Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Archive 6

Killing Category:Articles lacking sources from March 2024

Category:Articles lacking sources from March 2024 has less articles than Category:Articles lacking sources from February 2024! This might be a bit ambitious, but could we manage to axe the March 2024 beast in this month? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh, only 91 articles? That's actually pretty impressive, and axing it definitely possible, as long as people continue to work on it. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm working on it too. We soon need to form an alliance with NPP and AFC, just saying :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, looks like the dream is dead (for now). There's been a big uptick in new additions over the last few days, and now we're sitting at nearly 500. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

On March 1 and 2, I was trying to patrol the category and made great headway. I've probably knocked at least 30-40 out. A lot of the 'discovered' unsourced articles are sort of in batches of related articles, probably mass created... if we can find a good source for one of them, that should make serious progress on the category. ForksForks (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Handball for help? They are only semi-active but there are very many unreferenced handball articles in there at the moment! Turtlecrown (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Depreciating new unsourced articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Depreciating new unsourced articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Happy spring, party people! I hope everyone is doing swimmingly.

• Headline: As a result of the first annual drive, which was a smash success, we have cleared 18,096 articles between today and January 4th, the equivalent of what we might do in ~9 months (based on previous averages). For yourself and your fellow editors, please clap.

• Highlights: All categories from October 2007 to May 2008 have been emptied! We are finally down to backlog that is less than 16 years and below 100,000 unreferenced articles for the first time...well, since we went over 100,000 articles.

• Low-hanging fruit: June 2008 is hovering at an enticing 88 articles left, a very lucky number.

• High-hanging fruit: Everyone's favourite BFC (Big Friendly Category), December 2009, is a willowy 12,925 articles as of this writing - half the calories, but just as much body as the original. The other high-hanging fruit are, still, the Frustrating Five (name open for revision): February 2016 (921), April 2019 (1095), May 2019 (2250), June 2019 (4699), and September 2020 (1432); September 2020 had the lowest percentage of change from January to April. Godspeed to anyone working on these.
• Announcements: The village pump discussion started by comrade in arms @CactiStaccingCrane is ongoing, see above.
• Results: July 2012 edged out August 2012, 534 to 539.
• New challenge: not one, not two, but THREE ties: September/October 2010 (314); April/May 2012 (364); and September/October 2018 (395). Some kind of triple Jellybean (my cat) in a hat prize awaits the person who tips all three of these.

Happy editing and for everyone watching the solar eclipse, please remember to wear eye protection! Best, Kazamzam (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam, please remove the old signature and add a new one with the current timestamp :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam: the village pump proposal you mentioned above doesn't work for me. is it still open? --Engineerchange (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Engineerchange, It’s still open. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Deprecating ''new'' unsourced articles. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: I see; there was just a spelling error in the above one: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Deprecating new unsourced articles ("Depreciating" vs. "Deprecating") --Engineerchange (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam Nice. The consensus around that discussion seems to be draftifying articles, so I will propose that articles should be formally draftify if they don't have an inline source. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ecuador

Does anyone know why all these talk pages of referenced articles are showing as unreferenced articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unreferenced_Ecuador_articles? And how we can address it? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Boleyn - it's part of the project banner text {{WikiProject Ecuador|importance=Low|imageneeded=no|unref=yes}} We would, I believe, need to go in and address each one manually. Doable if time-consuming. Kazamzam (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Could we get an AWB run or bot to automatically add the {{unreferenced}} to all articles with the unref=yes but without any tag on the main page? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Boleyn - the issue is that the tags are often outdated and some of them now have references, so that would likely be very unproductive. Kazamzam (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion - criteria Ambox for unref. articles

Greetings, Last week at Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2008, for the first dozen or so articles, I added a "Notice" tag (being Bold). Today, I fine-tuned it a bit into a transcluded "Ambox", just the first 3 articles. With the four criteria more visible, hoping it helps both beginners and a call-to-action for more advanced editors. Asking for feedback and discussion here. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is the wikilink Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Criteria

JoeNMLC (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• The four criteria seem to be better suited for articles tagged for notability issues. Citations just have to be reliable. Primary, nonindependent and passing mentions are all usable (within wp:primary).

Obviously, sources that satisfy all criteria are preferred, but we don’t want people avoiding adding an otherwise fine reference just because it doesn’t have sigcov or something. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• You're conflating notability and verifiability here. Citations in an article are there to verify the content of the article: they have to be to reliable sources, but need not meet your three other criteria. "Significant coverage in independent, secondary reliable sources" is how we judge notability, but that's not something readers need to worry about. If sources showing notability need to be presented somewhere, the talk page is probably best. But in the vast majority of cases that doesn't come up until notability is challenged at WP:AFD.

This seems to be a common enough mistake that we ought to have an essay explaining it... – Joe (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

And just to add, if what you're concerned about is notability, there are already a range of tags for that. {{GNG}} is probably the closest to your wording. – Joe (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joe - Thanks. The template docs for the GNG has specific guidelines & that is helpful. JoeNMLC (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think this addition to the existing maintenance tag is necessary or helpful. The second sentence of the unreferenced tag is 'Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.' with the link to the 'Referencing for Beginners' essay so I think this is a total non-issue that is just creating more work. Why do you feel this is necessary? Also having multiple maintenance tags removes the automatic search links to Google, Books, Scholar, JSTOR, etc. which I find very convenient so as an experienced editor, it is making my work 1% more difficult. Also+also agree with the above notes about notability and verification from Joe and ARN123. Kazamzam (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with Kazamzam. We already have tags that cover these various issues. I understand the desire to have more refined tags that cover more subjects but I think this ultimately is overly confusing for readers and editors. Also consider that we track various types of issues by categories and a tag like this muddies that approach. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Thank you, everyone! - For clarity & explaining why "not" to do what I attempted. Today, I did "undo self" for those June 2008 unref. articles. Going forward, I'm adding parts of this discussion to my "Article cleanup" notes. So as not to forget. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Empty references sections?

