Talk:Copy editing

message: I killed a link to a commercial editing service - DavidWBrooks 17:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  no commercial links , please 

message: Hi,
What about an article on copyedit in wikipedia. It can be informative for new users using wikipedia. May be it should be in wikipedia name space. A link can be given in this article to copyedit in wikipedia.
Zain 20:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style does it. I don't know about putting it in the article, though - wikipedia usually tries to keep internal stuff separate from articles. - DavidWBrooks 21:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CopyEdit and wikipedia 

message: The article needs more on radio, tv and Web copy editing, as well as copy editing done in other fields, like public relations and advertising. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article needs a copy edit. Jolly Ω Janner 20:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement . . .  

message: I deleted "commercial centers" because I don't know what they are. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh - serial commas! The AP Stylebook will hunt you down! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traits, Skills and Training 

message: Can someone with the knowledge please include explanation of why a copy editor is a "sub"? The North American usage is explained (editor who prepared "copy," typeset material or prepared text.) But what is the "sub" about? "Subject"? "Subordinate"? "Subtle"? 
If it's more an organizational title than a functional title, are we sure it's the equivalent of copyeditor? I'm sorry to be ignorant, but in the UK are there proofreaders? Is that maybe the equivalent job? 72.148.152.214 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: sub-editor --Senra (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

text: It means exactly the same thing as copy editor in the context of newspapers and magazines. However, even in the UK, copy editors on books and other non-periodical publications are usually called copy editors rather than sub-editors. Proofreaders are called proofreaders. I don't know where the "sub" bit of the word comes from, though I presume it's "subordinate"; the only comparator I can think of, offhand, is "sub-organist", a term sometimes used in the UK for the assistant organist at a large church or cathedral. Barnabypage (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on UK terminology 

message: I "undid" this revision by User:SlimVirgin today.We have had the following listed thus, "The "five Cs" summarize the copy editor's job: Make the copy clear, correct, concise, complete, and consistent. Copy editors should make it say what it means, and mean what it says" for as long as I have been aware of this article.My edit summary"Reverted good faith edits by SlimVirgin (talk):  comprehensible means the same as clear (understandable)"explains why I reversed User:SlimVirgin, who has immediately reverted my edit.Surely the duplication of comprehensible with clear (both meaning "understandable") should not remain and 'complete' should be restored –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Gareth, I added a source for the five Cs, including comprehensible. It's not the job of a copy editor to make sure the text is "complete" in the sense of comprehensive. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi SlimVirgin , Yes I have seen the new reference. Thank you. My point is the duplicationkeep 'comprehensible', I prefer it to 'clear'replace 'clear' with ... any ideas? –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 20:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the "five Cs" is actually a legendary copy editor's maxim, we should leave it untouched. Are there better sources for it than somebody's workshop-talk presentation PDF? --McGeddon (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of online sources, e.g.  SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick Google search yields 18,500 hits for "clear, correct, concise, complete, and consistent" and 12,600 hits for "clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent". Both can be found in advice guides and advertisements from professional copy editors. Is there a reputable source that first came up with the 5 C list? I haven't been able to find it yet. Personally, I agree that "complete" is beyond the strict definition of what a copy editor does, and I'm uncertain about what the distinction between "clear" and "comprehensible" is supposed to be. Tdslk (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search isn't a good way to measure this, because lots of sources will have copied the text from this article. I have never heard of "complete" being included in the five Cs -- not least because it would make no sense. Copy editors don't as a rule expand text to ensure that it's "complete"; they work with what's there. I'll look around to see if I can find the oldest and best source for the list. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Not an RS for our purposes, but worth noting that Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to also uses "clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Not an old source but a good one: Peter Lyons and Howard J. Doueck, The Dissertation: From Beginning to End, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 170. They don't refer to the five Cs by name, but they do refer to ""clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better than any source I've found. Does it explain the intended distinction between "clear" and "comprehensible"? Also, FWIW, the original edit used "comprehensible": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copy_editing&oldid=82757023. Tdslk (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't found an explanation for the difference between clear and comprehensible. The text was changed here in 2010 by an anon, btw. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "five Cs" summarise the copy editor's job 

message: Is the paragraph starting with "copy editing has three levels: light, medium, and heavy" an arbitrary classification copied from a beginner's text book or how-to on the topic? I don't want to simply remove it because it is sourced, but it doesn't sound generic or universal to me. -- Theoprakt (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "three levels" of copy editing 

message: Hi everyone. I've made a brief perusal of the page and it currently looks pretty solid. However, I was wondering if it would be possible to add a section regarding the impacts of technology in copy editing compared to manually-edited content.  Please feel free to offer suggestions if you have any comments or concerns. I'd appreciate any feedback. -Ethicks1998 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impacts of technology in copy editing 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Why Aren't These Pages Copyedited. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Why Aren't These Pages Copyedited" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Is there meant to be consistency in the way variations of "copy edit" are spelt within the body of the article?  For example, there are several instances each of "copy editor" and "copyeditor".  Thanks, Mondo Beer (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on spelling 

message: I have tried to figure out the difference between the two. Can anyone answer my question, maybe by putting it into the Wikipedia article? I am sure I am not the only one who has that question. Cheers, 130.226.41.9 (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing vs. language editing 

message: The spelling should match the title of the article. If you feel strongly that the article title is not spelled correctly, you can read about how to suggest a change at WP:RM. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  On systematically changing the spelling of the subject of this article 

message: This organisation has no article so the default assumption is that it is not wp:notable. Consequently I have removed the reference to it from this article as potentially misleading promotion. If an article about it is created, the info can be reinstated. 
To be accepted, the article as minimum should say what the charter is, and how/when it came into existence, citing a (disinterested) wp:reliable source. The article would need to provide third-party evidence that its qualifications have any de facto or (preferably) de jure recognition.  Any WP:conflict of interest must be declared.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading? 

message: I have asked at talk:Proofreading#Citation needed that describes how the terms "proof-reading" and "copy-editing" have become merged in common usage if anyone can provide a citation to support my "as everybody knows" statement. Please reply there or edit that article. Thank you. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed that describes how the terms "proof-reading" and "copy-editing" have become merged in common usage 

message: — Assignment last updated by Logan Picunko (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Technical Writing