Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2008

Creation of page

Hi all! Glad you have made your way to this project. *smiles* I have been considering starting a Wikiproject or task force for some time that would focus solely on maintaining and reducing the backlog of articles needing copy edit; this idea came about because I realised that there is currently no Wikiproject dealing with this (after WP:LOCE died due to non-fulfillment of copy editing requests, probably among other reasons).

The Wikiprojects closest in intention are WP:Grammar and WP:PR, but these don't deal with the backlog. I have contacted several people over the past weeks who are or may be interested in the project, and will send out a more general call for interested people, especially to members of WP:LOCE, WP:Grammar, and perhaps WP:PR. We'll see how things go. Meanwhile, feel free to start copy editing, discussing project details, and what have you.

The next thing we should do for the project is to create images and templates for our logo, usebox, article-in-use tags, and etc. I have some skill with PhotoShop so I'll be working on this if I have the time, but feel free to try too :)

Cheers! -Samuel Tan 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuff to do!

Tools: Wikiproject guide, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject, nav templates

1. Create the project page, which should include, if humanly possible,
   • Pretty pictures for the Wikiproject and to, well, embellish the page (*grin*)
   • Statements of the project's goals and scope  Done
   • To do lists Done
   • Progress chart with links fixed
   • Requests for help/collaboration Done
   • List of useful templates Done
   • Copy editing guidelines (ref. "How to copy edit") Done
   • Links to lists of articles needing copy edit sorted by various categories (not sure if possible)
   • List of members Done
   • Guides to GA / FA nomination Done
   • Guides to deletion / translation processes Done
   • Links to the MoS and other Wikipedia guides Done
2. Notify previous members of WP:LOCE and current members of WP:Grammar and WP:PR
3. List on WP:COUNCIL/P  Done
4. Create own page if >5 members  Done
5. Create project userbox and article-in-use template

-Samuel Tan 01:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting the word out

I've contacted a good-sized bunch of possibly interested Wikipedians. We should eventually create a project banner to help people get to know us, but let's see how many people respond to the calls so far. Once we get a sizable amount of people in the project, we can start discussing the details (if any issues pop up). -Samuel Tan 04:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Signing up

So, err, I'm interested in joining, but I'm not sure exactly how the code for the signup table works (the code for copying seems to have vanished, assuming it's meant to be within the comment). Plus the table on the project page doesn't seem to have updated with any of the members except the first two. Adacore (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah there was a coding error... I had mistakenly linked it to an old version of the page on my userspace. It's fixed now; want me to help you sign up? :) -Samuel Tan 07:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done it now - easy enough when the template is there to copy. I could probably have signed up earlier, but I wanted to make sure it was working ok first (which, it seems, it wasn't)! Adacore (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

welcome to the land of little blue shiney spheres *grin* -Samuel Tan 08:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Project logo, banner, userbox, shortcuts

Hey guys, I just created those stuff. The banner is hosted as a subpage of the project, and the usebox is on the template space. Feel free to change them if you have better ideas :) -Samuel Tan 12:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter?

Are you guys in favor of a project newsletter? I'm thinking of creating a really simple one, with just an update of the number of articles needing copy edit, new requests for help/collaboration, new announcements, and perhaps a list of new members. Any thoughts? -Samuel Tan 02:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe we should wait until the project gets a little better established. Lord of Modesty 02:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The newsletter is a good idea, but we haven't even decided for sure on the name yet. -kotra (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For deliver of the newsletter , you may use the services of TinucherianBot or any other Newsletter delivery bots -- Tinu Cherian - 05:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. It's a bit odd to have a newsletter when we're still discussing our name. Heh. -Samuel Tan 14:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Article-in-use template

I've gone ahead and made an article-in-use template for the project. It is largely based on the old LoCE template (and it's the first template I've made). Obviously, feel free to fix/change the template as things take shape here. The template is at {{GOCEinuse}} and looks like this:

--Peacheshead (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! This template is really convincing me that we need to come up with a shorter project name. Our current name really is quite a mouthful. (I removed our project name from the last line because the length of the name was making it sound awkward. *grin*) I'll copy the template to our main page. -Samuel Tan 11:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Category counting and using Erwin85Bot

Hello! Just thought I'd explain the method I used to count articles in CAT:COPY, to those of you interested in the behind-the-scenes stuff of this project. Basically there are two methods of counting the articles: automatically and manually.

1. Automatically

   This method is done via Erwin85Bot; this bot can count the number of articles in a given category (but not articles nested in sub-categories). For example, to use it to count the number of articles in "Category:Please count me", place {{User:Erwin85/CatCount}} in the page in which you want to include the article count, then add the code, <!-- count:Please count me; ns: -->0<!-- end -->, to the spot where you want the article count to appear. Erwin85Bot only updates the article count once a day, so changes my take a while to be reflected.

   I have used this method for the monthly article counts and the total article count on the main project page (a big thanks for Kotra for some help with the total count).

2. Manually

   This method simply involves opening up the respective category pages and copying the total article count displayed on the page. Right now, the progress chart displayed on CAT:COPY and its subcategories is updated manually. Someone mentioned that he might be able to write a Bot that can update this chart, so it hopefully it will be automated soon.

Yup. That's all, folks! --Samuel Tan 10:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! So, I guess the main project page's number will be automatically updated by Erwin85Bot from now on? -kotra (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it will, as long as it works. Right now the bot seems to have trouble updating the total article count. I plan to ask Erwin85 what's up if it still doesn't work after a few days. -Samuel Tan 12:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What's with the extra 249 articles in the Category:All articles needing copy edit that aren't in the monthly categories? Do these date from before January 2007, or do they have some other special reason for not being tagged in the monthly groupings? Adacore (t·c) 02:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the 249 from? There are some articles that are in the total count but not in the monthly counts because many people use the copy edit tag without adding the month of tagging, and the bot that adds the month/year tends to lag a bit. Or are you getting the monthly figure from the graph at CAT:COPY? That graph shows a much lower number because it is currently updated manually (not by a bot). The last update was a few days ago I think. -Samuel Tan 12:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So maybe this is the wrong place for this, but it's going here anyways. If you go to CAT:COPY (linked to under Goals and Scope), and scroll down to the section titled "Subcategories", you'll find that it lists all the categories as containing 0 articles. This is very confusing, as everywhere else mentions the immense backlog. I don't know if this problem can be fixed or not, but if not then we should probably not link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Song of the Dragon (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't those bracketed numbers refer to the number of sub-categories there are in that category? (Yes I used to be confused by that too...) -Samuel Tan 02:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Progress measurement graph

Would it be possible to graph the total number of articles in the backlog against time? Perhaps updating weekly? It would give at least some idea of whether we're making progress or slipping further behind over time. Adacore (t·c) 02:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've wanted to create that too. The best way would be to get a bot to check the total count periodically while recording it down to be plotted on a graph, but I have no clue how to write bots. I even have trouble writing HTML *grin* -Samuel Tan 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Project direction?

I conceived this project as happy and relaxed, where everyone can work on the articles at their own pace (because I imagine that imposing deadlines on copy editing can really burn people out).

But what do you guys think? Should we create some short-term goals for ourselves? Is everyone ok with the "goals and scope" stuff we currently have on the front page?

(and nice that we're getting bigger *smile*)Samuel Tan 11:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Samuel. Thanks for the invitation to join, which I have done. I think the 'happy and relaxed' approach is good, even though that means articles probably won't get edited quickly; however, less pressure means we're more likely to edit out of our own volition and should do that with enthusiasm :) MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Samuel. It feels better than LOCE, I think. Short-term goals would be good. I always get a little freaked when someone tosses in a huge page I can barely understand and says "fix it up!". IceUnshattered (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy and relaxed. I think that the number of contributors (past, present and future) to this project would be hurt by any attempt to delegate tasks, unless said contributor indicates a desire for assigned work. I guess I think that more people doing less work will get more accomplished than less people doing more work. The "more" people might even be happier, too. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 04:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, Lazulilasher has put up the article Louvre on the main page for help getting it to FA status. Do we want to help with such requests, or direct them to Peer Review? My original idea was that we only work on articles tagged {{copyedit}}, but I'm wondering what you guys think. -Samuel Tan 05:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather work on articles like this. I mean, if we're honest, lots of pages that are tagged in the backlog are tagged because they suck in all categories. To improve the copy, we would really need to improve the whole article. Louvre is pretty solid, but just needs a prose re-work. But then again, taking articles like this is what the LOCE did, and it didn't work out. So, I'm not sure. Lord of Modesty 20:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer we didn't let the "Requests for collaboration or help" section turn into a generic "requests for copy edit" list. That's what Wikipedia articles needing copy edit is for, and we should use it. Our focus should be on reducing that backlog, not giving people a place to circumvent that process, putting their own pet project ahead of all the others. For copy editors that want to avoid articles in the backlog that "suck in all categories", they can just look through the backlog until they find ones that don't suck in all categories. There probably are quite a few there that only need copy editing. As for articles like Louvre, I think they should just be tagged with {{Copyedit}} and one of us will eventually get to it. I think the "Requests for collaboration or help" section should explicitly state that it's just for copy editors who want to collaborate with other copy editors. Otherwise "Requests for collaboration or help" would just become another backlog like Wikipedia articles needing copy edit.

Might be a good idea to make the the real backlog more prominently displayed, though, since it is, after all, our main focus. Maybe we could have a list of the 10 oldest articles in the backlog? I'm not sure how that would be achievable, though (except manually, but that would be a hassle to maintain). -kotra (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Kotra is right. Also, I apologize for the over-generalization. It was just my excuse for laziness, really. Lord of Modesty 21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and there's already a place for people to request help (Peer Review), and those guys there sure have a huge backlog of their own.

Talking about making the backlog more prominently displayed, I thought of creating a section where articles tagged for copyediting are displayed according to category, so that people can choose what interests them, but we might need to look for a bot that can do that. Alternatively we could just have a section where we list random articles from the Jan 2007 (oldest) category. -Samuel Tan 01:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a short list of about 10 of the oldest (Jan 2007) articles would be best. Categorizing the articles seems like too much of a task, and I doubt a bot is around that could do it. Besides, with all the categories the page would probably get too cluttered. It's a good idea for those who want to edit specific types of article, but I don't know how feasible it is. -kotra (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, probably not feasible. I spent some time exploring the functions of various bots, and they all seem to do quite menial tasks. Poor bots.-Samuel Tan 13:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "real backlog" should be very prominently displayed. Otherwise, I have no real opinion about how the log is displayed. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 04:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of these articles that "suck in all categories", I think we should probably remove the {{copyedit}} tag from the page (obviously with a nice, non-insulting message in the talk page explaining why). If we don't, each user who comes along to go through the backlog will have to trudge through these articles until they find one that is actually improvable. If we couldn't remove the tag, is there a way to create a list (or a new tag) for these all-around-sucking articles to remove them from our backlog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacheshead (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 August 2008

I honestly don't see the issue. Most articles that have several issues are still copyeditable. We can still clean up the grammar, spelling, punctuation, and poor word choice, and leave the other issues to someone else (assuming the article is appropriately tagged). The only problems I can think of are articles written in broken English, for example as a poor translation, or articles with ambiguous wording. In the former case, there are appropriate tags for that, and for the latter, the original meaning should be determined by asking the original author or on the article's talk page. -kotra (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yups, I think what we should be doing is attempting to copy edit the article as far as possible, and add appropriate tags if there are areas which cannot be improved (like what I wrote on the front page). That way, those articles get transfered to "someone else's" backlog.

For example, suppose there's an article some esoteric topic of the nervous system that (1) has atrocious grammar and (2) is so confusing that only a Biology nerd can understand it. What we can do is improve the grammar of the portions we understand, and then tag it with one of the {{expert}} tags, so that some time down the road a Biology nerd who is sifting through the articles needing his expert attention will come across it.

Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against Biology nerds. *Tosses cookies to any biology nerds reading this. -Samuel Tan 13:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I don't know what kind of cookies you've been eating, but the equipment manager of your local baseball team seems to be pretty angry. -kotra (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit progress

Here's a big hug to everyone working on the August 2008 articles. I suddenly feel like giving out barnstars to everyone in this WikiProject. *draws stars on my laptop screen* By the way did anyone else see the already-deleted "Trainbaby" article that was in that category? It was the first Wikipedia article that actually made me laugh. :) -Samuel Tan 13:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost disappointed to say I missed that one. By the way, I'm generally working on the principle that the very newly tagged articles are considerably more likely to be deleted, fixed by an editor watching that page, &c. I'm therefore working on the non-August backlog (generally the 2007 articles), for the most part (as well as grabbing some of the low hanging fruit in the form of two-paragraph articles about schools, bridges, &c.) Adacore (t·c) 04:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it wrong that I enjoy attacking minor school articles (which are obviously written by pupils) with the stabbity edit-knife of WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV so much? They're a great source of articles where you can legitimately condense 5 paragraphs of text into a few sentences - so much fun! Adacore (t·c) 08:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's like trying to move a mountain. We know the boulders are the hardest to get rid off, but it's so much fun to play with pebbles. *grin* -Samuel Tan 10:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on the old ones too (well, I'm off on holiday in a mo so I won't be working for about a week), just because they have so few articles in that the catagories can probably be cleared quickly. It looks bad having tagged articled a year and a half old. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 08:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Project Name

What does everyone think about possibly changing the name? Maybe it's just me, but 'Wikiproject Articles Needing Copy Edit' is really a mouthful. Maybe we could go for something less technical, like "Wikiproject Icy Black Hand of Death" (he he). Thoughts? Lordofmodesty (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I wanted a nice name too but couldn't think of one >.< "The Copy Edit Backloggers"? "The League of Copy Editors v2.0"? EyeSerene suggested "WANCers" (per the acronym WP:WANC) but that might get us speedily deleted haha

Actually Icy Black Hand of Death has a nice ring to it... How about "WikiProject: Icy Blue Pen"? *grin*) -Samuel Tan 03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, wait, I've got it: Wikiproject Fierce Restorers Of Grammar and Syntax. That way, we can be Wikiproject FROGS. *chuckle* Lordofmodesty (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the name is too long. For the simplest, most straight-forward name, WP:WikiProject Copy Editing or WP:WikiProject Copy Editors (or "Copy-editing" or "Copyediting" or "Copy-editors" or "Copyeditors") aren't taken. Or, if we want to continue the tradition of the League of Copy Editors, it could be "Order of Copy Editors", "Cabal of Copy Editors" (there is no cabal), "Syndicate of Copy Editors", "Flange of Copy Editors", etc... -kotra (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I favor the most self-evident, Wikiproject Copyeditors (or some similar variation). Lordofmodesty (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the "Guild of Copy Editors", "Copy Editors' Alliance", or "Copy Editors' Association". None of these, of course, have a great acronym like FROGS or an intimidating name, which obviously have their advantages. *grin* --Peacheshead (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think "XYZ of Copy Editors" or "Copy Editors' XYZ" would be good. If we want a great acronym, "Alliance of Copy Editors" would give us ACE. *grin* Another possibility is "Copy Editors Society", analogous to the American Copy Editors Society. -Samuel Tan 02:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we've got:

• WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit [current name]
• WikiProject Icy Black Hand of Death
• WikiProject Copy Edit Backloggers
• WikiProject League of Copy Editors v2.0
• WikiProject Icy Blue Pen
• WikiProject Fierce Restorers Of Grammar and Syntax [FROGS]
• WikiProject Copy Editors
• WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
• WikiProject Copy Editors' Alliance
• WikiProject Copy Editors' Association
• WikiProject Alliance of Copy Editors [ACE]
• WikiProject Copy Editors Society

Suggestion: the ones that don't start with "WikiProject" probably should, as convention. The full name of the League of Copy Editors, for example, was Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors.

Any favorites? Additions? Comments? -kotra (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, "Wikipedia: WikiProject" is what they call a pseudo-namespace for all projects, or something like that. Anyway I think we shuld decide first if we want an eye-catching name (... Hand of Death, FROGS, etc) or a professional-sounding name. My two cents: I personally like Guild/Alliance of Copy Editors, and Copy Editor's Society: broad-sounding names that may attract more people who like to copy edit. :) -Samuel Tan 14:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added "WikiProject" to all the above now. Note that two now are longer than the current name (LoCE v2.0 and FROGS), so I think we can probably eliminate them since the main reason for the name change is that the current name is too long.

And I agree, silliness is ok in some contexts but a more professional-sounding name seems better here. -kotra (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If we're going to change the name, seems we should do it soon before we get too well-established. So in the interest of moving this forward, here's a shorter list of what I think are the most promising names:

• WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit [current name]
• WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
• WikiProject Copy Editors Society
• WikiProject Copy Edit

Of these, which do you guys like best? Any feedback is very welcome. -kotra (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kotra :) My favourite is Copy Editors Society, with Guild of Copy Editors a close second. The first name has a clean-cut, close-knit, and almost conspiratous ring to it, while the second invokes images of people working hard on what they are good at.-Samuel Tan 12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for Guild of Copy Editors, because it is reminiscent of the League of Copy Editors. Either Copy Editors Society or Guild of Copy Editors are fine with me, though. -kotra (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's have something with "cabal" in, just for coolness. Copy Editing Cabal? -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, cabals are always awesome. Ok, so, updated list:

• WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
• WikiProject Copy Editors Society
• WikiProject Copy Editing Cabal
• WikiProject Cabal of Copy Editors

-kotra (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. They all sound great. How about we settle on one permutation of the "cabal" names and display the three choices on the main page? -Samuel Tan 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean like, retitle this project "WikiProject Cabal of Copy Editors", change it in all the templates, and at the top of the main project page say something like "Other potential names are Guild of Copy Editors, Copy Editors Society, and Copy Editing Cabal: let us know what you think here."?

Oh, no, no! I mean putting it up under the "announcements" section! Wait was that question a joke? *grins madly* -Samuel Tan 02:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. No, wasn't a joke, I just was confused. -kotra (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking "Guild of Copy Editors" wouldn't work, mostly because it sounds like LOCE. Now, I have nothing against LOCE- hey, I was a part of it- but we should probably stay away from things that sounds similar to something that died. Bad karma, see? I like "Copy Editors Society", not only because it sounds nice but it also kind of gives the idea that this is a society, not a work project. I read farther up that this was supposed to be more of a relaxed thing, and that sounds perfect. Though I won't say having "Cabal" in the name doesn't make me smile. ^_^ Song (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I suggested "Guild of Copy Editors" and the other "* of Copy Editors" versions because of the similarity to LoCE. It's sort of a nod to the previous WikiProject, which this one sprung out of the ashes of (and is mostly comprised of former LoCErs). And I may be wrong, but I think it's is supposed to sound more like a work project/task force than a social group; we're here to reduce the backlog of articles needing copy edit, not to socialize or make friends. That doesn't mean we can't have a little sense of humor, of course. Your "Bopy" idea is funny, but maybe a little too silly. "Cabal" is about as humorous as I'm willing to go, but I'm a particularly stuffy and humorless Wikipedian, so that may just be me. -kotra (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey I know a good one. There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who know binary and those who don't. Get it? *checks if Kotra is laughing* Anyway I'll put up the current choices on our announcements section. *grin* Samuel Tan 02:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be laughing, but I already heard it. I mean, haha! Anyway, good idea, finally we're getting more discussion! -kotra (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Here we are: the Wikipedian way to reach consensus. Indicate support or oppose as you wish. To make preferences clearer please try not to write your support on all the names. (If you suddenly feel the urge to write "Speedy delete: G3", you are spending way too much time at that fun place.) -Samuel Tan 03:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When will the final tally be done for the offical name?Wiki Roxor (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose after consensus has been reached (a clear winner) or after no one has voted for a few days. Right now there's a tie *gasp* Perhaps we can wait a few days or so to see if anyone will come along and break the tie or change their views... -Samuel Tan 06:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So Guild has won by a narrow margin and it's been 3 days since the last vote. Shall we just wrap it up and start changing our name and templates? :) -Samuel Tan 09:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. It might eventually swing back the other way if we got more !votes, but who knows how long that would take. -kotra (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think theres been enough time for people to give their opinions on this.Wiki Roxor (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it and its subpages. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the templates and main page. Perhaps we should rename PACEdone, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit/Effort, and PACEinuse, or shall we keep a hint of the old namesake? --Blehfu (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lego for moving the pages :) I've updated our templates to read "the Guild of Copy Editors", and added info on the optional parameters for PACEdone, on the main page. I'm fine with changing everything to something like GOCE (and creating a WP:GOCE redirect to our main page). Or how about "GCE"? Sounds nicer and a bit more academic heh... -Samuel Tan 06:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. As for GOCE/GCE, I prefer GOCE because it's pronounceable (and it's like LOCE). -kotra (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

GCE could conceivably be pronounced "geeky". GOCE, perhaps, as "gauche". Either way, we win. ;;)) --Blehfu (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, GCE does sound a bit geeky. We don't want to look like an examination board here. *grin* And we can pronounce GOCE as Gucci too :) I'll move the templates to from PACE to GOCE later if no one has done it yet; rushing out of the house now. -Samuel Tan 01:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved {{PACEinuse}} and {{PACEdone}} to {{GOCEinuse}} and {{GOCEdone}}, and fixed their mentions on the project page. Are there any more? -kotra (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently so, there was still some usage of PACE in the left and right panels of the project page. Fixed. Anything else? -kotra (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The vote is over, and WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors is our new name. (10/2/0)

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors (10/2/0)

SupportWiki Roxor (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support I like something about "Guild". — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Reminiscent of "League of Copy Editors" (which I think is a good thing), but "Guild" is more task-oriented, which is good. -kotra (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. A guild is a professional organization, and I am of the opinion that the last thing we need to do is scare off willing, possibly amateur, newcomers by sounding all serious and intimidating. If this name were a lolcat, it would be "I r serius cat, this r serius job," while I think we need to aim for something more like "i can has clean out backlog?" o god did i really just make a completely serious lolcat analogy? *shoots self* keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support I agree with Kotra that this is reminiscent of LoCE, and ultimately, I think that it's better for us to be associated with them than to appear completely new and unattached. With a name like this, we can say, "The Guild, it's like the League, but it's, you know, better." Not to mention, guild is obviously just a cool word. --Peacheshead (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support! As a Medievalist, I support "guild". As an amateur(I am one, aren't I? I'm doing this for free with little experience), I certainly wouldn't have been scared off by a "guild". And it sounds professional. Also, this is not a social organization - we are here to fix stuff ("task - oriented" as Kotra said). "Wikiproject Fierce Restorers Of Grammar and Syntax" Really does have the best Acronym, and description, though. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Sweet sounding. the_ed17 02:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Reminds me of WoW LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Support I liked League better (as in of the Scarlet Pimpernel), but it still designates us nut-ward of dedicated language buffs. Shir-El too 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Sort of reminds me of Wyvern :). I like it. IceUnshattered (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Makes me think of the "Lollipop Guild". :) *momoricks* (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

:We represent the Guild of Copy Editors, the Guild of Copy Editors, the Guild of Copy Editors. And in the name of the Guild of Copy Editors, we wish to welcome you to Munchkinland.

