Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Archive 4

message: Greetings! I'm trying to get this article up to FA status. The main problem right now is that the prose is not quite up to snuff. Is there anyone in the league that can help copyedit this article to make the prose more compelling/brilliant? Thanks so much for any help you can give.--Eva bd 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'll take a look at it, sure thing.  Although FA status is usually a matter of content and organization, and less of copy edits.  BUt regardless, I'll help out.--rocketrye12 talk/contribs 18:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * I've added this to our "Requests for Assistance" section of our proofreading list. Please track progress and add comments there. Thanks! Galena11 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bart King]] 

message: This isn't quite a copyediting request (though if you want to copyedit the above article, go ahead), but a request for input. I'm asking here, because I know many people here probably are knowledgable about English usage and may wish to weigh in on this – 
I'm trying to get consensus about usage the adjective "lesbian" and the noun "lesbianism" in the article Lesbianism in erotica and potentially head off an edit war between myself and User:Joie de Vivre. Basically, this user insists on very narrow usage of the words "lesbian" and "lesbianism" no matter what the context, restricting only to descriptions of self-identified "lesbians". It is my belief that "ordinary language" use of the word lesbian allows this term as a broad description of same-sex activity between women and that the phrase "lesbian sex" can be reasonably used to describe sex between bisexual women. I feel very strongly that English usage in Wikipedia should reflect generally accepted usage of the English language by the larger public and not usage that may be confined to a particular subculture.
Based on this, JdV had changed the title to "Sex between women in erotica" and rewrote the article to expunge nearly every instance of the word "lesbian". I think the results of JdV's edits were largely tendentious and clunky and have reverted them (though I've incorporated some of her edits after reverting).
If you have an opinion on this, please weigh in at Talk:Lesbianism_in_erotica: Renaming_article. Iamcuriousblue 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with using "lesbianism".  In erotica, sexual acts between women are labeled as "lesbian"; it is a sub-genre of erotica called "lesbianism".  The evidence is on the Web: just see some pornographic Web sites. The title "Lesbianism in erotica" is perhaps more useful for someone who wants to know about the term in context.  But this argument is not one from English usage, and "lesbianism" is actually a misnomer for the genre and for most the acts which also involve men.  On the other hand, "lesbian" certainly applies to more than just self-identified lesbians.  My girlfriend, who is a sex researcher, has often made it a point that accepted definitions include behavior and arousal, not just self identification.  And sexual preferences are on a continuum anyway.  So the title "Sex between women in erotica" is more accurate and more descriptive to a general audience.  I'm not sure where the emphasis should be in the article, but at least both titles should lead to the article, and both should be explained in it. -Pgan002 00:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lesbianism in erotica 

message: Hi there,
I've joined your group and CE'd my first article. Would someone like to take a look and see if I'm on the right track? --killing sparrows 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you mean Catoblepas, right? :) — Scientizzle 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Oh jeez, I want to be a copyeditor and I misspelled the title of the first article I asked for feedback on! --killing sparrows 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say you did a solid job, fixing spelling & tenses and adding greater organization. For long quotes,  works well. I made a few changes, too. I felt that the subject was too often referred to indirectly and adjusted the formatting of some ofthe publications. Keep up the good work! — Scientizzle 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the way you broke up the gaming section and moved the 'needing sources' tag to that section, as well as the blockquote thing. I can tell when something is cumbersome to read (the whole gaming thing makes my eyes roll, but I'm an old guy!) but I don't always see what needs to be done to fix it. My plan is to concentrate now on bio articles as there are many formatting/style things, birth/death dates, etc. common to these articles that almost always needs attention. If I do several I'll get a system down, learn the rules and then be quicker and more consistent. Thnx for your critique! --killing sparrows 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: my copyedit of [[Catoplebas]] 

message: Could you please help me to wikify the references of Alvaro Uribe. Most references are external links like "" and not like "x".
Thanks,
--Ricardo Ramírez 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  President of Colombia 

message: The article is inching towards an FA status and is being reviewed for a second time by peers. But, it still needs much copyedit (especially with citation template and dating web citations). A wholesomely coherent style of English and a completely cohesive flow of the article is mightily required at this point. Please, help. Aditya Kabir 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[Shahbag]] 

message: I posted a request for proofreading on this article on this project's FAC/FAR section, but as I saw some older requests apparently still unattended, I'm echoing my request on this talk page. Any volunteering help would be truly appreciated! Thank you. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 18:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2012 Summer Olympics bids]] 

message: I know most of you may be fully engaged and busy, but I wonder whether there is anyone who can help to polish and copyedit this article which currently in FARC. It may not be too difficult for anyone who is familiar with style manual and copyedit standards. Thanks a lot.--Aadal 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent help needed in [[Tamil language]] -to retain its FA status 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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(talk) 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, in point-of-fact, that's the process I'm trying to streamline in my proposal. --Otheus 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished copyedit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The [[Song Dynasty]] of China 

message: 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 (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited Swimming pool to my satisfaction.  I see no POV, and have not tested IP vio. -Pgan002 01:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: moved to general requests. Cricketgirl 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Swimming pool]] 

message: 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 Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  A copy editor's wet dream 

