the Annual Report in the Ombox? The election notice could definitely be replaced. Just an idea. Puddleglum  2.0  01:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the election but we'll be using the Ombox to announce the Feb blitz. I'm not adverse to the announcing it there but the Annual Report isn't a time-sensitive page. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  01:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, that makes sense. Thank you! Puddleglum  2.0   15:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Advice on first article?
Hi. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but I'm interested in getting some feedback on one or two articles I've been working on (and particularly if it's worth submitting to Articles for creation). I'm not a professional writer by any means and I'm sure they need some copyediting. The articles are posted at Sandbox:


 * Superstars of Wrestling (Canadian TV series) - a pro wrestling tv series syndicated in Canada and the US during the 1970s and 80s
 * List of professional wrestling attendance records - based on List of WWE attendance records

Is there a WikiProject that might be able to offer some advice? Thanks for your time. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you tried Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and the GOCE. I took a brief look through the pages. The first draft presented looks at first glance fine to me; it seems superficially well-referenced and well-structured. I've no interest in Pro wrestling so i can't comment on the suitability of the referenced sources or whether the text is accurate to those sources.


 * The second page, a draft list article, also looks fine but the second paragraph needs to be properly cited. Please also read our Biography of Living People policy, which says text about living and recently-dead people must be supported by at least one reliable source.


 * Submitting the drafts to AfC would be good; the volunteers there can better assess the pages' suitability for inclusion into Wikipedia. I'm sorry that's all the feedback I can give you without an in-depth reading of the text, but I hope this is useful anyway. Cheers and happy editng,  Baffle☿gab  02:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the help, thanks. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for new tab
I would like to add a tab to the headers for this WikiProject, to link to the page below, which is a "Town Hall" for allowing communication between different WikiProjects. Is it okay for me to do so? Please feel free to let me know, or to comment. thanks!!

Please note, the page linked to below is merely an example, so that tab header for this page is for a different WikiProject. If implemented, the link would be placed on the specific tab header for this WikiProject, not the one shown below. thanks.


 * link: WikiProject History/History Town Hall

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely not.... perhaps best that you talk to your mentor before spamming more random projects with this request.-- Moxy 🍁 05:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See also Village_pump_(proposals). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , please don't so that unless a consensus among GOCE coordinators develops or Wikipedia policies dictate it. I think we have enough tabs as it is. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  15:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply. no worries, I am not planning to do so, unless and until there is a clear consensus in favor of it. if you prefer not to at this point, I will note that. I appreciate your reply. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been following this bull-in-a-china-shop editor, and apparently the only person supporting their proposal (a variation of the thread above) is them. This has become a disruptive timesink on a number of pages. WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. All the best,  Mini  apolis  18:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that we shouldn't add this. If anything, we should have fewer tabs, not more. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't s/he replicating what WikiProject X was trying to achieve? That effort fell by the wayside too.  Baffle☿gab  19:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I never knew what the hell WikiProject X is/was; I just got stuff on my TP which I didn't read :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  00:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought about that thing in ages! Never understood it either. I'm not theoretically opposed to improving the organization of discussions and collaboration on Wikipedia, but the implementation is hard. Tdslk (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Me neither, but that's what WikiProject, article and user talk pages are for, and they seem to work well in the long-term. See also: Esperanza. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  03:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Esperanza was before my time, but from what I understand it rubbed people the wrong way because it was perceived as a cabal (a real one, not the way the term is bandied around WP ). What I don't like about this is that it seems to be trying to push the encyclopedia further into WP:MMORPG-land; WP has enough opportunities to socialize as it is. All the best,  Mini  apolis  16:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * if it’s ok, I would like to withdraw this proposal, and archive this section. Is that okay? Thanks. —Sm8900 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have marked this section as closed. We can let the bot archive it when it ages out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct capitalisation of title?
Hi GOCE, I have a query for you. There is currently an article for an upcoming album at Yook O'clock... I think this should be either Yook O'Clock or Yook o'Clock, but I'd like to hear what others think. This is an album and therefore is an English-language work which comes under MOS:TITLECAPS, which dictates that the first letter of all nouns should be capitalised and that prepositions such as "of" (which is of course what the "o'" stands for here) should be in lower case. Obviously "o'clock" here is not used in the normal way – if I was just saying "let's meet at four o'clock" I wouldn't capitalise any part of it, but here it's being used as an album title. I definitely think the current title with the contracted preposition being capitalised and the noun not being capitalised is wrong, and that the noun should be capitalised in any case, but should the "o'" be capitalised as well in this case? Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe the correct usage would be "o'Clock." Interesting question, I hadn't really thought about that before, I look forward to seeing what others have to say. Thanks, Puddleglum  2.0  20:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but it's an interesting and unusual case. Thank you for your answer. Richard3120 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Compare One O'Clock Jump. I would capitalize it. Jmar67 (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never seen "o'Clock" in my life. It appears that the normal usage on titles of works in WP articles is "O'Clock" (search results here). In this case, however, it appears that reliable sources refer to the EP as "YOOK O'clock", and this is not an English-language work, so it gets a little fuzzier. As far as I know, the best guideline is at MOS:MUSICCAPS, which says "Exceptions are not made to mimic logo/cover stylization, even if such mimicry is common in the music press." Based on that WP guideline, "Yook O'Clock" is probably the best title. You might need to start a move discussion on the article's talk page to get the rationale on the record (no pun intended until after I wrote it). I would ensure that there are redirects at YOOK O'clock and Yook O'clock, however. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A quick Google throws up Nine O'Clock in Morning, The Five O'Clock Apron: Proper Food for Modern Families, It's Gainz O'Clock Funny Workout Notebook: Fitness Notebook For Gym Rats, Not the Nine O'Clock News, Beer O' Clock etc. And no cases I could find of either o or c being lower case. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your contributions. I have opened a move discussion as suggested, but it does seem that the standard procedure on Wikipedia is "O'Clock" when referring to titles of works. Richard3120 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very interesting discussion. Fun tidbit: my autocorrect switches "o'Clock" to "O'Clock" ... Autocorrect definitely is not a grammar authority, but interesting nontheless! Puddleglum  2.0  03:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * A check of the album cover image shows the text as YOOK O'clock which I would think is what should be used. The album is in Korean not English to which the MOS refers. The way it is now is also fine.Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * no, we never use any stylisations of titles as shown on album covers, regardless of when and where they use capital letters on the cover. Hence my starting this thread, to find out what the title should be, per MOS:TITLECAPS and the section "Typographic effects" immediately below that. Richard3120 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * According to wiktionary (o'clock), o'clock is short for "of the clock", so if the title were written out in full then the capitalization (per our rules) would be Yook of the Clock. So I can understand the o'Clock interpretation, though I would not recommend that. As a proper name, I would tend toward the O'Clock capitalization.  There are a wealth of examples Special:Search/intitle:o'clock – Reidgreg (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I thought so too, but then I found MOS:MUSICCAPS, which I quoted from above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps O'Clock just looks more consistent with the expected form of proper names like O'Malley and O'Keefe, though those surnames have another reason for the capitalization. I also found that titles of proper names containing jack-o'-lantern also capitalize the o-l. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Grammar question
Hi. I know the comma in this sentence is grammatically wrong but I don't know why, in technical terms:

This is the number of times someone took a photo or video, in the garden.

