Discussion header added by Noah Kastin ( talk) ( 🖋) at 04:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC) to make discussion separations clearer.
I'm sorry if this post is improper, but is this going to happen? Because I think it should. El cid, el campeador ( talk) 13:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
El cid, el campeador: It appears that our hard-working coordinators are taking a well-deserved break this month for the
GOCE elections. Perhaps
Miniapolis could verify? –
Reidgreg (
talk) 13:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Jonesey95 usually does the blitzes. Torchiest started them back in the day, but he's gone and I welcome the between-drives month to work on requests. The elections don't much matter to me, since I pretty much do the same stuff whether or not I'm a coordinator. We always need more help with the administrative side of the project. All the best, Mini apolis 17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I know that, for articles tagged with Template:Copy edit, it is acceptable to count them as copy edited even if there are still Clarify span tags left in the article (as established here). However, I am not sure if it is acceptable to count a request as complete if there are still tags left. Please let me know whether it is or not. Thanks! Noah Kastin ( talk) ( 🖋) 23:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would be interested in the answer to this also because I do add clarify tags at times (usually with reasons) when there are things that I can not correct as "grammar, spelling, prose"—usually in the hopes to start a discussion about sources, if I see something that is confusing but that I can not immediately correct without going to sources then I will add a tag. I'm not sure clarify or citation needed should be resolved through a copy edit? Many of the articles in the backlog need significant work, but I think it is better to improve the prose and writing as much as possible, even if there are still citation needed or better source needed or primary inline tags, etc. I guess they could just be marked GOCEreviewed to decline, but is this required?
Seraphim System (
talk) 23:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would say it is acceptable. Resolving a clarify tag may require topical knowledge the volunteer copy editor won't have. Of course, if you can resolve it yourself, that is a good thing.
Tdslk (
talk) 23:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer,
Tdslk! This will be very helpful. Thanks again!
Noah Kastin (
talk) (
🖋) 09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it is acceptable. I just tagged a Request with a clarify tag and notified the requester that I had done so. Sometimes there is content that could be copy-edited effectively if you knew what the words were supposed to mean, but rather than make a wild guess, a clarify tag is the least bad option. P.S. to Seraphim System, can you please fix the syntax in your signature as I just did above? Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 12:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Putting {{ clarify}} on it passes the article down to verify content. After someone does that, if they feel it is required, they can pass it back up to us with a copyedit tag, or ping the copyeditor. In terms of blitzes/drives, I suppose there are two things, to be fair. We should each have only one open copyedit at a time, and we should only claim what we do copyedit. If you can do substantial copyedit to an article then you should be able to claim at least a partial word count. If there are sections you can't do, mark them with appropriate cleanup templates (see: Wikipedia:TC and Template:Inline cleanup tags) and discount those words from your total. I tend to leave detailed notes of any issues on the article's talk page, pinging the requester or major contributors. At that point, having done as much copyedit as I can, I'll mark it as done and move on to the next article, periodically checking back for activity and follow-up. I'd also mention that if something is unclear, but it's obvious it shouldn't be in the article in the first place (eg: trivia, excessive detail, OR) then don't spend time trying to fully understand and copyedit it, just remove it.
- BTW, Seraphim System, I was looking over your blitz articles and I only noticed the first one, Robert F. Kennedy presidential campaign, 1968 from the Requests page. Did some of them not archive? – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think I only did the one from the requests page, the others were from the backlog. Not sure if those count, but I added them in my section—maybe I did it incorrectly?
Seraphim System (
talk) 19:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Reidgreg is correct. While the (month-long) Drives cover both the tagged articles backlog and articles on the Requests page, the (week-long) Blitzes are organized around one topic; this month it was the Requests page. Of course, Wikipedia still benefits from the copy editing regardless, so thank you for your work!
Tdslk (
talk) 22:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
-
Seraphim System, do join us for the
July drive, which starts in a couple of days. We love to have good copy editors who are thoughtful and excited about improving Wikipedia articles. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Will do
Seraphim System (
talk) 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Will do
-
Seraphim System, do join us for the
July drive, which starts in a couple of days. We love to have good copy editors who are thoughtful and excited about improving Wikipedia articles. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Reidgreg is correct. While the (month-long) Drives cover both the tagged articles backlog and articles on the Requests page, the (week-long) Blitzes are organized around one topic; this month it was the Requests page. Of course, Wikipedia still benefits from the copy editing regardless, so thank you for your work!
Tdslk (
talk) 22:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer,
Tdslk! This will be very helpful. Thanks again!
Noah Kastin (
talk) (
🖋) 09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would say it is acceptable. Resolving a clarify tag may require topical knowledge the volunteer copy editor won't have. Of course, if you can resolve it yourself, that is a good thing.