message: 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 ;) EyeSereneTALK 08:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit on [[Deathstalker (novel)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: moved to proofread requests. Cricketgirl 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof read request 

message: 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)
replies: text: moved to requests page. Cricketgirl 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ganesha]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: moved to general requests. Cricketgirl 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Language movement]]: EMERGENCY! HELP!! HELP!!! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New(ish) editor wishing to join 

message: Speaking of prioritizing (above), some of the articles in the backlogs are more important than others.  For example, among those that are about notable subjects, some articles are visited much more often than others.  Maybe we should put a higher priority on copy-editing those?  Is it easy to know how frequently a page has been visited recently?  Plus, I'd say that it's better to have more articles at an acceptable quality than a few outstanding articles.  Maybe that can direct our efforts too?  -Pgan002 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prioritizing 

message: Some advice: before you spend lots of time and effort copyediting an article that seems like it wasn't written for Wikipedia (reads like an advertisement, has an inappropriate tone, features weird non-Wiki markup, etc.), Google a few phrases to check for copyright violations. If the entire article is (and has always been) a copyright infringement, then you can either use  or , and move on to another article. BuddingJournalist 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But since copyright applies only to the wording and not to the ideas, rewording the article will free it from copyright and free WP from legal issues.  So I think it is very useful to copy-edit articles that may have copyrighted text. -Pgan002 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save time! Check for copyright violations before copyediting 

message: So, something kind of odd happened when we proposed this back in Jan. We had strong support, then one person said he didn't like it and archived the discussion.  So I've re-proposed it.  
Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#The Copyeditor's Award
If you like it, please go voice your support and encourage others to as well. Apparently we need more support than we received last time (11 supports, one oppose) for this to pass. If you don't like it, help us come up with an alternative.  If you are new to the project, the discussion and collaboration that led to the design and text are in this talk page's archives.  It would also help if someone could look into the differences between Personal User Awards and WikiProject Awards, as I'm not exactly sure what the criteria are for both, or for either of those vs an actual Barnstar.  Thanks!  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a question: When does the award become official? Like, how many votes do we need for support or how many days? THanks, — ?Tohru Honda13? 02:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know, and have had a terrible time getting answers to that.  What is clear is that we need a lot more support to get this through as a barnstar.  We need everyone to go voice their support, and to get others who might support this to go check it out.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure.  And let's rename the Editor's Barnstar to "Deletionists' Barnstar".  Judging from the description, that's what it's used for.  Then we can call our barnstar the "Editor's Barnstar" or "Copy-editor's Barnstar". -Pgan002 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Copyeditor's is apt for what we've proposed.  I don't understand the rationale behind the "Editor's Barnstar" - the description seems to support deletionism, but I think it should be for general editing.  There is a proposal on the table to change at least the text of the "Editor's Barnstar", folks can reach it through the discussion linked above.  Again, I'm not sure how much support we need to make these changes, but it seems we need a lot more than we've been getting.  I would also really appreciate it if folks could help out with finding out how much support we need to get this through.  I'm going to contact some folks directly, because questions on the talk page of the project have not garnered helpful responses.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget the deletionist approach, and take up a new approach. But, copyeditors should have a dedicated barnstar, and a beautiful one at that. Aditya Kabir 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Copyeditor's Award 

message: In the past, when I've copyedited an article that's had several contributing editors (as is the case with the In Progress articles), I've simply added a semicolon after the last editor and done the four tildes.  This way, all the editors are on one line.  However, I've also seen cases where each copyeditor is adding a new version of the template.  Personally, I think multiple boxes might start to make the talk page rather cluttered, which was the issue we tried to address by moving the template to the body of the talk page (rather than the top).  Thoughts?Galena11 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Single Copyedit box with multiple copyeditors.  Personally, I think if you come across multiple boxes, you should copy the copyeditors sig/datestamp into the first one.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!) 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with template when there's more than one copyeditor? 

message: A discussion was started yesterday on the Talk page of /proofreading, but as that conversation seems to have run dormant, I figured it might have greater visibility here. See the original conversation. To recap: I would be creating a bot to automatically update :Template:Copyedit progress with current information, similar to what my CbmBOT does for :Category:Cleanup by month.
In order to progress with this, which I'm perfectly happy to do, the following process must occur:
#First, a request to add a task (updating the template) to my existing bot must be filed – I'm choosing to do it this way rather than creating a new bot because the two tasks are essentially the same, just with different target; I am going to likely request a name change too. In order to do so, I need to have the specifics of how the bot needs to work – in other words, I need a defined set of rules as to how the numbers in the template are calculated/acquired.
#The bot would be coded (again, this is dependent on me receiving the above information).
#The bot would enter a trial period, pending approval.
#The bot would become an active bot.
I figured people would appreciate not having to update the template manually, but if someone's really attached to doing it, let me know and I'll back off ;) –Dvandersluis 21:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot to update Template:Copyedit progress 

message: I came across a case recently on a page where someone was described in the following manner, "He is widely considered to be one of the greatest so and sos of all time..." The NPOV of the statement is not what I'm questioning here. Another editor changed it to "He is widely considered one of the greatest so and sos of all time..."  Which is the correct wording? The second one just doesn't sound right to me wihtout the to be. I'd figured I'd ask here, this is probably just basic grammar but my knowledge of grammar concepts and terminology is weak. Like a lot of people I just know if a sentence is bad grammatically if it doesn't sound right. Aaron Bowen 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it sound so awkward to me? It just doesn't sound right. It sounds like saying "I walked school", instead of "I walked to school." Maybe if I hear it more it will sound alright, I don't know. Aaron Bowen 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can check by testing a similar but simpler construction, "he is considered rich".  If that sounds OK -- and it does to me -- then it should still be OK after you add the adverb "widely" and modify "rich". Pgan002 23:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor question 

message: *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)
thread_title: Response

message: 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)
replies: text: (imo, but the rest of the sentence is relevant) — Demong talk 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  dash q. 

message: 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  flag to  and/or  in the case of a largely-unfinished article? — Demong talk 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup vs copyedit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grammar check... Is 'hunting weapon' standard English? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  General "Thank You" to everyone 

message: 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? EyeSereneTALK 12:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No prob - thanks for the response! I was starting to suspect this project was fading out ;) EyeSereneTALK 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LoCE Template 

message: Hello, AnonEmouse just referred me here after I made a comment on a beleagured FAC. Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Department of Style 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, no problem with that here. Trusilver 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please, would do it myself (while I'm shifting everything else around) but I don't know how to. Cricketgirl 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename "proofreading" page to "requests" 

message: 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:
# How to request a copy-edit
# How to join and current members
# Tasks
# How to copy-edit
## Before copy-editing an article
## After copy-editing an article
## After proofreading a copy-edited article
# Progress
Comments? -Pgan002 09:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move content from "Useful links" to the other sections 

message: 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 Wikipedia.  What are your thoughts on this?  --mariusstrom 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 ;) EyeSereneTALK 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 ;) EyeSereneTALK 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Related to the heading, but not quite to your question - I usually edit topics that I find more interesting, or more notable for the world from my subjective judgment.  For example, I prefer to improve Azimuth or Argentine literature over Anjel or Angry Kid.  But if someone has asked for help with an article, that often has more weight.  We should be fighting the backlog of those requested copy-edits first. -Pgan002 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm finding that a sort of balance between knowing the article and not knowing it works well. For example, I'm currently editing an article on Anti-Fairies (The Fairly OddParents). I know nothing about the Anti-Fairies, having never seen that particular show, but I have seen enough eposides to figure out what it means if a sentance is unclear. That way I'm learning, but am able to use my meagre background info to make unclear sentences clear. But then, I only recently joined, so I may be so far off the mark none of you have any idea what I'm saying.--Song 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice on Picking what to Copy-Edit 

message: Hey all, what do you think of this image. Cheers--Cronholm144 03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I need to tweak it in any way?--Cronholm144 10:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I noticed was that the definition of the quill-pen is not quite as clear as in the original PNG. I don't know if this is a real issue though... anyone else care to comment? EyeSereneTALK 11:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly add the definition back in. I very slightly blurred it, introduced a central gradient, and didn't add the tan coloring in the original. I will wait a while and change it if there are no more opinions from the League.--Cronholm144 13:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I like it the way it is. Good work, Cronholm. Best regards.--Song 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm.. this pic suffers from multiple mediaeiki bugs (it doesn't render properly and renders espcially badly when not a thumb), the inkscape svg has the broom in the back. I may have to rasterize a png to get this to work. --Cronholm144 19:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might as well just keep the PNG if you're just going to press "vectorize" in a program link inkscape. With complicated images such as this one the result is often yucky and eliminates one of the selling points of SVG: Easy editing. -Indolences 04:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I see. That sounds OK I guess. -Indolences 07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Hi all. I'm new to the League, and I've already started work, but I have a few questions. After I'm done with an article, can I request it for proofreading? Is there a template I can use? Best regards.--Song 23:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe you may have missed something, or if you did a lot of work, feel free to list it.  There isn't a template for this, as it's simply adding a link to the article in the listing.  (Just follow the pattern.) --Sigma 7 03:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proofreading? 

message: I've got an enormous job for somebody to do. Cleaning up and streamlining the LOCE project pages is something I have been trying to get accomplished for three months now. Unfortunately, I have yet to find the time to get it done. Now I have talked coerced bribed my daughter into going through the membership page sorting it by active and inactive participants, but that isn't even a fraction of the work that needs accomplished. Therefore I'm going to go fishing... Is there anyone out there that would be interested in taking on this task, particularly for the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading page? Trusilver 06:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me what I need to do. I don't know how, but I can learn! (Plus I have an excellent adopter :-))--Song 02:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, I need someone to start archiving Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading and getting rid of all the clutter so that it can be usable again. Trusilver 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it's taken me so long, but Gimme danger was out of town and I wasn't sure how to go about doing that. I don't really have a lot of time, but I will do my best. I think I may have time later today or tommorow.--Song 18:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HUGE Job 

message: I am new to the project and am familiarizing myself with the process.  In reading all the details of the project, just thought that maybe something more should be said about how to request.  Almost customer-oriented information such as, "Editors choose their articles based on their knowledge, skills, and interests," "Longer articles are likely to be time consuming," "Please ensure the article has been cleaned up and is ready for copyediting," "Recently our backlog has been lengthy, please be patient for more challenging articles."  Stuff like that maybe, depending on what more experienced users at the project might believe is useful for those that request copyediting.  --Kenneth M Burke 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to request 