Is there any guidance on whether or not unreferenced articles should have: "==References==, {{reflist}}"? It's pretty convenient not having to type it out, especially if I'm using the visual editor. ARandomName123 (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I see people add these in relatively often. Sometimes the random article patrollers that add unreferenced tags to stuff throw them on. I don't really ever see people removing them, so I assume it's okay to do if you want. ForksForks (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I add them, as when looking through to add references, I am looking for easy references to add, and to see if there is a references section. This way at least one is completed, even if I struggle with the references themselves. I have had them removed by a couple of editors just seeing it as an empty section, though for me this is an essential section awaiting completion, as opposed to an unneeded section. Boleyn (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think somebody already suggested this, but I can't remember where: it'd be great if {{Reflist}} on a page with no references displayed something useful. "This article does not contain any inline citations or footnotes. Please help improve this article by adding some" – something like that. – Joe (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I really like this suggestion, @Joe Roe! Broc (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Followed up at Template talk:Reflist#Making empty reflists useful. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been removing these because I don't think they help readers and could cause confusion. The idea to make {{Reflist}} smarter may help. In the meantime, there is {{Empty section}} which has a |find= option that could help with sourcing. ~Kvng (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Backlog

Today it has reached 94,999! I realise it may have bounced back by the time people see this, but it is nice to see it fall to this. Unref BLPs now also under 1000. Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Boleyn It's going to reach 94500 soon... At this rate, we cite 500 articles every week. This means that it will take 3 years and 33 weeks (3.5 years) to completely clear the backlog.

Should we make another citation drive soon, around June? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

oh boy oh boy Cielquiparle (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

How do we feel about two backlog drives a year? One in February and one in June/July (TBD)? Assuming each drive reduces the backlog by around 10k, each drive is worth around 20 weeks, meaning we can bring the time to completely clear the backlog down to just 2 or so years. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

...and a third one in October. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good - anything to keep momentum going :) Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Also we don't have many sub-categories based on topic, or a search box for keywords - I don't know how easy it is to do those or if they exist and I am just missing them! Boleyn (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

They do exist! If you take a look at Category:Articles lacking sources there is a yellow box showing articles based on certain topics. You can also type your search term in the normal search box, then paste incategory:"All articles lacking sources‎" next to it. For example, if you want to find banana articles in the backlog, you would search banana incategory:"All articles lacking sources‎". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok this is interesting... Currently there is 93,481 uncited articles, so a decrease of 1000 articles in 5 days. So right now we are working on these articles at the rate of 200 articles per day. If that's the case then we only need to take 467 days or around 15.5 months to finish the backlog. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

So I (roughly) plotted the monthly count starting in January 2022, and assuming a backlog drive every 6 months, we are headed for a completion date of around early to mid 2026. Without any backlog drives (so assuming FEB24 didn't happen), we would only finish up by January 2030. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It's always nice to work on something when there is some momentum. It looks like it could dip under 93,000 today. I'm aware I have been using the 'incategory' search to pick up some low-hanging fruit, and that I'm not working at the moment, so I am removing more from the category than I would be able to keep up. Maybe an extra editor or two working on it could help, if people know there's a big push at the moment. Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

same, momentum is something that is very hard to get... Should we get wikiprojects to join the effort? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Below 93000 article. Things are about to get interesting. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Should we get wikiprojects to join the effort?, would someone be able to do some analysis on which projects have the most unreferenced articles in their scopes? As well as directly helping with sourcing - they could provide the best guidance on where to find good sources. If it turns out that there is any one project that covers more than, I dunno, 15% of the unfererenced articles then that could be a theme for the next drive. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

91,998! Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yo, I saw this page and that inspired me to become an editor! Time to nuke the backlog eh? BacklogKiller (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@BacklogKiller: Welcome! Very fitting name you got there :) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@BacklogKiller: Welcome! Don't be afraid to post on this talk page (or ask at WP:Teahouse) if you encounter any confusing scenarios on your journey. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@BacklogKiller: Awesome name. Glad you're here.★Trekker (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Found a source for all Kenyan villages: [1] BacklogKiller (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2008 only have one left. I must say, how could you guys cite so many articles so fast? BacklogKiller (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2008 is about to bite the dust too. Turtlecrown (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Indian villages

It would be great if there's like a government source that has a list of villages. That way I don't need to search for eternity for sources for each villages. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

National or even state-level information on villages is difficult (see this article on lacking village data). I usually search the district's website using a Google "site:" search. Turtlecrown (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Help

Can someone help me find sources for: BacklogKiller (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Districts of Algeria

I did try with this one but found it difficult too. Boleyn (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Idea discussion: Teaming up with specific Wikiprojects

Let's continue the discussion about teaming up with other WikiProjects. This came up in the context of the WP:FEB24 backlog drive, but also outside of it. Maybe a more automagical editor can do some more efficient querying but I thought I'd get the ball rolling by throwing a few queries into PetScan based on some familiar faces I've seen along the journey. Note that it's even more haphazard as I've sometimes had to experiment to pick a subcategory tree depth that makes sense.

Added percentages based on @D'n'B's suggestion above. Category total at the time of writing is 91,777 articles.

Category	Possible WikiProject	Petscan query (Category)	Petscan query (WikiProject template)	Articles (2024-05-13) (Category)	Articles (2024-05-14) (WikiProject)	% of total (Category)
Category:Albums	WP:WikiProject Albums	28294450	28295323	7,062	6,846	7.69%
Category:Association football	WP:WikiProject Football	28290734	28295369	4,537	4,041	4.94%
Category:Military history	WP:WikiProject military history or a task force	28291676	28295531	3,962	2,145	4.32%
Category:Villages in India	WP:WikiProject India or a working group	28290438	N/A	3,196	N/A	3.48%
Category:Geography of Germany	WP:WikiProject Germany / WP:WikiProject Geography	28306864	N/A	2,668	N/A	2.91%
Category:Railway stations	WP:WikiProject Stations	28306878	TBC	2,453	2074 using Infobox Station	2.67%
Category:Data transmission	WP:WikiProject Telecommunications / WP:WikiProject Computing	28291520	N/A	2,295	N/A	2.50%
Category:Films	WP:WikiProject Film	28306934	N/A	2,002	N/A	2.18%
Category:Educational institutions	WP:WikiProject Schools / WP:WikiProject Education	28306873	N/A	1,524	N/A	1.66%
Category:Geography of Kenya	WP:WikiProject Kenya / WP:WikiProject Geography	28306800	N/A	1,524	N/A	1.66%
Category:Roads	partly WP:WikiProject Highways	28306924	N/A	1,429	N/A	1.56%
Category:Handball	WP:WikiProject Handball	28289759	can't make query work	320	unknown	0.35%

Turtlecrown (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC); edited to include WikiProject template queries and more Categories by Turtlecrown (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC) and 15:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Most Wikiprojects are pretty moribund from what I understand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I can try to start something over at WP:Albums — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 maybe, but both Millitary History and Football seem to be pretty live and kicking. Thanks for the number crunching Turtlecrown. Let's see what sort of collaboration (alliance? team?) they'd be most interested in. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. I should have said that it was worth a try, but just don't expect a lot of participation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That would be great PerfectSoundWhatever - I just ran an extra query for Albums and I think it might be the biggest one. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I had skipped over albums as I was initially confused by Category:Unreferenced album articles which states "Articles are added to this category by setting the "unref=yes" switch of Template:WikiProject Albums". This is a similar situation to the Ecuador discussion above, except the category is empty. I was trying to find out if the WikiProject already had some infrastructure to deal with articles that land in the category and if we could work with that. So I'll summarise my findings here (TLDR: probably not).

1. The parameter and category were added by formerly very active (till 2015) user @Keraunoscopia in 2011 as part of the B-Class article checklist.
2. A least one editor at WP:Albums, @Champion, was actively adding standard unreferenced templates instead in 2018, providing this search which currently shows 6,759 articles with Infobox Album and an unref template.
3. Deletion was NC in 2019 as the parameter is still part of the template though not actively in use. Another 2021 suggestion to remove the param went unanswered.

It sounds like the category is only still there as nobody has removed the parameter from the template. However, I see potential here in collaborating with such WikiProject tracking efforts. This could also tie in with desires from this WikiProject (eg 1, 2, 3) to have more specific topic categories of articles needing references, whether or not a project ultimately has capacity to assist. Turtlecrown (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure these PetScan queries are giving reliable results... I tried running one for Category:Archaeology and I had to scroll down to the 300s to find something even marginally in the scope of WP:ARCHAEO. Have you tried querying for the intersection of talk pages with something from Category:Articles by WikiProject and articles needing sources? – Joe (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is partly with the web-like (rather than strictly tree-like) structure of categories. The depth on your above search was set to 9 which is very high for such a large category that "contains" other large categories such as Category:Cultural heritage. The above query returns 22019 articles. Setting the depth as 4 gives PSID 28295171 with 633 articles. It works better with more specific categories, eg Category:Archaeology by location which gives 237 articles at PSID 28295201. If we're strictly talking about articles already in WikiProjects it's definitely better to use Talk page templates, which gives 80 unreferenced WP:ARCHEO articles per PSID 28295129. Turtlecrown (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I added some more queries based on the inclusion of a WikiProject template on the article's Talk page (where a project exists specifically for that topic), but it doesn't always work and I don't know why. I also can't get categories from Category:Articles by WikiProject to work despite trying a few approaches from the PetScan docs. This approach of course assumes that unreferenced articles have always been assigned to a WikiProject. Apart from ones that might have been missed, WikiProject Albums for example doesn't claim about 100 Category:Albums unreferenced articles that are EPs and music DVDs (the remaining ~200 are discographies). Turtlecrown (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Albums would certainly be a great category to get down. Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

or you can go to [2], pick a wikiproject, go to "by cat" and "Cites no sources" 113.160.44.130 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that if you allow for both categories sometimes being too broad and project templates sometimes missing, then the "true" number of articles that could be said to belong to a topic is somewhere between the two, and anyway, both sets of numbers are in agreement about which are the largest topics. But I think the choice of topic to theme a backlog drive around lies in where there's the most enthusiasm. Albums/musicians/music might well be the one. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WikiProject United States results in 2,181 results, per PSID 28298668. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• 90,996! Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Filter: For any of the above PetScan, I like to run with additional filter of: Page Properties: Smaller or equal, usually set to 1000, or 500 to look at small articles. These may be candidates for Merge or Prod. if not able to find references. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Who else needs barnstars?

Just awarded some citation barnstars to @Turtlecrown, @Cocobb8, and @Boleyn for their work on Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2008 (which is down to 3). Who am I missing? Cielquiparle (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! We were missing you -  Done Turtlecrown (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Subject matter expertise is greatly appreciated, and one-off contributions are often huge and Barnstar-worthy as well. Hoping for someone who is mathematics-savvy like @XOR'easter to weigh in on finding a reference for everyone's favorite Degenerate bilinear form. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Cielquiparle! Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

A shout out as well to all the unsung heroes who are quietly contributing to the total count of ~200 referenced articles per day (regardless of when they were first tagged). Cielquiparle (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Happy summer! I hope everyone is doing swimmingly.

• Headline: Less than the drive but a notable increase from our usual month-to-month, we cleared 5664 articles since April! For yourself and your fellow editors, please clap.

• Highlights: June, July, and August 2008 are in the bin! For the categories that remain, October and December 2012 had the biggest decreases (47.51% and 51.57% respectively). December 2016 also had a big drop at 38.31%.

• Low-hanging fruit: September 2008 is dangling above the fire like a sinners in the hands of an angry God. Give it a nudge.

• High-hanging fruit: Everyone's favourite BFC (Big Friendly Category), December 2009, is a debonair 12,092 articles as of this writing - built for speed and for comfort. The other high-hanging fruit are, still, the Frustrating Five (name open for revision): February 2016 (897), April 2019 (1071), May 2019 (2181), June 2019 (4579), and September 2020 (1418). Once again, September 2020 had the lowest percentage of change between updates. Godspeed to anyone working on these.
• Announcements: The September 2020 change, or lack thereof, is particularly concerning given that it is a large category that gets very little attention and the articles are difficult to reference. Personally I think a lot of them don't meet notability and should be merged or deleted. However, from a project-wide perspective, it is important that we are working on categories across the board, not just the largest/smallest/newest/oldest. It would be like cleaning your home and a few rooms are spotless but the kitchen is a mess. I would like to propose that there is a benchmark decrease for all categories of at least a 10 article decrease for every two month update. The momentum from the drive has diminished but I think maintaining this kind of standard is important.
• Results: September 2010 beat October 2010, 286 to 303; April 2012 defeated May 2012, 348 to 352; and September 2018 narrowly edged out October 381 to 383.
• New challenge: no ties this update! Carry on.

Happy editing, happy Pride Month, and remember to wear sunscreen! Kazamzam (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the round-up, and good work everyone.

Benchmark: I agree in theory about working on categories across the board. For me personally, I don't think I would do as much if I just tried to be more diffuse. It's motivating to feel like I'm working together with people on something, and just bookmarking a prominent (usually the oldest) category is the easiest way of doing that. There are currently 198 months open, so it's hard to get an overview of progress as such a diffuse group. Ten from each would be 1980 articles, which is a lot, but doable. I'll try to give it a go. (In thinking what would help me direct my focus, I looked into ways of having an automatic and compact tracker to see in overview whether each month category has hit the benchmark, but had no success yet. It's possibly an over-complication but I would be interested to know if anyone has ideas!)

September 2020: Why is it like this? Turtlecrown (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Turtlecrown if I recall correctly, September 2020 is a bunch of stub articles about streams and brooks in the German-speaking world, many of which have the same name. Absolutely maddening. Kazamzam (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

German rivers is about 1.5 percent of the backlog if I remember right. I can believe it. Turtlecrown (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I also find it more motivating when I can tell other people are working on a category. I would support working across multiple categories, but am wondering if more people would be willing to announce "streaks" – so that other people can join in, if they are so inclined? Cielquiparle (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Or, is there an automated way (analogous to the Page curation log) where we could see all the "Unreferenced" Category tags as they are getting removed...? Cielquiparle (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I love this idea. It would also, potentially, enable us to see other clean-up tags that could be improved if that's something people are interested in. Would the NPP editors be able to advise on this idea? It would be a great thing to put on the home page where visitors could see the tick-tick-tick of articles getting referenced and the count going down like sand in an hourglass. Kazamzam (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @The wub on this discussion to assess feasibility. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This tool can show all removals of {{Unreferenced}}, but it doesn't give any information on the date categories. If you wanted to have a list logging such changes on-wiki then you would need a bot, I'm not sure but it sounds feasible. the wub "?!" 23:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We are so close to getting under 90,000!!! I have been working on articles tagged for both notability and no sources which is about 3,600 articles. More than half are notable, it's just not always apparent at first glance because of the lack of sources. I have started some AfDs and merge proposals, but a lot I have been able to add sources. Hopefully this will get two chronic backlogs down at the same time, but it's a large amount!

I also think the unreferenced BLPs are a category that should really be at zero - it's about 920, so on its way down, but very slowly. Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, BLPs going over a year without any sources ought to just be gotten rid of. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

September 2008

Down to the Final 16...! This part always reminds me of playing jenga. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Now down to the final two! Both are Indian village articles, which are fairly annoying to cite. I'm pretty sure they exist, but I can't find any RS for them. The villages are also sometimes spelt differently, like in Tadawas, which didn't show up in the census search under its original title of Tadavas. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Dinosaur hunting

Alright I think I've done it. I set my record. Just found references for an article that was created on 13-June-2002. Almost 22 years of being unreferenced! This article is old enough to buy me a beer of congratulations in all U.S. states!

Any other contenders for longest unreferenced article? I'm almost mad I didn't wait two days to reference it so it could have been a perfect two years exactly. Kazamzam (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

My oldest currently seems to be The Memory of Earth, unreferenced (though an EL was added later) since its creation in 20-March-2002. The first revision even included a spoiler warning. It wasn't tagged until April of this year, and I added a ref about a week later.

I'm currently going through articletopic:books incategory:"All articles lacking sources" which contains two even older ones (Winter's Heart from 3 March 2002, and List of horror fiction writers from November 2001), but I don't think I'll get to those for a while. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

BANG! Former one's gone, ARandomName123. Silverseren^C 02:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a Quarry for the 100 oldest articles in Category:All articles lacking sources by creation date: quarry.wmcloud.org/query/84468. Our winner is Demographic statistics, which was created 7 Mar 2001, making it 23 years and 253 days old. Article number 100, Transport in Austria, born 25 Feb 2002 and aged 22 years and 264 days, can also easily buy those USA beers. Good hunting. Turtlecrown (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Demographic statistics was just coincidentally referenced today by a new editor, @Noxanne. Many thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Below 90,000!!!

The backlog is now at 89,999 :) Well done, everyone. Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Woohoo! Congratulations everybody! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• 88,978! Amazing. Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Boleyn Wow that is a lot of articles that already have at least one reference you are finding. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there's loads! I tried searching for keywords like encyclopedia, but using 'Retrieved' incategory:"All articles lacking sources" got up hundreds with a reference, where the unreferenced tag just hadn't been removed. I have nearly finished those. Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Boleyn - have you been using the 'Mistagged articles' search that's pinned on the main project page? Is that helpful at all? Kazamzam (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't, Kazamzam, I will have to give that a try, thanks. Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried about 20 of the mistagged articles, but those did seem to be tagged correctly, not sure if there is a way I could use the tool better? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Boleyn, a shortcut that I find helpful is to do a Browser Search with the words "for references" to highlight articles to skip. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Kazamzam for sharing about those 'Mistagged articles'. I just did a few & have to admit it's a fun break from the recent Category:Orphaned articles from June 2024 overload. Still learning "new tricks" for editing Wikipedia. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

87,986!!! Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Perhaps this is a common idea. But why don't we just... try to keep July 2024 empty for the whole month? If only 200-400 articles will be in it by the end of the month, that means only about 10 articles are added per day that won't get removed later. That's not too bad! If the project focused our efforts, couldn't we make it so all new tags are taken care of, thereby preventing new unsourced articles from entering the backlog?

It's only been 2hrs into the month but I already cleared the 10 articles in the category. What if we just kept it there? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This was attempted a while back during March 2024 (#Killing Category:Articles lacking sources from March 2024). It actually started off pretty well, and we kept it below 100 for more than half the month, but there was a big uptick in new tags in late March. Definitely possible though, as long as the rate of tags is somewhat steady. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@PerfectSoundWhatever, sounds like @CactiStaccingCrane is the person you want to talk to about this. Kazamzam (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Kudos to the team that played non-stop whack-a-mole throughout the month of June 2024 so we finished sub-200 (177 unreferenced articles at last count). I reckon that means the actual number of articles tagged as "unreferenced" last month was closer to 500. Possibly even more. Well done to all. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Next backlog drive?