— Official mantra of the Guild of Copy Editors

Support After much deliberation, the word 'guild' won me over. What can I say- I'm a bookworm. ^_^ And anyways, I liked LOCE till it died. =) Song (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Copy Editors Society (7/0/0)

Support! I just like the sound of this name: it reminds me of a little band of people on a mission, or a clean-cut and relaxed publishing house. *grin* -Samuel Tan 03:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. Reminds me of Dead Poet's Society. Interesting, but not too exclusive. --Blehfu (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Should this read Copy Editors' Society? --Blehfu (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's a society of copy editors, not a society belonging to copy editors (a hazy difference, but one nonetheless). Compare with Skeptics Society or Music Teachers National Association or even American Copy Editors Society. -kotra (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding pedantic, one more: Dead Poets Society -kotra (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Dead Editors Society That was a joke, please don't vote on it... -Samuel Tan 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Support! Sounds very professional! Wiki Roxor (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Very cool name. (By the way, I'm new around here, but figured I would jump right in.) Pax85 (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support I've always wanted to be part of a society =P Pheebalicious (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support: This is straightforward and professional sounding. *momoricks* (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Copy Editing Cabal (0/0/0)

WikiProject Cabal of Copy Editors (4/4/0)

Oppose! Wiki Roxor (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Together we make zero. -kotra (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Humourous but to the point. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 08:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. I think a lighthearted take on what we do is the way to go, to stand in contrast to the LOCE's collapse under the weight of its own rules and guidelines. I just wish this had a snappy acronym AND a cabal mention. But we can't have everything, now, can we... keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We could go with Cabal Of Kopy Editors, but that might cause some conflict between us and People Editing Punctuation and Spelling International.... -kotra (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh... Oppose. As cool and funny as this is, I don't think it can be our official name. I mean, if we actually call ourselves a cabal, how can we deny that there is a cabal? I don't have a problem with us informally referring to ourselves as the Cabal Guild, though.There is no cabal. --Peacheshead (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Doesn't have that "ring" ^^ IceUnshattered (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Support This one has that "ring" for me, and I love a little tongue in cheek humour Jaimaster (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Sounds too pretentious (I had to look up the definition of "cabal" *blush*). *momoricks* (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

making this into a very popular project

I was very happy to discover this project since I was pretty depressed about LOCE. I just wrote the following comment there, which I feel can just as well help this project:

We need to create a community spirit to make this project work (and thereby make WP much less amateurish). I suggest we stop trying to feel responsible for all the many articles that are in very bad shape and concentrate instead more on enforcing minimum standards and WP core policies like following usage in reliable sources. That means we could spend most of our time working on articles that are high profile and in pretty good shape but with embarrassing problems. That's much more rewarding and fun and will also make the entire WP community learn to appreciate and respect our efforts and general copyediting and standards much more than now. Now, many normal WP editors consider efforts (even by professional copyeditors!) to make WP conform to spelling and punctuation used in most reliable sources to be nitpicking or even a waste of time. Even more frustrating is that they consider it a waste of their time, i.e. of those who don't want to follow common usage.

I would for example appreciate professional help in making the article on the Beatles follow usage in most reliable sources, which uses lowercase "the Beatles" in running text, as extensively documented in Talk:The_Beatles#reliable sources using "the Beatles" or "The Beatles".

Those huge backlogs of pages in bad shape probably only serve to discourage other members as much as myself. Pages that are in very bad shape can be improved drastically by almost any WP user, so it's senseless to waste the time and efforts of copyediting specialists on those. We need to encourage many more members to join. What about starting a level system based on self-appraisal along the lines of beginner, intermediate, advanced? Many people are interested in copyediting but are afraid they'll make mistakes. Maybe they'd like to be called apprentices? That would take the main load of responsibility off their back and give them a chance to learn what they want "on the job" with the good feeling that they can ask a "master" for help or a quick check if they want that. --Espoo (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Espoo! Glad this WikiProject has relieved your depression somewhat. I completely agree that a strong community spirit in a project is a good thing because it "gets the word out", and that large backlogs can be discouraging. This is precisely the basis on which this project was created.

You see, there exists a backlog of close to 5,000 articles. These articles have every type and combination of problem you can imagine: there are the machine-translated stubs and the extensive articles with a little problem with grammar; there are articles that seem to be written on a whim and those that took painstaking effort by someone whose command of English is perhaps not as good as we would like; there are articles on all sorts of topics and places and people. It is very easy for one who would like to improve Wikipedia to look at the pages of CAT:COPY and get discouraged, which is why we need collaboration and mutual support, i.e. a WikiProject, and one that can somehow continue working even though its subject is tedious.

There are two types of WikiProject that can hold on to its members even though their backlogs are enormous: (1) the WikiProject that obliges some members to continue doing work, perhaps by getting heavily involved with non-members' articles or requests (it is more difficult to refuse a request from a fellow Wikipedian than from a faceless backlog), and (2) the WikiProject that tells members that they are free to work on the backlog in their own time and at their own pace. WP:LOCE was in the first category of WikiProject (as far as I could gather) and this WikiProject is in the second. In other words, it is a choice between trying to compel members to work because they are obliged to, and encouraging members to work by creating a relaxed environment, a subtle difference, and we have chosen the latter.

The main difference between the two types of WikiProject is that the former is likely to burn like magnesium - bright, dying fast - because there is a real probability of burning people out, while the latter is like to burn like coals - dim, dying slowly - because people are given a choice of pace: a sprinter spends himself quickly and has no time for the scenery while someone taking a stroll does so slowly because he may be distracted by lovely sights along the way. If you ask me, I think I prefer longevity to burning out, because the people of Wikipedia are described as a community - a word implying a group of all sorts of people - and not a workforce or production line.

Just my two cents, I hope they were spent wisely. Hands out a cookie.-Samuel Tan 10:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. In thinking about this, I came up with an idea that might help our stated goal, to reduce the backlog (see the section immediately below). Once the backlog is reduced to a couple dozen, we can then worry about further improving already adequate prose to good article standards. That surely is the goal of everyone here: fix both the worst articles and the adequate-but-still-imperfect articles. -kotra (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I'm quite discouraged again; it seems that yelling in large numbers will continue to be considered a better basis for WP copyediting decisions than common usage in professionally edited sources until WP:MOS takes a clear stand. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive_102#Is MoS committed to observing WP:VERIFY? --Espoo (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Espoo! The issue of the definite article w.r.t. The/the Beatles seems to be a very tricky one. If this were a professional publishing house I'm guessing that the management would arbitrarily mandate one option. The problem is that decisions are made in Wikipedia by consensus, and in consensus discussions everyone naturally fights for his or her side.