message: Could you please help me to wikify the article of Cúcuta.
Thanks,
Ricardo Ramírez  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.29.129.225 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cúcuta 

message: I've suggested most of the maintenance categories be eliminated in favor of a technique based on using whatlinkshere.  Articles needing copyedit is an example I've used.  Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists.  If no one speaks up, I'll be bold and change the template. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists 

message: 
This has a weird picture now. What happened to the rest of the quill? Cricketgirl 10:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a scaling problem with the image - I think it's losing layers when it's resized. Beyond that, I'm not sure... but I've replaced the svg version with the original png in the template until the image is fixed (by someone with more savvy than me re image design!). EyeSereneTALK 10:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the template? 

message: ::You do great work, you guys fro the WikiProject League of Copyeditors! Since I'm in trouble with the Grutte Pier article, can you help me with it? (I'm not a native speaker of English, nor writer, and especially my grammar sucks, and so does the grammar of most contributors to that article). -The Bold Guy- 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pier Gerlofs Donia]] 

message: Yes, yes, I read the notice on the top. But this is for a featured topic, and I was hoping to get more of a general opinion, as I'm no copyeditor myself :). At WikiProject Ice Hockey, certain users have started a drive towards a featured topic. We're progressing excellently, as the subpage can tell. (11 FL's and two GA's, but were missing key articles). Now, would those article require light copyediting? I am really wondering. Also, Stanley Cup needed a good copyediting (FAC), but I never responded to the calls (noobishness at that time, I'm afraid), so Stanley Cup is a definite yes, but what about the others? Maxim(talk) 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very special request 

message: Can we include something in the instructions about how the LoCE is not a peer editing organization? I've encountered three articles in the "Ready for Final Proofread" section which are in need of major reference and/or citation  work. Maybe I'm supposed to ignore these matters, but to me they are inextricably linked to the work I do in improving articles. (Which is to say that I can't in good conscience look only at the copyediting if the facts are not clearly sourced.)
I'm willing to help copyedit, but I'd like to know what I'm getting myself into if in fact I'm going to wind up doing a peer review. – Scartol · Talk 23:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Criteria page was developed to stress exactly that point. When you find articles requesting copy-editing that still have major content issues, you should deny the copy-edit as per the instructions on the documentation page. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a notice or something... 

message: Friends, This Ayyavazhi article is here from seven months before. I want to nominate it for a FAC. I am not well-versed with the English knbowledge and so can't do the copy-edit for myself and so I request the copy-edit over here. It carries many foot notes so the copy-edit is been delayed for a long time. But any one pls help me copy-editing this article. This article is selected for the Release CD Version 0.7 too. So pls help any one. Thanks. - Paul Raj 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Needed help in [[Ayyavazhi]] 

message: I was woundering if i can edit the Roswell site like expaned it more if that will be ok with you guys Roswell one of my fav shows and i hate to see its site no have much stuff on it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healingtears14 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on talk page. EyeSereneTALK 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a answer 

message: I've been looking for a definitive answer to a small editing question specific to Wikipedia, but I can't seem to find it in the Manual of Style or elsewhere. Perhaps one or more editors here can help me. Some articles have many wiki-links that cause re-direct messages on the target pages because the article syntax differs from the target page syntax. An example from real life is British East India Company (article syntax) wiki-linking to Honourable East India Company (target page syntax). When I find links like this, should I change them or leave them alone? I have changed several instances of "British East India Company" to "Honourable East India Company | British East India Company." I don't mind doing these pipe fixes, but are they a good thing to do or a bad thing? Finetooth 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise this is rather a late reply, but to offer my 2p worth I think it depends on the context of the article. A reader should see whatever best fits context and common usage; in many circumstances this will mean piping links. In your example, I didn't even know its proper name was the Honourable East India Company until I read your post, but I'm familiar with the British East India Company. For me the piped link there would certainly make more sense. EyeSereneTALK 20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might also be useful information; generally it's not worth it to change redirects, though if you're editing the page for other reasons it doesn't matter much. Mike Christie (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to both of you. This is quite helpful. Finetooth 03:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To pipe or not to pipe? 

message: ::You do great work, you guys fro the WikiProject League of Copyeditors! Since I'm in trouble with the Grutte Pier article, can you help me with it? (I'm not a native speaker of English, nor writer, and especially my grammar sucks, and so does the grammar of most contributors to that article). -The Bold Guy- 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pier Gerlofs Donia]] 

message: I'm looking for someone who knows nothing about football. Leave a note on my talk page if you want to help. Buc 06:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit request 

message: I can't find where... Please help me! Thank you.--victor falk 08:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the link. It's on the main project page under the heading of "Members and joining". Lara❤Love 13:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thx --victor falk 14:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do I sign up? 

message: I've re-added the usage instructions of copyedit template as it was deleted by someone ....Gprince007 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyeditor's template 

message: A proposal to sort all peer reviews and other article quality-related requests has been proposed on the Village pump. All input is welcome. ~ Sebi 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review sorting 

message: I've been pondering the backlog we have and suggest that we eliminate the mandatory proofread for each article.  Instead, primary copyeditors could use their discretion whether to post an article for proof or just move it to the "Complete" section.  I know that proofing is a standard "best practice", but I think it would be more effective to give more articles a once-over than fewer articles a twice-over.  I don't know if this would affect the new template structure, tho. Thoughts? Galena11 15:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminate mandatory proofread? 

message: A discussion is in progress at the /Criteria subpage on codifying and tightening the regulations on what requests the league will accept for copyediting, with a view towards clearing the currengly enormous backlog that we have and enable us to complete copyedits faster and more efficiently.  Please take a look at the discussion at the link above.  Happy‑melon 21:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tighter request guidelines 

message: I've been copy editing Wikipedia almost every day for years (usually anonymously), but this is a first.  I was warned and threatened with a block because I made just one change to an article:  I corrected the spelling of 'corruption'.  Can someone get these admins to understand how this insane this is? -Animesouth 22:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important not to blow this out of proportion. Your spelling correction was harmless in itself, but the objections seem to be that you corrected an unsourced defamatory statement in a biographical article about a living person. Per WP:BLP, it might have been best to just delete the sentence entirely, but not everyone is familiar with every policy and I do think you deserved the benefit of WP:AGF ;) EyeSereneTALK 12:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what it comes down to:  "Yes, you fixed it, but you didn't it fix it well enough, so we're going to accuse you of libel.  You've vandalized the article and the next time you will be blocked.  For correcting the spelling of one word."  Copyeditors cannot be held responsible for content.  There is no legal precedent for accusing a copyeditor for libel.  This is one of the areas in which Wikipedia is extremely behind print publishing:  understanding the difference between content editing and copy editing. -Animesouth 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw this and thought I'd chime in as a former newspaper editor... there is certainly legal precedent to accuse a copy editor for libel. In a true libel case where the accuser is really upset, it's not unlikely to see the writer, the copy editor, the section editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the owner, even an intern, all held responsible either because they are responsible for content or because they potentially saw the allegedly libelous comment and didn't do anything about it. Just a heads-up. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning for Copyediting 

message: Another idea from the <lame> idea factory </lame>: Many web sites, forums, etc. display a user's stats (posts), with some sort of status gained by the more-frequent contributors. Some WPans do this already: <userbox> "This user has over 5,000 edits" </userbox> etc. Of course, quantity ≠ quality, but we can pull something useful from this: Presently the Members page is arranged by seniority. There could also be a display by number of *complete articles* copy-edited and/or proofread through the League system (not just making one or two spelling or punctuation edits to an article as you browse). Surely this would be very easy to scrape from the Requests page, as editors sign as copy-edited or proofread (Betacommandbot again?). This display needn't show the inactive. Perhaps the top 25 copy-editors (or some other number), or perhaps all of those who have edited more than three (two, one, five, whatever) articles... perhaps rankings based on total since the League's founding, total YTD, and total for the month. Where to display these, I'm not exactly sure, but a little recognition may motivate the inactive (doesn't motivate this user, of course). Possible problem would be someone "inflating" stats by doing brief, inadequate c/e's, but it hasn't been a problem so far, and, of course, you're signing your name to the c/e or proofread. 
Well, just another suggestion to try to get more inactive members involved. Feedback? Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh god don't tempt me!  The temptation to say "I can do this with another complicated template network" is strong, but I shall resist :D.  I can think of ways to do this with a bot, using "what links here" for  and .  The server load of such a bot would be very minimal.  Maybe I'll ask Betacommand if/when he completes the first bot request.  Great idea though.  Happy‑melon 12:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coding-dummy that I am, that was sort of what I was thinking of - the bot just retrieves the c/e and p/r tags, count's em, sorts 'em, and displays the list... One note: Your full doc page suggests placing the LoCE at the *bottom* of the talk page. That might have some advantages while it's in progress -- catch the eye of people at that talk page -- but once it's complete, I've been moving it to the top (last of the top templates), as per the old way. Reason: 1) The pretty beige template fits nicely with all the other pretty beige templates at the top of the article, and (2) The lower Talk gets archived frequently, losing the tag (and also screwing up our new bot). Keeping it at the top lets the article's present and future editors know which copy-editor to blame, thank, question, throw rotten eggs at, etc. See, for example, Talk:Krak%C3%B3w. OK? Unimaginative Username (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Encouraging participation by displaying stats

