This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
From http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/unref_blp_count.log
Amazing work by all, especially big thanks to User:Gigs, who proposed the watchlist message - I'd been calling out to get more people involved all year, but didn't know how to do it - you've actually done it. The-Pope ( talk) 01:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If it wasn`t for the watch-list message I would never know about this project. This is definitely a good idea. Every project should have this kind of messages. I am not a "huge" help, but I do my part. Greetings to everybody. Adrian ( talk) 18:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the new improved WP:CATSCAN the other day and whilst playing around with it today, found our oldest current UBLP. This search ranks the UBLP articles by article creation ID, so Stephen R. Lawhead, created on 29 August 2001 is the oldest UBLP in existence (at the moment...) #2 on the list Max Weismann, created on 27 May 2002 has the following fantastic comment by the second editor... "and what has this person done to warrent an encyclopedia article?" They obviously didn't have an {{ db-a7}} back then! The-Pope ( talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello guys, I think that this area is a real headache. When I write about living person, I do so in a order that calls attention to a large group. Some of the people are more creditable than others. Clearly you guys want concepts that tie into the best media resource, right? IE, Google Books ect. Large publishing companies?
This can not be the case with all Biographies of Living Persons, or we would not have new Biographies, right? Is there a list of creditable publishing companies. Can we not just go right to a set of rule that does not allow these new and unknown Biographies be listed? Because it seems like a major issue, with no end in sight. Thanks finding dreams 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)--finding dreams 13:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams ( talk • contribs)
I'd been setting myself the goal of resolving (sourcing or prodding) at least one URBLP every day (sometimes more), using the link from the Watchlist. But just now it's disappeared! Is that deliberate or a glitch? It was a helpful reminder, and a helpfully easy place to find the link to a random biog. PamD ( talk) 23:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It's been a bit quieter this year than this time last year. A net reduction of 40,000 UBLPs in a year is something for all of us to be very proud of. Have a read of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Phase_I and the ArbCom motion for a bit of reminiscing about the old days! Should Jan 21 be renamed "International UBLP day"? The-Pope ( talk) 16:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It says in the article that he died last year but I can't find verification...anyone have a handle on Figian death notices? J04n( talk page) 19:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I've had a look on the project page whether there is a deadline by which all BLPs need to be sourced, but there doesn't appear to be any info on this. I tend to recall that such a deadline had been discussed. What is the status of this? Schwede 66 03:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I've plotted the number of UBLPs based on the log and the increase during the time the watchlist notice was in effect (4 Dec to 17 Jan) is quite dramatic! Definitely might need another run in a few months to try to finish them off. Maybe also partially due to time off work/school over the Christmas/New Year period, but the alignment of the two weeks since the notice has been removed to the two months before the notice was placed indicates that not many extra people continued on with the referencing without having the reminder there at the top of their watchlist. The-Pope ( talk) 06:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any insight as to why there was such a big jump in Category:Unreferenced BLPs from January 2011 over the weekend? If memory serves there were around 470 - 490 on Friday, where it's now sitting at 980! -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever search tools are being used to determine URBLPs by topic are missing important topic areas. For instance, there are many unreferenced biographies of NFL players, but searching for that tag does not yield any results. I do not know how the searches are being performed. The {{ Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League }} tag is on the talk pages of these URBLPs. I'm sure there are other searches by topic that are missing the appropriate tags. Cliff ( talk) 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
{{NFLProject}}rather than the standardized
{{wikiproject NFL}}. Perhaps this is why the topic search is returning no results. If anybody want's to tutor me in Bot programming, I'd like to tackle the project of searching for the
{{NFL project}}tags and changing them appropriately. You'd probably have to hold my hand though;o Cliff ( talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could assist me with this. Someone inserted the statement that Ms. Pons has died into her article. I have scoured the internet, but have been unable to find anything definitive. I also posted messages on the article talk page, as well as the talk page of the user who added this, to no avail. Joefromrandb ( talk) 13:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
-- FormerIP ( talk) 00:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble using Cat Scan to find unreferenced BLPs. A few days ago this query stopped working:
It gives me an error like this:
A database error has occurred Query: SELECT page_id, page_namespace, page_title, page_restrictions, group_concat(DISTINCT c.cl_to SEPARATOR '|') as cats, group_concat(DISTINCT if (t.cl_to in ('All_unreferenced_BLPs'), t.cl_to, null) SEPARATOR '|') as tags FROM page JOIN categorylinks as c ON c.cl_from = page_id JOIN categorylinks as t on t.cl_from = page_id WHERE c.cl_to in ('Canadian_people', …) GROUP BY page_id HAVING tags IS NOT NULL ORDER BY page_title LIMIT 1000 Function: getSubcategories Error: 1317 Query execution was interrupted (sql-s1)
Any suggestions? Pburka ( talk) 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
10009 on the big red button at the moment. Should be under 10k by the time the toolserver count gets published in 7 hours time. I tried to get there tonight but couldn't quite do it... if someone would delete all of my CSDs it would go close! Well done to everyone involved, 50k down to 10k in just over a year is better than most of us realistically thought possible. Now to finish them off. But if I see another American businessman with philanthropic tendencies, Colombian journalist, Indian filmmaker, Filipino actress or European musician, I think I'll explode. Might be time to get a message back on the watchlist notice... or should we wait another month? The-Pope ( talk) 17:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As of today, there are no remaining articles tagged BLP unsourced created before 1/1/2004. ( Aroup Chatterjee is the oldest last I checked.) -- joe decker talk to me 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think this is unexpected - the low-hanging fruit, as they say, has gone. The regulars must be tiring by now. You've been playing this game now for over a year. It's time to regroup and start making the difficult push for 0.
During the period of the last watchlist notice (4 December - 15 January), the number of URBLPs fell by 7400. The consensus was that the notice had helped significantly in this regard. I therefore propose a new watchlist message, a reworded version of the last message, to commence on 1 April. The more the push can achieve, the more motivated the "push for zero" will become. A virtuous circle can hopefully emerge.
I thank you all for your consideration, and apologies for only doing 50 myself so far. - Jarry1250 Who? Discuss. 19:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I put in a request for another watchlist notice. J04n( talk page) 12:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Of Wikipedia's first half-million articles, there only ten six remaining unsourced BLPs save for a couple at AfD. --
joe decker
talk to me 21:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I always find this sort of interesting, YMMV. -- joe decker talk to me 17:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Mr.Z-bot has just switched 299 articles from {{ unreferenced}} to {{ BLP unsourced}}, hence the jump above 6000 again. It seems that he's changed all the dates to May 2011, but normally there are lots of false positives (either refs are in the ext links, not actually living or actually with a proper ref, but the tag wasn't removed) in the list. The-Pope ( talk) 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
With the number of unsourced BLPs dwindling, I wonder when we should consider the backlog elimination to be finished? The backlog has been shifting to include newly-tagged articles since we started this over a year ago. Obviously there will be an ongoing need to deal with unsourced BLPs, but we're never going to get down to zero due to articles going through various deletion processes. The work carried out by this project has been a great achievement and one that we should publicize when it's reached it's target. The question is, then, what is our target? I would suggest that if we get the total below 1,000 with no articles having been tagged as unsourced BLPs for longer than 2 months (other than those that may have been kept at AFD for example while still unsourced), then we will have 'done the job' re. the backlog and we can then concentrate on keeping the numbers at a low level. Any other views on this? If we aim for zero unsourced BLPs we will never realistically be able to say that we've done it.-- Michig ( talk) 10:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it's temporary or what, but it's giving a PHP error, headers already sent. Gigs ( talk) 15:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
As of today, every article which was tagged "unsourced BLP" before March 18, 2010 (the mark of the BLPPROD era) has now been sourced, deleted, or is currently PROD'd or the subject of a current deletion discussion. The vast majority of the fifty thousand articles involved had one or more sources added to them.
While we've discovered more articles, created before that date but not tagged as of that date since, I still think this is quite a milestone. Congratulations to everyone who has helped us reach that, we are still, slowly but surely, closing in on the day where there isn't a backlog of unreferenced BLPs at all. -- joe decker talk to me 17:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There are only 10 BLPs left of the first million Wikipedia articles (as judged by article ID #, which is roughly correct.). There is a popular conception that the oldest ones are the most intractable, but that often proves, in my experience, not to be the case. I haven't looked at any of these ten, much as we did with the last ten of the first half-million, let's see how tough these are.
