Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2013

Panteón Hill
I just finished Panteón Hill. I did this article as a learning experience. Am I correct to remove dead inline citations (in Spanish)? If so, should I change the class to stub? --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Citations in other languages are not the top option, but they are valid. Just add the parameter   to them. —Torchiest talkedits 13:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will do that, but was I right to remove the dead ones? I think so, but I have never done that before.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops, somehow I missed that aspect of the question. Normally I would tag them with dead link first and see if someone else might be able to find updated links or alternate sources. —Torchiest talkedits 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good plan to me, and I will do it that way in the future.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Request
I finished Now Where Did the 7th Company Get to? and removed the copyedit template and what-not, but I'd appreciate it if someone looked it over to see if I did a good enough job. :) Also, how do you get the word count so I can add it in? The numbers next to your edit history is a byte count or character count, is it not? JaykeBird (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I figured out how to do worst count. JaykeBird (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is an automated word counting script available at User:Dr pda/prosesize. Did you find it?--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the Now Where Did the 7th Company Get to? needs more work. The plot summary is still too long, and still has grammar mistakes. I fixed a few things, but I realized more work is needed. You should get credit on the drive, but with more effort. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Avegno v. Schmidt
The section of Avegno v. Schmidt marked for copy edit is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, and is in 1885 stilted and legalese English. I think it should be left as-is. What do other editors think? I have tagged the section with [sic] .--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like a quotation, but it is not formatted or marked as such. I think a more concise excerpt, perhaps with some summary text introducing the section or individual quotations, would be more appropriate for WP. There is a link to the full ruling at the bottom of the page if people want to read the full original. There is no need to have it here as well. Jonesey95 (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013 Backlog Drive
Hello,

I officially signed up for the backlog elimination drive after making several copy edits. Can someone please add those to the list as well? Let me know what can be done. --JustBerry (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to our group. You add your entries to your list of articles yourself. Just click the edit button next to your name. You can edit other folks to gain insight about the format. Lfstevens (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have saved my article name; will the statistics automatically update themselves? --JustBerry (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they don't; you need to add the article stats yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, and I need to clarify: what do "total words" and "rollover words" mean? I am a little unclear on the number system. --JustBerry (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The 1984 Summer Olympics boycott article had 985 words on 1 July 2013 before you did your copyediting, and it still has 985 words now, according to the "page size" tool. Therefore your entry here should show (985) following the article name. The "total words" are the total of the article words (without bonuses) in this drive. If you do another article, you add it to 985 and it becomes the total words. You were not in the GOCE May drive, and therefore have no rollover words. The boycott article should have a template on its talk page. I hope this reply is clear to you. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For the future, where is the page size tool? I have not used it before, hence am not aware of where it is. --JustBerry (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read the Instructions for Participants on the Drive page.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks; little hard to navigate around here. --JustBerry (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

✅

instructions for signup
I just signed up, the second person to do so. But it seems plain to me that the first one misunderstood the directions, so I left a blank line above my 3 ¢ ~. In an article I'd've WP:BOLDly fixed the misformatting, but this is different. So, someone already in the Guild, please check that out & fix if necessary. --Thnidu (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

✅--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2008/August
The Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2008/August appears in the copyedit list, but probably should not. Someone should resolve the situation. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. —Torchiest talkedits 02:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit for bare URLS?
Is a tag a valid use of this tag? I removed this tag (without credit) and added the linkrot tag instead. Another editor removed this tag and put back the copyedit tag. This affects our already sad statistics. I do not welcome an edit war, so I seek advice or help from the Guild. The article and the newbie editor are easily found from my contributions.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're right on the principle, but couldn't you provide a link to the article, please? I can't find it in your contributions. --Stfg (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll try to run webreflinks on it. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. —Tourchiest talkedits 05:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My arthmetic was wrong
My arthmetic was wrong, and I changed my total to 28,774. If this is not permitted, I will gladly accept my old total of 28,506. Sorry.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I run a script that adds up the individual article totals, so it will get the right number either way. —Torchiest talkedits 01:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, an excellent technique. Perhaps a variation could be provided to GOCE members to do totals as we go along.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Update
I forgot to update my section yesterday. So I updated that today. Will that create any problem?-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 08:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. Even if you hadn't added the total at all, the script I run to calculate everything would have been able to get it from your individual line entry. —Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 12:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Pr at yya   (Hello!) 14:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)