Tdslk (
talk) 23:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion header added by Noah Kastin ( talk) ( 🖋) at 04:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC) to make discussion separations clearer.
I'm sorry if this post is improper, but is this going to happen? Because I think it should. El cid, el campeador ( talk) 13:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
El cid, el campeador: It appears that our hard-working coordinators are taking a well-deserved break this month for the
GOCE elections. Perhaps
Miniapolis could verify? –
Reidgreg (
talk) 13:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Jonesey95 usually does the blitzes. Torchiest started them back in the day, but he's gone and I welcome the between-drives month to work on requests. The elections don't much matter to me, since I pretty much do the same stuff whether or not I'm a coordinator. We always need more help with the administrative side of the project. All the best, Mini apolis 17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I know that, for articles tagged with Template:Copy edit, it is acceptable to count them as copy edited even if there are still Clarify span tags left in the article (as established here). However, I am not sure if it is acceptable to count a request as complete if there are still tags left. Please let me know whether it is or not. Thanks! Noah Kastin ( talk) ( 🖋) 23:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would be interested in the answer to this also because I do add clarify tags at times (usually with reasons) when there are things that I can not correct as "grammar, spelling, prose"—usually in the hopes to start a discussion about sources, if I see something that is confusing but that I can not immediately correct without going to sources then I will add a tag. I'm not sure clarify or citation needed should be resolved through a copy edit? Many of the articles in the backlog need significant work, but I think it is better to improve the prose and writing as much as possible, even if there are still citation needed or better source needed or primary inline tags, etc. I guess they could just be marked GOCEreviewed to decline, but is this required?
Seraphim System (
talk) 23:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would say it is acceptable. Resolving a clarify tag may require topical knowledge the volunteer copy editor won't have. Of course, if you can resolve it yourself, that is a good thing.
Tdslk (
talk) 23:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer,
Tdslk! This will be very helpful. Thanks again!
Noah Kastin (
talk) (
🖋) 09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it is acceptable. I just tagged a Request with a clarify tag and notified the requester that I had done so. Sometimes there is content that could be copy-edited effectively if you knew what the words were supposed to mean, but rather than make a wild guess, a clarify tag is the least bad option. P.S. to Seraphim System, can you please fix the syntax in your signature as I just did above? Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 12:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Putting {{ clarify}} on it passes the article down to verify content. After someone does that, if they feel it is required, they can pass it back up to us with a copyedit tag, or ping the copyeditor. In terms of blitzes/drives, I suppose there are two things, to be fair. We should each have only one open copyedit at a time, and we should only claim what we do copyedit. If you can do substantial copyedit to an article then you should be able to claim at least a partial word count. If there are sections you can't do, mark them with appropriate cleanup templates (see: Wikipedia:TC and Template:Inline cleanup tags) and discount those words from your total. I tend to leave detailed notes of any issues on the article's talk page, pinging the requester or major contributors. At that point, having done as much copyedit as I can, I'll mark it as done and move on to the next article, periodically checking back for activity and follow-up. I'd also mention that if something is unclear, but it's obvious it shouldn't be in the article in the first place (eg: trivia, excessive detail, OR) then don't spend time trying to fully understand and copyedit it, just remove it.
- BTW, Seraphim System, I was looking over your blitz articles and I only noticed the first one, Robert F. Kennedy presidential campaign, 1968 from the Requests page. Did some of them not archive? – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think I only did the one from the requests page, the others were from the backlog. Not sure if those count, but I added them in my section—maybe I did it incorrectly?
Seraphim System (
talk) 19:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Reidgreg is correct. While the (month-long) Drives cover both the tagged articles backlog and articles on the Requests page, the (week-long) Blitzes are organized around one topic; this month it was the Requests page. Of course, Wikipedia still benefits from the copy editing regardless, so thank you for your work!
Tdslk (
talk) 22:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
-
Seraphim System, do join us for the
July drive, which starts in a couple of days. We love to have good copy editors who are thoughtful and excited about improving Wikipedia articles. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Will do
Seraphim System (
talk) 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Will do
-
Seraphim System, do join us for the
July drive, which starts in a couple of days. We love to have good copy editors who are thoughtful and excited about improving Wikipedia articles. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Reidgreg is correct. While the (month-long) Drives cover both the tagged articles backlog and articles on the Requests page, the (week-long) Blitzes are organized around one topic; this month it was the Requests page. Of course, Wikipedia still benefits from the copy editing regardless, so thank you for your work!
Tdslk (
talk) 22:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer,
Tdslk! This will be very helpful. Thanks again!
Noah Kastin (
talk) (
🖋) 09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would say it is acceptable. Resolving a clarify tag may require topical knowledge the volunteer copy editor won't have. Of course, if you can resolve it yourself, that is a good thing.
Tdslk (
talk) 23:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)