If these are anything like what I usually find, you will notice that many of them, despite 2004 creation dates, were only tagged as unreferenced BLPs quite recently. Let's go see!
Enjoy! -- joe decker talk to me 21:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The total just dipped under 3,000. Looks like we might get there some time in August.-- Michig ( talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, looking at Joel Goodness which popped up on my radar whilst asessing Theatre Project articles, I would like some guidance on what constitutes "unreferenced". The article has three ELs, one to IMDb, one to IBDb and one to a wiki. The first two may be acceptable for casting details, and the wiki for nothing. So should this be categorised as "unreferenced" or "needs reference improving"? Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Something seems to have happened to the Unreferenced BLP categories yesterday. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Unreferenced BLPs now includes former prime minister Jean Chrétien and union leader Buzz Hargrove. While these could certainly be better referenced, they're certainly not unreferenced! Does anyone know what's up? Pburka ( talk) 23:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
There seem to be quite a few unreferenced BLPs right now of the form "XXX is a (former) Dutch politician." Are there any Dutch speaking editors who can get through these quickly? It seems like they're mostly pretty easy to source, but the effort of translating pages to English is fairly cumbersome for a non-Dutch speaker. Pburka ( talk) 23:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
With fewer than two hundred unreferenced BLPs (not counting those currently in a deletion process), it's time to finish this off. Come on, lend a hand, and lets all push this thing through the finish line together! -- joe decker talk to me 13:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
That, at least as of a few minutes ago, the encyclopedia had no BLPs marked unreferenced, save for those in a deletion or copyright investigation. As a result, I believe we have now reached "steady state." -- joe decker talk to me 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Mark historical? Retool for maintenance mode? Retool to expand to blp refimprove? Where do we want to go with this page? Gigs ( talk) 15:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, my vote is to mark this page historical with a note at the top explaining what this was about and what we accomplished, and to put further efforts under a new project. Gigs ( talk) 15:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to
HighBeam Research.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 16:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Over at http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/08/08/fame-without-proof-on-wikipedia/ , they're SHOCK! HORROR! noticing the project. Shall WP:URBLP be revived, if only to put it to bed again ASAP? (I personally don't think any project should ever be declared defunct, just resting, pining for the fjords). -- Lexein ( talk) 18:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't hear any screams of Noooo! (my 2nd comment above got no love, snif) so I boldly reactivated the project, slightly copyedited. The appearance of a dead project with a non-zero todo list, which is currently actively linked to by WP skeptics, just bugged me. Revert if you will, I won't re-revert. I fixed one BLP Calle Kristiansson pretty well, by the way, though I still feel it needs a ref for his birthdate, so it's still {{ refimprove}}. -- Lexein ( talk) 22:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I see that the list has undergone some updates which include bot testing. Is the bot going to be approved to clean all these up? Should I continue doing any more manual edits? -- Whpq ( talk) 20:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Manual To Do List moved to here, up to 36 items for manual attention
That's my last run for tonight, so any manual assistance on those twelve would be very helpful. I think we've knocked off Athletes and Basketball players just in those two spurts, and I'll increase the batch size again in the morning and run. Thanks! -- j⚛e decker talk 00:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
In doing the list at User:Joe Decker/olybatch1, I blew past Fernanda da Silva as it looked like somebody else had already referenced and expanded the article. I backtracked after seeing Diana Garcia who is a poet and clearly not an Olympic athlete. Fernanda da Silva fooled me because she is a handballer and so the bio looks like a typical athlete bio. Fernanda da Silva (cyclist) appears to be the article that needs work. Can the list be regenerated with disambiguators so we can be sure we grab the right artcile? -- Whpq ( talk) 13:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Question: does the scope of this project include only those articles which are completely unreferenced, or does it also include those with minimal sourcing that doesn't cover all of the information included? I'm looking for some help on an article that's in the latter camp, but if this isn't the place, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 14:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I come seeking clarification.
Is the {{
BLP unsourced}}
maintenance tag for:
OR
I know it is for A) but I have read different things about whether it applies to B). Ever since I replaced the tag with {{
BLP sources}}
on an article with only a single external link, and someone reverted it and told me I was wrong, I have beileved that both A) and B) are correct. But just now when I was looking for something else, I found a number of discussions on the tag's talk page saying that infact the tag only applies to A) and it shouldn't be applied to B) - and the tag category is backlogged because the majority of article are incorrectly tagged.
