Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2022

O Holy Order of Copyeditors

I beseech thee, please copyedit Irvington, New York. It hurts my eyes. Danke! Skyerise (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear, somebody removed the copyedit tag, so I'll tell you true: oversized images, misuse of bold, misuse of bullets, comments used for spacing (because of the misuse of bullets). Whatever you do, don't even look at this section. Skyerise (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Please note that this request is being done in WP:POINT-y, retaliatory fashion. See here and here. JCW555 talk ♠ 08:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(←) Hi @Skyerise:, while we're happy to help with prose issues, this doesn't seem to be within our scope. I don't recommend editors involve themselves in content disputes or edit wars. Also, this WikiProject isn't a venue for dramah; please take your dispute to the appropriate talk page. Regards, Baffle☿gab 09:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Contained vs. included?

In Talk:2021 New York City Marathon/GA1, I noted that "The race contained" would be better as either "The field contained" or "The race included". To my native English speaking ear, "The race contained" just sounds wrong, but I can't come up with a good grammatical reason for why. Are "race" and "field" different types of nouns that take different verbs? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Seems like the sentence has been changed already. Throwing in race included and race contained into Google Ngram gave me more results for race included than race contained (except for a period in the late 1800s). I think the reason it sounds wrong is because a field is a physical object and a race is a concept; in fiction or poetry one might be able to get away with using it as figurative language, such as The race contained her ferocious competitive spirit, but that kind of usage wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Try saying the competition contained and the competition included with the intent of using them literally. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also have written "the race included" rather than "the race contained" but it would be more accurate to say "the racers included" or "the participants included", although one could equally use "contestants", "field", "runners", "competitors", etc. "Race" is an abstract noun whereas "field" is a concrete noun; and a race is an event, it isn't a container so it can't physically contain something in the same way as a bottle or a box can. And at least the writer didn't use "featured"... :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 FYI. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed: The race (an event) contained/included various legs or stages (subordinate events). The field of racers contained various runners. The racers included various runners. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

In case any of y'all would find it entertaining, my favorite thing to do with Ngramm is to add "yeet" to the search to see the 1830s spike, link A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at this and determined that "contained" and "included" are regarded by my dictionaries as close synonyms. However, in this case, it's a matter of partial enumeration ("The race also {contained|included} Ababel Yeshaneh and Nancy Kiprop...", where "include" is usual. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Template:Awkward to be redirected to Template:Copy edit inline

FYI to copy editors. At the discussion linked below, there is a link to a previous discussion that partially explains the rationale for this nomination.

Template:Awkward has been nominated for merging with Template:Copy edit inline. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey; I've commented there. All the best, Miniapolis 21:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Obituary for TwoFingered Typist

A reminder that if we want to get an obituary for TwoFingered Typist for the next issue of The Signpost, the deadline is in four days. I should have some time I can contribute to it over the weekend. Tdslk (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Tdslk; I've started a very basic temp page in Guildspace at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/Twofingered Typist and I encourage all interested parties to contribute. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I have been thinking that what we already have at Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/2021#Christopher_Kent_Keen_(Twofingered_Typist) is about what would appear in The Signpost. I might change "valued" to "greatly valued" in "His work on them was valued..." in that text, with regard to his handling requests. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Baffle; I added some stuff from the deceased-Wikipedians page and TT's newspaper obituary to your subpage. We're knee-deep in family stuff for the next week or so, so would you submit whatever's there to the Signpost by deadline? Thanks, and happy holidays to all! Miniapolis 17:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both; I'll look it over tonight and see if I can add some data from our archives. I hope you enjoy your family stuff, Miniapolis; happy hols to all too. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added some information, especially on his work life, which should help to explain his interest and facility here. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dhtwiki. I've fleshed out the text a little more, added a ref link to the obit., and tidied the text a little. I think it's ready to go but I'd be grateful someone check it over before it's submitted. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I added some more detail, maybe too much. I don't know if we have a word count limit, but it seems reasonable to me. If it needs to be trimmed, we can trim it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jonesey, if everyone's happy I can submit it later today (my time), unless you'd like to do so. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I added a link to a nice memorial from his bird observatory and made a few edits. Tdslk (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

(←) Thanks all; I've submitted it here. Hopefully not too late. I'm wondering whether the Guild should have a permanent memorials (sub) page or maybe something be appended to one of our other pages. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Having TfT in the Hall of Fame seems a sufficient memorial. What did we do beyond that for Corinne, when she died? Dhtwiki (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree w/Dhtwiki. Miniapolis 14:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

(←) TfT's obituary was published the The Signpost in January 2022; see here. Baffle☿gab 03:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Growth Team Features; we need mentors!

You may all have read about the Growth Team Features in a past thread on this talk page, so I won't go into it too deeply. One of these new features is a 'mentorship' program, where brand new users are assigned to an experienced 'mentor' to whom they can ask specific questions via a 'Your mentor' box in a new 'Homepage' tab. Currently, this feature is given to 2% of new users, but we plan on bumping this percentage up to 10% in the near future.

To lessen the load on our current list of around 60 mentors, I'm reaching out here and elsewhere to see if any experienced editors who like helping others might be interested in signing up as one. The workload is relatively small; User:Panini! reports receiving four questions a month, on average, all of which were simple ones of the type we often see at the Teahouse and elsewhere. To view a list of every question asked of all mentors over the last 14 days, Click Here.

If becoming a mentor and helping new users on their first few days here interests you, then please sign up at Growth Team features/Mentor list.

Thank you! Nick Moyes (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Reception sections

In the current FAC for Robocop, Darkwarriorblake semi-jokingly suggested a Guild of Copy Editors Specifically for Critical Reception sections. I wrote an essay on copyediting reception sections because I think they're often very poorly written, and I think it would be a huge help to Wikipedia if a group like GOCE were to consider something like a task force or a specialty within the group to focus on these sections. I don't think a copyeditor can resolve all the problems that exist with these sections (that would require reading the underlying reviews in detail and assessing the selection of material from them into the article), but there are some straightforward and very frequent problems, such as listy prose, unvarying rhythm, monotonous sentence structure, and overquoting that can be addressed by an experienced copyeditor. If a list of willing copyeditors were to be put together, I am certain there'd be much demand from FAC nominators, and probably GAN nominators too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I don't think we have the human resources to staff a task force like you suggest, and it sounds too specialized to be the focus of one of our monthly editing events. I personally find it interesting, though, and have put your essay on my reading list. Also, our existing Requests page is ready to receive copy-editing requests for articles or article sections, with experienced copy editors handling those of featured quality. Please note that we only accept requests from editors who have done substantial work on the article, and each editor is limited to having two pending requests at a time. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; I was afraid the task force would be a stretch. I'd be very interested in your feedback (or anyone else's feedback) on the essay. I know copyediting can't be reduced to a checklist, but it would be great if we could improve that essay so it helps more editors. And I'd also be interested in other opinions on whether I'm right to criticize some of the reception sections that I see -- for example, I'm going to work on Robocop myself, but it would be good to know whether experienced copyeditors agree with me that it could be improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mike Christie:, thanks for your thoughtful comments and essay. I didn't read the essay in its entirety; I'll browse through it in a bit. I do think it's a bit long-winded though. I also don't think a CR task force is necessary.

I c/e a lot of "Critical reception" sections, which vary a lot in their prose quality from the interesting and informative to the downright dishonest. The former generally need only a few adjustments whereas the latter need source-checking and a complete rewrite in places. My few tips for copy-editors working on these sections would be:

• Some editors feel it's okay to misquote reviews; it isn't. If the quoted review text seems awkward, out-of-context, poorly written, nonsensical or just plain inaccurate, check the source if possible. Correct or remove poorly- or inaccurately-quoted material and replace it with an accurate version of the reviewer's comments.
• It's okay to elide monotonous or irrelevant text from direct quotations provided you don't change the reviewer's meaning or intent. If you're unsure about the material, check the source whenever possible.
• Indirect quoting can be a useful way of summarisng reviews where a succinct direct quotation can't be easily found. Lengthy quotations can also be summarised in this manner.
• Remove unnecessary instances of "that" ("Jones said that ...; Smith wrote that ...); "that" is a pronoun not a conjunction, and almost never adds meaning to a sentence when used as such. Removing "that" almost always improves the flow of text (consider: "Dave Bloggs said that the film is rubbish" v. "Dave Bloggs said the film is rubbish").

That's about all I can think of right now. See also: MOS:QUOTE#Quotations and Wikipedia:Quotations. Feel free to use the above in your essay if you wish. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think one the reasons why it seems long-winded is the detailed example section. I haven't read the section in-detail but I do think these kind of hand-holding, step-by-step examples are quite useful for new editors or those unfamiliar with copy editing. Perhaps spinning the examples off to a subpage, such as Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections/Examples and changing the main page to just contain the current lead would be beneficial. In my experience people are hesitant to read even just the lead of an instruction/advice page if they see they'll have to do a lot of scrolling. Mike Christie, what are your thoughts on this? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Rather than a subpage, I've collapsed the examples, which I hope will have the same effect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I feel that there's some good advice there for a how-to, but it'd be a ways down on my copyediting to-do list and something that might not be productive to address until the article is headed to FAC. ("A said B" is certainly an easier way to start while assembling sources during article construction.) I feel the essay could use a bit of a copyedit itself (conciseness and style), as well as better defining its scope and the problems that it seeks to address (in order to "sell" the advice on offer). I've left my notes on the essay talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Help at History of the Jews in Kingston upon Hull

An editor recently visited Teahouse to ask about the over 1K citations used in the article. A review shows this has been one editors long-term pet project that has gone under the radar of the community. I've removed over 70 "bad" sources but the article needs substantial help as many lines have 3..5...15 citations. In some cases, it looks like the sources are meant to be "hey here's more information", in others just overciting. So if anyone looking for something to do, the article can use copyediting from tone to trivia to citations. Slywriter (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I, for one, am not looking for something to do . List it at WP:GOCE/REQ with your specific concern, and someone will get to it. Thanks for helping out at the TH and all the best, Miniapolis 15:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: I saw the conversation at Wikipedia:Teahouse. The article split has to be settled before we'd take it on. For now, I've tagged the article with {{excessive citations}}. Cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both and now learned of the Request page. Slywriter (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, the reliable sources noticeboard may be able to help too; ANI is a last resort. All the best, Miniapolis 17:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I've looked into the article and it looked back at me... yikes! I think copy-edit is the least of its worries right now. The Cleanup crew may be able to help. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Copyediting is essentially a final polish. Decide which sources should be whittled down, figure out how the article should be split, and resolve other issues before requesting a copyedit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian articles - backup references?

Hi, I thought of this relative to Baháʼí Faith in Ukraine but realized it is a broader question. I'm sure some sources are running from services in Ukraine and with the ongoing war I'm worried about linkrot. I looked at WebCitation but they aren't taking entries. Thoughts? Just go to archive.org per cite manually? Thoughts? Smkolins (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Smkolins: This isn't the best place to ask; maybe Wikipedia:CCLEAN is what you're looking for? I personally use archive.org. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Smkolins: archive.org is probably your best option; it crawls the web so the pages you want might already be achived there. There is also archive.is for snapshotting single pages. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks folks, I just thought it was a bigger question than just one article's issues. Smkolins (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hello the Guild of Copy Editors! I've been working on SpaceX Starship to improve the article's prose, because it is the main source of opposes at the latest FAC. Even after reading the Manual of Style and Tony1 exercises, I still cannot manage to make the prose better, as it seems like errors just kept popping up after a session of extensive editing. What copyediting advice do you have for a newbie like me? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @CactiStaccingCrane:, thanks for your work on that article. I find giving article-specific advice difficult so I'll tell you how I work on copy-edits:

• First, I edit by section (I see you do that);
• Then, I work through each paragraph sentence by sentence in a linear fashion, making sure I understand what the text is saying.
• I make each sentence as clear as possible.
• I change indirect phrases to direct phrases where I can: "The dearMoon project is commented by Musk as being significant to the rocket's development." --> "Musk said the dearMoon project is significant to the rocket's development.";
• I remove any editorial text like "moreover", "nevertheless", meanwhile", "on the other hand", etc;
• I merge short sentences where possible but avoid making false links between clauses;
• I check spelling, grammar and sentence structure;
• I don't rush my work—copy-editing can be difficult when you're dealing with complex concepts.

That's all I can think of for now. Copy-editing gets easier with practice so take your time. Good luck with the article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice! I would try to do it in the lead to see how it goes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, just for fun, this is before:

The Kennedy Space Center is planned to have Starship launch pads at Launch Complex 39A and Launch Complex 49, north of Launch Complex 39C. Launch Complex 39A had hosted Saturn V and Space Shuttle flights, while Launch Complex 39C was planned to be built north of Launch Complex 39A and 39B to support Saturn V flights. Launch Complex 49 has been under consideration since at least 2014 and as of December 2021, under environmental review by NASA. If either launch site is to be built, Starship may need space inside the Vehicle Assembly Building. The building is divided into four high bays, with three reserved for the Space Launch System. The remaining high bay may be used to build Super Heavy and Starship, with both stages stacked at the launch pad.

The Rocket Development facility at McGregor, Texas is used to test Raptor engines before delivery to Starbase. It has a vertical test stand for firing the Raptor engine, along with a horizontal test stand for firing Raptor and Raptor Vacuum. The facility has other stands for testing Falcon rocket's stages, Merlin engines, and future reaction control thrusters on Starship. In the past, the McGregor facility hosted test flights of Grasshopper and F9R Dev1, the first stages used for landing tests. SpaceX's main factory at Hawthorne, California is producing the Raptor Vacuum and experimental designs. Another factory near the McGregor facility is under construction as of September 2021, which will make Raptor 2 engines.

Another SpaceX facility at Cocoa, Florida near the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, in the past hosted the construction of Starship Mk2, a prototype built in competition with Starbase. As of February 2022, the facility has been processing raw materials to make the spacecraft's heat shield. Nearby the facility are hangars for Falcon rocket boosters and a large swath of land, dedicated for another Starship launch complex. The Florida facility's construction is motivated partly by the uncertain environmental review result at Starbase.

and after:

At McGregor, Texas, the Rocket Development facility tests all Raptor engines. It has two main test stands: one horizontal for both engine types and one vertical for sea level-optimized rocket engines. Other test stands are used for checking Starship's reaction control thrusters and Merlin engines. In the past, the McGregor facility hosted test flights of experimental landable first stages: Grasshopper and F9R Dev1. In the future, an under-construction factory nearby will make the new generation of sea-level Raptors. Meanwhile, SpaceX's headquarter in California will still build the Raptor Vacuum and test new designs.

As of December 2021, the Kennedy Space Center considers having Starship launch pads at Launch Complex 39A and 49. If they are approved by NASA, the spaceports will be built north of Launch Complex 39B. Launch Complex 39A in the past had hosted Saturn V and Space Shuttle flights, and Launch Complex 49 since 2014 has been in the construction plan. Once either of them is built, the company will need room inside the Vehicle Assembly Building. It has four high bays, three reserved for the Space Launch System, but NASA can lease the remaining bay for preparing Starship indoors.

As of February 2022 at Cocoa, Florida, a facility processes raw materials for making heat shield tiles. In the past, workers at this facility constructed Starship Mk2 prototype in competition with Starbase's crews. In the future, it is going to expand to have Falcon rocket booster hangars and a Starship launch complex. According to Musk, if Starbase does not pass its environmental review, this facility will take over as a primary launch site.

