Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Archive 1

Overlap

Good idea, but we have a few similar leagues in place already, so you may want to join them... for instance, Wikipedia:Maintenance collaboration of the week. (Radiant) 16:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen many of these groups, however, most of these groups look at the copyediting task with a shrugging afterthought. This project's entire purpose is to remove the backlog (currently around 950) of articles that have been tagged for copyedit. The existance of the backlog is evidence enough that a group is needed who is committed to its maintainance. (preferable those that have few or no other projects on their plates.) Trusilver 21:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to contribute to other maintenance tasks, but I've concluded that copyediting is really my main strength. I'll be happy to help if this project is approved. (It should be noted, however, that I feel most comfortable editing articles about subjects with which I'm at least slightly familiar.) IrisWings 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I fully agree that the group is a good idea; you could advertise it on e.g. goings-on or the village pump or the talk pages of those other cleanup tasks, to get more members and participants in clearing the backlog. (Radiant) 09:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Radiant, and thank you for your ideas to help this group succeed. We are already showing a good start, and I'm hoping to make the formal proposal to make this a Wikiproject within the next couple weeks. Trusilver 00:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bakersfield, California; Barm; Illegal immigration

I have started work on Bakersfield, California on behalf of the League. I have also done a complete copyedit of Barm, which I am also crediting to the League. (I have left notes on both talk pages). Rintrah 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Rintrah, I learned of this group. On my own inititive I began a short while ago to start hacking away on the backlog of pages needing wikifying and have recently started on a few pages requiring copyediting for a change of pace. Whether or not the group becomes formalized, I'll be pitching in as I have time. JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 16:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see I have recruited someone. Welcome. :) Rintrah 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouch Rintah, you are ambitious. Bakersfield and Illegal Immigration are the two articles I have been gingerly stepping around because every time I open the doors to those two, I immediately jump backwards in horror and promise myself I will revisit them in a week or so. Trusilver 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bigg City Port

Can someone check Bigg City Port? I am sleepy, so I am liable to have missed something. I am going back to bed.

Wikiproject name ungrammatical?

And a small point: Shouldn't the group be called the Copyeditors' League? Rintrah 23:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It should either be Copyeditors' to make it possessive, or just Copyeditors as in "League of Copyeditors." IrisWings 01:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

*Laughs* Yeah, it probably should. Also, I think I agree with IW, "League of Copyeditors" sounds better to me. I came to the conclusion that by myself I wasn't going to make a dent in the number of articles that needed copyedited when one afternoon I saw that the number backlogged was 971. I spent the whole afternoon copyediting ten articles and checked again... the number backlogged was 972...

I'm pretty sure members of the League of Copyeditors should get to wear Lycra bodysuites and capes, with the quill & broom emblem on our chests. –Little Miss Might Be Wrong 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost positive that my wife would have me committed if that ever happened. I think I will settle for the userbox :) Trusilver 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

But no one would ever know unless we posted pictures. I don't think I'm prepared to do that. Rintrah 19:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject planning, process

At this point, we have four members. I would like to see at least six before I draft the actual proposal to add this as a Wikiproject. Therefore, everyone be on the lookout for good additions to this little cabal.

One point I have been giving some thought to and would like some feedback on:

I have noticed that no matter how careful I am when I'm copyediting large articles, I'm always going to miss a few errors or add one or two of my own. (that's not exactly a bad thing, if I hadn't done that last night, I wouldn't have run into Rintrah following after me and cleaning up the article.) Therefore, I am considering putting a place on the project page for us to post our copyedited articles where another member of the team will then proofread them.

The way I envision it is that we will copyedit them, remove the tag and then put the name of the article on the page. Then another member will check the list and proofread the article, making corrections if applicable, then remove the article from the project page. (I'm going to post the articles I edited last night as an example here in a few minutes.) Thoughts? Trusilver 01:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

When my brain resumes operation, I will give you my thoughts. But, prima facie, it sounds good. Rintrah 03:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. I would especially appreciate help on those pages which absolutely have to remain in British English, since I'm prone to Americanize things without realizing.

