Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/October 2018

Negative feedback

I received the following negative feedback User_talk:PopularOutcast#Ferries_in_Wellington for my edits to Ferries in Wellington. Before I respond to this editor (and I will do so on the article's talk page), I want to make sure that my edit is considered acceptable by other copy editors. I am somewhat amused because, in an attempt to keep the tone from the original writer, I was worried I hadn't gone far enough with the edits . PopularOutcast ^talk2me 09:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, your edits improved the prose in the article. I don't see what the talk page poster is talking about; you could ask for specific examples. There is room for additional minor improvement if you are willing: Check out MOS:INITIALS (W R Williams should be W. R. Williams) and MOS:BADDATE ("March, 2008" should be "March 2008"). Nice work! – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking. I am a new editor and don't have all the MOS down yet. I will make the changes you suggested.PopularOutcast ^talk2me 10:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thanks for your help. I've directed Eddaido's attention to WP:OWN. All the best, Miniapolis 13:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The objecting editor also posted on my talk page after I did some basic cleanup and copy editing on another article. I encouraged the editor to provide specific examples of edits that they saw as less than good, and so far, they have declined. I also referred the editor to WP:OWN. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geez Louise. I get it. It doesn't feel good when someone modifies something you've worked hard on but unless it violates the MOS, there's really nothing to do. Thanks for showing me that it wasn't just me.PopularOutcast ^talk2me 15:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when editors improve something that I've worked hard on. Sometimes they do the opposite, however, which is why I recommend not putting articles that you have copy-edited on your watchlist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PopularOutcast: Your copy edit looks good to me. I expect very few editors know all of the MOS. Sometimes there are multiple valid styles and we should try to be respectful of what was in the article before copy editing. An example is the choice between dmy or mdy dates; either is acceptable but you should generally retain the style first used in the article (MOS:RETAIN). Here, and this is really nit-picky, before your copy edit there was a mix of spaced en-dashes (valid) and spaced em-dashes (invalid). You replaced them all with unspaced em-dashes (valid) but I think arguably you could have used the existing valid style of spaced en-dashes throughout (MOS:DASH). I'm not sure if there's an WP:ENGVAR preference for one style in New Zealand English. On the other hand, one might rephrase the material in the lead to get rid of the dashes and simplify the sentence structure. (If a specific style issue is contested, sometimes it's easier to simplify and rephrase than to make an MOS argument, and sometimes there are good reasons to vary from the MOS guidelines.)

I'm also glad to see you're being patient with the other editor. I just finished (knock on wood) a three-month dispute after converting some lists to tables in July. (That editor also had some WP:OWN issues.) In any dispute you just have to try to be polite and discuss the edits, not the editor. If my patience runs thin, I sometimes turn to WP:LAME for some perspective. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Reidgreg: and thank you for the edits over at Ferries. Your point about en-dashes is not nit-picky to me. I had internalized that I should keep dates and spellings "localized". However, I had just been reading through MOS:DASH and was a bit too eager to try out my new knowledge. Not only that, as your edits attest, I even missed some of what I intended to correct! I need to remember to check the style manager to make sure that the current form isn't also valid. So I appreciate your point. In the end, I think the objecting editor was more concerned about rephrasing to make things clear as well as maybe the new table. I don't know because s/he did not point to a specific thing. In general, I would not do this level of copy editing on a random article unless I had greatly expanded it. I definitely came in bold with the thought that this is what the blitz is all about. Oh and I've just read a couple of entries and WP:LAME is a hoot!

@Jonesey95: That's a great idea. I think I will take these articles off of my watchlist. Do you wait until after the blitz? PopularOutcast ^talk2me 21:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't wait. I don't add the article to my watchlist at all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do the same. Occasionally I find out that my edits are being reverted (and end the copyedit; life is too short), but I've found that watchlisting articles I'm working on (past or present) is the HTH. WP is aggravating enough as it is :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm back and ready to correct the two articles as the simplest way of making my point which is the regrettable taste of some copy editors for language that I can only describe as trite, hackneyed, banal, clichéd, platitudinous, vapid, commonplace, ordinary, common, stock, conventional, stereotyped, predictable. (thanks Google) This may be an occupational hazard for copyeditors — or their reason for being copyeditors? I do not claim my choice of words to be fresh or exciting. I do claim my choice is very much nicer to read than the recent replacements — for the long list of reasons set out a line or two above. Eddaido (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be conflating single-subject prose and encyclopedic prose. Encyclopedic prose is supposed to be "flatter" than that in a single-subject book. Their purposes are different; a single-subject book intends to engage the reader, and an encyclopedia intends to impart information. I don't see any evidence that you've addressed the WP:OWN issue; anyone who's been around here long enough is philosophical about their work being changed—this is a collaborative project, after all. Miniapolis 18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddaido: Thank you for your contribution to this talk page, and thank you for the time and work that you have put into creating and expanding articles on Wikipedia. Constructive contributions are always welcome. We continue to welcome specific examples of prose improvements to these two articles, which you have yet to make or suggest. I always look forward to learning how to improve my writing and editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've just finished with Ferries. I'll watch the reactions with interest, yours too. I would like to point out, here, now, I complained about the quality of her edits to the editor concerned on her talk page. She transferred it to the article talk page and into the current situation. And talking of formulaic phrases: Thank you for your contribution to this talk page, and thank you for the time and work that you have put into creating and expanding articles on Wikipedia, obviously much more time and effort than I have. Yes, constructive contributions are always welcome. Eddaido (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: There's no situation. Discussions about articles belong on the article's talk page so I transferred the conversation there. Since I edited Ferries of Wellington in the current blitz, I came here to make sure that my edits were acceptable. If the other copy editors had objected, as you had, I was willing to revert all the changes. That is all kind of moot now since you've changed much of the text back to the original. I am not sure if you were trying to insult me or all copy editors but that was an inspired list. As you said, thank you Google! I am not interested in getting into an edit war with anyone, so I won't.
I would like to apologize to the rest of the copy editors for taking attention away from your work. As you all know, I am new to copy editing on Wikipedia. I was excited to dive in and thought I had found a new project that could use my skills. However, I am willing to step back from this project if there is a consensus. I do not want to create either more work or any trouble for the group.PopularOutcast ^talk2me 12:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PopularOutcast: I hope you won't be discouraged by this. I've had total reverts to 2 of 500+ copy edits. It's pretty rare, and just bad luck to have happened to you so soon. If you keep at it, I'm sure you'll receive more positive feedback in the future. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: Not discouraged at all. I just don't want to cause problems and take away from the work y'all are doing. I will continue to work on this blitz but I will bow out gracefully if asked.PopularOutcast^talk2me! 18:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all editors are very grateful to the GOCE for our copy edits; you have encountered a rare editor who does not fit that pattern and who, by the evidence they have presented here, would rather type insults than provide clear, specific feedback that might help us all improve our editing. My revert and negative feedback rate is about the same as Reidgreg's above. I encourage you to stick with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: To offer my thoughts on encyclopedic tone in writing, I think you are correct that it can be a bit boring. Our job is to inform the reader while being neutral toward the subject. So we can't really be witty or use clever or poetic language (aside from the occasional illustrative quotation). The Manual of Style recommends using plain English (typically of an 8–9 grade level). The way that we summarize information means writing in a manner which is simple and concise, including simple sentence structure. Overall, this does not make for terribly exciting reading, but it is intended to efficiently convey essential information about the subject in a way which is accessible to the majority of English-reading people. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]