It's been a couple of months since our first backlog drive, which was a great success. Since then, the project's been doing pretty well, and it's been reduced by another 10k. Given the success of the first backlog drive, should we hold another one soon (Sep/Aug?; so presumably biannual drives), hold one next year (so annual, maybe in Feb again) or something else? Open to ideas. Pinging previous editors: @CactiStaccingCrane, Broc, Kazamzam, DreamRimmer. Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help organizing another drive, the previous one had overall great participation and helped reduce the backlog significantly. After FEB24, some had suggested a yearly frequency, other 4-months or milestone-based. I think a 6-month interval is a good compromise. A few points that were raised during the previous drive and that we should address ahead:

1. Set up automatic update of the leaderboard at regular intervals
2. Reviews should be better organized, so one can see if a page has been reviewed already or not. This was raised by multiple editors during the drive.
3. Criteria on types of acceptable sources should be clear.

Then an extra one from me:

1. Strongly encourage replacing {{unreferenced}} with {{more sources needed}} or {{one source}} if large parts of the page are left unsourced. Tags are important to highlight remaining issues in an article.

Broc (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd be game for one more sooner – as the August, September request suggests! I'll just add that we should continue the clarifications added through the drive; one was to give a point if the unreferenced tag existed and so did a source, but no in-line cites and the editor added in-line cites. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• I think a semiannual schedule would be great so we don't overextend our asks for the larger editing community. It also gives us plenty of time to review and tweak features/aspects from the previous drive, i.e. the ones raised by @Broc, the initial bugs that @CactiStaccingCrane and others identified while planning the first drive, feedback from participants, etc.
• I strongly agree that the types of acceptable sources should be more explicit - it might even be worth having a two-source minimum to weed out people who are tempted to do drive-by sourcing to excel on the leaderboard without really contributing to the project overall. Having a tutorial (perhaps even a video) would probably be really helpful.
• Advertising the drive on high-traffic places (the Signpost being a big one) is also important to consider and I believe was largely overlooked last time.
• I think August is too soon if we're just beginning the pre-drive discussion (on the project page at least) but September is doable if everyone gets behind it as an idea. I think if we can agree in the next...72 hours that September 1 at 00:00 EST is our start time, we can really get in gear for planning, and if not, October will have to be in (permanent schedule to follow from there?). Let's also set a goal for the number of cleared articles - 15,000 sounds good to me! Cheers, Kazamzam (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I like the two source minimum requirement, so we don't just move it from this queue to the one source queue. I think a video tutorial is a bit too much of an ask. An explicit statement that you need to add a least two sources with in-line citations if there is no existing source (or the citations are not in-line) is sufficient enough instruction. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Well FEB24 worked out with a similar timeframe for August, but September sounds fine. Any objections? If not, we can start creating the drive pages. We did have a mention in the Signpost last time in the News and Notes section, and I feel we might be asking for too much if we want a larger presence - I don’t think many drives are advertised on the SP in the first place.

I don’t think having a two source minimum requirement is the way to go, mostly because some stubs only need one source to support everything. Yes, this will increase the backlog for articles with only one source, but that backlog is probably easier to deal with than this one. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The way to encourage (not require) a two-source minimum requirement is to award 1 point per source added. We just need a different way to track multiple sources added per article. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this the right time to throw in another suggestion, but I think there could be extra points for extra old tags. (eg. article has been tagged for 10+ years). -- D'n'B-t -- 06:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could create different "tracks" or different paths for different types of barn stars. I had this idea for a Treasure Hunt Citation Barn Star, where you had to demonstrate citations in each of the following categories:

• Category: Albums
• Category: Association football
• Category: Military history
• Category: Villages in India
• Category: Geography of Germany
• Category: Railway stations

Cielquiparle (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea! It would be a nice way to bring something to other wikiprojects, instead of collaboration just being about asking for something. Turtlecrown (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m fine with this idea. We could just have editors leave a different edit summary. Though now that I think about it, we’ll just end up moving articles to the additional citations backlog instead of the single source backlog. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 09:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe something like a two-source minimum and/or one source + one external link? I think saying one source is sufficient not only moves things from the single source backlog but it allows a large portion of the article to go unreferenced if it's at all longer than a stub. I'm less concerned about the backlog than the reference quality; articles that state a basic location and then give a bunch of utterly unconfirmed facts being marked as 'cited' because the basic location is confirmed really grind my gears. While that's a personal view, I don't want to encourage drive-by editing from this drive and I think that's a valid concern if we're going to have a large number of participants in a somewhat competitive mindset with minimal oversight or instruction. Not saying this as a doomsday foreteller but because I have unfortunately seen this before.
• Perhaps instead of trying to deter with guidelines that might not fit every article, we could award more points for good referencing. I did a lot of work on Die Kuranten back in September 2023 and I think if someone puts in that kind of overhaul effort because of our drive, it would be great to reward or at least acknowledge it, which so rarely happens. Kazamzam (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  • OK. I could live with the two-citation minimum. (Not so keen on the external link exception, as it seems open to abuse.) If nothing else, finding two citations tends to improve accuracy because it allows you to cross-reference.
  • The Reviews part of the last Backlog drive was very instructive and revealing; it definitely gave you a sense of the range in quality of citations, also by editor. It wasn't clear to me that all of the points deductions were actually applied as a final step, as it seemed more important to fix the bad citations (and to give editors a chance to either explain or to fix the bad citations themselves). But we should make it clear that if they haven't addressed any outstanding N marks by a specific date, points will be deducted from their final total.
  • We need to discourage people from slapping a footnote onto an entire paragraph, when it's only one sentence within the paragraph that is verified by the citation. To me it's potential grounds for N deductions as well.
  • I like the idea of giving extra points for good referencing but not sure how to implement. Maybe if you get a YY during the reviews process for a specific article, you get awarded the extra point. (At the same time, it seems subjective and open to abuse and collusion.)

