The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 May 31. Izno (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep. The consensus pretty clearly changed course following Sdkb's comment. Standardisation and maintainability - the ability to make tweaks in the future - were cited as the main reasons for this template being useful. (non-admin closure)ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero consensus for establishing an overly-specific wording for how to write the aggregate score that Rotten Tomatoes has for a film. For a few years now, there has been an egregious cookie-cutter approach where only one or two editors go around constantly to update the scores and to overwrite the existing prose into their own version. This template is an extension of that flaw. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perharps before deleting this we should have an RfC and see if there can be consensus, either for this wording, some other wording, or no specific wording. —El Millo (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments complaining about a "cookie cutter approach" suggest there is not even any consensus that consistency would be a good thing. -- 109.78.203.76 (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that discussion doesn't need to happen before deletion; even if everyone is happy with one fixed wording for this - which we shouldn't be, forcing it one way can be awkward and generally only hatnotes are homogenous, why introduce a rule for phrasing something one way only for this - there is no need for a template to produce that wording. It's a single sentence, and not typing it out will confuse editors unfamiliar with the practice (whether they're wanting to edit it or not). Does anyone use it? What's the functional purpose? Kingsif (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I still support deleting this even after the argument for keeping raised below, on the ground that that argument consists of fundamentally disagreeing with the merits of Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines point 1 without making any attempt to argue that rotten tomatoes is not normal, and is thus outside the scope of TfD. Furthermore, the suggestion about Wikidata would be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, and it makes no sense to keep templates in order to make it easier to ignore consensus. * Pppery *it has begun... 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen enough templates with article text that I question how much consensus that line has. And the Wikidata RfC established (contentiously) that there is currently too much vandalism/other problems there for it to be used in certain ways. That's very different than establishing that it will never be used in that way. ((u|Sdkb))talk 15:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stuff like that doesn't need to have its own template. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Chompy Ace 10:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. It should be noted that Template:MC and Template:MC film also exist and serve the same function. Οἶδα (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the direction this discussion is going in is a mistake on several levels. First, the existence of this template does not force any particular wording, as its use is optional, so editors are free to ignore it. If particular editors are mass-editing to insert this template against consensus, that's a behavioral issue that should be addressed on its own terms (I'm not familiar enough with the situation to comment beyond that). Second, standardization is often good. Readers become accustomed to certain aspects of Wikipedia style over time, and when articles are similar, it makes it easier to navigate unfamiliar pages because they know what to look for. Third, templating allows for optimization. When a format is applied over hundreds of pages, it becomes worthwhile to refine small details like whether to use % or "percent" that probably would never have been considered at the level of an individual page. It's particularly advantageous for sensitive areas like critical reception, as it helps us remain neutral—when this template is at an article, it's unlikely to be changed to Film did extremely well at Rotten Tomatoes, where critics gave it a very positive 68% fresh rating. Fourth, removing the template would hamper future improvement efforts. To see what I mean here, look at the example of census data at WikiProject Cities: a long time ago, a bunch of census info was added to city pages, but because it was done via copy-and-paste, rather than templates, updating and improving it turned from a relatively straightforward task into an arduous saga. The same sort of thing could happen here. For instance, it's perfectly plausible that at some point Wikidata will be able to mass-import RT scores on a regular basis. If this template exists, plugging those in to the transclusions will be easy. If not, it'll be basically impossible.Deleting a template like this is pretty irreversible—you don't have to agree with me on all of the points above, but if any of them resonate, take a pause before rushing to delete this. ((u|Sdkb))talk 20:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template dictates prose, not just scores, which would be a separate argument if that was distinct from the presentation. We are not talking about ((RT score)) templates inside sentences, which could be fine that way. However, there has never been a consensus on how to present Rotten Tomatoes prose, but a certain handful of editors keep overwriting others' versions with their own cookie-cutter non-neutral approach. This violates WP:OWN in forcing specific wording across multiple articles. It's impossible for others to be "free to ignore it" if we have lone wolves who are obsessively ready to perpetuate the wording they own everywhere. Do we even have other inline templates like this that control prose on such a massive scale? Why do you support WP:OWNership of how Wikipedia's text is presented? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a "behavioral issue" if editors replace article text with an information-equivalent template that's widely used? I don't think you'd be very successful challenging those edits on a case-by-case basis. If someone feels strongly opposed to the edits, they'll get reverted, but the default is that they'll remain. Therefore if someone objects to seeing jarring cookie-cutter article text spreading across the wiki, then the place to make that argument is absolutely here, not on a case-by-case basis. In other words, your first point isn't so much a reason to keep as it is a possible policy if the consensus ends up being keep. .froth. (talk)
Delete per Pppery, or make this transclusionless by having it auto-substitute by bot. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 14:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've never used the template, but I check out virtually every film I consider streaming, and as a reader I find the consistency of language very useful. -- Peter NYC (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete or make it subst only per above. Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
((subst only)), otherwise delete. I think it's jarring and offputting to see formulaic use of the same article text in many places. If someone's willing to do the bot work, I suggest making the template subst only. Additionally, while out of scope here, I think it would be a good idea to gauge consensus for an informal policy similar to WP:MATH: "converting from a format to another one must be done with stronger reasons than editor preference." So no replacing existing article text with ((Rotten Tomatoes prose)) unless it represents an actual improvement to the existing prose. .froth. (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as per the above points. Could switch to delete when there has been a proper discussion about repetitive text being stored in templates. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)[reply]
That was over half a decade ago and with less participants that this discussion. Maybe it is time for a new discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More info needed: How would this affect pages with the template? Even if they are changed to plain text with the exact 'cookie cutter' text, maintenence in the future may be harder. Some kind of conversion into wikidata may be desired. Despite the accusation of 'cookie cutter' text on wiki articles, I never found it distracting. There are only so many ways to describe the same event. I speculate that pushing on this point too hard will lead to questions of what cookie cutter text is okay/not okay. Similar articles in the same field tend to have similar wording in my experience. I would speculate that election results are similar for every election. To me, this is a 3-part question of "what cookie cutter text is okay across wikipedia", "what to do with Rotten Tomatoes info in film pages", and "whether or not to use a template (instead of an infobox or something else) if RT is desired". I feel the tone of the discussion thus far is too speedy given the thorniness and seeming lack of consensus on these separate questions. Anonymous-232 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rotten Tomato scores are a useful part of film articles, and it makes sense to have a standard description explaining what Rotten Tomatoes is, and to have the scores presented in a standardised way. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pppery. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or subst-only. Article text should be easy to edit. The use of a template obfuscates how to edit it and is unneeded. It is not important to have the exact same wording in every case, so long as the information is presented clearly. Editors of each individual article should decide what exact wording best flows with the article to accomplish that goal. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm persuaded by the arguments put forth by Sdkb. TompaDompa (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
replaced by ((8TeamBracket|legs=3/5/5)) and ((4RoundBracket|legs=1/1/3/5))Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Same as the other bracket templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep but possibly trim. Please feel free to continue the discussion on the template's talk page. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 20:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other than branding, I'm not sure what purpose is served by this talk page banner, which is transcluded on over 9100 pages. It doesn't make sense that drive-by tidying in 2009 should get immortalized on the talk page forever.
Template:Article history already allows WP:GOCE editors to note their contributions on the talk page (even this seems to me to be overkill). We don't need yet another stand-alone template contributing to banner blindness.
