Misplaced Pages

That's the gist of my proposal. Note, the above tags and templates don't exist yet. They are proposals. --Otheus 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Response

• Approve. I think that, when this project started, the founders had no idea it would have the kind of response (and volume) that we've seen. An overhaul is due, and this sounds like a pretty user-friendly way to do it. Galena11 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Approve. I like the automatic update that moves articles to different categories as the template is updated, adds to todo lists and lets us break out articles we are working on. My only question is on the 'reject' aspect. shouldn't we really remove the 'loce' tag and add 'prod', 'AfD', 'note,' etc. as appropriate? I have been going through the baccklog from 2005 and have sent a few of those to AfD and removed/modified tags, changing to 'expand,' 'wikify,' 'cleanup,' as seemed appropriate. 'Copyedit,' 'cleanup,' and 'wikify' seem to be used rather interchangably by some users and much of the backlog might be cleared by determining what the article really needs but I don't feel right just removing the 'copyedit' tag without retagging appropriately.--killing sparrows 18:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You raise some very interesting questions. For the overlapping "copyedit"/"cleanup"/"wikify" tags, I propose an iterative approach -- ie, let's make our process better, and later on, try to extend that approach to the other tags. The cleanup project has a methodology, but I don't like it, because it involves more work than this ours did. As to adding "prof"/"AfD" as appropriate -- sure, but I would keep the loce/reject tag there in case, for instance, AfD fails, and eventually the article is expanded and re-requests copyedit. The loce tag will show that it's older than the newer copyedit request. --Otheus 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now: I like this idea, and we do need an overhaul, but I see a few shortcomings that I'm not sure how we'd get around with using categories instead of lists:
  1. Unless we create a subcategory of each category for every month, which is likely overkill, but I don't know, going to categories will seriously mess up the statistic keeping. We won't have any way to see how many articles were proofread/copyedited each month, and we won't be able to keep Template:Copyedit progress uptodate unless either every completed item was immediately kept track of in the template (which is counterproductive to this proposal), or someone would have to go through the history of each item in the categories to determine when they were added (very counterproductive). I obviously can only speak for myself, but I think that having a place to reflect on how much the project has done is a good thing.
     • Mrm, I don't see that. Once you add the loce tag, it places the article in a more-or-less permanent category AND one by month. Unless someone deliberately changes the loce tags on the talk pages, ... might have to work out what happens with archiving. --Otheus 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
       • If we do create a subcategory per month for every category, then we won't have a problem with this; however, it will create a lot of categories (which will increase each month by n, the number of main categories we have), which won't necessarily even be current -- for example, consider an article is copyedited in April 2007, and then further edited and in need of copyedit again in July 2007. Which category does it end up in? April 2007? July 2007? Both? We don't want to create a mess of tags on the article's talk page either, remember. —Daniel Vandersluis 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. With categories, we will no longer be able to effectively coordinate a group copyedit (ie. person 1 edits to X, person 2 edits to Y) which will either cause one person to have to deal with the article themselves, or overlap. We could always maintain lists for these articles, though.
  3. The FAC/FAR requests, requests for assistance, and work in progress lists cannot be replaced by categories, as they have attached comments/dates etc.
     • FAC/FAR, requests for assistance. True enough -- at least, better to have a page that shows up in the watchlist
     • Work-in-progress: what's the purpose of having this show up on a project page?
     • --Otheus 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
       • The point of having this on the project page is so that coordination between multiple editors can be arranged (Editor 1 edits article up to section X, and marks down that they've done such. Then Editor 2 can pick up at that point and report on their progress if they don't finish the the article). —Daniel Vandersluis 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  One other side note, as the templates go on the Talk pages of articles, the categories would be populated with talk pages rather than the articles themselves (probably nitpicking).

  In short, I think we're on the right track, but there are a lot of things that still need to be worked out before this is ready to replace the current method. —Daniel Vandersluis 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Finished copyedit

I recently did a major rewrite and copyedit of Sofia Kovalevskaya and posted the 'was recently done...' template on the talk page of the article. Does it automatically get put on the proofread list? --killing sparrows 07:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you have to manually add it to the appropriate list. If you were the initial copy-editor, then add the article to the bottom of the Read for final proofread list (you may want to put some comments too, but this is not required). If the article was previously copyedited, and you proofread it, move the article from the Ready for final proofread list to the bottom of Proofread complete; instructions can be found at the top of that section. In any event, don't forget to sign the entry into either list. —Daniel Vandersluis 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And, in point-of-fact, that's the process I'm trying to streamline in my proposal. --Otheus 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To-do template

Is it possible for someone to make a "to-do" template of a small box with a un-copyedited article that is different from user to user, so that we have a list on our userpages of what to do next?

