Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2024

I signed up to CE an article from the backlog, Joyce Mojonnier, and would appreciate feedback. After reviewing some of the comments above, I think I may have done more than is required. I'm a novice, so I did do a bit more than just CE, like verifying links/citations. I spent the time trying to learn and practice using some of the wiki-concepts. So here are some specific questions I have (about the process and the edits I made):

• I added a thread to the Talk page, which I think I know isn't required; but I wanted to try out that process. There, I outlined my changes, and added a {done} tag to keep track. Question: Any feedback on those issues? (Besides the fact they are probably beyond what is meant by a basic CE.)

In fact, if it's easier to give feedback by leaving it on the article's talk page, I can check there.

• As instructed, I added the {GOCEinuse} tag before starting work; and I removed the tag for {Copy edit|for=tone} that had already been left. So some of my edits were for 'tone', which seemed to be a bit of peacocking (is that the word?) or advertising (like for the Foundation and Museum). If this is part of CE, do I just leave an appropriate comment (and take out or rephrase for NPOV)?
• I removed some material that seemed off-topic (better suited for another article); so I added a thread (actually two) on the Talk page to keep track. Q: That is required, right?
• Some of the material removed was simply not relevant (as outlined on my talkpage thread). In that case, it's just ok to leave a comment with the CE? (As I did, I think.)
• One of the comments above mentions: as a note, while copy editors may have to check sources (e.g., to discern meaning), full source reviews are usually out of our purview. But I went ahead, anyway, and checked the citations. Some had old xlinks, so I found/replaced with new. I also added some citations to material that seemed unsupported. This may be outside CE, but isn't that suggested as an alt to just tagging with {citation needed}?
• Even after editing, I think some of the material could still use better citations: so I tagged two specific spots (and added a thread to the talk page). I don't think this is a highly trafficked or controversial article; so is adding a few inline tags better than the big warning citation tag?
• Last question (I promise!): CE does include looking at the wikitext (like in hatnotes), yes? (I think that may be answered above.)

Anyway, advice and feedback would be appreciated; and let me know what to do next on this task. I'll try to look for another simple, short article in the backlog (or recent requests for GOCE attn) for my next one; but some of them seem like they need more project level revision, than just CE or TLC. (I think the advice given above was: If it's too complicated, skip it.) Thanks for your time, in advance. (And apologies for my verbosity.) — Yogabear2020 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You've done a thorough job and turned a wall of text into something that's more manageable to read. Thank you for your help.

The detailed threads such as you added to the talk page are more likely to be seen on articles where copy edits have been requested and there are likely to be interested editors to respond. They are less likely for articles that have been tagged for copy editing, where active subject-matter editors are less likely to be paying attention. Explaining yourself to others (and to yourself, which is always helpful) can be done with edit summaries alone, where you have a 500 (or is it 1,000?) character limit, and where people can more directly examine the changes via diffs. The reasons you gave for removing extraneous material seem sound to me.

Full source reviews are not required for copy editing, but any copy editing is made better by consulting sources and in doing so finding citations that could stand improvement, as well as making other improvements, such as more specific hatnotes, wiki-links, and anything else that make the article more intelligible.

As far as further improvements: I would provide some ending punctuation to the items in your bulleted list, and improve the complicated next-to-last sentence, possibly to This museum collects and displays—both online and at the physical space—video-recorded oral histories, as well as other historical memorabilia, collected from former female members of the California legislature.

Dhtwiki (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Your explanations of "source review" and using "detailed threads" was helpful. Should I just remove that whole detailed thread I first added to the talk page? But leave the others (just in case) explaining why material was removed?

For the article, I changed the next-to-last sentence as you suggested. But before adding punctuation to the list, I wonder about MOS:LISTFORMAT. Here it suggests using sentence case for list items that are "complete sentences", but not to use sentence case for "fragments" (such as the items on the JM article-list). The MOS then adds:

A list item should not end with a full stop unless it consists of a complete sentence or is the end of a list that forms one.

Can you clarify for me? Then I'll fix the list, and take the next steps to finish the CE review. Thanks again! — Yogabear2020 (Talk) 13:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Leave the talk page threads. They're fine. That article's talk page doesn't have but one other thread, and no archives.

