Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

Big blue button?

I am requesting the {{Big Blue Button}} template be added somewhere on the page. The template looks like a big blue button with text saying, "Click this button. Copy edit an article." I feel like this button would be useful for those who want to help with copyediting. - Master of Hedgehogs ^{(converse) (hate that hedgehog!)} 13:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, and thanks for the suggestion! It's a painless way to get started with copyediting. All the best, Miniapolis 13:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good on the project page, and I love the randomness Thanks again, The Master of Hedgehogs! All the best, Miniapolis 13:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Grammar question/Commas with Nonessential Elements

Hello,

We have a grammar question about using commas in a sentence. We are currently editing the Israel page and have questions about comma use in regards to the below proposed sentence:

"Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

I think the two commas in the above sentence are structurally offsetting a “nonessential clause” [1][2][3]. I think that this means a nonessential clause is something that can be removed without changing the core meaning of a sentence. Since two commas are placed around the British Mandate portion, and since that portion is grammatically removable, I think that portion is grammatically a nonessential clause. Removing the non-restrictive portion, the sentence becomes

“Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948 and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted.”

I think this is problematic because I think it gives the impression that Israel declared establishment, and the war immediately broke out. The war actually broke out the next day from an attack.

So I recommended changing to list format to avoid using nonessential elements:

“On 14 May 1948, the British terminated the Mandate, and Israel declared its establishment.”

@Makeandtoss thinks that I may be overthinking the grammar and interpretation, so this is why I am seeking clarification about the grammar and whether or not the British terminating the Mandate is being used as a nonessential element in the sentence: "Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

If it is being used non essentially, are there any suggestions on how we can improve the sentence grammar or how to rewrite the sentence?

Thank you! Wafflefrites (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The easiest path to sensibility would be to remove the second comma: Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted. Otherwise, the sentence seems muddied and perhaps run-on. Could the British "terminate" the (League of Nations?, UN?) mandate (usually mandate is granted by some other entity)? Did the war erupt on account of the end of the mandate or the establishment of Israel (I'm guessing the latter)? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Another editor/editors jumped in a proposed to use “intervened” for the Arab side so I think we will use that. The war didn’t really erupt because of the Declaration of Independence, it was an extension of a previous war, but more of a second phase that became international Wafflefrites (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If events unfolded as described in the messages above, I think the sentence is flawed. It implies that one thing caused another and that they happened on the same day. I would break it into two sentences, something like: "Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. The First Arab–Israeli War erupted the next day." – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! There are several editors working on this, and I think we are still determining consensus on the correct wording for additional details. Tagging Makeandtoss so that he is aware of the grammar/clarity best practices on the sentence @Makeandtoss (see above suggestion about breaking up the sentence) Wafflefrites (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Progress chart

Hello all, just FYI I created an updated version of the chart, with only the data since 2020. On the topic, I was wondering if anyone has an explanation for the macro trends in the data (steady decline 2013–2020, near-zero in 2020, steep rise 2021–2022, slower rise 2023). Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I think that once the goal of reducing the backlog and requests as much as was attained in 2020, maintaining that reduction doesn't have the same excitement. We could also take steps to lessen the speed to which our workload is added to, such as limiting requests to one, not two, open articles per requester, or, after a quick perusal, peremptorily removing {{copy edit}} templates from articles that need such care less than others. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You know that Margaret Mead quote about a few people making a big difference? I think it's true here, except it might be just two people in our case. We had one editor who was intensely focused on clearing short articles from the backlog in the late 2010s, and while they are still quietly one of our most active copy editors, they are no longer copy-editing many hundreds of articles per drive. In 2021, we also lost a prolific copy editor who worked on Requests and backlog articles at a high rate. I don't know if there is a way to do a robust analysis, but my gut sense is that the decrease in copy-editing activity from those two editors is the primary reason for the change in the direction of the backlog.

It has been my experience as a wikignome in many maintenance areas of Wikipedia that often just one or two people are keeping a particular backlog from getting out of control. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

May drive

As some of you may know, I generally clear out the 150-200 shortest articles on every drive. I don't list them on the drive page, because it becomes too bloated. That number approximately matches the backlog reduction for each drive. I will not be doing that for the May drive. I encourage any/all of you to take on that task. (I hate it when a drive doesn't provide a net backlog reduction.) Thanks and good editing! Lfstevens (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and for your hard work. Do you have a way of finding the shorter articles, eg a petscan query? Wracking ^talk! 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of some of your efforts being only nominally recorded on the drive pages. When you say "bloated", would it be discouraging for others to be aware of your productivity, or could it be an example for the rest of us to do more? I'd be sorry to see your efforts diminished due to discouragement. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Lfstevens, I didn't mention your name directly above, because I don't like to put people on blast, but I just want to say that I have appreciated your copy-editing work for many years now. Thank you for (tens of?) thousands of copy-edited articles. I will try to pick up some of the slack for the May drive.

Wracking and others: Here's a petscan link to all articles under 8,000 bytes, sorted by size (currently 195 articles). Picking off sentences and paragraphs tagged with Template:copy edit inline is also a quick way to shrink the backlog. Have fun! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I"m not leaving, just need a change of pace (so many villages!) You guys are awesome. Thank you so much for all your efforts. If we hang together, we can make a huge impact on the pedia. Go for it! Lfstevens (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

William I, Count of Nassau-Siegen

I noticed that the article William I, Count of Nassau-Siegen has been edited. Phrases that were split with references were combined with the references. They were split because the references to the phrases were different, the reference books did not give the same information for both parts. This is no longer clear now. Furthermore, texts have been modified in such a way that they no longer correspond to what is written in the reference books. Please remove my name from the article history, so that I cannot be associated any longer with this article. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Roelof Hendrickx. You do not own any article on Wikipedia, and you cannot stop other editors from editing content which you have written. If you have specific concerns about an edit, please bring them up at Talk:William I, Count of Nassau-Siegen, or fix it yourself.

The Guild of Copy Editors has no control over the history of any article, and this is the wrong place to bring about any request in that regard. If you would like to change your username, see WP:RENAME. If you would like to leave Wikipedia forever and change your username, see WP:VANISH. Wracking ^talk! 17:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I never said that I owned that article, nor that I didn't want others to edit the article.

Bringing my concerns up on the talk page will have no effect, as the changes will never be made. I found out that it is common practise on Wikipedia to change correct into incorrect. Therefore it will useless to fix it myself, it would only lead to edit wars. That's the reason why I have no intention to contribute to Wikipedia any longer.

I don't want to change my username or vanish, as I still use Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. I'll try to find out how to get removed from the history of this article. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at the article's history. I note that you added a lot of text here, for which you might have been accorded more appreciation. However, you did seem to edit war over the fact that on Wikipedia, curly quotes and apostrophes are deprecated; and it's not unusual for editors to find fault with such enormous contributions, unless their content and style are cleared beforehand on the talk page. During their recent copy edit, User:ZyphorianNexus removed much material; apparently that led to the citations being now more vague as to what they support. I can appreciate the problem there, but haven't studied the article closely enough to determine where the fault lies. You should not worry about being held responsible for additions that are not yours; and as Wracking has indicated, it would be nigh impossible to remove your account from the edit history. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)