Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Archive 3

BLP sources tag
I've started a discussion and edit request for the BLP sources tag, as I believe it is incorrectly adding articles to Category:All articles lacking sources. You may want to take a look. Mattg82 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Appropriateness of PRODding articles
I come here by way of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. A member of this project proposed deletion of movable singularity on the sole grounds that he was unable to find references. After the prod tag was removed, another member of this project replaced it—in direct violation of WP:PROD—and told the above-linked discussion that a no references tag is not an "empty threat".

I see from the edit history of these users that they have been busy prodding many articles that they cannot find references for.

Is prodding articles this project's policy? If so, where is this stated and how was this decided upon? Deleting an article just because one person could not find references seems highly controversial to me. This is especially so for an article such as movable singularity, where Google Search, Google Books, and Google Scholar all return results, but none of those results are easy for the layman to understand and put into context. Ozob (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lack of references in an article is not a valid deletion reason (see WP:DEL). Paul August &#9742; 12:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, lack of references in an article is not a reason for deletion. But if good faith efforts to find references have failed, then deletion is an option as the policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY would come into play. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DP requires more than just a good faith attempt to find references. It requires that "thorough attempts" at finding references have failed. TimothyRias (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover, deletion would be an option if "thorough attempts" at finding reference that support any of the content of the article have failed. In this case "several references for the phrase" were in fact found. Paul August &#9742; 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know that User:JimCubb is a member of this project, but it would be incorrect to replace a prod once it has been removed. If edit summery and article improvements don't address the prod, then WP:AFD is the next step. I belive I have addressed other concerns at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics.  Let me know if anyone has further concerns.  JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And to answer your question, no, prodding articles is not this wikiproject's policy. In fact this project encourages finding references, else tagging unreferenced articles, not deleting. -- &oelig; &trade; 20:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that PRODing an article because it has been unreferenced for a long time, is rarely a good idea. (The exception being article for which it is obvious that WP:V cannot ever be satisfied.) The requirement of WP:DP that "thorough attempts" at finding references have failed cannot realistically be met by the search of a single editor, but would require the input of multiple editors as is necessary for an AFD.TimothyRias (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Plenty of articles have been "Afd"ed for less reasons than poor referencing. All articles are subject to being nominated. It depends on the editors reviewing. I picked a random bio yesterday and nominated it. It had poor references. With good reason. There were none on the web at all! So I did a search. Other editors most likely will do the same to check my claim. No article has an automatic lock on viability. All are subject to scrutiny. And should be IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should read my post above here again. While you are at it you might want to read WP:DEL as well. Poor referencing is never a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion. The only related valid reason is if there is reason to believe that none of the content of an article can ever be verified. My argument above is that PROD is not a very good way to establish this, and thus if you believe that this is the case, then you should bring the article to AFD rather than PROD.TimothyRias (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How would you show "that WP:V cannot ever be satisfied"? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking you can't. That is why that you need "to have a reason to believe that...". The fact that a single editor searching for references has failed to find any, is (IMHO) not sufficient reason to believe this. The editor in question, may for example simply not have known where to look. However, if multiple editors have tried and failed, it becomes increasingly unlikely that some other editor could succeed.
 * Note, that articles that need to be deleted because they cannot be verified usually have other reasons to be deleted, which are easier to show. Most commonly, they also tend to not satisfy WP:N.TimothyRias (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How would you know/track that "multiple editors have tried and failed"? Jeepday (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD.TimothyRias (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For all potential prods, or just specific ones? Jeepday (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is generally the better option if the proposed reason is lack of references.TimothyRias (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which would include WP:N, is there anything you would not take to AfD, or anything that is appropriate for Prod? Jeepday (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For one, article for which community discussion (on the talk page or a project page) has resulted in consensus to delete. Or articles that demonstratively violate policy (like WP::content forks). Anything else that is truly non-controversial. But in practice, I rarely PROD articles.TimothyRias (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The same as you can never know "that WP:V cannot ever be satisfied", you can not know that a prod will be "truly non-controversial", each editor uses their best judgment based on available knowledge and experience. Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Jeepday appears to have made no attempt to find references for Music of Extremadura before prodding it on the spurious grounds "A search for references found two published (gBooks) using the phrase "Music of Extremadura". Insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:V and WP:N".  In fact a Google books search on tthe term Music of Extremadura turns up hundreds of potential sources, as does a Google Scholar search. As the article contained two external links there was already enough verifiable information there to establish notability. Please don't make up rules and please read the front page of WikiProject Unreferenced articles, which outlines the procedures to be followed when looking at unrefrenced articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated in the prod, I searched "Music of Extremadura", Thank you for taking the time add references to the article, I am not sure they speak to the notability of the subject. But if you do, that's fine. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously need to learn things about searching. Searching for an exact phrase (article title) may not produce relevant results.  Using terms such as +music, +extramadura, +estremadura (yes there is a variant spelling - it is a foreign language word!), +canciones, +musica start to produce relevant results.  Typing an article title in quotes into Google Books and then declaring that the small number of results fails to establish notability is incredibly stupid behaviour.  Suggest that you read the front page of this project and learn about how to find references for articles before dishing out more prods on spurious grounds. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take a step back - you are coming off incredibly attack-like and condescending to editors who are doing their best to improve the referencing and overall quality of this encyclopedia. You may not agree with each individual's method of clean-up, but that does not give you carte-blanche to call people "incredibly stupid". There are many ways of having a discussion if you think that there are consistent issues with prodding, but jumping into the middle of a completely civil conversation between editors with accusations of bad faith editing is not helpful.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, my comments were about editing behaviour, not about an editor. I accept that "editors who are doing their best to improve the referencing and overall quality of this encyclopedia." are to be applauded, but as several project members here have stated, prodding is not the policy of your project. Perhaps some members need to understand that. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding. If there is a concern that too many articles are being prod'ed then the discussion is definitely worth having; however if editors are feeling attacked it will be difficult to keep the specific issues clear. I'm just trying to diffuse the situation before it becomes a typical deletion vs. inclusion battle. Specific examples as you have provided are helpful. Carry on everyone... --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to request that User:Jeepday refrain from PRODding articles entirely. In the last month, he has PRODded the following articles:
 * Sandy Mutch
 * Music of Extremadura
 * Movable singularity
 * Miyaviuta -Dokusou-
 * Miss Peaches
 * Los Coludos
 * Los Bolos
 * A Little Soap and Water
 * Little Grunt and the Big Egg
 * Professor of Scottish History and Literature, Glasgow
 * Of these, every single one was subsequently contested, and none of these articles has been deleted. According to Wikipedia policy, a PROD should only be used for a deletion that would be non-controversial, yet every single one of these deletions turned out to be controversial.  Though User:Jeepday makes many other valuable contributions to Wikipedia as a member of this project, it seems clear that he is currently misusing the PROD tool, and that this activity needs to stop.  Jim.belk (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the total number of disputed prods matters - it's the proportion. From Jeepday's deleted contributions, I see there are over 50 prods that weren't contested, so I don't agree that your request is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies -- I did not realize that deleted contributions do not appear on Special:Contributions/JeepdaySock, so I thought that 100% of his PRODs were being contested. My above comment was certainly unfair to Jeepday.


