Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2024

Archiving bot
Hi coords, it looks like there's a problem with the archiving bot, which hasn't archived completed requests since 10 January. I'm not sure what's causing this so I've been tidying up unusual bits of code like asterisk bullets, poor threading, etc but that doesn't seem to have worked. I've also gone through the 2023 archive page to check there, fixed an unusual 'and' but didn't find any other oddities. Perhaps the bot needs a holiday... I'll see what happens next before I bother the bot-runner. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  01:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just removed another two asterisks. Life is fun. :)  Baffle☿gab  02:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing, Baffle, and hasn't edited on enwp since October 2021. It was nice while it lasted . All the best,  Mini  apolis  15:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And the designated contact (courtesy ping) hasn't edited here since October 2023. There's nothing on the bot's talk to indicate it's been deactivated though... let's see if it archives my latest one. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  03:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get Zhuyifei1999 to take a look. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Root cause was an automatic pywikibot upgrade pulled in T340640 fix, which added https://pypi.org/project/packaging/ as a mandatory dependency of pywikibot, but I did not have that installed. Anyways, feel free to shoot me an email if I don't see your ping. I rarely log on nowadays. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you both, that's great, the bot really saves us lots of chores. I'd rather be copy-editing than archiving requests! :) Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  11:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all!  Mini  apolis  16:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Tomás Palacios on hold
Hi all; I've placed the request for the above draft on hold; it hasn't yet been accepted into the mainspace. I suggest we decline this for now; (courtesy ping) is welcome to re-submit the request once it's been accepted. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  17:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Baffle☿gab Thank you PreethaK2023 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, Baffle. Thanks and all the best,  Mini  apolis  02:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Tomás Palacios
CC-BY-SA declaration; this section was copied from the Requests page here by me; see that page's history for full attribution.  Baffle☿gab  05:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Guild of copy editors, Could I please have help to edit this draft to be ready to publish on Wikipedia? Thank you!! Leave the tildes in place so that your signature is appended to the request. PreethaK2023 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Working Nsbfrank (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Partly done Nsbfrank (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

per GOCE guidelines;, please wait until this article has been accepted into the mainspace before requesting a full c/e. Discuss at REQ talk.  Baffle☿gab  17:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm working on this article for one year. Is there anyone at Wikipedia team, who could help me to move this article to mainspace? I would appreciate the help. PreethaK2023 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, there is guidance on the draft's talk page here. Basically, you need to show the subject in notable and warrants an article. You can do this by showing significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  17:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * per talk page discussion; discuss there.  Baffle☿gab  05:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Excess request removed
I've removed a third request here and have informed the requester on their talk here. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  04:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Military History of Canada – too long?
As you noted on your request, Military History of Canada is rather lengthy, perhaps too long for a copyedit, GAN or FAC. It's 20k words, and Article size states that articles of 9k words should probably be shortened and articles of 15k words should almost certainly be shortened. The equivalent US article is about 9k words, which is achieved as almost all sections have main articles, allowing the sections to be kept to summaries of 1–3 paragraphs in most cases. Can something like that be done here? – Reidgreg (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There has been a paring down/trimming down effort on most of the sections already. That said, I've actually been debating splitting the article into two for a while now in my head (was sort of just trying to figure at where). I can withdraw the request if that is what the people here would like. Leventio (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . It would make more sense (and be easier on us) to copyedit both articles after the split. As it is, it probably wouldn't be promoted to GA because of its length and it took a long time to load in my browser. All the best,  Mini  apolis  15:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you don't take the summary route (like the US article) I suppose the natural place for a split would be at Confederation (1867), since Canada didn't exist as a country before then. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

V. Nagaraj
CC-BY-SA declaration; I copied text in this section from the Requests page here. See that page's history for full attribution.  Baffle☿gab  17:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

V. Nagaraj
Some parts of the Career section make no sense. DareshMohan (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , copy-editing isn't WP:CLEANUP and copy-editors we shouldn't have to fix up messes made by past incompetent editors. This article has serious BLP violations, which I've noted with a template –&#32;BLPs must be properly referenced. That section is on notice; I suggest either properly referencing the article or removing the uncited text and stubifying the rest. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  01:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed the unsourced content. Can the request be removed too? DareshMohan (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for that, yes, just put Withdrawn below my post and the bot will remove it in 24 hours or so, and I'll archive this section a bit later. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  16:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * DareshMohan (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Alpine ibex
CC-BY-SA declaration; I copied text in this section from the Requests page here. See that page's history for full attribution.  Baffle☿gab  06:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Alpine ibex
For a future FAC. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The future is apparently here; I'm reviewing the FAC now. I'm struggling with "Both male and female Alpine ibexes have large, backwards-curving horns with numerous transverse ridges along their length. At 69–98 cm (27–39 in), those of the males are substantially longer than those of females, which reach only 18–35 cm (7.1–13.8 in) in length.[3]" In my mind, it's not clear what "which reach only 18-35 cm" refers to. .It looks like it refers to "females", but obviously that's silly and it must refer to "those (i.e. the horns) of females".  Am I just being overly pedantic, or does this need to be rephrased?  RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, this content matter should really be discussed with the requester, at the FAC review or at the article's talk page. FWIW, I agree that passage should be rephrased to clarify what the measurements refer to; suggest replacing "those of females" with "horns of females" (or whatever "those" refers to) or similar construction. If you want to discuss the request or the copy-edit, you can use REQ talk. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  20:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My bad for posting in the wrong place. RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Baffle☿gab  23:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅  Baffle☿gab  06:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wizards of the Coast
this article isnt necessarily *hard* its moreso i've struggled with knowing what to chop (history section). ive asked in the talk page 4 a bit and i havent gotten anything, dk if anyone here has any ideas. >:3 -Astral  ~(he/him/his)  12:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your enthusiasm, . Since you seem to be a new copyeditor, however, this article (a good article) may not be the right fit for you at this time. Copyediting is a specialized skill, and IMO going off into the weeds of content is a HTH. Please see WP:CE, and WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to has a bunch of useful links. All the best,  Mini  apolis  14:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ive worked a slight bit on it, but yeah it might not be the best fit. all it really is a weeding fest. tysm for the links, ill see what i can try to with what you've provided, but i might need some other help. tysm >:3 -Astral  ~(he/him/his)  15:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Re 2022 Optus data breach
Hi, I listed 2022 Optus data breach in January this year for copyediting, as I wish to submit it for WP:FAC. | accepted the article, but | marked it as done three hours later, with no edits being made to the article. I still wish for the article to be copyedited ASAP for FAC, would I be allowed to reinsert it in the January 2024 section, or in May? It would be annoying to have to wait a while longer for it to be copyedited. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the edit where it was marked as done. Upon scanning the article, I saw no obvious mistakes. It's possible that an article, especially one that already has good article status, doesn't need further copy editing, although notice to that effect would be helpful, if none was given. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * non-coordinator comment I would expect at least some copy-edits to have taken place during a c/e... perhaps could comment here; judging by this recent edit summary, they may be under some real-life stress right now. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  19:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mox Eden made some copy-edits there, which are here. Since I noticed several errors (post-quotation punctuation, unnecessary "that"s, etc.), I'll support this being relisted in the Jan section with a Partly done.  Baffle☿gab  20:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and relisted the article as suggested. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for relisting it. As to how I missed the edits Mox Eden made, I don't know, but they were very much tinkering around the edges anyway. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Credit card debt
The tags here suggest research is needed rather than copy editing, so I'd suggest this is taken out of the queue. I've suggested peer review to @GolsaGolsa on the project page. Jim Killock (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * GolsaGolsa is a fairly new editor who hasn't edited since 13 March this year. It's a short article so I'll take the request. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  20:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair! Maybe he can take the article to peer review after for wider feedback. Jim Killock (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * PR would be one route to improving the article but this seems to have been a drive-by request; GolsaGolsa has made only one edit to the article. Anyway, the c/e is done and I've no intention of dealing with the multitude of woes in the article. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  22:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Two requests removed
I've just removed two excess requests from one editor here (diff). The requester already has two extant requests on the page. I've notified them on their talk page here (permalink). Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  23:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Jai Bhim (film)
The plot section lacks citations, so I've suggested the requester adds them before a copy edit. Altho perhaps plot summaries don't require this. Jim Killock (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, pure plot summaries of what we see and hear in the film, like "Dave goes into the woods and is followed by an axe murderer; thirty second later, Dave screams.", usually don't need citations per MOS:PLOTSOURCE; the film itself is regarded as a primary source. If the plot section contains any analysis, opinions or commentary, such as "Dave doesn't hear the axe murderer because he foolishly has chewing gum in his ears", that would need a citation. I usually either mark any commentary with cn, move it to another section or remove it per WP:OR. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  20:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

First pass copy edits
Hi there, I was asked why I wasn't "completing" copy edits and it was suggested I should "finish" these, so I thought it would be helpful to leave a note about this. I have worked as an editor and done editing plenty of times but I don't feel that I am familiar enough with WP's style and requirements to do a full copy edit without a check. Moreover, a double pass probably makes for a better copyedit. If it isn't helpful for me to work this way though please do say. Jim Killock (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some background, and the requests page is getting longer. All the best,  Mini  apolis  13:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My hope is to be as helpful as I feel able. I'm in the queue for requests myself, so I understand the desire to clear the queue, but I don't feel it's a good idea for me to mark what I've done as "complete" as it may be doing requesters a disservice. Jim Killock (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your copy-editing work Jim, it is appreciated. A well-done first-pass c/e does make the job easier for the second editor, and I'd rather see a partly done template on an incomplete c/e than have to unarchive and relist requests that need more work after complaints from unhappy requesters, which has happened in the past. That said, working on short articles may help increase your confidence and knowledge of Wikipedia editing; also, while we allow some commentary at the Requests page that may help other editors, extensive discussions should be brought here (I know I'm guilty of that too!). Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For a while, I made a first pass at many of the requests, tidying up MOS-related errors and fixing citation problems so that the eventual copy editor would have an easier time focusing on the prose. I never bothered with a "partly done" template, though, since it creates traffic on the requests page without clearing any requests. I satisfied myself with knowing that I had made small improvements to Wikipedia. I second the recommendation to work on articles from the backlog in order to gain familiarity with Wikipedia's house style(s). Also,, if you are interested in seeing what changes are made during a "second pass", you can add pages to your watchlist. All good copy edits are valuable! – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I've been doing :) Seeing what I am missing is definitely very helpful. I've used the "partly done" template because I've usually made pretty large changes to the articles and wanted to signal that the job should be lighter for someone picking it up, eg Charlemagne is a pretty hefty article but should now be a bit easier to finish. There is some self interest in helping in this queue, I plan to put a few articles forward to GA and FA, so I felt it would help to keep the queue moving (even tho it of course distracts from my other tasks regarding those articles). A bit of give back, if you like. Jim Killock (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Stadio Olimpico
CC-BY-SA declaration; this section was copied from the Requests page here by me; see that page's history for full attribution.  Baffle☿gab  02:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Stadio Olimpico
I am a Wikipedian from Italy, I rewrote the article, but almost surely it needs to be checked by someone who speaks English as native, thanks! --  Blackcat  Ar Icon Contact.svg 19:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 10:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've copyedited up to the end of the '1960 Olympics' section, but I am expecting to be busy next week and be without access to the Internet the next, so I find it unlikely that I will finish this within a reasonable timeframe. I'm leaving this to another copyeditor who can finish this ASAP. JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Did a little bit more copy editing early on. The Stadio dei Centomila section in particular seems to give two different explanations of where the ownership went to: first it says it went to the Italian National Olympics Committee, then it says to Commissariato della Gioventù Italiana (Commission for the Italian Youth) Mrfoogles (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Mini  apolis  15:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅  Mini  apolis  17:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)