Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors

message: Hello all!  My name is Razorflame and I love copyediting.  In fact, that is one of the things that I am best at.  I hope that I can help you out with the copyediting that you are requiring so if you need a copyedit, please let me know on my talk page.  Cheers, Razorflame 19:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome! We hope you can always help out here, especially with our massive backlog. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 04:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Member 

message: Are there any members of this project actually willing to do some copyediting, on request? If so, please let me know on my talk page. - auburnpilot talk 15:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm always willing to help with the copyediting, but am seriously hitting the Wikiwall this month and am not copyediting the way I used to, so I'm a bit inactive right now. Where is everyone? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally take on copyedits by personal request, although with other commitments (WP and RL) one a week is about as much as I can manage. Mizu, if you need to borrow a crash-helmet, I've got a spare ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take on any copyedit request on-demand, all you need to do is let me know on my talk page, and I will copyedit it as soon as I possibly can.  Cheers, Razorflame 15:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It too late to borrow that crash-helmet, Serene? ;) I sure could use it. Also, no one's getting to my (self-posted) request for Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film) because there's a huge backlog here, and I can't find anyone who's available at the time to do it. I posted the request despite being a member of the league because my fellow editors needed it copyedited, and I'm so bonked I don't really have the energy to do it myself. D; Razorflame, are you available for a good copyedit? Anyone? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive? 

message: I was wondering about doing some proof reading (I notice that some of the proofreading requests date back over 6 months). Should proofreaders be on the members list the same as copyeditors? I'll probably do some copyediting too, if/when I clear the proofreading backlog, so I guess I can just put my name on the list whatever. Also, with the significant proofreading backlog, I'm guessing there will likely be a lot of changes since the copyedit was performed, so proofreading those articles could entail a partial copyedit too. Ah well, best get started... Adacore (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, come in, do sign on the dotted line: we're glad to see you! Don't worry about the administration, just get stuck in! You're quite right, the backlog is terrifying, which means there is a fair amount of copyediting as well as proofreading to be done.  Proofreading is just the same as copyediting anyway, except with the expectation of not finding as many things wrong.  If you've got any questions or need a hand, just drop a line here or on an active member's talkpage: we're all happy to help.  Have fun! Happy‑melon 15:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who closes a request, by the way, after it is proofread? Normally I'd say that we should leave them for further proofreading, but given the size of the backlog I think we may have to resort to slightly less rigorous methodology and just close as soon as proofreading is completed. Adacore (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We generally work on the basis of two people seeing the article in total: the copyeditor and the proofreader.  So once the proofreading is done, go ahead and archive. Happy‑melon 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proofreading 

message: Are these parts still active? Is it me, or we need to start fresh? This project seems like it's crumbling into pieces. After a discussion between me and , a suggestion was raised to MFD it. I personally think this should be MFD, as not much progress (despite the hard work of a small group of editors) is being made. I think it would be in the best interests to close LOCE as progress isn't being made as a whole. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would  not be sufficient?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. I say that because there are a lot of subpages, a ton of articles requested dating back 14 months ago are listed here. The pages would require serious cleanup. Also see here. In all, it would take a lot of work to cleanup, hence why I think MFD is the best option, like what happened with WP:CSN. D.M.N. (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Sam's point regarding historical is because if it were MFDed, there'd be no where to pull these old requests from. xenocidic (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it becomes historical, surely the Requests won't have to be pulled anyway? Also, MFD would bring a firm consensus on whether it would go. Like I said earlier, do what the CSN noticeboard did. D.M.N. (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. xenocidic (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold. Please comment at the MFD link. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm still here. It looks as if I have a new mission on my hands...  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  11:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still here too.  Any way new prospective LOCE (ex) copy-editors can get involved?  Maybe chipping away at that old list?  Looking through some of the bits and pieces, it seems like it would have been useful to have true requests separated from those articles tagged by other editors as needing work.  At least that way, those who were waiting for help might have gotten a faster response! MeegsC | Talk 20:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. I propose we do so. We can at least finish our work (or try to); who else would like to join us? --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So where do we start?  The earliest, or the latest?  The ones where editors actually approached the LoCE, or all of them? MeegsC | Talk 10:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should work to clear the backlog first, starting with the earliest tagged articles. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I did send it to MFD, I do agree with the comments above. Looking at the earliest one, this appears to be the state of play:
Article           	Date of LOCE Request	Status when requested	Current status
Backgammon        	April 19, 2007      	GA                   	GA; Failed FA
Mike Tyson        	April 27, 2007      	GA                   	GA
Samuel of Bulgaria	April 29, 2007      	Other                	Other; Failed GA & FA
Frank Zappa       	May 8, 2007         	Other                	GA
Muisca            	May 9, 2007         	Other                	Other
Zile              	May 9, 2007         	Other                	Other
Colorado Avalanche	May 11, 2007        	GA                   	GA; Failed FA
GoldenEye         	May 19, 2007        	GA                   	GA; Failed Two FA's
There's quite a variety of articles in the list above, some of which cover a wider scope, and could easily get GA/FA with a bit of work. I think we should choose one of the above to work on as a group, and see if we can take the article someone. I'm not that good at copy-editing, but can easily fix the smaller things, for instance referencing and stuff. It could work perfectly us working together, or it could become a massive failure, but who knows? I say we go for it as a team, seeing as we have a few willing editors. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Given the vast backlog of pending articles, I think we should probably stick to the project's original remit—copyediting—and leave the improvement of articles beyond that to the interested editors who first approached the LoCEs!  Maybe after we've whittled the list down by 4,000 or so, we can think again... ; ) MeegsC | Talk 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone still here? 

message: I personally think it's sad this has been marked as inactive. Obviously the project failed to meet the needs of editors who wanted their articles copyediting, but I found the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members page very useful for finding active copyeditors. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I. I rather enjoyed the LoCE. Perhaps one day it may be revived, but until then, we have Wikipedia:PRV. Rest in peace, Copyediting league. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of members list 

message: *I just though that maybe we can use this space to discuss any creative idea we have about helping to edit Wiki and combat those blasted backlogs. So in that, I though this would be the place to do it. If any one wants to go right a head. My first idea I had on this page:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bleach_%28manga%29#Vital_info_missing.21
:If this is a problem to have such a topic on this page I have no reservations and this topic can be remove with out any problem from me :~)--AKIRA70 (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors, where it was determined this project would be marked  due to chronic inactivity and endless, unattended backlogs. This place is quite dead, so you will not likely receive much assistance here. - auburnpilot talk 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innovative Ideas 

message: We need to create a community spirit to make this project work (and thereby make WP much less amateurish). I suggest we stop trying to feel responsible for all the many articles that are in very bad shape and concentrate instead more on enforcing minimum standards and WP core policies like following usage in reliable sources. That means we could spend most of our time working on articles that are high profile and in pretty good shape but with embarrassing problems. That's much more rewarding and fun and will also make the entire WP community learn to appreciate and respect our efforts and general copyediting and standards much more than now. Now, many normal WP editors consider efforts (even by professional copyeditors!) to make WP conform to spelling and punctuation used in most reliable sources to be nitpicking or even a waste of time. Even more frustrating is that they consider it a waste of their time, i.e. of those who don't want to follow common usage.
I would for example appreciate professional help in making the article on the Beatles follow usage in most reliable sources, which uses lowercase "the Beatles" in running text, as extensively documented in Talk:The_Beatles#reliable sources using "the Beatles" or "The Beatles".
Those huge backlogs of pages in bad shape probably only serve to discourage other members as much as myself. Pages that are in very bad shape can be improved drastically by almost any WP user, so it's senseless to waste the time and efforts of copyediting specialists on those. We need to encourage many more members to join. What about starting a level system based on self-appraisal along the lines of beginner, intermediate, advanced? Many people are interested in copyediting but are afraid they'll make mistakes. Maybe they'd like to be called apprentices? That would take the main load of responsibility off their back and give them a chance to learn what they want "on the job" with the good feeling that they can ask a "master" for help or a quick check if they want that. --Espoo (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving this league 

message: I hope that someone still has the League watchlisted, and will be curious enough to read this.  In brief: we could use your help! 
Tim Vickers, whom many of you may know, and I are giving a hands-on workshop in creating scientific articles for Wikipedia at the upcoming meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) in San Francisco.  The workshop will take place on December 16th for two hours, from 12:30–2:30pm local time, which is 20:30–22:30 UTC (Wikipedia time).  We're expecting roughly 60 newbie scientists, who will be eager to start articles and upload images for their favorite research topics.  We're hoping that you will consider volunteering to help the scientists to craft these new articles and give them a good impression of how Wikipedians can pull together for a common cause.  This seems like a great opportunity to build bridges with academics, and if we're successful, other invitations from scientific bodies will likely follow.  I know this to be the home of many excellent and helpful editors.  Please write us to volunteer to help; we'll keep you posted, individually, on the workshop and how it will run.  Thanks! Proteins (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with a Wikipedia workshop for cell biologists