It really helps! Yes, the prose is a bit dry, but I'm sure it will do alright at FAC. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This advice benefitted me as well - thank you! Sushi725 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I always find that it helps to read the text aloud. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Help reviewing Rikako Aida

Hello - I just joined the guild yesterday and just started trying to become a Wikipedia editor this week. I would greatly benefit from a more experienced guild member reviewing my first GOCE activity. I found the Rikako Aida article from the list of copy edit-tagged articles and gave it a whirl. Would anyone be willing to review my edits and let me know if I commmitted any faux pas?

I would like to help with the current drive but I'm worried if I'm at the level of experience needed to address specific requests yet, so I will continue to focus on articles tagged copy edit. Thank you in advance and looking forward to contributing more! Sushi725 (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the guild. I took a look at the changes you made, and they seem to all be improvements. I then read the article and didn't see any glaring errors that you missed. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will forge ahead then. Sushi725 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

And please feel free to help out with the drive; there's still 11 days left! Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 13:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I finally figured out how to find the requests instead of articles tagged CE so I will definitely help! Sushi725 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Does AutoEd work on mobile?

I have to bypass my cache for AutoEd to work, but the guide to do that assumes I’m on a computer. Is there any way to do it on mobile? Speatle (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Jonesey95, who seems to have experience with AutoEd; AFAIK, you always need to bypass your cache for a script to work. This tool seems to be new, and I don't think en.m.wikipedia has as many features as the desktop version (which you can also use on a phone). You may also want to ask on WT:AED and/or the village pump. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 13:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Speatle, I never use the mobile interface for editing, but this thread may be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I use the desktop interface on a tablet, if that helps. Speatle (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ethiopia

We are looking for some help at the Ethiopia article. The article has been rewriten by a non native English speaker and contains lots of odd language.....lead redo would be the first step.--Moxy- 17:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: The correct action would be to submit a copy edit request at the requests page, but redoing a lead goes beyond what the guild is intended for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds borderline to me. Unless the non-native speaker added useful, well-referenced text, I'd just revert to the last good version. Requests for articles with incomprehensible text are often declined. I also see the article is currently undergoing substantial editing; we do prefer request articles to be stable. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Related Wikiproject invitation

Hey everyone. I found this wikiproject that deals with references in articles; its goal is to add them when there are none or need more. If someone is interested or have time for this project it would be great. It fits very nicely with the Guild, because many times pages cannot be edited due to poor referencing.

Oldest backlogged articles link broken

Looks like August 2021 has been deleted, and the link on the Project front page should point to September 2021, but I can't see where to find the source. Could someone update or tell me how? Dhalamh (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. It's in Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Left panel. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

User taking over Ryan Kavanaugh article with GOCE tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

User TheRealSerenaJoy has tagged Ryan Kavanaugh with a GOCE tag and started engaging in major editing even though there were no tagged or discussed copyediting issues on the page. Many of the edits do not appear constructive, and the GOCE tag seems to prevent input from other editors even though there are a few actively engaged at the article.

Is there anything editors can do to question this? Popoki35 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The article's talk page is the best place to begin, as you have done. I see that you have employed WP:BRD and that another editor has commented on the talk page of the editor who made the objected-to edits. It looks like things are going normally. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The editor appears to have declared and then withdrew a COI statement (noticed by Popoki35 here) with this being a secondary account, used for editing an article with a history of COI. No activity on the account (contribs) since the 31 May copyedit. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Reply from TheRealSerenaJoy on above accusation

Hello fellow editors Jonesey95, Reidgreg, Throast, Popoki35 -- Popoki35 is not accurately describing the situation and hopefully I'm wrong, but I fear there is something more sinister going on behind the scenes.... To explain -- I participated in the May GOCE drive and was bouncing between drive edits and just other random edits for probably a month? Upon editing the page Popoki is so flustered about - I added the tag out of pure habit since I'd been doing more drive work than not that week. However, that minor mistake aside -- which does no harm anyway, it's simply a tag with a polite request to other editors to hold off on editing until one editor is finished -- there's more to the story than Popoki is articulating. I know this is not the right place for such a discussion but Popoki35 opened the door and I feel the need to defend myself as I rather enjoy editing in my spare time and plan to continue, but not under some cloud of suspicion.

I edited about half the article in question -- Ryan Kavanaugh -- with basic grammar and punctuation type edits, and did I think 2 minor content fixes - things which were just plainly wrong (a subject's birthday, verified by the subject in an op-ed) and updating the short description to refer to the subject as "…financier and producer" since there are the better part of 87 sources that refer to the subject as "producer or executive producer" in addition to "financier." There was one other relatively minor change similar in context - the wiki was not exactly representative of what the sources indicated.

The real issue is that I edited a page -- pretty benign edits, did so in good faith -- and two editors in particular have a pretty major reaction for no justified reason and began a immediate passive-aggressive, semi-polite push-back which implies their true goal is to prevent further editing, which is against Wikipedia policy.

That made me wonder, what gives? All this over what was mostly grammar and punctuation? Diving deeper into the page history and its editors, and it appears this page has been significantly re-written in the last year or so, with the majority of the standing changes having been done by Throast & Popoki. The prose on the page was actually improved quite a bit from earlier versions, but I would say the neutrality and POV have NOT remained stable and no longer present a balanced article. Granted, it takes some effort to determine this (reading the source materials, and much of it) but when my character is attacked, it kinda draws me in. WP:BLP is pretty clear about treating BLP's with special care, and for good reason. I'm happy to collaborate with any editor on improving the overall quality of content in Wikipedia, but I have to wonder why I was instantly questioned as to why I'm editing THAT page, and whether I have a COI. I could certainly retrace my activity during the day to explain what I was doing and why put it's completely inappropriate for these editors to ask such questions, especially given the context of my edits.

All of this, makes me wonder if they are actually correct, and there WP:COI editing on this page... Although it isn't with me…

Further, to respond to Popoki's concern about previous COI disclosures on my part, yes, I did set up this account originally some time ago to do exclusively paid editing work, and dislcosed that on my Talk page, as one is required to, a tag since removed from my talk page since I repurposed this account (read on). I never did any paid editing as I found people who need an editor is not due to a lack of "technical" prowess, bur rather they don't qualify to have a wikipedia page because they don't meet WP:GNG even at the broadest level. I had an issue on my normal wikipedia account, an admin I was working with suggested I just abandon that account and edit from a new account even though it meant losing all my built up edits since attribution cannot be changed. Given the need for a "new" account anyway, and the fact that there really is not much if any *legitimate* paid editing, I repurposed the account. Had I actually done any paid editing, it would have been properly disclosed, which is why I went to the trouble of setting up an account specifically for it.

With all that said, I'm going to circle back on this content with any editors who wish to engage in a peaceful, respectful discussion about grammar, punctuation, improved prose and dare I even say - facts, I'm happy to engage. But I won't be harassed in an attempt to prevent editing on this page nor any other page. If that's the way this is going to go, I'll engage there as well. But honestly, editors - unless someone IS being paid….. Who the hell has that kind of time? Let the facts and the rules speak for themselves, be courteous, act in good faith and it all works out.

Lastly,to properly justify just one of my changes in question -- here's just one example from the Ryan Kavanaugh page to support just one of the simple changes I made

In the RK lead paragraph, a hidden comment was placed to not change his role description "per consensus." However, it's wrong. His role as it is stated in the Wiki is inaccurate - nearly every article ever written about him says he's a producer. If there is a previous consensus among editors, it's wrong. Here are just 3 examples of reliable sources using the term "producer" as well as "financier" in the article describing Kavanaugh. There are 87 sources listed on his page….. Most of which also refer to RK as producer as well as a film financier, if they use a title for him at all. I could go through each article and count up the occurrences of the use of the term "producer" vs. "financier" in each article, but will that really be necessary to make the wiki accurate? So I have to ask - why is there so much pushback on calling him a producer, - to the extent of using WP:Hidden_text to dissuade anyone from making the correction when every media outlet speaking about him calls him a producer, and he's been in the credits on bunches (I didn't count those either) of films as a producer? And here, is the support from the page's sources:

'Source #7': uses the phrase "producer" 12 times in the article, about 10 of those refer to Ryan Kavanuagh's title:

"Last year alone, pictures that credited Kavanaugh as an executive producer or producer, or carried Relativity’s animated whiz-bang logo—or both—included the Coen brothers’ Burn After Reading; Paul Blart: Mall Cop; the Julia Roberts and Clive Owen romantic caper, Duplicity..."

'Source #14:' also titles Kavanaugh as producer:

"A Los Angeles judge on Friday blocked public relations executive Michael Sitrick from trying to collect on a $7.7-million legal judgment he won from Hollywood producer Ryan Kavanaugh more than five years ago."

'Source #52': as does this source as well:

"Film financier and producer Ryan Kavanaugh is back in the film business not long after he swore he was done with Hollywood."

I'm heading back to the Ryan Kavanaugh article and talk page, if any editors wish to continue discussion about the page, we should take it up over there.The Real Serena Joy^Talk 16:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

TheRealSerenaJoy, thanks for taking the time to write the above message. As I stated in my initial reply, this page is not really an appropriate venue for discussion of one editor's edits to a specific page. It would probably be better to post the above message at the article's talk page. FWIW, I do not see any accusations in the above posts, only neutral observations and recommendations for appropriate follow-up. I understand that you may feel accused or attacked; the best path forward is to try to assume good faith and engage based on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with your statements except the attacking bit - asking me why I'm editing THIS page, how did I get here, digging way back into my contribution history to see what's there.. asking right out of the gate if I have a COI isn't normal behavior when addressing a co-editor about a disagreement on punctuation, or a misrepresented fact. But I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to give feedback, and as I said, am "heading over to the page's talk page to hash any further issues with edits anywhere. If you think it best to not clutter up this page, I'm happy to move this section to the article's talk page. I felt the need to address it here, since it was put here by the others. I'm open to your advice there. Feels like the right thing to do as long as context isn't lost. Best, The Real Serena Joy^Talk 21:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grammar question on capitalisation

Appreciate if you can comment on Talk:New_Indian_Parliament_building#Parliament vs parliament Venkat TL (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on cuts to the background section

