Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Archive 2

message: The several editors who have put effort into Mythology (see Talk:Mythology#"take your complaints to talk") will likely be interested to know that some other editor has undone all our collective efforts because he feels that we don't know toot about the subject and he feels that we should have read the entire talk pages before we did anything.
I don't believe that a copyeditor necessarily needs to be conversant with all the history of an article to effectively clean it up, even though I would agree it wouldn't hurt.
What do the rest of you think?--JAXHERE</span> | Talk 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe you're right IrisWings, about the chip, but it's rather discouraging to put a considerable effort into an article and then have someone come along and just wipe it out, don't you think?  --JAXHERE</span> | Talk 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. I don't understand why it was reverted. I don't think it was anything having to do with us, however; it seems like the contributors there have a long-standing dispute. We wasted our time, and now the article needs to be copyedited again, but at least it wasn't personal to us. IrisWings 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I copy-edited the page yesterday, but I am replying here without bothering to check the history of the revert you that you refer to, because I'm more interested in general lessons than specific incidents. I think that simple cleanup, such as rephrasing to tighten prose, and correcting grammar, tone and format, can be done without knowing the history of the page.  But moving sentences, dividing into subsections and such may (rarely) run the risk of going against the structure decided in the talk page by people who may know more about the subject or plan to add new material.  With new material, it may be better to structure the article as it is before our copy-edit.  -Pgan002 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A slap on our faces 

message: In case you're wondering, I sub-sectioned the proofreading status, in an attempt to make the page slightly easier to manage.  In particular, it should make it easier to find and move recently proofread articles into the completed section. 
We may need to even start archiving the status, as the page is beginning to approach 32K.  --Sigma 7 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proofreading status 

message: I recently looked at some of the earlier articles edited by the League, and noticed that several talk pages do not have the "This article has been copyedited by the League of Copyeditors" message box. Does anyone have an objection to me going through and adding the box to any article on the "done" list that does not have it? Galena11 23:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the ones I've edited, such as Yaoi, have been subsequently besmirched by other contributors. Maybe you should make sure the articles still look nice before you add it. Other than that, I think it's okay. :) IrisWings 05:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would agree - although to make things a bit easier, you may want to have a template that makes adding that box easier (and take up less space).  Even if there is a template, it's not used on the main page. --Sigma 7 12:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point on doing a "re-review" before giving it the seal of approval.  I've been adding a "+WPLoC Message Box" edit summary on the talk pages for the articles I've done final proofreads on, so that the date is recorded.  I assume that users would know that the edit is valid as of that date?  Or should we put text to that effect in the message?  I also agree that doing a template and making this easier to add would be great, but I'm a bit of a noob and don't know how to make the message box a template.  Help?  Galena11 20:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I confess; I have offended. I was deterred by the effort of opening the edit tab and then copy-and-pasting the code for the LoC box. Please do not put me in a sack with dogs and snakes and throw me into the river Tiber. I shall be better in future; I promise. Do please make a simple template for the LoC box to spare me the onerous duty of copy-pasting. Thank you. Rintrah 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've gone thru the first part of the list (ending at X-Ray Specs) and added the template.  I included today's date and/or the original edit date, if known.  I'll finish going thru the rest later.Galena11 05:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audit of completed articles for message box? 

message: I am relatively new to wiki-world and was wondering what the protocol is for red links when copyediting?  Should you leave them, in the hopes that someone will write an article and the link will someday go "live"?  Or should you delete the link and just leave the text?  Thanks! Galena11 17:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I leave them when they seem noteworthy. I've purposely redlinked several things in the hopes that articles would be written eventually. IrisWings 20:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right to me.  Thanks for the guidance! Galena11 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with red links 