  Cielquiparle (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

August works well for me because there's an NPP drive scheduled for September, and I might not have time for both. Doing this in August would be ideal. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer - that's really good to know. Maybe this makes October a more appealing option instead of August so we're not overlapping with other big drives? Is there a schedule that we can reference to find our niche? I know November is Asian Month which is a big one for me. Kazamzam (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a GAN backlog drive scheduled for October. You can check out all the scheduled NPP drives here and find the GAN backlog drives here. August would be ideal because it allows us to plan another drive six months later, in February 2025. I apologise if you already have other plans for August. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

August seems fine imo. We managed to get FEB24 up and running within a similar timeframe. With most stuff reusable from FEB24, we could be fine. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 - exactly, we "managed" and we "could" be fine. It was a pretty last minute scramble because we were committed to something that we had not prepared for; the edit history will attest to that. If we're still discussing basic aspects like 'how do we award points' and 'how do make sure people know if a page has been worked on', I do not think we're ready for this. We're a week into July and still discussing when the drive should start. I'd rather have a really good drive in October/November than a slapdash one in August for no reason other than that puts us on a semiannual schedule based on the February drive which was called at the 11th hour. Looking at the GAN backlog drives, they're not on a fixed schedule and I see no reason why we should nail ourselves to one if it's not actually conducive to a good product/outcome. August is also an extremely popular vacation month so we might get lower turn out by virtue of a lot of people not wanting to edit from a beach. Kazamzam (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. October then? We'll have more than enough time to set everything up, and there shouldn't be much conflict with the GAN drive or other drives. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What about November? A GAN drive is planned for October. Broc (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t think there’d be much overlap, but sure, I guess. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let's do it. I'll create the new topic below in a minute. Kazamzam (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

November 2024 Backlog Drive

The URA Backlog Drive 2 (Backlog vs. Jason) is now in planning stages. Comrade in arms @CactiStaccingCrane brilliantly made a backlog drives tab for the project so I think we can shift most of the discussion over there; it might be good to add a message on the project landing page as well for anyone who would like to be involved. There are several points for discussion that I think all previous planners are aware of and hopefully, since we have a lot of time, we can really iron them out and have an excellent drive (15k reduction is my personal goal) and then be on a good course for a semiannual schedule. Cheers, Kazamzam (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

For this drive, could we include a secondary goal of clearing all unreferenced BLPs? There’s only about 800 left, and with a push, we can probably bring it to zero. Regarding the drive pages, I’ll start creating them using February’s as guidance in a few hours, unless someone wants to get to them first? Looking forward to working with you all again! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 10:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Getting through unreferenced BLPs seems like a great idea. I reckon once its down to zero it'll be possible to keep it there which would be good for the whole project. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Started Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2024, feel free to make changes. Keeping in line with FEB24, I believe NOV24 is the correct shortening for the November drive, and have created WP:NOV24. Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 - brilliant! Kazamzam (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Would any of the redirect templates listed at Template:Unreferenced count? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Well assuming they all generate {{unreferenced}}, I see no reason not to count them. I wouldn’t count anything under the related tags header (ex. {{one source}}or {{more citations needed}}), however. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense as those tags indicate at least has at least one citation. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk page

Do we want to create a November 2024 drive-specific talk page? The February 2024 one redirects to the main project but it would be useful to have a dedicated space for planning purposes. For example, I think the phrasing of 'To encourage additional reviews, the drive will be extended for one week (December 1-8) as an additional review period.' is wonky but I don't want to clog up the talk page here. However the drive talk page should be the place for drive participants to discuss issues they might be having, not just to how to see how the soyrizo is made. Maybe we start the discussion there and then archive everything on October 31st to start fresh (fresh-ish)? Kazamzam (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good to me! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

On a related note, I noticed this talk page doesn't seem to have auto-archiving set up. Should we add it? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 Nobody (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Backlog progress

86,998! Well done, everyone :) Boleyn (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking good! Anything you'd like to see highlighted on the August update on the 4th? Kazamzam (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Kazamzam, I have just seen this. Nothing in particular, just lovely to see it heading downwards. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia Unreferenced articles improved

It's very strange for a WikiProject template to not start with "WikiProject" (only 2 templates in Category:WikiProject banners with non-standard names don't start with "WikiProject" vs. the 1076 in Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment & Category:WikiProject banners without quality assessment that do) , so Template:Wikipedia Unreferenced articles improved should be renamed to Template:WikiProject Unreferenced articles improved, unless there's a good reason to keep it as-is.

I put in a RM to do so 2 weeks ago, but admittedly forgot about it until I noticed its recent close (as no consensus), and realized I should have posted here after initiating it, so am posting here now for visibility & historical purposes, and in case anyone else feels the need to re-RM.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  06:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding - excellent catch, thank you so much for alerting us to this. Definitely agree that it would benefit all to have the template reworked. Paging some of the usual suspects (@Boleyn, @CactiStaccingCrane, @ARandomName123, @DreamRimmer, @Cielquiparle) to get more feedback. Kazamzam (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good to me, though Gonnym’s suggestion could work as well (ex. {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, {{WikiProject Unreferenced articles}} works for me too, and it's probably the most intuitive option, but I'm agnostic about whether or not "improved" is kept, since it's been used since 2010, so I'll defer to project participants on that. Redirects for either case can be made if desired.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 @Tom.Reding I think alerting people to the project's existence by changing the template name but also the discussion would be very useful, especially as we gear up for the drive. We could also revise the edit summary that we use for main space for a talk page summary as well. Kazamzam (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 and Kazamzam: RM submitted @ Template talk:Wikipedia Unreferenced articles improved#Requested move 12 August 2024.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Shorter update than usual but happy 17th anniversary to the launch of the Phoenix spacecraft! I hope everyone is doing swimmingly.

• Headline: We cleared 5148 articles since June! For yourself and your fellow editors, please clap.

• Highlights: September 2008 is in the bin! There was also tremendous work done by editors @MIDI on geography stubs, reducing September 2013 from 1,489 to 627 (57%!), and to @Gnisacc for whittling December 2023 down to 73 articles, a 71% decrease.

• Low-hanging fruit: October 2008 is only a measly 8 articles left, dangling precariously like a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Give it a nudge.

• High-hanging fruit: Everyone's favourite BFC (Big Friendly Category), December 2009, is a shapely 11,593 articles as of this writing - so much freshness and only 2 calories. The other high-hanging fruit are, still, the Frustrating Five (name open for revision): January 2013 (1,118), April 2019 (1,037), May 2019 (2,103), June 2019 (4,433), and September 2020 (1,393). Once again, September 2020 had the lowest percentage of change between updates. Godspeed to anyone working on these.
• Announcements: The second URA drive is in the planning stages! We will begin 1 November 2024 and end 30 November 2024, with a proposed extra week for review where participants can earn extra points. The planning is active and ongoing so please feel free to get involved.
• New challenge: no ties this update! Carry on.

Next update will be 4 October 2024 and then, after a pause for the drive, 4 January 2025. My personal goal is to have 2008 entirely finished by the new year and it seems more doable than ever. Happy editing! Kazamzam (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

84,960! Still steady progress. Well done, everyone. Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Boleyn for the round up! And thanks to @Cielquiparle (and whoever else is responsible) for again working to clear up the dregs of another month. October 2008 is dead! Turtlecrown (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Anytime! 💁🏻‍♀️ Kazamzam (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thenks for the update, @Kazamzam! (And for dealing the final blows to October 2008.) Curious whether we collectively succeeded in decreasing every category by at least 10, as you suggested back in June? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle - thanks so much for the follow-up! There were eleven categories that didn't make the cut. Both February and June 2009 only decreased by 7 articles, which is...not great but that means there's just more room for improvement. Kazamzam (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• 83,996! Still heading in the right direction. Boleyn (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Backlog drive is open! Blast to Talk pages

Can we send reminders to the Talk pages for everyone who already registered, letting them know the backlog drive is now open? I know @CactiStaccingCrane did it last time and I found it very helpful. (I would offer to do it but don't know how.) Cielquiparle (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Go for it! You can use this message. You can post it manually or with AWB, whichever works best for you. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer Done. Thanks for the tips. Will apply for AWB for future. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

AfD and tags

Quick question: after nominating an article for deletion, should I remove the {{unreferenced}} tag so that it doesn't appear in the backlog, or no? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi The {{Unreferenced}} tag should remain...unless you or another editor adds at least one citation, in which case the tag could be upgraded to {{more citations needed}} or equivalent. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Points

I have added sources to some unreferenced articles as part of this drive. Will these contributions be counted from now onward, or will only the changes made starting in November be reflected? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheBirdsShedTears - thank you for your question and your work. As it says at the top of the drive page, the drive has not started yet. Nothing will begin to count for points until November 1, but you are getting excellent practice! If you have any other questions, please reach out here or on the drive talk page. Thanks, Kazamzam (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Preamble

Maybe we could just discuss here instead of waiting for someone to start a separate Talk page? Seems prudent to start planning now since it's mid-September. @Kazamzam, @ARandomName123, @Boleyn, @CactiStaccingCrane, and whoever else is interested in helping. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle - you’re absolutely right. I think the biggest issues from February were how to judge an adequate reference (and how to make sure we have enough reviewers), if one reference is sufficient (I don’t love it for a big article but I think it has to be sufficient given the premise of the project and the campaign), how to make sure edits are counted (we used the edits summary function but personally I like the idea of people submitting through a checker in the same way that Asian Month does) and if there’s a way to get multiple points for one article (I’m on the fence). If anyone else has big ticket items to address, please bring them up! Kazamzam (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam: I'm assuming the checker you're referring to is https://fountain.toolforge.org/? I haven't used it before, but if by checker you mean there's a function for us to review edits in the tool, that'd be really nice. I also noticed there's https://hashtags.wmcloud.org/, which imo is better than the tool we used last time, which searches for an edit summary (with a hashtag) over all users (ex), instead of one-by-one as we did previously. I'd personally prefer edit summaries for the convenience though.

The extra review week last time went pretty well imo, though I'm not sure if we actually applied the point deductions for failed reviews.

In total, we had 14.3k articles reffed, with just under 2k reviews (14% or so). This could probably be a bit higher, as it was kind of hectic last time.

There's not really much else I can think of to address, other than what you already mentioned. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam @ARandomName123 Can we just run a little trial using the checker, so we can all get comfortable with it now? Is it hard to set up? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle @ARandomName123 - I was just looking through this before I saw your ping; great minds think alike! Looking at the checker (Fountain), it seems like it relies a lot on individual checking and the Asian Month competition I've referenced (rather egregiously, now that I look at the metrics) had fewer than 200 articles submitted. Given that we had over 14,000 articles submitted for the last backlog drive, I have doubts about the volume because I haven't seen any submissions on that scale (the other recent projects that I clicked through were also rather small). I'm going through the hashtag search now to see how that works - that might be our best bet but we need to have a 100% unique and distinct hashtag that no one gets wrong. Seems doable as long as we're clear from the jump and really hammer it home. Kazamzam (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree on hashtags, and we could just do the same as last time, something like #NOV24. There's currently no edits with that hashtag, though I did do a small test with #NOV24 test. Volume shouldn't be an issue, as the #WPWPARK has a fairly similar revision number (16k) and is still fairly fast. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 - we love to see it! Something more distinctive than a hashtag might be helpful + an edit summary that uses the template like WP:FEB24 would be good for directing potential participants to the drive. I think the hashtag is the best route for counting but we should encourage people to use a template either way. Kazamzam (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam: I was thinking we could just combine the two (#[[WP:NOV24]] or #WP:NOV24), but after testing it a bit, it unfortunately doesn't seem to work. "[[WP:NOV24]] #NOV24" does work, but it's a bit long imo. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 @Kazamzam Are we really doing this backlog drive in November? If hashtag search isn't giving us what we want, should we just revert to the way we did it back in WP:FEB24? Or...should we postpone this backlog drive after all given how busy everyone is and aim for February 2025...? Cielquiparle (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 @Cielquiparle I'm still game for November. We can go with the #NOV24 since Random (if I may) tested it and found that the tool can handle the volume. Other than that...can we hammer out the scoring and otherwise start building the scaffolding of the drive? Kazamzam (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle, Kazamzam (sure!): November's still good for me as well. How do we feel about completing the drive planning by October 23/24, about a week before the drive starts? As for scoring, do we want to give an extra point if an extra reference is added? Scoring for reviews is probably fine as is, and we should probably keep the extra review week. The criteria for reviewing should just be that the reference is reliable and supports the content. In FEB24 I think there were a few rejections for being non-independent, which I don't think was necessary. I'm open to suggestions though. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive planning to continue through October 23/24...but could we open signups before that, like October 15? Or even sooner? To drive awareness and participation. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, though it seems like a couple of people have already signed up. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 @Cielquiparle - I like those dates. I think something that might keep people from going bonkers with adding a dozen references to score extra points is if the initial reference is one point and then every subsequent reference is half a point, or something to that effect? What do you think?