And I agree with waiting for a couple more people before drafting a formal proposal. IrisWings 08:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we have another section where we can request assistance for copyediting particular articles? Perhaps we should also form strategies for the very large articles in which editors are assigned to particular sections, so the copyediting task does not become overwhelming. At present, I am becoming sick of Bakersfield, California. I have copyedited everything up to Highways, albeit not thoroughly, for it is too hot for me to care. Rintrah 10:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed and done. Any article that you can't complete on your own and want help with, add it to the new catergory. Trusilver 23:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do I add it to Articles Pending Completion? And, if so, should I create a new section for this? Perhaps there should be space beside each item of the list for comments (e.g., I might want someone to work on the second half of the article, while I do the first.) Rintrah 05:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoting the league

I'd like to suggest that we could promote the league by adding the following phrase to the top of an article's talk page after completing an edit. I was brought here through a similar notice placed by Rintrah when she and I happened to both be working on Barm

This page has been edited by a collaborator in the League of Copyeditors. Please join in, if you're so inclined. ~~~~

Perhaps someone could create a template based on the notice.--JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 15:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going make a stab at creating a user box for the project, possibly something with a red pen and/or some copyediting markup symbols. If it goes well, perhaps the graphic part could be adapted for a template. Just a thought. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I was hoping that someone would step up to the plate on that. I considered trying it a few times over the last few days, but I would undoubtedly screw it up. Creating graphics mystifies me, I am only barely competent to handle userboxes. Trusilver 03:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Go public?

Are we ready to go public? I was thinking of putting a general invitation on the Wikipedia articles needing copy edit discussion page (along with our spiffy new logo!). Thoughts? –Little Miss Might Be Wrong 02:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The League is already active, but needs new members. Rintrah 04:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Proofread articles

I'm not so sure about the articles that have been completely process and have had the final proofread being on the project page. It's okay in the short term, but the size of such a list is going to become prohibitive very fast. The alternatives are to create a separate page to put this list, or to not list the finished articles at all. Any thoughts? Trusilver 17:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My vote: Create a subpage when it becomes too large. Rintrah 10:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User Box Suggestion

This user is a member of the League of Copyeditors.

Well, it isn't very pretty but it's a proof-of-concept example. It's difficult to see the red ink on the tip of the quill and I'd like the base background color to be a little redder. The broom is kind of funky too. The links, of course, aren't working yet. And just to tell you the magician's tricks, I swiped the basic template form from Template:User_AID. (Oo, and I used the words "form" and "from" next to each other, certain to get a double take from a crew of copyeditors!)

Feedback? --Pigman (talk • contribs) 06:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Second try with links that sort of work and which inserts a category at the bottom of the page. Hope you don't mind. I'll take that code out if it's too intrusive here. Grateful thanks to Kathryn NicDhàna for her help with this.

This user is a member of the League of Copyeditors.

Just to cause confusion and doubt about my ethical standards, I've rearranged my preceding comment for better visuals. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the links in there now will need to be changed if and when there's an official project page, but I chose those to at least link to the info that's available right now. What do people think of the background color? I'm not crazy about it... will look at some other project boxes for ideas. All the projects I belong to so far have white backgrounds, but I'll see if there are similar projects with color schemes we might want to use for inspiration. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the colour, although I do not prefer it either. I think the background colour should either be light blue, or black with a white foreground. Rintrah 10:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking light blue too, but otherwise it looks great. Trusilver 15:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for a light blue. While being a print junkie should make be lean to the black and white scheme, I prefer a splash of color on the web. When I was looking at project boxes, there seemed more variation and less consistency in the colors than other groupings of userboxes (e.g., language skills.) --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

---

This user is a member of the League of Copyeditors.

New version with blue background. Not sure it precisely matches the background on the copyediting template but it's very close. All additional work on the graphic by Kathryn NicDhàna, a whiz with Photoshop. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic job, both of you. Trusilver 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several things I like about it. The red border is good and complements the red in the graphic. The red editorial markup symbol for "delete" is probably the best known copyediting symbol. The blue background reminds me of non-photo blue pencils used for marking up copy (probably not used as much today.) --Pigman (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! We likeses the Photoshop. I'm not too fond of the red border, myself. It's ok, but I think I would prefer a more standard dark blue border. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. Just so you are aware, I sometimes do work on a laptop which, depending on the screen angle, may not show colors well. When I first saw the box I wasn't aware of any background ... it seemed white to me. You might keep in mind that in future work. The important thing is to have a clear contrast between text and bg in my view. --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work. This is going on my userpage. Rintrah 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we want to add it to the project page? Though the user who created a new one would have found this one if they'd checked here, I'm wondering if others might not also assume we don't have a userbox. Though I want people to get up to speed before joining and using the box, I'm wondering if we might as well have it on the main page. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I only have a few minutes, but yeah, someone go ahead and add the userbox to the project page. Trusilver 20:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Messagebox

This article has been copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Here's the beginnings of a messagebox to go at the top of the talk page of articles we copyedit. It's at least something to start with and modify from here. Trusilver 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. And out of the starting gate, it's even better than what I had hoped for. --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 00:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Rintrah 05:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

To do list added

In the course of editing something I stumbled across the to do list template which I took the liberty of putting in the section of items ready for final edit. It's no big deal, but I think it makes the list stand out and is a bit more attractive than the simple version.

Maybe we could use the idea of keeping a sub-page for pending articles and have another sub page on which completed edits are placed. Once this is done, perhaps it might be possible to place a box on the main project page which, by default, would show perhaps only the latest 10 projects completed. I don't know how much programming it would take, so I'm not sure it's practical, but I thought it might be worth mentioning. Any other thoughts? --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 01:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and my agreement is also based on the idea that I don't have a clue how much programming that would require. But I do think you are on the right track about the sub pages for pending and completed edits. Trusilver 01:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Impossible requests

I just realized that I placed an article on the to-do list that possibly no one here is able to help with. It has now risen to the top of the list, but if it is something that no one can help with, I don't expect that it should stay there forever.

I think we need to form some plan as to how we are going to deal with such articles. For example would we discuss the impossibility of helping on this page, on the talk page, or somewhere else? Would we expect each person who looked at it and decided that they couldn't help to say so, or how would we determine that it should come off the to-do list and go somewhere else? Any ideas or other thoughts? --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 01:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a separate section is appropriate for articles that are super-challenging.Shawn Fitzgibbons 04:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Birote article? I only gave it a quick look, but I'm not sure what the difficulty would be in copyediting it. If you're talking about a different article, could you let us know which one and why you think it's problematic. –Little Miss Might Be Wrong 01:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the article. I was concerned about what other editors might conclude when they took a look at my remarks on the article's talk page. Now that I think about it what I am after on that article is more than just copy editing and that needen't concern us here -- or should it? Maybe I should have placed this in a request for special help, rather than final review of editing. --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My philosophy is that a competent copyeditor shouldn't need to have specialized knowledge of an article to be able to clean it up, although I can foresee a situation where a sentence is unclear enough that fixing it without subject knowledge would be impossible. In that case, we might post a request for clarification on the talk page, or if we can track down the original author (without diff-ing a zillion versions), leave a note the author's personal talk page.

Also, by the same token, there's only so much copyediting can do for an article. Just because we're done with it, doesn't mean it's perfect.