Given that the issue is not addressed in WP:MOS (or anywhere else), editors need to rely on community consensus (which, as I learnt recently, can trump guidelines; see this AFD case in which an admin upheld community consensus on an issue that was not written in any guideline).

But of course, if you feel that consensus was not actually reached (WP:POLLS, on your userpage) then you might want to bring the matter up at WP:AC. -Samuel Tan 11:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not recommend ArbCom at this stage. There are several other stages one should go through first, and I don't see that this issue has been through most of them yet. -kotra (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please describe those stages a bit? Thanks, Espoo (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

They're described here. -kotra (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Samuel! The issue of trying to decide on the basis of reliable sources whether to write "member of the Beatles" or "member of The Beatles" is very easy and not at all tricky since the overwhelming majority of reliable sources found by all members of the discussion uses "the Beatles" in running text. --Espoo (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I meant "tricky" as in how hard it seems to be to reach consensus about a single phrase :) -Samuel Tan 16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How I personally think you should burn throught the list.

Start with 2 from the top of the list, then 1 from the next month, then another from the oldest month, then 1 from the next 2, then 1 again from the oldest month, then the next 3, etc. Like a nice triangle pattern. Believe me, doing things like this works.-- PXK ^T /_C 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have two from the top and the rest from the bottom, Carol _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Template on completion of copyedit?

I thought I'd just throw this out there; what about adding a little template to the talk page of the article after completion of a copyedit? Perhaps my territorial canine tendencies are being revealed here, but it could also be useful in drawing attention and exposure to the project. Two cents. --Blehfu (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Modified a bit, but now at {{PACEdone}}

Good idea, but I'm not sure if it's OK to leave this template on the article for long. It sounds odd to me to have thousands of articles sporting our template forever. Do other cleanup WikiProjects do this? -Samuel Tan 05:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFC does this. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 08:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, talk page!! My apologies, I thought you meant to leave the template on the article pages themselves... In that case, this is a seriously good idea. If you feel it's complete remember to paste the template on the project's front page so people know about it :) -Samuel Tan 14:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, the template should probably be modified so the blue bar is not there. Convention seems to be that templates with red / orange / yellow / blue bars are meant for the articles' front pages. What WP:AFC has (below) is similar to other standard banner templates. We could consider copying the code for this template so we can have articles that come "under our scope" so to speak.-Samuel Tan 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How about,

{{WPBannerMeta |PROJECT = PACE |BANNER_NAME = |small={{{small|}}} |nested={{{nested|}}} |category={{{category|¬}}} |IMAGE_LEFT = Writing_Magnifying.PNG |IMAGE_LEFT_SMALL = 35px |IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE = 55px |IMPORTANCE_SCALE = |importance={{{importance|}}} |ASSESSMENT_CAT = |ASSESSMENT_LINK = |MAIN_TEXT = This article was touched by the sweet, merciful hand of '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit]]'''. The project seeks to stem the epidemic of <nowiki>{{copyedit}} tags which proliferate on Wikipedia with its divine, healing prowess. To participate, please visit project page for more information. |BOTTOM_TEXT = }}</nowiki>

Hmmm, must be something funny in my coffee today. --Blehfu (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, that's hilarious. -Samuel Tan 21:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's funny, but I think something a little more serious is in order. I mean, a little humor is good, but if this is going to be on tons of talk pages, we don't want people thinking Wikipedia isn't a serious project, you know? Because, I mean, it is. Officially, anyway (and in the minds of many editors). Maybe something more along the lines of the old LOCE one below? -kotra (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I just found {{ LOCEcomplete}} and Category:League of Copyeditors templates which might be helpful

LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the template at {{PACEdone}}. Substituting the current version below:

A version of this article was copyedited by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] from WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit . The WikiProject welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English to help improve articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in joining! If you have any questions, or concerns, please direct them to the project's talk page

The template uses two optional parameters for username and date. For example, {{PACEdone|Samuel Tan|date=August 19, 2008}} produces:

A version of this article was copyedited by Samuel Tan from WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit on August 19, 2008. The WikiProject welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English to help improve articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in joining! If you have any questions, or concerns, please direct them to the project's talk page

Other notes: we might want to set up a category for all our templates like what LOCE did, to keep things organized... -Samuel Tan 09:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive method for our talk page

Since there are so many suggestions for improvements going on at this page, I'll throw this up:

You guys OK with getting one of the archive bots to archive our talk page, or rather we do it manually? -Samuel Tan 05:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a preference for using a bot, as they're quite convenient (IMO), but I don't really care about bot/manual. However, I think that using archives would be a good idea. IceUnshattered (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to get MiszaBot to archive the page but it doesn't seem to be working. I've posted a question at the bot's talk page here. -Samuel Tan 09:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you get it working, you may want to check out {{MonthlyArchive}}. It is currently used on Talk:Craig Ferguson. It auto updates if set up right.--Rockfang (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Misza fixed it. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Gah... Looks like I made a mistake in copying the code over. *bonks head and reminds self to do things carefully* Thanks Misza. -Samuel Tan 11:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Islam in Burma

The article is in need of a MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRR CE. I've started, but I can't finish by myself. Any help would be, well, helpful. Tell me if you're willing to help.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I can help, but I won't have free time for another couple of hours.. It looks like you and Monsieur Lupin have been through most of the article already- what needs to be done? --Blehfu (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How to request a copy edit

Hi, could any body say how to request an additional copy edit for the article? By simply applying {{copyedit}} tag? Currently Kaunas Fortress undergoing a A-class review and there was a request of additional copy editing. M.K. (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, tagging it with {{copyedit}} will (eventually, theoretically) get it copy edited. Though since we are working through the 4,800-article backlog mostly from the bottom up, you would probably be waiting a while. If an article needs a copy edit now (and for whatever reason you can't do it yourself), I would recommend politely requesting help on copy editors' talk pages. -kotra (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification! M.K. (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's Sam? He's back!

Hi there! In case you're wondering why I haven't active here over the past few days, I've been spending what free time I have creating articles relating to stuttering, because I'm a stutterer myself and I happen to have a LOT of books on the topic; and since Wikipedia articles are often amongst the first pages seen in a google search, I thought I'd create some good articles that will help other people like myself. Yup, so I'll be a little "distracted" over the next few days. :) -Samuel Tan 14:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm back after creating Stuttering therapy, Charles Van Riper and Malcolm Fraser (philanthropist). Time to start working on our close to 5000-article backlog :D -Samuel Tan 05:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Review

Pardon me if this is a topic that has been hashed out already, but I'm a newbie here. Once I've edited an article, is there a review process to assure that the removal of the {{copyedit}} tag is appropriate? I feel a little smug just removing the tag myself, on the assumption that my edits automatically bring the article into conformance.WikiDan61 (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi WikiDan61 and welcome! Nope, there's no review process. Simply remove the tag once you feel the copy edit is complete. Even if you did a terrible job copy editing, all that will likely happen is that someone will simply slap the tag back on. Cheers! -Samuel Tan 13:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I feel so empowered!!WikiDan61 (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, think it might be helpful to have some sort of review process. Maybe just a list of active editors that would be available to review copy edits (people would add themselves to the list voluntarily). Nobody is perfect at copy editing, so it might be nice for us to facilitate double-checking, for those who are interested. -kotra (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's a good idea! You mean something like a mini editor review, right? Anyone else wanna give this idea the thumbs up? It's Easter! - Samuel Tan 08:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure...with the massive backlog, it might be taking valuable time. Come on- can't you trust us to have a reasonable assessment of whether the article is "okay" or "whoah- gotta get to work", right? But maybe, if the review is small enough, it could be nice. (Can you tell I'm undecided yet?) IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be intended for editors who want to improve their copy editing skills, by casually and voluntarily getting a second opinion from another copy editor. I don't think that's a waste of time, personally. -kotra (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing so formal as editor review (maybe that's why you said "mini"), more like:

To get a second opinion on your copy editing, the following editors are available to review copy edits. To request a review, leave a note on their talk page.

