Wikipedia talk:Basic copyediting

message: Where is the relevant list - which is what I would expect on coming to this page.
:It is right here: Articles needing copy edit.--Song 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow!  Thanks! Unfree (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pages needing copy-editing

message: The link 'Wikipedia:Manual of Style#"See also" and "Related topics" sections' appears to be
broken.  Is it meant to be 'Help:Section#"See_also"_line_or_section'?
JDX 06:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link? 

message: I'm unsure about this, so I'm going to ask here: is there by chance a page where one could request another to copy-edit an article? It's difficult for authors to copy-edit their own material because it's their own writing. For example, I find it hard to edit my work since my eyes seem to avoid what I've typed and I assume it's correct. Is there a page for requesting third parties to copy-edit articles? Never Mystic (tc) 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Place copyedit, within two curly brackets ({{ }}) at the top of the page. Conor 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-editing requests 

message: I'm having difficulty interpreting these guidelines in the case of substantial copyediting changes to an article. It would not be surprising to find an article with several minor spelling / grammar / capitalization / hyphenation issues, and perhaps a couple of easily revised sentence fragments. Is it best to apply all these changes in one go? Or should they be split up, into dozens of individually inconsequential ones? Applied section-by-section for the whole article? Applied like-for-like, i.e. all spelling corrections in one go, hyphenation corrections in one go, etc.? How can one write effective edit summaries when there is broad or extensive copyediting work?
How does reverting work in such a case? If edits are split up, even if only by section, then it becomes difficult to revert an edit early in the history while retaining the later ones. However the other case, the "one big edit," seems just as problematical. Advice to this newcomer would be appreciated! --Iamgrim 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make all the changes in one go. This makes the page history easier to read. For the edit summary you can just write something like 'extensive copyediting' or 'various spelling and grammar corrections'. If any reverts are needed they can be achieved by editing the article, if necessary using copy and paste from an earlier version of the article. S Sepp 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I usually edit one section at a time to prevent edit conflicts. But if it's a backwater article, then making it all in one go shouldn't be an issue. Writing "copy-edit" is usually good enough. — Deckiller 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *This strikes me as an interesting point. I've noticed that editors are split on this issue; some editors regularly make dozens of small edits one after another with good individual edit summaries, while other editors (like myself) are prone to rewrite an entire 150k article in one go and call it "reworded for clarity". I actually think the former might be preferable, since it gives other editors individual "bites" to digest. However, it can also make the edit history more confusing. Personally, I recommend using small bite-sized edits whenever there's any active or "heated" editing going on, especially in an edit-war zone. But my point here is actually that I think this issue might deserve further discussion, and some guidelines might be in order in the article. I know I had essentially the same question as Iamgrim, back when I started editing. I imagine we're not the only two who have, huh? Eaglizard 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that one advantage of doing it in sections or bits is that if you screw up while editing and have to cancel, you don't lose all of the good edits you've made that haven't been saved yet. Sort of like saving a word document frequently. Another is that after editing one section, upon reviewing it you often see other changes to be made. Gets very tiring to keep re-reading if you're doing the whole article at once. Another is that if you have some small notations that explain to others why the change was made, there is less chance of someone reverting the edit because they don't understand the rule of grammar (or whatever) involved. I've sometimes gone overboard on this, which is a mistake, but something like "rm redundancy", "clarity", "punc" "misplaced modifier", etc. can help others to understand why the changes were made (especially the writer whose words are being edited). But that is all just this editor's POV. Regards, Unimaginative Username 05:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of copy edits

message: Under Common copy-edits is this bullet point (3rd from the bottom):
*External links generally belong at the end of an article under a heading titled "External links". References are an exception and should match the link in the reference section; these are then handled automatically.
I think the second sentence is very unclear (especially to the newbie), but I'm not sure how to improve it. Probably a couple more sentences will have to be added. I hope someone will help. Thanks! Scrawlspacer 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear! I'm sure this is all explained adequately elsewhere, but where? Unfree (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links vs. references

message: Under "Etiquette", changed the wording to clarify that c/e does not include correcting POV issues, which should be corrected before requesting c/e. Discussion of this issue was at the  project "Criteria" page. Unimaginative Username 04:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-editing versus NPOV correction 

message: Don't we want to add also disambiguation of links, with the help of software like Wikipedia Cleaner?
Randomblue (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig? 