Of course, I'm just thinking out loud here, and it does seem like something we may eventually want to address in our charter or policies. –Little Miss Might Be Wrong 03:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proofreading

Hi, I've been working on the articles needing copy-editing list for some months now, and I have signed my name up to your page because I think its a good idea to tackle the backlog. However I'm not so sure about this step of proofreading articles. I usually sit down and go through 5-10 article in a go, and when I'm finished with them they may not be perfect, but they are certainly better than the average Wikipedia article. I don't know that I really want to spend the extra time then adding those pages to this list so that another copy-editor can go over what I have already done. I feel that both our time would be better spent tackling more articles on the list. That's just my opinion, but we don't need to get these articles perfect we just need to get them readable and reduce the backlog. Anyway, I will just continue what I am doing and I probably won't check back to this page to often, but you can always leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers. JenLouise 01:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the general sentiment for this procedure is that we aren't perfect and can't catch all of the errors in an article by ourselves, and rather than make an article merely passable, we are going the extra mile to strive for excellence in every article that gets the LoC stamp on it.

In the past I have copyedited articles and then returned them them with a fresh mind a day or two later to reread it and see if I can pick out anything I missed. That's a pretty good way of finding errors you missed the first time, but I think a second opinion is even better. Trusilver 07:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck

Since this project seems to have started fine, I would suggest that it be moved to Wikipedia: namespace, and that the "proposed" tag can be removed since it is now active. (Radiant) 12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Radiant, I'm planning on doing just that this evening. Trusilver 15:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Joy of copyediting

Who said copyediting is not fun? I came across General Command of Mapping (Turkey) in my search for articles to copyedit. It is in pristine condition, unspoiled by copyeditors. Have a look at the subtle use of capitals and the exotic I's. Rintrah 14:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving page

Bear with me, I'm moving the page to the permanent site. Now if only I can get this damn redirect to work right... Trusilver 02:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've gotten it mostly moved over. Still making minor tweaks and redoing the project page. Trusilver 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Being humble enough to ask for help, could someone... um.... fix the to-do list? Trusilver 03:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Refactored the talk page a little

It should actually be parseable now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with that, there are plenty of little projects like that around here that I just haven't had the time to work on lately. Trusilver 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox and messagebox with correct link

This user is a member of the League of Copyeditors.

This article has been copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Official userbox?

I'm a little dense about these things and I wasn't sure how to go about getting a nifty compact piece of code for our userbox so I submitted it to the New Userboxes. I think this is the way to do it. Anyone know better? --Pigman (talk • contribs) 08:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that myself. I've been here a relatively short period of time and I'm still learning as I go along. Trusilver 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This should do the trick: {{User WPLoC}} --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Need "in-progress" template for top of target-article talk pages

The current one looks very nice, but says we HAVE edited it. I just removed one from coolie because that article is still a shambles, and it looks bad to say that we HAVE edited it when really it's still in poor shape but we ARE editING it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep something in mind, copyediting is not always content-related. The Coolie article, while needing help in the content area, doesn't have all that much to do with it's copyediting status. If the "League of Copyeditors" became the "League of Rehabilitating Bad Articles", my blood pressure would easily be twenty points higher than it is now. Trusilver 18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and per your request, take a look at this.

This article is in the process of copyediting by the League of Copyeditors. If you have any thoughts or concerns, please post them to the discussion page where they will be reviewed by LoC members.

Any thoughts? Trusilver 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks too much like the other tab, but it is a good idea to have one. A more emergent color, perhaps, or some sort of highlighting of 'in the process' seems warranted.SF 05:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a color between the two but it's a little difficult because I'm doing it visually. Does anyone know how to get the information inside of the "messagebox standard-talk"? The specific color information is in there somewhere. When I do it by sight, the color isn't so great.--Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure this is a good color but I swiped it from another box and it's sort of between the two. I think it needs more yellow or something. I've changed the color in consultation with Kathryn NicDhàna:

This article is in the process of copyediting by the League of Copyeditors. If you have any thoughts or concerns, please post them to the discussion page where they will be reviewed by LoC members.

---

Thoughts? --Pigman (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are a lot of colors from which to choose. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Progress

This evening, the 50th article credited to the LoC was removed from the copyedit backlog. Our progress so far is awesome and far outdistances my short-term hopes when I started this project.

The backlog is not the only accomplishment that has been made up to this point, I also want to point out the mad graphical skills of Kathryn, and the combined tag team between her and Paul that produced our userbox, the LoC logo and the barnstar - all of which would have resulted in a minor psychotic episode had I attempted to make them myself.

Thank you all for your hard work. Trusilver 07:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I could increase the count by putting the LoC template on a few copyedited articles that don't have it. Rintrah 19:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

copyedit emergency squad

Hi everybody

I'm very happy someone told me about this project because it seemed there was nothing like it around. Should this project perhaps be reorganised as a portal? I knew nothing about this project despite copyediting WP for quite a long time as a professional myself. In any case, WP desperately needs a copyedit emergency squad because there must be hundreds of other qualified editors like myself who think they should or do just give up when they repeatedly feel alone they're repeatedly in the minority in defending such basic things as WP policies and complying with well-established usage in dictionaries, other reference works, and reputable sources. Please see Talk:Académie française and User_talk:SMcCandlish#Copyedit_portal for more details. --Espoo 11:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I just realised this project is only a few days old! No wonder i hadn't heard about it before. There is obviously no sense in starting a similar project simultaneously. I do however think that we need to form a rapid intervention squad as part of this project. Due to the nature of our job, we copyeditors normally tend to deal with problems precisely and therefore slowly. We should however also address the very serious problem that huge amounts of time and effort are wasted on WP due to amateur discussions that disregard basic editing rules and WP policies. This wastes huge amounts of human resources, produces bad results, and - worst of all - turns off the very kind of highly qualified contributors and experts in their fields that WP needs the most. The comparison between WP and Britannica in Science mentioned that many more scientists would be willing to contribute, but they will not do so if they run into senseless discussions and can't find someplace to ask for help in ensuring adherence to WP spelling, naming, and other policies. We need to form a group willing to stop senseless discussions and wildfires.

Please take a look at Talk:Académie française and Talk:Yleisradio to see concrete examples. I have personally decided to stop contributing to WP unless these 2 issues are resolved in a mature and responsible way and on the basis of WP policies. I am even willing to consider exceptions to WP policies and even to established practice in all other reputable sources, but my opponents are simply ignoring my detailed research and proof of established practice and are not presenting anything except personal opinions and personal preferences. I'm not childishly demanding that things be done my way and threatening to leave if they're not -- I've simply come to the conclusion that if there is no mechanism to prevent giving equal weight to editors providing reputable sources and editors only providing personal opinions, too much of my time (and others interested in ensuring minimum quality requirements) on WP will be wasted and should be used more constructively elsewhere. Most admins seem to simply count votes and to not weight them according to evidence provided. --Espoo 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How would this rapid-intervention squad work? Rintrah 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest simply adding a new section such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors#Articles_requiring_assistance_from_other_editors for articles that need expert input by a copyeditor to stop an unnecessary and uninformed discussion. The current section is meant for corrections of entire articles in detail, not just one issue being debated on the basis of incorrect (language) info or with (language) claims violating WP policies. --Espoo 14:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin support

It would be ideal if we could get some sort of admin support in case people revert changes or remove copyedit tags. Thoughts or suggestions?Shawn Fitzgibbons 02:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We have one admin in our group, Aguerriero, although aside from joining the group, I haven't seen any participation from him yet. Trusilver 07:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

questions of help

I am just a copyeditor (not an expert) and am not sure about being a member yet. But is there a place (is it here?) that I can place some text and ask some copyedit questions I have and gather some ideas? Thanks Hmains 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Rintrah 07:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

punctuation question #1

What would be the best way to punctuate the following paragraph:

(please do not change this original)

