Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Criteria

message: I feel that the easiest way to clear or reduce our current backlog of requests is to tighten the criteria which articles must meet before they can be requested.  If this is applied retrospectively, we can clear many of the backlog articles by denying them on the new procedural grounds.  I know that sounds harsh, but of course the main purpose is not simply to find excuses to deny requests.  Instead, let's discuss any new criteria on their own merits and come up with criteria that focus our limited resources where they can do the most good.  Essentially, that means where our edits are least likely to be overwritten by rewrites or drowned out by new information.  
Currently on this project page are three guidelines that I think are self-evident.  However, let's discuss them, along with any others that people propose, below.  The format of the page is that it is transcluded onto the main page, with <noinclude> tags limiting the information that is transfered.  We should therefore be able to boil each criterion down to a nutshell-esque phrase which appears on the main page, combined with a more exensive explanation which appears only on the subpage.  In the proposed wording below, the summary section is bolded. Happy‑melon 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tighter guidelines

message: Proposed wording: The article must be written in English.  The League will not copyedit articles that are written in a language other than English, or those which have been auto-translated into English.
:We should add to the "must be in English" requirement that we will not work on auto-translated articles if they are not in summary format and/or have not had a preliminary attempt at standardizing the translated English.  Often, those auto-translated articles do not turn out well and it is almost impossible to determine the intended meaning. Galena11 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this, and Galena's addition.  Happy‑melon 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English

message: Proposed wording: The article must comply with the major stylistic requirements of the manual of style and the stylistic requirements of appropriate WikiProjects.  While it is the League's purpose to ensure that every nuance of the MoS is followed, the League will not copyedit articles that do not comply with the requirements of specific layout guidelines (such as WP:FICT, MOS:FILM, MOS:MUSIC, etc), and with WP:GTL, WP:SS and WP:L. The article must also meet any standards set by relevant WikiProject style guidelines, such as WP:MUSTARD for music-related articles. Shortcuts will be expanded
:Where applicable, articles must meet any standards set by the relevant WikiProject (such as WP:MUSTARD for music articles). 
::Followup question:  Is there a page that lists all of these wikiproject standards?Galena11 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  Happy‑melon 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of Style

message: Proposed wording: The article must be stable.  That is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war.
:While I agree that it is critical that articles be stable, we need an agreed-upon definition for "stable" so we can all apply the same standard.  Not sure what to suggest, though--maybe a certain number of reverts and/or edits within a stated time period?  What seems fair? Galena11 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  Could be hard to judge.  Happy‑melon 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the same wording used for GAC??  I've added it above.  Happy‑melon 19:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stable

message: *Authors should be responsible for adding comments to FAC and GAC articles listings on our Requests page indicating the outcome of their attempt. Galena11 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this sounds great, how often is it really going to happen? Most people would forget or not even know of this rule. KnightLago 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I just wish there was a way to monitor this in a better way...maybe a bot (although I have no idea how that might work....)? Galena11 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot could in principle be written that monitors GimmeBot's edits to flag up FACs that have been closed one way or another.  GACs would be harder.  It's not something that could be done easily, that's for sure. Happy‑melon 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Authors responsible for FAC/GAC outcome

message: *Should there be any reference to the guidelines for maximum article size? It's a good idea anyway to encourage writers to use the length guidelines, and reducing both the length and the number of overly-long articles makes the C/E's job easier and permits more articles to be c/e more promptly, thus reducing the backlog. It also might encourage more C/Es to participate, and existing C/Es to participate more often, though these are of course secondary to encouraging article writers to write in a concise style. Unimaginative Username 08:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? Unimaginative Username 23:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a great suggestion, too.  Galena11 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added WP:L to the "Manual of Style" section.  Happy‑melon 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Happy‑melon, WP:L redirects to "Lists". Should this have been "WP:LENGTH", or "WP:SIZE"? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wince!  Fixed on main page.  Happy‑melon 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: *Maybe include that an editor can only nominate one article at a time for copyediting. There are 6 articles on the page now from the same editor. KnightLago 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about this one.  It might seem like we are punishing an industrious editor, and I think our criteria should be more around the article than the authors themselves.  Galena11 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Galena11, but also understand what KnightLago might be getting at: If one editor is frequently asking for CE of articles that aren't up to the standards, wanting the LoCE to make up the difference, then a message should  be left directly for that editor, politely explaining the problem and pointing to the standards for requesting CE. If one editor has six articles all ready for FAR (for example), except for the CE, then hurray for that editor! Unimaginative Username 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the distinction now.  I agree with Unimaginative Username's approach.  Galena11 17:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidentally, I have just left remarks on the Requests page about one editor who has three requests up, while failing to respond to issues I raised in copy-editing two of his previous requests several weeks ago. I think these requests are the type that KnightLago was referring to. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One nomination at a time

