Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
|
no archives yet (create)
|
Contents |
[edit] Use and Abuse of the CopyEdit Date field.
Hi everyone,
if I have performed a significant amount of copy editing on an article, would it be okay to increase the date field on the copyedit tag, by one month?
The idea is that the oldest articles would then be the ones which had received less attention. Those of us who are not yet confident enough to completely remove the copyedit tag would thereby have a way to indicate that an article has been improved, and help focus copy editors on the articles that most require improvement. I suspect that with this method, we could more efficiently collaboratively copyedit, as I know that I personally slow down the further I get from my copyedit comfort zone - I wouldn't be surprised if I could get two articles to 70% in the time that it would take me to get one article to 85%.
Another alternative would be an invisible category for our own use, with which we request that a more experienced copy editor check or do the final polishing on an article for which most of the grunt work has been achieved.
Apologies if this is explained elsewhere. I have time to question, or read, but now I must sleep! --James Chenery (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Current Focus
On the main page we have:
"Current focus
Copyedit all of our requests, before the backlog becomes unmanageable."
On one of the archived discussion pages here, another user discusses how undertaking requests killed off the previous copy editor's group, and how in their opinion, such work falls under the remit of a different WikiProject altogether.
Ah, found it. Samuel Tan says:
-
-
- Hello guys. I used to be pretty active on this project until I took a long wikibreak for studies and work, but I thought I'd weigh in on this. This WikiProject's focus has always been the backlog and not requests, simply because requests are being handled by other project. Peer review, I believe, and also the GA and FA processes (correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I've been here). Additionally, the League of Copyeditors, which was something of a forerunning to GOCE (us), died because of requests: their focus shifted almost completely to requests, and they realized they could not handle the many requests that poured in. Yeah just my 2 cents.-Samuel Tan 03:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Chenery (talk • contribs)
-
Therefore, I propose that we shift the current focus from the request backlog, to the rather more pressing copy edit backlog, specifically the dusty end.
We should at least aim to clear 2007 by the end of 2009!
What do you think? --James Chenery (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reward Board challenge for Copy Editing
Hi everyone,
I posted a task up on Wikipedia:Reward board (in the "other" section) in order to encourage people to copy edit articles from April and May 2007. You are all invited, naturally.
--James Chenery (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Date unlinking bot proposal
The community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and comment here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] PerfectIt (computer program for easier copyediting)
I have just discovered a computer program for easier copyediting. See Intelligent Editing - Cleaner, Smarter, Better Documents.
-- Wavelength (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Have you tried it and would you recommend it?--Kojozone (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have not tried it and I am not planning to try it. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