Then the 1st Georgia Regiment was raised on November 4, 1775 at Savannah, Georgia for service with the Continental Army. The regiment saw action in Florida in 1777 and 1778, the Siege of Savannah and the Siege of Charleston. The regiment was captured along with the rest of the American southern army at Charleston, South Carolina on May 20, 1780 by the British Army. The regiment was reformed on January 1, 1783 as the Georgia Battalion and disbanded on November 15, 1783.

and please explain. Thanks Hmains 18:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Then the 1st Georgia Regiment was raised on November 4, 1775 at Savannah, Georgia for service with the Continental Army. The regiment saw action in Florida in 1777 and 1778 (the Siege of Savannah and the Siege of Charleston, respectively). The regiment was captured along with the rest of the American southern army at Charleston, South Carolina on May 20, 1780 by the British Army. The regiment was reformed on January 1, 1783 as the Georgia Battalion and was disbanded on November 15, 1783.

first edit--giving a list needs either dashes, colon, or parentheses. (I prefer the double dash to the big dash that isn't on my keyboard.)

second edit--just sounds better.SFinside 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You also need to add a lot of commas, namely after the years and the states. To avoid all those with the dates, simply write "on 4 November 1775 at" instead of the awkward "on November 4, 1775, at" etc. The relevant rules are explained here, here, and here for example:

Then the 1st Georgia Regiment was raised on November 4, 1775, at Savannah, Georgia, for service with the Continental Army. The regiment saw action in Florida in 1777 and 1778 at the Siege of Savannah and the Siege of Charleston respectively. The regiment was captured along with the rest of the American southern army at Charleston, South Carolina, on May 20, 1780, by the British Army. The regiment was reformed on January 1, 1783, as the Georgia Battalion, and it was disbanded on November 15, 1783. --Espoo 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good links; much better than WP article on Commas. Comma placement looks good so far. Questions: 1) why no comma after 1st sentence 'Then' ; 2) why no commas in second sentence here: 'Florida, in 1777 and 1778, at the' ;

Thanks Hmains 04:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(Note: I made a mistake here; see comment below for the correct answer. Rintrah 13:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)) Please correct me if I have misunderstood your questions.

1) "Then" is a conjugation. Therefore, it is unnatural to put a comma after it unless a subordinate clause or a phrase embedded in commas follows it — e.g., "Then, after his surgical operation, he left his full-time job." or "Then, because he did not like the play, he jeered when the actors bowed." respectively. Some conjugations and adverbs are similar in meaning — like "then" and "afterwards", "and" and "furthermore", etc. — but their grammatical roles are always different. This is sometimes confusing because in spoken English it is customary to sometimes pause after a conjunction, as in "So, are you coming to dinner?" or "Yet, I have no idea." But this pause is not carried over to written English.

2) The phrase "in 1777 and 1778" further defines (or modifies) the substantive "action in Florida", so the comma is omitted. If there is no need for further definition, prepositional phrases like "in 1777 and 1778" are embedded in commas — e.g., "The United States Declaration of Independence, in 1776, severed the United States' colonial ties with the United Kingdom." (in this example, there is only one United States Declaration of Independence, so "in 1776" does not modify its meaning.)

I hope this helps. Rintrah 09:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmains, http://www.sti.nasa.gov/publish/sp7084.pdf is an even better and much more comprehensive link that i'll add to comma and [punctuation]].

Sorry, Rintrah, but i'm going to have to disagree with most of your reasoning although i agree with the results. "Then" is not a conjugation and although one can say it's used as a conjunction, it's actually an adverb. The word you used to start the next sentence is also an adverb used as a conjunction, and you used a comma after that. This shows that there is no clear rule on when to use a comma after an introductory element. All that most guides say is to use a comma there only if necessary for comprehension or if it's not very short. These same guides usually also admit that a comma can be used even after single introductory words if the writer wants more emphasis, i.e. a pause. Although most commas are placed due to grammar rules, some are in fact placed according to the "where you would pause rule" often given by exasperated teachers as the only rule as a sort of emergency aid that hopes to prevent insane commas and prevent the omission of at least some that are necessary for comprehension. The guides go on to provide concrete examples of single words that require a comma [1]

Examples of Introductory Elements After Single Words (Direct Address, Yes/No, Interjections)

• Yes, this is [the] only solution.
• Sam, please fix the fan.
• Well, if you ask me my opinion...

Examples of Introductory Elements After Words That Create Ambiguity:

• Poor: Above the sun shone brilliantly.
• Better: Above, the sun shone brilliantly.

I almost always add a comma after any introductory words or even single word unless it hurts comprehension or is against the natural rhythm of English. I feel that "then" used alone is usually such a case. More comprehensive guides explain that no comma should be used after introductory words immediately preceding the verb they modify. Other guides mention a similar rule for personal pronouns.

As you can guess, my answer to the second question is similar. The commas are not necessary here, but not due to the reason Rintrah gave, at least not the second half of the explanation. It's true that "in 1777 and 1778" further defines (or modifies) something (it's an adverb answering the question "when?" which modifies the verb, not an adjective answering "what kind of" modifying the subject), but the extra information it provides is not restrictive. Battles by those names presumably took place only in those years, so the information is in fact nonrestrictive, which means that commas can be added, but it doesn't hurt to not have them either. More specifically, since the dates come first, it is more natural to consider "The regiment saw action in Florida in 1777 and 1778" as the main sentence and "at the Siege of Savannah and the Siege of Charleston respectively" as an addition, so it would be more natural to add a comma here if one felt it was necessary: "The regiment saw action in Florida in 1777 and 1778, at the Siege of Savannah and the Siege of Charleston respectively." Since this latter addition is however at least as or more informative, it sounds strange adding it as an afterthought. If you remember that "in 1777 and 1778" is in fact an adverb, you realise that you don't need any commas with other adverbs either, e.g. "The regiment saw action in Florida very often at the Siege of Savannah and the Siege of Charleston."

(And the reason one might like to use the commas in "The United States Declaration of Independence, in 1776, severed the United States' colonial ties with the United Kingdom." is not because "in 1776" is a nonrestrictive addition but because it's used in an unusual place, either by accident or for emphasis. Expressions of time are normally placed elsewhere in speech and writing: "The United States Declaration of Independence severed the United States' colonial ties with the United Kingdom in 1776." or "In 1776, the United States Declaration of Independence severed the United States' colonial ties with the United Kingdom." Despite being unusual, it is perfectly OK to say without a pause and write without commas "The United States Declaration of Independence in 1776 severed the United States' colonial ties with the United Kingdom." just as it's OK to say and write The United States Declaration of Independence permanently severed the United States' colonial ties with the United Kingdom."

To make a long story short, some commas can be left out, and most of these should probably be left out to not make the writing look and sound old-fashioned. As http://www.sti.nasa.gov/publish/sp7084.pdf says:

The modern tendency is to punctuate to prevent misreading (open style) rather than to use all punctuation that the grammatical structure will allow (close style). Although the open style results in a more inviting product, it does allow subjectivity, perhaps arbitrariness, in the use of some marks, for example, the comma and hyphen. Consistency in the author's or editor's subjective decisions is vital to a well-punctuated report.

Comma has a quote that says this in a more memorable way:

Barbara Child claims that in American English there is a trend toward a decreased use of the comma (Child, 1992, p. 398). Lynne Truss says that this is equally true in the UK and has been a slow steady trend for at least a century:

“ Nowadays… A passage peppered with commas — which in the past would have indicated painstaking and authoritative editorial attention — smacks simply of no backbone. People who put in all the commas betray themselves as moral weaklings with empty lives and out-of-date reference books. (Truss, 2004, p. 97–98) ”