The Song Dynasty of China

Hello. I have recently put a lot of work into the Chinese Song Dynasty (960-1279 AD) article, and it looks very proficient and much more professional with the edits, additional information, and structural changes I have made. I have even nominated it for FA status.

However, as user:tony1 has pointed out, it still needs some tweaking and editing with some of the wording. I was wondering if you, the distinguished copyeditors (if time allows in your busy schedule), could have a look and apply those excellent editing skills. Honestly, it would be an enormous help. Thank you. --PericlesofAthens 00:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Swimming pool

Greetings, League of Copyeditors! I wasn't sure exactly where to go with this concern, and this seems like one of the appropriate places. It would seem that recently, several articles have been split off from Swimming pool: Swimming pool sanitation, Construction methods for private pools, Infinity pool. The main article seems to have been growing from IP contributions, so I ran a couple fragments of sentences through google. Despite my efforts, I couldn't find any evidence of web-based copyvio. The articles are essentially OK, except for a bit of POV, how-to creep, and all that unwikified text. I just wondered if there was a better place to post this concern. Those articles seem to contain a lot of unnecessary information. Point me in the right direction! Thanks, --Rkitko 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

dash q.

Copyeditors: what is the best way to "style" a phrase like this:

…except for a 5 mile (8 km) stretch…

Is it fine like that? I don't think so. But there are so many other options:

…except for a 5-mile (8 km) stretch…
…except for a 5-mile (8-km) stretch…
…except for a five-mile (8 km) stretch…

etc.–Outriggr § 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

…except for a stretch of 5 miles (8 km)…

(imo, but the rest of the sentence is relevant) — Demong _talk 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) says that one shouldn't hyphenate with SI unit abbreviations. Thus, both "a 5-mile stretch" and "an 8-kilometer stretch" would be OK, but not "an 8-km stretch."—PaulTanenbaum 04:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. says in section 7.90 that numbers followed by an abbreviation should never be dashed, while number followed by a noun (e.g., kilometer, mile, etc.) would be hyphenated. This is consistent with NIST, just like PaulTanenbaum mentions above. --mariusstrom 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A copy editor's wet dream

Here is an article that several of you may want to work on together:

• Lunar New Year cross-strait charter

It is half-translated from its Chinese Misplaced Pages equivalent so far, but the 25 kb or so that is already done is in terrible shape. Good luck! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

cleanup vs copyedit

Hi! Question. I've taken a stab here and there at copyediting articles that are categorized as needed it, but have found it very difficult on a lot of them, due most frequently to lack of references, among other things. The page that lists articles needing a copyedit notes that "a request for copyedit is most effective when the article is more-or-less complete, and fully cited". Is it appropriate to change the {{copyedit}} flag to {{cleanup}} and/or {{references}} in the case of a largely-unfinished article? — Demong _talk 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also been frustrated by a large amount of articles marked needed Copyedit that are not ready for Copyedit. I would suggest that the copy edit tag is removed, and replaced with something else as necessary. Copy edit should generally be the last thing done to a section, after the info is there. (This is harder when things can be changing constantly, but the info NEEDS to be complete before a copy edit can be useful) Rawgreenbean 17:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit on Deathstalker (novel)

Hi all - I'm currently undertaking a copyedit of the above article. It's not my first ce, but is my first under the aegis of the LoCE, so if anyone wants to drop in and offer help and/or advice, you'd be most welcome ;) EyeSerene 08:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar check... Is 'hunting weapon' standard English?

Two editors disagree over on the Hunting weapon page. I see that the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'weapon' with a meaning as having context of warfare or combat. A full text search of the OED does not find any usage of the term "hunting weapon". Therefore I believe that per standard English a person does not go hunting with a weapon. Because of this I favor changing the article title to be Hunting firearm to conform with standard English. I will refrain from restating the other editor's opinion. There has also been some discussion of this issue over on the Talk:Weapon#Disputed_definition page. Though, I wonder if someone might take a look at Hunting weapon and offer a third opinion on this question. SaltyBoatr 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

General "Thank You" to everyone

When I founded the LoC, I had very little hope that I could drum up enough people to really put a dent in the enormous amount of work that needed to be done. Yet almost immediately, editors started to throw themselves into the task in a way I found almost awe-inspiring. Being an airline pilot, it's not always easy for me to consistently be available online. And after an extended period of being away I came back to check on how the LoC was doing. I admit that I was expecting it to have fallen apart during the time I was away. Instead I see that it has surpassed my wildest expectations. Amazing work people, you have made my day. Trusilver 18:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And now, to keep everyone from getting too complacent seeing that the mind-boggling list of articles needing copyediting has been reduced down to one page... I'm going to start working at locating articles that are in need of copyediting and throwing them onto the stack, that seems to be where the most work is currently needed. Trusilver 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

LoCE Template

I noticed after proofreading an article recently that the LoCE template does not recognise signatures that include anything other than the basic default - I had to delete part of my sig to get it to display in the template. Is this intentional? EyeSerene 12:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone read this page? EyeSerene 11:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I read this page sometimes and a query of mine has been dealt with promptly in the past. I don't know enough to help with yours I'm afraid. Mehmet Karatay 12:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob - thanks for the response! I was starting to suspect this project was fading out ;) EyeSerene 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Proof read request

I've just finished my second major copy-edit. I found the Freedom of the press in Italy a challenge. Could someone please proof read it for me to make sure it is okay. Also if you have any feedback on how I can improve my copy-edits could you please leave it on my talkpage? Is this the correct place to ask for a proof read? Thank you Mehmet Karatay 21:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha

Galena11 was doing a wonderful job on copyediting of Ganesha but she not been active since May. I hope all is well with her. If she is inactive, is there some process for getting another member of the League working with us on that article? She was doing such a great job I am very disappointed that she has not been active, and thus am a bit concerned about her. I am unsure on process for handling this project now, so please advise. Buddhipriya 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Language movement: EMERGENCY! HELP!! HELP!!!

The article Language movement has gone to it's FAC quite some time back. The principal obstacle in it's way of graduation is the copy. I myself am a bad copywriter, and none of the other editors working on the article are very good copyeditors either. Besides, two of the key editors interested in the article have somewhat gone out of business, and the copyeditors I have worked with before seem to be busy elsewhere. Please, lend a hand. It's an emergency. If copyedit is not done fast, it might fail the FAC. Aditya Kabir 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it today. However, ideally it would have been best to have copyedited it BEFORE it was submitted to FAC. Trusilver 21:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Help requested

I requesdt your help with the Touch the Clouds-article; who can help me with it? -The Bold Guy- 10:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the tag on its talk page, this article was copyedited in May and proofread in June - can you be more specific about what you need help with? EyeSerene 11:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

With it's tone; it isn't very neutral in tone, don't you agree? That makes it less nice to read it. It is a bit pro-indian, I think, but since I'm no nativr speaker of English myself, I might find it more suited for someone with more knowledge of the English language to change the articles tone, okay? Can you change the tone for me, and alos check some remaining grammatical errors? It would be much appreciated. -The Bold Guy- 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. I'll have a proper look at it later today. EyeSerene 13:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Department of Style

Hello, AnonEmouse just referred me here after I made a comment on a beleagured FAC. Misplaced Pages is factional enough without me stirring it, but my observation was that we have editors who bring articles to FAC who are good at writing, who are then pulled apart at FAC for stylistic reasons. No spaces after punctuation and before citations, the use of endashes for dates etc. It strikes me that as a collaborative effort, perhaps the people who care about style to that degree, might set up a department where budding FAC'er can take their articles to have all the stylistic creases ironed out. Less conflict at FAC, more collaboration between disparate editors - wikilove all round. How about it? --Joopercoopers 12:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• It would undoubtably be useful for many editors, and it's something I might be interested in participating in. The only problem is that users should really be taught to fix stylistic problems themselves rather than getting other people to do it. Fixing stylistic problems is something that anyone can quickly learn to do, unlike the writing of good prose. Epbr123 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with the implied distinction between "stylistic" problems and "prose". Some issues are easier; some more difficult. Either way, standards of prose will always be the subject of tension in WP, because most people who have good things to contribute can't write to the "professional" standard required of FAs. So be it. Expect continual struggles in the FAC room. My wish is just that people would think twice about nominating—it's an avalanche. Tony 02:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony I agree with what you have to say about prose - but there is a distinction between well written prose and the particular way articles are expected to be formatted these days. Whilst I agree that every encouragement should be given to editors to equip themselves with the knowhow to write in this manner, I disagree that it's either easily or quickly taught. Additionally there are many aspects which are not written policy but are the defacto norm at FAC and are enforced as such. My understanding is the league of copyeditors is generally here to deal with prose issues and doubtless help enormously with that. Those of us, myself included, who would rather spend time writing articles rather than keeping abreast of the particular stylistic vogues, would be enormously grateful for a department specifically dealing with formatting issues. Or at least a help desk. Your 'thinking twice' before nominating would surely benefit from a specialist 'type setter'? --Joopercoopers 18:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On another note could someone tell me what the current thinking is regarding in-line citations in the lead? I remember a discussion where somemone argued that as the Lead is a summary of the article and so summarises referenced facts from the body of the article; that referencing wasn't required in the lead - personally I like this approach as it means that the summary style of the lead is visually unincumbered with citation links. WP:LEAD, WP:V, WP:ATT and WP:RS provide no guidance. BTW - I've been on wikibreak for a bit - does ATT now supercede V and RS or are they now all applicable? --Joopercoopers 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the matter and good examples either way. I just now wrote a new section WP:LEAD#Citations about this; comments welcome. Eubulides 17:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename "proofreading" page to "requests"