message: I think we've pretty much reached consensus on the English, MOS, content, and stability issues.  Since those are already the covered criteria on the current page, can we move the new verbiage to the main page/criteria page?   We can continue to discuss the new items. Galena11 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Unimaginative Username 04:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Happy‑melon 20:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for consensus 

message: Been thinking about this... Authors who want a c/e will be at the  Requests page. Perhaps these criteria should be there, to be read *before* they put their requests on the list. Sort of self-triage. Move the copy-editors' instructions off the page, directed elsewhere, so that the Criteria will be the most prominent. Maybe something like this: (just an idea)
At the top of the Requests page, in big writing, something like, 
"If you are a copy-editor, please click HERE for the procedures to move these requests through the system as you copy-edit and proofread them. <BR>
If you are here to request a copy-edit for an article, please READ THESE CRITERIA FIRST. If your article meets these criteria, the instructions for making the request are below."
Then would be the criteria, then the instructions to list the article. The public would presumably have to read, or at least move past, the criteria before submitting requests. <BR>The instructions for proofreading, removing, and denying would be moved to the c/e instruction page described above. These are in-house things, for our use only, and don't need to be taking up space on the public's intake page.
The thinking is that repeat copy-editors will become familiar with clicking on the directed page to find the templates to add; it will clean up the page so that requesters will be more likely to read the criteria. Just a thought... Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps put the agreed-upon criteria on the Requests page? 

message: <soapbox> Looking at the large backlog of requests for c/e, one finds that a substantial number are for articles on video games, video game characters, movies (IMDb does a fine job on these), movie characters, movies about toys, TV shows, TV show characters, lists of TV deployment, rock musicians, rock albums, persons whose sole contribution to humanity is the ability to kick, throw, or hit a ball, teams consisting of such persons, ad infinitum. Meanwhile, articles of perhaps more scholarly or durable value, such as those on history, geography, science, sociology, psychology, persons and institutions that genuinely enhance human knowledge, etc., sit on the list for months awaiting c/e or p/r. Of course, any article meeting the  notability guidelines has its rightful place in the encyclopedia. The great thing about being a volunteer is that one can choose for which projects to volunteer, and no disparagement is intended to copy-editors who c/e the first category of articles. This user certainly has enjoyed playing video games, watching movies and TV, listening to music, playing and watching sports, etc., but would like to state that given the limited number of hours in any human's lifetime, those hours available to this editor for c/e WP will be allotted mostly to the second category. Would be interested to know the feelings of other League members on this issue. </soapbox>. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal priorities for responding to c/e requests 

message: I'm glad you guys have made some tighter guidelines. I think we may want to start going through the 2000-some articles that have been marked and removing the tag from articles that don't meet the criteria. There's no sense in encouraging editors to continue waiting for a copy-edit when they just aren't going to get one. Wrad (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confusing our two areas of focus.  Of much more importance to us is the requests page, where we respond to direct requests for copyedit from other editors.  This is the area where these criteria are really designed for, because this really occupies our full attention.  If League members have any time to spare we like to try and reduce the number of articles in the subcategories of :Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit.  This is the one with the (currently) 3029 article backlog, but this is a relatively low priority for the league.  What would be an excellent use of your time would be to go through what's left of WP:LOCE/P and then WP:LOCE/R and clean out any requests which fail these criteria.  Happy‑melon 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I went through and did a couple in the January cat. I'm just wondering if when we run across something with a big fat NPOV tag on it can we just take it off the list? Wrad (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the cats with  on them are a bit different to our requests - we're not the only people who work on those articles, or the only people "qualified" to fix them.  So I wouldn't remove a  tag just because there are other tags on the article.  By contrast, any article on the WP:LOCE/R or WP:LOCE/P pages with tags (unless they're very minor ones) should probably be denied. Happy‑melon 10:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Does anyone object to it being a criterion that the page must be in the mainspace?  It sounds stupid, but User:Mitchazenia/Sandbox LNBS 1 is listed on the old page, and I really don't think this is the kind of thing we do here.  If the text isn't even ready enough to go live, why should we have anything to do with it?  Happy‑melon 19:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Namespace