Comment: Is there some unlinked policy or guideline or previous consensus that is serving as a rationale for deletion here? Has the nominator attempted to discuss this with the very active WikiProject that uses this template? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should be discussed with GOCE first (of which I'm no longer a member/participant). For the wiki-historians out there, this is the discussion in 2008 that apparently led to me creating the template. Also a neat discussion about Recognition right below it. Legoktm (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I third this suggestion. FWIW, I am not a member of the GOCE, but believe this should be discussed with the WikiProject. --Kbabej (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been placing the template since 2014, even though I thought it somewhat overly large and garish; however, this is the first other-than-mental objection to its placement that I've seen. I agree that the importance of a major copy edit diminishes with time, although I wouldn't term the work that the GOCE does as "drive by". "Banner blindness" depends on how many other banners exist on a talk page. Some article talk pages have few or none, and the GOCE banner tends to dress up the more forlorn ones. When there is a Template:WikiProject banner shell in place—which collapses several banners, leaving more discreet notices—I have in the past placed the GOCE template there. However, the template instructions don't indicate that to be proper placement; so, I have more recently not been doing that. I agree with the others that this could benefit by input from other GOCE members, either by discussion at that project or pointing people here. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhtwiki: Though not a member of the GOCE myself, I thought it was important they were made aware of the discussion and placed it on the GOCE talk page to direct people here. --Kbabej (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a rash of such discussions recently, though I've been unable to locate a root for them. I'm involved in a discussion about Challenge series templates, though in that case the proposal was to merge them into WikiProject banners rather than deleting them. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Varieties of English talk page templates proposed to delete the ENGVAR banners on talk pages (it was withdrawn after two attempts). It seems like there's a cluster of editors who WP:DONTLIKEIT. I'm in favour of organizing the banners (WP:TALKLAYOUT) and collapsing with ((Article history)) and ((WikiProject banner shell)) (see this 2008 Signpost article). There's also the generic ((Banner holder)) to collapse a group of similar banners. When the current guidelines and template options are utilized, I don't see clutter being much of a problem. Where I see the most clutter is with the custom wall-of-text templates you sometimes see, but those are there for legal reasons and/or misuse of the article or its talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been active in the GOCE for a decade. Yeah, the tag helps to drum up much-needed business; I began editing by fixing typos and what-not, of which WP has plenty (part of the reason for our less-than-stellar reputation in mainstream media and academia). If ((Article history)) is in place I add my copyedit to that, but that's a tough tag for new editors to navigate. Banner blindness, whatever that is, is a non-issue IMO. Miniapolis 22:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; template is in regular use by the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. It functions to help readers and editors find historic GOCE copy-edits in the edit history, and also to signpost editors to the WikiProject GOCE. "Banner blindness" is not a valid reason to delete a template; templates can be collapsed if necessary.Baffle☿gab 23:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is a guideline or policy that overrides the long-standing consensus that this template is useful to the WikiProject and presumably to other editors. The nominator is welcome to propose changes to this template and how it is used at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find the template to be very useful as it informs editors (and readers in general) if an article or list has received a GOCE copy-edit and when that took place. I do not think this template significantly contributes to banner blindness. Like I already said, I think this could be useful, but I agree with Jonesey95 that I also welcome any ideas on how to update this template. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per what I've already said above and in agreement with others, that there is certainly room for further discussion to be had regarding its placement, especially in possibly being part of the "banner shell", which definitely cuts down on its intrusiveness. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that I've angered the guild! I was hoping, actually, to get more input from non-participants of the project. It seems that won't happen now. However, now that you are all here, would it be possible to make this template expiring? And would it be possible to remove dated GOCE banners that are no longer relevant? Schierbecker (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever seen, before now, anyone else complain of the template's presence? I've neither seen nor heard of such an objection. If there really is a constituency for its change or removal, it won't be scared off by a few copy editors voicing their opinions. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could probably be made to collapse by default or be given a "collapse=" parameter, which would give the option of making it less visible on busy talk pages for most readers. I do see your point about outdated templates but those of subject-focussed WikiProjects aren't usually removed when their projects become inactive. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or from an article-history perspective, GA and FA reviews can also become outdated due to article editing and changing guidelines, but we don't delete those templates or remove mention of those reviews. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Dhtwiki and Schierbecker perhaps we could move this to an RfC requesting this becomes part of the banner shell / ((Article history)). I agree it often occupies a significant space on the screen for what is usually gnomish editing that doesn't need such a prominent link. Tom (LT) (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "gnomish editing" often involves radically restructuring the article. So, it might provide a useful marker for when the article was so altered. It's useful for me to see that an article has been previously edited by the guild, and I always maintain those previous edits within the template. By itself, the template doesn't take up any more space than any other Wikiproject banner. It will work inside the banner shell, if that's necessary. It will take some doing on the guild's part to rewrite the instructions for its use. Moving such templates that are already placed outside the banner shell to within would have to include changing the template name that agrees with, I think, Battybot, who changes templates named "GOCE" to something like "Wikiproject Guild of Copy Editors", if that's not already the case, thus lighting up people's watchlists, which might cause more complaint than the presence of the guild template itself. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that BattyBot now does the opposite: it changes ((WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors)) to ((GOCE)). This was done as a workaround so that AutoWikiBrowser general fixes don't place it into the WikiProject banner shell. As copy-editing is a review process, it belongs in the Article History banner rather than WPBS. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If the article is relatively new, this banner will probably be the only 'review' banner present, and can help editors quickly find a stable or at least grammatically correct version of the article. Otherwise, this is a good placeholder until a bot comes to assemble the Article history template (which can be a bit time consuming to do manually). – Reidgreg (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the template is important for article history. As mentioned above, there's often a restructuring of the article and seeing the GOCE tag makes sense instead of digging through article history and looking at editors and what projects they're a part of to determine if it was a GOCE request. I do not think the banner contributes to banner blindness, and I haven't heard that argument before in relation to this banner. I find myself erring on inclusion rather than exclusion with info on the talk page. --Kbabej (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the very good reasons noted above. @Schierbecker: Who is going to determine whether the banner is relevant or not? Surely not a bot? Consensus - within which group? This would be a complete time waster. BTW, many GA and FA reviewers insist that an article they review be copy edited by the GOCE beforehand. The tag is an easy way to determine when and by whom this was done. This is a non-issue IMO. Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may be an argument here for making it collapsible, but I think the template helps users find previous "stable" versions of an article, and it may help drive users to the guild, which I would like to encourage. I know I would probably not know about the guild if not for that template. JarmihiGOCE (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be rewritten as an article history template, like peer review, translated, school class assignament, X-class review, etc, and not include into the project banner shell but the article history bannershell -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
67.70.27.180, copyedits can be incorporated into ((Article history)) (as I do when the tag is already there) but its syntax is pretty difficult for newer editors; it took a while for me to get the hang of it. Miniapolis 20:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(GOCE coordinator)Keep. I could've sworn there was a way to make it part of another template (like other things; maybe article history?), but that currently escapes me. I personally only add the template to the talk pages of articles that have requested a copyedit, but I don't find it to be intrusive, especially if, and I'm assuming here, they're on articles that are stuck in the Guild's backlog, where a fair amount of those articles typically don't see a lot of activity. New members are always welcome, and if that's what draws them in, so be it. Sometimes I advertise at the Teahouse, but I don't often get the opportunity there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trim. At the risk of angering the guild (which does fantastic work), I think the nominator is correct to be wary here of the potential for banner blindness, and this TfD has my moral support even though I don't think the solution is to delete. There are two situations here to consider. The first is established articles that are being copy edited on their way to greatness. In that situation, this banner should be rigorously merged into ((Article history)); I hope whatever bot task did that is still operational. The second is low-traffic articles that needed help. Those likely have a quieter talk page that isn't as much at risk for banner blindness. But still, I think it's inappropriate at any point for a project to use article talk pages as a place to advertise themselves. This isn't as bad as project banners that incorporate the entire project's to-do list, but it should be trimmed to remove 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. I don't think this would actually harm recruitment; editors are curious and often click through from a link and may decide from there to get involved. ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unusual for project talk-page templates to encourage participation. For example, at Talk:Napoleonic looting of art, which I just happened to come across recently, all of the WikiProject templates give such encouragement, the usual language being If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks., with the GOCE template being somewhat different. If we were to remove our own encouragement, we should leave the last sentence, which is meant to direct people with questions to our project page. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My view (I think expressed prior here) is that none of the project banners should have that sort of line; that you can visit the project page to join or to ask questions ought to be self-evident. That said, you do have a point about the wording here not being that far outside the norm. I think some amount of trimming coming out of this discussion is important, but I won't be too disappointed if we save the more extreme trimming for another time when it's batched with a larger overhaul of the talk page project banner system. ((u|Sdkb))talk 04:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful banner. For history purposes so editors of the GOCE project knows that the articles have been included in the project in the past.BabbaQ (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trim I fully agree with Sdkb. All I have to add is that the image size should be reduced as well. --Trialpears (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trim/Keep I don't support the full trim, but a trim down to: "A version of this article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining!", e.g. removing 2 of the 4 sentences and making the message more concise. But it's not causing much harm as it is so I'm fine with either that trim or a keep with no modifications. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 16:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything this template does is already memorialized in ((Article history)). Ergo Sum 00:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The notice of a copy edit is in the "article history" template only if the copy editor places it there, which isn't uniformly being done at the moment. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that everything which goes into ((Article history)) has it's own independent banner (including defunct projects like Template:WikiProject Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive). The templates for the independent banners are easier for editors to place, and a bot can put them all into Article history. Deleting these templates makes things more difficult for human editors, which essentially means that the data will be entered less frequently. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Reidgreg, and I wonder how many editors who are saying that ((Article history)) is an exact replacement have actually used it; its learning curve is fairly steep. With WP full of WikiProject banners, I don't understand why this one is being singled out for deletion. Miniapolis 13:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move mentions into ((Article history)) and delete. No, we don't need a template for every major change done to an article. Just merge all mentions into the Article history template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, the tag is used once per article TP (not "for every major change"). Miniapolis 13:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This template, yes, but together with all big-change templates it can add up to several. The point I am making is that all these templates including the GOCE one should be folded into Article history, we don't need one each for each process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This template is the only one under discussion here. I'm starting to see delete !votes from editors with no connection to the GOCE, possibly because they dislike it for some reason. Miniapolis 16:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template, remove from talk pages, and Remove GOCE from Articlehistory. These templates on talk serve no purpose and are only clutter. But neither does this information belong in articlehistory. GOCE is a WikiProject, nothing more, nothing less. Anyone can copyedit an article at any time, and yet if they do it on their own, they are not included in article history, and neither should GOCE copyedits be included there. Articlehistory is for steps in the evolution of the article through things like AFD and assessment processes (GA, FA, etc). There is no reason for one editors' copedits to be memorialized either on the talk page, nor in articlehistory, other than a WikiProject banner. These templates are adding pure clutter. I hope the closing admin will have to somehow factor how many of the Keeps are from GOCE members. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An entry for "WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors" is a part of the "Article history" example template, under "Peer reviews". If GOCE members find the template useful for their purposes, is that to be discounted? Dhtwiki (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be relevant how? Users of a tag generally find it beneficial, and will support its being kept in a TfD discussion. We don't need to WP:CANVASS. Miniapolis 16:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a few misapprehensions here. GOCE is an assistance and tasks WikiProject which is primarily occupied in two areas: maintenance, in working on articles tagged for ((copy edit)), and article improvement and grading, in performing requested copy edits of articles through WP:GOCER (often as a prelude towards GAN or FAC). Any editor can declare themselves a GOCE member or use its templates, just like any editor can perform a GA review. By using the template, the editor is affirming that the article meets GOCE standards (for spelling, grammar, punctuation and MOS, and prose quality relative to the article's class), just as the GA banner signifies that the article meets GA criteria. It's the same thing but with a different focus. (Should I note how large and complex the Manual of Style is, and how it includes policy-level matters like accessibility and aspects of BLP, NPOV, etc.?) Neither is a perfect system, but both are useful and beneficial. When you see a non-GOCE copyedit in the edit summaries, you're never sure what standards they are using, if they're even aware of the MOS, and may have to check the editor's userpages and editing history to get a sense of what they're doing. If you see the GOCE banner, you know that the editor is claiming that the reviewed version of the article meets specific standards. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why so many PRs and GA and FA declines (I won't use the word "fails") recommend a GOCE copyedit before (re)nominating. We're not necessarily better, but we have a standard. Some copyeditors are better than others, however, and over the years the GOCE has accumulated a group of editors with an axe to grind. Miniapolis 13:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trim, either by using the shorter text versions proposed above or by decreasing the template icon size. (I'm thinking of the not-small version of Template:Translated page.) I agree with others that it's not clear why the GOCE in particular, as an active WikiProject, should not have its own template. While WP templates do help categorize an article by content, they're primarily there to help editors direct their contributions. How is a copyediting-focused template any different? —Wingedserif (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This talkpage banner is in regular use by copyeditors, whether actual 'members' of the of the GOCE or not. This banner indicates to FA and GA reviewers if and when a comprehensive copyedit was performed. As such, it's useful even outside the GOCE. - tucoxn\talk 17:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no reason for this to be deleted unless we are deleting talkpage banners in general. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)[reply]
Trim per above, and also because the GOCE tag gives the impression to people unfamiliar with the process that the article's text will be effectively perfect. GOCE has its restrictions - from copyeditors unfamiliar with the subject or native phrasing accidentally messing up, to the fact it doesn't copyedit for style (wikistyle, yes, but they don't seem to touch flowery language from multiple GOCE copyedits I've looked at histories of) - and the resulting text may still be far from FA. It's a significant edit, especially if it's been requested, and should be noted more than general copyedits, especially because experienced users are familiar with it and so it's useful in assessment. But it takes up more room than banners for practices you could argue are inherently more important/valuable to get noted. The ideal would be to merge to article history where present, but a smaller banner would do well. It prevents banner blindness and the presumption of super-importance. Kingsif (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When doing a GA review, if there is rather a lot of copy-editing to do, I will recommend the Guild, which I feel does a good service. As part of any service on Wikipedia, rewards or recognition are part of the motivation. The Guild, understandably, have devised this template as part of that recognition and motivation system. However, though Schierbecker may have been rather blunt in their nomination, the point is taken that the template adds to the general clutter on the talkpage, which - as Reidgreg alludes to in their comment ("there seems to be a rash of such discussions recently") - is being addressed by some users - see this (where the GOCE bannmer is mentioned) and this. As such, I feel serious consideration should be done by the Guild as to how they wish to record major copy-editing activities. Should all copy-editing done by a Guild member be marked somehow? Tenryuu says they only add a Guild notice when the Guild has been requested to do a copy-edit. That's one criteria; though backlog drives, in which Guild members focus on articles tagged with ((copy edit)) should also count. The actual criteria for the Guild to make a mark to say that the copy-editing done on a particular article was worthy of notice (either permanent or temporary) should be up to the Guild to decide. Indeed, there could be separate criteria for a temporary notice (say, a copy edit of more than an hour or ten edits, but less than several days or 100 edits, for which the notice is removed by a bot after six months) or permanent (say, several days work or more than 100 edits, for which the notice stays as part of the article history). But that is for the Guild to decide. Placement of the record should also take into account that the current mood on Wikipedia is to tidy up clutter, so a decision needs to be made by the Guild as to where a notice of copy-editing should go: in the WikiProject banner or the Article history banner. I think that if the Guild wishes to keep the banner notice separate, they might encounter more problems further down the line. Dealing with it professionally now, is probably the best way forward.
In short, I am in favour of the Guild keeping a record (temporary for significant but not major edits, permanent for major edits) on the talkpage, but that the record should be compliant with the new mood of lower clutter (ie, it should be folded into either WPB or article history). As such, I agree that the current banner should be dealt with in some way so that it is not a stand alone banner - so you can put me down as a delete - but that's a delete of the existing stand alone banner, not a delete of the practice of marking significant copyedits done by the Guild. SilkTork (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trim at least - delete wouldn't upset me either. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a member of GOCE, it is really convenient as we don't need to edit the Article History template and can just copy-paste this template onto the talk page. Also, the Article History template doesn't give credit to the copyeditor, while the GOCE template does. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep. If this really needs an XFD, send it to MFD as required. Otherwise, I recommend just redirecting one to the other. Izno (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).