Template talk:Copy edit

message: Shouldn't almost any article that meets this description be ed? So how about getting rid of this template and having it redirect to  instead? (After all, any article for which this tag is appropriate can have that one instead.) —msh210 16:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: *Isn't this template just duplicating  and/or ? Thryduulf 11:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify / cleanup

message: Template:Copyedit is the documented (and preferable) name, but it currently redirects to Template:Cleanup-copyedit (which has a brief history that prevents non-admins from performing the move). Lifeisunfair 17:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional brief explanation, then sign your vote with: ~~~~
*Support.  This is an uncontroversial move that a technical limitation has prevented me from carrying out.  —Lifeisunfair 17:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Moved per request. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: The template is up for deletion. Since the user has spend effort into his template, maybe at least the graphic  can be integrated into the existing copyedit template? Would be a pity otherwise I think... Gryffindor 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{lt|Spellingminor}} 

message: I am adding an invitation to readers to help, as many other cleanup type templates have. Also, I am changing the wording to copy editing from copyediting as few dictionaries seem to accept the single-word form, and this is about copyediting (er, copy editing) after all. Also removed the word English from the parenthesis as non-English articles will not be tagged with this template, and it shortens the long line which already wraps awkwardly. I debated adding a BR tag before the paren, but we'll see what comes of this before I do that. cmh 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding invitation

message: I've run across (and fixed) a number of pages with this template included incorrectly. The problem is for the vast majority of these cleanup-type templates, the first parameter is meant for date (in fact, I haven't seen any others that have a different parameter as the first). This results in tags such as "This February 2007 needs copy editing...". I didn't want to change anything, because I don't want to break any other pages, but I thought that this would be a good thing to think of/discuss. –Dvandersluis 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I've edited the template's documentation to document its current operation, which substitutes a first parameter of arbitrary text for the words article or section.  That is useful for replacing those with the word section, for example (see my edit to Qutbism#Term Qutbism) but can lead to errors such as the one you describe.  Requiring the parameter to actually be the word "section" would be one solution. Wdfarmer (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template format 

message: Perhaps the template should be made horizontally wider in appearance.  What do you think?  69.140.164.142 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested cosmetic change 

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) 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a test version at Template:Copyedit/test, and have changed two articles to use this version.  It looks no different on an article, but instead of adding the article to two maintenance categories creates invisible references to two non-existent articles (the template links to the page that explains how to find other articles needing copy editing).  See, for example, this version of Jose L Torero (using the current template) vs. this version (using the test version of the template).  Again, if anyone has any problems with this change, please speak up. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please comment on the broader issue at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists 

message: Would it be possible to get the text of the copyedit tag changed?
"This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling."
'and/or' isn't really valid so it's kind of funny to see it in a statement regarding copy editing. Simply using "or" sufficiently indicates that any combination of grammar, style, cohesion, tone, and spelling need to be addressed. Either that or it should be changed to "and/exclusive or" but even that is implied by a simple "or" while avoiding the awkwardness of reading "and/exclusive or".
Wikipedia even has an entry about "and/or" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or
This page also provides a quick synopsis regarding why and/or shouldn't be written http://www.geocities.com/thorin.geo/and_or_invalid.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.96.11 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've made the change you suggested. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you!
===Contrast it with programming===
I respectfully disagree, as it is my understanding that "or" as used in English, rather programming languages, is ambiguous as to whether it is in reference to the exclusive disjunction ("xor") xor the logical disjunction ("or"). The truth tables are significantly different:
p  	T	F	T	F
q  	T	T	F	F
or 	T	T	T	F
xor	F	T	T	F
and	T	F	F	F
Observe that both "or" and "and" return true when both p and q are true, however "xor" does not. Thus, as I see it, the use of "and/or" is equivalent to "((and) xor (or))", meaning it might be "and", or it might be "or", but not both at the same time, depending on whether all the statements are true ("and") or at least one is true ("or"). So "and/or" is used to emphasize simply that "xor" is not being used. Saying "and/or" would be equivalent to saying "not xor", but that's a rather cryptic usage in English, methinks. In fact, I would go so far as to assert that "and/or" is the only way in English to say "or" (logical disjunction), because "or" in English is meant to function only as the exclusive disjunction ("xor", in many programming languages). The ambiguity arises simply from the equivalence of spelling in English versus logic.
—AltiusBimm (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit Tag needs copy editing 

message: I respectfully disagree, as it is my understanding that "or" as used in English, rather programming languages, is ambiguous as to whether it is in reference to the exclusive disjunction ("xor") xor the logical disjunction ("or"). The truth tables are significantly different:
p  	T	F	T	F
q  	T	T	F	F
or 	T	T	T	F
xor	F	T	T	F
and	T	F	F	F
Observe that both "or" and "and" return true when both p and q are true, however "xor" does not. Thus, as I see it, the use of "and/or" is equivalent to "((and) xor (or))", meaning it might be "and", or it might be "or", but not both at the same time, depending on whether all the statements are true ("and") or at least one is true ("or"). So "and/or" is used to emphasize simply that "xor" is not being used. Saying "and/or" would be equivalent to saying "not xor", but that's a rather cryptic usage in English, methinks. In fact, I would go so far as to assert that "and/or" is the only way in English to say "or" (logical disjunction), because "or" in English is meant to function only as the exclusive disjunction ("xor", in many programming languages). The ambiguity arises simply from the equivalence of spelling in English versus logic.
—AltiusBimm (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Contrast it with programming

message: Yesterday, this template was vandalised with a picture of a penis, affecting hundreds if not thousands of pages. The vandalism was reverted within minutes, but nonetheless had an immediate and dramatic effect on Wikipedia. In order to avoid this happening again, and in accordance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:High-risk templates, I suggest this template be (at least) semi-protected. (Many similar templates, such as , already are.) Does anyone else agree? Terraxos 01:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; try semiprotect. Tony (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to a request on WP:RFPP, this template has now been indefinitely semiprotected. Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Terra. Tony (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this template be protected?

message: Thanks for getting rid of that squinty, garish yellow thing. Tony (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  much better icon 

message: Would it be appropriate to add information on the template regarding WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit? Perhaps something like "articles with this tag are under the care of..." -Samuel Tan 12:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding information on the copy editing wikiproject

message: 
Just a minor thing. Please put this part on the same line.
Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template}}|}}}}
</includeonly><noinclude>
to
Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template}}|}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>
I'm trying to get rid of a patch of whitespace showing up in Fullmetal Alchemist and this seems to be the culprit. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --- RockMFR 02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: This template links to Wikipedia:How to copy-edit in two places. Is that really necessary? Seegoon (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double link 

message: The line about the date parameter refers to a synopsis "after a second pipetrick." Looking at the template source, I think this is incorrectly referring to the for parameter, which is described above it. Or am I completely missing something? --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation needs copyediting 

message: I can't see the point of this template, and have therefore proposed its deletion (or asked for an explanation and perhaps revision). See here. Tama1988 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How is this template helpful?

message: I've updated the sandbox with some tweaks to match the styling of other cleanup templates. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk
:. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style tweaks 

message: Hi! I was wondering if we could add a notice regarding the Guild of Copy Editors to this template in case a copy edit is needed quickly (such as if the article is a GAN or FAC), since the project takes requests. To add this, just add (if it it important that the article be edited soon, you can request a copyedit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) after A how-to guide is available. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is uncontroversial, so I've disabled the editprotected. I rather think that this isn't important enough (an emergency copyedit?) to warrant inclusion in the template, especially when the length of the note warrants the re-inclusion of small text (which is hard to read and clutters the notice). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; I just thought I'd mention it after seeing that Template:ShouldBeSVG had a similar notice for the Graphics Lab. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That template is for imagespace, where large and instruction-heavy templates are pretty much the norm. That approach is generally avoided on articlespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected request 

message: Am I right in saying a final full stop (or period if you prefer) is no longer required in the for section? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current text is "This article may require copy-editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available.". Are you suggesting that the full stop after the word "spelling" is unneeded? I don't think that's true. D'oh, you meant in the documentation. I'll tidy it up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full stop not required anymore. 

