Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Archive 2

BLP articles lacking sources
This category seems to have been forgotten. I think we should have this as a task as well but as you can see there are no month by month sub-categories. I'm not 100% sure on how to create the sub-categories to make this task workable atm. Mattg82 (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:BLP articles lacking sources


 * I see the BLP sources (and related) also puts them into Category:Articles lacking reliable references which does have months. That category also includes non-BLP articles much like our Category:Articles needing additional references. you might go to Wikipedia talk:Categorization and see if someone there can add months to Category:BLP articles lacking sources as the dates are in the templates. Also I wonder if Category:Articles lacking reliable references and Category:Articles needing additional references should be merged or if BLP sources should put them into Category:Articles needing additional references (this is where refimprove puts non BLP after we add a reference or two and remove unref). JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Added request for subcategories on Wikipedia talk:Categorization and got a reply that a minor change is needed to BLP sources code (by an admin as its locked). The sub-category pages looks fairly simple to create however. I'm not sure why Category:Unreferenced BLPs is a sub-cat of BLP articles lacking sources, shouldn't it be the other way around? Mattg82 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Question on dating tags
Usually when I add a reference I change the 'unreferenced' tag to 'refimprove'. I've been putting the current date in the new tag, effectively resetting the clock. But I've been wondering whether I should be keeping the original date in the new tag since the article has needed references improved at least as long as it's needed some references at all. Any thoughts?--RDBury (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I put the current date in as well, my reasoning being that it shows when the article was last reviewed and found to be requiring additional references. Since I nearly always do a NPOV sweep of the article and remove any unsourced possibly contentious information at the same time, it always seemed to be preferable to reset the clock if I'm updating the tag. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 15:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting the current date is the correct way, though I do leave the original date on if I am changing from refimprove to unref or unref to unref blp. As the incorrect tag has been used. Mattg82 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I usually put the current date as well. If changing because the original tag was wrong I leave the orginal date, I often do this when primary sources is the correct tag and the primary link predates the existing unref. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually I think the entire Hints and Tips section could be expanded to include procedural stuff like this.--RDBury (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of Hints and tips
In keeping with the previous comment, I'm incubating (see User:RDBury/Scratchpad) a proposal for expansion of the Hint and Tips section into more of a step-by-step how to guide. This is meant to be instructive but not prescriptive in that individual editors should be free to use their own process. A few additional ideas came up as I was writing it however: I'm not going to claim that any of these are good ideas, but I thought it might be worthwhile to put them out for discussion.--RDBury (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful to include the find functionality in the unreferenced tag itself. The 'find' tag is a bit awkward to use since you have to add it to somewhere other than article space and then do a preview to use it. It seems like it would streamline things a lot to have the functionality within the 'unreferenced' tag all ready to go before you start.
 * It might also help to add a 'cat=Category' category sorting parameter to the 'unreferenced' tag so people who want to specialize in certain types of articles can easily find them. The categories can be similar to those used in AfD categories.
 * The uw-unsorx tags don't seem appropriate in cases where the unreferenced tag is already several years old. It would be better to have used them when the unreferenced tag is first added. Instead, how about a 'uw-unsor-article' with a message like "A reasonable effort has been made to locate references to establish the factual accuracy and/or notability of the article to which you contributed, but this effort was not successful. If such references are not added within 7 days then the article will be subject to removal."
 * The add Reflist step in the current version seems unnecessary since if inline cites are used without a reflist then the wiki software will generate a message telling you that in the preview.
 * It would be nice to have additional search suggestions for specific types of articles. For example a legal index to look up law cases.


 * First two, are good ideas bring them to Template talk:Unreferenced and see what happens.
 * Third one, has been discussed essentially that conversation is at Proposed deletion.
 * Forth one, are you suggesting a rewording or complete removal of the bullet?
 * Fifth one, what do you have in mind? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Some good ideas, I like the category one. Unsure on the removal of reflist, I guess it is obvious but is a step-by-step guide. As for the 5th idea it would be really useful to have a list of useful websites not only for specific areas such as law or music but also might be useful across multi genres. Mattg82 (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll bring up the first idea at the Unreferenced talk page. I'm a bit wary because they are still in a discussion about a question I asked a month ago. The second idea seems more difficult to implement so it might be better to hold off to see how the first one goes. I read the discussion at PROD about the third idea, it's not quite what I had in mind. But I think before creating a template it might be better to try copy and paste a few times to see if it actually stimulates any positive action. On the fourth idea, it seems I need to think about it some more. For the fifth idea, I like Mattg82's suggestion to extend it general purpose sites as well.--RDBury (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added a useful links section. Please feel free to add your favorite search engine and or other tools.--RDBury (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have probably noticed I've moved the Useful links into See also. I've also commented out the uw-unsorx tags I agree that it is best to use them in other circumstances. Mattg82 (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons?
I placed a merge from WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons tag here and started a discusion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Defering merge discusion, per discusion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed expansion to Hints and tips
I created a new, expanded version of the Hints and tips section as a subpage of the main project page. Basically it's documentation of my own process based on the work I did before finding out about this project. I'm certainly open to suggestions as to how the process could be improved. As I hope is clear from the lead paragraph, it is meant to be instructive rather than prescriptive. I thought something like this would be helpful, especially for newcomers, analogous to a "manual of style" page that some other projects have. I left the existing Hints and tips as is but with a link to the guide. If people don't agree to the addition then I promise not to take offense if it's PRODed.--RDBury (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a good guide I can't see anything glaringly wrong, thumbs up from me. Mattg82 (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me as well, keeps the front page short, while still giving a longer description. Good work :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a nice summary of steps, and provides a good guideline for any editor on the project. I've added a link to WebCite as a useful website, and wonder if we might want to incorporate it into the guide.  Link rot is a problem with web-based sources, so sources may disappear over time.  And with the dynamic nature of the web, the contents of a page changes over time even if the page doesn't disappear.  An archived version on WebCite provides a stable URL with a point in time snapshot of the page that was being referenced. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes
I have finished the changes so the page now looks similar to the Fact and Reference Check project page. Any praise/criticism/comments welcome. Mattg82 (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spanish?
If anyone reads Spanish could you look at the references for Cerro del Quinceo, it looks like it might meet WP:N but I am not sure. If there is a good reference please add it, (does not need to be English) otherwise let me know and I will take it to AfD, a previous AfD was withdrawn by the nom. Jeepday (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure that it works as a ref., but this shows the info wasn't just made up at least.--RDBury (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added more info at the article's talk page.--RDBury (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I posted a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mexico a couple days ago, no one there seems to think it is notable either, I will give a few more days then maybe take it to AfD. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge Improving referencing efforts

 * Improving referencing efforts seems on life support atm. As per a comment made by Stifle, maybe it could be a taskforce of this project. Mattg82 (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a mergeto tag to Improving referencing efforts. Mattg82 (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Describe what you mean by adding it as a task fource. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Taskforce is maybe the wrong word, but I think it could be a useful subpage to discuss new ideas. It might be beneficial to both projects if it was merged here, bringing in new members and hopefully it will also create new discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What is there that is not here, that would be brought over? Or is more of a question of that project is not doing anything so it should be retired? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm I suppose bringing it here is pointless as its just a talk page isn't it. Should I redirect the page here or just tag it as dead? Mattg82 (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I lean towards tagging it as dead. You could put a comment on the talk page pointing this way if anyone comes along and is interested. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I've tagged as inactive and placed message box at the top of the talk page. Mattg82 (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects
Everything you always wanted and did not know who to ask User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. 10:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepdaySock (talk • contribs)

New BLP Prod
Proposed deletion of biographies of living people sticky prod applies to articles created after March 18, 2010. Unlike articles tagged with standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may only be removed after the article contains at least one reliable source that verifies statements made in the article about the person. If the article remains unsourced after ten days, the article can be summarily deleted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

recent attack
Help, I am under attack from several members of your group. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How, where, by whom? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The following seems to me to be overkill, especially after I backed away from the article I was editing and did what should have been a total fix is response to N2E's objection's:

Betty Parris Appearances in fiction

Betty Parris makes one of her earliest appearances in fiction in John Neal's historical novel, Rachel Dyer (1828). Although she remains Samuel Parris' daughter in the narrative, Betty is renamed "Abigail."[3]

In the play The Crucible, the character of Betty has very few lines in the play, and most are in the first act.

In the book Gallows Hill by Lois Duncan, the main character, Sarah Zoltanne, realizes that she was Betty Parris in a former life after having several dreams and visions, viewed from Betty's perspective.

The preceding is part of the text of the Wikipedia Article Betty Parris.

My thoughts here are really very few:

1) Her name is Elizabeth, why not use that name ? Bettee is an actual New England First Name from that time period. Her name was Elizabeth, why not use it and avoid the confusion ?

2) My understanding is that if you link a copy of the text on the web that it is a fully adequate means of providing a citation. I.e. it provides adequate reference to the fact that the text exists in real life and it is not neccessary to find a source stating that the thing exists and provide a cite for it.

3) The term original research is kind of a flexible thing, and I find it's invocation in the instant case to be highly suspect. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Response at User talk:Jeepday —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepdaySock (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I am copying User:Jeepday's response here to fully document the discussion in one continuous sequence on a single Talk page. Rationale: John5Russell3Finley has continued to discuss contributors rather than contributons, despite being previously warned on that topic. N2e (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Jeepday: "On the surface I am not seeing a problem, I am also not seeing where you have edited the page Betty Parris, but assume it must have been as an IP. The summary by N2e here is correct. The statement "Betty Parris makes one of her earliest appearances..." is original research if the only source is the book listed. Tags should remain until the indicated correction is made. From your description above, and your comments on User talk:N2e it seems like you asking N2e to remove a correctly placed tag because you might find a reference someday. The most appropriate action would be for you to discuss it on Talk:Betty Parris where N2e started the conversation. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)" This is a prime example of what happens when you put people in charge who are less familiar with print media than they are with programming. I would suggest that if we are actually writing an encyclopedia here that some folks who know about how to structure a bibliography should replace people who prefer to citicise, and argue. Placement of tags should not supplant the actual work of writing an encyclopedia. I asked for a bit of time and space to edit the article and this was denied me by N2e who simply kept attacking. The status quo is the reason we have lost so many capable editors and contributors. You do not encourage people to write and edit articles when all you do is zip around placing citicism tags, and error messages, and ignoring the people who are actually doing the real work when they ask you to back off. BE ADVISED !: if you were part of this little trouble, and you have placed a watch on this page then do not expect that you are not inclined to continue fighting about this. I have not placed a watch on anyone's discussion page, and am simply stating the facts here for the use of anyone else who may actually be watching. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You say above, "...N2e who simply kept attacking." I can assure you that, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, I have entirely discussed the contribution and not the contributor and have discussed improvement of the article, not the editor. I have not "attacked" in any way. Please do not make careless allegations of such "attacks" without evidence. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC) [edit] "Asking for trouble"? I have no idea what you mean by this. People may come to the link WP:SWT trying to find the guideline about the use of the acronym on Wikipedia (usually to point other new editors to), and the hatnote helps them find it. Removing it just makes everyone's lives more difficult. cab (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "linking the two religions". It's simply an aid for editors who are actually trying to improve the encyclopedia to find what they are looking for. Acronyms are inherently ambiguous, and not everyone who goes to that shortcut WP:SWT is going to be looking for that particular taskforce of one regional WikiProject. And it is not remotely "vandalism" to put a navigational hatnote on a project page. Why don't you go ahead with your ridiculous threat and and report this matter to WP:AIV or WP:ANI --- see how seriously they take you. cab (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC) [edit] Assume good faith Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. See my comment in previous Talk Page section on Betty Parris (above). N2e (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To my mind N2E should not continue pursuing this and should find better venues of self expression.John5Russell3Finley (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You should take this to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. N2e and I have explained that no personal attack is intended. You seem to feel that there is an attack on you personally. The most appropriate action you can take at this time is to look for corrective action at WP:AIV or WP:ANI.  It would be most helpful for your argument if you include links to specific edits when formatting your request for assistance.  If you would like to draft the message in User talk:John5Russell3Finley/sandbox I would be happy to offer you assistance in any technical difficulties you may have, just leave me a note if you need help. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

One more done
I tagged Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2006 with Db-c1 today. Thank you to everyone who kept coming back to do one more hard one. The last few are always a challenge, that is why they are the last ones. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI
You may be interested in Village_pump_(idea_lab) Gnevin (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Books LLC
Be aware of these books when looking for sourcing!

Articles for deletion/List of football players with domestic, continental and world titles twigged me onto this publisher called "Books LLC". This is an example of the books they sell. This looks to be an operation similar to Icon Group International. It appears that their books are just compilations of Wikipedia material. I spot checked some of the lists in the product description in the amazon link and they are all Wikipedia articles. The end of the description includes "More: http://booksllc.net/?id=10953924". Following that link just redirects you to List of J. League players. -- Whpq (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have run across "Books LLC" both listed as sources in articles for Afd and when searching Google Books for further info for articles I am editing. Their books are just compilations of Wikipedia material. Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Ben MacDui actually laid out cash to get one of these books, and has confirmed that it indeed is just a reprint of a Wikipedia article. See User talk:Ben MacDui. -- Whpq (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some books sold by Books LLC are reprints of out-of-copyright books, like (1877) Personal Recollections of Turkish misrule and corruption in Syria: by a Syrian with an introduction by William Denton, London. Others, even when showing other publishers, are just compilations from Wikipedia, such as (2010) Cities, Towns and Villages in Aleppo Governorate: Aleppo, Manbij, Anasartha, Azaz, Al-Bab, Afrin, Syria, Jarabulus, Katma, Al-Safirah Life Journey, s.l., ISBN 9781156692554 and (2010) Geography of Syria General Books, Memphis, Tennessee, ISBN unknown. --Bejnar (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If the article has even one reference or external link

 * See User talk:Jeepday

I recently made a change to Template:no footnotes I removed the phrase "related reading or external links," user:Jeepday has suggested that this is inappropriate and has pointed to the wording in this WikiProject (and some guidelines and some sections in WP:V) to explain why the removal is inappropriate. I on the other hand think that the wording of this WikiProject is not quite correct and should be changed. So I suggest that we discuss it here and depending on the consensus either my change to the template can be reverted or the wording here can be changed.

Currently the article says:

I don't think this WikiProject wording is correct because it is generally understood that citations should either be in-line and/or as bullet points a "references section". For example the guideline External links guideline says in its lead:

So I think this WikiProjec wording should be changed so that it is clear that we are talking about reference sections and external links sections. Also a distinction should be made between the use of unreferenced where there may or may not be web links in an external links section, and Refimprove which is only used where there are citation (as defined in the WP:CITE guideline).

One of the problems is that the terminology used here is not that same as that used in the WP:CITE guideline. So the first thing to do is to have a section briefly explaining what a reference and a citation is. Then go on to say:


 * If an article has no citations, attempt to locate and add a citations either as inline citations or as bullet points in a ==References section== at the end of the article. If there is an external links section, then see if any of those links could be used as citations.


 * If no suitable citations can be found, but the content of the article is notable then add a unreferenced template. If the content is not notable then [... what to do ...]


 * If the article has even one citation in the references section then use ...

-- PBS (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what the confusion is. The quote above from WP:EL says if there is an external link make it into citation by using at as a reference.  The template nofootnotes used to say this article has eternal links use proper citation to make them into good references please.  Now it says it has references without citations.  What exactly is that makes an external link not be a reference?

PBS says "At no point do we consider further reading or external links to be references." then uses Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. as support for taking external links out of nofootnotes?


 * In my opinion
 * A reference is a measurement one can compare to
 * A source that supports an article is a reference
 * A source that is properly cited is a citation
 * An external link is a reference if it supports the article, it is cited reference if uses Inline citations which can be done by

Jeepday (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of this is a mater of semantics. If an "external link" let us call it a "[external] web link" to make it clear, is cited. Then it is not going to be in the external links section. Most people would consider a web link that appears as as an inline citation or in the references section not to be an "external link", but a citation (as in cite web).


 * Jeepday rather than discussing the content of no footnotes here let's concentrate on whether the wording in this project is correct. If the consensus is that the current wording is correct then I'll revert the change I made to the footnote template. -- PBS (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There was not consensus for the change to no footnotes so I changed it back. If you feel strongly that getting consensus at this project to change the wording here will support your drive to change the wording at no footnotes then by all means. Get consensus here and use it to spring board a drive to get consensus at no footnotes.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it  Jeepday (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of getting consensus here as a springboard. They are not directly related. But you used the wording here as a justification for opposing the changes to no footnotes and I would agree with you that the wording here supports your interpretation of footnotes. But this is not a guideline and AFAICT the wording here is not supported by policy or guidelines. Consensus is not just a vote but also weighing what polices and guidelines say and applying them (WP:CONLIMITED). Now back to his project has anyone anything to comment to make to the points I have raised above? -- PBS (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The reality is that many editors don't know how to cite sources. Thus we end up with sourcing material dumped into external links sections.  The nofootnotes tag is a call to clean up the sourcing because they are not inline.  That some of this is incorrectly dumped into the external links section does not make the material less useable as a source.  I see nothing wrong with the current wording on the template and see no reason for changing it. -- Whpq (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Then please express that opinion on the appropriate talk page (Template talk:No footnotes). My proposals here are to alter the wording on this project page. -- PBS (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with PBS. (Aside: I also agree that many editors don't know how to cite sources.  Education on a one-to-one friendly comment on their talk page basis can be useful, I have found positive results in about 10% of my efforts that way.) Obviously, if an editor places a source in external links, a follow-on editor can correct that.  But I have had editors delete external links because they were also cited in the article for a specific point of reference.  In response I re-added the external link with additional wording, indicating for example, "contains copyrighted photographs" or "for a critical review of ...".  Sometimes it is a judgment call whether any specific point requires a footnote (inline citation), or whether a general reference is sufficient.  I have had editors move general references from /* Sources */ to /* External links */ because they were electronic.  The clearer (and more integrated) we can be in guidelines, the easier education becomes.  --Bejnar (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra Barnstars

 * I've added The Citation Barnstar onto the project page but I was thinking we could have more barnstars for doing an x amount of articles. For instance 250 - Bronze, 500 - Silver, and 1000 - Gold and so-on upto 5000? Creating a subpage to the project, volunteers would add articles they have done to a list by there name.


 * Or we could do a competition similar to WP:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Mattg82 (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest like BioCup, how about RefCup? Accotink2  talk 16:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I usually bounce around among articles and don't really work on one single type. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 16:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles that don't lend themselves to referencing
You know there are certain types of articles that do not lend themselves to referencing. For example, 1861 in India cannot be referenced because it merely lists events that happened that year. Frankly I think articles like this are limited in utility, but nevertheless it exists. I think we need to have a rule about the need to have references for pages like this. Another example is Prince Edward Island Route 155 which is just a road. How do you reference a road? With a map? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 12:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Every article can be referenced, look at 130s BC as an example. Lists are not excluded from referencing I was involved in several discussion during the period of this Articles for deletion/130s BC and following it. In most cases the solution for lists is to go to the article to find a reference that supports the brief statement in the list.JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Roads are sometimes harder, but No original research and Notability both apply. There is a specific citation template at Citation templates for maps. The biggest challenge for Roads is meeting notability.  When I found the article Block Place, Melbourne I did a search for references and then prodded with the message "A search for references finds a few published addresses on block place in melbourne, but nothing indicating the street it's self is notable. Nothing in the article indicates notability of the street. Fails WP:N and WP:V".  I posted the Prod warning to the original writer and to the project listed on Talk:Block Place, Melbourne. The article still needs references but is much improved, I am not sure if it would pass an AFD or not.  I only take them to AFD if I am pretty sure the result will be delete. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just "reviewed" for extraction of useful material an article near and dear to the hearts of some of us in a particular area of the country. The article was truly awful. A junkpile of comments, mostly accurate, but mostly unreferenced. The scholarship was lousy. Really bad. As was the organization. And the editors were solid people. But the article "just grew." The major omission was citations. That would/could have driven us back to some kind of sanity. Now, I'm suggesting the article be dismantled and rewritten. I can't tell you how much time we've put into this article collectively. We just failed to insist on references (because we "knew" the editors were "sound") and now we are going to have to suffer for it! Student7 (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * disambiguation and list articles will have to have special rules, the bigger the article the harder to cleanup, there are 2000 delisted good articles, which will be harder than 20,000 unreferenced stubs. Accotink2  talk 16:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is what I've been doing. When I run across one of those godawful "list" or "year" articles, I check out the target pages to see if the facts on that page back up the fact on the referring page (the one I am working on). See for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1987_in_heavy_metal_music&action=history. My theory is that the main article page should be the one that has the References on it, not necessarily the "list" or "year" page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is still unreferenced, if you find that there are references on the main article that support the statements maybe you could copy the reference to the list? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that this is how I tackled the list at Dropping out, I checked each list entry against its corresponding article and made sure they were both sourced. Anything for which I could not find a source was removed, and now there is a bright line as to what can be added to the "Notable drop-outs" section, no ref, no entry. It took some work to do all of the cross referencing, but it certainly helps maintain the sourcing integrity of the article. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "sourced." I agree with The Founders Intent, the user who started this thread: Some "articles" can't be sourced, or should we say, needn't be sourced. "Lists" and "years" are simply pointers to other pages, and, really, they should be treated just like WP:Disambiguation pages, with only one link allowed per entry, so that the user can go quickly to the target page and get more information about the item (complete with references). I understand this opinion may fly in the face of others' practice, but it is workable, practicable and reasonable. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lists are considered content, whereas disambiguation pages are considered navigation. As such, lists need sourcing as would any other content page.  Lists are often used to aggregate content for which stand-alone entries for each list element is not sustainable or desirable.  This is typically the case for things such as lists of TV show episodes, or lists of minor fictional characters (such as from comic book universes).  There is no target page to go to.  One may argue that the severity of lacking sources for lists with targets is not as bad as those that lack targets for individual entries, but they still need referencing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You may speak what conventional wisdom ascribes to the consensus right now, but the consensus can always change, and conventional wisdom can be sadly off base. In a way, consensus really has already changed, since "Year" and "List" articles are very seldom referenced — that would indicate a consensus against sourcing this kind of article. (Also all the articles about sporting seasons.) It may be that we may just have to write down this new consensus somewhere, have a debate on it and adopt it. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * George, I agree with what you are saying here. Maybe we should approach the proper authority request a policy change. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 00:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is changing but it is towards deletion of unreferenced articles. in 2004 through 2006 there was almost no expectation of citing references.  Today I am seeing article tagged for prod with "stub unreferenced for 4 years" that are being deleted.  with no attempt made to even check for references or notability.  Look back at the archives, Members of this project used to get abused for suggesting deletion of articles where no references could be found, the template prod-nn is a direct result of the old no references are required "consensus". JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that lists are notoriously bad at being sourced does not mean that consensus is changing. It just means that they are badly sourced.  Verifiability is still a core policy of Wikipedia, and I don't see that changing to become more lax. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because an article is unreferenced does not mean it's unverifiable. "Unreferenced" should not be a reason for deletion, unless ALL of the content is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Just felt like pointing that out. -- &oelig; &trade; 14:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

citation as criteria for FA lists
see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, looking at the replies there, the consensus is, as long as there is sources, it doesn't matter whether the source is cited or not. A lot of lists only have a handful of sources to verify info because they are made up from general information & are mostly uncontroversial. List of Swedish number-one hits for example only has 2 sources; there is probably little point in citing every entry in that list.


 * I have found though, (even before reading that) that getting a list to featured status seemed rather easy and I've seen FLs that I would never call "WPs best work". The trouble is there is no in-between; it is a FL or it isn't, there is not a Good list standard for instance. Mattg82 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gee. I feel whether the list gets to featured status is a bit off the mark for this particular discussion. It's an interesting point, but the main discussion here— to me, anyway — is how to get a list or a year article referenced well enough for an editor to remove the Unreferenced tag and move it off the list. I'm working on October 2006 and certainly don't have the time or interest to check out every single source for, say, 2004 in heavy metal music. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, as long as the internal link points to a page that includes the information, that is good enough for me. Note Ignore all rules. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Each article or list has to stand on it's own. Removing a unreferenced tag because there is a link to another article with references does not qualtify as improving or maintaining Wikipedia. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Referenced in other languages
I am finding more and more articles that are well referenced in other languages then English. An example is Hans Grimm and de:Hans Grimm Does anyone have any thoughts on a "references in other language tag"? I am thinking something on the lines of refimprove but that would include the languages and possibly include the articles in categories that would facilitate bilingual volunteers in finding and improving articles in their language skill areas. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Maybe something in the lines of Template:Link FA (maybe Template:Link RA, for Referenced Article). Helder (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like this ?


 * The only problem I see is where the page is named in it's native language and differs from it's English name. Mattg82 (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking words like "This is needs additional citations for verification, which may be available on the a different language version of the article" (not in small print--> "Check the corresponding article in other languages to see if there are any references you can use: German French Spanish".  The template user should be able to copy and paste the crosswiki link from the article to the template i.e. "de:Hans Grimm" or maybe the template can pick it up the same as the languages window does off the article. The other language is going to use not only different names for but also different alphabets for the articles. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a related note at the very bottom of Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-18/Technology_report about "WikiBhasha" from Microsoft. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we would need a bot to add the interwiki links. The bot would scan for the links which are at the bottom, then add them to the tag. We would need some help with that as that is beyond my skill level. Mattg82 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Question and a Suggestion

 * 1) A couple days ago I found the article Blue Meanies (Apple Computer) as I was going through Category:Articles lacking sources. It turns out I had an old book that had a mini-section on the topic, so I made a bibliography for it. However, I knew that it was an old book, and I didn't know how many other people would have still had it and/or would have taken the time to look for it. So I decided to copy the excerpt onto the page in HTML comments. My question is, was that the right thing to do, or would it still count as plagiarism? --vgmddg (look &#124; talk &#124; do) 00:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) This also leads into my next suggestion. If there isn't already one made, can we create a category for articles where people have added sources, but not actually used them yet? I think part of the reason that Category:Articles lacking sources has such a huge backlog is that people think that if they add a source, they have to use it right then and there. How about we make it so that we can have one group of people adding sources, and another group actually incorporating them into the article. That way, regular people aren't afraid to add sources, and people who like to write don't have to waste time looking for sources themselves. --vgmddg (look &#124; talk &#124; do) 00:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Per #2, if by "not actually used them" you mean they haven't formatted them as inline citations, that category exists at Category:Articles lacking in-text citations. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For #1, you are not making any claims that is your work, and have clearly identified the source, and it is not published so it is not Plagiarism. If it was not hidden it would be  a copyright violation, as it is hidden I am not sure if it violates copyright or not.  The best choice would be to use Inline citations and reference the work. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

For number 2 what I mean is that instead of people having to both add sources and incorporate them into the article at the same time, we should have an assembly line system of Finders and Writers, where one person who is good at finding sources can add a couple of possible sources that could be used, puts the article into Category:Articles with Unused Sources (or a similar category), and then leave, then later someone who's better at writing the articles can use the sources that have been found to expand the article without having to go all over looking for sources themselves. --vgmddg (look &#124; talk &#124; do) 22:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Usually, when there are possible sources that could be used, they're added to the article's talk page using the refideas template. This then places them into Category:Articles which could have free content incorporated from elsewhere. Your proposed "assembly line" of writers can then browse through this category to find articles to work on.
 * Improving referencing efforts is a great page where these kinds of ideas are put forth, and your idea is within its scope, but it seems to have gone inactive. So perhaps you could work out of a subpage of this WikiProject, encouraging users to sign up to be either finders or writers. The finders can work with WikiProject Resource Exchange to gather the refs, and the writers can collaborate with the subject's WikiProjects, notifying them of the additional potential sources. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2009 — What happened?
Why are there so many Unreferenced articles in December 2009? In puzzlement, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone ran a bot to tag articles as unsourced in December 2009. Hut 8.5 11:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Prod-nn
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what { { prod-nn } } means or how it is used. When I click on it, the result page does not tell me. Questioningly, your servant, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's true! On the documentation page for Prod-nn, it only says to provide an edit summary! However, if you look in the "Proposed deletion templates" box at the bottom of the page, it says "Prod-nn (for tagging non-notable articles for proposed deletion) ". It could have easily been missed, and it should be directly in the documentation. --vgmddg (look &#124; talk &#124; do) 21:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

71,519 ≠ 23,665
According to the template on Category:Articles lacking reliable references, there are about 71,519 articles that need reliable references. According to Category:All articles lacking reliable references though, the number is around 23,665 pages. Any idea why there's such a large discrepancy? --vgmddg (look &#124; talk &#124; do) 21:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question! 71,519 is to high because it contains Category:All articles lacking reliable references and some(or all?) of the articles are also listed again in the date specific category. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Category:All articles lacking reliable references I believe just has articles which have the Primary sources tag. While articles in Category:Articles lacking reliable references are tagged with Primary sources or BLP sources or RS etc, so that is why it has more articles. Mattg82 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Great Backlog Drive
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Notify author/project: on Prod
FYI- Template_talk:Proposed_deletion, Jeepday (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)