This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Journalism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there meant to be consistency in the way variations of "copy edit" are spelt within the body of the article? For example, there are several instances each of "copy editor" and "copyeditor". Thanks, Mondo Beer (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have tried to figure out the difference between the two. Can anyone answer my question, maybe by putting it into the Wikipedia article? I am sure I am not the only one who has that question. Cheers, 130.226.41.9 (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The spelling should match the title of the article. If you feel strongly that the article title is not spelled correctly, you can read about how to suggest a change at WP:RM. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have changed the spellings of copy edit (copyedit, copy-edit) in the article to match the title. - A Wondrous Raven (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This organisation has no article so the default assumption is that it is not wp:notable. Consequently I have removed the reference to it from this article as potentially misleading promotion. If an article about it is created, the info can be reinstated.

To be accepted, the article as minimum should say what the charter is, and how/when it came into existence, citing a (disinterested) wp:reliable source. The article would need to provide third-party evidence that its qualifications have any de facto or (preferably) de jure recognition. Any WP:conflict of interest must be declared.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have asked at talk:Proofreading#Citation needed that describes how the terms "proof-reading" and "copy-editing" have become merged in common usage if anyone can provide a citation to support my "as everybody knows" statement. Please reply there or edit that article. Thank you. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmk12 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Logan Picunko, G.O Memo, RR5786, Mandymelville.

— Assignment last updated by Logan Picunko (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The section "Differentiating from other forms of editing" has been tagged as possible LLM-generated content and it looks that way to me too. It was introduced by blocked editor User talk:Sakshi.shah123 on 18 October 2023 with this diff and cleaned up by Ehrenkater. In principle it seems reasonably accurate, the citations support what is written and - although not top quality RSs - seem inoffensive. So my inclination is to let it stand. An6 dissenting judgements? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have a dissenting judgment: AI-generated content is not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:NOLLM, unless it is "basic copyediting," which I feel like I do not have to explain on the talk page of the copyediting article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply