Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:08, 1 November 2010

Template:FixBunching

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (Short FAs) 32 (Short FAs cont) 33 34 (Context and notability) 35 36 (new FAC/FAR delegates) 37 38 39 (alt text) 40 41 42 43 (RFC) 44 45 46 47 Archives by topic: Alt text, Citation templates (load times)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Template:FixBunching

• WT:FAC

Length of FAC pages

I'm finding many extremely long FACs-- generally line-by-line prose review and corrections, looking like what we'd expect to find at Peer review rather than at FAC. If articles need that much detailed commentary, are they ready for FAC? Would an "Oppose" with samples not work better? If extensive commentary is needed, can it be placed on the talk page associated with the FAC? It's hard for me to tell if these noms that are getting soooooo long should be closed because they are unprepared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should urge reviewers to place their quibbles either on the article talk page or on a sub page, but we are fighting human nature to some extent, as reviewers will desire to show how thorough they are. They could strike opposes once their concerns were addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That is surely a recipe to make the actual problem worse, and since people don't expect FACs to have talk pages, risks comments being duplicated, as well as making it harder for the next reviewer to work out what is going on. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall an earlier discussion about this, and Sandy, didn't you say at that time that you didn't want too much moved to the talk page because it made it harder for delegates to judge consensus? That certainly seems reasonable, but I could also see reducing the FAC to simple statements of support, oppose (specifying on which criteria), or a pointer to a talk page comment. For a reviewer I think the current system is probably slightly easier because we only deal with one article at a time; for the delegates I would have thought you'd rather have the FAC be a short summary with details on FAC talk or article talk. (And putting them on FAC talk would allow those hide/show templates we have had to ban from FAC, which could be a plus in itself.) Mike Christie (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Being readier to close is really the only way out of this, since peer review seems to be barely functioning. Perhaps if delegates had a "move to peer review" option - the FAC could still be shown on the FAC list, or not, and more time might be allowed. That is where many of these should be, & it might even revive interest in PR itself. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think reviewers would devote time to making detailed comments in the first place if they didn't think something was ready for FAC—they would already oppose with brief examples in that scenario. FAC is a lot of work, for all parties, and some comments—and indeed responses—can be lengthy, but I don't think hiding them away on the talk page is a good idea except in unusual circumstances. Better to keep them where they are, for general awareness during the review. Perhaps greater emphasis on striking resolved comments would help. PL290 (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Past experience tends to show that whenever reviewers try to do this, unless several do together, there are protests from the nom, demands for further examples & so on. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but that shouldn't stop them; it is the fact of two or more doing so that can signal to the the delegates that a valid point is being made. PL290 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not length per se that concerns me, rather 1) different reviewers use FAC differently, so it's not easy to tell if a FAC should be archived as an indication that the article wasn't ready when commentary gets very long; 2) whether reviewers are using "oppose" when warranted; and 3) whether minor nitpicky issues might be better discussed off-FAC. Particularly, reviewing every little prose niggle on FAC increases the size of the FAC and may make it less likely that other reviewers will engage. In these cases, I don't suggest using article talk, rather the talk page associated with the FAC, with a clear link placed on the FAC, to keep everything in one place. On the other hand, I also don't want to make reviewers' work harder than it already is. When I review, I also contribute to FAC length: see Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1. The difference is that, in that case, I covered sourcing, prose, MOS, comprehensive, POV etc. in the lengthy oppose-- it's the lengthy prose reviews that I wonder about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The key here seems to be different reviewers use FAC differently. Ideally that would not be the case: is there scope to tighten the wording of {{FAC-instructions}} to encourage a more uniform approach by reviewers? PL290 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I generally leave a laundry-list of comments (see WP:Featured article candidates/Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield/archive2 for example). Yes, it makes the FAC longer, but in my view it's a lot clearer to all involved to have it on the FAC itself rather than on the talkpage; it gives a clear indication to the nominator as to what I think the unresolved issues are, and it saves other people (who won't necessarily have read the talk page) from making the same points. – iridescent 18:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do that as well. I'm probably a big contributor to length on FACs where I do anything other than support immediately, and I know that I do sometimes get too deep into "prose niggles". As for the issue of using "oppose" - I tend to use it less often then most, instead using "Comments" for neutrals or when for one reason or another I don't feel able to support. I'll try being more declarative. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm with iridescent on this one. I also prefer "comments" to keep things more upbeat, recognising that closers probably recognise them as "unfinished business". Agree that a long list of items is generally a manageable one, rather than a global "prose needs alot of work" Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about inline citations

policy requiring google book links for in-line citations

Discussion

I don't know where to post this, so will post here. Is there a policy requiring google book links to be added in-line for each cite? It makes for a very messy edit window in my view. I think it's find to add the convenience link in the sources instead, but am interested in feedback on this issue. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

On balance I don't see the point of ever including Google links, as they're neither stable over time nor over the geographical location of the reader. It's easy to get to whatever Google has made available online via the isbn links in any case. Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that they're variable and not static - ever. Is this something that should be written into policy? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus; unless the article is about Google, I can't think of any circumstances when a Google link is appropriate as a citation. They give a different result depending on the reader's preferences, geographic location, and the copyright law of the user's host country, so there's no way to verify that what you're seeing as a result is what anyone else will see as a result. – iridescent 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree that "It's easy to get to whatever Google has made available online via the isbn links in any case" - it's quite a faff, and I doubt many do this. I just paste the title to new window & search. But if we are not to link we should agree on some quick shorhand way to indicate that there may be, depending on etc etc, most of the book available on line, as opposed to a two-line snippet. This is important and valuable information for those not sitting in a large university library. On the specific question one link per book should be enough, and never actually in the text. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider two clicks rather than one to be much extra "faff". Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never understood the utility of the ISBN link, and didn't know they could be used to locate online versions: can someone teach me/us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Just click on the isbn and scroll down; you'll find Google Books as the very first link. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I use them all the time. Am often disappointed to find only snippet view or no preview. As to my original question above - is there any reason to have a url for each citation/page of book throughout the text in the article? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, that's a resounding "No" from me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Not exactly! Firstly you get the "Search for book sources" which if you arrived by hitting an isbn is already filled in, & so a complete waste of time. You then scroll through various other stuff you don't need to the "Online text", where it is indeed the first link, though it isn't actually as useful as a normal google books search as it will only find that particular edition, which might not be available online when others are. The problem remains that using the format most FAs do, this is complete pot luck; you have no indication in advance whether the book might be online or not. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being dense, but I can't make anything work with the Kushner book at Tourette syndrome as an example. Could someone put up an ISBN link here to help walk us through a working example? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Johnbod: whether the book is online or not depends on several factors, as Iridescent outlined above. It is my firm belief that links to Google Books are inappropriate, as it only takes two clicks to find the book on Google without the link, assuming that you're in the same geographic location as the reader, copyright law in your country and the reader's allows it to be online, ... Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeating what I just said is not a reply! There is no need to make these assumptions, which of course may be wrong. A normal Google books search will produce a far better view of what google actually has for a particular viewer, and the best option may relate to a different isbn. What would be useful would be a generally understood shorthand to indicate that the text may be available on google books, which the reader can then pursue for themselves. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing "missing your point" with "disagreeing with your point". There is a difference, believe it or not. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Click the ISBN which takes you here. Scroll to "Online text" and click "Find this book at Google Book Search online database". That brings you directly to the book. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, cool beans (since my Kushner book is somewhere in a box). Thanks! I don't have an opinion on the larger question yet-- still uninformed since I've not known about this feature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so I use this feature; if the book is searchable I find the relevant page number. This is a static url - the specific page number urls are not. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, educate me pls-- why aren't the specific page numbers static links? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Malleus or someone more technically inclined than I can explain this. The specific page urls "shift" they move, they are not static or a permalink. What you or I in the US see may not be what Malleus or others in the UK. That's the quick explanation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The url changes depending on several factors, such as how you reached the page and your preferences. For instance, here are three links to page 2 of Kushner: . Added to which whether or not any of those links work depends on where you live. Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In any case we have no reason to assume Google Books is in itself static (what books it may show online content for, and how much of that content). A new search each time seems preferable from all points of view. PL290 (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree partially with some of things mentioned further up. First of all it seems somewhat questionable to me to exclude an otherwise accepted citation for featured articles, i. e. as long as online copies at Google Books or other digitalization project accepted in general featured article criteria has no business in excluding them. This is not question of article quality but of convenience for readers and maintenance/quality control. The most important aspect of it is that other readers and editor can verify an articles content on the spot, which for a project like WP is imho an invaluable asset. This doesn't mean of course that one has to use Google Books or other online copies for citation in featured articles, but there is no good reason for blocking it in general.

As far as Google in particular is concerned, one need to consider at least 4 different cases that need to be considered separately:

• a) no text snippet, no preview
• a) text snippet only, no preview
• b) restricted preview
• c) full preview/full online copy available for download.

b) Seems to be of questionable use, since the snippet is often incomplete and hard to read and you often have to guess/speculate what the exact content/meaning of the whole paragraph is. There you might argue a good article (and as such featured articles) should not resort to it. Authors are expected to have original source anyway and the snippet is not usable for reliable verification or additional information (as explained) above, hence it is of little to no benefits to readers or editors.

c) This is a case that may have to judged on an individual case. Obviously some restricted previews are little better than text snippet, however in other cases they provide access to large part of a book including complete chapters. In the latter case all material relevant to the WP article or at least the citation can be accessible. For instance you might have big book on roman emperors and the chapter on Tiberius is completely accessible. Now if you use that book as a reference for the WP article on Tiberius, providing a link to the chapter is beneficial to readers and editors, you can easily verify the article content and even find additional information.

d) Well that case is like any other complete digital copy and I can't really see any good reason for not providing it to other readers or editors.

Now above there was mentioned that the restriction for Google Books is probably not static, which potentially could render good restricted preview in c) useless over time. However for that we would need some facts rather than speculation. Does anybody know exactly what Google is doing here? From personal experience I'd say it seems rather rare, I'm using regularly Google Books for 3 years now and I've only noticed a very few links gone bad, that presumably worked earlier. Also d) is not affected by this, since there is no restriction.

Another issue here is that some people may view the use of a private company (Google in particular but there are others as well) as problematic and as a form of covered advertising. I agree that this is indeed problematic but in the end it comes down to a cost-benefit-analysis. Personally I can bear alittle bit of covered advertising if it comes with an important benefit for readers, editors and WP's overall quality. Also one has to be aware, that any citation/reference to commercially sold journal or book is coverted advertizing as well, i. e. it is somewhat unavoidable anyhow and the cost-benefit-analysis is the key here. Personally I'd say whenever you have have a non commercial online copy available (for instance archive.org, gutenberg, universities, public institutes & foundations, etc.) use that one, only if no other online copy is available use a commercial one like Google Books.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As I read the original question here, it's about whether they should be required on FAs (that relates to WIAFA), and it seems to me that there are good arguments that they should not, although I'm open to the idea of using them as convenience links, but I'm curious as to whether that creates a maintenance nightmare if they change over time and not all readers can see them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If the question is really only about the requirement, then I think we probably all agree. No Google Books links or other online copies are required for a featured article. However some of the opinions here prominently stated in essence "I want no google books links whatsoever" and I've already seen a reaction in a featured article (film noir), where the removal of a google book link was justified with the discussion here. Hence my longer posting to make sure we don't go overboard or that individual opinions aren't interpreted as policy. Also note that for at least a year or so we do have special template for Google Book links (Template:Google books, but there seems to others as well).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply asking about links for each citation/footnote in the text. It creates an editing nightmare. Convenience links are another issue altogether. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If you use either a template or the google link to a particular page rather than the original search string used as url by your browser then it shouldn't be that messy ( {{Google books|ID|displayed text|page=}} or ). This is not much different from any online link to a journal, newspaper or a book at archive.org or gutenberg. But in any case all agree that you don't need to use Google books, so if it bothers you personally when writing an article, just don't use it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding on your (Kmhkmh's) part; Google Books doesn't have a "full preview/full online copy available for download" setting. Each country has a different set of what material is available, and Google pings your IP to confirm where you are and what material to show you; they also restrict the total number of pageviews for each user to given books, so a book which did appear readable can suddenly vanish into "not part of the preview". Thus, something that allows you to view the full book in the US, might display in snippet view in the UK and no-preview-at-all in most European countries. (The US has far laxer copyright laws than most countries, and the legal settlement only covers US publications; France, in particular, takes a distinctly hostile view of Google's attitude towards copyright. Google's own explanation is worth reading.) The issue isn't the validity of Google Books as a source; it's whether direct links, in the knowledge that they won't work for some readers, do more good (by pointing people towards the original source) than they do harm (by annoying readers whom we point towards what will appear to them to be a broken link). – iridescent 22:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an equivalent of {{subscription required}} for Google Books links. Ucucha 22:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all thanks for the details regarding Google restricted view. Nevertheless those specific details do not really change my argument above regarding Google Books links as an important convenience feature for readers, editors and WP quality management in general. That simply reads: If a referenced text is available online at Google books for large part of our readers/editors, then a convenience link is beneficial readers and editors, it significantly speeds up proof reading/verification. It also helps to avoid potential argument about proper citation in problematic or debated articles, since most or all editor can easily consult the original source. So indeed the issue is not about validity of Google book as a source (the actual source should always the referenced book anyhow), it is about practical accessibility of sources and convenience of use for readers and editors alike--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

... which they can easily find anyway by following the ISBN link, if it's available to them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, they can't. First of all the ISBN link not that transparent to most people and second it is clearly less convenient and doesn't link you a particular page or chapter in a book. Also older books _don't_ have ISBN number.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You've given your opinion, I've given mine, and clearly we're not likely to agree any time soon. The bottom line is that that the FA criteria do not require them, and there are valid arguments against them, whether you agree with those arguments or not. Presumably you meant to say though that older books don't have ISBNs, whatever difference that might make. (The "N" at the end of ISBN stands for "number" btw.) Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I skipped the word "don't above" above. I argued at no point that the FA criteria should require them, on the contrary I stated it should be the FA criteria's business to begin with whether they are used or not. Concerning the "valid" arguments against them (their use not their requirement) are concerned, I already stated in the beginning, that it is a question weighing pros versus cons and imho the pros win out. I haven't read anything here so far, that has convinced me otherwise.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"... some of the opinions here prominently stated in essence 'I want no google books links whatsoever'". You must be looking at a different discussion to the one that I can see. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm happy to hear that you have no objections to Google Books link then?--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm unhappy that you appear to be unable to read. I have never objected to Google Book links. What I have said repeatedly is that I see no point in them. Is that clear enough for you now? Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine - problem solved.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The point of them is that, even if the link doesn't work, they convey the highly useful information that somebody, somewhere was once able to read the text online on google books. A linked isbn does not do this. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In what way is that more important information than that someone, somewhere, was able to read the actual book? You're having a laugh. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, unless your comprehension skills improve, you are just wasting people's time in these discussions. There is no question of it being more useful than the other, nor has anyone suggested that, but it helps a reader who wishes to read the source themselves, not I hope just to verify the WP text, but for "further information". Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you pay some attention to your own comprehension skills John, because they are very far from impressive. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod, I'm also not seeing your point here. If I happen upon a Google Books link that does not work (because of my geographical region, because somebody asked Google to take the content down, whatever reason), how is knowing that the user who added it then had access to it more helpful then the knowledge that the person who added a non-Google book source presumably at some point had access to the print book? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Because you can then just do a Google books search and more than likely find a link that does work. That's a very long sentence, & regurgitates some of Malleus's red herrings. No one has said anything is more useful than anything else. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. As was explained further up, Google Books' available content varies by geographic region and other factors (per Iridescent: "Each country has a different set of what material is available, and Google pings your IP to confirm where you are and what material to show you; they also restrict the total number of pageviews for each user to given books, so a book which did appear readable can suddenly vanish into "not part of the preview". Thus, something that allows you to view the full book in the US, might display in snippet view in the UK and no-preview-at-all in most European countries."). Therefore, just because one person at one point had access to the book via Google doesn't mean that I (for example) can access it via a Google search for an updated link. The original person may not even have access! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still a little unclear about whether separate page links should or should not be added inline for each footnote. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that's not a part of the FA criteria, and so the answer is No. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

All seem to agree that it is not required, so you can do as you like.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

result

Everybody agrees there is no policy requiring them nor should there be one.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion, including "should Google book links for inline citations be banned from featured articles"

Links to google books can be a useful (but optional) enhancement to verifiability of quotations and other source material: see e.g. {{Google books quote}} for a tool which has been used to this effect. Geometry guy 00:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Old thread, but I dislike links to Google books, too. More objectively, if anyone can establish that the links break on a regular basis, I'd suggest banning them. • Ling.Nut 05:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Are you referrring to page number links, or the books in general? Do links to the entire book break as well? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if they break or not – I never suspected that they break until reading this thread. I suppose that links to individual pages are more suspect than links to the book. If Iridescent is correct(and I have no reason to doubt that), I !vote Ban. • Ling.Nut 09:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Google enforces a per-user page view limit, so all Google Books links "break" after a certain number of views (which is irritating albeit understandable; Google Books is explicitly intended to "help you discover books, not read them online"). Per my previous comments, links to particular books vary according to the geolocation of your IP; pre-1923 books which appear full-view in the US will often appear in snippet view in the rest of the world, and certain things are censored in accordance to the local laws of the host country (a lot of Hitler-related stuff won't display in Germany, for instance; this tool will list which results are being blocked from Google searches in given countries). I can see both sides; it is potentially useful to indicate that a book might be available online, but it also has the potential to annoy readers if a book we describe as available leads to a blank page for readers in a different location to the author of the article. – iridescent 09:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure whether I've fallen prey to tricky Google Redirect, but the 2 pages you've linked appear to me in German and their content does not at all support what you claim. They talk about limiting the number of pages being viewed, but that cannot be understood that the link breaks for person X after viewing it Y times, it might just mean, that X might be never be able to access page Z. The latter is the behaviour I personally observed in practice. The tool you've linked compares the rresults of regular google searches in different countries/national domains, which in general irrelevant to the discussion here. How do you get it to work to compare direct google reference to a particular book and page? We need to ascertain how the template ( {{Google books|ID|displayed text|page=}} ) and the direct link to a page http://books.google.com/books?id=<id>&pg=PA<page number> ) behave if accessed in different countries or repeatedly by the samer user. As far as the template is concerned it seems to use the US Google book's view always no matter where you are. By the way de.wp seems to use a variation of that template, where you can even pick wich national Google book view it should use. As far as Google Books adjusting to national copyrights are concerned, while it might to true that some pre 1923 books might to visible in all countries, more or less all have a copyright expiration, meaning if you shift the year back somewhat, you usually can expect those books to visibile everywhere.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) As per the three links I've provided above to Google's own policy documents, they have a limited number of per-user-per-book views. That is, if the same user tries to access the same book more than a certain number of times, they'll be blocked from further access to that book. GBooks is explicitly a search engine, not a book hosting service; in their own words, "The aim of Google Books is to help you discover books and assist you with buying them or finding a copy at a local library. It's like going to a bookstore and browsing - with a Google twist." – iridescent 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. i didn't understand what you wrote. Would you repeat that again, please? . • Ling.Nut 14:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• I've encountered before what Iri mentions. I guess my question is whether any individual is likely to hit that limit when browsing an article, and whether the link to a book (not a page) can be justified anyway. Perhaps we can solve this by adding a note to the link that explains the google problem? No opinion really, just trying to understand this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

@Iridescent: You're not responding to my concrete point above nor does your link shed any light on it. So let me reiterate it. The question is about how the Google books template and the direct Google book link to page behave with regard to their accessibility. To pick a concrete example, the article on the Stolz–Cesàro theorem uses as a reference a book, where the restricted preview gives full access of the book's treatment of that theorem including a proof not given in the WP article. Now the question is simply, whether (restricted online copy, p. 85, at Google Books) or is accessible for most/many readers or not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I run into the limit issue every month - the later in the month, the more often I've accessed the book, the fewer pages are available. I order books from the library. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be separate issue using the google books interface in general. The question is really whether to 2 exact pages referenced above stay accessible (note sometimes if the page get not displayed properly at the first click you simply have to hit reload, that seems to be a web/connection issue rather than a google restriction). To my experience they do.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the question is "Is there a policy requiring google book links to be added in-line for each cite?". The answer is definitely no. – iridescent 14:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now you misread the discussion thread. This is a follow up on Ling Nut's posting, which has nothing to do with the original issue.

• The original issue was: Is there a requirement to link google books for inline citations. The answer to that one is no and everybody agrees there.
• The issue raised by ling nut (to which this thread belongs belongs): Are Google Books useful at all or should they be banned in general from (featured) articles.

And for the settling the 2nd issue, you would have to answer the exact question I asked you above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered you repeatedly, as have at least two others; there is no such thing as a stable Google Books link, and Google Books is explicitly a search engine rather than an ebook host. I wouldn't go as far as to ban them; I'd say, if someone finds them useful by all means keep them in, but the use of GBooks links should be discouraged if there's a stable alternative (Gutenberg, Archive.org etc) available, and the onus should be on whoever puts them in to deal with any issues they cause. – iridescent 15:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry you did not answer me. Nor do you actually read Google statement correctly. Google states that it restricts page access to a book (in a non-disclosed manner) and it stores user IPs over a limited time period for that. However that does not necessarily mean that Google blocks you from accessing a particular page for the nth time and even it Google would have implemented its restriction in that way, it would would be only for time period, after which you would be able to reach the same page again. In practice that means anyway that (most) other editors/readers clicking on such a Google link would be able to see it (they are most likely reading it for the first time (in a time period)). That's all we require for offering a (convenient) link for verification/additional information. That other online solutions should be preferred to Google is probably something we might all agree on as well (I stated that already in my first posting). So maybe we can close thread as well by stating that google book links can be used in (featured) articles, but that other (non commercial) online sources are preferred (if available).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • For people with Google accounts, it wouldn't need to store the IP addresses. Indeed, anyone here with a Google account can go back in their own WWW search history and find that Google Books records every book read, the individual pages viewed, and the number of times the book was viewed. It's all given right there in the "Web History" that Google displays. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Not sure what this has to do with posting/argument above. Nobody was talking about Google compiling information on its registered users, which btw. is rather common (and annoying feature) of most registration sites. The argument above was about how Google uses that data or that from IPs to determine the accessibility of a book page and period of time refers to that determination and not to whatever else Google might do with its data.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the unreliability of clicking a Google Book link and getting the actual page/info intended for use, compared with the ability of a user, given the ISBN or other unique ID and using whatever sources they have to find the book themselves, we should avoid them in all instances (save for articles talking *about* Google Books). --MASEM (t) 16:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So far we have only a claimed "unreliability", that does not match my experience (and I'm using them regularly). The notion that the isbn links contrary to the google book template is easier to use and/or more reliable strikes me rather odd.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• No, they should not be banned. For all their limitations they give the very useful information that large amounts of the book may, in fact probably are, available online, which a linked isbn does not. The isbn covers only one edition/format - the US & UK paperback & hardback editions may have 4 different isbns even in the case of a new book with a single publisher, and identical page numbers. One of these may have online text and not the other three. They are only worth adding for "preview" books, not "snippet" ones. If there is a full online text this should be added in preference, even though it is often harder to use. I favour adding a link to the search I used at the end of the entry in "References", piped as "google books", but of course there are other ways. Only one link per book should be used. Just to be super-clear, I am not opposing in any way the linking of isbns, although that should not be compulsory either. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • ISBN links are done automatically by MediaWiki. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not if you do them first! Since I always do (though god knows why), i didn't know that. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Rumors of google books links being unreliable have been greatly exaggerated. I checked a large proportion of the transclusions of {{Google books quote}} and the vast majority (over 95%) took me to the relevant page and highlighted the relevant text. The template was coded nearly 2 years ago, and several of the transclusions are nearly as old. Of course google books breaks if you try to browse many pages of the same book, but that is not the purpose of linking to it.

  The purpose of linking to individual pages of google books is to aid verifiability. In the rare cases where the link does not work, too bad, you have to go to the library to verify a claim. Without google books you would have to go to the library every single time. This is such a colossal effort that many editors favor inferior quality (borderline reliable) online sources to print sources. Conversely, linking to google books encourages greater use of more reliable published print sources, and any attempt to discourage that would be a gross retrograde step. Geometry guy 17:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Linking to Google Books encourages the use of one specific book source over all of the others, including a few others that also provide limited content on-line (such as Amazon, for example). In contrast, verifiability is actually aided by a proper citation — giving all of the relevant details of the book so that it can be found in a library via its catalogue, in an on-line book source, or in a bookshop — which doesn't require a Google Books hyperlink at all. Example: From the citation "ISBN 9781110329441 pp. 137", which I just used in discussion of Boston Gentlemen's Driving Club (AfD discussion) (I sometimes don't bother with full citations on discussion pages.), you have the exact page number and your choice of book source to use to find and access the book. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• If you've read the discussion so far you should have noticed several statements that nobody is suggesting replacing full citations with google links. This discussion is unfocussed enough already without bring that straw man up again. Personally I would only use an isbn to search for a book as a last resort for the reasons given at length above. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  I agree and would support a guideline that Google books should not be used if no ISBN is supplied. However, Google books provides vastly more content online than Amazon, and I'm not aware of any other comparable site. Finding individual pages via ones "favorite book source" (even if it is Google books) is much more time consuming than clicking on a link that takes you 95% of the time to precisely the page you want. Geometry guy 20:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's against the open-access principles of Misplaced Pages to link to anything that's not full text. I don't link to abstracts, Google books or any of the other semi-commercial sites. I wouldn't put in doi links except that the bot will do it if I don't. Use these semispam sites, but don't promote them by linking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree: linking to source material for the purposes of verifiability contradicts no open access principle, because the material being sourced is freely available in the article (hence the need to verify it after all!). Your position suggests Misplaced Pages should have nothing at all to do with commercial publishers, as they do not provide free access to the full content of the books and articles they publish. While I might be sympathetic to such a position (as an academic myself), writing articles using only open access sources is an unacceptable constraint, which would contribute relatively little towards making more human knowledge freely available. Geometry guy 19:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Is that Jim's point? Not linking to GBooks because the links may change or they do not allow full access to the articles does not mean that only open access sources be used in FAs. Or something. I don't know what this discussion is about at all. --Moni3 (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I only wanted to know whether it's required, or even necessary, to add google book links to each footnote in an article. Has to do with something I'm working on. The discussion seems to have grown a bit. I didn't mean to start a huge meta-discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The conclusion should surely be "live and let live". Linking to google books is not a requirement, nor is it disallowed. Links to google books have remained stable over 2 years (claims to the contrary without explicit evidence are misinformation: the templates provide stable links). If free content is available online, link to it directly, not via google books or any such provider. Beyond common sense like this, I also do not know what is Jim's point, so I extrapolated it to a point of view I do understand: open access to everything. That is a wonderful goal, but we do not yet live in such a world. Geometry guy 22:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
          • You haven't understood the repeatability problem at all, if you think that it's one relating to the passage of years. It's a geolocation problem. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
            • It is is a claimed geolocation problem for which we have no evidence, whether it matters much in practice or not. Much of what was said above regarding the geolocation has little or no meaning in practice for the template. For instance the fact that google searches may depend on your location is of no consequence for the template, since it does not perform a search but constructs a fixed address (based on the internal ID and the page of the scanned book). Then we have the rather general and vague statement, that Google may change the restricted or full preview depending on local copyright laws. However there are similarities between world wide copyright laws, which makes it likely that the preview for many books is likely to be identical for most or even all countries. Furthermore we no real evidence so far, regarding how often such a local difference in copyright laws is affecting such a fixed Google books link (not a search) in practice and how many of our readers/editors are affected by it. Geometry guy is completely correct in pointing out the importance of such a Google book link for verification. It brings a verification process often to several minutes from hours or even days. As long as this remains true for large part of our readers and editors it is rather useful tool for the overal quality, correctness and reliability of WP. --Kmhkmh (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
              • The problem is quite definitely real. For example, I (in the U.S.) get the full page with this link, p. 188, at Google Books, and any of our friends in England will almost certainly not get that full page. Ucucha 04:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
                • Nobody suggested the problem was not "real", the question was how big the effect in practice is and that for many links that effect simply does materialize (see for instance the example I've given above). You're particular example I can't see either btw. (I'm in Germany). Actually I'm kinda curious. What dores Google offer in the US for that link? A restricted page view or a full preview and download because it is pre 1923?--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
                • (ec) I didn't wanna put ten asterisks, but I knew if I didn't, others would come in and refactor, so whatever. Anyhow, checking in from Taiwan, I see exactly diddly squat (which means "nothing" for non-US editors) when I click that link. I see a book cover. The text appears to be unavailable. • Ling.Nut 04:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • This seems to be an US only case. However older proceedings can probably seen worldwide. Try this one for instance this one . I would be interesting to know whether in practice the distinction is mainly between US and international or whether it is completely different for every country.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

                    The geolocation problem is interesting. However, I see no reason to remove a convenience for US editors and readers simply because other editors do not always have the same convenience. Hey, no, scratch that: lets move the servers to Motherwell, and declare that Scottish copyright law applies henceforth, and that all articles without strong national ties are written in Scots. That would be fairer, no? :) Geometry guy 20:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

                    I use the template outside the US, so the links I use can be seen by much larger number of editors/readers possibly by all. I suspect that in practice we have mostly a US versus international distinction rather a completely different picture for each individual countries. I also suspect that difference between US and internal in practice mostly affects the full preview, so books that have a full preview in the US (due to being pre 1923) but are not old enough or have a still undetermined status to allow a full preview internationally. However pages and chapters which are only accessible via the restricted preview of a book are likely to offer the same restricted preview everywhere. Note that the later scenario is good enough for verification, since yu don't need to read the whole books to verify a (few) stament(s) in the article, but usually just a view pages or perhaps a chapter.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

                    See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_57#Google_book_links, where I and another user in Japan could see a limited-preview book, but two others in the UK and South Africa could not. Ucucha 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

                    interesting I can see that page as well so it cannot be a EU copyright thing, but apparently it seems to be based on individual countries. It would be interesting to know whether Google has published some detailed description of its procedure somewhere, that could potentially be used to improve the template, so that the template link would provide some information regarding its accessibility.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh pooh. I wanted to see some blood on the floor. • Ling.Nut 00:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Here you go Ling. Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• you may want to take your entertainment wishes elsewhere, outside WP that is. In case you're looking for plenty of long, pointless an rude discussion threads the usenet has plenty to offer. Or try some politics channel on irc.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The discussion was not pointless; many folks would dance with joy to see the things go poof! and disappear. However, you do seem to be personally invested in this issue. For that reason alone, I am sorry if I offended you. Good luck. • Ling.Nut 01:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    It is good to lighten up a bit in discussions from time to time. Minor style disagreements have a long history of generating heated disputes! Geometry guy 20:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there's even any dispute here; as far as I can see everyone except you (Kmhmkh) is in agreement that "they shouldn't be banned but shouldn't be required either". The only dispute is a very arcane meta-point about how much they should be encouraged. – iridescent 20:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well there have been quite a few apparent pro-banning voices above, and they do indeed often get removed at FAC, but if this discussion has clarified that "they shouldn't be banned but shouldn't be required either", that is useful. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The logical conclusion of a requirment is "Object, one of the books is on google, and you have not linked to it." Thats an argument that used to come up on "rock and roll" aricles in the old days of around 2006, if its not on the internets it dont exist. The not being able to view thing on GB is very real, and I get 'not in you country' quite a bit, with youtube also. Deeply annoying, but a fact. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you have google books link used for verification, that really works for the US, I can somewhat understand if it gets removed during a FAC (though strictly speaking imho it should not be the business FAC itsself, i.e. it simply shouldn't bother with it). However Google book links that work internationally should definitely not be removed, if they are convenience links for verification in full or restricted preview, since they are clearly beneficial for future readers.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand candidacy

User:Buggie111, the nominator of SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, has indicated on their user page that they have gone on a long wikibreak. User:White Shadows seems to be attempting to carry on the process, but if the original nominator is not able to contribute should the nomination remain open? --DavidCane (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not? If White Shadows is able to step up to the plate then good luck to him and to the nomination. All that's required is that any issues raised during the FAC are adequately dealt with by anyone who cares to deal with them. Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to know if White Shadows has access to all of the sources. Also, I haven't located a diff where White Shadows agreed to take it on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether White Shadows has access or not, so long as someone does? Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if there was some procedural step that needed to be taken for a formal amendment of the nomination. White Shadows indicated in his 12 October edit on the FAC that it was a joint nomination with Buggie111 and Parsecboy.--DavidCane (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out (it's hard to read round long colorful sigs :) I added White Shadows as a co-nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Its White Shadows' area, I think hes capable enough. Good for him. Ceoil (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In the specific, I think White Shadows is quite capable of taking it over, though I hope his RL work won't suffer on account of it (disclosure: He and I are desultorily working on getting Robert E. Lee to FA, though in both our cases it has slipped behind other work). In general (pun not intended, but gleefully noted) I do not see that it matters who does the work. If the main contributor gets indef blocked, and two IPs step up to the plate to complete the FAC, why should we care? The point is the content, not the statistic. Or, in summary, what Malleus said.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

New rule

I remember that you could only have two nominations at one time if the first had gotten a support vote. Now the rule is that you cannot have two FACs for two weeks. Why was this changed? ~EDDY ~ 22:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming I'm understanding your question correctly, the rules changed as a result of this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but why was this an issue? Was there a large-scale abuse of the old rule? It seems to be far less arbitrary. ~EDDY ~ 02:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue was too many FACs and not enough reviewers; the page Nikkimaria linked too will give you the details, if you have the patience to read through it (it's enormous). A couple of changes were made at the same time, all intended to speed up FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It does allow for conoms and occationally SandyGeorgia would ok a second article if all the concerns of the first is fixed and there is consensus to promote. Secret 00:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Condoms? Dude. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Books page links

WT:CITE#Linking to Google Books pages. RfC on whether WP:CITE should say Google Books page links are not required but are allowed in footnotes, and that editors should not go around removing them. All input welcome. SlimVirgin 20:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism issue

So, we've now had a TFA pulled as a "blatant copyvio". It seems to me it is incumbent on the FA community to come up with a way that we avoid a repetition, to the extent possible. Thoughts? I don't think "Never mind the iceberg, Full speed ahead! First officer, are those deck chairs rearranged yet?" is an option.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I saw the article linked once elsewhere; can you re-post? And I have always been a voice in the wilderness about checking for copyvio. We need designated copyvio checkers like we have for images. • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  You mean Grace Sherwood?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• But who's gonna do it? I tried spot-checking a couple articles today. Didn't find anything suspicious. It was very boring work. Thought about making a comment on the respective FAC pages, but then thought "what if I missed something, I'm gonna be the one who is blamed...." Sasata (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a muddy quagmire. On the face of it, my gut tells me that editors who plagiarize or copyvio should be blocked. We should all be responsible for what we add to articles. Checking at FAC is getting ridiculously tedious. Prose, citations, sources, now plagiarism or close paraphrasing. No one who copy edited Grace Sherwood should shoulder the blame for plagiarism, no more than FAC should for encouraging it.

Then again, blocking editors who plagiarize forces us then to try to figure out, in our system of utter dependence on source material, what close paraphrasing and plagiarism is. I try to write original professional prose in all articles, mirroring what sources say without copying or the lazyass changing subject and predicate. I hope my paraphrasing of sources is both accurate and original, but surely someone somewhere might disagree.

I don't think reviewers need another level of source checking before an article is passed. A discussion at WIAFA a year or so ago was about using large chunks of public domain sources. It was a spirited discussion--enough for me to be confident we might not ever agree on the standards for original writing here. --Moni3 (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a problem with the terminology here. Plagiarism as such is not something we oppose but just copyright violations. As long as they do not not commit a copyright violation, WP authors may plagiarize all they want.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this was a part of that WIAFA discussion: can an FA be part or whole of a public domain source verbatim? Spirited discussion... --Moni3 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that question is obviously yes. WP started as verbatim copy of public domain source (britannica) and of of course would we accept any other copy from the public domain as long as the content is good.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Before this gets too far along, I have an idea that I want to review with Moonriddengirl, but I won't be able to get to it until maybe tomorrow. In the meantime, may I suggest another priority, until we decide what to do at FAC? We need to review and at least spotcheck the TFAs before they hit the mainpage. Would any of you be able to work on that? My doggie died under disgusting circumstance, so I'm tired and upset, but if I were feeling better I'd start reviewing every FA in the TFA queue. Another thing reviewers can do now is go through each FAC and ask, "who has checked sources"? Many Supports don't indicate what has been checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) I would be happy to check for copyvio, as i always do and have caught folks out more than once, but I have lost access to journals. And i don't think we need to be assigning blame; I think we need to step up and start checking. Copyvio is a helluva lot more important than dismbigs or deadlinks or whatever. • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think we need to move ahead. We just pulled a TFA for copyvio in the full sight of the world. Sitting back and saying "Well, Sandy said she would handle it" is not going to be good enough. Besides, it's unfair to Sandy if there is a problem with her idea. This is a collective problem, and a collective responsibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I really want to defer this whole conversation of how to handle future FACs until I've reviewed my idea with Moonriddengirl and Raul and Karanacs, and then here, but I want to put the copyvio/plagiarism burden on the nominator, not the reviewers. But for now, and until we have something in place, we need to just get moving again, and deal with our current system, so can we see where we stand on FACs that are up now? Let's not go into panic mode: I want to explore this with MRG calmly, so for now, let's just see where each FAC stands, and please spotcheck TFAs in the queue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Anyone is free to check my TFA for tomorrow, United States Senate election in California, 1950. I've been working on that article almost continuously for a year and a half.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Let me get right on that. Now where did I put my copy of Richard Nixon: Rhetorical Strategist? --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think you lent that to Mattisse.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not keen on any gung-ho solutions yet. FAC is already starving for reviewers. I don't think it practical to ask folks to read the sources for an article to spot-check for plagiarism. If someone wants to do it, no doubt you'll be thought of as the plagiarism checker, just like Elcobbola is thought of as the picture dude and Ealdgyth the "what makes this a reliable source" lady. While others take these tasks on at times, not everyone jumps in to do it. I'm just really uneasy with what the actual problem is at FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying-- I want to put the burden on the nominator, not the reviewers, in the long run. But we have FACs on the page now. My idea will be to have MRG draft some info that can be used across all content review processes, and the nominator agrees they've read it and signed off on it BEFORE they nominate. But I want to explore this calmly in the right place before we go off in a million directions-- this is already on too many talk pages, and is very recent, but we need to deal with the current FACs until we have something better in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not require a test run with plagiarism/copyvio tools used at schools or university (some are afaik accessible on the web) as an entry condition for a nomination? However keep in mind we need to worry about copyvio not plagiarism.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Not all sources online, and this has all been hashed and rehashed many places already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok now I'm at loss, you want a meaningful measure or protection against copyvio but you do not want to use the appropriate tools for it?--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm at my maximum involvement level with occasionally checking 2c is correct, consistent, complete per article style; and occasionally delving into 1c issues. I suspect that copyvio checking is an ornate subeditorial specialty, and that we would need to attract and retain highly skilled subeditors. Often copyvio checking appears to be broad domain related specialist knowledge as well, which means attracting and retaining multiple highly skilled subeditors with independent areas of interest. I'm also suspecting that like citations, or much more particularly images, it requires overlapping experts to avoid burn-out and overwork. I assume (possibly incorrectly) that good 1c/2c checking restricts the possibility of plagiarism. I suspect that I am unfairly big-noting my interest in reviewing FACs though. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)