message: Folks, is there a tag that can be put on an article to indicate that it is being copy-edited, requesting other editors to refrain from editing while the copy-edit is in process? If not, I think we need one. Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: is what I would use. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, is that an old issue!  Wikipedia does it best! Unfree (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Article is being copy-edited" tag? 

message: This article has just been added to the See also section of WP:MoS, so it could do with a little polish.  There was a hidden comment in the first section asking if it was bossy ... it was, a bit, and also longer than it needed to be.  I moved it to the lead and shortened it up; is there anything else that needs saying there? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to replace the dash with a comma. Unfree (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:MOS  "See also" 

message: Is this really consensus? My feeling, based on what many editors seem to do, is no. Overuse of contractions can seem excessively conversational, but I don't think there's any blanket prohibition on using them in articles. Even in academic writing, a prohibition on contractions is in many areas nowadays seen as somewhat old-fashioned and no longer followed. --Delirium (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AP Style Manual says "Contractions reflect informal speech and writing."  TCMOS is silent.  You're right that we're nearing a tipping point, because so much "persuasive" speech these days is written in blogs and in the style of blogs.  Still, it's important to the project as a whole to have a solid core of articles that sound just as formal as the other online encyclopedias, it helps give us a certain dignity.  There's no need for every article to be written in that style, though.  As a compromise, we say: if you want to write a featured article, it has to follow WP:MoS, and it's also the "safe" thing to do to follow WP:MoS, because we've put a lot of effort into following the lead of large numbers of professional copywriters.   But styles vary; in fact, we've just started conducting a large study of writing style of articles as they first enter WP:GAN, at Good article usage.  - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding contractions 

message: In the section on spelling, it's mentioned that if in doubt, one should "look it up". Would it not be useful to link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) or the Language Reference Desk? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea.  For North American articles (particularly US), the best link is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary; AP Stylebook (which most US journalists follow) recommends Websters, with AMHER coming in a close second.  But Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) is very helpful, and the REFDESK people are phenomenally good. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provide some links 

message: Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified as best as I can, though it still reads a little clunky.  Rather than start with a confusing example, I've moved this dot point to the end. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are long and short form see also links? 

message: 1.  Is this really a good page to have?  Should we delete it?
2.  It seems like it is missing a lot of the "how to copyedit" info, like how to run through the article, how big of a chunks to do at at time, how to take the article in and out of the queue.  Many of these questions are raised on the talk page, so my reaction seems normal.  The section at the start seems very basic and in some ways too granular for anyone getting to this page.  Also, it seems better said in the Manual of Style, Tony's page, Strunk and White, etc. I'm also not clear if the list is (reasonably) comprehensive, or just a splat.  At a minimum, the list ought to be moved to the bottom of the article, after the real thoughts on "how to copyedit" (which need to be developed). 
3.  The list is a "laundry list", not categorized, not sorted or prioritized.  Also, would be helpful to separate basic issues of English language usage, from Wiki conventions (like the article naming capitalization).  Of course, really Manual of Style probably does that better.
4.  2 years later and I still had the same reaction to the comment on links in references.  Huh?
5.  The edit summary stuff was decent and at least really tied into "how to copyedit".
6.  The comment to the effect of "if in doubt, don't correct" may be good advice, but certainly NOT for the reason that "someone will definitely fix it otherwise".  Would that it were so!
TCO (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I often add commas, citing this page's comma rule (search for "Vilnius"). That rule can also be found elsewhere, but not with any Wikipedia authority. I seldom if ever refer to the rest of the page. Although I make many of the other copyedits listed, they are also found in the Manual of Style. Art LaPella (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I probably wouldn't add the commas after "Lithuania" and after "1947" otherwise; they get opposition because they look wrong, although punctuation "experts" all seem to like them. Art LaPella (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

text: My high school education taught me to put a comma before "Lithuania" and before "1947", so perhaps that's what you meant by "geographic commas". I never encountered a "before and after" rule before Wikipedia. Art LaPella (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If 1947 and Lithuania fall at the end of a clause or sentence, there will be punctuation anyway. Since this is natural for so long and heavy a sentence element, it doesn't come up very often. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactions to this page 

message: :Template:Writing guides, at the bottom of the page, links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For pages like this one, intended for beginners, maybe there should be a version of that template (perhaps a "simplified=Y" parameter) that links to Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style instead. From there, editors can find the main Manual of Style if necessary. Art LaPella (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:SMOS 

message: I have removed the following as it is in direct contradiction to MOS:CT, MOS:TM, and WP:ALLCAPS:
* Any published work should be spelled exactly as published, using symbols and any in-word capitalization as in the original, e.g., Piers Anthony's novel 0X is correctly spelled with the digit 0 (zero) instead of the letter O (upper-case o). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, do not attempt to ape the style (e.g. font color, typeface and other typographic effects) of the cover or promotional materials of a work.
--Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles of published works. 

message: In the "Find articles that need copyediting" section, the link to Special:GettingStarted appears red, indicating that this special page doesn't have a working implementation yet. There's a project page WP:GettingStarted describing the (planned) feature; should the link be changed to point there? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good catch. The Special page is no longer here, but the new version of GettingStarted is available to all new users. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk  20:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  GettingStarted 

message: In the section: How to do basic copyediting
In step three
The sentence: Simple "Copy edit" if fine, but "Edited for tone" is even better
Suggested replacement: A simple "Copy edit" is fine, but "Edited for tone" is even better Nee316 (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: EEng 20:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Why Aren't These Pages Copy-edited. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  -- Tavix (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:Why Aren't These Pages Copy-edited" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I propose that we add these tab headers from WP:GOCE to this article. is that okay? --Sm8900 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not support this. The page is not part of the WikiProject. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Agree with User:Jonesey95...odd request.--Moxy 🍁 03:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion for article 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:5C. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#Wikipedia:5C until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:5C" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The Delhi roit is an anti Hindu roit. Lolarot (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page :Wikipedia:Basic copyediting. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021 

message: Is there some reason this article does not make it clear that changing the meaning of a text is not copy editing and should not be given a "ce" edit summary? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a how-to guide, not a what-it-is guide. The link in the first sentence to copy editing explains what copy editing is and is not. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your response to the first part of my question. What are your thoughts regarding the second part suggesting this article should make it clear that "changing the meaning of a text ... should not be given a 'ce' edit summary"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like an individual behavioral issue that is best addressed with the individual, by directing them to the guidance at Help:Edit summary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify that a change in meaning is not a copy edit? 

message: Add a period after the sentence "Watch out for jargon and overly long sentences, which can reduce readability". 2003:E7:4716:32E1:5DF5:3E99:B0C2:B229 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021 

message: Sentence "Grammarly and LanguageTool have free plugins for popular web browsers that checks spelling, grammar, usage, and punctuation" needs the S removed from word checks
:. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request 29 Sep 2021 

message: When I websearched Zachary Ty Bryan, Wikipedia listed his character in Home Improvement as "Bryan"  The character'e name is "Brad", not Bryan. SarwebTul (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Thanks for bringing this to attention. I can't find the error you are describing. There are several different articles that mention the character. Could you please link or indicate the exact Wikipedia article where you saw it?  --DB1729talk 14:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entertainment  

message: The article on Jimmy Wales uses mostly "on Wikipedia" except for a quote in which the subject himself uses "in Wikipedia". Is there any guidance on the matter, please? "On Wikipedia" has 15k instances  while "in Wikipedia" has only  2k -- should the latter be copy edited? Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the context. They mean two different things. Many of those "in Wikipedia" instances are valid, such as "While it would appear the passage in Wikipedia is a plagiarism of the book", "sourced information in Wikipedia articles", and instances that are quotations and titles of research papers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Wikipedia, in Wikipedia 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy § RFC.  Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy#RFC|Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy §&nbsp;RFC]]

message: When I'm giving feedback to my students' draft contributions, I'd like to indicate sentences that are verbose and need to be edited for concision. The Verbose template was deleted over a decade ago, and I'm surprised there's no alternative. I presently use the copy edit-inline template but the reason/for is only viewable in a tiny pop-up which is often obscured. Is there a way to make the existing's template more visible? Or, might there be support for a verbose template? -Reagle (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason text is visible as plain text to editors when they click the Edit link to fix the section or article. Wikipedia is not meant to be an all-purpose platform for instruction, so we do not employ proofreaders' marks or symbols; we have to strike a balance between presentation of pages to normal readers (i.e., the vast majority of our page viewers) and editors who might want to improve articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A template for editing verbose prose for concision 

message: Hello everyone.  I read in the article the comment that a good copy editor is rare.  This indicates that a few good copy editors have been identified.  Might the work of some of these copy editors be also identified so that we could view some of their outstanding examples?  I believe this could serve others well. Most kind regards to all, Hu Nhu (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good copy editor is rare