message: Rintrah, all your hard work on "1990s fads and trends" looks like it was for naught. It has, from all appearances, been reverted back to what it was before we did a copy edit.  It's back on the backlog list, as well.  What should we do in this instance? Galena11 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the page I had edited through, but found nothing of which you speak—I thus thought your comment strange. Then I looked on the backlog and saw that article was indeed there. I realised, though, the article I worked on is in fact 1990s fads and trends in North America; the article on the backlog is an earlier version of it. The latter article poorly describes its subject matter—it is a pitiable shadow of the other one. I think we should make the ugly one redirect to the better one. Rintrah 23:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that explains it!  Sorry for causing any distress.  I agree that it should redirect to your lovely, shiny article. *smile* Galena11 20:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go that far. I didn't make it so good that I actually want to read it myself. I just wanted to stop the reader from dashing his brains out on the computer monitor, as I nearly did when I was editing it. :) Rintrah 23:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I prodded it. If the proposal stands unopposed, the article will die on its own accord. Lets hope it does; so it will no longer terrify visitors of the backlog. After all, we don't want to discourage tourism to the backlog. Rintrah 09:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly don't want to discourage them--we need all the help we can get! *grin* Galena11 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad articles on the backlog are rewarding for a newbie like me. When stumbling around with not too much idea of what you are doing, it's great to be able to make a contribution by fixing spelling, capitalization, or a few commas. Somewhere else I wrote, "...nice to be able to rest my ego gently on some existing skills while I quietly try to pick up a few new ones." I looked at a some articles on your list and thought, "sheesh!" these are better than the ones I find just browsing around.--Joesydney 10:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I fixed it. It is ok now. Rintrah 05:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine. Although we whine about the size of the backlog, we try to be Stoic philosophers. <whine> Doesss it haveee to beee sooo big?! Ohhwwww. It's not fair. </whine> Rintrah 08:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A slap on our faces, part 2 

message: Greetings! Never knew this project existed until now. Count me in! I often review articles at WP:FAC (and occasionally at WP:FAR), and one of the most common requests is a copy-edit to push an article over the hump to FA quality. What do you think of making a separate heading under "Proofreading status" for "Articles on FAC/FAR in need of copyedit" or something similar? Or would it be unnecessary? Gzkn 02:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most definitely! League members will be happy to kick candidates into FA status. You're in. So welcome. Our principal aim now is to nuke the backlog to make it disappear. Rintrah 13:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Shall I add this new section when I make the proposed changes listed above? Galena11 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. You can make the proposed changes whenever you're ready. Rintrah 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  "Our principal aim now is to nuke the backlog to make it disappear."  I have requested a bot that will remove the cleanup tags from all pages that contain one.  In the meantime, we have to manually go through each article in the backlog and remove the tags.  Alright, bad joke. -Pgan002 00:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello from the land of [[WP:FAC]]! 

message: Do we have to? :) Don't want to seem like a lazy bum (which I am), but it just seems needless since we're moving them to a new section anyway. Gzkn 14:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * This may seem silly to you, but "striking out the article name" somehow provides a great deal of satisfaction to me. I could suggest making it optional but I won't, because inconsistencies just lead to chaos; chaos leads to anarchy; anarchy leads to misery and misery leads to "the Dark Side". (yuk, never mind me) --Brisbane2000 15:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *With you, I agree. The ways of the Dark Side, we must not follow. Rintrah 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Noooooooooooooooooooooooo! :p Gzkn 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"I, am your father." Woops. Sorry about that. I'm not a dude! Juss tryin' to be funny...and failed:P --Tohru Honda13Sign here! 06:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Off the matter of discussion, all of you are wandering. The way of the dark side, ignoring wikipedia policy is. Rintrah 06:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dark times I see ahead... Strike out, we must! (IMHO) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Striking out the article name

message: I added the articles in need of copyedit category to Dragons_flight's nifty category tracker thing. See User:Dragons_flight/Category_tracker#Cleanup. This should allow us to see how we're doing, and whether we're making any progress on the backlog. It updates every day. 
Oh, and Werdnabot won't be able to archive the stuff for us. It was a longshot anyway, since it's only used for talk pages. Gzkn 08:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 967? Easy! If 15 editors do the number I've done since joining the League, without more articles being added, the number will become zero! Rintrah 09:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for looking into Werdnabot, Gzkn.  Guess we'll just have to manage the archive the "old-fashioned way". :o)  Galena11 18:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracking our progress 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 18:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: While editing "femslash", I realized that the lovely "in progress" message box (as mentioned above in previous talk sections) on its talk page didn't have a template.  I've made one now. :o)  I hope it wasn't out of line for me to add it directly to the project page. It seemed reasonable to add it to the "Current To Do" section of the project page, as a companion to the other template. I suggest its use when an editor cannot complete an edit or must do it in stages.  However, I wonder if we want to put it on all articles that have been copyedited but not proofread?  This would alert users that some of the edits are being done under the aupices of the League. Thoughts? Galena11 21:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we were going to go with a different color for "in progress" than for "done".  If folks don't like the green above (I think I'd like a lighter green), how about another color?   ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe this? 
	
This article is currently being copyedited by the League of Copyeditors.   If you have any thoughts or concerns, please post them to the discussion page for review by League members.
 
I took the color from the templates for "major edit in progress" here: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance   ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I like the green; that works for me. I'll change the template. Galena11 02:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I second your motion. Rintrah 02:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created and added "In Progress" template to project page 

message: Nice job by someone; I've withdrawn my objection to the nomination. I'd love to refer lots of FACs to you, but that would swamp you. I'd be inclined to take on only FACs that have shown to make the grade in all, or almost all, other respects, and for which attempts have already been made to improve the text. Might be a way of "rationing" your excellent input there, and preventing nominations to FAC just to get priority copyediting? Tony 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should a new section be created for the FACs Tony, and others perhaps, adds? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, depending on what your colleagues think. Doing so might make it easier to answer basic questions about requests; i.e.,:
*Are all of the other FA criteria satisfied, or likely to be satisfied, during the nomination process?
*Have reasonable attempts already been made during the nomination to improve the prose?
After all, nominations to FAC are supposed to be in good order beforehand. Ahem [clears throat loudly] ....
If nominators know that they are the requirements, it would (a) prevent your service being abused, (b) focus your efforts on candidates that are most likely to get a star, and (c) provide motiviation for the main contributors to do as much as possible before asking you. I often ask them to search for copyediting help among those who are interested in the topic.
The FAR/C room involves exactly the same issues, although the process is a little different (first a review period, then, if insufficient progress has been made, they're moved to the chopping-block area). There, SandyGeorgia, Marskell and Joel put in a lot of effort to make the system function. No reason not to intermingle FAR/C nominations with FACs here, provided they're tagged as belonging to one of the three categories (FAC, FAR or FARC). Interested to know what you all think. Tony 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Now for my rant - I'm disappointed in Germany (in terms of article structure, not prose), especially since Raul keeps touting the German Wiki FA numbers at us.  And, the fact is, very few articles come to FAC with their basic structure in place, which is why I rarely read them until I've put them through the WP:RS (Reliable sources), WP:CITE (Citing sources), WP:FN (Footnotes), WP:V (Verifiability), WP:GTL (Guide to layout), WP:MOS (Manual of style), WP:MSH (headings), WP:SS (Summary style), WP:LENGTH (Article size), WP:EL (External links), WP:NOT (What WP is not), WP:LEAD (Lead) and a few other wringers.  I wish a few more reviewers would do that as well, and then we could turn them over to you folks, knowing that your efforts at making the prose shine will be well used, and that the rest of the article structure is in good shape.  I've been shocked lately at how many random checks have turned up deceptive referencing.  Too many of them are just plain sloppy, and making them read purdy won't help if the facts aren't verifiable - and every time a sloppy FAC slips through, some future nominator says, "well, look at so-and-so, and it's an FA".  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice list, Sandy. I'm keeping a record of those links. Tony 02:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: I would love to add your spiffy "done" template to the instructions for proofreading. Gzkn, may I have your permission to do so?  Group: Any objections? Galena11 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! I stole the idea from someone else while perusing the FAC page anyway. Just add ! Gzkn 00:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks muchly!  :o)  I've added it to the instructions.  Galena11 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding "done" template to project page? 

message: Because we have so many new editors (Welcome!) and are doing many more copyedits than we did in previous months, I created subpages in the archive for each month.  I've moved all of November and December's completed articles to these subpages.  The main archive page should still be used for any articles completed more than two weeks ago, but only in the current month.  We may also want to consider moving completed articles to the archive weekly, rather than biweekly.  Thoughts? Galena11 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a good idea...I was thinking about creating monthly archives too! I wouldn't have any objections to archiving weekly either. Gzkn 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created Monthly Archive Subpages 

message: I need a little clarification on our agreed definition of "copyedit."  Our project page states:
"The League edits these articles to improve style (including grammar, punctuation and diction) and formatting (including capitalization and wikification)."  I've understood this to mean that I should do standard editing practices plus add tags where necessary, format with headings, etc.
Should I also analyze/verify/validate references?  Is there anything else I'm not doing that I should?  Where does the copyedit end and "cleanup" begin?  Galena11 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably doesn't falls under the definition of "copyedit", although I often do general cleanup sometimes in conjunction with my copyedit. It all depends on my interest level. User:SandyGeorgia is a resident "reference expert", so she probably finds it easy to scan and fix the refs, which I find remarkable. :) Gzkn 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, it's just something I do (when possible), but not really part of copyedit.  I was raising a different point - which is that I wonder if efforts are well spent on copyediting articles which are referenced entirely to non-reliable sources or, in the case of two I did yesterday, basically translation copyvios.  I was also concerned that, when copyediting only one section and then labeling an article as CE'd by the LoCE, it wouldn't reflect well on the LoCE if the rest of the article is poorly written.  I'm still feeling my way around this Project, but I guess my personal conclusion is that I'd not like to spend time CEing articles whose content may later be deleted because of a copyvio or text based on unreliable sources.  Hope that clears up what my concerns were.  On the other hand, I do think it is good to try to hit general problems in articles, like incorrect headings per WP:MOS, WP:GTL, WP:MSH and WP:DATE - I do feel that some of that goes into a general ce. (Also, on one of your ce's, you had inserted ref tags which bombed out all the refs, which is why I got involved fixing the refs on that article, and then realized most of the article - not just the section requesting ce - was a mess.  I was just concerned that it would be embarrassing to say the LoCE had ce's it, when a ce of only one section was requested, and the part we hadn't ce'd was bad, but Gzkn solved that by clarifying in the template.)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think that the change to the template is a good way to address that valid concern.  I'm still feeling my way around wikipedia--not just this project--so I appreciate the help and clarification.  Thanks!  Galena11 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Referencing is my thing, Galena, so drop me a note if you ever have a question.  I keep poking around in the copedit backlog, searching for something I can help out on, but finding articles with bigger problems than ce - I have a really hard time mustering up the effort to ce an article which is based on unreliable sources, or a copyvio, or not notable, or a translation copyvio (even though I did one of those) - some of these articles should really be deleted, but who has the time for the whole AfD thing, which is Greek to me, still.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think that fact-checking and copy-editing are usually mutually beneficial.  If most of the structure and facts in an article are correct, then the copy-editing work is useful, and only some sentences need to be modified to correct for facts.  Also, good structure and tight prose make it easier to check the facts, by making it clearer what facts need to be checked.  Do you all agree?  -Pgan002 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Good prose makes the reader care; and knowing the facts, instead of pretending, makes writing good prose easier. We would save considerable time if contributors did not, all too often, abandon articles in wretchedness; so perhaps, then, we should refer those articles to their respective wikiprojects.  Rintrah 13:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good point. Template:Expert-subject kind of serves the purpose of refering articles to wikiprojects; I've used it a few times already. BuddingJournalist 14:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. I advocate, however, cajoling project members to salvage articles in their jurisdiction, rather than letting them rot in the backlog. By so doing, we would not have to hack up and prettify so many articles, from an almost infinite number. Let others deal with the many unspeakable horrors in the backlog, if they can. Rintrah 15:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, talking to experts and members of respective projects would help.  But so would making easy prose and structure improvements, because it makes those experts and project members care, and makes their work easier.  -Pgan002 01:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "copyedit"--what is expected? 

message: Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) has already undergone minor copy-edits, but it needs one right now as it is a featured article candidate. Thakns.Noahdabomb3 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enter the Wu-Tang

message: Isn't it time to archive this page? It is 99 kilobytes long. Rintrah 09:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. :) Gzkn 11:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Rintrah, your user talk page has a groovy archive icon/box.  Could we replicate that here?  Should we use it on the project page as well?  Galena11 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Hi all, 
Just wanted to let you know that I noticed a color change of our In Progress template.  I went back and changed it to the green we'd agreed to use, thinking Raul654 had just gotten overzealous.  However, that change got reverted with this edit summary:
:rv - it was specifically decided during the talk page standarization process for *all* of wikipedia, that all talk page templates would use this scheme. Individual wikiprojects do not get to override
Thanks!  Galena11 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah didn't know that before. Learn something new everyday... Gzkn 00:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Progress template color changed 

