Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2017

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

About a problem with {{

Hello everybody. Did somebody just blank the Project page? Good grief! BroVic (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@BroVic: If you look at the page history, you'll see that this has happened a few times over the years. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to suggest this or not, but I think it would be better to have an article theme for the February Blitz like there was in the August 2016 Blitz instead of getting rid of the oldest month. I think it would be more interesting, and there aren't many articles left in the March 2016 list anyways. CoolieCoolster (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Coolie; there's a discussion at

WT:GOCE/COORD. Feel free to weigh in there. All the best, Miniapolis

00:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I for one won't be participating after looking at the tl;dr discussion (although IMO narrow-gauge, a compound adjective, should be hyphenated). I'm a conscientious objector to the hyphen wars; life is too short :-). Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 14:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Following up on this, since it closed without resolution and an RFC was suggested, I'm wondering what the GOCE thinks about such things. I do get Miniapolis's point that "life is too short" to argue over details such as this, and that a lot of people may feel that way and not want to be involved. But does the GOCE have anything like copyediting guidelines, or how would copyeditors normally approach a question like when to hyphenate compounds used as adjectives? Is it a per-individual preference? Or do we generally try to provide the parsing cues that will help unfamiliar readers? Or some other strategy? Is the GOCE a place where an RFC on this would make sense? Or where? My impression is that we usually hyphenate to help the reader, and that the "narrow gauge" thing is an outlier worth fixing, but would love to hear what others think. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

We do have a page of copyediting tips, at

MOS:HYPHEN (specifically item #3, "compound modifiers"), I think Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is your best bet. There is a good explanation of the reasons behind the hyphenation of compound modifiers at English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers

.

Thanks for the how-to link. I don't immediately find a relevant section in there, but I'll keep looking.

I think

WP:HYPHEN is not a problem. But an RFC on how it applies to "narrow-gauge railway" and such seems to be needed. Most other such compounds are hyphenated already. I've read all the guides and rationales I can get my hands on, but some rail fans had their own theories about this. Dicklyon (talk

) 04:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

When there is a judgement call to be made about applying the MOS to article titles, the en.WP policy

WP:COMMONNAME applies; it says: Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). – Jonesey95 (talk

) 04:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be simple? But commonname has never been about styling. If it was, we'd add the hyphens and be done with it in this case, but some editors don't want that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As a general rule, the GOCE tries to observe the MOS but I realize that in this case it's a circular argument; the hyphen wars have been waged ad nauseum over there. Speaking only for myself, I think it's clearer (the object of the game, after all) to hyphenate compound adjectives; however, if I'm reverted I don't lose sleep over it. That's how I survive here :-). All the best, Miniapolis 16:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Very wise, and sage advice. But I do lose sleep, so I keep after it. I don't actually recall much about hyphens and MOS in the past. I remember the big to-do about dashes in 2011, which settled out rather well, I think. If anyone knows about hyphen wars, point me and I'll review. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

At

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, I have now suggested that {{Empty section}} (along with the preceding header) and {{Expand section}} should be removed after a certain time limit, mainly because they don't seem to actually result in expanded sections in the long term. Please share your thoughts there:

• WP:Templates for discussion/Time limit for Template:Empty section and Template:Expand section

Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I've commented there. All the best, Miniapolis 14:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 ... to

Thank you! I am honored. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A well-earned award. Congratulations! Tdslk (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is underway at

If I had my way, we would beam the vast majority of this encyclopedia into space like the golden record of the voyager missions (maybe leave some of the articles about war out of the transmission lol) I'm lucky to live in this time period. Now that I properly inspired you, go out and prove why the guild is and should be doing what it does. --Rpm2004 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I have added a link to the source of that phrase, which is referenced to a helpful presentation out on the web. "Clear" and "comprehensible" are not synonyms. "Clear" in this case means "unambiguous", while "comprehensible" means "understandable". Something can be unambiguous without being understandable, unfortunately, which is one reason we are here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Talk

} 17:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks man I'll go try to vote, Space missions, experiments/ventures/projects just fill me with so much hope and optimism for the future. Also I'm not sure about those words not being redundant, they are on each others' synonym list at Thesaurus.com.--Rpm2004 (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I think I'm finished with my first major ce for a request. Can someone take a look at Alexandra Stan and give me some feedback? Thanks in advance!! –gwendy (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, and I asked Cartoon network freak to leave edit summaries; yours are good. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 16:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, gwendy. Your edits are good.  – Corinne (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Corinne & Miniapolis ! I've closed out the request. – gwendy (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I just made Spell and Grammer check in Culture_of_Egypt. Kindly give your feedback for improvement. Sulthan90 (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you made a bunch of changes from British to American spelling. See

WP:ENGVAR and tell us if that was because American spellings were already more established in that article. Dicklyon (talk

) 05:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw a mixture of British and American English. The spelling for American English is mostly found throughout and So I maintained American English throughout the article. Sulthan90 (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If American English was visibly

WP:MOS Jasphetamine (talk

) 01:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I set up an April-June archive table so that editors can continue to archive their articles. I hope nobody minds. I leave the housekeeping, if any, for the January-March table for those who know. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much; my browser starts to burp if the archive gets too big :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you do when you come across an article like Tere Mere Beech? I can't understand it well enough to copy-edit it. I'm not sure there's anything salvageable there.

Thanks! – gwendy (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead section looks salvageable. I've seen much worse. The Plot section content should be moved to Cast, and looks salvageable with some judicious cutting. The Summary section is actually the Plot, and it seems too long and detailed and needs considerable work. I didn't read the whole Summary section, but taking a look at Episode 5, it looks incomprehensible and might need to be shortened to a sentence or two. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I recently copy edited the article in question without knowing that this discussion existed. Has this caused any problems related to this discussion? If so, please let me know. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Diligent work, Noah Kastin. You did not cause any trouble at all, as far as I can tell, and improved the article quite a bit. At this point, it needs attention from someone who knows the show. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Right folks, I am setting this up to run May 15 to June 30 again...with the usual Amazon vouchers up for grabs. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. All the best, Miniapolis 13:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I reviewed a DYK nomination that I think could use a second opinion. The proposed hook is:

... that Heneral Luna, a biographical film directed by Jerrold Tarog, has been regarded by Esquire Philippines as his breakthrough film?

I explained that "has been" doesn't sound correct to me and passed the hook as:

... that Heneral Luna, a biographical film directed by Jerrold Tarog, was regarded by Esquire Philippines as his breakthrough film?

I would like someone else to review this grammar issue and thought this page is the best place to find a good answer, but please write comments on the DYK nomination page: Template:Did you know nominations/Jerrold Tarog. Thanks! AHeneen (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

They're both bad solutions. You can chop out that mess and just have

"... Esquire Philippines commented that the biopic Heneral Luna was director Jerrold Tarog's breakthrough film"

Otherwise, just go with "was described by" if you're linking to an old article and you don't want to be super declarative because you aren't sure the source still holds that opinion. if it is something like... I dunno whether or not The Matrix was the Wachowski's breakout, which is a little more cut and dry, you might say "is regarded." Essentially unless Esquire magazine redacted their original statement, you don't have to use past tense describing their opinion. That said softer language will make you slightly less wrong if it turns out the source has revised their stance from the original one. Jasphetamine (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.

Please join and participate.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused by the way "Working" is currently used in response to requests. The introductory guidelines to the request page seem to imply a few things I find overall damaging to streamlined collaborative workflow. I wasn't sure which GOCE talk page to bring this up on so I stuck it here. Let me know if I fraked up by doing so.

"When you accept a request, place an indented  Working template immediately beneath the request and sign your post with four tildes so other copy editors know not to accept it."

This encourages the skimming of the requests page for untemplated requests, which is a good way for casting the widest net possible, but many pages are now way too much work for this kind of resource allocation. The speed at which article requests could be processed could drastically increase if the template would also include a rating from the initial accepting GOCE member gauging the scale of the project thus giving the  Working template not only the ability to elegantly communicate "One person job, I've got this" but also "This needs more eyeballs on it if it is going to get done before the sun dies." or "I'm pretty sure this is way above my paygrade, lets speedy reject?"

For example "Working - Additional help needed (Scale:Large)" or "Working - Additional help needed (Advisement:WAMP)" wouldn't clutter up the request page, as it is still one line of text. However, people skimming down would have at-a-glance information about the page.

I know that it could be said if you take a request page and need more help or some advice about what to do with the request we already have an established process in which an editor should go to various talk pages, or ping various people, or use yet more templates. This ping-pong approach to resource allocation is antiquated and clumsy, and could be easily streamlined.

Why is {in-use} only 24 hours? That is enough time for a short workday, short commute, short leisure time, short edits, and sleep. That is a wonderful Pleasant Valley Sunday vision of modern life but isn't very friendly to students or professionals who sometimes have to put in an 18 hour workday, or it is Friday so after work you wind up drinking and taking stimulants until 7am. Using my 6am Friday alarm clock to Sunday afternoon hangover-fade hypothesis, which I just came up with but I swear is super scientific, 60 hours would be the ideal cut-off. One way or another, 24 hours is too short. "In use" should also feature the assessment information I suggested in the previous section. "At-a-glance whenever and wherever elegant" is an ethos I think would be a net positive for GOCE.

Jasphetamine (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting ideas. I encourage you to spend some time working on one or more Requests (I do not see your name in the list of Archived requests for 2016 or 2017, but I see that you are working on one now – thank you!) to see if your suggestions are practical. In my experience, I would not want someone else working on a Requested article at the same time as me, since people's editing styles vary, and I expect that frustrating edit conflicts would be frequent enough to be bothersome. That said, any editor is welcome to ask for additional assistance with a page for any reason. I have seen it happen a few times on the requests page recently. Also, GOCE Coordinators monitor articles in "Working" status to ensure that the requests don't get too stale.

As for the {{GOCEinuse}} template, I never use it, but since nobody can "own" an article on WP, marking a somewhat busy article for much longer than a few hours could be seen as "own-y". If I am editing a "busy" article, I try to edit in small chunks in order to limit edit conflicts. You might take a look at Template talk:In use and Template:Under construction for more options. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response @Jonesey95:! First off, I suspect you're right, {{GOCEinuse}} is maybe just best left alone.

Regarding your concern: the reason I specified that the original Request accepting editor would be the one who does the initial assessment that would go into the extended "Working" template I proposed is so that an editor such as yourself would not lose any existing efficacy in your workflow. You would be able to assess your project as no help needed, say... "Working - No help needed" or whatever. Those such as myself who would rather approach a Request to fix a very long article collaboratively would simply be given a new, elegant way to invite collaboration -- at no productivity cost to editors with your work style.

As a recent example of the practicality of two people poking at the same article at once, see Talk:Sarawak Blackmane accepted the Request, I offered help, and we were able to quickly sort out where we'd be working so we didn't have conflict issues.

My last suggestion hoping to encourage more GOCE member collaboration hasn't taken off, but I've got a lot of practice at failure so hey, why not float another idea. Jasphetamine (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If it is working for you, that's excellent. Keep it up. Welcome to the party. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts you have shared here (and I had a good laugh too!). But as the saying goes – if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think this is actually an admonition to cooy-editors to be open when they have issues with their work. For instance, yesterday I zealously slapped "GOCEinuse" on a certain article, but due to the exigencies of work, here I am, 24 hours later and I am yet to get to the halfway point. What do I do? Either allow the tag to expire and retreat quietly or renew it and work harder to finish my task. After all I'm volunteering, right? (The "Working" template should have its own time frame). I think this is the only way to keep everyone motivated and to get things moving as quickly as possible. As for the Git-esque work flow? I can't imagine the horror. Bless. BroVic (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your ideas, Jasphetamine. I have sometimes been chagrined to see the "GOCE in use" tag expire, but it motivates me to get back to work. I usually copy-edit a long article in large chunks, and when I decide to take a break, I remove the "GOCE in use" tag. That way, others can edit the article while I'm taking a break. I prefer working on an article alone; if I have any questions, I ask other GOCE editors or the requester. If you prefer editing longer articles with another editor, all you have to do is ask another editor to work with you, and divide up the work. I think we should leave the tags as they are.  – Corinne (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I was editing random articles and noticed one with a {{cleanup}} tag dated January 2010. That got me to wondering - why are 'cleanup' and 'copyedit' separate projects? The cleanup project page lists page layout, wikification, spelling, grammar and typographical errors, tone, and sourcing as topics which they cover. That seems to overlap with copyedit extensively. Is this just a historical thing? Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I agree that there is a fair bit of crossover between the two tags, but I like the well-defined scope of the Guild, so I'm hesitant to have another, broader, tag under our purview. Should we ever actually eliminate the backlog, we could start an effort to reevaluate cleanup-tagged articles and see which should really be tagged for copyediting, but that would be a huge task by itself. Tdslk (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Copy editing is a subset of cleanup. Our project is challenging and busy enough without enlarging its scope. If you would like to revive Wikipedia:Cleanup, go for it! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

We have failed to clear the copyediting backlog for years on end. The last thing we need to do is to dig the hole deeper. Over the last 6 months, we have reduced the backlog by an amazing 50 articles (of 1800). Maybe someday we can expand our scope.... Lfstevens (talk)

Thanks for the answers. As I said, I was just curious about how the 2 projects differ. Copy edit as a subset of cleanup makes sense. Leschnei (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll echo Tdslk, Jonesey and Lfstevens that we're plenty busy enough, and there aren't that many active copyeditors. The cleanup project may have gone the way of

WP:VOLUNTEER. All the best, Miniapolis

14:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if there isn't a loosen the ketchup bottle effect inherent in using the current request system as a tally, if it might act as a disincentive to people who want to work on articles but know they likely can't finish them, and in a worst-case scenario give people an incentive to try to cheat the system by "Finishing" requests quickly to get a tally up, which passes the workload onto the senior people who review articles being "Finished." Jasphetamine (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think most editors who copy-edit articles at GOCE are doing so to make a contribution to the encyclopedia and not to rack up points. I also think the coordinators, particularly the lead coordinator, will soon become aware of any editor who is doing hasty but incomplete work in order to raise a tally of completed requests and can deal with him or her appropriately.  – Corinne (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what tally you are referring to, Jasphetamine. Can you explain where this tally is recorded? I don't see a system that can be "cheated". Please help me understand what you are saying. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2017 worries me because after that recent RfA had to be elevated to beuro for a controversial opinion, people might now start trying to find new and innovate ways of having a tabulated quantified tally of their contributions to Wiki. Now if the community does what it did in that RfA, which i fully supported, and said we're gonna stop obsessing over edit counts so much, it doesn't mean they won't want something counted. I can't think of a greater hill to be king of going into a next-gen RfA than of the GOCE hill. Requested, worked, guideline check, and there is a name solidly locked in a table. This is more of a thought experiment cause solved with a very practical solution. It would be quite easy to game the Request system with sandbagged articles dropped at set time and dates to be Work tagged by a stats-farmer, who tidies up a small project and finishes it. Cranks onto the next one.

That is the kinda dramatic exciting possibility. For me it is more about, once again, breaking out of a blanket GOCE wide culture of solitary c/e. The intro guide still says the reason we tag requests working is so nobody else will take them, not "So that anyone else interested would know who to ask permission to assist." Jasphetamine (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I have not perceived any such counting-focused activity here at GOCE. In fact, I have a counter-example: the editor who copy-edits the most tagged articles in our drives (many hundreds of articles, twice per year) does not record those edits on the drive pages. I don't know what motivates that editor, but it is not the glory of being counted. Similarly, the editors who copy-edit the most requests do not do so for barnstars or counting statistics or user role hats, as far as I can see. It seems that you are looking for a problem where one does not yet exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't come across as looking for problems because I like problems; I like thought experiments that help me better understand stuff. I saw stat tracking on one page, I saw that it is a single-user, that bounties happen, etc, and some bored neurons in my mind had a chat and I posted this query. Thanks for responding, I'm glad there isn't a culture of edits-for-kudos. That counter-example is really interesting. The more ya know! Jasphetamine (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Since I was advised to leave a note here, I would like to get some suggestions from you on this page. Thank you. ~ Itsused^{(Talk·Contribs)} 12:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Have you created or substantially edited pages you want us to look at? If so, please tag them with {{copy edit}}. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there an October Blitz?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Not yet. Do you have a theme idea? Tdslk (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What about GOCE requests? There's quite a backlog. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably the best idea. Let's do it next week. I'll set up the page soon unless there are objections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Tdslk (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne, Keira1996, and Miniapolis: any comments? I know that Miniapolis is not the biggest fan of blitzes, but I think there is consensus to keep doing them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I haven't gotten involved in any blitzes – I don't even know where to find them, so I don't have an opinion on whether to keep doing them or not.  – Corinne (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Corinne:. The main blitz page is here, and links to specific blitzes are posted in the announcement box when they are made. Tdslk (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sorry for inactivity lately, always here if you ping. Keira1996 06:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I never mind a requests blitz :-), but have been a bit busy IRL lately. All the best, Miniapolis 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

All set up. This is my periodic reminder to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Ombox to your Watchlist, because it is the most reliable way to learn about blitzes and drives. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Category:Old copy edit requests for League of Copyeditors still useful for this project? The category is populated by transclusions of {{LOCErequest}}, yet LOCE was marked historical in 2008 and redirected in 2009. If the category is not still useful, could we remove all transclusions of the template and delete it and the category? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Black Falcon; I just saw this today, and will get on it. All the best, Miniapolis 13:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, recently we have started a discussion in the WikiProject Volleyball talk about how should a volleyball player article look like. Can you please give us some pieces of advice, we might be doing some mistakes without even notice them. We have never take an article to GA, probably we are not going anywhere forward. Thanks in advance. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osplace (talk • contribs)

Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~).

I looked at the discussion, and it looks like you are on the right track. The Guild of Copy Editors deals primarily with prose, typically leaving the article structure intact if it conforms with basic English Wikipedia guidelines. Let us know if you have any questions about article prose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This article has been copy edited by guild members when the project was called LoCE, long time back. If we get a nice copy edit, this article goes to FA. May be as part of the blitz? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Add it to the requests page, although the odds are against its being done as part of the blitz. Other editors have been waiting a while for a copyedit, and if the article hasn't been done since the LOCE days (before my time :-)) it may need a fair amount of work. All the best, Miniapolis 13:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list )

--Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

WIR normally focuses on biographies, but for The World Contest all new women-related articles created in the main space in November count. So articles on women's sports or women's health issues would count. See the complete rules for more details. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The main focus is on biographies. Normally about 95% of our new articles are biographies rather than works by women, but these are also welcome.--Ipigott (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I please ask for a second opinion on this dispute. It is over a sentence which I think is a textbook

Sorry, but IMO (as a native English speaker) "evokes" is correct; it's governed not by "emotions", but by "word" (at the beginning of the sentence). For clarity, I'd change "that" to "which it" :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I get that "evokes" is correct, I just didn't at first because I was parsing it wrong. My last edit changed it to "which that evokes" and that was reverted too. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I had to look at it carefully too, and left a note on the other editor's talk page; I agree with your assessment. All the best, Miniapolis 14:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have responded at the original discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Avengers: Infinity War, there is a discussion regarding listing 29 names in a sentence. Please see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Replied there. All the best, Miniapolis 23:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 15:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Although the tool isn't particularly intuitive (at least for me :-)), I've bookmarked the page; thanks for the heads-up. All the best, Miniapolis 23:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

There is also a new preference you individually can set that renders disambiguation links as orange/gold while viewing any article pages. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 08:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I have it enabled (think it's called LinkClassifier or similar, under Gadgets), and it's useful when I copyedit. Miniapolis 14:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#RfC: Nonbinding advisory RfC concerning financial support for The Internet Archive --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on bringing the backlog below 1,000 articles for the first time! I sure appreciate GOCE participants for their help. Keep up the great work, and Happy New Year! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, AB! And thanks for providing us with fun Requests to edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Think I've started drives and blitzes in the past by copy-pasting {{GAN changes}}, but it's not working this time; everything's moving over one column for some reason. If someone else would do it (I'll try to start the graph in the meantime), I'll look at it in edit mode and figure out what I did wrong. Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 23:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)