--Espoo 12:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right about "then". I should have it looked it up in my dictionary first. It is a rather embarassing mistake. You are right about "in 1776" too. If I make any other errors, please let me know. There are pitfalls to my self-taught knowledge. I probably should get round to reading a style guide some day. Thanks for correcting me. Rintrah 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, all the time. The only difference is that some make less of them, and we all can learn to avoid more of them. In addition, even those that seem to not make any mistakes are actually making lots of them and just correcting themselves all the time in the nick of time. When they're also able to seemingly speak flawlessly, they usually sound like robots. The reason is that many things that are still labeled as "wrong" (i.e. idiosyncratic) in reference books have in fact become the norm, and it's in violation of basic rules of biology, sociology, anthropology, and many other sciences when some people refuse to use and even try out new ways of speaking. Languages change and what sounds like an error today will be the norm in a few decades. --Espoo 13:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Interrupted by a phone call - left out this: For example, i'd never use "i" or "less of them" in my professional work, but they're more common and already now or at least soon better English. It's just a question of time until they appear in dictionaries. And as for reading a style manual, i don't know; you may have more stamina than me, but i think you'll learn more and faster if you only read relevant parts for current questions. I.e. i'd spend more time looking up answers to current questions and doing that very often instead of reading more than one small (or perhaps large section) and falling asleep... --Espoo 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Would "We all make mistakes, all the time. The only difference is that some make fewer of them" sound stilted in everyday speech where you live? What would you guess is the percentage of people who say "less" in such situations? --Espoo 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No. If it were said in a broad accent or a broad general accent, however, it might sound stilted. I usually speak at the same register as I write, so people would not think it stilted if I said it. Most people in my neighbourhood have middle class accents, so neither "less" nor "fewer" seems distinct when applied to number. "You are taller than I", in contrast, might sound stilted if spoken within an incongruous register.

As for the second part of your question, most would say "less" in such situations, at about a 2:3 ratio — my estimate. That estimate, however, might be biased by the fact my social milieu probably does not represent the general one. In the suburb I grew up, the ratio would probably be 3:2. Keep in mind I am not a linguist, so what I have said is all speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rintrah (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

• Sorry if this has already been tabled, but I felt compelled to add my two cents. :)

Then the 1st Georgia Regiment was raised on November 4, 1775, at Savannah, Georgia, for service with the Continental Army. The regiment saw action in Florida at the Siege of Savannah (1777) and the Siege of Charleston (1778). The British Army captured this regiment and the rest of the American southern army at Charleston, South Carolina, on May 20, 1780. The regiment was re-established as the Georgia Battalion on January 1, 1783, and was disbanded on November 15, 1783.

I'm rather heavy-handed, which is why I take so long to complete an article.

Also, while it's true that many writers add extraneous commas, many editors omit necessary ones. The writers err on the side of caution; the editors simply err. IrisWings 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Over-wikified articles

Does anyone think that excessive linkage makes articles more difficult to read? I sure do.SFinside 07:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I find links to dates, words I already know, countries, well-known animals, everyday practices, and elementary concepts — among other things — all very annoying. So many people overestimate their usefulness. I think wikipedia policy should take a stronger stance against excessive wikification. Rintrah 08:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(simultaneous edit and same ideas too :-))

Great point. I've often thought i should see if this has been discussed somewhere or if there is a policy. Many links are very confusing because they have absolutely nothing to do with the article. During the first few weeks, most new users are probably as annoyed as i was by all this junk until i learned not to click on almost anything. For example, almost all links to dates serve no purpose except maybe some users' astrology fetish. In fact, many links serve as dictionary entries, which WP should not be, instead of writing the article in an understandable way. --Espoo 08:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not call excessive linking to dates an Astrology fetish; I would call it an Astrology paraphilia. Rintrah 09:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am especially guilty of this, I fear. If anyone catches me, slap me hard. IrisWings 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I like to be moral, and dissuading someone from excessive linking is moral, but I do not think annoyance is a mitigating factor to assualt charges. As tempting as it is to slap up offending editors silly, I am wary of the legal proceedings it might incur. :-) Rintrah 01:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)