Template talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 18 May 2021, see discussion.
No consensus, 22 May 2010, see discussion.

Banner location

Is this placed on the talk page or the article itself? IdTakeABulletForYou (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It goes on the talk page.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 06:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oldid Diff

Hello. I feel it would be helpful for the GOCE template to show the version of the article where the GOCE editor closed their editing session. Also, what about documenting the collapsed= parameter? Is it enabled? (courtesy ping to: Garrettw87) – Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:template for discussion|help=off}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Schierbecker (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Elli (talk | contribs) 08:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the banner

With the recent discussion about the template, there has been a significant number of interested editors who have suggested a trim. The template, as of starting this discussion, is:

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

	A version of this article was copy edited by User:Example, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29 May 2021. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Proposal: I think we can afford to remove a sentence or two—possibly the ones in the middle—and edit the main page of the GOCE to welcome interested users. That way the important information—that the Guild had copyedited it, which member, and on what date—remains, and with the amount of space removed, we can reduce the size of the icon on the left. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I'd remove the second and fourth sentences (leaving the encouragement to join). All the best, Miniapolis 23:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also options for "previous copyedits", which I propose removing. I suspect they don't get much use, and they presumably make the template bigger. If previous copy edits are significant, they can probably go in article history, or someone can dig into the Requests archive, which is our canonical source of Requests history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The options for previous copyedits are preemptively collapsed, so interested users would have to click on the "show" link to view them. Spatially speaking the only difference if those are used while the banner is collapsed would be a one-liner that says Previous copyedits: with the "show" link. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer keeping the previous copyedits as stable snapshots of the article, but it would be preferable to migrate them into Article history. Maybe we could try putting the line with the show box in smaller text, unbolded? – Reidgreg (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the second and fourth sentences could be trimmed. I'd prefer keeping a link to the MOS somewhere. There might be some redundancy with "A version of this article" and the date. I think the text is there in case the |date= parameter is empty. Most of the similar templates will link the date/version/reviewed version text to an oldid of the article – not that we want to make things any more complicated. Another concern I have is how to supplement the text with appropriate links. Is there something we could link copy edited to, akin to the GA criteria, to give a sense of what was done? There's WP:Basic copyediting, WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to, possibly some others. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a bit about how to manually enter this data into {{Article history}} at WP:GOCE/T. Although it's a bit decentralized, it saves having to wade through the extensive documentation at Article history for the parameters. Should that be included (in it's own section) in the template documentation here? – Reidgreg (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would change the erroneous first sentence, as one often edits several versions over a span of several dates. I would move the fourth sentence up, because it seems to be directed at people who have questions about the copy edit, and change it to make that clear. The invitational second and third sentences could be condensed into one that would leave out what is required to be a copy editor (e.g., "a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines") and merely direct interested editors to a relevant guild page. Then I would ask the technically minded to investigate the possibility of employing the self-collapsing function that seems inherent in the template mechanism, which would be triggered when there is a number of other templates present, and using parsing functions to collapse the template after sufficient time has elapsed since the copy edit took place. I would keep the old-copy-edit parameters (I use them), which don't display unless filled in. Keeping such information in the article-history template makes sense. However, that perhaps would require explaining how to use such techniques as inserting oldid version numbers, if you're going to make an accurate and complete entry. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the second and fourth sentences. Is there an easy way to make the banner narrower then? Or is that opening another "can of worms" because of inconsistency? Not that it needs saying, but none of this has any impact on WPs users. I say KIS and move on. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer keeping the previous copyedits but removing the third and fourth sentences. The GOCE project page is wikilinked in the first sentence and it's obvious how to get to the project's talk page from there. Removing the last two sentences makes the template a line shorter, which is a reduction of 25%. That should be an adequate trim. - tucoxn\^talk 14:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once we decide on how the text should read, someone a template editor can change the template's MAIN_TEXT parameter accordingly. The image can be reduced via the IMAGE_LEFT_SIZE parameter (e.g. set to "40px", or half size). See here for a recent experiment. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so looking at what everyone's been saying, it seems like the first sentence is mostly fine (a suggestion to change it was made by Dhtwiki), and the second and fourth sentences should be removed or trimmed. How about this?

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

	This article was copy edited by User:Example, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29 May 2021. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining!.

I also reduced the size of the image so that it stretches the divbox less. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not looking to have a self-collapsing template, then we should do away with the sentence about joining, which forces the template to have two lines and now seems somehow too greedily proselytizing without the other sentences to camouflage it. The first sentence has the link to the project page, and those who are curious will know where to look. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we wikilink copy edited to the article copy editing? I haven't found a better alternative, with the project-space link redirecting to Wikipedia:basic copyediting. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to that article sounds fine to me. There are two links in the old template that we don't have in this proposed version. One is to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which copy editors should become acquainted with gradually but probably isn't a great first introduction to copy editing. The other is to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, where people were invited to ask questions regarding the copy edit just marked. However, such questioning usually involves Requests and takes place there or on the involved editors' talk pages. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the banner is intended for a general audience (who might not be interested in the intricacies of copy editing), I don't think we need a link to the MOS. We could remove the sentence on invitation, and supplant it on the main GOCE page. Linking copy edited to copy editing sounds good to me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove `|small=`

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to the notes generated by WPBannerMeta, "This template is passing the |small= parameter which is now obsolete. Please remove this parameter and update template documentation accordingly." I have removed it from the documentation, but could a template editor remove it from the template itself? Thanks! --rchard2scout (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]