What I want to know is, which is correct. And I also want the answer put in big letters on template documentation so that everyone knows what the answer is one way or another. -- Patchy1 07:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
BLP unsourced}}
are incorrectly tagged, and the tag should be replaced with {{
BLP sources}}
and/or {{
no footnotes}}
? Is this your opinions on what it should be used for or is there some relevant policy as to what is considered sourced and unsourced, if there isn't, should there be, because it sounds pretty ambiguous, inconsistent and confusing from what I have read. --
Patchy1 00:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC){{
Prod BLP}}
- existing process{{
BLP unsourced}}
- no sources whatsoever{{
BLP unreliable sources}}
- sources are generic or rubbish (or just delete the sources, but this might be troublesome as the next step would be BLPPROD, and some people may disagree about the quality with the sources and argue the source was only removed to allow BLPPROD to be allowed){{
BLP single source}}
- one source{{
BLP no footnotes}}
- no inline citations{{
BLP single source/no footnotes}}
- one source, not an inline citation{{
BLP IMDb-only refimprove}}
- only source is IMDb (I also propose we deprecate {{
BLP IMDb refimprove}}
){{
BLP selfpublished}}
/{{
BLP primary sources}}
- only source is website/blog etc of subject{{
BLP sources}}
- if none of the above apply and there is enough content in the article or unverified statements to warrant more sources being needed.|reason=
parameter, to add a bit of explanatory text, for example Blogs are low quality sources, please use
WP:RS. This may address the need for some of the above explicit templates. --
Lexein (
talk) 11:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at meta:WebCite regarding citations on Wikipedia that may be of interest to the members of WP:URBLP and others that reference our BLP articles. For those who don't know, webcitation.org is used to archive newspaper articles and other reliable sources that disappear from the original websites. Wikipedia currently has 182,368 links to this archive site. Regards. 64.40.54.47 ( talk) 11:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone needs to fix the links to toolserver to point to where they've been migrated. George8211 / T 11:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
From http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/unref_blp_count.log
Amazing work by all, especially big thanks to User:Gigs, who proposed the watchlist message - I'd been calling out to get more people involved all year, but didn't know how to do it - you've actually done it. The-Pope ( talk) 01:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If it wasn`t for the watch-list message I would never know about this project. This is definitely a good idea. Every project should have this kind of messages. I am not a "huge" help, but I do my part. Greetings to everybody. Adrian ( talk) 18:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the new improved WP:CATSCAN the other day and whilst playing around with it today, found our oldest current UBLP. This search ranks the UBLP articles by article creation ID, so Stephen R. Lawhead, created on 29 August 2001 is the oldest UBLP in existence (at the moment...) #2 on the list Max Weismann, created on 27 May 2002 has the following fantastic comment by the second editor... "and what has this person done to warrent an encyclopedia article?" They obviously didn't have an {{ db-a7}} back then! The-Pope ( talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello guys, I think that this area is a real headache. When I write about living person, I do so in a order that calls attention to a large group. Some of the people are more creditable than others. Clearly you guys want concepts that tie into the best media resource, right? IE, Google Books ect. Large publishing companies?