 * In any case, although 10 out of 60 contested PRODs is much more reasonable, it is still a high number, and Jeepday has managed to annoy several different groups of users with overenthusiastic PRODding. Why not submit articles to AfD instead? Jim.belk (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1 out of 6 contested PRODs is too high. I wonder how many of the PRODs went uncontested simply because no knowledgeable editor happened to notice. Paul August &#9742; 01:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To investigate the possibility that Paul August mentioned, would an administrator (such as ) please post a list of all articles deleted via PRODs of JeepdaySock! JRSpriggs (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that Jeepday is also an admin, I'd prefer if Jeepday decided whether it would be helpful to list the deleted articles. Obviously, there are other admins such as Paul August who could confirm the information if it was posted. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at Jeepday's contributions, he places prod messages on the article creator's and appropriate WikiProject's talk pages, so I would disagree that no knowledgeable editors haven't seen them. He also suggested a change to the prod template to include Project in the notification area, and made the change himself [ here]. He has made a good faith effort to notify interested parties and the fact that he has made the prods more visible means that they are more likely to be removed/contested. I guess this comes back to whether such articles should have been sent to AFD in the first place. Mattg82 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to assist in a review of articles I have suggested for deletion and the outcome. I would suggest we open a either a new section or even a sub page as this chain is getting long. What time frame would you like to examine? Maybe December 1, 2010 through the January 14, 2011?. I have made an effort to include "Prod" or "AFD' in the edit summary of each selected deletion, so they should not be hard to identify. I would also suggest that all Prod's and AfD's be included from both Special:Contributions/Jeepday and Special:Contributions/JeepdaySock.  We should find that most everything started as prod, with results of AfD delete, AfD keep, AfD other (merge etc), concerns addressed and prod removed, and finally prod to deletion. Real life is pretty busy right now, so may not be as active in the next few weeks as in the past few weeks, so I apologize in advance for delays on my end.  If you would like a reliable second opinion I would suggest contacting User:DGG, who has been following my deletions since this project was formed. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Minor clarification, Everything > Most. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made a proposal for scope of review, and there has been no follow-up. Beginning to think there is a loss of interest in reviewing my prods.  Are there two people who want to do this (besides me)? Jeepday (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it would be good to carry on and review, as people can see what has been deleted. This could be a long term thing the for project too, as we could setup a subpage to list all articles that have been PRODed/AFDed by project members; not sure on the logistics on such a task though.


 * But anyway we could make a start and list articles from the last month or two, then articles can be put through a WP:DRV if anybody wished to have a particular article reinstated. Mattg82 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Created WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Deletion review, we can use the talk page there to figure out how to set it up. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity
The Math project has great tool WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity, for monitoring articles in their project. I know we have had several requests here for something similar by other projects. Is anyone willing to do some work and try and make this tool usable for smaller projects with less technically skilled volunteers? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to have a check out Article Alerts, which is a similar feature that is available to all wikiprojects and work through the Project banner templates.TimothyRias (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mistagged articles
With thanks to Tim1357 for the original list, I've created a list of possible mistagged articles here, which can also be easily accessed by clicking the tab at the top of the page. Remember to remove articles you have checked. Mattg82 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Backlog Drive
Hi there guys, I know you've signed up to The Great Backlog Drive as a project and we have now officially launched for the next 6 weeks! As a thank you for signing up so early, we'd like to send you guys an official Wikipedia badge. Just drop me an email with your details if you're interested. Also, the backlog drive now has prizes for the most participation - one t-shirt every week! All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 20:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oz (TV series)
The article Nikolai Stanislofsky is one of many on Template:Oz(HBO), most are unreferenced and fail many criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, some have been proded and declined Joseph Howard (Oz), a few have been proded and deleted Alvah Case. Any thouhgts on an approach to this articles? I was considering a mass AfD with recommend of delete and redirect, as that seems the most appropriate, and given the number of articles community consensus for single approach would seem best. Does anyone have another idea? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted a couple of messages at related pages directing pepople here to discuss a Delete & Redirect per WP:FAILN JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You could merge the articles into a list of minor characters in Oz. PhilKnight (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Category
Category:Wikipedia unreferenced articles improved should really find a new home under maybe Category:Improved articles? Rich Farmbrough, 05:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC).


 * But the articles in that category are specific to formerly unreferenced articles improved by volunteers from this project.. the category should be something like Category:Wikipedia WikiProject Unreferenced articles improved. -- &oelig; &trade; 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with OE, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry me not being clear - Category:Wikipedia unreferenced articles improved should really find a new parent category, maybe Category:Improved articles? Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Are there other project improved categories out there? Maybe there should be a global "project improved" category with sub categories for each project. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Invisible tags
There are some 50,000 articles with invisible unreferenced tags - there is a discussion on making these visible at Template talk:Unreferenced. Rich Farmbrough, 05:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Possibly Referenced Articles
Hello! I've done a scan of all pages in Category:Articles lacking sources and it's subcats that have reflist in them. There are a little over 25k articles in that list. It may be worth a quick look to see if the unreferenced tag is still needed on these articles. (Note: This does require a human eye, rather than a bot, as sometimes there is a reflist even when there are no references.) This list is at User:Avicennasis/reports/unref

Hopefully this is helpful. If you have any comments/suggestions, let me know. Avic ennasis  @ 22:44, 10 Adar I 5771 / 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Matt this seems like a good question for you to work with Avicennasis on, Matt Created Mistagged unreferenced articles cleanup. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have asked Avicennasis for an up-to-date list. Hopefully we can start hosing these articles down. Mattg82 (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK everyone the list is now live. It has been split into four pages. Once an article have been checked/re-tagged it needs to be removed from the list so we are not checking the same articles over and over. Mattg82 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Challenged or likely to be challenged
FYI - Village_pump_(policy), JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced biographies of living persons
The backlog of unreferenced biographies of living persons is now less than 10,000. At the moment, we're getting through the backlog at around 1000 articles each month, so we have a realistic chance of clearing the backlog this year. Well done everybody. PhilKnight (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And now the backlog has been cleared. Congratulations to everybody. PhilKnight (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced Engineering articles
The category:Unreferenced Engineering articles currently has 18 talk pages. I would like to work on reducing that number of unreferenced articles, but I have some questions.

Pipe ramming has three bare URL inline citations. I tagged the article for linkrot. Should the three inline citations be converted to archived inline citations before the unref tag is removed? In other words, how good a quality of references do the project members expect to have before the unref tag is removed?

Several of the articles have no references whatever. Some have books listed, but not as inline citations, which I would say is required to remove the unref tag. Is that the appropriate policy?--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi DThomsen8, I think it's acceptable to replace the unsourced tag with moresources after just adding a single high quality reference. PhilKnight (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That category isn't populated by unsourced, it's populated by a parameter in the engineering Wikiproject template, and the instructions at Category:Unreferenced Engineering articles say that the template can be used on articles which don't have inline citations. Since the Wikiproject has control over how their template is used you really should ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering. Hut 8.5 15:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the very informative replies. I will follow up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering. It does seem that there could be some overlap if I added a unsourced tag to one of those engineering articles. There are almost certainly some engineering articles with unsourced on them already, but I don't know how I would find them. Suggestions?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:CATSCAN is very useful for that sort of thing. Hut 8.5 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors who never add citations
What should we do about people like this, who add unreferenced information to numerous articles? – after almost 2 years on Wikipedia, shouldn't people be required to cite their sources? Is there a good way to explain to editors that they must add citations? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, citations aren't required unless the material is challenged or likely to be challenged per WP:CHALLENGE. You may like to ask the editor in question if that is the case and direct to WP:VERIFY if the content being added is challengable. Sadly, Wikipedia is divided in editors who add citations as a last resort(i.e editors of WP:WPMATH) and those who cite almost everything (i.e editors involved in WP:FA). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think the situation is worse than that. There is a very large third group of editors who do not and will not ever add any citations, constantly adding assertions that ought to be challenged.  Ah well.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think any content should be challenged, then you should do so, WP:BURDEN. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, done, thanks. I'm de-watching this page, so if anyone wishes to contact me, please do so on my talk page.  Happy (well-referenced) editing!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam
HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research. —Wavelength (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can the Coord template act as a reference in geographical articles?
I recently created the article San Matías Gulf. This is a short two-sentence stub explaining where the gulf is and what land is around it. This information is all readily available on maps. I did not add any normal references, but I did include the Coord template which places geographic co-ordinates at the top of the page. Clicking on these gives access to various different map sources. Someone has now added an Unreferenced Stub template to the article. I would argue that whilst strictly speaking this may be correct, in this sort of article it is unnecessary because the Coord template is effectively a reference - linking the content of the article to sources of information. (Obviously any information that is not available from maps, e.g. population, would need to be properly referenced.) Can/should the referencing policy be amended to take account of this? Bazonka (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a reference is still needed, not least because sources are required to show that this (or any other article) is sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. I don't doubt that that's the case in this instance, but a source is still required, because someone could reasonably doubt it. --Stemonitis (talk)


 * The georeference serves all the purposes of a citation: it is verifiable by anyone using reliable sources, and demonstrates the place is not original research or fantasy.
 * In this case, it was easy to find and add citations in expanding the article, so I removed the citation needed tag. —EncMstr (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Stemonitis - there is an unofficial rule that most geographic features have an inherent notability. See here, where User:Polaron said "most geographic articles, in particular human settlements, are inherently notable and are exempt from needing to have citations from reliable secondary sources". Bazonka (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Most major geographic features found on maps survive AfD (WP:OUTCOMES) but a source is still needed to verify the existence of the subject. If there are no reliable sources covering the subject then the article should be deleted - that's core policy. I think that if the coordinate template does give a link to a reliable source which backs up something in the article then you could justify removing the unreferenced template on that basis, but you really should be turning the link in question into an inline citation in a case like that. Hut 8.5 19:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * [ec]Yes, but we need a source to show that there is such a geographical feature, and that we are using a reasonable orthography of its name. In this case, for instance, neither of the two maps I consulted (using the link) used the spelling given in the article. It is also sensible to include sources in a References section, rather than hidden away in the top corner, where no-one expects to find references. It's not verifiable if no sources are apparent, even if they have been used. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT – the co-ordinates are not enough. If you used Google Maps, say that; if you used the Times Atlas, say so; if you used a detailed monograph on the bay, cite that. (I would also suspect that a series of disconnected mentions doesn't really constitute an iron-clad demonstration of notability, but I'm not about to push that point.) Polaron was wrong (and vague: "I believe there is a sort of..."); the follow-up comment is closer to the mark. Settlements may be notable, but this is not a settlement. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair comment regarding the spelling. But I disagree with you on two other points: "It's not verifiable if no sources are apparent, even if they have been used" - of course it's verifiable if sources have been used, even if they're not immediately obvious, just click on the coords and verify. And secondly your comment about non-settlements lacking notability. Small non-settlement places may not have inherent notability, but size must be a factor in determining notability. In this case the gulf is so big that it cannot fail to be notable. (PS I find it somewhat ironic that the Stemonitis article is unreferenced...) Bazonka (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you miss my point. If a reader finds an article with no references section, it will appear to be unreferenced, and that reader will not know where to go to verify the information. It is therefore unverifiable. How are they to guess that a link in the heading is actually a reference? Having a section titled References makes it clear; squirrelling an external link away at the top of the article certainly does not. Anyway, a link to a multitude of potential maps cannot be a reference. You did not get the information from that page, so you must say where you did get it from. (The Stemonitis analogy is inadvertently a good one. It is marked, rightly, as being unreferenced, but I don't claim that the image on that page is sufficient to make that template unnecessary, even though it provides evidence that the taxon exists.) It is not enough that the gulf is notable, you have to show that it is notable, by citing reliable sources. You must always cite reliable sources. Whatever your question at Wikipedia, the answer will almost certainly include the need to cite reliable sources. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If someone doesn't know how to do something (e.g. verify an article) then it doesn't mean that it can't be done. Besides which, what is the best way to verify a simple geographic article? Answer: look at a map. Bazonka (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not nonsense; it's standard Wikipedia policy. I suggest you learn the difference. Maybe my map doesn't say "San Matías Gulf" (my 2000 Times Atlas calls it "Golfo San Matías", a name not mentioned in the article, and doesn't list "San Matías Gulf" in the index, either); you have to say which map you used. I can't reiterate this enough. Always say where you got it! --Stemonitis (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above, you have a fair point regarding the spellings of this gulf - it was perhaps not the best example to use in this discussion (although fairly obviously Golfo San Matías is a foreign-language name). But as a generic rule (assuming most maps give exactly the same information as written in the article), I still feel that co-ordinates are equivalent are good enough to act as a reference. Bazonka (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are now four inline citations, so I removed the stub template in the article, and updated the talk page templates, adding the bivalve template. The article mentions three bivalves plus an octopus, but none have articles linked to them. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not how stubs work, so I have restored the tags. The article in its current state is clearly a stub – it's a few disconnected factoids, but it doesn't really describe the area or its significance. The fact that there are bivalves (and cephalopods!) is the area does not make the article part of the bivalves project; there are bivalves and cephalopods – and a myriad other taxa – in every part of the oceans. The San Matías Gulf is not a bivalve, so it should not be placed under WikiProject Bivalves without very, very good reason. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Cross-Over from nl.wiki
Hi All,

Anyone feel like addressing this shill? http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackeeper

Can't do much because of the language issue...

Thanks. Academicview (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Come and join The Wikipedia Library
The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia. We are working together towards 5 big goals:
 * Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources
 * Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries
 * Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians
 * Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources
 * Promote broader open access in publishing and research

Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in  Introduce yourself   :-)

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library, connecting with WikiProjects
Hey folks! I wonder if we could connect the library portal to this wikiproject by placing the Library navigation box somewhere in these WikiProject pages.

Let me know what you think. Best, Ocaasit &#124; c 12:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Finding unreferenced articles within a WikiProject
Is there a tool or method to find unreferenced articles within the scope of a specified WikiProject? Shyamal (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Great question. I would be interested to know the answer, as well.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You could use WP:CATSCAN to find a list of unreferenced articles within a certain topic area. There was a bot that notified wikiprojects of unreferenced BLPs within their scope (User:DASHBot) but I don't know if anyone has done the same for unreferenced articles in general. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 16:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Three userboxes your members may like

 * User:Yunshui/Userbox citeconverter
 * Userbox/NYT Wikipedia reference generator
 * Userbox/Zotero

-- Djembayz (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion notice
A discussion is occurring at Template talk:Find sources regarding updating the Find sources template with links to the Google News and Google newspapers searches. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion. The discussion is located here. NorthAmerica1000 07:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Free subscriptions to journal and source websites
Free access subscriptions to high quality paywalled journals, newspaper archives, and online reference works are presently available for Wikipedia editors. For more information, see TWL/Journals. NorthAmerica1000 11:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Novel Portal
Hello! I have no concept of how to edit, or add. But I love the novel portal!! Would it be possible to add "Chinese language novels?? There are so many of them, and a Nobel winner, and no reference on this wonderful page.  I once found a page listing Chinese novels, but now I can't find it again.

I'd appreciate it if you'd route this to the appropriate people?

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnLoretta (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)