Most lists consist of simple names, such as of people or places. Your list is more complicated, and I thought it looked barren without more punctuation, such as ending most items with semi-colons and the last with a period, as though it is a complete sentence, as follows.

These include:

• the Hazardous Medical Waste Management Act, which served as a national model for medical waste clean-up;^{[citation needed]}
• legislation to provide closed circuit television testimony for use with child witnesses involved in cases involving sexual offenses,^[1] and similar legislation for use with violent offenders to eliminate the need to transport them;
• legislation to require children's waiting rooms at courthouses, in the interest of protecting young children from unfriendly or threatening circumstances;^[2]
• and legislation requiring reflector license plates.

Dhtwiki (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that all makes sense! I followed your model, and made the changes (incl. "and" in last bullet). Per the Backlog Drive instructions, I removed {{GOCEinuse}} from article, and added {{GOCE}} to talk page. Is that right? Hope so. I'll later add completed on drive page.

Thanks very much for your help and encouragement. (And your patience.) — Yogabear2020 (Talk) 00:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's usual to fill the "user" and "date" fields when placing the GOCE template on the article talk page, which I've done for you, as well as including your hidden comment, as that might be mystifying, especially if it becomes separated from the template. Also, it's usual to have the GOCE template within the WikiProject banner shell template, if one is present, which is where I've moved yours. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. I had looked at how the editor on the previous thread had placed the tag on the Matooskie talk page; but I guess I should have looked at the GOCE page for instructions. Still learning! Thanks, again. — Yogabear2020 (Talk) 12:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am requesting the {{Big Blue Button}} template be added somewhere on the page. The template looks like a big blue button with text saying, "Click this button. Copy edit an article." I feel like this button would be useful for those who want to help with copyediting. - Master of Hedgehogs ^{(converse) (hate that hedgehog!)} 13:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, and thanks for the suggestion! It's a painless way to get started with copyediting. All the best, Miniapolis 13:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good on the project page, and I love the randomness Thanks again, The Master of Hedgehogs! All the best, Miniapolis 13:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

We have a grammar question about using commas in a sentence. We are currently editing the Israel page and have questions about comma use in regards to the below proposed sentence:

"Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

I think the two commas in the above sentence are structurally offsetting a “nonessential clause” . I think that this means a nonessential clause is something that can be removed without changing the core meaning of a sentence. Since two commas are placed around the British Mandate portion, and since that portion is grammatically removable, I think that portion is grammatically a nonessential clause. Removing the non-restrictive portion, the sentence becomes

“Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948 and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted.”

I think this is problematic because I think it gives the impression that Israel declared establishment, and the war immediately broke out. The war actually broke out the next day from an attack.

So I recommended changing to list format to avoid using nonessential elements:

“On 14 May 1948, the British terminated the Mandate, and Israel declared its establishment.”

@Makeandtoss thinks that I may be overthinking the grammar and interpretation, so this is why I am seeking clarification about the grammar and whether or not the British terminating the Mandate is being used as a nonessential element in the sentence: "Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

If it is being used non essentially, are there any suggestions on how we can improve the sentence grammar or how to rewrite the sentence?

Thank you! Wafflefrites (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The easiest path to sensibility would be to remove the second comma: Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted. Otherwise, the sentence seems muddied and perhaps run-on. Could the British "terminate" the (League of Nations?, UN?) mandate (usually mandate is granted by some other entity)? Did the war erupt on account of the end of the mandate or the establishment of Israel (I'm guessing the latter)? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Another editor/editors jumped in a proposed to use “intervened” for the Arab side so I think we will use that. The war didn’t really erupt because of the Declaration of Independence, it was an extension of a previous war, but more of a second phase that became international Wafflefrites (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If events unfolded as described in the messages above, I think the sentence is flawed. It implies that one thing caused another and that they happened on the same day. I would break it into two sentences, something like: "Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. The First Arab–Israeli War erupted the next day." – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! There are several editors working on this, and I think we are still determining consensus on the correct wording for additional details. Tagging Makeandtoss so that he is aware of the grammar/clarity best practices on the sentence @Makeandtoss (see above suggestion about breaking up the sentence) Wafflefrites (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello all, just FYI I created an updated version of the chart, with only the data since 2020. On the topic, I was wondering if anyone has an explanation for the macro trends in the data (steady decline 2013–2020, near-zero in 2020, steep rise 2021–2022, slower rise 2023). Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I think that once the goal of reducing the backlog and requests as much as was attained in 2020, maintaining that reduction doesn't have the same excitement. We could also take steps to lessen the speed to which our workload is added to, such as limiting requests to one, not two, open articles per requester, or, after a quick perusal, peremptorily removing {{copy edit}} templates from articles that need such care less than others. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You know that Margaret Mead quote about a few people making a big difference? I think it's true here, except it might be just two people in our case. We had one editor who was intensely focused on clearing short articles from the backlog in the late 2010s, and while they are still quietly one of our most active copy editors, they are no longer copy-editing many hundreds of articles per drive. In 2021, we also lost a prolific copy editor who worked on Requests and backlog articles at a high rate. I don't know if there is a way to do a robust analysis, but my gut sense is that the decrease in copy-editing activity from those two editors is the primary reason for the change in the direction of the backlog.

It has been my experience as a wikignome in many maintenance areas of Wikipedia that often just one or two people are keeping a particular backlog from getting out of control. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

As some of you may know, I generally clear out the 150-200 shortest articles on every drive. I don't list them on the drive page, because it becomes too bloated. That number approximately matches the backlog reduction for each drive. I will not be doing that for the May drive. I encourage any/all of you to take on that task. (I hate it when a drive doesn't provide a net backlog reduction.) Thanks and good editing! Lfstevens (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and for your hard work. Do you have a way of finding the shorter articles, eg a petscan query? Wracking ^talk! 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of some of your efforts being only nominally recorded on the drive pages. When you say "bloated", would it be discouraging for others to be aware of your productivity, or could it be an example for the rest of us to do more? I'd be sorry to see your efforts diminished due to discouragement. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Lfstevens, I didn't mention your name directly above, because I don't like to put people on blast, but I just want to say that I have appreciated your copy-editing work for many years now. Thank you for (tens of?) thousands of copy-edited articles. I will try to pick up some of the slack for the May drive.

Wracking and others: Here's a petscan link to all articles under 8,000 bytes, sorted by size (currently 195 articles). Picking off sentences and paragraphs tagged with Template:copy edit inline is also a quick way to shrink the backlog. Have fun! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I"m not leaving, just need a change of pace (so many villages!) You guys are awesome. Thank you so much for all your efforts. If we hang together, we can make a huge impact on the pedia. Go for it! Lfstevens (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that the article William I, Count of Nassau-Siegen has been edited. Phrases that were split with references were combined with the references. They were split because the references to the phrases were different, the reference books did not give the same information for both parts. This is no longer clear now. Furthermore, texts have been modified in such a way that they no longer correspond to what is written in the reference books. Please remove my name from the article history, so that I cannot be associated any longer with this article. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Roelof Hendrickx. You do not own any article on Wikipedia, and you cannot stop other editors from editing content which you have written. If you have specific concerns about an edit, please bring them up at Talk:William I, Count of Nassau-Siegen, or fix it yourself.

The Guild of Copy Editors has no control over the history of any article, and this is the wrong place to bring about any request in that regard. If you would like to change your username, see WP:RENAME. If you would like to leave Wikipedia forever and change your username, see WP:VANISH. Wracking ^talk! 17:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I never said that I owned that article, nor that I didn't want others to edit the article.

Bringing my concerns up on the talk page will have no effect, as the changes will never be made. I found out that it is common practise on Wikipedia to change correct into incorrect. Therefore it will useless to fix it myself, it would only lead to edit wars. That's the reason why I have no intention to contribute to Wikipedia any longer.

I don't want to change my username or vanish, as I still use Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. I'll try to find out how to get removed from the history of this article. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at the article's history. I note that you added a lot of text here, for which you might have been accorded more appreciation. However, you did seem to edit war over the fact that on Wikipedia, curly quotes and apostrophes are deprecated; and it's not unusual for editors to find fault with such enormous contributions, unless their content and style are cleared beforehand on the talk page. During their recent copy edit, User:ZyphorianNexus removed much material; apparently that led to the citations being now more vague as to what they support. I can appreciate the problem there, but haven't studied the article closely enough to determine where the fault lies. You should not worry about being held responsible for additions that are not yours; and as Wracking has indicated, it would be nigh impossible to remove your account from the edit history. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, if I'm not mistaken, there are no more articles from Jan 2023 needing copy editing. Since I'm not sure how (or if I can/am supposed to), can someone change "Help improve our oldest backlogged articles (January 2023)" in the "How you can help" section to the link to the Feb 2023 articles? Thanks. GoldRomean (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for noticing. I've made a change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Left panel, a more-or-less "hidden" page where such a change is made, being then transcluded to the page above. That's the tricky part. Any alert editor who knows how to do that can make the change. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have recently replaced, using AWB, hundreds of tautological instances of "due to health reasons" with "for heath reasons", and similarly for uses of "due to medical reasons" and "due to legal reasons". Naturally, I have excluded cases in quotations or the titles of sources.

Please consider this in your work.

Are there other, similar, phrases that need attention? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I can't think of anything else offhand, but will let you know if I do. All the best, Miniapolis 12:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andy, thank you for your work. A few misused phrases and words I often find are:

• "Due to the fact (that)" --> "Because / Because of / Due to";
• unnecessary uses of "that"... "Dave Brown told reporters that the fire was deliberately lit";
• "Impact" and "impacted (by)" where the meaning is "effect" or "affected (by)"; "The train strike has impacted thousands of travellers today".

There's probably loads more but those may keep you busy for a while. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Unfortunately, most of them cannot be handled as simple find/ replace operations in AWB. I will add those that can to my to-do list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Although my availability is limited, I'm keen to get into GOCE again. I enjoyed it last year when I had plenty of spare time. I've selected three articles from the list and two look as if they'll be easy enough to improve. Jonny Bairstow, however, could be a nightmare. It is BLP and seriously unsourced. I suspect it contains original research.

I need advice about how much I can do under the GOCE banner. I think large amounts of unsourced content should be removed, assuming I won't be able to find sources, but that would probably halve the size of the article. What do you think? Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I see that there are many "citation needed" templates at the Bairstow article, but, with 73 citations, I wouldn't call it "unsourced". It is a BLP, which requires strict adherence to being properly sourced, but I'm looking at things such as:

Bairstow played in all six England matches at the 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, though he finished with just 47 runs and a top score of 16.[citation needed][58] (while his involvement in the tournament is supported, his personal score isn't).

From 2016 to 2018, he played for Peshawar Zalmi in the Pakistan Super League.[citation needed] (his playing for the league is mentioned online, but I couldn't find the particular date range; however, this is likely to be something for which sources could be found).

You would be within your right to remove unsourced text, but I myself would rather leave in such text, as long as concerned simple scoring and didn't involve extraordinary claims, such as of scandalous behavior or being the greatest player ever. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Dhtwiki. Thanks for your advice. I'll work my way through it and see what I can do. The main problem is the 2013 to 2014 section which has no citations at all. I've been looking at a couple of sites, mainly ESPNcricinfo, which might provide some of the missing references. PearlyGigs (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Dhtwiki. Nearly two weeks later, I've finally finished this. Fortunately, it's relatively easy to find sources for someone who is currently a top sportsperson. I decided to completely rewrite it, and I've revamped the structure so as to keep all relevant material together. I think it meets B-class now but it would be good to have a thorough review done, so I've added it to WP:GAN. This is the second cricket article I've tried to improve and they were both a collection of unrelated incidents following on from each other without any structure or cohesion. I think I'll stick to football! Thanks again for your advice. PearlyGigs (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Armenian Revolutionary Federation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm not an official part of the Guild but I've attempted to participate in this month's copy editing drive. I tried to take on a meaty article in the requests section, Critical Role Productions. I've copy edited most of it but it's extremely heavy on unnecessarily long quotes from sources; is this my responsibility to fix, or should I leave quotes alone? To make this more natural would make the overall task significantly harder and basically be rewriting most of the article. Any assistance is greatly appreciated. StewdioMACK (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for your help. You don't have to be a GOCE member to participate in the drives and blitzes, but copyediting GA and FA candidates usually calls for a bit of experience. The request should be tagged as {{Working}} on the requests page to notify the requester and other potential copyeditors. I don't know what you mean by fixing quotes, since they ordinarily shouldn't be copyedited except for adding {{sic}} or similar minor fixes. FWIW, I look at an article first before deciding on a copyedit; it helps the rest of us to finish what's started. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 14:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@StewdioMACK: I'm going to mention a bit here if you do want to go further than a copyedit and rewrite some of the material. Heavy use of "unnecessarily long quotes" is not compatible with encyclopedic tone and can even run afoul of fair use. (In general, anything "unnecessary" should probably be trimmed.) You can paraphrase or partially paraphrase, or make a tighter summary of the material being quoted. In the last paragraph of Critical Role Productions § Industry expansion (2022–present), for example, there are three quotations which are all in agreement and building to the same point; they become repetitive, and the paragraph could probably be summarized in two sentences without any quotations. Since the article is intended for GAN, I'd at least mention the quotation issue to the requester. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Reidgreg. I've gone ahead and rewritten a lot of sections to reduce quote-farming, and I've added a "promotional tone" template to the top of the article. Haven't published my edit yet but will when I'm done with the copy edit. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The Campaigns team at the Wikimedia Foundation is exploring how to expand it's work on campaigns to support other kinds of collaboration. We are interested in learning from diverse editors that have experience joining and working on WikiProjects, Campaigns, and other kinds of on-wiki collaboration. We need your help:

• Take a survey about your experience with collaborations: with this Google Form
• Share examples of Collaborations or WikiProjects that have worked for you: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaigns/WikiProjects

Whatever input you bring to the two spaces will help us make better decisions about next steps beyond the current tools we support. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gordon Campbell#Requested move 18 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I have replied at the talk page. I don't see anything for the GOCE to do there. Baffle☿gab 16:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

GOCE was mentioned in it: Wikipedia_talk:Don't_use_Grammarly#Another_note. TL;DR Do we need a proper guide about the use of Grammarly on Wikipedia? Right now WP:GRAMMARLY redirect is going to a controversial user essay... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I remember the 2023 discussion where we decided that Grammarly should not be given the prominence that the GOCE had been giving it. I haven't any first-hand experience with the program, but I suspect it can be used as a spellchecker is used, in that it can serve as a check on what is being written without its reminders being taken as dispositive. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Piotrus:, I think a general guide for all AI language tools might be helpful for regular editors. I don't think that user essay is helpful in any way. My opinion of the matter of AI tools hasn't changed since my comments in the linked discussion. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 07:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a template or a small banner which I can use in the talk pages of articles to signify that I am doing this copyedit as a member of the guild when it is not from the requests page? I don't want to use the Goceinuse template as I think that is not good for large copyedits that take a lot of time and telling other editors not to edit the article during that time is probably not good TNM101 (chat) 11:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TNM101:, we don't have a smaller template, though you're welcome to make one. Use of {{GOCEinuse}} isn't restricted to articles on the requests page. You can also use it to mark the section you're editing; just add |section=yes to the code. I also find editing by (sub)section begets fewer edit conflicts. Are your edits being reverted or conflicted? I usually check the article's history and avoid ones that are being actively edited. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The GOCEinuse template belongs on the article itself, not the talk page, which itself gets Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at the end of the copy edit. GOCEinuse's injunction against other editors' editing is often ignored, if it is even seen, and it will be taken down by a bot if no one has edited in ~24 hours (the interval is apt to vary widely but should be greater than 24 hours). GOCEinuse is actually most useful in warning away other copy editors looking for another article on the backlog to edit during a drive or blitz (such a warning not being needed if one removes or comments out the copy edit tag at the beginning of the copy edit, rather than at the end). Dhtwiki (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

In the "How can you help" section, it shows that there are 0 articles in the backlog. It seems to be an error. Could someone please confirm? TNM101 (chat) 16:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, TNM101 (I think); the category was renamed. Thanks for the poke and all the best, Miniapolis 21:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In the "How can you help" section, it shows that there are 0 articles in the backlog. It seems to be an error. Could someone please confirm? TNM101 (chat) 16:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, TNM101 (I think); the category was renamed. Thanks for the poke and all the best, Miniapolis 21:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I attempted to make an SVG version of the guild logo using avaliable SVGs File:Writing Magnifying.svg. I had to try and recreate the quill so it's not quite right, as I'm pretty new with Inkscape. Feel free to edit it or make your own. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 09:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much; it's an improvement over File:Writing Magnifying.PNG. All the best, Miniapolis 14:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! I also made a bronze, silver and gold version for all the guild's awarding needs (and a topicon) Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)