Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors: Difference between revisions

Line 130: Line 130:

==Discussion at [[:Template talk:In use#Merging the underlying code of In use and GOCEinuse|Template talk:In use § Merging the underlying code of In use and GOCEinuse]]==

[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Template talk:In use#Merging the underlying code of In use and GOCEinuse|Template talk:In use § Merging the underlying code of In use and GOCEinuse]]. <!– Template:Please see –> [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 09:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

== December blitz idea: short articles ==

Back [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Archives/2025#Small_articles,_a_new_campaign_type_to_reduce_the_backlog_total|in June]], an idea was proposed to have a blitz focused on short articles, in order to mix things up and have a little fun. [https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?wikidata_prop_item_use=&cb_labels_any_l=1&output_limit=200&manual_list=&namespace_conversion=keep&subpage_filter=either&sortby=size&templates_any=&interface_language=en&templates_no=&smaller=&ns[0]=1&show_redirects=both&cb_labels_yes_l=1&minlinks=&outlinks_any=&search_max_results=500&language=en&pagepile=&sitelinks_no=&cb_labels_no_l=1&sortorder=ascending&rxp_filter=&labels_yes=&outlinks_no=&show_soft_redirects=both&edits[flagged]=both&manual_list_wiki=&combination=subset&referrer_name=&langs_labels_yes=&edits[bots]=both&langs_labels_any=&categories=All+Wikipedia+articles+needing+copy+edit&active_tab=tab_output&wpiu=any&wikidata_label_language=&show_disambiguation_pages=both&common_wiki_other=&search_query=&ores_type=any&project=wikipedia&doit= Here’s a report of the 200 shortest articles], by kilobytes, in our backlog. I don’t know of a way to get word counts in a systematic way for this list, but some random sampling puts them at an average of about 400 to 600 words (articles with lots of tables or citations have less prose per kilobyte). We could copy and paste this output as a numbered list on the blitz page (I’ll be happy to do the technical bits), and the instructions could tell editors to remove an article from the list once they had edited it. Thoughts?

Also, we should probably do the blitz early to avoid clashing with the density of popular holidays at the end of the month (Hanukah is 14 to 22 December this year; can we launch a blitz on 7 December?). – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 01:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Our month-long November backlog elimination drive has ended. Barnstars will be distributed shortly.

Nominations for the GOCE’s election of coordinators to serve a six-month term from January 1 are now open. Any editor experienced in drives or blitzes and in good standing can be nominated; self-nominations are welcome.

Search talk archives

Hi!

Can anyone point me to a guide for how to tidy up articles that use multiple styles of in-line referencing? I’m still figuring out some of the ways that editing on desktop works, and don’t want to delete important ref info in an attempt to turn a (Wally, 34) into a Wally⁴

Thanks so much! maryshelagh (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for context, I was working on the Child Abuse in China page, which has a tag about mixed styles maryshelagh (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The parenthetical in-line style, like “Author Wan says that the sky is blue (Wan 1076)” is not permitted. You can remove it and change it to any other style that is dominant or was first used in the article. See WP:CITEVAR for the official guidance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, look into getting this script User:BrandonXLF/CitationStyleMarker / User:BrandonXLF/CitationStyleMarker.js. It’s very useful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I’ll check it out 🙂 maryshelagh (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, thanks! maryshelagh (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article when the template was placed was much different, although more in being a wall of text without sections and subsections, than in sylistic variances of inline citations (it’s that the references section and subsection that are confusingly labeled, to my eye). Dhtwiki (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think, in it’s current form, that tag can be removed? maryshelagh (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would remove the tag about citation format. The article looks quite consistent now. Nearly every article has a couple of minor citation inconsistencies, but not enough to tag it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks so much for taking a look and for your advice here 🙂 maryshelagh (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the instructions, I read:

Don’t “rubber-stamp” articles. Be thorough and complete in your copy edits, working to the end of the article. The prose in copy edited articles should comply with the Manual of Style and be free of grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors. Rejected work will not count towards your total and you may be penalized for it.

I want to understand what counts as ‘rubber-stamping’? How ‘thorough’ is thorough enough?