message: I am a 16-year-old Singaporean and a near-native speaker of English. Since joining Wikipedia in February 2006, I have made over 2500 edits, which include writing a GA - I Not Stupid - and three DYKs - Money No Enough, The Best Bet and Megan Zheng.
In school, I usually score A1s in English - I topped my school in English last year and almost repeated that feat this year. Nevertheless, I know that my English still needs considerable polishing; my sentence structures are awkward and I struggle with the more subtle aspects of English grammar. Contributing to Wikipedia has helped me further improve my writing skills and command of English to a certain extent. 
I am looking for a copy-editor who:
*Is a native speaker of British English. It goes without saying that the copy-editor's command of English should be far better than mine, and since I contribute to Singapore-related articles, and Singapore was once a British colony, British English should be used in Singapore-related articles.
*Has actively contributed to the English Wikipedia for at least three months and made at least 1000 edits. This criterion ensures that the copy-editor is reasonably familiar with Wikipedia's content policies.
*Has an IRC (freenode), MSN Messenger or Google Talk account, logs in to it almost every day and is not afraid to disclose the account to me. If I want a copy-editor to look through articles I write, I could simply file a request with the League of Copyeditors, although they usually take a long time to respond to requests. Having copy-editing done in real-time through instant messaging has several advantages. There are times when the copy-editor may need me to clarify the intended meaning of a sentence or provide some background information or context. Moreover, the copy-editor could explain why a sentence is grammatically incorrect, instead of just correcting the error.
*Is aged between 16 and 25 (inclusive) and friendly. Singaporeans are notorious for focusing on the result rather than the process, but I will do my best to avoid being a slave-driver. The copy-editor should be a friend, not just a copy-editor, and should be able to explain to me the more subtle aspects of English grammar in an easy-to-understand manner.
Anyone who meets the above criteria and is interested should post on my talk page, where we can make the necessary arrangements (such as exchanging IRC/MSN/GTalk handles).
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking copy-editors 

message: I've just commented out this section on our main page, which instructs editors to list articles from the backlog of Wikipedia articles needing copy edit on the requests page, presumably for proofreading.  I think this is unnecessary and will clog up the requests page even further.  I see the League's two main activities as almost completely distinct: creating "brilliant prose" in articles where it is specifically requested, and working to bring the prose of other articles to an "acceptable" standard.  To that end, I think the League's efforts are wasted in proofreading articles which are not part of the requests process.  Comments?  Happy‑melon 10:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly support. Last sentence is great. Would add that IMHO, first priority should go to FAC, GAC, and reviews of same; also, to highly visible articles. Obscure articles with gr and punc errors can wait until(if) the backlog is cleared. Oh, and I c/e "rticle" for you in the title of this section :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL - the title was originally just "Articles with the copyedit tag" - when adding the "Proofreading for" I only managed half of the process of lowercasing the "A" :D.  I agree with your priority list, but of course we can't force that on anyone.  Happy‑melon 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree can't force the priorities, but if a consensus is gained, it could be an internal policy of the League to "encourage" c/e's to give some priority to FAC, GAC, and those where the authors have indicated a firm commitment to take to GA/FA, when choosing which articles they wish to c/e. Just a thought. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proofreading for articles with the copyedit tag 

message: I have seen some discussion about the complicated and coma-inducing nature of the manual of style.  Several times there has been sentiments to the effect of "Oh I wish we had a condensed version..." - it seems to me that this would be an ideal addition to the League's armoury.  
I interpret condensed to mean literally two columns: "right" and "wrong", with examples to demonstrate each common formatting mistake found in the mainspace, divided along the same lines as the real MOS - we could even link section headings to the relevant sections in the MOS.  With liberal use of  tags it could become a valuable referencing tool and cheatsheet to aid our copyediting process.  Comments?  Happy‑melon 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a small personal list of quick reference tools on my user page, and I'm sure other editors have done the same. User:Epbr123 has a style and grammar checklist that I've found particularly helpful. I'd be cautious, though, about insisting absolutely on any single interpretation of the MOS. A condensation for the LoCE could be useful if it always deferred to the full MOS, which to some extent defers to the preferences of an article's main authors and editors. Finetooth (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit bulky, but it has to cover a lot of ground. I just create browser bookmarks to the various sections as I use them. My only real complaint so far is that there is a  section on Numbers and a  supplementary MoS for numbers and dates, so sometimes have to check both. No constructive suggestions there. Open to any cheat sheet. Oh, and for the codingly-challenged, what is a ? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condensed MOS 

message: I'm in favour of this fairly idiot-proof solution:
Of course the tildes will be expanded to their sig and the current date.  I'm a great fan of chronological ordering, as it's much more useful to see who the oldest users are.  You can see a small example of this system at the very bottom of the members page.  Comments on this?Happy‑melon 16:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, but the present instructions say to add it to the *bottom* of the list. ?? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  Easy to change :D Happy‑melon 11:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What "instructions" to leave on the [[WP:LOCE/M]] page?

message: Recently I went through a handful of the older, shorter articles marked with a {copyedit} tag and cleaned them up. While they're not exactly examples of graceful and sparkling prose, I did feel that they were now adequate enough to warrant removal of the tag. I'm wondering if I could get a second set of eyes to quickly proof these articles and confirm my judgment. I'm also wondering if there's some formal process for accomplishing that here (and if there isn't, whether or not there should be one). My feeling is that as the person responsible for the copyedit, I'm naturally inclined to look favorably upon my own work, and a quick second opinion would be helpful.
The articles in question: Fallen Empires, Guruvayur Keshavan, Earth house. I've also made minor edits to Hellfire trigger but a key sentence in that entry is too incoherent to me for me to confidently rephrase it without potentially altering the meaning. - Orphic (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't understand the Hellfire article either. Googling it and going to  indicates that it *increases* the trigger-return pressure; that one must use two hands, holding the gun at the hip, to fire; and that that it therefore cannot be aimed - the "awkward position" referred to in the WP article. It would need almost a complete re-write, if you think it's worth it. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm just about Wiki-pooped for now, but made a minor change to the intro of Earth house, and you may want to have another look at "creates for an organic design requiring spatial sense and creativity" - perhaps redundant and recursive. Yes, we all agree that copy-editors need proofreading, too, and there is a process for that  here. As for the articles you've done, not sure what list they came from, so can't answer the question about formal process. How did you find these articles? If on the "old" Requests page, one method would be to  move them to the new page, put your copy-edit template on it as per the directions there, then move it to the "Ready for proofread" section. Oh, and Welcome! to Wikipedia and to the League of Copy-Editors! Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *These were articles who had a {copyedit} tag attached to them and were thus added to . I saw the requests page, but as I wasn't really seeking to get the copyedited articles up to anything like GA status (and honestly, would be embarrassed at their inadequacy if evaluated by such a standard), I wasn't really sure if they belonged there. My question was more, if you browsed to this article today, would you attach a new {copyedit} tag on it? Perhaps I'm being a smidgen too obsessive, as there are plenty of poor articles without a {copyedit} tag , so at some point surely the extra process involved isn't worth the gains. *shrug*. - Orphic (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ahh, yes. (by the way, link #2 didn't work - there were two "t's" in "editt". You know how touchy these things are :) There have been extensive discussions of where to focus the League's meager resources, for example,  here, and elsewhere on the same page. The project page where the tagged articles are listed includes this statement: "A request for copyedit is most effective when the article is more-or-less complete, and fully cited." You're correct that many of the articles with the {copyedit] tag don't meet this criterion and need much more than just a copy-edit, so they shouldn't be put on the formal Requests page. Nonetheless, a quick clean-up of such articles is still doing the community a service. As you seem well-qualified, you can use your discretion in removing the tags. Surely they'll be vastly improved over the previous tagged state! I'm not aware of a formal process for a proofread of the copy-edit of articles so tagged, but if you aren't confident, I don't see anything wrong with an informal process like your request here. Other c/e'rs can look them over as time permits. I think much of the effort goes to the backlog of formal requests, especially since reviews for FA and GA frequently recommend that the authors request a League c/e before the review continues.  It's also your individual discretion as to whether any inadequate or poorly-written articles are worth the effort (can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, etc.). Lastly, feel free to put your own "copy-edited by ..." tag on any article tagged for c/e, if you think the article overall is good enough that you'd like your name emblazoned on it :) Either the new tag  or the old one: . Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing "completed" copyedits? 

message: Hey there League.  I'm a new member and I attempted my first copyedit and I think I've done a pretty good job with the article Sitakunda Upazila.  However, on the talk page, the LoCErequest template doesn't look right (I didn't put it there).  The instructions for moving it from "request" to "proofreader" say to click on Add comments, but I don't see that anywhere in the template.  Am I missing something really simple?  I really don't want to mess up this project and I feel like I've made a baffoon of myself:-), so before I go changing around templates, I thought I should just stop everything and ask for assistance.  Hope someone more experienced can help me out! (i.e.:  show me where I screwed up.)  Thanks,  Keeper  |  76 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The mistake is not yours, but whoever first requested the copyedit.  Essentially the template , which is on the talk page, has no way of knowing whether or not the required code has been added to the requests listing page - templates can't check for that, although it would be nice if they could.  So the template (stage 1 of listing) can't tell whether stage 2 (listing at WP:LOCE/B) has been completed.  But it can check whether stage 3 (creation of a subpage to hold the review updates and comments) has been done.  So whoever listed the article added the template, followed the next instruction and added the code to the requests listing page, but then ran away without creating the subpage; the LOCErequest template sees that stage 3 is not complete, and assumes that stage 2 is incomplete also, and so the copy code is still required.  I have now created the subpage, so the template will display correctly - if that happens again in future, take a look at WP:LOCE/B.  You're sure to find the article listed along with dire warnings about the request not being processed until the subpage has been created (which are currently rubbish, but I'm half tempted to make them real because this is happening a fair bit).  Just follow the "edit this page" link and say "no comments left by lister" or something like that, where it says "leave comments below.  Then copyedit your article, and add the  template in the top section of the subpage, where it says "Leave review updates below".  Simple :D!!  You did exactly the right thing coming to ask here - if you'd started digging in the template code you'd have been quickly throttled by the gremlins I put in to guard them from unwary editors... or at least wouldn't have been able to make head or tail of them!!  Welcome to the League, anyway, and good luck with your career here - your first copyedit looks extremely good.  Happy‑melon 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm pleased to hear that.  Happy‑melon 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Happy-melon.  I really truly appreciate your help, and I will hopefully make sense of this stuff yet.  I'm used to the other, simpler project that I've been involved in, WP:DPL, and wasn't expecting any trouble here!  Hopefully I grasp the templating stuff.  I've watchlisted the right pages and read the right pages now so I hope I can be helpful to this part of the project.  I really like copyediting; (maybe I'm one of these?.  Maybe I just really like clean, easy to read prose.  I'll never tell!  Cheers to you, happy editing,  Keeper  |  76 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is the requesting party. Sorry about the glitch. This was first request directly to LOCE, using the template and all, and I am sorry that I have missed the detail. The apology goes doubly to Keeper76, who did such a wonderful job of c/e on the article. Thanks, people. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry, no real harm done.  Happy‑melon 16:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New LOCE member, need some help 

