Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Archive 1

Alternative user box design
Addhoc 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think adding a image or symbol or the letters "UA" brings the box more in line with other user boxes. What do others think? Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this user box better as well. Smee 04:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC).
 * It is a teensy bit too tall, though... Smee 04:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC).
 * I modified the text a bit, let me know what you think at the talk page for User Unreferenced Articles. Smee 09:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006

 * This list of statistics by letter is neat. I am going to take some of the lower ones, each day, add references, and see if I can't just eliminate some of the letters from the list...  Smee 11:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
 * In other words, I'll begin to work on Y, U and V. Smee 11:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC).


 * You could add your name after the sections Y, U, and V if you wanted. Previously we have done that History and it is keeping with similar project trends  Stub Sensor.  Though I might suggest only signing up for one at a time, as other editors tend to not work claimed sections. Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but nah, for now I'll just work piecemeal as I can. If others want to chip in, no worries.  Smee 10:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

Deleting articles is wrong approach
Why are you trying to delete these articles? WP:DELETE specifically says not to. More specifically:
 * "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
 * (under Reasons for Deletion)
 * 8. Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
 * 9. All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed

Have you made good faith efforts to fix lack of references on each and every article you have subsequently PRODed or applied to have Speedy Deleted? Georgewilliamherbert 22:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First I can only answer for myself and talk to the guidelines in this project. There are two answers to your question.  Yes and No, there are a number of valid reasons to recommend articles for deletion and not all of them hinge on the validity of the article there are 75 speedy's in  Category:Speedy_deletion_templates and none of them are for lack of references.


 * No - So no I do not make a "good faith efforts to fix lack of references on each and every article you have subsequently PRODed or applied to have Speedy Deleted". If I am working this project (currently we are working on articles that have had a unreferenced on them for a year or longer} and find an article that clearly needs a db-bio or db-spam I am going to put that template on the article.  If an article that as it stands does not appear to have any hope of becoming encyclopedic and has had at template on it for a year that says in part  "Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time." I am going to be fairly liberal about applying WP:CSD and WP:V.


 * Yes - If the article appears to have any hope of becoming encyclopedic I am going to look for a reference take a look at Special:Contributions/Jeepday as of June 19, 2007 I have a pretty good record of adding references to articles. Sometimes the search for references leads a reason to put a db-copyvio or prod-nn on the article, sometimes like with Diff Jackson Lee Davis the article is savable other times it is not. As I type this  "The English-language Wikipedia currently contains 1,843,072 articles".  Having worked a lot of clean up projects I can tell you not all of them meet Wikipedia content policy.


 * Every editor is a volunteer, and I volunteer to help Wikipedia grow. We are all individuals who make different choices and occasionally we make mistakes.  The goal if this project is listed in the second paragraph of the project space Unreferenced articles, suggesting deletion of articles is not a goal, but occasionally it is requirement of our work.  I am sorry if you feel angered by this projects attempts to improve Wikipedia, but please read the statement just below the edit box that is clearly visible every time a user adds content to Wikipedia "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*."


 * Now I ask you have you Georgewilliamherbert have you included references for each and every edit you have made to Wikipedia? Every time you saw an article that had a unreferenced or verify on it did you go out and make a good faith effort to find a reference? If you have a question or concern about a particular edit, article or editor please bring it up with the editor in question and please Assume good faith on the part of editors.

Signed Jeepday (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When I first started, my approach was to post the find template on each article talk page to show what searches I had performed. Given the concerns expressed, I'll restart this approach - incidently I've still been performing the same searches - just not saving the template. Addhoc 09:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

verifiable
The wording of the edit box is the wording throughout wikipedia policy, and you are not following it here. Content must be verifiable--it must be able to be verified if challenged. It does not have to be initially verified. It is not now and it has never been acceptable to delete articles that have no references just because they have no references, nor to nominate articles for deletion on that ground alone. You need to know that it is not verifiable. There are only two ways you can say that: first, you made a good faith effort appropriate to the article and failed. The other if it is obvious from similar cases that the material is totally unverifiable. It is my experience at AfD that people who assume the second are as likely to be wrong as to be right, and that references can often be found when challenged, and could have been found had they been honestly looked for.

The goal of this project should simply be to find good references. Period. There should be another project to examine the articles for which references can not be found. In that project it should be considered whether the lack of references affect the possible notability of the subject. If so, it should be nominated for deletion. if not, it should be left alone for future work.

All WPedians will cooperate with a project having such goals. DGG 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Great post, I agree. Smee 07:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC).


 * The goal of this project is to find references for articles it has been on listed in the second paragraph of the project since the first day of the project History 16 May 2007. Currently there is another project to examine  articles for which references can not be found. In that project it is considered by the community whether the lack of references affect the possible notability of the subject. Currently the project is AfD if you have an idea for a better project that people on this project could submit article to I would welcome it. You might look to Wiktionary:Requests for verification they use  to post the message This page has been listed on the requests for verification list. (Add entry to list.) It has been suggested that this entry might not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. If evidence is not provided within a month, the disputed information will be removed. See example atnouvelle illustration as long as you look quick before they delete it, or I attempt to reference it. Jeepday (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Biographies of living persons can be nominated for deletion on grounds they are unsourced, provided they are negative in tone. Also, if after looking for sources, the article lacks non-trivial references, then it can be proposed for deletion. Otherwise agree with comments by Jeepday. Addhoc 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The approach of removing material if not sourced by a given time makes sense only if applied to material that is for some reason suspect, or controversial. There is so much dubious material in Wikipedia that it makes sense to concentrate on the worst and the most dangerous and misleading. DGG (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaints
To the people who feel the wrong approach has been taken, please be more specific where you feel a member of this project has erred. I do not know how to answer your concerns with such general complaints as above. The variety of needs of articles in his category go beyond references or deletions. This category is pretty much a catch all for problematic articles and in going through it I feel we should do whatever is necessary, not limit ourselves to looking for sources. Most of articles simply get re-tagged with a more appropriate label because they already list a reference. From what I have been seeing more articles by far have been given new references than deleted. A few articles end up in deletion like Articles for deletion/Vibrational psychology and Articles for deletion/Zinc economy (2nd nomination). Some end up in copvio (because they match an external link), tagged with ((tl|db-bio}} (or the corp version because they do not claim notability), or prod (Mostly corporate spam but some oddball stuff too). Others go to the noticeboard for WP:BLP and get nominated for deletion from there. But please be more specific if you want us to reconsider our actions. Certainly you aren't complaining about the copyvio's being deleted, but I don't know which of the various decisions you disagree with. Asking us to do nothing but search for sources is impractical. The category must be cleaned up before it is useful enough to focus on sourcing, it is backlogged for over a year and over 70,000 articles. Surely you don't believe that any 70,000 articles, have no problems besides sourcing problems. Or that editors should ignore any such problems they come across. -- Birgitte SB  09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good presentation Birgitte. Exactly what is driving this perception that this project is deleting article without references?  Nothing in the project outline supports the accusations being made.  Jeepday (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Overall we have sourced many articles and deleted very few, I'm not sure what has caused this misconception. Addhoc 09:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I finally figured out where all that was coming from -- Birgitte SB  19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the thread starts here with the comment "A Wikiproject to "eliminate unreferenced articles"?" by "Jossi Fresco" it begins with an unfair assessment of the project as an assumption. Jeepday (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted a comment at User_talk:Jossi and got a reply, it all stemmed from a misunderstanding of our goals History at User talk:Jossi, which has since been cleaned up. Jeepday (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Jooba
So here I am working Category:Articles lacking sources and I find this stub Jooba History, I look and find one reference BCC_K8 Lesson Plan.doc and do a merge and redirect to Clogging (History) and I move on. A little while later I flash back to a current AfD Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Fitzsimon where clearly the only references found so far are sourced from wikipedia History. So how do I know that the one and single reference that I found for Jooba is not sourced from Wikipedia?


 * I would ask around on the talk pages of the best contributor's at Clogging if they have any info of Jooba. As a last resort take Jooba to AFD and see if anyone shows up there with better information.  These examples are good reasons why this category should not be allowed to get backlogged to such a degree.-- Birgitte  SB  16:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:Merge -- any merge likely to be controversial should be proposed on the article talk page for 5 days--the success of this as any clean-up project is dependent on the good will of the editors. As a guide, any page being actively worked on in recent months should be discussed first. Better to discuss first, than defend it later. DGG (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Um the last non-bot edit to that article was Sept. 2006. Not even remotely being actively worked on.  I don't think you really understand the situation being discussed here by your response, but in any event it was taken care of weeks ago.-- Birgitte  SB  12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for verification
Please see: Requests for verification

A proposal designed as a process similar to prod to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.

It reads:

Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.

I would encourage your comments in that page's talk or Mailing list thread on this proposal WikiEN-l: Proposed "prod" for articles with no sources

Signed Jeepday (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just add, that I agree with Jeepday, my friendly opponent in this, it would be better there than at dozens of different places. DGG (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Album and Movie references
What are some good "reliable sources" for music and movie references? I know Wikipedia guidelines suggest against linking to a site where you can purchase something (I can't find the policy right now -- but I know I read it a few days ago..), but a lot of the time sites like Amazon and Blockbuster seem to have the most complete info for CDs and movies, and since movies and CDs don't have an ISBN, I can't just reference them by ID number, either. For now I'll keep doing what I'm doing -- just looking for feedback so I can do it better. Spazure 05:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The really good sources will not likely be online. Probably magazines from the time period of they were released, but I am not really familiar with these subjects.  I am even less certain about moives, but my roommate subscribes to a heavy-metal magazine.  I can't imagine that magazine on just heavy-metal could have much content, without detailed reviews of the newest albums released.  Variety (magazine) is a film trade magazine, but I am not sure exactly what kind of material it covers.-- Birgitte  SB  18:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never thought to check magazines for music and film info, that's a great idea! Since I'd only need it for sourcing, I'll take a look at what's already available in my local library -- I already have a few things to look up next time I go in there anyway. Spazure 04:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2006
Good news the Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 currently has only 2211 articles in it so once we finish June 2006, we should be able to make faster progress there. August 2006 also only has just over 2000 articles. Jeepday (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:SQL/Reflist
This User:SQL/Reflist is a list of articles, with tags in the article, but, no refs, reflist, reference, Unreferenced, or, tags (or, similar...) and probably no reference section. This means they have references but the references are not showing. For the most part you can probably fix them by pasting in this

==References== reflist

Or just reflist if there is already a reference section. There are something over 15,000 of them they should go pretty fast if you are looking for something to do. We are looking to get a bot built to make the fix but have not found one yet. Jeepday (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Jeepday, seems straight-forward. Rich Farmbrough, 09:23 11 September 2007 (GMT).


 * Rich would you like to build a bot and give it a test on this? If so I will work with you to problem solve it.  If so make a post at User talk:SQL/Reflist and let's see what we can get done.  Jeepday (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is done, BTW. Rich Farmbrough, 13:09 30 September 2007 (GMT).

Unreferenced to Refimprove
We have a bot to do some of the work here Bot requests. Tomorrow it should go look for references as identfied by an external link and if present change Unreferenced to Refimprove. 02:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a delay but User:^demonBot2 is working on updating right now. Seems to be going great.  additionally Smackbot is adding a reference section with a if there is a reference in the article that is not posting.  Jeepday (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There were technical difficulties when it came to the bot will not be continuing to make that changes.  I thank User:^demonBot2 for the effort on the project. Jeepday (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Onesource
This template is adding to our category here which I do not find appropriate. What do others think?-- Birgitte SB  14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also Specify which Iam definately changing.-- Birgitte SB  16:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Onesource goes to Category:Articles lacking reliable references which is the same as refimprove so that should be ok. I just looked and it seems CBM just changed Specify to Category:Articles needing more detailed references so that should be ok now. Good catch Brigitte :) Jeepday (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What we really need . ..
Is a bot that changes all the to   Or someone to rewrite the template to make the category conditional.-- Birgitte  SB  14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Try bringing it up on Template talk:Unreferenced I would support either or both. Jeepday (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am running the first, and support both. Rich Farmbrough, 15:02 15 October 2007 (GMT).

Bring the list to you
User:Viriditas brought up an idea on my talk page that sounds interesting "It would be nice if a bot could distribute a block of ten articles, say twice a week to the talk page of project members". I think this is a great idea but it has challenges in providing the most current articles to the user. I remember seeing Qxz-ads from Template:Wikipedia ads and got thinking could we build a box or template that shows 10 random articles from the oldest Category:Articles lacking sources. It could be placed on your user page and would refresh bringing up new articles every time you opened your page and/or pushed a "refresh" button. The bot is doable I think but an auto refresh from the category is going to have less articles that have already been fixed (and you can do more then 10). Thoughts? Jeepday (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Asking for help
As the quantity of articles in the June 2006 category decreases the challenge in finding references for those remaining increases.

I have attempted to gain assistance in referencing the 8 articles below by using this message on the talk page of some editors who have contributed (meaningfully) to the article and who appear to still be active Wikipedians. Jeepday (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 ==ARTICLE NAME== 

''' I see you have a history of working on the article ARTICLE NAME. I am looking at it from the project Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest unreferenced tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. ~ '''


 * Empire of Japan (foreign commerce and shipping)
 * Empire of Japan (internal politics 1914-1944) References supplied in 4 hour by a Category:Wikipedian unreferenced article patrollers
 * Fatima binte Hizam
 * Final Salute
 * Five-octave vocal range
 * George Fletcher References supplied in 1 hour 15 minutes
 * Fluvial landforms of streams Promise to look for references in 6 hours, reference provided in 5 days Diff
 * Ford Meteor References supplied in 16 minutes ask provided

overuse
In the last week or two, several dozen afds have been opened, giving the reason "unreferenced for so and so many months." They are generally being closed as rapid keeps, on the grounds that this is not a sufficient reason for deletion. As indeed it isn't -- articles can be deleted because the information can not be verified--certainly -- but not because their present status is that they not yet been verified, no matter how long they have been sitting there. There's no point in going through the work of look at the articles here unless its going to be done right--before nominating for deletion, please remember to make a try at verifying--an adequate try. This as a minimum includes G/GS/GBooks for recent things that are likely to be in google. Fo things not likely to be in google, even if highly notable & verifiable, then its a more formidable undertaking--and t he suggestion above--to ask for specialized help--is a very good one. DGG (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Invite to Reference
I just posted this invite to all the volunteers listed. Come one come all lets get this one done :) Jeepday (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

399 to go
We are almost done, Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 is down to less the 400 articles to find references for. I would like to thank you for listing yourself as a volunteer at Unreferenced articles and would like to take this opportunity to invite you to visit the project again and work on getting the last few articles referenced. We started with 5,572 and we are in the home stretch, please come and try to do a couple a day and we can finish it up in no time. Jeepday (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem articles
Starting a section for articles people are having trouble sourcing, but aren't quite ready to give up and nominate for deletion yet. If you think this is a bad idea, feel free to strike it. FCSundae ∨  ☃   (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is always good to ask for more input when you are not sure. Jeepday (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Defiants Apparently released one single, which is supposedly notable. Survived a no-consensus AfD two years ago in which the two keep voters asserted the the song was well known and on various compilations. One of these voters seems to have since left the project, and the other is an ArbCom member and is likely busy. The only reference I can find for the band or the single is this LP that it was on. I hate to delete something from the pre-Web era for not having a Web presence; does anyone have, you know, books? FCSundae  ∨  ☃   (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are number of things to consider here -
 * 1) Nobody owns (WP:OWN) an article so the status of past contributers does not really impact anything other then they may be more likely to have hard copy references to offer and  leaving a note on their talk page requesting reference is appropriate and often successful.
 * 2) There is no requirement that references be available on line, hardcopy references from published works in the local library are actually preferred. That being said Per Verifiability the burden to provide reference lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
 * 3) A prior inconclusive AfD is not a reason to keep - example Articles for deletion/Seyhan Kurt (2nd nomination), if an article is does not meet the expectations of Wikipedia it can be brought forward again. Because of the prior AfD it can't be proded and the rationale for a second AfD should be solidly based on Wikipolicy.
 * 4) While there is no specific policy requiring it, it is considered appropriate behavior in Wikipedia and in Unreferenced articles to make a reasonable good faith attempt to reference the article when an article is unreferenced.  That reasonable good faith attempt extends as far as an editor chooses to pursue it.  Some editors like User:DGG will go as far an interlibrary loan to obtain references for an article they feel strongly about.


 * The article The Defiants in particular -
 * A You are correct that the lack of online reference does not speak to the notability of this subject because of the span of activity in the 1960's
 * B Per the criteria of Unreferenced articles you could simply list the single (very poor) online reference you found, place OR and refimprove and move on; The goal of this project is to ensure that articles meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference. and your reference show the band did publish at least on song as listed in the article (which does not make it notable).
 * C If you read MUSIC and the article it appears (to me) that there are no claims of notability in the article that meets the notability expectation, additionally a search for references did not lead to anything that would suggest notablity.

Summary I personally would probably add the single reference I found, the OR and refimprove; if there was any suggestion of possible notability I would ask for reference from the primary supporters of the article in the AFD or had contributed significantly to the article previously. Failing that I would take it to WP:AFD for failing WP:N. I would also post the notice of AFD on anyones talk page that was still active in Wikipedia and had contributed significantly to the article or the first AFD. Jeepday (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, thank you for that extremely complete and helpful response. I was motivated to look around some more and finally managed to find a single book reference that at least verifies that they exist and they once recorded a Dylan cover (but nothing else). One more article down! FCSundae ∨  ☃   (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

New Focus at Unreferenced articles
The huge set of unreferenced articles from June of 2006 is finally completed. Thank you all for your contributions. The new focus at Unreferenced articles is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 which as of May 28 is only 1,322 articles and should go much quicker. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and listed themselves as a volunteer. Jeepday (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done and thank you
As you may know my bot puts most of these articles in dated categories. It is good to know that the work is actually being used even if is clearly a slow part of the project. Rich Farmbrough, 17:12 7 December 2008 (UTC).

Message from a new editor
Dear All: I have added my name to those involved in this project. If I understand it correctly you work thorough references needed for one period then when complete move onto the next. My interest is mostly Polish history especially WWII. If you are aware of Polish articles or related topics which need referencing then please feel free to e-mail, comment on my talk page or here comment here and I will try to help.

My first contribution to this project is History of Czechoslovakia which I noticed was in Articles lacking sources from August 2006. I added 17 references. Being a new editor I would like someone to confirm I can remove the tag? Some tags such as neutrality should not be removed without discussion but can I removed reference tags once I feel I have corrected? Any comments from experienced editors would be appreciated. Jniech (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly you can remove the tag, you've done a very good job. Editors can usually remove tags without discussion, but if someone complains afterwards (or the article is watched by many users) then it's often a good idea to discuss before removing things like neutrality tags. Hut 8.5 21:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the guidance. Jniech (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Icon Group International
Just a heads up for those referencing with books. Be aware of books published by Icon Group International. They create computer generated books trawled from other sources including Wikipedia. My thanks to User:Apoc2400 for letting me know about this. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That could make them circular references and inappropriate to use for referencing Wikipedia articles. Thanks for let us know. Jeepday (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further review (Philip M. Parker) confirms Wikipedia is a source for some works, when Wikipedia is used it has been properly cited. Non-Circular References in Icon books, that are from other reliable sources could be appropriate references.  General provisions of Reliable sources would apply. Jeepday (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ineed. I had tried to use Ceos: Webster’s Facts and Phrases, and User:Apoc2400 pointed out the problem to me.  The preface to the book identifies that Wikipedia as a source with [WP] noted in the entry.  I suspect all the other books from Icon would similarly note the source. -- Whpq (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that these books have been turning up in Google Books searches in the last month or so. Even where the content isn't sourced from Wikipedia it's always sourced from a web site, because it's all automatically generated from web sources, seemingly without any fact checking (see Philip M. Parker for details). Any referencing that we do should be to the original online source rather than to one of these books. Also I would point out that these are print-on-demand books that in many cases don't physically exist. I very much doubt whether anyone has forked out $495 for The 2007-2012 Outlook for Bathroom Toilet Brushes and Holders in Greater China yet, so don't expect to be able to go to your local library to verify any references to it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, these are quite annoying. I think Icon also re-publishes some old public domain books, but they are mostly automatically generated from web sites. These "Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases" show up here when people don't check the publisher before adding a book source. Despite the title, it has nothing to do with Merriam–Webster, as far as I know. About a handful of these references per week is added. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please complain to Google about these results; just as they penalize copies in their normal search, they may penalize these if enough people complain. It's very annoying when doing research, for Wikipedia or otherwise. --NE2 04:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've modified find and findsourcesnotice to exclude books published by the Icon Group. PhilKnight (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 9
The above is a bot-task under discussion concerning Category:Articles lacking sources. Comments from more people familiar with these categories might offer some insight. Birgitte SB  17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

New project
The bot has been approved, the project to manually check the articles for appropriate action is currently hosted here as Unreferenced_articles, but it needs its own project space. Any thoughts on project name?


 * Project name suggestions -
 * CiterSquad! – Quadell (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CiterSquad is sounding good to me, I checked and don't see any similar names. Jeepday (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CiterSquad- Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXI
Note that there is ongoing discussion regarding the use of SmackBot to move all of the articles which Eric9Bot categorized into Category:Articles lacking sources. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 12:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate project of WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup?
Greetings! I was wondering what the difference is between this project and the WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup. If the two projects only have subtle differences, could/should they be merged? I'm posting a similar question on that project's talk page as well. Thanks! Clifflandis (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would not be oppossed to redirecting WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup here. The major difference between the projects seem to be that Unreferenced articles has a more focused approach towards the oldest tagged articles.  JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No other comments have been received so I placed mergeto and mergefrom. Jeepday (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging Article Cleanup to here gets my vote. It has some templates which look useful. Mattg82 (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Matt do you want want to create new templates based on what is there or bring those in on merge? I can see rationale for either choice.  I posted a question about merging the templates at User_talk:WOSlinker and got a response.  11:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepdaySock (talk • contribs)
 * I moved in the project banner, I checked on the invite user banner and it has never been used so did not bring it over. The banner needs to be either moved to be converted to Unreferenced articles or it needs to redone as new work.  Both are valid options, who ever does the work can make the choice.  I don't really see anything else over there that is not here. Jeepday (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First attempt (for the moment in my user space here). Feel free to edit it as required:


 * What should we call the category it adds the talk pages to? something like Category:Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles provided with references (seems a bit of a mouthful to me)? ascidian  | talk-to-me  13:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about Category:Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles improved? Jeepday (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's much better. I've added it to the template. If no-one objects I'll move the template to Template:Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles improved and create the category.  ascidian  | talk-to-me  13:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, maybe the userbox could be copied as well as it uses a descriptive picture. Also this box adds users to a category, making a member list. I've copied the box to my sandbox page, feel free to edit it. Mattg82 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Matt you could just improve Template:User Unreferenced Articles to be more like your sandbox version which looks very good; when we built the old one none of us had a lot of skills in the area. Jeepday (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support merge - Whpq (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have completed the redirect and link clean-up in the merge, all that remains is for user:Ascidian and User:Mattg82 to finish up the templates. Jeepday (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated userbox. Are we deleting the unneeded Unreferenced articles/Userbox ? Mattg82 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Project banner now moved to Wikipedia Unreferenced articles improved, category created here and instructions updated. Example of banner in action here. Just need to figure out how the cat counter works (I've commented it out for now). We could probably delete the other userbox as nobody uses it. ascidian  | talk-to-me  15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Banner counter now put back in and working. For anyone thats interested it will only be updated once per day by Erwin85Bot at around 13:00 UTC. I've stricken my comment about the userbox as it appears that some people do use it (see here). ascidian  | talk-to-me  19:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tasks
I was thinking of adding tasks for unref BLPs & articles needing more refs, in the same vein as unref articles, focusing on the oldest tagged articles. The smaller numbers involved means they are easier targets to achieve. I think it could bring in more contributors if there is more tasks to do, I was wondering what anyone thinks of this idea. Thanks Mattg82 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. Maybe put them in decending order of priorty?
 * unreferenced BLPs
 * Articles lacking sources
 * Articles needing additional references
 * I resorted the progress templates to match. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, good. I'll make the first task blps with the other two, second and third. Mattg82 (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 130s BC
An article that you have been involved in editing, 130s BC, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jeepday (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles needing additional references–not counting properly
Articles needing additional references category/template seems to miss out some articles from the total count, even though they are visible in the category. For instance Category:Articles needing additional references from June 2006 has atm 373 articles but only counts to 361. I'm guessing that some articles which have the |section option included in the tag are not been included in the total.

Does anybody know fix this? Mattg82 (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just looked and both the template and the category are reporting 362 articles. I have noticed in the past that count of article listed at the top of the category page is not always correct.  Why might a category list not be up to date?.  I have also noticed that I can see diferent counts on different computers and different counts then others are currently seeing.  As a rule when there is conflict on a category that should be getting smaller the smallest number visable is usually correct. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, though I think in this instance its more than updating in a timely fashion or different computers. There is 373 articles, they are visible in the category. I also loaded the Category into AWB and that correctly counts 373. Mattg82 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Single sources?
Is adding a single source and leaving the rest of the article unsourced and unedited good practice? Why not take the opportunity to source it properly, rather than superficial sourcing efforts? I fear this project is just an exercise in removing articles from categories, not in proper sourcing. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer listed on the project page is


 * The goal of this project is to ensure that articles meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference. The project WikiProject Fact and Reference Check has a bolder purpose "nothing less than having facts in Wikipedia verified by multiple independent sources to make it the most authoritative source of information in the world."


 * The rationale is that completely unreferenced article are at the most risk of content issues and can often benefit greatly by a light review and single reference addition by an experienced editor, which is the goal of the project. There is no restriction to only add a single reference, but that is the minimum expected.  Generally a single reference is insufficient for anything more then a stub article, so for my part I generally move them to Category:Articles needing additional references through a header template or fact as appropriate.  Additionally probably 10% of articles in Category:Articles lacking sources are ultimately deleted through the WP:PROD or WP:AFD process. If this does not address all of your question, let me know what needs more clarification. Jeepday (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that as it is stated the goal is flawed. The minimum suggests that editors who include a single reference (probably the top hit on Google News or Google Books) are doing something useful, whereas in fact they are doing little to properly verify the facts of the article and nothing to remove unverifiable material. Superficial efforts are the bane of Wikipedia: working according to the minimum goal of this project is akin to busy work. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion and welcome to expand on any article. Each person is the project makes their own decision on how to spend their volunteer time. You can make many improvements to one article, one improvement to many articles, or some place in between. But going to a project page and insinuate that volunteers are wasting their time is akin to trolling.  Thank you Jeepday (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree that myself or others could add more sources and cleanup articles, saying that the improvements are "Superficial efforts" and "busy work" is really unhelpful. As Jeepday says, anyone can do as much or as little as they like. Perhaps the goal could be re-worded/expanded but if editors only wish to add one reference then they are entitled to do that.


 * Besides we also have a task for articles which need more references, which you are welcome to go through. Mattg82 (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As the basis for the growth of articles is improvement over time from the efforts of multiple contributors, to say that adding one reference to an unreferenced article is busy work is viewing things from a very narrow perspective. There is no doubt that providing complete referencing would be ideal.  But the addition of a single reference is still a step towards that goal.  Fully referencing an article that one didn't start isn't an easy task.  For example, Tony Fernández took quite some time to reference.  And that's for an all-star baseball player, a sport which has a trmendous amount of coverage.  I've worked on Diane Jones-Konihowski which still isn't completely referenced.  I've taken a couple of swipes at it.  I'd say that despite still needing more work, each addition of referencing is an improvement. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose calling me a troll is a useful response? Just because I upset you doesn't mean that what I say is invalid, and I stand by what I said. Sure, you're all volunteers, but volunteering to improve Wikipedia in such a manner is hardly the best use of your time. Editors are entitled to paste in the top result from a search of Google News or Google Books (yes, Mattg82, I'm talking about you), but I'm also entitled to criticise this behaviour. Don't be so precious. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * while fully referenced is a better long term "goal", moving from "unreferenced" to "needs more references" is significant progress. the beauty of the wiki is the compounding of the spoonfuls. from each according to their abilities, inclinations. i would suggest a RefCup where we can reward editors who add references. Accotink2  talk 16:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

How about adding this to the goal.

Mattg82 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)