message: Hello all. I thought it was about time to update the  template to bring it in line with other cleanup templates. Thus, I was bold and added a date parameter to the template. This has the following affects:
*Articles tagged with  will be categorized in :Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from Month Year. For example,  puts the article in :Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from January 2007.
*The "needing copy edit from Month Year" categories are subcategories of :Category:Articles needing copy edit by month, which makes for easy browsing.
*Articles that are tagged with a date no longer get put in :Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. Instead, there's a separate :Category:All articles needing copy edit.
*I put in a request for User:SmackBot to start dating  tags as it currently does with other cleanup templates.
*This makes  consistent with the other cleanup templates. Moving forward, it will allow a way to prioritize copy editing (very old requests first). It's also useful to find out whether articles that were tagged a long time ago are still in need of a copy edit. Sometimes, an article has been totally revamped and someone just forgot to take off the  tag. This will also allow us to check whether the most recently tagged articles are indeed in need of a copy edit or just adding needlessly to the backlog (I came across an article with  that consisted of two sentences recently). Let me know your thoughts. Gzkn 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think this is fantastic!  It will be really helpful to know what's oldest.  One thought: do you think we should alter the project page to list these categories in addition to the "backlog" link?  Galena11 16:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I approve heartily! Rintrah 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice work! As it is, the process is a little more complicated than it should be (see comments under "Roll call", below). Anything that can make things more automatic is great. Raymond Arritt 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A change to [[Template:copyedit]] 

message: Because we already have a large list of members, I recommend that we initiate a monthly roll call. Members who do not sign the roll call by the beginning of the next one will be removed from the active member list. That way, we have an up-to-date display of active participants; not just a list of people who copyedit articles on occasion, who will be noted as being available but inactive. Thoughts? — Deckiller 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't remove them. If we should have a roll call, those who respond "yes" should indicate active status, and everyone else, inactive or busy. Rintrah 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rintrah.  I'm an unpaid volunteer and if someone insists that I answer to a roll call on a regular basis I resist.  You want me to sign in: pay me; otherwise accept my contribution as, if, and when I'm able to make it.  I almost feel that the extra work of putting an article on a list at the project page, adding a league template on a talk page, then coming over here again to move the listed item from a to do list to a "done" list or a "ready for final proofing" cuts down the available time I have to do edits (see my contributions if you doubt me).  I do a lot more than just what I own up to here, but I'll be darned if I will answer to a roll call unless I'm given a darn good reason to do so.  --JAXHERE | Talk 18:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said. Raymond Arritt 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We should leave it up to editors to specify whether they're active. Perhaps there should be a separate page for editors willing to cater to individual copyedit requests. In any case, a roll call would discourage many editors. Rintrah 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sepereate page for editors interested in taking requests could definitely help out here without having to resort to a roll call. I never knew people were so offended by roll calls; I've participated in them and used them in several projects. But yes, the "copyeditors for hire" page will really help save people time when they're looking for someone. On this page, we can even have "interests" or "specialties" so that people can actually pinpoint who is best for the article (although it might be best to keep this to the userpage). — Deckiller 19:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Galena has addressed this. We discussed the idea with Tony and ended up settling on what we have now; that is, the optional step of stating interests on userpage. I think we should preserve the original spirit of the League. Rintrah 19:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I propose this compromise: each editor states how many articles he or she has done (since joining the League). Thus. by looking at the numbers beside each name, a passer-by can get an idea of how active each editor is. This scheme would also motivate members without enforcing discipline on them, or regimenting them. I would also recommend there be some note indicating this number isn't an absolute measure of the copyeditor's worth. Rintrah 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work, except I doubt many have counted. I certainly haven't. Gzkn 08:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, many articles don't count. But we are playing roulette; sometimes we get lucky! Rintrah 09:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry. I misread your comment. I am willing to go back into the archives and count mine; and others', too, if they are lazy. It's just an idea. I am not worried if it is rejected. Rintrah 09:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *I see your point, Jaxhere. I think that counting how many articles we've all done is a bit unnecessary and almost makes this into a competition, which is silly.  I admit to being distracted from our original mission with the addition of the FAC edit requests, and will make more of an effort to work on the backlog.  However, there are some editors here who are probably better suited to working on the FACs than I am because they are more experienced in terms of Wikipedia and its standards, which are important all of the time (of course) but especially for FACs.   I don't think we should discourage League members from editing FACs if that's where they can offer the most value. So, perhaps there could be a list of editors at the top of the FAC section who are willing to spend the extra time and effort on FACs, and the rest of us can focus on the backlog?  Galena11 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You're right. I got a little carried away. Your idea could work. Let's banish the idea of roll calls. Rintrah 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roll Call

message: Why not just cross out the items when they're done, instead of moving them down to another section? That might save a bit of effort. — Deckiller 19:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but the present system is tidier. Rintrah 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another idea is to base it off of the charts on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Final_Fantasy/To_do#Articles_to_be_merged. — Deckiller 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the chart format; but I still think articles should be moved below. Cleanliness is next to fordliness. Rintrah 19:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OOOOH, kudos on the literary reference!  Galena11 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proofreading system

message: What should we do with them? I've been just removing them so far. Should they be archived instead? Or moved down to the "Articles proofread" section? Or perhaps they're in need of a proofread, and should be at "Articles ready for final proofread"? This last option might be a bit much, since FAC/FAR articles are usually quite well-written already and lengthy (thus proofreaders might not have the time to look at them before they're promoted/kept). I do think that those articles we copyedit should feature the LoCE tag on their talk page. Perhaps a short sentence in the instructions saying so? Thoughts? Gzkn 09:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move them to "Proofread". For the reasons above, we should assume the copyeditor is also the proofreader. If we had more active members, we could refer them to "Articles ready for proofread" instead.Rintrah 09:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okee doke.  I'll move Enter the Wu Tang and put on the tag. Galena11 16:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished copyedit requests for FAC/FAR 

message: Is this section really needed? I haven't seen much use of it in my limited time here, and I feel that "Articles requiring assistance from other editors" would serve its purpose just fine. Those who feel the issue is urgent and in need of a quick look can just indicate as such. The directions are also a bit harsh and prejudiced: "uninformed, unnecessary disputes" and "amount of time wasted on WP in unnecessary disputes". That may or may not be the case in every listing. Depends on the circumstances. Finally, I feel that the section somewhat duplicates WP:RFC, which is more adept at resolving disputes. We should just concentrate on copy-editing! Thoughts? Gzkn 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can delete it now, and pull it out its coffin if it's needed again. I agree with your reasons. Rintrah 09:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Galena11 17:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie dokie. I'm going to be bold a remove it. Gzkn 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe. I couldn't help myself editing your formatting. Rintrah 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in urgent need of a quick look 

message: While trolling the backlog, I clicked on Christine Kunkler and noticed it had the "notability" tag.  Should we bother to copyedit articles like this one, that appear as though they are targeted for deletion?  Galena11 05:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I come across an article that has a speedy, prod or afd tag, I usually just leave it alone and move on. No point in copy-editing something that is likely to be deleted. Sometimes I even tag articles as such while patrolling the backlog. In this case though, the "notability" tag is not as strong as an actual deletion notice. Google suggests that she's somewhat notable in Germany, although I can't say for certain. I'd still just move on to a different article. Let someone fluent in German decide whether she's actually notable before doing too much work (unless you know that she is notable, in which case you're free to remove the "notability" tag and improve the article). On another note, why do people feel machine translations of German Wikipedia articles make for acceptable English articles? Gzkn 06:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since we are not experts on most of the subjects concerned in such articles, our time is better spent on editing articles that will most likely survive.  I'd even say that if there is a reasonable concern of notability or threat of deletion, I would suggest removing the cleanup or copyedit tags until those are resolved.  -Pgan002 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do when articles are tagged "likely to be deleted"? 

message: Hi, I have been working Maserati MC12 up to FA standard, but because I'm the only major contributer, I have written the whole article except for a few lines. I miss my own errors so my copyedits are limited, so can I add it to the list of articles needing copyediting? Thanks. James086Talk | Contribs 12:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! Feel free to add it to the "Articles requiring assistance from other editors". Gzkn 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I just wasn't sure. I added it to the bottom of the list. James086Talk | Contribs 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maserati MC12 

message: I'm looking at an article called Alagoinha.  It seems to be translated by a computer or a grade-school student.
Some of the information is useable.  But when you correct mistakes, you run the risk of compounding mistakes that the translator may have made.
Should you chop out anything that's questionable?  -- and reduce the size article by about 80 percent.
Or forward it to the translation project?
I hestitate to do this, just because someone who speaks Portugese thought this should be translated doesn't mean that people who speak English are clamouring to read about it.
Or just nominate it for deletion?
Puddytang 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I hate editing those...I'm always afraid that I will make more mistakes in correcting the grammar. I never understood why people thought computer-translated articles were helpful at all to anyone. Perhaps forward it to the translation project? However, in my opinion, an understandable stub is much better than a long article in badly translated English that no one understands. I doubt anyone will cry foul over stubbing an article like that. Gzkn 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gzkn. Rintrah 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree.  Galena11 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also quite dislike articles written by computers—I know this doesn't directly relate to the subject under discussion. Some bot whose contributions wikipedia has deigned to accept has written articles almost entirely consisting of statistics; it writes two non-demographical sentences and then puts mindless, stupid statistics into a paragraph about Demographics. Rintrah 09:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across this doozy of a line while looking at Antofagasta, Chile: "Previously to the poblamiento of the place, Juan Lopez, who is considered the first inhabitant of the city, settled in the sector of White Rock, today known like the Chimba, where the mineral extraction began of precarious way." BuddingJournalist 09:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problema with that sentence. Could tú a point it out to me? Rintrah 07:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has dos lenguas, anda on quite a bit, muchos tiempos, grammar pobre and usage mas pobre, and follows the precarious way to wisdom. Other than that, it's fine.Unimaginative Username 06:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer-translated poorly-translated articles 

message: Discussions related to The Beatles have brought up a possible need for copyeditors to monitor some of the most popular articles on WP (see at village pump). What seems to happen is that because the subjects are widely popular, they attract a lot of contributors (which is good) which often results in a breakdown of organization and introduction of errors (which is not so good). Maybe specific copyeditors could take on some high-profile articles as special projects, doing a copyedit every week or so to prevent errors from mounting up. I've decided to take on The Beatles as such an ongoing project. Raymond Arritt 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That argument is bunk and resulted because they're disappointed at the failure of an FAC candidacy - a situation which could have been entirely avoided by first running the article through peer review, since it wasn't nearly ready for WP:FAC.  As an example of what's wrong with the argument, see recent high-profile articles like Barack Obama and Gerald Ford - highly edited, recently on the main page, and both came through fine because of committed and involved editors who are also good writers.  The Beatles Project needs better copyediting in general - the "high profile" argument is a straw man.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if there isn't a general need then I'll withdraw my proposal.  I'll stay involved as "copyeditor-in-residence" for The Beatles and related articles.  They have a group of editors who are committed to fact checking but less so to style and writing, and who disappointingly don't even seem to think it's important. Raymond Arritt 20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks you've hit the nail on the head.  But there are so many Projects who need to develop a corp of copyeditors - in that sense, they're not at all unique.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special projects 

message: Pop the champagne! As of 06:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, my friend. Please clone yourself many times, if you can, so we can eliminate the entire backlog. Rintrah 07:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, an hour later, someone tags the whole Asian American article as needing copy-edit. Argh. BuddingJournalist 07:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejoice!

message: I recommend we split the proofreading status sections to a subpage, sort of like a "to do" subpage seen on other Wikiprojects. That way, the main page doesn't have the tasks listed on it, so it just explains the project, its goals, members, and so on. It will make navigation a bit easier, especially as the project grows. If I'm not being clear, I'll demonstrate by creating the subpage. — Deckiller 13:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a basic example: Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading. — Deckiller 13:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is a good idea. You have my approval. Rintrah 14:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, all set; if people begin objecting, we can always move it back. — Deckiller 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! I like it. BuddingJournalist 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Rintrah 15:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It threw me a bit when I came back after a couple of weeks away and didn't see the list!  But I like it. :o) Galena11 18:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proofreading status split