message: Please remove the last sentence, "A how-to guide is available." The link provided in the sentence is the exact same as the link earlier in the message, making the sentence redundant and unnecessary. --Blooper (Talk) 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . I was tempted to take out the next to last one as well, but I know some people like these links to edit the page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundant link 

message: PLEASE put a serial comma before the word "or" in the template! Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that the lack of a serial comma is causing any confusion here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I propose adding the comma, along with removing the word "now" (see next post). Debresser (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Contrary to the IP's assertion, there is nothing illiterate in omitting the serial comma. Losing the "now" would be fine though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way you can possibly defend that. Listen, dude, it's just how English works. Rules, you know. - usucdik 11:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see Wikipedia:Mos#Serial_commas, where it says clearly "Both styles are acceptable in Wikipedia". And calling a fellow editor "dude" is not what we call civil on Wikipedia. So perhaps you go read the links for beginners in Template:Welcome, and then come back. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You just proved that it is not acceptable, dude. How can there be consistency among articles with this goes to all of them? Even if you just consider this thing by itself, there is no reason to not change it, while plenty of reason to change it. It is patently obvious that one way is more correct (actually "more" being 100% more). I find it quite unbelievable that people can defend such an abomination created upon our language. By accepting this lurid behavior, it fosters inconsistency completely.  - usucdik 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have just proved yourself an impolite fellow. Your posts are agressive and devoid of logic. May I suggest you go searching for another ground of battle than Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Serial comma!

message: The template text currently reads
 This article may require copy-editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or
 spelling. You can assist by editing it now.
Speaking strictly for myself: When I see the word "now" used in situations like
this ("edit now", "buy now", "register now", ...), I have a very strong
automatic, semi-unconscious reaction of "The hell I will!". It would surprise
me, if I am unique in this regard; and I suggest that the template by
altered to remove the logically unnecessary (even, arguably, too restrictive)
"now". The same recommendation applies to any other template which uses a
similar formulation.
I would speculate that the original author copied this use from advertizing
language, where it may or may not originally have been effective. However, I
strongly suspect that people are so used to seeing this in intrusive and
presumptions "Buy NOW!"-statements that it has lost its effectiveness by now.
(Cf. e.g. "banner blindness".) OTOH, it can still be seen as as rude, joining
the ranks of phrases never to use (with e.g. "Thank you for your cooperation!").
Beware that the relative mildness of the template's use is not really
relevant, because it hits a spot "pre-sensitized" by the common abuse in
advertizing.
88.77.179.22 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think that you've read into it a little too deeply, but I agree that the omission of the word "now" wouldn't actually lose anything from the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

text: This isn't controversial, obviously. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

text: In belated support, I don't think the complainant was reading to much into it at all. It is really annoying to be ordered to do something "now", and 88.77.179.22 is not the only one to have immediate negative reactions to it. Also, it didn't make any sense anyway. One should really read the talk page first before going on a major editing spree, as certain things may be phrased certain ways for particular reasons in some cases. And one person's "correct" grammar is another's "sloppy writing" in some cases, given the surprisingly low number of points that all English-language style guides unanimously agree upon. Disputes may have already taken place and been resolved about some of the text in question. For a real-world example, cf. the use of subjunctive in the article Godwin's law several years ago. (It led to a slow-moving edit war, because a large number of younger readers do not recognize subjunctive and think that its use is an error; while it was technically correct, it was eventually removed to stop the "fixing" of the "typo" every week, and the subsequent reversions of the "fixes"). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...editing it NOW 

message: This is embarrassing. Let's actually copy edit the template.
#Change the wording "copy-editing" in the template's prose to "copy editing".  It is "copy editing", the editing of copy.  "Copy-editing" is the compound adjective form, as in "I have a copy-editing headache." Hyphenating it when it is used as a noun is ungrammatical. Compare "I love drag racing" (noun, no hyphen), and "I have a drag-racing wife" (adjective, hyphenated).
#Move template to Template:Copy edit over redirect, and move associated talk and /doc pages.
— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind fixing all the double redirects? Or make sure that the bot does it. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it MUST be hyphenated. This has been snuck through without consensus, and should be reinstated. Tony (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why MUST it be hyphenated, Tony? Debresser (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionary. Tony (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit the template itself, sheesh 

message: I added  to need help proposing a merge with . --Gh87 (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My dictionaries say it should be hyphenated. Tony (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion is in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 2#Template:Copyedit-section. --Gh87 (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal for [[Template:copyedit-section]] 

message: Punctuation should also be added on the list where grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling is located. WAYNESLAM 23:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And while we're at it, can we have back the hyphen that was removed without consensus about nine months ago? My dictionaries say the hyphen is required. Tony (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be because of the tlx. WAYNESLAM 02:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Could you replace "Wikipedia:How to copy-edit" with "Wikipedia:Basic copyediting". The page was moved a long while ago and the template should be updated accordingly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: —GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Update link

message: Is the following the right template to put on a sandbox article, not yet published, that needs a grammar check?

From your experience how long can it take to have somebody to review it for grammar issues?
Thanks --★ Pikks ★ MsG   23:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How and how long for a sandbox? 

message: Daryl's Dragons Football Club was formed in 2009. They have an U9 team who train in Primrose Hill Park. 
They have recently joined The Camden and Islington league at Regents Park, playing games on a regular basis. 
Recent result for Daryl's Dragons was 3-0. Players Nicola, Tarquin and Jamie all scored. The next game is against The Heath F.C on Saturday 17th December.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballAllTheWay (talk • contribs) 12:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daryl's Dragons Football Club U9 

message: On the page, there is this:
This template will auto-categorise tagged articles into Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, or a dated subcategory thereof. However, if the optional parameter
The last part seems to be missing the last part of the sentence.  I'm not familiar with this template, so I don't know what all the optional parameters do, or how they effect placement into the category.  Can someone fill in the missing piece?
RudolfRed (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the result of a careless edit of mine. I have now restored the missing part of the sentence. Thank you for noticing this and posting about it here. Debresser (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something's missing 

message: An inline version of this template that could be added on individual sentence(s) would be a good idea. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 12:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline version 

message: How about importing changes from the template sandbox to the main template, random admin who finds the  template? Anna|talk 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the editprotected template. It is inappropriate to ask for such a major edit before establishing consensus that the edit is desirable. I for one, am against: much too much text. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the editprotected with a tl to editprotected. 96.50.22.205 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good call. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: 112.198.79.253 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: - Nothing was requested. — xaosflux Talk 04:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 28 September 2014 

message: Tony's birth date is 2-12-91 he is 23. The home town is spelled Carol Stream — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.110.180 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 January 2015‎
: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. SiBr4 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 9 January 2015 

message: jeni sundaram
CT/MRI Technician  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenisundaram (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 26 February 2016 

message: Grindcomber (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 20 May 2017 

message: Is possible to remove the copy edit template notice from this site, or is there anything that needs to be actioned first?
Simon C. Barnes Simon C. Barnes (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. What do you mean by "this site"? In any case it doesn't seem like a request related to the content of the template, but to the usage of the template which is something you'll need to raise on the talk page of the article concerned. Cabayi (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 22 September 2017 

message: Hello, I've corrected all the grammar mistakes for IC3PEAK article. Please, remove the "grammar and style template" Ross kramerov (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done Looks like you figured out that you could do it yourself. Well done.  – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 6 April 2019 

message: Umm, why is “date” not the default parameter given that it’s the only required one?
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot fills in the date more reliably than human editors do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default parameter