I know this is vague but it’s purposefully so to understand others’ perspective. Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We occasionally have problems with editors getting caught up in barnstars and what-not, and (for example) copyediting only the lead. All the best, Miniapolis 17:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber-stamping should be pretty obvious to a good copy editor. If you visit an article that someone has claimed to have copy edited and the article contains clear punctuation, spelling, and grammar errors that any diligent reader would stumble over, a thorough copy edit was not performed. Nobody is perfect, people differ on esoteric issues like “which v. that” or “who v. whom”, and WP:ENGVAR needs to be respected, but things that any reasonable person would call an error should be few and far between.

All of that said, we have all left behind small errors in our copy-edited prose, because you just can’t see everything. Remember to assume good faith. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Halifax, I came across this line: Between the 2016 Canadian Census and the 2021 Canadian Census, the built-up area of Halifax grew by from in 2016 to 23,829 hectares (238.29km2) in 2021.

As we know, hectare-to-km2 conversion is just division by 100. Can this be improved? Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 figure is missing. All the best, Miniapolis 20:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My question was about the conversion. How do we decide which units to use? Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose. See {{convert}} for the endless options. Normally, units are provided in both metric and Imperial, to be understandable by readers who use one system or the other. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article I’d been working on got a GOC in use banner ~36 hours ago, so I stopped working, but the editor who placed it hasn’t edited in ~8 hours. Is it okay for me to work there if I try to keep an eye out for an edit conflict and then stop working again? I don’t want to discourage them, they’re not hugely experienced. Valereee (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s customary to replace the {{in use}} or the {{GOCE in use}} template with {{under construction}} between editing sessions. The uc template then lets other editors know that they can contribute without conflict. Here it looks like someone just forgot to make an appropriate change. So you should be able to replace “in use” with “under construction” and continue to work there. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Valereee (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! I see where editor Blanketstitch has resumed GOCE edits to the hamburger article, so the uc template wouldn’t be appropriate in the present moment. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Paine Ellsworth! Will do this going forward. Blanketstitch (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on that article, @Blanketstitch. Valereee (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am trying to clean up broken uses of the Graph extension, and {{GOCE-new-drive-page}} has two uses of {{Graph:Chart}}. Can these be removed? The replacement Chart extension requires updating files at Commons, so I think the Progress Chart table (below the broken graphs) is sufficient. But I am not a GOCE member, so take my opinion with a pinch of salt! Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine with me to have the old code gone by the new year (first 2026 drive begins January 1st). Where is the file that the code exists? All I have been able to find is the file that contains the documentation. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather then attempt to explain where the code is (and I do not blame you for not finding it—it is quite hidden!), I have removed it. As always, feel free to revert 🙂 Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I now see my name on the page history. So, I must have found my way to it in an earlier attempt. I have other changes that I think should be made. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:In use § Merging the underlying code of In use and GOCEinuse. FaviFake (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back in June, an idea was proposed to have a blitz focused on short articles, in order to mix things up and have a little fun. [0=1&show_redirects=both&cb_labels_yes_l=1&minlinks=&outlinks_any=&search_max_results=500&language=en&pagepile=&sitelinks_no=&cb_labels_no_l=1&sortorder=ascending&rxp_filter=&labels_yes=&outlinks_no=&show_soft_redirects=both&edits[flagged]=both&manual_list_wiki=&combination=subset&referrer_name=&langs_labels_yes=&edits[bots]=both&langs_labels_any=&categories=All+Wikipedia+articles+needing+copy+edit&active_tab=tab_output&wpiu=any&wikidata_label_language=&show_disambiguation_pages=both&common_wiki_other=&search_query=&ores_type=any&project=wikipedia&doit= Here’s a report of the 200 shortest articles], by kilobytes, in our backlog. I don’t know of a way to get word counts in a systematic way for this list, but some random sampling puts them at an average of about 400 to 600 words (articles with lots of tables or citations have less prose per kilobyte). We could copy and paste this output as a numbered list on the blitz page (I’ll be happy to do the technical bits), and the instructions could tell editors to remove an article from the list once they had edited it. Thoughts?

Also, we should probably do the blitz early to avoid clashing with the density of popular holidays at the end of the month (Hanukah is 14 to 22 December this year; can we launch a blitz on 7 December?). – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment