Wikipedia talk:Basic copyediting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikipedia Help Project (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
C This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Pages needing copy-editing[edit]

Where is the relevant list - which is what I would expect on coming to this page.

It is right here: Articles needing copy edit.--Song 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! Thanks! Unfree (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken link?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Copy-editing requests[edit]

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 (tc) 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Place copyedit, within two curly brackets ({{ }}) at the top of the page. Conor 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope of copy edits[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Just make all the changes in one go. This makes the page history easier to read. For the edit summary you can just write something like 'extensive copyediting' or 'various spelling and grammar corrections'. If any reverts are needed they can be achieved by editing the article, if necessary using copy and paste from an earlier version of the article. S Sepp 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I usually edit one section at a time to prevent edit conflicts. But if it's a backwater article, then making it all in one go shouldn't be an issue. Writing "copy-edit" is usually good enough. — Deckiller 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This strikes me as an interesting point. I've noticed that editors are split on this issue; some editors regularly make dozens of small edits one after another with good individual edit summaries, while other editors (like myself) are prone to rewrite an entire 150k article in one go and call it "reworded for clarity". I actually think the former might be preferable, since it gives other editors individual "bites" to digest. However, it can also make the edit history more confusing. Personally, I recommend using small bite-sized edits whenever there's any active or "heated" editing going on, especially in an edit-war zone. But my point here is actually that I think this issue might deserve further discussion, and some guidelines might be in order in the article. I know I had essentially the same question as Iamgrim, back when I started editing. I imagine we're not the only two who have, huh? Eaglizard 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find that one advantage of doing it in sections or bits is that if you screw up while editing and have to cancel, you don't lose all of the good edits you've made that haven't been saved yet. Sort of like saving a word document frequently. Another is that after editing one section, upon reviewing it you often see other changes to be made. Gets very tiring to keep re-reading if you're doing the whole article at once. Another is that if you have some small notations that explain to others why the change was made, there is less chance of someone reverting the edit because they don't understand the rule of grammar (or whatever) involved. I've sometimes gone overboard on this, which is a mistake, but something like "rm redundancy", "clarity", "punc" "misplaced modifier", etc. can help others to understand why the changes were made (especially the writer whose words are being edited). But that is all just this editor's POV. Regards, Unimaginative Username 05:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links vs. references[edit]

Under Common copy-edits is this bullet point (3rd from the bottom):

  • External links generally belong at the end of an article under a heading titled "External links". References are an exception and should match the link in the reference section; these are then handled automatically.

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)Reply[reply]

Hear, hear! I'm sure this is all explained adequately elsewhere, but where? Unfree (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copy-editing versus NPOV correction[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Disambig?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

"Article is being copy-edited" tag?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

{{in use}} is what I would use. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boy, is that an old issue! Wikipedia does it best! Unfree (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:MOS "See also"[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I'm going to replace the dash with a comma. Unfree (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avoiding contractions[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

AP Style Manual says "Contractions reflect informal speech and writing." TCMOS is silent. You're right that we're nearing a tipping point, because so much "persuasive" speech these days is written in blogs and in the style of blogs. Still, it's important to the project as a whole to have a solid core of articles that sound just as formal as the other online encyclopedias, it helps give us a certain dignity. There's no need for every article to be written in that style, though. As a compromise, we say: if you want to write a featured article, it has to follow WP:MoS, and it's also the "safe" thing to do to follow WP:MoS, because we've put a lot of effort into following the lead of large numbers of professional copywriters. But styles vary; in fact, we've just started conducting a large study of writing style of articles as they first enter WP:GAN, at Good article usage. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provide some links[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

That's a good idea. For North American articles (particularly US), the best link is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary; AP Stylebook (which most US journalists follow) recommends Websters, with AMHER coming in a close second. But Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) is very helpful, and the REFDESK people are phenomenally good. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are long and short form see also links?[edit]

Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm guessing that "long-form" means a whole section of links under a "See also" subheading, while "short-form" means an italicised See also: line at the top of a section (but if this is true then there's confusion in the sentence about what "section" means; it's used in two places to mean two different things). I don't think it's reasonable to expect readers to understand this sentence as it stands, so I added a "clarification needed" tag. 86.134.43.118 (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I've clarified as best as I can, though it still reads a little clunky. Rather than start with a confusing example, I've moved this dot point to the end. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 14:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reactions to this page[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I often add commas, citing this page's comma rule (search for "Vilnius"). That rule can also be found elsewhere, but not with any Wikipedia authority. I seldom if ever refer to the rest of the page. Although I make many of the other copyedits listed, they are also found in the Manual of Style. Art LaPella (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I probably wouldn't add the commas after "Lithuania" and after "1947" otherwise; they get opposition because they look wrong, although punctuation "experts" all seem to like them. Art LaPella (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My high school education taught me to put a comma before "Lithuania" and before "1947", so perhaps that's what you meant by "geographic commas". I never encountered a "before and after" rule before Wikipedia. Art LaPella (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If 1947 and Lithuania fall at the end of a clause or sentence, there will be punctuation anyway. Since this is natural for so long and heavy a sentence element, it doesn't come up very often. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quote[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I mostly want to keep the page very concise. The intended audience of the page is people who are new to Wikipedia copyediting. They'll mostly have arrived via clicking the link in {{copyedit}} and will be seeking a scannable overview of how to help. Also, since the rest of the paragraph is trying to invite people to help, I'm not sure that "A good copyeditor is a rare creature" is the message we want to send to people. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I do agree that good copyeditors are rare creatures (self-serving grin here.. heh), this page is called "Basic copyediting." That quote would be more appropriate in a guideline page for the FA/GA/Peer review copyeditors over at WP:GOCE. Here, I think we should emphasize that there are glaringly obvious mistakes in many, many articles that don't require any expertise to fix – just basic knowledge of the English language. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the advice not to antagonize people with unnecessary changes might be good advice for new (and experienced) copy editors. One of the mistakes new copy editors make is the sense that "X is always wrong," then they go around removing all examples of X when there's no reason to, including when the removal leaves the sentence in a mess. Perhaps if the quote makes the lead too long it could go in a different section? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good point. There should probably be an etiquette section that also makes mention of the talk page. Good to let people know that if their copyedits are being reverted, they should discuss rather than edit war. Adding! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done as a start: Wikipedia:Basic_copyediting#Etiquette. Feel free to add :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. I've added the quote there instead of to the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't like that section. We're asking people to do some really simple stuff, and that section makes it sound like they need to stop and ask permission before fixing an incorrect "there/their". We don't want people to stop and get consensus. We want them to copyedit without being scared to change Wikipedia. The thoughtful, careful kind we want editing will be scared off or slowed down by that statement. The kind that blunders around will ignore it anyway. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Steven, I restored it because it's good advice, especially for new editors. The section says be bold, but also says if you're reverted, discuss first. I can't see any problem with that. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that it's not supposed to be a general editing etiquette guide. Let's keep it focused on copyediting, and what's necessary. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, you're not really engaging here. We need to justify additions to the page which make it longer and less readable, especially when they are not strictly related to basic copyediting, so if folks aren't going to defend it I'm going to remove as lacking consensus. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk

References

  1. ^ Judith Butcher, Caroline Drake and Maureen Leach, Butcher's Copy-editing, Cambridge University Press, fourth edition, 2006, p. 4.

WP:SMOS[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Titles of published works.[edit]

I have removed the following as it is in direct contradiction to MOS:CT, MOS:TM, and WP:ALLCAPS:

  • Any published work should be spelled exactly as published, using symbols and any in-word capitalization as in the original, e.g., Piers Anthony's novel 0X is correctly spelled with the digit 0 (zero) instead of the letter O (upper-case o). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, do not attempt to ape the style (e.g. font color, typeface and other typographic effects) of the cover or promotional materials of a work.

--Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GettingStarted[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Yes, good catch. The Special page is no longer here, but the new version of GettingStarted is available to all new users. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dialects[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 20:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please sign your posts on Talk pages with four tildes. Also, please post at the bottom of Talk pages. The easiest way to do this is to click the "New Section" link at the top of the page.
I had already changed the word "dialect" to "variety" on this page before your post above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

 Done EEng 20:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Wikipedia:Why Aren't These Pages Copy-edited" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

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)Reply[reply]

suggestion for article[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Guild homeHow to copy editTemplatesBarnstarsParticipantsCoordinators
RequestsDrivesBlitzesMailing listNewsletters
I would not support this. The page is not part of the WikiProject. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with User:Jonesey95...odd request.--Moxy 🍁 03:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Utilize" vs. "use"[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

In the vast majority of cases, "use" is preferable to "utilize", and writers use the latter to sound fancy or erudite. Since it applies in most cases, the advice is good; good writers and editors will know when to use "utilize". I would be open to saying something like "in almost all cases..." or "do not write 'utilize' when 'use' is a better option". – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My problem is with editors removing "utilized" when it is properly used, and citing this guide as the reason. I'm fine with clarifying the text, but what you suggest is still too vague to be useful, and still open to abuse. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted your bold addition, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You reverted me while discussion is in progress. Please undo your revert and follow the BRD process. Thanks.
If you are unhappy with the current wording, please propose a specific change that leaves the basic good advice in place while tempering it, as I have done. Some links to example edits showing editors changing "utilize" to "use" and citing this guide as the reason would also be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reverted self, but added "Disputed" tag. For an example, see here. - BilCat (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the vast majority of cases, people don't use "utilize" for it's ever so slight distinction from "use", it is used just to use a big, fancy word where a simpler word works just as well. I am fine with keeping it when it is preferable to "use", but not when it is merely an acceptable alternative. Gfox88 (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BilCat, thank you. Do you have proposed wording that would refine the current guidance? I suggested two rough-draft options above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about, Do not write "utilize" unless there is a good reason that it is preferable in that specific instance to "use"? Although there are slight distinctions in the meaning, at least 99% of the people reading an article don't know them without looking them up. I had to, so I would imagine that most other people do too. So in the vast majority of cases, "use" is shorter, simpler, and means the exact same thing, therefore it is preferable. Gfox88 (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your assertion is incorrect, and your own admitted ignorance about the correct use of a word is no excuse for continuing your campaign against its proper use. Please note that this is a how-to guide and it is not is part of the MOS. If you have trouble understanding big words, perhaps Simple English Wikipedia is the best place for you. - BilCat (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BilCat, you have been asked repeatedly and politely to propose new wording, and you have so far declined to do so. Your most recent response borders on a personal attack; please comment on content, not on people. I have implemented a version of one of my proposals above, linking to a helpful usage explanation at the Wiktionary project. I hope that this addresses your objections. If not, propose wording that would refine the current guidance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The excerpt from the usage guide explains the exceptional circumstances in which "utilize" is a valid choice. The wiktionary link I added also explains some of the nuance, in more detail than is required in a brief guide such as this one. I thank you for raising this point, which was a valid concern; I hope that it has been addressed sufficiently. If a specific editor is making what you perceive as invalid copy-editing choices, please address those concerns directly with that editor, per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikitionary is not a reliable source. You should already know that. And I disagree that the usage guide I cited is discussing "exceptional circumstances". I am addressing Gfox88 here because he has used this discussion as justification for his edits. But I will consider your advice when this issue comes up again, as it surely will. - BilCat (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When our readers click through to the Wikitionary explanation, they will see two extensively sourced paragraphs about the usage of "utilize". If you know of a better summary of reliable sources on the usage of "utilize", by all means post it here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point taken. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to ask that BilCat stop reverting my edits without providing rationale why his wording is preferable, not merely "acceptable" or "valid". I copyedit to make pages easier to understand, which includes using the shortest, simplest words that communicate clearly. Gfox88 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The best places to start are at the article's talk page or at the editor's talk page, not here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I opened a discussion on Gfox88's talk page already, as you suggested before. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Wikipedia:5C" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

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)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021[edit]

The Delhi roit is an anti Hindu roit. Lolarot (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Lolarot:  Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Basic copyediting. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarify that a change in meaning is not a copy edit?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

It's a how-to guide, not a what-it-is guide. The link in the first sentence to copy editing explains what copy editing is and is not. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonesey95:Thank you for your response to the first part of my question. What are your thoughts regarding the second part suggesting this article should make it clear that "changing the meaning of a text ... should not be given a 'ce' edit summary"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like an individual behavioral issue that is best addressed with the individual, by directing them to the guidance at Help:Edit summary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request 29 Sep 2021[edit]

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

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Education[edit]

Wouldn't it be great if all Universities Scout out Wild Card student that fit in do their programs naturally? I would be honored to go to university learn more about the brain and be studied myself as a recovering addict or someone who is growing mentally physically and spiritually, having walked thru a Personal Hell now ready willing, and able to fulfill our purposes to help others. Dr. Joe Dispenza has been a staple in my life 4 several months. I am overflowing with love and appreciation. Even as that shy, chunky awkward kid whose mother made his clothes I knew I had a purpose in life. Grateful for all. Omicron999 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]