This can not be the case with all Biographies of Living Persons, or we would not have new Biographies, right? Is there a list of creditable publishing companies. Can we not just go right to a set of rule that does not allow these new and unknown Biographies be listed? Because it seems like a major issue, with no end in sight. Thanks finding dreams 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)--finding dreams 13:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams ( talk • contribs)
I'd been setting myself the goal of resolving (sourcing or prodding) at least one URBLP every day (sometimes more), using the link from the Watchlist. But just now it's disappeared! Is that deliberate or a glitch? It was a helpful reminder, and a helpfully easy place to find the link to a random biog. PamD ( talk) 23:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It's been a bit quieter this year than this time last year. A net reduction of 40,000 UBLPs in a year is something for all of us to be very proud of. Have a read of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Phase_I and the ArbCom motion for a bit of reminiscing about the old days! Should Jan 21 be renamed "International UBLP day"? The-Pope ( talk) 16:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It says in the article that he died last year but I can't find verification...anyone have a handle on Figian death notices? J04n( talk page) 19:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I've had a look on the project page whether there is a deadline by which all BLPs need to be sourced, but there doesn't appear to be any info on this. I tend to recall that such a deadline had been discussed. What is the status of this? Schwede 66 03:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I've plotted the number of UBLPs based on the log and the increase during the time the watchlist notice was in effect (4 Dec to 17 Jan) is quite dramatic! Definitely might need another run in a few months to try to finish them off. Maybe also partially due to time off work/school over the Christmas/New Year period, but the alignment of the two weeks since the notice has been removed to the two months before the notice was placed indicates that not many extra people continued on with the referencing without having the reminder there at the top of their watchlist. The-Pope ( talk) 06:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any insight as to why there was such a big jump in Category:Unreferenced BLPs from January 2011 over the weekend? If memory serves there were around 470 - 490 on Friday, where it's now sitting at 980! -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever search tools are being used to determine URBLPs by topic are missing important topic areas. For instance, there are many unreferenced biographies of NFL players, but searching for that tag does not yield any results. I do not know how the searches are being performed. The {{ Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League }} tag is on the talk pages of these URBLPs. I'm sure there are other searches by topic that are missing the appropriate tags. Cliff ( talk) 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
{{NFLProject}}rather than the standardized
{{wikiproject NFL}}. Perhaps this is why the topic search is returning no results. If anybody want's to tutor me in Bot programming, I'd like to tackle the project of searching for the
{{NFL project}}tags and changing them appropriately. You'd probably have to hold my hand though;o Cliff ( talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could assist me with this. Someone inserted the statement that Ms. Pons has died into her article. I have scoured the internet, but have been unable to find anything definitive. I also posted messages on the article talk page, as well as the talk page of the user who added this, to no avail. Joefromrandb ( talk) 13:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
-- FormerIP ( talk) 00:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble using Cat Scan to find unreferenced BLPs. A few days ago this query stopped working:
It gives me an error like this:
A database error has occurred Query: SELECT page_id, page_namespace, page_title, page_restrictions, group_concat(DISTINCT c.cl_to SEPARATOR '|') as cats, group_concat(DISTINCT if (t.cl_to in ('All_unreferenced_BLPs'), t.cl_to, null) SEPARATOR '|') as tags FROM page JOIN categorylinks as c ON c.cl_from = page_id JOIN categorylinks as t on t.cl_from = page_id WHERE c.cl_to in ('Canadian_people', …) GROUP BY page_id HAVING tags IS NOT NULL ORDER BY page_title LIMIT 1000 Function: getSubcategories Error: 1317 Query execution was interrupted (sql-s1)
Any suggestions? Pburka ( talk) 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
10009 on the big red button at the moment. Should be under 10k by the time the toolserver count gets published in 7 hours time. I tried to get there tonight but couldn't quite do it... if someone would delete all of my CSDs it would go close! Well done to everyone involved, 50k down to 10k in just over a year is better than most of us realistically thought possible. Now to finish them off. But if I see another American businessman with philanthropic tendencies, Colombian journalist, Indian filmmaker, Filipino actress or European musician, I think I'll explode. Might be time to get a message back on the watchlist notice... or should we wait another month? The-Pope ( talk) 17:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As of today, there are no remaining articles tagged BLP unsourced created before 1/1/2004. ( Aroup Chatterjee is the oldest last I checked.) -- joe decker talk to me 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think this is unexpected - the low-hanging fruit, as they say, has gone. The regulars must be tiring by now. You've been playing this game now for over a year. It's time to regroup and start making the difficult push for 0.
During the period of the last watchlist notice (4 December - 15 January), the number of URBLPs fell by 7400. The consensus was that the notice had helped significantly in this regard. I therefore propose a new watchlist message, a reworded version of the last message, to commence on 1 April. The more the push can achieve, the more motivated the "push for zero" will become. A virtuous circle can hopefully emerge.
I thank you all for your consideration, and apologies for only doing 50 myself so far. - Jarry1250 Who? Discuss. 19:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I put in a request for another watchlist notice. J04n( talk page) 12:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Of Wikipedia's first half-million articles, there only ten six remaining unsourced BLPs save for a couple at AfD. --
joe decker
talk to me 21:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I always find this sort of interesting, YMMV. -- joe decker talk to me 17:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Mr.Z-bot has just switched 299 articles from {{ unreferenced}} to {{ BLP unsourced}}, hence the jump above 6000 again. It seems that he's changed all the dates to May 2011, but normally there are lots of false positives (either refs are in the ext links, not actually living or actually with a proper ref, but the tag wasn't removed) in the list. The-Pope ( talk) 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
With the number of unsourced BLPs dwindling, I wonder when we should consider the backlog elimination to be finished? The backlog has been shifting to include newly-tagged articles since we started this over a year ago. Obviously there will be an ongoing need to deal with unsourced BLPs, but we're never going to get down to zero due to articles going through various deletion processes. The work carried out by this project has been a great achievement and one that we should publicize when it's reached it's target. The question is, then, what is our target? I would suggest that if we get the total below 1,000 with no articles having been tagged as unsourced BLPs for longer than 2 months (other than those that may have been kept at AFD for example while still unsourced), then we will have 'done the job' re. the backlog and we can then concentrate on keeping the numbers at a low level. Any other views on this? If we aim for zero unsourced BLPs we will never realistically be able to say that we've done it.-- Michig ( talk) 10:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it's temporary or what, but it's giving a PHP error, headers already sent. Gigs ( talk) 15:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
As of today, every article which was tagged "unsourced BLP" before March 18, 2010 (the mark of the BLPPROD era) has now been sourced, deleted, or is currently PROD'd or the subject of a current deletion discussion. The vast majority of the fifty thousand articles involved had one or more sources added to them.
While we've discovered more articles, created before that date but not tagged as of that date since, I still think this is quite a milestone. Congratulations to everyone who has helped us reach that, we are still, slowly but surely, closing in on the day where there isn't a backlog of unreferenced BLPs at all. -- joe decker talk to me 17:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There are only 10 BLPs left of the first million Wikipedia articles (as judged by article ID #, which is roughly correct.). There is a popular conception that the oldest ones are the most intractable, but that often proves, in my experience, not to be the case. I haven't looked at any of these ten, much as we did with the last ten of the first half-million, let's see how tough these are.
If these are anything like what I usually find, you will notice that many of them, despite 2004 creation dates, were only tagged as unreferenced BLPs quite recently. Let's go see!
Enjoy! -- joe decker talk to me 21:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The total just dipped under 3,000. Looks like we might get there some time in August.-- Michig ( talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, looking at Joel Goodness which popped up on my radar whilst asessing Theatre Project articles, I would like some guidance on what constitutes "unreferenced". The article has three ELs, one to IMDb, one to IBDb and one to a wiki. The first two may be acceptable for casting details, and the wiki for nothing. So should this be categorised as "unreferenced" or "needs reference improving"? Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Something seems to have happened to the Unreferenced BLP categories yesterday. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Unreferenced BLPs now includes former prime minister Jean Chrétien and union leader Buzz Hargrove. While these could certainly be better referenced, they're certainly not unreferenced! Does anyone know what's up? Pburka ( talk) 23:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
There seem to be quite a few unreferenced BLPs right now of the form "XXX is a (former) Dutch politician." Are there any Dutch speaking editors who can get through these quickly? It seems like they're mostly pretty easy to source, but the effort of translating pages to English is fairly cumbersome for a non-Dutch speaker. Pburka ( talk) 23:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
With fewer than two hundred unreferenced BLPs (not counting those currently in a deletion process), it's time to finish this off. Come on, lend a hand, and lets all push this thing through the finish line together! -- joe decker talk to me 13:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
That, at least as of a few minutes ago, the encyclopedia had no BLPs marked unreferenced, save for those in a deletion or copyright investigation. As a result, I believe we have now reached "steady state." -- joe decker talk to me 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Mark historical? Retool for maintenance mode? Retool to expand to blp refimprove? Where do we want to go with this page? Gigs ( talk) 15:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, my vote is to mark this page historical with a note at the top explaining what this was about and what we accomplished, and to put further efforts under a new project. Gigs ( talk) 15:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to
HighBeam Research.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 16:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Over at http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/08/08/fame-without-proof-on-wikipedia/ , they're SHOCK! HORROR! noticing the project. Shall WP:URBLP be revived, if only to put it to bed again ASAP? (I personally don't think any project should ever be declared defunct, just resting, pining for the fjords). -- Lexein ( talk) 18:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't hear any screams of Noooo! (my 2nd comment above got no love, snif) so I boldly reactivated the project, slightly copyedited. The appearance of a dead project with a non-zero todo list, which is currently actively linked to by WP skeptics, just bugged me. Revert if you will, I won't re-revert. I fixed one BLP Calle Kristiansson pretty well, by the way, though I still feel it needs a ref for his birthdate, so it's still {{ refimprove}}. -- Lexein ( talk) 22:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I see that the list has undergone some updates which include bot testing. Is the bot going to be approved to clean all these up? Should I continue doing any more manual edits? -- Whpq ( talk) 20:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Manual To Do List moved to here, up to 36 items for manual attention
That's my last run for tonight, so any manual assistance on those twelve would be very helpful. I think we've knocked off Athletes and Basketball players just in those two spurts, and I'll increase the batch size again in the morning and run. Thanks! -- j⚛e decker talk 00:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
In doing the list at User:Joe Decker/olybatch1, I blew past Fernanda da Silva as it looked like somebody else had already referenced and expanded the article. I backtracked after seeing Diana Garcia who is a poet and clearly not an Olympic athlete. Fernanda da Silva fooled me because she is a handballer and so the bio looks like a typical athlete bio. Fernanda da Silva (cyclist) appears to be the article that needs work. Can the list be regenerated with disambiguators so we can be sure we grab the right artcile? -- Whpq ( talk) 13:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Question: does the scope of this project include only those articles which are completely unreferenced, or does it also include those with minimal sourcing that doesn't cover all of the information included? I'm looking for some help on an article that's in the latter camp, but if this isn't the place, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 14:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I come seeking clarification.
Is the {{
BLP unsourced}}
maintenance tag for:
OR
I know it is for A) but I have read different things about whether it applies to B). Ever since I replaced the tag with {{
BLP sources}}
on an article with only a single external link, and someone reverted it and told me I was wrong, I have beileved that both A) and B) are correct. But just now when I was looking for something else, I found a number of discussions on the tag's talk page saying that infact the tag only applies to A) and it shouldn't be applied to B) - and the tag category is backlogged because the majority of article are incorrectly tagged.
What I want to know is, which is correct. And I also want the answer put in big letters on template documentation so that everyone knows what the answer is one way or another. -- Patchy1 07:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
BLP unsourced}}
are incorrectly tagged, and the tag should be replaced with {{
BLP sources}}
and/or {{
no footnotes}}
? Is this your opinions on what it should be used for or is there some relevant policy as to what is considered sourced and unsourced, if there isn't, should there be, because it sounds pretty ambiguous, inconsistent and confusing from what I have read. --
Patchy1 00:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC){{
Prod BLP}}
- existing process{{
BLP unsourced}}
- no sources whatsoever{{
BLP unreliable sources}}
- sources are generic or rubbish (or just delete the sources, but this might be troublesome as the next step would be BLPPROD, and some people may disagree about the quality with the sources and argue the source was only removed to allow BLPPROD to be allowed){{
BLP single source}}
- one source{{
BLP no footnotes}}
- no inline citations{{
BLP single source/no footnotes}}
- one source, not an inline citation{{
BLP IMDb-only refimprove}}
- only source is IMDb (I also propose we deprecate {{
BLP IMDb refimprove}}
){{
BLP selfpublished}}
/{{
BLP primary sources}}
- only source is website/blog etc of subject{{
BLP sources}}
- if none of the above apply and there is enough content in the article or unverified statements to warrant more sources being needed.|reason=
parameter, to add a bit of explanatory text, for example Blogs are low quality sources, please use
WP:RS. This may address the need for some of the above explicit templates. --
Lexein (
talk) 11:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at meta:WebCite regarding citations on Wikipedia that may be of interest to the members of WP:URBLP and others that reference our BLP articles. For those who don't know, webcitation.org is used to archive newspaper articles and other reliable sources that disappear from the original websites. Wikipedia currently has 182,368 links to this archive site. Regards. 64.40.54.47 ( talk) 11:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone needs to fix the links to toolserver to point to where they've been migrated. George8211 / T 11:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
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)