message: Discussions have been going on at the FAC talk page and the Content Review Workshop talk page about ways to give users with articles close to FA status an easier way to get help from a copy-editor. Basically, the project would be in many ways a sub-project of this one. Members of the project would focus on only the small group of articles which satisfy all FA criteria except for the fact that they need a good copy-edit and an MoS check. If you want to help get more articles to FA status, please place your sig on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles page. Thanks! Wrad (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC-help project 

message: I've been a copy editor for 30 years. I love it and I think I know my stuff, although I recognize that my expertise is Associated Press and, to a lesser extent, Chicago Manual of Style and that style differs internationally. I started a topic on the manual of style talk page about "logical quotation," which has not resulted in any consensus about what Wikipedia's style is. There seems to be a lack of consistency throughout Wikipedia. I just found this project and I'd like to join, but first I want to ask: Does the League have a position on whether periods and commas go inside or outside  quotation marks? I don't want to get involved in fruitless editing wars and it seems that this project ought to be the final arbiter. Maybe not, but I can hope. I was going by what I saw somewhere in Wikipedia: use the style of the country closest to the subject matter, e.g., American punctuation in Seinfeld. In another place, there's this thing about "logical quotation," which looks to be tech writing. I'll look forward to hearing the wisdom from this group. — InkQuill 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on punctuation 

message: I don't know if this project has ever done this, but one way we can make this project more active and more respected is by having a collaboration. We could team up on one article for say, two weeks, and get it to FA, then move to the next one. I've often found that collaborations increase camaraderie among editors and strengthen WikiProjects. Wrad (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is often a good idea, it's not really the function of the League to shepherd articles all the way like this.  We come in when we're asked, and polish the prose for a single version of the article, in the hope that it will facilitate the article's movement up the classification ladder.  A better collaboration would be "Copyedit and proofread all FAC requests", or "Clear the category Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from January 2007.  I would be up for a collaboration more like these, but I think a key part of the morale-boosting effect is that the community is actively involved in deciding what to collaborate on, so these are just a few suggestions.  Happy‑melon 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, something like that to make everybody feel good. Wrad (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration? 

message: I was playing with incorporating the LoCE templates into ArticleHistory. The info currently in the regular  template could be displayed as:
NOTE: Commented out Dec 3 2021 by User:GreenC due to problems it creates with Wikipedia:Featured articles/mismatches 
{{User:Gimmetrow/ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=17:33, 13 August 2006
|action1result=listed
|action2=PR
|action2date=4 December 2006
|action3=WPR
|action3date=13:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LoCE and ArticleHistory 

message: Members of the League of Copyeditors will be very welcome to join a discussion at WT:MOS. We present a completed proposal for new hard-space markup, and we call for your suggestions.
See a full draft of the proposal. Click "show":
 
----
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hard space (&amp;nbsp;): a proposal for better markup 

message: User Drphilharmonic does a lot of text editing on Wikipedia for "logic, grammar, syntax".  This editor recently edited some articles which are on my regular watchlist.  In my opinion, his (or her?) work can be divided between four kinds of changes:
* useful improvements (e.g., removing informal contractions), 
* unnecessary imposition of his personal preferences (e.g., substituting "in general" for "generally" or "as a consequence" for "consequently"), 
* introduction of new punctuation errors into the text (e.g., hyphenating "relatively-few patients"), and 
* inappropriate changes to the meaning (e.g., changing "treatments are medically necessary" to "medical treatments are necessary").
I tried to engage him in a conversation about my concerns on his talk page, but his responses have been both insulting and irrelevant.  I have asked him to rephrase his rude remarks to address my specific concerns, but I don't really expect to make much progress.  
I can certainly fix the couple of articles on my list, but copyediting seems to be his primary activity on Wikipedia.  Consequently, errors of both form and content are being introduced into dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of articles.  I'm sure that he fully intends to improve every article he touches, but he doesn't seem to understand that his personal views on punctuation are not exactly the standard views.  Wikipedia needs good copyeditors.  Does anyone here have any suggestions for me?  I'm just not sure what to do next.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't really have any processes I'm aware of for dealing with editors who are acting in good faith and yet still causing net damage to the encyclopedia.  Kudos to you for your coolheadedness - there's little you can do but keep trying!  If you still can't get any constructive response out of him, post back here and maybe a couple of League members can have a chat.  Happy‑melon 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If appeals to reason don't work, can't he just be blocked from editing? The interests of the encyclopedia outweigh those of any one misguided editor.  Nihil novi (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with a copyeditor 

message: right|300px
This graph might be of interest - I wrote a short script to parse the history of WP:LOCE/B to track the increase in requests of each type.  Does anyone have any bright ideas as to where the massive drop in mid-December came from?  A massive clearing drive?  Happy‑melon 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LOCE/R|Requests]] backlog stats 

message: Please put a small=yes option on Template:LOCErequest.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Happy‑melon 17:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page clutter 

message: I'm sure you've all noticed the ridiculios amount of copy-editing needed. I say we organise a really huge effort to get it to respecable amounts. Come discuss on my talk page. Mm40 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effort 

message: A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers!  Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article icon 

message: Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up