Template talk:Copyedit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Copyedit template. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
[edit] Copyvio?
Shouldn't almost any article that meets this description be {{copyvio}}ed? So how about getting rid of this template and having it redirect to {{cleanup-copyedit}} instead? (After all, any article for which this tag is appropriate can have that one instead.) —msh210 16:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I believe this is supposed to mean that it has been copied from public domain sources. For instance, if text is taken verbatim from NASA, or Britannica (1911), or any other public domain, then it should be properly formatted and the like to conform to WP's standards.--Dmcdevit 17:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have wondered why there was any point to this template. Since whenever I put it on the talk page of a article with copied text it 'automatically' turns into a copyright violation notice. If this article really does mention about free domain material then it should be properly stated on the template. - Louisisthebest_007 09:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikify / cleanup
- Isn't this template just duplicating {{wikify}} and/or {{cleanup}}? Thryduulf 11:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Template:Copyedit is the documented (and preferable) name, but it currently redirects to Template:Cleanup-copyedit (which has a brief history that prevents non-admins from performing the move). Lifeisunfair 17:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional brief explanation, then sign your vote with: ~~~~
- Support. This is an uncontroversial move that a technical limitation has prevented me from carrying out. —Lifeisunfair 17:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Additional comments
[edit] Decision
Moved per request. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Spellingminor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The template is up for deletion. Since the user has spend effort into his template, maybe at least the graphic 
can be integrated into the existing copyedit template? Would be a pity otherwise I think... Gryffindor 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adding invitation
I am adding an invitation to readers to help, as many other cleanup type templates have. Also, I am changing the wording to copy editing from copyediting as few dictionaries seem to accept the single-word form, and this is about copyediting (er, copy editing) after all. Also removed the word English from the parenthesis as non-English articles will not be tagged with this template, and it shortens the long line which already wraps awkwardly. I debated adding a BR tag before the paren, but we'll see what comes of this before I do that. cmh 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template format
I've run across (and fixed) a number of pages with this template included incorrectly. The problem is for the vast majority of these cleanup-type templates, the first parameter is meant for date (in fact, I haven't seen any others that have a different parameter as the first). This results in tags such as "This February 2007 needs copy editing...". I didn't want to change anything, because I don't want to break any other pages, but I thought that this would be a good thing to think of/discuss. –Dvandersluis 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've edited the template's documentation to document its current operation, which substitutes a first parameter of arbitrary text for the words article or section. That is useful for replacing those with the word section, for example (see my edit to Qutbism#Term Qutbism) but can lead to errors such as the one you describe. Requiring the parameter to actually be the word "section" would be one solution. Wdfarmer (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] suggested cosmetic change
Perhaps the template should be made horizontally wider in appearance. What do you think? 69.140.164.142 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists
I've suggested most of the maintenance categories be eliminated in favor of a technique based on using whatlinkshere. Articles needing copyedit is an example I've used. Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists. If no one speaks up, I'll be bold and change the template. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have a test version at Template:Copyedit/test, and have changed two articles to use this version. It looks no different on an article, but instead of adding the article to two maintenance categories creates invisible references to two non-existent articles (the template links to the page that explains how to find other articles needing copy editing). See, for example, this version of Jose L Torero (using the current template) vs. this version (using the test version of the template). Again, if anyone has any problems with this change, please speak up. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please comment on the broader issue at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyedit Tag needs copy editing
Would it be possible to get the text of the copyedit tag changed? "This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling."
'and/or' isn't really valid so it's kind of funny to see it in a statement regarding copy editing. Simply using "or" sufficiently indicates that any combination of grammar, style, cohesion, tone, and spelling need to be addressed. Either that or it should be changed to "and/exclusive or" but even that is implied by a simple "or" while avoiding the awkwardness of reading "and/exclusive or".
Wikipedia even has an entry about "and/or" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or
This page also provides a quick synopsis regarding why and/or shouldn't be written http://www.geocities.com/thorin.geo/and_or_invalid.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.96.11 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've made the change you suggested. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you!
[edit] Contrast it with programming
I respectfully disagree, as it is my understanding that "or" as used in English, rather programming languages, is ambiguous as to whether it is in reference to the exclusive disjunction ("xor") xor the logical disjunction ("or"). The truth tables are significantly different:
| p | T | F | T | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| q | T | T | F | F |
| or | T | T | T | F |
| xor | F | T | T | F |
| and | T | F | F | F |
Observe that both "or" and "and" return true when both p and q are true, however "xor" does not. Thus, as I see it, the use of "and/or" is equivalent to "((and) xor (or))", meaning it might be "and", or it might be "or", but not both at the same time, depending on whether all the statements are true ("and") or at least one is true ("or"). So "and/or" is used to emphasize simply that "xor" is not being used. Saying "and/or" would be equivalent to saying "not xor", but that's a rather cryptic usage in English, methinks. In fact, I would go so far as to assert that "and/or" is the only way in English to say "or" (logical disjunction), because "or" in English is meant to function only as the exclusive disjunction ("xor", in many programming languages). The ambiguity arises simply from the equivalence of spelling in English versus logic. —AltiusBimm (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Should this template be protected?
Yesterday, this template was vandalised with a picture of a penis, affecting hundreds if not thousands of pages. The vandalism was reverted within minutes, but nonetheless had an immediate and dramatic effect on Wikipedia. In order to avoid this happening again, and in accordance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:High-risk templates, I suggest this template be (at least) semi-protected. (Many similar templates, such as {{Cleanup}}, already are.) Does anyone else agree? Terraxos 01:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] much better icon
Thanks for getting rid of that squinty, garish yellow thing. TONY (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
And why is it now back again? Even at the larger size, it's hard to make out. The colour is just not suitable for such a thin-lined icon inside. Why can't we go back to the grey one? TONY (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Adding information on the copy editing wikiproject
Would it be appropriate to add information on the template regarding WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit? Perhaps something like "articles with this tag are under the care of..." -Samuel Tan 12:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit request
{{editprotected}}
Just a minor thing. Please put this part on the same line.
[[Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template]]}}|}}}}
</includeonly><!--{{Copyedit}} end--><noinclude>{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}
to
[[Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template]]}}|}}}}</includeonly><!--{{Copyedit}} end--><noinclude>{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}
I'm trying to get rid of a patch of whitespace showing up in Fullmetal Alchemist and this seems to be the culprit. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Done. --- RockMFR 02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Double link
This template links to Wikipedia:How to copy-edit in two places. Is that really necessary? Seegoon (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Documentation needs copyediting
The line about the date parameter refers to a synopsis "after a second pipetrick." Looking at the template source, I think this is incorrectly referring to the for parameter, which is described above it. Or am I completely missing something? --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] How is this template helpful?
I can't see the point of this template, and have therefore proposed its deletion (or asked for an explanation and perhaps revision). See here. Tama1988 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Style tweaks
{{editprotected}}
I've updated the sandbox with some tweaks to match the styling of other cleanup templates. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk
[edit] Editprotected request
{{editprotected}}
Hi! I was wondering if we could add a notice regarding the Guild of Copy Editors to this template in case a copy edit is needed quickly (such as if the article is a GAN or FAC), since the project takes requests. To add this, just add <small>(if it it important that the article be edited soon, you can request a copyedit at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors]])</small> after A how-to [[Wikipedia:How to copy-edit|guide]] is available. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think this is uncontroversial, so I've disabled the editprotected. I rather think that this isn't important enough (an emergency copyedit?) to warrant inclusion in the template, especially when the length of the note warrants the re-inclusion of small text (which is hard to read and clutters the notice). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough; I just thought I'd mention it after seeing that Template:ShouldBeSVG had a similar notice for the Graphics Lab. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- That template is for imagespace, where large and instruction-heavy templates are pretty much the norm. That approach is generally avoided on articlespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
-
[edit] Full stop not required anymore.
Am I right in saying a final full stop (or period if you prefer) is no longer required in the for section? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The current text is "This article may require copy-editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available.". Are you suggesting that the full stop after the word "spelling" is unneeded? I don't think that's true.D'oh, you meant in the documentation. I'll tidy it up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] redundant link
{{editprotected}}
Please remove the last sentence, "A how-to guide is available." The link provided in the sentence is the exact same as the link earlier in the message, making the sentence redundant and unnecessary. --Blooper (Talk) 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I was tempted to take out the next to last one as well, but I know some people like these links to edit the page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Serial comma!
PLEASE put a serial comma before the word "or" in the template! Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see that the lack of a serial comma is causing any confusion here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] ...editing it NOW
The template text currently reads
This article may require copy-editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it now.
Speaking strictly for myself: When I see the word "now" used in situations like this ("edit now", "buy now", "register now", ...), I have a very strong automatic, semi-unconscious reaction of "The hell I will!". It would surprise me, if I am unique in this regard; and I suggest that the template by altered to remove the logically unnecessary (even, arguably, too restrictive) "now". The same recommendation applies to any other template which uses a similar formulation.
I would speculate that the original author copied this use from advertizing language, where it may or may not originally have been effective. However, I strongly suspect that people are so used to seeing this in intrusive and presumptions "Buy NOW!"-statements that it has lost its effectiveness by now. (Cf. e.g. "banner blindness".) OTOH, it can still be seen as as rude, joining the ranks of phrases never to use (with e.g. "Thank you for your cooperation!"). Beware that the relative mildness of the template's use is not really relevant, because it hits a spot "pre-sensitized" by the common abuse in advertizing. 88.77.179.22 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do think that you've read into it a little too deeply, but I agree that the omission of the word "now" wouldn't actually lose anything from the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