• kotra (talk)
• kotra (talk)
• kotra (talk)

-kotra (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Our templates

I have create a category for our templates here, and moved our "effort" template to the template space here. Hope I didn't miss any templates out... -Samuel Tan 14:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I think that's it for templates. -kotra (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think an additional template may be useful for those articles that cannot be feasibly copy edited within the space of a few hours. Perhaps a {{GOCElong}} is in order? --Blehfu (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should tie up entire articles for more than a few hours. For articles that take longer than that, I think we should just copy edit section by section. {{GOCEinuse}} says "article or section", so we can use it for just sections. -kotra (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we just split the templates into something like {{GOCEinuse}} for articles only and then a sub-template under, say, {{GOCE-section}}? This way, we can tell the difference without having a major tag on smaller copy-edits. the_ed17 19:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually if it's for the entire article, the tag goes at the top, and if it's for just a section, it's placed at the top of a section. I think the only confusion would be when you're just working on the lead section (which probably wouldn't happen very often). -kotra (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Though, I notice {{GOCEinuse}} says "please do not edit this page", when "please do not edit this article or section" would be better for when it's just used for sections. I'll change that if there are no objections. -kotra (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Recognition

If we are to reduce the backlog to a manageable number, I think it would be greatly helped by doing something to recognize editors who copy edit a large number of articles. Right now, if someone fixes up many articles in the backlog, nobody knows. So would it be a good idea to have a list of editors showing how many articles they cleaned from the backlog? I imagine it might work by having a bot count how many times someone removed a {{copyedit}} or {{grammar}} tag (can a bot do that?), maybe in the process also linking up diffs for each tag removal so that editors could verify that the copy edit was legitimate. The end result might look something like this on the project page:

Most prolific copy editors

The following list recognizes those who have done the most to reduce the backlog by performing copy edits and then removing the {{copyedit}} or {{grammar}} tags). Only copy edits since August 11, 2008 are counted.

To keep this list meaningful, incomplete copy edits may be subtracted by anyone. Make sure you make sure your work is complete before removing the tags. Or, if you wish to be exempt from this list altogether, add your name here.

• 5 John Doe [1][2][3][4][5]
• 4 Jane Doe [6][7][8][9]
• 2 Jane Fonda [10][11]

etc...

Rewards could perhaps be given in the form of barnstars or via Wikipedia:Reward board for those who copy edited the most.

So, is this a good idea? (in case you're wondering, I would be at the end of this list, so there's nothing in it for me) -kotra (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a good idea.. For example, there is some overlap between (this group whose name is currently undecided) and theTypo Team. Frequently I find (and fix) very poorly written untagged articles while searching for typos. While I don't know that I have actually "fixed" any pages, and removed a copyedit tag, I do know that I have "fixed" quite a few that were not tagged. Without a team going through everyones' edits, this type of contribution would go unrecognised.

However, there is a lot to be said for recognizing the dedication it takes to plod through a list methodically. And, the spirit of competition can be an excellent motivator for many people. I haven't the foggiest clue where I'd fall on a list. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 23:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unfortunately there's no (feasible) way to list the many copy edits performed on untagged pages, those copy edits done without removing {{copyedit}} or {{grammar}}, or typo fixes like those performed by Typo Team. If we do this idea, we'd have to resign ourselves to excluding those (very helpful) contributions. Perhaps the title should be "Most active backlog cleaners" or "Most active backloggers" (neither sounds great, but they're more accurate). But I still think this could be a worthwhile endeavor, even if it doesn't recognize the work of many hardworking copy editors. -kotra (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, although "Most active backlog cleaners" is more accurate, I think that "Most Prolific Copy Editors" sounds great, and has a feeling of cachet.. Which would draw more people to try to make the list. Maybe a small aside crediting the time and effort also spent on unmarked pages would be the best way to go. I think I'm in favor of trying it out. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Copy editing performed on unmarked pages unfortunately cannot be counted... but is still highly appreciated!" -kotra (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I read through the entire list of bots looking for a bot that could do this task, and though I didn't see anything that quite fit the description, I gathered that it's technically feasible. If there is clear consensus to try this idea out, I'll put up a bot request. -kotra (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Backlog_Drive#Awards? LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the same basic idea. I knew I couldn't have been the first to think of it. The difference though is the numbers were self-reported there. I suppose we could do that here, but a bot would be much easier and more verifiable. -kotra (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! Apologies for taking a while to reply; been work, school and home commitments have been hounding me with a vengeance. Anyway, I've thought of creating some sort of rewards system too; after all, hard work should be appreciated. Unfortunately every such idea I thought of or someone mentioned is problematic. For example:

Number of times certain tags are removed

Such a system will favor people who exclusively copy edit very short articles (not that that is a bad thing). Copy editing a very, very long article can take over 10 times as much time as doing that to a very short article, and any system we put in place should not overlook people who do that. Also, people who do general fixes (perhaps going through all the articles in CAT:COPY with a mind only to fix refs) but not necessarily full copy edits, will be completely overlooked, like what BrianKnez mentioned.

Personally I'm against this because it may encourage slipshod work ("ARGH, I'm gonna get over this long article quick because I want that award!!!"). There's a slightly-shaky consensus in the air that contests for awards that lead to slipshod work should not be held. If you're curious there's the interesting story of the MFD'd Awards Center; check out the MFD debate here.

Self-given awards for number of edits to articles needing copy edit

These awards would be similar to service awards; e.g. if I have spent 3 months as a project member and made 500 edits to articles needing copy edit, I can award myself the Journeyman Copy Editor's Medal or such. I think this idea is better than the first one, and it will only be a little biased ,towards people who make many minor edits (as opposed to few edits each with major changes). One big problem is how to easily count the edits. We will need to find (or write) a bot that can count edits made to articles with a certain tag.

A "most active/prolific copy editor" award not based on tag removal

This is an interesting idea. Perhaps we could form a little team (taskforce! *grin*) who would go through the contribs of every member at the end of each month, and come up with a list of most active CE'ers. This will be something like the GAN reviewers of the month award (on the right). A more fun alternative would be to do it by nomination and consensus: create a page where members can each nominate anyone for the award, and other members will discuss and come to a consensus on who the top, say, five editors are.

Samuel Tan 04:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC) feels two cents poorer.

Any award system we use would be flawed in some way. The last idea (both the taskforce and member consensus versions) seems like it would be fairest, but it would take up a lot of Wikipedians' time that would probably be better spent copy editing (or doing something else). Giving monthly awards is a nice idea and beneficial to the project in terms of visibility, but I'm not sure if it's beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole, since it would take up so much time going through each editor's contribs. I think GAN might be a little different because it's a bigger part of Wikipedia, so it's more ok to spend a lot of time there reviewing each others' work.

Anyway, I wasn't thinking of anything as formal as these ideas when I suggested that maybe awards could be given based on the list. I was mainly thinking that editors could individually give each other awards (probably more appropriately, barnstars) for good copy editing work, and the list could be one criterion they might use.

My main idea isn't about awards at all, though, just a list of editors by the number of articles they've successfully cleaned from the backlog. I agree that it would be great to recognize those editors that copy edit without removing tags (for any of the reasons given above and more), but since the main goal of this project seems to be to reduce the backlog, I think reducing the backlog is the first thing we should recognize editors for. If it's feasible, we could do other things as well (like monthly awards), but I consider those things to be separate. Do you have any opinions about the list idea? -kotra (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, project barnstars would be good. We could come up with a list of them (I'm pretty proficient with graphics design so can help when I'm free) for people to use as and when they wish.

And well, a "list" of most prolific editors is not too different from GAN's "reviewers" award, because it can take quite a bit of time time for anyone to count the number of articles they've cleaned. Imagine having to go through the many pages of your contribs searching for articles that were once tagged for CE. I'm guessing that a lot of people won't bother to do so ("why spend time trying to get on a list when I can be clearing the backlog?"), which will leave the counting to a few people who want to recognize others, i.e. something like a task force, and we're back to square one. The only efficient way to do this would be to write a bot who can retrieve the relevant edit counts from the toolserver, but I don't know if that's possible.

One workaround would be to get everyone to individually keep track of every single time they finish copy editing an article so that they can see where they stand on the "list", but once again I'm guessing that many people won't bother, and in all likelihood we may end up with only the the recognition-seekers placing themselves on the list, and people who don't feel comfortable blowing their own trumpet being sidelined.

Anyway I think the barnstars thing would be a great start. Throw me suggestions and I can try making the barnstars when I'm free. *grin* -Samuel Tan 05:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot method is the method I suggested above (and I think is the best option of all you aptly describe here). Several bots already patrol the recent changes for vandalism I believe, so technically I see no reason a bot couldn't notice template-removing edits... unless it would be too much of a server drain for such a frivolous task. I'm not that knowledgeable about bots, so I would phrase the bot request in the form of a question, or ask at the help desk first. Before I do though, I would like to get some semblance of consensus for this list, otherwise I might be wasting people's time.

Can't think of any creative barnstar ideas at the moment; brain is tired, not work good. -kotra (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Used by LOCE LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To summarize the consensus...

• We want to reward hard work in this WikiProject
• Methods and concerns:

1. Literally counting the number of articles each member finishes copy editing
   • Concerns include missing out the people who do minor improvements, lack of a method to count the number of times a user removes a copyedit tag, and the fact that people may not bother to count themselves how many articles they cleaned
2. Reviewing contributions (either by consensus or by a taskforce) to come up with a list of most active participants
   • Concerns include this taking up a lot of Wikipedians' time much better spent elsewhere
3. Just displaying a list of articles sucessfully cleaned, and let participants use the list to give each other barnstars and such
   • No concerns raised yet, but any will probably be similar to that in (1)

• We might want to create project barnstars for mutual edification :) -Samuel Tan 12:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For #1, "lack of a method to count the number of times a user removes a copyedit tag" is incorrect. There is a method for #1, using a bot (as I described above). At least, I'm almost certain it is possible. -kotra (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is one other method to count successful copy edits. We might be able to get a bot to count the number of times the {{PACEdone}} template is pasted on a talk page, and classify it according to the second attribute (the Username) of the tag. If this is possible the bot should be able to generate a list of how many participants have used how many tags. -Samuel Tan 12:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will be some formula for some I, Robot/BSG type of scenario, but I say let the bots do the dirty work. I like this idea. --Blehfu (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

BSG rocks!-Samuel Tan 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it, has anyone put up a request yet? LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to wait for the bot request until we had some consensus (thereby not wasting the botmaker's time). I guess I will do it now if that's ok with everyone? -kotra (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That method (counting {{GOCEdone}} additions) would count both backlog removals and anything that strikes an editor as a copy edit. So it wouldn't do much to reduce the backlog in my opinion, because it people could just "copy edit" easy articles that don't really need much work, add the GOCEdone template, and get just as much recognition as those who copy edit the harder articles in our backlog. For this reason, I still prefer my method (counting removals of the {{copyedit}} and {{grammar}} templates) because it will probably reduce the backlog more. -kotra (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I thought we were supposed to add the done template whenever we remove a copyedit tag? The instructions say to add the template whenever we complete copy editing... -Samuel Tan 01:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any specific instructions. I just gathered from the discussion that it was supposed to be placed on completion of any copy edit, not necessarily upon removal of a copyedit tag. So I think people are free to place it whenever they have done a copy edit. I guess this should be clarified. -kotra (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be placed only when the article is good enough that the copy edit tag can be removed (and the article removed from our backlog). Otherwise articles may end up having many GOCEdone templates on their talk pages placed there by many editors who made incremental edits to it. What do you think? -Samuel Tan 09:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've adjusted the instructions (just noticed them) accordingly: [12]. Feel free to tweak the wording. -kotra (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So, is there consensus that the list idea is something to pursue? (Samuel?) If so, I will write the bot request. We can use either the removal of {{copyedit}} and {{grammar}} tags or the addition of {{GOCEdone}}. Now that we have clarified the instructions for {{GOCEdone}}, it seems to me to be about the same either way. Any preference? -kotra (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi kotra! Sorry for the late reply, I've been a little distracted lately. Yes, I think we have consensus since there are a few of us who are for the idea, and no recent dissenting voices. Actually for some reason I thought you had already done the bot request...-Samuel Tan 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I hadn't done the bot request because I thought you sounded hesitant about the idea. I'll do it now. -kotra (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, work (that thing I'm supposed to be doing instead of editing Wikipedia) has been busy lately. I'll try to get to this today. -kotra (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Heya Kotra, have you put up the request? I can do it if you want :) -Samuel Tan 13:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I'll do this now (I'm not lying this time, honest!). -kotra (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

...and here 'tis: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Template_removal_detection.2C_user_list_maintenance. How is it? -kotra (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. Just a minor note: you might want to move the subpages up one level, i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/subpage, rather than Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Left panel/subpage, for the sake of... I don't know... consistency? Neatness? *grin* -Samuel Tan 08:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I have done so. -kotra (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: the bot request was archived after a few days of no discussion, and I have now relisted it. -kotra (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Another method would be to use the second attribute of the GOCEdone tag (username). A bot could simply count how many times an editor's name is placed on a GOCEdone tag... What do you think? -Samuel Tan 04:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That would mean a user would have to put their name up on GOCEdone in order to be counted. I personally agree with Mukadderat, posting one's name permanently and prominently at the top of an article's talk page simply because one copy edited it at some point seems a bit too self-serving to me. And users like me won't want to do that (though being listed on the project page alongside a bunch of other editors might be ok). -kotra (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot request was archived again. I guess no bot makers want to do it. Not sure how to proceed, so I guess this is indefinitely stalled. -kotra (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Project barnstars

Hi all! Is anyone here an expert in image editing? I'm thinking we could start throwing out ideas for barnstars - how they will be awarded and how they will look. I'm reasonably good with Adobe PhotoShop and Illustrator, but just thought I'd check if we have perhaps a professional graphics designer or two in our midst :) -Samuel Tan 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

points to Image:CopyeditorStar7.PNG LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 17:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And just made Image:GOCEstar.png LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice job, Lego. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Ok I'll look at putting up a new subpage for barnstar discussion soon. (Once I clear up some of the September articles heh) -Samuel Tan 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Strike that. I think it makes more sense to discuss more here first. So what kind of awards do you think we should have? I'm thinking very vaguely of barnstars to

• Recognize members for good copy editing in general
• Recognize members who tackle very long or very difficult articles
• Recognize members who have cleared many articles from the backlog (this can be tied in with the bot idea above)

Any more? Also we may wanna come up with some sort of theme for our barnstars. Like a similar colour scheme or picture.-Samuel Tan 08:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Practically speaking, as long as there is a barnstar for copy editing, I think that's all we really need. When you give a barnstar, you can customize the message to be more specific. -kotra (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits to the "Left Panel"

Goals and scope: There was repetition, and I've removed the jokey bit about animals. I had to think a bit to realise it was a joke, which is not a good look when gaining authority is important on that page.

