This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Where is the relevant list - which is what I would expect on coming to this page.
Interessante Day1988 ( talk) 12:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The link 'Wikipedia:Manual of Style#"See also" and "Related topics" sections' appears to be broken. Is it meant to be 'Help:Section#"See_also"_line_or_section'? JDX 06:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm unsure about this, so I'm going to ask here: is there by chance a page where one could request another to copy-edit an article? It's difficult for authors to copy-edit their own material because it's their own writing. For example, I find it hard to edit my work since my eyes seem to avoid what I've typed and I assume it's correct. Is there a page for requesting third parties to copy-edit articles? Never Mystic ( t c) 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty interpreting these guidelines in the case of substantial copyediting changes to an article. It would not be surprising to find an article with several minor spelling / grammar / capitalization / hyphenation issues, and perhaps a couple of easily revised sentence fragments. Is it best to apply all these changes in one go? Or should they be split up, into dozens of individually inconsequential ones? Applied section-by-section for the whole article? Applied like-for-like, i.e. all spelling corrections in one go, hyphenation corrections in one go, etc.? How can one write effective edit summaries when there is broad or extensive copyediting work?
How does reverting work in such a case? If edits are split up, even if only by section, then it becomes difficult to revert an edit early in the history while retaining the later ones. However the other case, the "one big edit," seems just as problematical. Advice to this newcomer would be appreciated! -- Iamgrim 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Under Common copy-edits is this bullet point (3rd from the bottom):
I think the second sentence is very unclear (especially to the newbie), but I'm not sure how to improve it. Probably a couple more sentences will have to be added. I hope someone will help. Thanks! Scrawlspacer 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Under "Etiquette", changed the wording to clarify that c/e does not include correcting POV issues, which should be corrected before requesting c/e. Discussion of this issue was at the project "Criteria" page. Unimaginative Username 04:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't we want to add also disambiguation of links, with the help of software like Wikipedia Cleaner? Randomblue ( talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Folks, is there a tag that can be put on an article to indicate that it is being copy-edited, requesting other editors to refrain from editing while the copy-edit is in process? If not, I think we need one. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has just been added to the See also section of WP:MoS, so it could do with a little polish. There was a hidden comment in the first section asking if it was bossy ... it was, a bit, and also longer than it needed to be. I moved it to the lead and shortened it up; is there anything else that needs saying there? - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 04:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this really consensus? My feeling, based on what many editors seem to do, is no. Overuse of contractions can seem excessively conversational, but I don't think there's any blanket prohibition on using them in articles. Even in academic writing, a prohibition on contractions is in many areas nowadays seen as somewhat old-fashioned and no longer followed. -- Delirium ( talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In the section on spelling, it's mentioned that if in doubt, one should "look it up". Would it not be useful to link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) or the Language Reference Desk? Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 14:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Is this really a good page to have? Should we delete it?
2. It seems like it is missing a lot of the "how to copyedit" info, like how to run through the article, how big of a chunks to do at at time, how to take the article in and out of the queue. Many of these questions are raised on the talk page, so my reaction seems normal. The section at the start seems very basic and in some ways too granular for anyone getting to this page. Also, it seems better said in the Manual of Style, Tony's page, Strunk and White, etc. I'm also not clear if the list is (reasonably) comprehensive, or just a splat. At a minimum, the list ought to be moved to the bottom of the article, after the real thoughts on "how to copyedit" (which need to be developed).
3. The list is a "laundry list", not categorized, not sorted or prioritized. Also, would be helpful to separate basic issues of English language usage, from Wiki conventions (like the article naming capitalization). Of course, really Manual of Style probably does that better.
4. 2 years later and I still had the same reaction to the comment on links in references. Huh?
5. The edit summary stuff was decent and at least really tied into "how to copyedit".
6. The comment to the effect of "if in doubt, don't correct" may be good advice, but certainly NOT for the reason that "someone will definitely fix it otherwise". Would that it were so!
TCO ( talk) 02:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that comma rule is just normal grammar. I'm not some magazine editor, just an engineer, but after reading your comment, I walked across the room and grabbed my 12th grade grammar book (Hodge's Harbrace College Handbook) from 20+ years ago. Rule 12.d talked about the use of commas for appositives and subsection (2) talked about geographic commas and gave the city example.
I bet there are about 10 wrong commas within this post, so don't flame me, but, really, I don't see what is so special to make the Vilnius rule need "wiki weight". It's standard usage.
TCO ( talk) 06:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steven, I'd like to restore this quote, as it describes the ideal that copy editors should aim for. What's your objection to it?
According to Butcher's Copy-editing, "A good copyeditor is a rare creature: an intelligent reader and a tactful and sensitive critic; someone who cares enough about perfection of detail to spend time checking small points of consistency in someone else's work but has the good judgement not to waste time or antagonize the author by making unnecessary changes." [1]
SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
References
Template:Writing guides, at the bottom of the page, links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For pages like this one, intended for beginners, maybe there should be a version of that template (perhaps a "simplified=Y" parameter) that links to Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style instead. From there, editors can find the main Manual of Style if necessary. Art LaPella ( talk) 18:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the following as it is in direct contradiction to MOS:CT, MOS:TM, and WP:ALLCAPS:
-- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In the " Find articles that need copyediting" section, the link to Special:GettingStarted appears red, indicating that this special page doesn't have a working implementation yet. There's a project page WP:GettingStarted describing the (planned) feature; should the link be changed to point there? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 08:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
American English and British English are not dialects as stated in the article. They are (national) varieties. A dialect is an informal everyday spoken form. Speakers of dialects then use the standard to which the dialect belongs when they need formal language, such as in print or giving a lecture. For example, a Yorkshireman may speak his own dialect informally but he will use British standard English when he writes. A Texan likewise in American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section: How to do basic copyediting In step three
The sentence: Simple "Copy edit" if fine, but "Edited for tone" is even better Suggested replacement: A simple "Copy edit" is fine, but "Edited for tone" is even better Nee316 ( talk) 20:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Why Aren't These Pages Copy-edited. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I propose that we add these tab headers from WP:GOCE to this article. is that okay? -- Sm8900 ( talk) 04:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Guild home | How to copy edit | Templates | Barnstars | Participants | Coordinators |
Requests | Drives | Blitzes | Mailing list | Newsletters |
The words do NOT mean the same thing, per Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage. Yes, "utilize" can be overutilized, but recommending that "use" always be utilized in its place is wrong. - BilCat ( talk) 22:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
From Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage:Utilize is a distinct word having distinct implications. More than use, it suggests a deliberate decision or effort to employ something (or someone) for a practical purpose. It is commonly used and is standard.
-
BilCat (
talk)
22:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't propose new wording because I object to its inclusion in the first place. That hasn't changed. I've submitted evidence from a modern usage guide to support this, and all I've been met with is unfounded supposition. My comments about Gfox may seem harsh, but I made them in good faith. The user has again claimed that this page is part of the MOS, per this edit summary, when it is not, while twice changing a legitimate use of the disputed word. - BilCat ( talk) 17:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:5C. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#Wikipedia:5C until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 18:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Delhi roit is an anti Hindu roit. Lolarot ( talk) 13:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there some reason this article does not make it clear that changing the meaning of a text is not copy editing and should not be given a "ce" edit summary? Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 20:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC) "Not" added to text by Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 00:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a period after the sentence "Watch out for jargon and overly long sentences, which can reduce readability". 2003:E7:4716:32E1:5DF5:3E99:B0C2:B229 ( talk) 19:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Sentence "Grammarly and LanguageTool have free plugins for popular web browsers that checks spelling, grammar, usage, and punctuation" needs the S removed from word checks
Grammarly is a service that collects and retains all of its user input. By installing the browser extension, all of the non-password data you type in the browser is collected and sent to Grammarly's servers, whether you actively use the extension or not. They go to great lengths and twist words to convince users that that is not the case. [1] A project like Wikipedia that prides itself in free information should not be recommending a tool like this. Wpscatter ( talk) 06:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
References
When I websearched Zachary Ty Bryan, Wikipedia listed his character in Home Improvement as "Bryan" The character'e name is "Brad", not Bryan. SarwebTul ( talk) 13:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems like you've mentioned "Wikipedia talk:Basic copyediting," which suggests you might be referring to a discussion or page on Wikipedia related to basic copyediting guidelines. Wikipedia talk pages are where editors communicate and discuss various aspects of Wikipedia articles and policies. If you have a specific question or topic related to basic copyediting on Wikipedia, please provide more details, and I'll be glad to help! Maqsoodshahmanzoor ( talk) 16:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The article on Jimmy Wales uses mostly "on Wikipedia" except for a quote in which the subject himself uses "in Wikipedia". Is there any guidance on the matter, please? "On Wikipedia" has 15k instances [1] while "in Wikipedia" has only [2] 2k -- should the latter be copy edited? Thanks. fgnievinski ( talk) 02:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy § RFC. Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
When I'm giving feedback to my students' draft contributions, I'd like to indicate sentences that are verbose and need to be edited for concision. The Verbose template was
deleted over a decade ago, and I'm surprised there's no alternative. I presently use the copy edit-inline
template but the reason/for
is only viewable in a tiny pop-up which is often obscured. Is there a way to make the existing's template more visible? Or, might there be support for a verbose
template? -
Reagle (
talk)
19:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I read in the article the comment that a good copy editor is rare. This indicates that a few good copy editors have been identified. Might the work of some of these copy editors be also identified so that we could view some of their outstanding examples? I believe this could serve others well. Most kind regards to all, Hu Nhu ( talk) 21:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Where is the relevant list - which is what I would expect on coming to this page.
Interessante Day1988 ( talk) 12:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The link 'Wikipedia:Manual of Style#"See also" and "Related topics" sections' appears to be broken. Is it meant to be 'Help:Section#"See_also"_line_or_section'? JDX 06:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm unsure about this, so I'm going to ask here: is there by chance a page where one could request another to copy-edit an article? It's difficult for authors to copy-edit their own material because it's their own writing. For example, I find it hard to edit my work since my eyes seem to avoid what I've typed and I assume it's correct. Is there a page for requesting third parties to copy-edit articles? Never Mystic ( t c) 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty interpreting these guidelines in the case of substantial copyediting changes to an article. It would not be surprising to find an article with several minor spelling / grammar / capitalization / hyphenation issues, and perhaps a couple of easily revised sentence fragments. Is it best to apply all these changes in one go? Or should they be split up, into dozens of individually inconsequential ones? Applied section-by-section for the whole article? Applied like-for-like, i.e. all spelling corrections in one go, hyphenation corrections in one go, etc.? How can one write effective edit summaries when there is broad or extensive copyediting work?
How does reverting work in such a case? If edits are split up, even if only by section, then it becomes difficult to revert an edit early in the history while retaining the later ones. However the other case, the "one big edit," seems just as problematical. Advice to this newcomer would be appreciated! -- Iamgrim 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Under Common copy-edits is this bullet point (3rd from the bottom):
I think the second sentence is very unclear (especially to the newbie), but I'm not sure how to improve it. Probably a couple more sentences will have to be added. I hope someone will help. Thanks! Scrawlspacer 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Under "Etiquette", changed the wording to clarify that c/e does not include correcting POV issues, which should be corrected before requesting c/e. Discussion of this issue was at the project "Criteria" page. Unimaginative Username 04:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't we want to add also disambiguation of links, with the help of software like Wikipedia Cleaner? Randomblue ( talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Folks, is there a tag that can be put on an article to indicate that it is being copy-edited, requesting other editors to refrain from editing while the copy-edit is in process? If not, I think we need one. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has just been added to the See also section of WP:MoS, so it could do with a little polish. There was a hidden comment in the first section asking if it was bossy ... it was, a bit, and also longer than it needed to be. I moved it to the lead and shortened it up; is there anything else that needs saying there? - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 04:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this really consensus? My feeling, based on what many editors seem to do, is no. Overuse of contractions can seem excessively conversational, but I don't think there's any blanket prohibition on using them in articles. Even in academic writing, a prohibition on contractions is in many areas nowadays seen as somewhat old-fashioned and no longer followed. -- Delirium ( talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In the section on spelling, it's mentioned that if in doubt, one should "look it up". Would it not be useful to link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) or the Language Reference Desk? Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 14:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Is this really a good page to have? Should we delete it?
2. It seems like it is missing a lot of the "how to copyedit" info, like how to run through the article, how big of a chunks to do at at time, how to take the article in and out of the queue. Many of these questions are raised on the talk page, so my reaction seems normal. The section at the start seems very basic and in some ways too granular for anyone getting to this page. Also, it seems better said in the Manual of Style, Tony's page, Strunk and White, etc. I'm also not clear if the list is (reasonably) comprehensive, or just a splat. At a minimum, the list ought to be moved to the bottom of the article, after the real thoughts on "how to copyedit" (which need to be developed).
3. The list is a "laundry list", not categorized, not sorted or prioritized. Also, would be helpful to separate basic issues of English language usage, from Wiki conventions (like the article naming capitalization). Of course, really Manual of Style probably does that better.
4. 2 years later and I still had the same reaction to the comment on links in references. Huh?
5. The edit summary stuff was decent and at least really tied into "how to copyedit".
6. The comment to the effect of "if in doubt, don't correct" may be good advice, but certainly NOT for the reason that "someone will definitely fix it otherwise". Would that it were so!
TCO ( talk) 02:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that comma rule is just normal grammar. I'm not some magazine editor, just an engineer, but after reading your comment, I walked across the room and grabbed my 12th grade grammar book (Hodge's Harbrace College Handbook) from 20+ years ago. Rule 12.d talked about the use of commas for appositives and subsection (2) talked about geographic commas and gave the city example.
I bet there are about 10 wrong commas within this post, so don't flame me, but, really, I don't see what is so special to make the Vilnius rule need "wiki weight". It's standard usage.
TCO ( talk) 06:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steven, I'd like to restore this quote, as it describes the ideal that copy editors should aim for. What's your objection to it?
According to Butcher's Copy-editing, "A good copyeditor is a rare creature: an intelligent reader and a tactful and sensitive critic; someone who cares enough about perfection of detail to spend time checking small points of consistency in someone else's work but has the good judgement not to waste time or antagonize the author by making unnecessary changes." [1]
SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
References
Template:Writing guides, at the bottom of the page, links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For pages like this one, intended for beginners, maybe there should be a version of that template (perhaps a "simplified=Y" parameter) that links to Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style instead. From there, editors can find the main Manual of Style if necessary. Art LaPella ( talk) 18:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the following as it is in direct contradiction to MOS:CT, MOS:TM, and WP:ALLCAPS:
-- Rob Sinden ( talk) 09:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In the " Find articles that need copyediting" section, the link to Special:GettingStarted appears red, indicating that this special page doesn't have a working implementation yet. There's a project page WP:GettingStarted describing the (planned) feature; should the link be changed to point there? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 08:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
American English and British English are not dialects as stated in the article. They are (national) varieties. A dialect is an informal everyday spoken form. Speakers of dialects then use the standard to which the dialect belongs when they need formal language, such as in print or giving a lecture. For example, a Yorkshireman may speak his own dialect informally but he will use British standard English when he writes. A Texan likewise in American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section: How to do basic copyediting In step three
The sentence: Simple "Copy edit" if fine, but "Edited for tone" is even better Suggested replacement: A simple "Copy edit" is fine, but "Edited for tone" is even better Nee316 ( talk) 20:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Why Aren't These Pages Copy-edited. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I propose that we add these tab headers from WP:GOCE to this article. is that okay? -- Sm8900 ( talk) 04:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Guild home | How to copy edit | Templates | Barnstars | Participants | Coordinators |
Requests | Drives | Blitzes | Mailing list | Newsletters |
The words do NOT mean the same thing, per Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage. Yes, "utilize" can be overutilized, but recommending that "use" always be utilized in its place is wrong. - BilCat ( talk) 22:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
From Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage:Utilize is a distinct word having distinct implications. More than use, it suggests a deliberate decision or effort to employ something (or someone) for a practical purpose. It is commonly used and is standard.
-
BilCat (
talk)
22:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't propose new wording because I object to its inclusion in the first place. That hasn't changed. I've submitted evidence from a modern usage guide to support this, and all I've been met with is unfounded supposition. My comments about Gfox may seem harsh, but I made them in good faith. The user has again claimed that this page is part of the MOS, per this edit summary, when it is not, while twice changing a legitimate use of the disputed word. - BilCat ( talk) 17:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:5C. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#Wikipedia:5C until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 18:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Delhi roit is an anti Hindu roit. Lolarot ( talk) 13:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there some reason this article does not make it clear that changing the meaning of a text is not copy editing and should not be given a "ce" edit summary? Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 20:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC) "Not" added to text by Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 00:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a period after the sentence "Watch out for jargon and overly long sentences, which can reduce readability". 2003:E7:4716:32E1:5DF5:3E99:B0C2:B229 ( talk) 19:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Sentence "Grammarly and LanguageTool have free plugins for popular web browsers that checks spelling, grammar, usage, and punctuation" needs the S removed from word checks
Grammarly is a service that collects and retains all of its user input. By installing the browser extension, all of the non-password data you type in the browser is collected and sent to Grammarly's servers, whether you actively use the extension or not. They go to great lengths and twist words to convince users that that is not the case. [1] A project like Wikipedia that prides itself in free information should not be recommending a tool like this. Wpscatter ( talk) 06:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
References
When I websearched Zachary Ty Bryan, Wikipedia listed his character in Home Improvement as "Bryan" The character'e name is "Brad", not Bryan. SarwebTul ( talk) 13:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems like you've mentioned "Wikipedia talk:Basic copyediting," which suggests you might be referring to a discussion or page on Wikipedia related to basic copyediting guidelines. Wikipedia talk pages are where editors communicate and discuss various aspects of Wikipedia articles and policies. If you have a specific question or topic related to basic copyediting on Wikipedia, please provide more details, and I'll be glad to help! Maqsoodshahmanzoor ( talk) 16:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The article on Jimmy Wales uses mostly "on Wikipedia" except for a quote in which the subject himself uses "in Wikipedia". Is there any guidance on the matter, please? "On Wikipedia" has 15k instances [1] while "in Wikipedia" has only [2] 2k -- should the latter be copy edited? Thanks. fgnievinski ( talk) 02:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy § RFC. Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
When I'm giving feedback to my students' draft contributions, I'd like to indicate sentences that are verbose and need to be edited for concision. The Verbose template was
deleted over a decade ago, and I'm surprised there's no alternative. I presently use the copy edit-inline
template but the reason/for
is only viewable in a tiny pop-up which is often obscured. Is there a way to make the existing's template more visible? Or, might there be support for a verbose
template? -
Reagle (
talk)
19:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I read in the article the comment that a good copy editor is rare. This indicates that a few good copy editors have been identified. Might the work of some of these copy editors be also identified so that we could view some of their outstanding examples? I believe this could serve others well. Most kind regards to all, Hu Nhu ( talk) 21:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)