Please see Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on cuts to the background section. This may be viewed as a matter of copy-editing. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157:, view it as you wish but this appears to be a content dispute rather than a copy-editing matter. Please wait until the dispute is settled and the article is stable before requesting a copy-edit. Regards, Baffle☿gab 09:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Baffle gab1978. While I sometimes go the extra mile to suggest better flow to requesters, RfCs require consensus from interested editors, which implies a content dispute, which in itself is something the GOCE as a group doesn't get involved in. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting detail about Grammar

I am refreshing my Grammar and while looking for courses online, I stumbled on some interesting information I didn't remember or I didn't know. According to Voice of America, some Grammar rules have nothing to do with logic and more to do with power and social strife. For example, in the case of the contraction "ain't"—which originally was an accepted form for “I am not”—the upper classes, for some reason, at one point singled it out and considered that because regular people were using it, then it shouldn't be considered a proper word.--Thinker78 (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Thinker78: that's an interesting piece. A lot of the dafter grammar rules were laid down in the 18th and 19th centuries when mainly only rich people could read and write. Personally, I use 'ain't' in informal speech but I wouldn't use it in a formal setting like Wikipedia. Same with double negatives; they make sense as emphasis in speech but they do indeed cancel each other on the written page. It's all about context. And I could whine about the author's use of "that" as a conjunction but I ain't gunna bovver, nar'meen. :-) Baffle☿gab 21:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Thoughts about the writing in a website?

I was checking a citation in the article United States foreign aid, foreignassistance.gov, and noticed that in my opinion, its first paragraph has an awful lot of redundancies. Any thoughts?--Thinker78 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't think any of us can fix a government website. Miniapolis 00:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78:, I think you should write a stern letter to the US President. This abomination cannot be tolerated. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I would call it loose writing, rather than just redundant, as I didn't see, at least in the first sections, sentences that were essential duplicates of what had gone before. As the others have indicated, it's rather beyond our purview. Even if it weren't, try getting a response, much less an actual correction. I've tried getting a city government to act where the issue was factual incompleteness of an official website that was important to an article I was working on. My message seemed to be completely ineffective. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Governments don’t usually have good websites (at least where I live), so I don’t expect them to fix them. You could just remove the source, or leave it. Kind Regards, | Zippybonzo | Talk | 07:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Value of editing

If you are not professionally in the editing business, ever wondered how much is the market value of editing? Well, looking for reliable sources for guidance about paragraphs, I stumbled on a professional editing service in the UK (I won't link it because it might be looked like a stealth ad). They charge 14 pounds per 1k words for substantive copy editing. The editors have masters and PhDs credentials. Considering they need to make their salary and the shop's profit, to make it reasonably profitable probably they would need to be editing around 2k words per hour. Thoughts? Thinker78 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Fourteen quid for 1,000 words? Light the bonfires! Man the picket lines! I demand a pay rise! :). By the way @Thinker78:, this page isn't a general chat forum; posts here should be at least about Wikipedia and relevant to the GOCE – please see the talk page guidelines if you're unsure how they work. Cheers,. Baffle☿gab 01:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering that GOCE is a wikiproject about copyediting, I thought it was relevant, specially also to compare the standard of the rate of work timewise that edits take to make and the value we contribute to Wikipedia. But ok, I will just appease you, not that this talk page is very active to be trying to avoid its cluttering, but fine. Remember that the talk page guideline is that, a guideline, which is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Cheers! --Thinker78 (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: If you want to chat, you can use the IRC or the Discord server. Speaking as a coordinator, I would much prefer that discussion about the operation of the GOCE be done here and nothing else. WP:TPG also mentions [w]hen talk pages in other namespaces [than mainspace] (including userspace) are used for discussion and communication between users, discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator, I had already said I was going to appease Baffle Gab, meaning I was going to try avoid writing in this talk page except if I felt it strictly necessary. Thanks for the links of the alternative communication methods though. You got a very nice edit count in 4 years, btw. Happy editing. Thinker78 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, @Thinker78: with respect, the point is not to "appease" me or anyone else here—I'm not a virgin-eating giant or monster—and you're always welcome to discuss GOCE-related matters here. The point is to use the page for its intended purpose. As an experienced Wikipedian, I'm sure you understand how disruptive talk-page misuse can become if it's done often enough. Anyway, 'nuff said; let's draw a line under this and move on. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Readable Prose

So, I like a pinch of glory every-once-in-a-while, just like any standard bloke might. This article Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 registers a word count of 315 words. Are you kidding me? I'm going to copy edit that MONSTER and get credited for 315 words?! Not in this lifetime. Any explanation?--Bddmagic (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bddmagic:, the script probably ignores lists, in which case it wouldn't count most of the article's text because it's in bullet-pointed list format. I gave up using the script years ago; these days I copy-paste into a word processor and remove all non-copy-editable text, such as image captions, block quotations and the contents list. Using my method, I made that article 3,372 words; feel free to use that count and point to this section if any reviewer questions the word count. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 17:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Good enough...thanks!!--Bddmagic (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bddmagic: Like Baffle mentioned, the script doesn't take into account anything that's in a list. I'd suggest using something like Word Counter to get a more accurate count. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've shown my method on my talk page, which involves running the page-size script after removing, using regular expressions, the offending markup, which in this case gives a slightly higher count than Baffe gab's. The script highlights what it counts, so you'll be able to see by how much you're article is being under-counted. However, if the script encounters an article with a lot of mathematical markup, it tends to way over-count, by 20 to 30 times. In such a case, I just estimate. With mathematics, there are apt to be symbols, punctuation, and formatting to be attended to, and a text editor's prose word count won't necessarily reflect the effort involved. All that leaves aside the fact that word counts are the crudest measure of the effort required. I'm well into my third week of editing my current, 1,000-word article, which involves abstruse concepts of Indian philosophy where I'm having a hard time deciding what constitutes clarity and what unintelligibility. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Resident Evil: Damnation

A user Talk:Resident Evil: Damnation#Reception reverted the recently copyedit of Damnation claiming the reception section was poorly written and transformed it into a "X says that" among others. Is it okay to leave it like that? Tintor2 (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tintor2:, I note there's been no attempt to discuss this with the copy-editor @Tenryuu: (courtesy ping), and that another skilled c/e @Reidgreg: (courtesy ping) has commented at the article's talk page. IMO, the current version, as of my timestamp, is awkwardly written but it's better than I'd expect of a Start-class article. "X said that..." (nuke the "that"!) constructions are neutral, clear and not always a bad thing (see WP:SAID). That said, this should be discussed at the article's talk, not here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

misuse of incident, incidence, instance

(previously posted at Wikipedia:Teahouse)

I would like to draw the attention of the copy editors us to the confusion among these terms.

Note that there are the words "incident", "incidence", and "instance". Each of these exists in both singular and plural forms. Generally, "incident" and "incidence" are not interchangeable, but "instance" may be a proper substitute (and potentially less confusing term) for "incident".

The biggest confusion regards "incidence" being written in place of "incidents" (as these are homonyms) and potentially being converted to its plural form "incidences".

It might also prove useful to have some sort of template used in conjunction with these terms, which implies what the intended context is and that it shouldn't be necessary to review the usage. Fabrickator (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fabrickator:, thanks for your message. Are you in the correct place? If you're referring to a specific incident, you should take it up with the editor(s) involved, or on the specific article talk page. Regarding templates, I doubt one would be necessary but requested templates would be your best bet. Good luck with that and cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Before getting into this a lot deeper, there's an underlying question, which is whether "incidence" may be used as a synonym for "incident" (in the sense of "an occurrence"). Allowing this seems to be a "modernism", though FWIW, Merriam-Webster provides this explanation as a "did you know?" item:

The words incident, incidence, and instance may seem similar (and, in fact, incident and incidence are closely related), but they are not used identically. In current use, incidence usually means "rate of occurrence" ... . Incident usually refers to a particular event ... . Instance suggests a particular occurrence that is offered as an example ("another instance of bureaucratic bumbling"); ... . The plural incidences sometimes occurs in such contexts as "several recent incidences of crime," but this use is often criticized as incorrect.

So the question is whether we are bound to accept incidence as a synonym for incident. Fabrickator (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator:, you do appear to be in the incorrect place. The best places to ask general questions appears to be the Tea House or the language reference desk. Please also see my reply above. This page is for discussing the Guild of Copy Editors and its activities; it's not a general chat forum. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I've come this far (I was directed here from the Teahouse), though I'm not sure this doesn't belong here. I'm not just looking for a determination of what is correct usage, I'm looking for appropriate solutions for the sort of problem that copy editors may have encounteredin the past(e.g. pervasive misuse). In any case, I'd like to respond to the question about a template as being a useful part of a solution.

The word incidence is considered an uncountable noun. That means it should not be used in the plural form except for some particularly exceptional circumstances. There are 1500 such occurrences in article space, which is about 10% of the combined uses of incidence and incidences. That seems like a much greater fraction than would be expected for something that's supposed to be so exceptional, leading me to suspect a high degree of misuse of incidences on Wikipedia.

It's reasonable to review these occurrences. If the use of incidences is determined to be correct in a particular instance, then I would propose a template asserting that the usage has been reviewed and has been determined to be correct. A dated template would allow copy editors to locate instances of incidences which have been templated recently. Editors could review recently-templated and/or untemplated instances to determine if the usage is correct. So that's my use case to have a template for incidences (but perhaps some copy editor can suggest an improvement on this approach). Fabrickator (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator:; there is already {{not a typo}} for highlighting deliberate misspellings, etc. You give one example but there must be hundreds of homophones and near homophones in English, and probably thousands or hundreds of thousands of misused homophones and near homophones in Wikipedia. Shall we need a template for every one, or just "incidents / incidences" etc.? Who will template all of the homophones and near-homophones in Wikipedia (not me!)? Who will monitor the tagged articles (not me!)? The idea sounds unworkable and unnecessary busy work to me, but feel free to proceed if you wish. New templates can be requested at requested templates.

BTW, if you enjoy copy-editing articles, why not sign up for our current, month-long copy-editing drive and earn some barnstars? Baffle☿gab 00:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is not an issue that applies generally to words that sound alike (but are spelled differently), it's specific to these particular words that not only sound alike, but which get very confused in the process. You say there are likely tens of thousands of errors involving sound-alike words, I say that having these errors go uncorrected is more problematic because it teaches people that incidences is actually the plural of incident. Is it any worse than any number of other errors in English mechanics? Perhaps not, but the point is to call it out, and at least to make copy editors aware of the issue so they can recognize when the wrong word is being used. Fabrickator (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator:, I understand your concerns but we don't teach English here, we're here to write an encyclopaedia. I do a lot of copy-editing; I often find misused words, such as "alternate / alternative" and "convince / persuade". You appear to be interested in fixing only one set of misused words; if these mistakes bother you, you're free to be bold, find these problems and fix them yourself. This has been done before; see this essay page. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978, I directed Fabricator here from the Teahouse because they looked to raise awareness of an issue among copy editors, so I thought this the best place to raise the issue. Perfect4th (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Perfect4th:, thanks. The thing is, "raising awareness" fixes nothing; it is essentially the OP saying; "here's a problem; please fix it for me". I directed the OP to more appropriate places to discuss this and get help but my attempts were rebuffed. I did my best. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The OP may be interested in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-typo. While the above set of words does not contain typos per se, the page provides guidance for editors who have a desire to eliminate specific copy-editing errors from Wikipedia. As Baffle gab1978 says, there are many similar homophones, typos, and misused words present in Wikipedia articles; there is no reason for the GOCE to get involved in tracking the incidence of specific instances of given errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: While I understand your concern, that isn't something that the GOCE can handle. Copyediting is now considered a newcomer task, which means you'll find a lot of well-meaning newbies trying to correct articles incorrectly. If this is someone that is with the Guild, that's something we can help with. Otherwise, you're probably going to have to discuss this with whichever project deals with newcomers. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978 I suppose the most appropriate place for the Teahouse to have directed me to would have been the WP:Typo Team, though the potential ambiguity is whether this is an issue of "word choice" or a "typo". Fabrickator (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

How about some ribbons?

This project awards the {{The 10k Copyedit Barnstar}} but that barnstar has no ribbon-equivalent. While {{The Copyeditor's Barnstar}} has a ribbon, {{Copyedit Barnstar}} does not. Might the members of this WikiProject commission ribbon designs for use? This seems like an issue for the aggregate who work this lane to decide. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a project for someone who is talented in graphic design. One solution could be to design a copy editors' ribbon and superimpose miniatures of various barnstars onto it, so that even awards common to other projects can have a distinctly GOCE provenance. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

To editor Torchiest: You've been involved in the design of the 10k copyedit barnstar. Do you think you could try your hands at ribbons? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Capital Region of Denmark page

Hello, I am a new copy editor (thanks for letting me in) and I have just completed copy editing the Capital Region of Denmark page. As I am new to this, is there any way I can request a more experienced editor to revise my work? (Also, I don't know if this is the right place to be writing this, and if it is not, sorry.) UltimateGames357 (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for your help. I took a quick look at the page history, and your changes have been beneficial. However, around the time you began the copyedit the page was added (by another editor) to WP:PNT. Rough translations are generally a deal-breaker for copyediting, and certainly a tough row to hoe for a new copyeditor. In future, if a page is tagged with {{Rough translation}} (before or after you start the copyedit) tag the talk page with {{GOCEreviewed}} and explain that the page isn't ready for copyediting. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 22:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the revision. I'll be sure to look out for that in the future. UltimateGames357 (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Gay Sheerin page

Once again, I am a new copy editor, and I definitely need assistance on the Gay Sheerin page. I have completed up to the third paragraph on the Career page. There are various terms and colloquialisms onward from this point that I have little clue as to how to properly write it. If anyone could assist me on this, I would be most grateful. (Also, once again, I do not know where to put these sort of requests, so please forgive me if this is in the wrong place.) UltimateGames357 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This must be at least one of the places to ask for help. Another would be at the November drive talk page.

• He returned in 1985 after a break-away period which he took to build his house. – should be "took a leave to build", or words to that effect (WTTE).
• Connacht suffered three final defeats... – three defeats in league championship finals, I have to presume.
• ...won two Connacht titles on the spin... – one after the other (i.e. in 1990 and 1991, as shown later).
• ...started in an apprenticeship in barley... – that took awhile to figure out; source says "apprenticeship barley begun", which should be read as "barely"

Dhtwiki (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, I completed copy-editing of the article. If it isn't too much of a bother, could you please assess my copy-editing? UltimateGames357 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a look at Gay Sheerin and think that you've made many improvements. An editor, whose specialty seems to be Gaelic football, then did some more editing, which left many of your improvements. I think the "barely started an apprenticeship before returning to football" needs reworking. It's under the "Personal life" section and is made to refer to his daytime job, when I think it refers to his being a goalkeeper. I'll think about and make further changes, if necessary. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks so much for your help. UltimateGames357 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ENGVAR

"Because of the nature of our project, members who copy edit articles listed on our Requests page should have a high level of skill with English spelling, grammar and punctuation." The GOCE may wish to include in its membership requirements that its members be aware of WP:ENGVAR and to exercise more restraint with their edit summaries. If it were to be done to a new user's edit, it could be a case for a warning. It certainly does not reflect the respect the community generally has for the GOCE. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Kudpung, but I wasn't aware of any ENGVAR, edit-summary or bitey problems. Do you have a diff? I'll tweak the request-page instructions to mention ENGVAR. All the best, Miniapolis 14:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to cause any unnecessary drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)