I've had a go at the templates displayed on the page, but now I see that their width is constricted. Have I messed up something?

Congratulations to those who have resurrected this service, and the current participants. I've updated the reference on my user-space page How to satisfy Criterion 1a to replace "LOCE" with "GOCE". Please let me know if the information there about the Guild needs to be changed.

You may be interested in what was said at the recent Wikimania conference about writing on WP. A brief summary appears here. Tony (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm the project page has gone haywire for some reason. Not sure if it was your doing. I'll try to fix it. -Samuel Tan 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. The formatting of the front page is a mess now. Looks like an extra column has somehow been created and the right panel is aligned wrongly. Trouble is, all the code seems ok. Tony, you didn't play with the formatting while making those updates right? heh... -Samuel Tan 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony, could you go through your edits to the project pages and templates and check if you accidentally added an extra column or changed some table formatting? I don't have the time right now to go through your changes... -Samuel Tan 04:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed

Ok I found that issue - it seems you accidentally deleted the close table syntax in the GOCEdone template. Please be careful when editing templates. They affect a large number of pages. Cheers and happy editing! -Samuel Tan 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Opportunity to make friends

That sounds so much nicer than "chores to do", doesn't it? Wikiprojects have been invited to list pages between now and October 20 that may need light spelling and grammar copyediting at Wikipedia_talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Copyediting. Editors who have listed their pages might be appreciative, because these pages will be going on the (not widely distributed) WP 0.7 DVD. Do one or twenty; there's no sign-up sheet and no obligation. I don't mean to pull anyone away from your regular copyediting duties; this is less strenuous work, for when your brain needs a rest. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of us. I think our stated higher priority is to reduce the ever-increasing backlog (CAT:COPY), but if articles get listed on the page you linked, some of us might set aside some time to clean them up. -kotra (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this to User:CBM, and he has a solution: http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/problems.cgi is the list of 0.7 articles with tagged problems, updated hourly. Search for "copyedit" in that list, and you'll find articles in CAT:COPY that currently make the 0.7 cut. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. -kotra (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed!

I'm new to this, and just started working on my first article at copy editing, so I'm not sure if this problem may sound stupid or not. The article is Battle of Shanghai (1861). I cleared up the first paragraph, but after that most of the content is incomprehensible except for a bit in the prelude section. But I don't feel like removing them, because then nothing would be left in the article except the infobox. I'm sure this can be improved, so can someone more experienced take a look at this and make the necessary changes or tell me what to do? Thanks. Chamal ^Talk ± 15:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...hmmm.... I'd remove them. Not much info there anyway, and the info that IS there is worthless if you can't understand it... ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 15:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, then. Thanks for the quick response :) Chamal ^Talk ± 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love watchlists! =) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Help

I apologize for intrusion, but was seeking help with editing my contribution on Thomas Nassi. I was seemingly unable to get edits to stick - nor to remove the cleanup tag after replacing a dead URL. Any comment could also be made to my email site, since I may not be able to find my way back to this talk page.

Frank Manheim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmanheim (talk • contribs) 07:16, 19 September 2008

Responded on User talk:Fmanheim. -kotra (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Idea

I noticed that under the Project to do list, it says "Get word out about the project". So how about making an ad? If everyone is OK with this, I can make it. If you like it, can you also give some ideas on what should be included in it? Maybe something like "Make it say what it means, and mean what it says" and "Join the Guild of Copy Editors"... Cheers. Chamal ^Talk ± 13:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! Here are a few pictures you could maybe use:

-kotra (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've used the quill image. How about this one? I haven't added it as an ad yet. What do you guys think? Any improvements, suggestions? (Or does it suck?)

Chamal ^Talk ± 05:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. -kotra (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Me too! Very well done :) -Samuel Tan 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. --*momoricks* (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it about another day more, and add it if there are no objections then. Chamal ^Talk ± 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Added it. Sorry for the delay. The code is {{wikipedia ads|ad=154}} Chamal ^Talk ± 12:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done, fellow guildsperson! -kotra (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Its a great banner! I hope you carrected the typo in it though. the word 'say' appears twice consecutively in the motto. Wiki Roxor (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes! I never saw that. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll fix it as soon as possible. Chamal ^Talk ± 13:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Need an article CEing fast

CM Punk is suggested as FA for October 30th but WT:PW agree it needs some work doing. Care to halp? PXK ^T /_C 19:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied to PXK on October 2, 2008 --*momoricks* (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy Edit: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Hi, I would like, if possible, for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to be copy-edited, as it's a former FAC and would like to see it reach FA status. Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded on EclipseSSD's talk page. --momoricks ^talk 09:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Images in headings of project page

Can someone remove the images within the headings on the project page, or move them somewhere else? They interfere with my screen reader JAWS because it reads them as the first part of the heading title, so the first heading is read as "Sphere_3D_Light_Blue.JPG/24px-Sphere_3D_Light_Blue Announcements!". If there is no response on this talk page, I'll remove them myself in 24 hours. Graham87 05:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all the images. Frankly I don't find the community-oriented parts of the project interesting, but that's just me. Graham87 13:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Project barnstars

• One image already available at {{ContentReviewMedal}}; just copy it to a new template... I could also make others someday if you wish. I'm sure other folks could as well. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks great Ling.Nut. Thank you for creating it. --momoricks ^talk 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Great Image! I'll try to make another BStar later and use that image. BTW, feel free to change the text in the BStar I previously made, I really wasn't sure what to put there. :P -- $user log ^(Talk) @ 09:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

*wave*

Hi everyone! Just dropping by to say hello again :)

Yes, I've not been on Wikipedia much over the past weeks. I've been extremely busy with a lot going on at home and at college, so I've no choice but to force editing Wikipedia down the priority list. Hope to be active again in a few weeks. Take care and happy editing!

Samuel Tan 16:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

*waving back* I figured you were busy with real life. It's good to see you didn't decide to give Wiki the finger. ;) --momoricks ^talk 22:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

CE Request

Hi there, can I request a little assistance for Go_(game). Before nominating for FA Status again, we want to check that it is up to scratch.Thanks, --ZincBelief (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded on ZincBelief's talk page. --momoricks ^talk 08:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

CE: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Per the peer review on the article, I would like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to be copy edited, and cleaned up, ready for nomination as a FA. Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar

Hi, I saw there's a barnstar added to the project page. Now, as it says we just simply transclude the template into a user's talk page. Isn't there any need to substitute it? As far as I know, barnstars are usually substituted. Chamal ^talk 13:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

userbox {{UserCE}}

• It's for copy editing, not for membership in this WP. But it's useful and has several options: {{UserCE}}. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC and MOS

I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Primate; feel free to comment on anything, but especially see any unresolved questions in bold. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Btw, while I'm here ... we're getting dissed (by implication) at WT:MOS#Forcing Lead image, please weigh in on the importance of listening to publishing professionals :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)