Can someone explain? Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Good question. The last bit is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb took (where?) I have seen adverbial phrases that modify a whole sentence be set off with a comma Could you proofread this, perhaps?, but I have never seen a single adverbial phrase that modifies just a verb set off that way. -- 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at Comma, you will see a list of common reasons to use a comma. I suspect that you will not find an example of this type of usage within that list. Commas meet specific needs. If the need is not present, you don't need a comma. There is no need for a comma in that location, just as there is no need for one between "number" and "of" in your example sentence.
 * If you were to write This is the number of times someone took a photo, or video, in the garden, then you would need commas, because you would have an appositive phrase. This example changes the meaning and emphasis of the parts of the sentence slightly; the sentence's context dictates whether setting "or video" off in that way conveys the intended meaning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like this might read better as This is the number of times that someone in the garden took a photo or video. or This is the number of times that someone took a photo or video of the garden., though be careful that this does not alter the intended meaning. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies everyone - very helpful., yes, it’s not how I’d write the sentence myself and there are lots of alternative paths, but I’m using this as an example of a kind of weird comma I frequently see and would like a concrete way of explaining the problem with. Popcornfud (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like this might read better as This is the number of times that someone in the garden took a photo or video. or This is the number of times that someone took a photo or video of the garden., though be careful that this does not alter the intended meaning. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies everyone - very helpful., yes, it’s not how I’d write the sentence myself and there are lots of alternative paths, but I’m using this as an example of a kind of weird comma I frequently see and would like a concrete way of explaining the problem with. Popcornfud (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Cossacks - copy edit
hi

I was just looking at the article, when I noticed that the first line has been changed from "are" to "were".

Can you explain why this edit was made? Chaosdruid (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, can you provide a diff of the edit so we can review it? Some people do odd things in articles; it could be a mistake, misinterpretation, POV or vandalism. The best place to ask would be the copy-editor's talk page but you can ping him/her here is you wish. Otherwise we can only speculate. It's good see you here anyway; long time no see. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  20:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging, who appears to have made apparently didn't make the edit in question. On a quick glance the article states that the Cossacks are still around, so I would agree that present tense should be used. Tdslk (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi - just to respond briefly (see below for full reply), that's right - in fact that edit was made by another user after I'd begun my copy edit. My own feeling is that "are" is correct, rather than "were" - FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope this explains what happened, and gives you some reassurance that it hasn't passed unnoticed and will get attention as part of the ongoing copy edit process. Regards - FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi ! The reason "are" was changed is because the Cossacks no longer exist. The word "are" is Present tense, which would mean that the Cossacks still exist, while "were" is the equivalent of "are" but in past tense, which means that the Cossacks no longer exist. I'll ping the person doing the Copyedit to get their opinion of they want to give it: . I hope this helps! Puddleglum  2.0 (How's my driving?) 20:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You are trying to teach me primary school English? On a GOCE page? lol!


 * More importantly, I AM a Cossack, my father was a Cossack, and my nephew is ALSO a Cossack.Chaosdruid (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi all - yes, that change was made the other day by another editor, after I'd added the GOCE tag, and I'm not sure why or what the rationale for it is. But given that the edit history of the article shows a certain amount of conflict over time, I thought it better to continue with copy editing and complete the job before/rather than stirring up argument. It's a very long article, and it will be difficult to copy edit if editors pile in with changes before that point!
 * Also, I tend to leave editing the lead section, or at least finalizing the copy edit of the lead, until near the end of the process. Then I go over everything again and do a final pass or two before removing the copy edit tag. So changes I'll make there are still to come. At the moment, I'm over half way through the article, and there's still quite a bit to go.
 * Personally, I would be inclined to revert that first line of the article to the present tense, as the more neutral choice of wording, and I agree with the addition of "The". It would then begin, "The Cossacks are..." All the more indicated as the article contains sections on the modern Cossack identity, suggesting its continued existence... In the normal way of things I would do that just before removing the tag and releasing the article back out into the fray - but happy to edit that bit sooner if the feeling is it's urgent. Regards - FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, for stepping in and reverting that edit, with a "factual error" message to the editor concerned. I'll take note for future reference. A different editor then remade the same change, before self-reverting a short while later - maybe on the strength of the immediately preceding edit summary! I'm hoping that first sentence will now stabilize for a bit... FiveFaintFootprints (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to help, . People will POV-push about the damndest things; according to RS, the Cossacks are still a recognized ethnic group in Russia. I was surprised, though, that jumped to the conclusion that the change was yours; I had to hunt a bit for the diff, but it's there. Have fun and all the best,  Mini  apolis  13:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't jump to any conclusion, I followed the instructions, and directed my query to the GOCE page, as there was a current edit banner in place.


 * If I HAD asked on any editor's talk page, that would have been assuming they did it, or that they had missed it being done during their copyedit.


 * I also wanted to being it to the attention of any GOCE editors who were working on it, to keep it "in house", as no other editor should have been editing it while the banner was there.


 * Otherwise, I could have simply reverted it myself! Chaosdruid (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments about COVID-19 affecting editors for The Signpost
An editor for The Signpost,, has reached out to multiple WikiProjects asking for editor comments on how the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has affected their lives. As per his reply on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19:

If you have any comments you would like to submit to the Signpost, talk to or. Deadline is 21 March 2020. -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝)  22:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Another grammar question
Consider these statements:

A: Because I’m allergic, I don’t eat nuts.
 * only one interpretation

B: I don’t eat nuts because I’m allergic.
 * could mean the same as A, or could mean “I don’t eat nuts because I’m allergic, but for some other reason”

I understand the difference between these, but lack the grammatical knowledge to explain it. Is this to do with restricted clauses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcornfud (talk • contribs) 15:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I (a native speaker) don't know what restricted clauses are, and English relative clauses doesn't really address this. To me, the sentences have the same meaning; it's implied that the allergy is to nuts. All the best,  Mini  apolis  16:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for this reply. Yes, sure, you can deduce from common sense that it means the allergy is why the speaker doesn't eat nuts, but technically (grammatically) speaking B is ambiguous. Popcornfud (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? Adding "to them" eliminates any ambiguity.  Mini  apolis  16:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I'm not asking how to eliminate ambiguity, I'm asking what's going on grammatically that mean A and B are not exactly the same, which they're not.
 * Here's an illustration of how sentence B might not mean "Because I'm allergic I don't eat nuts":
 * Tom: You're allergic to nuts, right? That's why you don't eat them.
 * Sally: I don't eat nuts because I'm allergic. I just don't like them.
 * Popcornfud (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sally: I don't eat nuts because I'm allergic. I just don't like them.
 * Popcornfud (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Um, what's the point of this?  Mini  apolis  02:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Tom wants Sally to eat his nuts but Sally just doesn't like them. natch.  Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  22:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi ; in your A/B examples, the sentences are identical in meaning but the dependent clause has been switched around to the front of the sentence. In both of your A/B examples, the adjective "allergic" should be followed by a noun or noun phrase to function as the object for the verb phrase I'm allergic. Using the preposition to and the pronoun them to complete the sentence clauses would eliminate the ambiguity: A: Because I’m allergic to them, I don’t eat nuts.
 * or

B: I don't eat nuts because I'm allergic to them. In your Tom/Sally example, Sally is saying she has an allergy to nuts and that she just doesn't like them. if Sally is saying the reason she doesn't eat nuts is because she doesn't like them but the reason isn't an allergy, she should say: "'I don't not eat nuts because I'm allergic (to them). I just don't like them.'" So A/B is rather different in meaning to Tom/Sally. Giving us the full context of your question would have given you a quicker and more accurate answer. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  02:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for this thoughtful and detailed reply.
 * However, regarding this - in your A/B examples, the sentences are identical in meaning - maybe I'm losing my mind, but I can't see how this can be true. A has only one possible interpretation, but B has two (even if one is a stretch). This holds whether you include "to them" or not.
 * I could explain why I think that further, but I suspect, based on the confusion and irritation I've seemingly caused here, that this isn't the right place to be asking these sorts of questions, so I'll drop it. Thanks a lot for your replies, both of you, and if anyone's interested in discussing this more for whatever reason feel free to move the discussion to my talk page. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Permit me to continue here. What's going on grammatically is the use in B. of "because I'm allergic" as a restrictive clause (without a preceding comma). While both are correct grammatically, moving the clause to the end introduces the ambiguity noted above. One solution to that is to make the clause nonrestrictive by setting it off with a comma: "I don't eat nuts, because I'm allergic." This has the same meaning as the first. Jmar67 (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks so much for this. So in the case of A, "Because I'm allergic to them" is a restrictive clause, but in the case of B (sans comma) it's not? Or maybe the other way around? Popcornfud (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote the above rather hurriedly, after I realized that a comma would solve the ambiguity. This is similar to the situation with relative clauses, which are restrictive (defining) if they are not preceded by a comma and non-restrictive (non-defining) if they are. But the "because" clause is not a relative clause. There is no grammatical issue here other than placement of the comma as one solution to eliminating the ambiguity and reproduce the meaning of A. Jmar67 (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks so much for this. So in the case of A, "Because I'm allergic to them" is a restrictive clause, but in the case of B (sans comma) it's not? Or maybe the other way around? Popcornfud (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote the above rather hurriedly, after I realized that a comma would solve the ambiguity. This is similar to the situation with relative clauses, which are restrictive (defining) if they are not preceded by a comma and non-restrictive (non-defining) if they are. But the "because" clause is not a relative clause. There is no grammatical issue here other than placement of the comma as one solution to eliminating the ambiguity and reproduce the meaning of A. Jmar67 (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's another example of what I think might be the same phenomenon, from the Yamaha DX7 article:

The FM patent was for years one of Stanford's highest earning

If we rearrange this, the sentence has two possible readings:

The FM patent was one of Stanford's highest earning for years

This could mean 1) the patent made a lot of money for a long time, more than other patents or 2) the patent made more money than patents in recent years. Popcornfud (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again ; the second sentence doesn't specify "recent years", only "years", so it means exactly the same as the first one with a change of emphasis caused by a reversal of word order; words in mid-sentence tend to be parsed as being of more importance than those towards the end. Have you checked the source to see what the sentence means? Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  23:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, but once again I disagree. "Highest earning for years" could be interpreted as in the sense of "I haven't seen you for years." Popcornfud (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What does the source say? Have you even checked it? This is getting tiresome now.  Baffle☿gab  00:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, of course I've checked it, I'm the editor who added it to the article. The source (paraphrasing) says the patent was one of Stanford's highest earning over a period of several years. That has nothing to do with the current discussion. Popcornfud (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying; the article text should accurately represent the source. I honestly can't see how to interpret "for years" in a formal context any other way than "for more than 730 days". In causal speech we might say "I haven't seen you for years" when it's only been a few months but since we use formal English in Wikipedia, I wouldn't expect that meaning in that context.  Baffle☿gab  01:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying here. I think I'm doing a pretty bad job of clarifying what I'm getting at. I didn't mean the "for years" in the colloquial sense and that was a bad example.
 * The FM patent was one of Stanford's highest earning for years
 * Let me try to spell out one more time how this could - IMO without a lot of straining - be interpreted in two ways. I'm adding some fictional timeframes here for the sake of the discussion.
 * Interpretation A: Between the years of (say) 1980 and 1990, the patent made more money than most of Stanford's other patents in the same period.
 * Interpretation B: For several years, Stanford made money on its patents. Then the FM patent came along and was more profitable than any of the patents of the preceding years. (If you're still not getting this magic-eye picture, try thinking of it in the sense of "It was Cher's biggest hit single for years".)
 * I don't think interpretation B is informal, casual, or even obscure.
 * The reason I brought this up in the first place is that I keep finding myself conscious of how these sentences become ambiguous when rearranged and I'm interested in learning what grammatical phenomenon causes it. I appreciate that you're finding this conversation tiresome so it's cool if you want to drop it. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To use the Cher example, it looks like the difference you are referring to is between (1) "was her biggest hit single in a long time" and (2) "was her biggest hit single for a long time". Most readers would interpret "for years" in your example as having the meaning of (2). Word order is a fundamental consideration in writing clearly and unambiguously. If you are asking if there is a particular term for introducing ambiguity by rearranging the sentence, I can't answer that. In effect, it's just poor writing. Jmar67 (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Interpretation B: For several years, Stanford made money on its patents. Then the FM patent came along and was more profitable than any of the patents of the preceding years. (If you're still not getting this magic-eye picture, try thinking of it in the sense of "It was Cher's biggest hit single for years".)
 * I don't think interpretation B is informal, casual, or even obscure.
 * The reason I brought this up in the first place is that I keep finding myself conscious of how these sentences become ambiguous when rearranged and I'm interested in learning what grammatical phenomenon causes it. I appreciate that you're finding this conversation tiresome so it's cool if you want to drop it. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To use the Cher example, it looks like the difference you are referring to is between (1) "was her biggest hit single in a long time" and (2) "was her biggest hit single for a long time". Most readers would interpret "for years" in your example as having the meaning of (2). Word order is a fundamental consideration in writing clearly and unambiguously. If you are asking if there is a particular term for introducing ambiguity by rearranging the sentence, I can't answer that. In effect, it's just poor writing. Jmar67 (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I brought this up in the first place is that I keep finding myself conscious of how these sentences become ambiguous when rearranged and I'm interested in learning what grammatical phenomenon causes it. I appreciate that you're finding this conversation tiresome so it's cool if you want to drop it. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To use the Cher example, it looks like the difference you are referring to is between (1) "was her biggest hit single in a long time" and (2) "was her biggest hit single for a long time". Most readers would interpret "for years" in your example as having the meaning of (2). Word order is a fundamental consideration in writing clearly and unambiguously. If you are asking if there is a particular term for introducing ambiguity by rearranging the sentence, I can't answer that. In effect, it's just poor writing. Jmar67 (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

With respect to you both Popcornfud and Jmar67, I'm closing this thread because it isn't about copy-editing, the GOCE or its pages, and is going around in circles. Please feel free to continue on your own talk pages or at a more suitable venue. I'm involved so any coordinator or administrator may re-open it as you see fit.  Baffle☿gab  04:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks, Baffle and all the best,  Mini  apolis  15:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate ref bot?
Hi, is there any sort of bot that detects if the same reference has been used more than once? In the sense that, ref 1 and ref 4, for example, share the same URL. It's a bit difficult for me to check for duplicate refs in articles with 200-ish refs. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the right forum for this question, but ReFill will combine identical references. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tried refill out for Lebanon national football team. It says "(No difference)", even though I can see that, for example, refs 35 and 143 (Asian Nations Cup 2004) are the same. Nehme<b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 18:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The two references have to be identical; those references have different access dates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, Jonesey; I didn't know that reFill could do that. Take care and all the best,  Mini  apolis  01:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 16:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Grammar/usage question: en-dash, numerals, between
The infobox for Coronavirus disease 2019, contains this phrasing: "Usual onset: 5 days from exposure (may range between 2–14 days)". ("Usual onset" is a standard infobox field.)


 * Is "between 2–14 days" correct? My understanding is that an en-dash between two numbers means "to". Thus, if read aloud, the phrase as written would be, "between two to 14 days". Is my understanding accurate?


 * If so, would "may range between 2 and 14 days" be correct grammar and usage?

Would you prefer one of the following alternative ways to communicate the information? (Or another alternative expression?)


 * "5 days from exposure (may range from 2–14 days)"


 * "average: 5 days from exposure (range: 2–14 days)"

NOTE: I do not necessarily want to edit the infobox content. In general, I am interested in improving how we communicate medical and scientific information to the public. A subset of such communication involves statistical concepts like arithmetic mean (average), median, variance, standard deviation, confidence intervals, and range.

Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  17:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark. "Between 2 and 14 days" is grammatically correct per https://www.grammarly.com/blog/en-dash/. (Note use of the numeral "2" instead of "two" because it is paired with the numeral "14.") Of your two suggestions, the first would not quite be correct; when "from" comes before a range, "to" should be used instead of an en dash: "from 2 to 14 days." Regardless, I prefer your second option. Since this is an infobox, the preference is to present the information with as little clutter as possible, and there is no need to structure it as a phrase. Thanks for your question! Regards, Tdslk (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Tdslk! That is very helpful.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  19:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Joining the blitz
I know I’ve only been here a few days, but can I join the blitz? I’ve always had good grammar... Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the blitz sign-up link is here. Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We welcome any and all editors, please feel free to join! Thanks, -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 19:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

‘Kay. I’ll try to help, but if I mess up, don’t be mad, please? Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not a coordinator on here and I'm not interested in participating in this blitz. If you have any questions or concerns they are better off directed to the project's coordinators. Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The project coordinators will check copyediting work.and give you friendly feedback based on that. It's a great learning experience, and we're glad you've joined us! -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 19:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fun! Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey and, I've been here for a few months and have been working on counter vandalism work extensively and I have got a good sense of grammar and spelling, so can I join the guild? Antila333 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , any editor is welcome to join the Guild. The participants page is here; signing up is just a formality and is optional. If you would like to have someone check over your copyedits for you our coordinators will be able to help you out. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Checking Amogha missile
Could one of the copy editing coordinators look at this article? I want to know how I did on my first official copy edit... Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for joining the blitz! I looked at your edits and I think you did a great job. If you look at the history of the article you can see a few additional copy edits I made, although they were fairly minor (for example, Wikipedia's preferred style is to use straight quotation marks instead of curly quotation marks). Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Tdslk (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw that. I didn’t know about all those details, I just thought “How can I make this be easier to read?”. I’m glad to know I did a good job-I knew my grammar skills would come in handy...

Sorry to bother but could you (or another coordinator) check Bhim self-propelled howitzer to see if I missed anything? Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you improved the article quite a bit. I made a few minor tweaks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I’m better with big improvements, but not the tiny details... Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's perfect. Big improvements are needed in many Wikipedia articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You’re right-there are 250 articles needing copy edit... Also, do you mind that I drew inspiration from your “copy edit” user page to enhance mine? (You can look at my userpage to see what I’m talking about) Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to copy any formatting or style that you find on my user pages. I don't mind at all. Thank you for joining in the efforts of the GOCE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Question from your newest copyeditor
When copyediting an article, is there some way to mark that fact so others don’t try to copy edit it at the same time? I want to copyedit Sears for the drive, and it will take a long time, as it is 11K words long... Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why, yes! Add " " to the top of the article. Be sure to remove it when you are done or won't be working on the article for a while. Regards, Tdslk (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I really appreciate how helpful and friendly everyone is in the copyediting guild! Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When it's a really long article and I'm taking off for the day I sometimes add the Under construction template to the top. Once I come back I replace it with the GOCEinuse or In use templates. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My tip is to edit by section rather than having the complete article open; that way if another editor or bot edits elsewhere in the article, you won't be disturbed by edit conflicts. It also makes it easier to keep tabs on your progress using the edit summary as a guide. Cheers and happy editing,  Baffle☿gab  03:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I second that recommendation. In big articles, I edit a portion of the article at a time, saving periodically with a summary like "WP:GOCE copy edit, through 'Early life and education'. More to come." or whatever happens to be the title of the last section I worked on. I also sometimes post a new section on the article's talk page to draw attention to issues that I am unable to resolve. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice! Will have to use it in upcoming drive... Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Amphibians..
I am unsure if this is a correct way to make a request, but I have a grammar question: is it 'species of amphibian' or 'species of amphibians'? Context is 'contains 90 species of...' I'm honestly at a loss. Thanks! Sorry again if this is a malformed request. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk  13:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Im not coordinator, but I can help you. If it’s one species of amphibian, it would be “[X] is a species of amphibian”. However, in your case, it would be “90 species of amphibians” (I think). (I have a good English I teacher.) Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that; as a seat-of-the-pants copyeditor, I think "90 species of amphibian" (or, sidestepping the whole issue, "90 amphibian species") works better. Stay well and all the best,  Mini  apolis  17:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To me, “90 species of amphibians” sounds better, because “amphibian” is plural. I most definitely could be wrong though... either would work, I think. Total Eclipse 2017 (talk)
 * I think you're right that either would work (although with FACs we should get this right), but the biological class to which it refers is amphibian (not amphibians). It doesn't have to agree with "species" in number. Just my opinion.  Mini  apolis  17:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

For more input, why don't I direct you to WP:RD/L, where they answer these sorts of questions? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you, I will try there. And thank you all for your input! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  19:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Am I allowed
Am I allowed to copyedit article before drive starts? I’m bored and want to copyedit something... Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can copyedit any time you want; it just won't count toward the drive until 1 May. I'm working on Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse) from WP:GOCE/REQ, a long GAN which will probably take a few days . Have fun and all the best,  Mini  apolis  17:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Maybe I’ll just copyedit something short then, since I’m saving the 11K Sears for the drive... Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I clicked your link, and I’m amazed. People can make specific copyediting requests? That’s actually pretty cool. Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , requests are over at WP:GOCE/REQ. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s the link that I clicked earlier. Total Eclipse 2017 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The requests page is generally for articles up for promotion for various reasons: GAN, FAC, DYK, that kind of stuff. Other articles get tagged with copy edit, and become part of the backlog.  Mini  apolis  20:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

What happens if backlog runs out?
Hi, its me again. Sorry to ask so many questions, but what happens if the backlog runs out? (I did the math on a calculator and there’s about 50/50 chance of that based on the progress chart.) Does the drive end early? Seriously, what happens? Stay safe and well, -- Total Eclipse 2017  (talk) (Origin of the username) 19:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question,, and one that we have talked about a bit over on the coordinator talk page and in the Signpost interview. The short answer is that there are lots of articles on Wikipedia that need a good copy edit despite not being in the backlog, and we will work to surface those if and when the backlog runs out. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * sounds good to me. Stay safe and well, -- Total Eclipse 2017  (talk) (Origin of the username) 19:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You too! Tdslk (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is copyedit tag in sears?
This question might be kind of stupid but where’s the copyedit tag? I don’t see it anywhere, but it has to be there somewhere because it’s in the category of articles needing copy edit... Stay safe and well, -- Total Eclipse 2017  (talk) (Origin of the username) 17:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph starting with "Sears Optical". It helps to do a Find on the page for "copy edit" or "awkward". – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! I just couldn’t find it, but I see it now... Stay safe and well, -- Total Eclipse 2017  (talk) (Origin of the username) 18:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (It's worth noting that when a copy edit tag is specific to a section or sentence, only that section or sentence needs to be edited for the tag to be removed. During drives and blitzes, you can copy the section or sentence into a word processor to get the word count for your totals, since the "page size" tool won't work. In this case, only two sentences of a much longer article need to be revised! Tdslk (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

sorry to ask so many questions but what do the *O and *R mean after the article names in the backlog drives? (I looked at the January and March drives and saw those.) Anything helps. Stay safe and well, -- Total Eclipse 2017  (talk) (Origin of the username) 18:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Instructions are here. Again, use of the Find feature of your browser can help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted at, the *R and *O indicated requests and old backlog articles, respectively. A script reads this notation to make sure you get a 50% wordcount bonus for these articles. BTW, remember that we only use the wordcount for what's tagged for copy edit.  So if only one section is tagged, you only use the wordcount for that section, and if only one paragraph is marked with , then you only count that paragraph. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I figured out how to use Find on iOS... Stay safe and well, -- Total Eclipse 2017  (talk) (Origin of the username) 18:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What happens if copyedit tag says it applies to the whole article but it’s put in the middle?
See Television in Turkey. Stay safe and well, -- Total Eclipse 2017  (talk) (Origin of the username) 17:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say to use your best judgment about whether the whole article needs copy editing, or just a section. In this case, the whole article needs work, so I have boldly moved the tag to the top of the page. Regards, Tdslk (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Use your judgment. If the whole article needs work, work on it and count all of the article's words for the drive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It’ll be my next project, after this one... if I can complete it by the end of the day. I like copyediting short articles, so I can see a significant change in the number of articles in the backlog... but I also find it fun to do a long one once in a while. Stay safe and well, -- Total Eclipse 2017  (talk) (Origin of the username) 17:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Television in Turkey
I copyedited this the best I could, but it’s still in pretty bad shape. Could someone help improve it further? I did the best I could, but some stuff I couldn’t decipher... Stay safe and well, -- Total Eclipse 2017  (talk) (Origin of the username) 23:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You did some good tone work on that copy edit. I don't think there's much more to do without an overhaul and some serious reference work. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Writing for the reader (abbreviations)
One of my pet peeves is an article (in magazines, newspapers, and Wikipedia) that introduces a new (to most readers) initialism early on and that's it. I frequently find myself having to scroll up to recall what that darn abbreviation represents. In order of preference, I like writers who (1) eschew abbreviations altogether; (2) explain an abbreviation a second time; or (3) at least tell me what the blasted initialism means the first time around.

As a writer I should concentrate on what works best for my readers, not what's easier for me. But many Wikipedians seem to believe the opposite.

I recently contributed to an article, Operation Warp Speed, that introduces two initialisms in the first sentence: "Operation Warp Speed (OWS) is a public-private partnership (PPP) ...." When I used those two terms—one in the second paragraph and one in the fourth paragraph—I used the initialism accompanied by a parenthetical spelling out of the phrase, like this: "As reported by Bloomberg News, OWS (Operation Warp Speed) will promote mass production of vaccines ...." My edit description was: "Give readers ample opportunity to understand an acronym (initialism) - see Garner's Modern English Usage, 4th ed., 2016, pp. 2–3."

Within three hours another editor deleted my parenthetical explanations with the edit description, "abbreviations both introduced in first paragraph". I did not dispute their edit because in this instance the article is so short that glancing up does not present too much difficulty for the reader.

But in general, would you agree that Wikipedia editors tend to overuse abbreviations, or am I just an old fuddy-duddy?

Thank you kindly. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  15:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , I would have to generally agree with you. I generally have more of a pet peeve with people using the initialism first and then describing what it stands for later on in the article. There was a rather long article that I copyedited a few days ago where what the initialism stood for wasn't mentioned until the third or fourth time it popped up. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  15:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, If you are looking to change Wikipedia's style policies, you should take your concerns to the Manual of Style's talk pages. While we are concerned with style around the Guild, we don't have the power to change guidelines by ourselves. Regards, Tdslk (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The relevant guideline is at Manual of Style/Abbreviations. Another good idea is to just not use acronyms unless they are really helpful in keeping the text from being too verbose. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not being clear. I am simply soliciting feedback to make sure I'm not just an old crank. ;^) In other words, I wondered if my objection to so many initialisms was unusual or an opinion others share. I do not wish to change policy. Thanks!  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  18:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Etiquette on editing in chunks?
I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm wondering about the etiquette of copy-editing in chunks? Like, I would rather spend an hour editing, then an hour break, then another hour editing to finish the article. I'm wondering if I should publish those changes after the first hour, so that no one else goes in and edits the same thing. But also, I'm afraid of publishing a bunch of editing chunks for the same article, because it clogs up the edit history. Any advice or tips? Kaodigua (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with editing section by section; in fact, it's recommended that you do so to avoid edit conflicts where two people edit the same section at the same time. That being said, it's a balancing act: make edits that are just short enough to avoid potential edit conflicts that cause frustration to yourself, and make edits that are long enough to prevent a deluge of edits in the article's history that are incredibly minor when looked at individually and frustrating for others to wade through. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for your question. That is absolutely okay. I always publish my partial work like that if I'm taking a break. In fact, even if I'm still actively editing, I'll probably publish my partial work more frequently than once an hour to reduce the risk of editing conflicts! Regards, Tdslk (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and, thank you for your thorough responses! Another question--do you leave the "GOCE in use" tag on the article for as long as it takes you to edit? Or would you remove it while you're taking a break/not actively editing? --Kaodigua
 * I usually leave it on, provided I'm sure I will be actively editing within a 12 - 24 hour period. Ultimately, if you leave it on for too long without any edits, it will be removed by other editors. Remember that the tag has a timer that indicates the last time of activity by the editor who posted it. &mdash; BroVic (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I usually make a few edits like so:
 * Replace the copy edit tag with the in use tag.
 * Do my copyedit.
 * Replace the in use tag with an under construction tag.
 * Replace under construction with in use when I'm ready to resume.
 * That's pretty much it. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  02:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language
I came across this edit. I have never seen an edit quite like this to an article before; I have noticed other editors calling me "they", as I scratched my head wondering who "they" were. Eventually, I figured out "they" was a Singular they and attempt at Gender-neutral_language. I see other essays of: Gender_identity, Gender-neutral_language_in_Wikipedia_policies, Manual_of_Style. Can anyone give me the short answer as to whether this is a good edit or not, or which of these policies or essays would answer that question? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's because Dorfman identifies as non-binary, as mentioned in the Personal life section. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  16:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough. Sounds good.  And do you believe that this is the right way to use the pronouns in our articles?  Like I said, I've never seen this done before in an article. My biggest discomfort with "they" is that it sounds plural and could cause confusion.  If I am avoiding gender-specific pronouns, I do almost anything I can to avoid using "they" or "their" as singular:  I often use the last or first name, their role, or rewrite the sentence somehow to avoid use of any pronoun.  To be honest, I wish there were well-accepted and recognized gender-neutral pronouns as proposed in Spivak pronoun.  I remember 20 years ago hearing about He/She -> Ze; His/Her -> Zer. (e.g., ) I would be all for that, but I don't think it has caught on well enough for Wikipedia to use it in articles. :)  --David Tornheim (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the use is clear given the context. If you wish to avoid using the pronoun that's fine too, though someone (like myself) is likely to change it to the pronoun so that the use of their name doesn't get too repetitive. I personally am not a fan of Spivak or any other pronoun sets as the rules for those are from what I can tell arbitrary and contentious. The use of singular they is enough. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with . Stay well and all the best,  Mini  apolis  22:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for your feedback. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Reviewer needing basic copyediting
Hello, I am reviewing Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War, and probably 90% of content editing/changes is now done. Some additional prose may be included, but that wouldn't be more than couple of lines. At this point I would appreciate if someone could do quick copyediting on the article. Thanks.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll move your request to the Requests page forthwith, where someone will get to it eventually. We have a lot of requests on the books atm, so you may be waiting a few weeks. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  23:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Request moved.  Baffle☿gab  01:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Baffle☿gab, although, i was kinda hoping that someone could take a very quick look, since it is GA review process, but I appreciate your effort, whenever it happens it's cool. Thank you and take care.-- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  01:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup to copyedit
Hi guys! I'm a gnome at Category:Articles needing cleanup, I'm moving this conversation here at the request of User:Tdslk. Beland suggested that the editors here may be looking for new tasks, and that we could therefore add copyedit to some of the cleanup articles to get them sorted faster. Tdslk explained that the usual candidates for copy editing are articles otherwise in a good state, which I quite understand. Many of the cleanup articles have other problems, or text that requires extensive cleanup, such as turning artworld guff/political peacocking/obituary etc. into encyclopaedic text. Since Beland's suggestion I have added a few copyedit tags (examples: Konitz Affair, Cristovam Buarque, History of the Bosniaks, see my contribs for more) where the problems were purely related to the copy, but these or other articles may well still require "deep text cleaning", including just removing large amounts of inappropriate content. I personally find it quite fun locating the meaningful information in such texts, but it's true that it involves more than just copy editing. So my question is, if I continue to tag these articles for copy editing, are there any guidelines/criteria you would like me to follow, regarding quality/sourcing/notability etc.? Jdcooper (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One response: Articles that are marked with lots of "citation needed" tags and section-level boxes are sometimes bad candidates for copy editing, since it can be difficult to figure out what the prose should say if there are no sources to refer to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lots of these articles are completely unreferenced. I'm guessing avoid those ones also! Jdcooper (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Change of word without record in diff version
I am wondering where the change from "media liaison officer" to "medical liaison officer" was made in the article on the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Obviously this change was non-trivial and a quick look at the article referenced in the sentence containing the phrase (and other news reports if desired) shows that "media" was in fact the right word.

In the diff page for the two versions from 06 April 2020 19:27 and 19:40, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_Hong_Kong_protests&diff=prev&oldid=949491913, the change does not appear. It does appear, though, when clicking on the two above mentioned versions in the article history.--CRau080 (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrase "medical liaison officer" was added on 6 April, about 6 hours earlier than the link above, an apparent mis-correction of a typo. You can usually find the addition or removal of a piece of text using the "Find addition/removal" tool linked at the top of each article's History page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. From the diff page you give, plus earlier versions of the page, I conclude that the word in question has changed twice, from "media" to "medial" to "medical". The issue I had noted in my closing sentence – the change from "media" to "medical" is visible in the 19:27 and 19:40 versions when accessing from the History page – is, I believe, somehow related to the notice "This article is currently undergoing a major edit by the Guild of Copy Editors." on the last two mentioned versions. That, in fact, had brought me to this talk page in the first place. In any case, I am happy to know that the edits in question have come about through regular update processes. --CRau080 (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Should Template:Inappropriate person apply the copy edit category?
The discussion immediately above reminded me that I wanted to make a proposal. The cleanup template Inappropriate person is currently applied to about 200 articles. It provides this message: This article uses first-person ("I"; "we") or second-person ("you") inappropriately. Please rewrite it to use a more formal, encyclopedic tone.

I poked through about twenty articles to which this template has been applied, and they all looked like good candidates for copy editing (as opposed to some other kind of cleanup). Generally, sentences need to be rewritten to use third-person pronouns. I propose that we add our copy editing category to this template, if I can figure out how to do it. It might temporarily give us a very old backlog, since some of the articles were probably tagged a long time ago (like Stanley Mitchell hut, tagged in 2017), but once we clear up those 200 articles, we would get only newly tagged articles in our queue.

Currently, the articles that apply our category are copy edit, awkward, copy edit section, and copy edit inline. This would expand our purview a bit. I welcome your thoughts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support., I feel like when I do a copy edit I sometimes go beyond what is expected from a copyeditor on here, so my view is a little biased. I feel that "tone" in general would fit under "copyedit", and as such would be suitable for us to deal with. Maybe it could potentially be a blitz theme. ^_^ — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a sensible idea, and not too much of a stretch at the moment. I didn't even know that template existed until now! Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  07:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Same here. Support Regards, GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 14:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is now ✅. I wanted to wait until the blitz was over. It should add about 240 articles to our backlog. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I was thinking of nominating it at TFD because it's basically covered by Tone, but it's been around since 2006 (although it was created by an indeffed user) so yeah, why not .  Mini  apolis  20:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support this a long the lines of Tenryuu and Miniapolis. -- puddleglum  2.0  00:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Just curious though, what's the deal with all the red linked categories? It says there is one of two articles from that month but it doesn't show up as a link. Cheers -- puddleglum  2.0  14:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A bot creates the categories when they are populated, but it can take a bit. It looks like all of the categories exist now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to know where I can learn to fix these Inappropriate person. In the how to copy edit tab, there is
 * Linking
 * Hyphens and dashes
 * Redundancy
 * noun plus -ing
 * NO inappropriate persons
 * Great. This next drive is going to be "great". &#123;&#123; reply to &#124;Can I Log In&#125;&#125; 's talk page! 02:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether the next drive will be "great" or just the usual pleasant volunteer work, but I do agree that we ought to develop some guidance on how to deal with the "you" tagged articles. Looking at a few random articles, I found one where there were no inappropriate pronouns (I removed the tag), and others where the sections with "you" probably should be deleted entirely, either because they were unencyclopedic content or because they smelled very strongly of copyright violation. It could be that only in a minority of the articles will rephrasing to get rid of "you" be the best option. Tdslk (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevant sections of MOS are MOS:PERSON and MOS:YOU. In addition, I agree with that "we" and "you" can sometimes be indicators of copyright violation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay so the MOS section regarding the use of POV: would it be intermediate or newcomer (WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to)? &#123;&#123; reply to &#124;Can I Log In&#125;&#125; 's talk page! 00:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You's reviewed
I went through all of the "inappropriate person" tagged articles from before this May (when they get mixed in with the regular "copy edit" tagged articles). I fixed all of the ones with obvious fixes, sometimes by wholesale deletion of non-encyclopedic text and sometimes by just removing the tag because it was no longer needed. What's left are a few articles pending deletion and a handful of trickier cases, especially ones that use what I'm going to call the "mathematical 'we'" (e.g., "We would ideally want the random draws of $$r\,\!$$ from the mechanism $$\mathcal{E}_q^\varepsilon(d)\,\!$$ to nearly maximize $$q(d,r)\,\!$$"). If someone is feeling brave and wants to give them a go, please do. Also, we should probably think about how to count these articles for stats during the drive. For example, changing, "you" to "the player" in a few places doesn't seem to merit credit for the full word count of the article. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing/vetting/fixing these articles, Tdslk! Since these articles are showing up for the July drive, should the drive instructions or theme include some comment about articles bearing ? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , haven't we always done word count by section for smaller copyedits that don't encompass the entire article? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that sometimes the tag is put atop the entire article. Even when it's just for a section, the amount of effort to make the changes can be quite small. For example, I could change "you" to "the player" three times in a long article, which would fix the tagged problem. But if the article is 6000 words long, it doesn't feel right to give myself credit for 6000 words. I would suggest that the word count is the number of changes made (or if that's too hard, some arbitrary small number, say, 100 words), with credit for a full article for the article count. But there's not a lot of tagged articles left, so maybe it's not necessary to overthink this. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The mathematical we seems to be called the author's we (or pluralis modestiae). MOS:WE says that this is allowable (We construct S as follows), though rephrasing to use passive voice may be preferable (S is constructed as follows). – Reidgreg (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's good to know and fun to say! "Pluralis modestiae!" Many of the remaining tagged articles can have their "inappropriate person" tag removed, then. Tdslk (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Help!: recruiting for a research project
Apologies if this is an inappropriate place to post this. Please direct me to the appropriate forum if this is the case.

I’m a graduate student researcher undertaking a study on how women learn to participate in Wikipedia and factors that enable them to persist as contributors. I’m currently seeking individuals who self-identify as women and actively participate in Wikipedia authorship. Interviewees will be asked to sit down with me for an hour long Zoom, Skype, or phone call. I cannot offer any incentives beyond the opportunity to reflect on your participation and a digital copy of our interview transcript.

If you fit this criteria and are interested in being interviewed, please let me know. Thank you for considering! Feel-flourish (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the note here, although I meet the criteria I don't think I'll participate. :) I just wanted to let you know that you might want to read this essay to get an idea of what things you should be doing to be in compliance with all the policies. Good luck on the interview, is there a place I can find it when you're done? It sounds like it would be an interesting read! Cheers -- puddleglum  2.0  02:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was one of the editors interviewed for the December 2018 Boston Globe article and was reluctant to do so until I had confidence in the the reporter's bona fides. Few editors, IMO, would be willing to provide their email address or phone number to someone they didn't know; a written study might yield better results. Stay well, good luck and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with the above, being one of those editors not interested in revealing such information; I'd be happy to do a written, on-wiki interview, but I hope you see my (and probably many other editors) position, seeing a completely random person on the internet (no offense intended) asking for a phone call. :) Good luck! -- puddleglum  2.0  02:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Guidance for new Guild members
Hi all, There seems to be a general consensus that we could do better about providing guidance to new members of the Guild. Brainstorming here, I think we should present the following information to new members:


 * 1) What the Guild does. Goals. Describe blitzes and drives. Describe tagged backlog articles and Request page articles. Encourage/nudge beginners to start with backlog articles.
 * 2) How to copy edit. MOS, general style guides. Common errors and things to watch out for.
 * 3) Expectations. WP:COMPETENCE. Standards for backlog and Request articles. Reviewing from Coordinators/experienced editors.

We also need to think about how to provide this information. Most of what I've listed about above is presented in some form here and there on our pages; O would argue that we need to do more to make it is as clear and findable as possible for newer members. We do have the page "How to copy edit", but this is mostly a collection of links. In addition to providing the information on a page, we also have direct communication from Coordinators and other more experienced Guild members, especially when reviewing work. This is (hopefully) helpful and friendly, but is also time consuming for those editors. Balancing these aspects can be a challenge. Also, we need to consider that some editors might be new to the Guild, but old hands around Wikipedia, while others might be new to Wikipedia, but have extensive experience with copy editing.

What do other editors think? Right now, I'd prefer if this conversation focuses on broader ideas and brainstorming; we can work on specific language later. I would especially like to hear from newer members. What was your experience like joining the Guild? What do you wish you had known when you started? What is still unclear to you? What do you think of the "How to copy edit" page? Did you even find it when you first started? How helpful was the feedback you received from reviewers?

Thanks in advance to all who participate in this conversation. Regards, Tdslk (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am new and I am interested in learning more about what needs to be done for copy editing articles and what standards need to be met. Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a couple random thoughts here, might be more coming later...
 * Since I've begun using the  template to welcome new members, I've noticed a decline in new members taking on articles requested at GOCEREQ and instead working on the backlog. (which the template advises them to do until they have a better copyediting grasp). The numbers weren't high originally, but they're lower now. (Do also note I haven't done hard research into this, it's just based on passing observations).
 * The quality of the copyedits on backlog articles still remains the same as on the requests, but it's more acceptable, as there isn't that higher quality bar. This may imply that all the welcome template does is point them to the right place to copyedit, not how to improve their copyeidts, or it just means they're not clicking through on the links.
 * Maybe we should have a edit notice banner that pops up when one hits the edit button on WP:GOCE/P in big font with a link to a comprehensive help page.
 * I'm thinking that for a comprehensive help page we can compile and improve the advice contained within the many 'random' links that float around on the How To page.
 * I know some editors put the GOCE userbox on their userpage rather than putting their username on the particpants page. It's fine, but I don't know where to track the editors that do that, so I can't drop the welcome template on their TP.


 * I guess those are some thoughts for now, they're just random, in no particular order... I can elaborate or add as needed. Cheers -- puddleglum  2.0  00:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything substantial to add, as I believe the ideas y'all have shared make good sense. In other words, I support this effort! :0)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  04:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I just remembered there was a discussion over at the Coordinators talk page where there was a brief talk about things to help new copy editors. Maybe some of the items there can be revisited? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Tag on talk pages
Hi there, can anyone please explain what this guild of copy editors tag is on Talk:Law_school_of_Beirut, and who might that editor be? thanks ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 16:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The template means that the article was copy edited by a member of the GOCE in 2013. It was placed in this edit. If you feel that the article needs to copy edited again, place copy edit at the top of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm resoponsible for 73% of the edits on that page, I started and almost single handedly drove it FA status, how is a stamp saying that one person form the GCE intervened relevant? ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 16:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The template is typically placed by copy editors after a requested copy edit, frequently as part of a GA or FA process. It can give talk page readers, or article reviewers, a sense of when the last time the prose was reviewed by the GOCE. You requested a copy edit of the page in 2013, so you no doubt saw the changes to the article when the copy edit was performed and saw the template placed on the talk page. It was a long time ago, so your questions are understandable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Batch of articles tagged for typos – please at least fix punctuation
I have just tagged a batch of 30 or 40 articles that were brought to my attention via WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report. The articles have typos of various sorts; many of them are marked as needing help with "spacing around punctuation". If you happen to come across one such article and deem it "not ready for copy editing" for whatever reason, it would be helpful if you could at least fix the punctuation problems listed in this version of the database report while removing the copy edit tag. The fix could include deletion of the material with typos in it, if you decide that is the best approach. Fixing or removing the text with punctuation spacing errors should prevent the article from appearing in next month's report, and takes a bit of load off of the Typo Team. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jonesey, I've been doing lots of triage this month. I earlier checked Policy debate, which is largely unreferenced so most of it isn't suitable for c/e. I've noticed specialized terms such as "intracollegiate" and "kiritks" are often picked up as typos—this is where close reading and a little research become useful. I was tempted to remove most of that article but as it's just been tagged as unreffed I've templated it with Cleanup; at least it gets a chance of being dealt with properly. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  06:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the Typo Team handles jargon, foreign words, and specialized terms by adding them to wiktionary or marking them with foreign language templates, so they can be left alone if they appear to be legitimate.
 * If you're interested in triaging this whole batch, you can go through my contributions from yesterday and look for "ce tag" edit summaries on pages in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again; I usually work from the monthly category page but I'll bear the contribs option in mind. These came to my attention because they appeared in the undated category but the bot should have fixed that by now. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  21:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again; I usually work from the monthly category page but I'll bear the contribs option in mind. These came to my attention because they appeared in the undated category but the bot should have fixed that by now. :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  21:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI
Regarding this request, and these edits, the coordinators here may be interested in this discussion about five faulty GA passes and the message from the GA Backlog coordinators. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, . I agree that there's cause for concern, and copyediting an article you're reviewing for GA is a slippery slope . The fact that they haven't responded to ' post on their TP isn't a good sign, and their oddly-stilted English makes me wonder about their competence in this. I'll leave it up to the current coords to decide what to do. Stay well and all the best,  Mini  apolis  13:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi both; yes the standard of the English the accepting editor left at the Requests page in response to my comments gave me pause so I checked the c/e last night. Apart from adding a load of waffle, there doesn't seem to be any alteration of facts, though I didn't realise the editor was reviewing at GAN. The requester (courtesy ping) has added extra text since these edits so I can't revert to the earlier version. Something to keep an eye on... Thanks for raising the issue Sandy, I will revert if I see any serious CIR and leave on note on the user's talk page later (unless someone beats me to it). Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  15:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't speak on the GA nominations. They've made relatively few changes so far, and some were helpful, while others I corrected. They certainly are a bit wordy in expressing themselves, where sometimes it's hard to understand their recommendations. Cake  (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

What about a Mentoring program?
Perhaps this comment belongs better under the "Guidance for new Guild members" subsection above but as that discussion seems to have grown cold, I'm starting another. So -- like the topic title implies -- what about a mentoring program for new (or scared) copyeditors? I've made just over 100 edits so I'm still a relative newbie, still a bit nervous about doing an unsatisfactory job or of getting bitten by sensitive authors. What I'd appreciate most is guidance from a more experienced editor who could suggest a good article to start with, look over my copyediting work & provide feedback so I can learn the Guild way of doing things & improve my skills. Thoughts? Redwidgeon (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest in copyediting. According to your talk page you've been around since 2014, so I don't consider you a newbie . WP is basically self-taught, and the GOCE is chronically short of active copyeditors. Have you read Basic copyediting and WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to? I've found that the best way to learn copyediting is by doing; it's not too late to sign up for the November drive and start working on a backlog article. When you have a bit of experience, the requests page can always use help. Stay well, have fun and all the best,  Mini  apolis  14:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You can also ask any of us to review c/e work you have done and give you pointers for future editing. I'm always up for that. Regards,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 15:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redwidgeon, the Guild used to have a mentoring program but it was ended due to lack of interest. You could start with some short-ish articles from the backlog. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, generous copyeditors! I will follow your advice, dip my toes in the water, & try some short(ish) articles from the backlog, will ask for review when done. Redwidgeon (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Outdated link on main page
I couldn't figure out how to fix this - the "Help improve our oldest backlogged articles" bullet under "How you can help" points to the category July 2020, which no longer exists. I assume it should point to August 2020 now. Wikignome Wintergreen talk 18:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! I have updated it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Help regarding a translated article
Hi, can anyone help to correct any errors in the article King Ludwig Oak, which I have translated from de:König-Ludwig-Eiche and nominated for WP:GAN. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬  15:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can tag it with copy edit. We'll get to it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Is there a waiting time? I am asking this because I have nominated the article for GA. I have tagged copy edit to the article. Thank you — Amkgp 💬  17:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , we've got a really huge backlog, so it could be months before someone takes a look at it. You might be able to get it looked at quicker if you put it on our Requests page, though (estimating off of recent activity) getting it looked at usually takes about three weeks after submission. There's a blitz coming up next week so it might get looked at sooner. If you do decide to submit it to Requests, please take off copy edit so it doesn't show up in two places (requests and backlog). — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK — Amkgp 💬  17:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Newsletter sending twice?
Not a big deal, but I received the December newsletter twice half a day apart. Did something happen to the mailing bot? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like some editors, but not all, received it twice. Based on the bot's contributions list, it looks like a hiccup. I'll undo the dual delivery. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I only got it once . Stay well and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Mentoring question again raised
@User:Paptilian, I myself performed a Copy edit excersice, from the article Copy editing. The edit exercise being journaled and Posted on the Talk:Copy editing page. Today, I placed your tag GoCE under the copy editing excersice which would not clear the right of tag allowing a mess. I know this is not on topic but I fixed it with 4 blank lines under the tag. Back on track, After doing my copy edit on my user page, I pasted it to the Talk page allowing someone who cares to edit the article. Perhaps, the pasted edit exercise, which will improve that article will also feed the need for mentoring. This I request, and the excercise will should qualify me to some degree for membership in the guild. I've been wiki since inception. Now I wish to make a (diff) no pun intended. Great job GoCE. Paptilian  (talk)  20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the content of your user and user talk pages, and on the prose above, I don't think copy editing is a good choice for you. I hope you find something useful to work on. I encourage you to look at Help:Getting started. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And based on their TP, I'm not sure we're not being trolled. That being said, tho, the irresistible lure of the largest WP is a two-edged sword . Stay well and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to the Guild of Copy Editors. There is no need to "qualify" for membership here; you can just start copy-editing articles and take part in our events—the December Blitz will be running next week. If English is not your main language, however, I strongly suggest you should edit the Wikipedia in your native language; there is a full list of Wikipedias here. Please note competence is required on all Wikipedias. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  23:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your kind responses. Well taken and reviewed, to use as my tutorials. Paptilian   (talk)  23:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To the Lead Coordinator.

in response to his assessment of me. Paptilian  (talk)  05:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , please don't post random material here. This page is for discussing GOCE-related matters. Further text dumps will be removed. If you wish to post random text, please use your own userspace, which you can access by clicking on your signature. Regards,  Baffle☿gab  04:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally understood. Thanks. Paptilian  (talk)  04:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Process of learning Bans now. Paptilian  (talk)  04:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can use your sandbox for practice edits and experimenting with code, layout, etc. Nobody wants to ban you but if you cannot contribute constructively to Wikipedia, you'll find yourself blocked. Thanks for cleaning up, by the way. Regards,  Baffle☿gab  05:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, also I cleaned up my intentions, I still want to edit wikipedia by the standards the GoCE instills and would like to become a member. Please consider vetting my Request for submission of a Draft of the Outline of Colorado, submitted to WikiProject: Colorado, as they have requested help on the Outline of Colorado. Many apologies for my lack of professionalism in the process. Paptilian  (talk)  17:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My Request officially stands at the Wikipedia Help Desk, Paptilian   (talk)  17:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Resulting in this page,User:Paptilian/Draft of the Outline of Colorado for the WikiProject: Colorado This issue is resolved. Thanks Paptilian   (talk)  19:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

{{od2} Outline of Colorado already exists; all you have to do is edit it. Your draft page is, frankly, poorly formatted and bizarre. Since Colorado seems to be your focus of interest, you may be able to get help from its WikiProject. Stay well and all the best,  Mini  apolis  00:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again ; firstly, the GOCE is not the place for submitting draft article; please click/tap "submit your draft for review" at the top of your draft page and a reviewer will decide whether to accept the page. Secondly; Wikipedia already has entries for Colorado and History of Colorado, so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here—you can edit and improve those pages directly. Thirdly; you draft is very far away from Wikipedia's standards for articles—I suggest you follow our tutorial on how to make a new page in the encyclopaedia. If there's anything you don't understand, the place to ask is the help desk. And finally, I agree with Jonesey95's assessment that you don't appear to have enough skill or experience on Wikipedia to be copy-editing articles on Wikipedia but there are plenty of other ways you can contribute. Why not start with some simple Wikignoming, which means making simple edits to articles—like fixing spelling errors? That's a great way to gain experience, help improve Wikipedia and learn about its culture. When you're more experienced, copy-editing will come more naturally to you. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  00:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Just wanted to wish everyone a good rest of the holidays here at the GOCE! 🎄🎁🎄 — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄'' Happy Holidays! ''⛄ 02:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you and have a great holiday! Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm new to copy editing on WP and I would like some feedback
Hello! I am new to this, and I want to get some feedback on my copy editing. I'm a native English speaker and I don't have prior experience with formalized copy editing - just in my own work. I edited the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivo_Andonov from the lead section through the section titled "Season 1". My edits were mostly for grammar, and I added one link and made a format change. I'm also new to Wikipedia and any feedback about etiquette and best practices is also welcome. TheMadDesperado (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty good (based on a quick look), and thanks for your help. WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to and Basic copyediting are useful resources. Just a couple of things: to avoid confusion I think the series should be primarily referred to consistently as Undercover (rather than by its Bulgarian name; this is the English Wikipedia) and, according to MOS:NICKNAME, nicknames should be in quotes instead of parentheses. Our January backlog-elimination drive starts soon; feel free to sign up! Happy New Year and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia TheMadDesperado. :0) You definitely improved the Ivo Andonov article with your copy edits. Btw, you not only improved grammar/usage, but also syntax and clarity of expression. // In my experience new editors who ask for feedback like you have done here, go on to become respected Wikipedians who substantially improve the encyclopedia. All the best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)