I would like to suggest that we rename the "proofreading" page to "requests", because it is about copy-editing requests in general, not only proofreading. It includes proofreading of articles that have been copy-edited and articles that require very little editing, but also requests for major copy-editing of specific pages. -Pgan002 22:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, no problem with that here. Trusilver 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Move content from "Useful links" to the other sections

The "Useful links" section is a mix and rehash of other things in the page -- it contains a howto link and three "tasks" links. So, I suggest that we rename the "How to use templates for copy-editing" section to "How to copy-edit", and move there the "How to copyedit" link from the "Useful links" section. Also, move the other links to the "Tasks" section. After a slight re-ordering, we would have:

1. How to request a copy-edit
2. How to join and current members
3. Tasks
4. How to copy-edit
   1. Before copy-editing an article
   2. After copy-editing an article
   3. After proofreading a copy-edited article
5. Progress

Comments? -Pgan002 09:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New(ish) editor wishing to join

Hi! I am quite interested in joining your league (I love Leagues of stuff :D) and have an enthusiasm for nitpicking at other people's writing and getting everything 'just so'. I am a fairly new editor here, so I would appreciate any advice or criticism people can offer. I have recently copy-edited on these pages: Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, The Class (Erich Segal novel) and Commonwealth Saga (not finished yet). I have done other bits of tidying up here and there, but those are the first full pages I have worked on. Anyway I'll go and add my name to that there list and start familiarising myself with the other pages --carelesshx _talk 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Advice on Picking what to Copy-Edit

Do people find themselves more successful when they're copy-editing articles that they have familiarity with, or something somewhat unknown? I've got mixed opinions on this: working on an unknown subject lets me focus more on the copy-editing and less on the fact checking, and lets me learn something; however, working on a known/familiar subject lets me copy-edit and look at the facts, which may distract me from the copy-editing process. The how-to page for copy-editing says that fact checking isn't necessarily involved in copy-editing on Misplaced Pages. What are your thoughts on this? --mariusstrom 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind copyediting articles I know little or nothing about, but even then (maybe especially then) I always find it difficult to avoid fact-checking and trying to find sources when a sentence so obviously needs that. It does prolong the copyedit though - ideally I'd expect the article's regular editors to supply missing sources/clarifications etc on the talk page, whilst I concentrate on the prose and MoS compliance. Personally I found out the hard way that the most useful guidance is to check for potential edit-warring before taking on an article - I walked smack into the middle of one of WP's most awesome recent edit wars (see the talk page on Sino-Indian War; it even made the news!). Lesson learned ;) EyeSerene 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that brings about an interesting point. If you're familiar with something, you may not think it needs a reference, whereas if you're doing an unfamiliar review, you'll probably more accurately point out things that need citations. That's probably something to keep in mind. Thanks! --mariusstrom 19:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point you've raised though - I suppose it's a question of what is/is not a copyedit (at least under the LoCE banner). Consensus here seems to be that ideally a copyedit should put the final polish on an article after it has been taken as far as it can by its editors, but in practice I'd bet most copyeditors end up doing much more than that ;) EyeSerene 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer editing topics I don't know much about, for all the same reasons above. It does bring its own problems though. Sometimes a change in wording or sentence structure can introduce factual errors - this is less likely to happen if you know the subject you are editing. There are often cases where information is unclear or missing entirely; if you know the subject you can easily add that information or reword it, but as an outsider you can't. The level of fact-checking and so that I do depends on where I found the page. If it's from the LoCE page then I don't do fact-check and I don't add {{ref}} tags because that's all supposed to be done before it gets here. If I'm just working from the backlog, though, I'll do a bit of fact-checking as well. --carelesshx _talk 12:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

Nice work Cronholm! SVG too... EyeSerene 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1. x