message: As part of Feb's participation drive, I am looking at I, Claudius (which is quite interesting, by the way).  The trouble with it, beyond copyedit problems, is that there is barely a citation in sight, and it really needs a lot more references.  I have done some copyedit work on it, but I feel reluctant to put it up for proofreading, because it is still so far from prime time.
There are two ways to go that I can see:
# copyedit anyway, put in a cite tag, put up for proofreading, and move on, ending up with lovely prose on a largely unreferenced document with our name on it.  
# make a tag saying that the lack of sources must be addressed before copyediting can continue.
In short, should articles reach a standard of sourcing BEFORE copyediting? Do we deal with the sourcing?  Do we ignore sourcing issues, other than noting them?
I would be reluctant to put our tag on a virtually unsourced article. What are thoughts of other LoCE members?
Trishm 07:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the text seems valid, I usually just copy-edit anyway, marking the article with ,  and  where appropriate. However, in some cases, when a) I have reason to doubt the validity of the text, or large sections of the article seem to be original research, and b) a general copy-edit is not likely to solve the text's problems, I'll remove the copy-edit tag and make a post on the talk page with my concerns. Copy-editors shouldn't be called upon to polish unsourced speculation or essays, which seems to be the case with I, Claudius. When in doubt, just ask for sources and move on to another article. Copy-editing isn't going to be very helpful if the text is going to be deleted or rewritten later (which is why I'm liberal in my replacement of the copy-edit tag with  or ). In your case, I'd suggest putting the expert tag on the article, and request sources on the talk page. Anyway, that's my two cents. BuddingJournalist 08:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like good advice, I'll take it. Cheers,Trishm 09:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: When certain unsourced text seems particularly dubious, I delete it and copyedit the rest of the article. I think BuddingJournalist's advice is sound. Rintrah 09:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I do a fair amount of deleting, too. BuddingJournalist 12:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to handle articles that badly need references. 

message: Given the enormous size of the backlog, are we going to have to resort to hack work to get through it? Rintrah 09:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hack as in cut all the unsourced/awkward nonsense? — Deckiller 09:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe "hack" as in write a computer program to do it for us :-) -Pgan002 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enormous backlog

message: How about a new section: Articles partially copyedited? I often don't feel like doing a whole article if it is too big. With this new section, a copyeditor can specify how much has been copyedited (for instance, up to section X), and other copyeditors can finish the rest. I think this section might help for large articles no one wants to do.
Perhaps we could also request help from wikiprojects responsible for the shoddy articles. This might lighten our burden somewhat. Rintrah 02:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea! I'm one of those copy-editors with short attention spans, so this would help me tackle the large ones. Perhaps an "in progress" section? Also, what do you think about making the FAC/FAR heading a bit smaller, so that it's a subhead of Articles requiring assistance from other editors? On further thought, perhaps we should restructure the page like so:
*==Outside requests==
*===FACs and FARs===
*==Backlog status==
*===In progress=== (Or some other name)
*===Ready for final proofread===
*===Proofread complete===
This would separate the backlog stuff from the outside requests, and make it easier to move articles down in the backlog stuff. What do you think? BuddingJournalist 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New section?

message: Maybe we could recruit people from the cleanup taskforce. I remember seeing many editors who stated they could copyedit. They might join us if we plead our case. Rintrah 04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. I've also noticed other projects use the edit summary for recruitment. I'll start inserting "Copy-edited for the League of Copyeditors" in my edit summaries for league work. BuddingJournalist 06:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Perhaps we should add this to the main project page. Rintrah 06:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should put "LoCE copyedit: explanation" in our edit summaries. Rintrah 06:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that. BuddingJournalist 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Damn, apparently most of them are inactive. BuddingJournalist 07:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should contact the active ones, then. Rintrah 07:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandbox duly updated. BuddingJournalist 07:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All  BuddingJournalist 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent. Great to have you. I'm pleased you have taken your adduction so well. :) Welcome. Rintrah 17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The page of the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce says its goal includes "cleanup" and "editorial issues".  Those sound a lot like copy-editing.  I suggest that we deleniate the work of the two projects, so that anyone who does copy-editing can communicate in one place.  Of course, any person can participate in both projects at the same time.  -Pgan002 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recruitment

message: Because of the new parameters I added to the WP:LoCE template, and some discussion above, I modified the instructions to the project and proofreading pages. The LoCE tag should now go at the bottom of talk pages as a new comment. Let me know what you think or if anything is confusing. Feel free to change my wording too. BuddingJournalist 06:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article, or part of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors.  We invite you to join our project at the project page.
-Pgan002 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The parameters are automatically filled in (the subst:date stuff auto-fills the current month date). There was some discussion that the month/year would be helpful for a bot, but I think placing the template on the bottom of the discussion page renders that moot. It's now largely useful for the old templates that don't have the sigs. And feel free to change the wording if you want! BuddingJournalist 03:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can I change the wording? -Pgan002 19:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major changes 

message: I noticed today that somehow the links to the archive got lost when we split the "tasks" page out. I've added them back in as a box at the top of the Proofread Complete section.  Galena11 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. That was my fault! I must have cut the instructions somehow when I was rearranging stuff. Thanks for taking care of it; I like the box! BuddingJournalist 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting the archive back on