I will say that if it’s just the three of us as organizers since it seems like @CactiStaccingCrane is not active and I haven’t seen @Boleyn in a minute (hello if you see this!), I will limit my activities to reviewing and troubleshooting the drive rather than clearing articles myself. Unfortunate part of party hosting. Kazamzam (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam Your point system proposal sounds OK...but how are we tallying points then? (It was so much easier when it was 1 point per article.) Or can the new tool automatically track points somehow...? Cielquiparle (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle, Kazamzam: As with FEB24, DreamRimmer has kindly agreed to provide the tech and bot needed to track the points. According to them, tallying half points for subsequent references would require a separate hashtag. They believe that we should stick to the method in the previous drive, or 1 point per NOV24 edit summary. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 @DreamRimmer How about a separate hashtag called NOV24PLUS or NOV24BONUS...and a rule that it's only 1 hashtag per edit summary line? So for any additional half-point, you would have to add them in sequence in multiple edits, which I think makes it easier to check later too. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Well this would necessitate adding each reference in a separate edit. Hopefully for future drives, we could analyze the diff itself to check for the number of refs added, but I don’t believe we have enough time to develop that for this time. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 Yes I'm over it now. The beauty of the February 2024 drive really was its simplicity. People will naturally be motivated to add "extra" references here and there as they go; it's not all about racking up points. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @DreamRimmer that sticking to the previous method would be for the best. Individually counting each reference and/or making everyone do separate edits is probably too onerous given the reviewers are few and we're likely to get 10,000 articles cleared. Maybe in the future we can do a smaller drive and work on articles with the single source or refimprove tags. Kazamzam (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam, Just let me know when everything is ready, and I will handle the bot part. If you want to do some testing, please use a hashtag, and I will update the leaderboard with the bot to check if anything needs fixing. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: I’ve been using #FEB24 for a bit of testing if you’d like to try it out. On a side note, could you let us know when the bot is ready? Hopefully the changes aren’t too complicated. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Bot is ready. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 OK I have signed up now as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Added myself as well :) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123, @Cielquiparle and @Kazamzam, I have updated the leaderboard at User:BaranBOT/NOV24DriveLeaderboard. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer Nice. Like being able to see the rankings by default like other backlog drives (unlike FEB24 though there was likely a good reason). Cielquiparle (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice the we now have totals as well. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Criteria for reviews

• @Cielquiparle, Kazamzam, DreamRimmer and any others: During FEB24, there was some dispute over what qualified as an acceptable for reference for reviews. Any suggestions? My pov is just that the source has to be reliable and verifies the immediately preceding sentence. Also, does anyone have any suggestions for the drive page, WP:NOV24 (including rules section)? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with that definition of acceptable reference. Might include as a sub-bullet to that, the example that if you add a citation to the end of a paragraph but the reference only applies to that one sentence, you need to go back and add {{citation needed}} to the sentence prior. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Final touches

Buongiorno! I think we are ready to start promoting the drive on editors' watchpages, remove the TBD from the rules section, update the progress chart date (it's still February 2024), and...anything else we might need to do? Am I missing anything? I suppose monitoring the talk page for the drive closely would be a good idea - perhaps a message on the drive mainpage saying 'if you have questions or concerns, please address them to the URA organizers on talk page' or something to that effect?

Are we still giving out barnstars? We had some very nice ones made if anyone wants to get back on that horse.

All around excited and exciting! Should be a great one. Cheers, Kazamzam (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam: Do you have any other comments/suggestions for the rules? I didn't want to remove the TBD until it's mostly finalized and agreed upon. I've added a message as you suggested, but feel free to edit it if you'd like.

Yes, I'm assuming we're going to be giving out barnstars. The ones from last drive should work fine. Once the drive is about to start (Oct.30/31) we should probably send out a mass message like last time to make sure the participants are aware that we changed the edit summary. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Mass message and watchlist notice should ideally be shared at least a week before the drive starts to boost participation. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, probably by Oct.20? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Could you please create a draft for the mass message? I'll take care of the mass message and watchlist notice part. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please check mass message wording and color: Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Newsletter – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks nice, thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

1) I think the rules are good to go. I will clarify that the talk page referred to is the drive-specific talk page rather than this one - we saw a ton of activity here and it got a bit bloated imho.

2) Reading over the drive page more thoroughly, these are the issues I've identified that are still outstanding. We can cross them off as they are addressed:

• Removing the [insert] from the lead section and updating that with the number of articles - can we automate this? If not, we should maybe make this sentence invisible until October 31st 23:59.
• Making a drive talk page
• Related: putting the info about where to ask questions as its own separate section so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle of the somewhat overly long lead section.
• Updating the progress chart date to November 1st
• Updating the milestones. Proposal: first 1,000 articles cleared; the 2008 categories finished; 2,000 articles; 5,000 articles; 10,000 articles; 15,000 articles (MAYBE even 20,000?). I would love to see 2009 in the dust but with BFC December 2009, that seems unlikely.
• Suggestion: unreferenced BLPs are a serious issue. We don't have many of these but they are a big concern. Perhaps a section that focuses on these? This could be a 1.5 point category, with a caption like NOV2024BLP(?)

Please add other outstanding issues to this to-do list so everyone can keep track of them in one place. Best, Kazamzam (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, we can do these over the next few days. Finish up by Oct.20 (hopefully sooner)? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a little late to the party. I've made a few edits to the drive page intro (mainly adding context and trimming) and sectioned off 'Where to get help'. Looking forward to November. Thanks for all your hard work. Turtlecrown (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we should send the mass message today. We sent it around this time during the last drive, and it really helped boost participation. @ARandomName123, @Kazamzam – DreamRimmer (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Mass message sent. – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer - hi! Is it possible to send a message at 00:00 GMT 1-Nov-2024 that the drive is now live or is that asking too much? Kazamzam (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, if a message is sent, it would be best to add another reminder of the correct edit summary to include (#NOV24) in case people assume the old summary format is still being used. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I’ve received the mass message. I removed the under construction banner, and apart from some minor changes mentioned above, there shouldn’t be too much else. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer - do you think we should do the watchlist message today as well or that should be closer to the start of the drive, say the 24th? Kazamzam (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Doing it on the 24th is fine, but there is no problem with doing it today either. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam, please check wording: Hate unreferenced articles? Sign up for the WikiProject Unreferenced articles November 2024 backlog drive and earn barnstars! – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Unreferenced articles November 2024 drive. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer - if there’s still time to edit, I would say something like ‘sigh up for [whole spiel], help add sources, improve Wikipedia, and earn barnstars!’. Maybe I’m overly pedantic but I think it’s important to say what will be happening and give a hint of what to expect. Kazamzam (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam, the edit request is still pending, so feel free to adjust it as you prefer. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 @DreamRimmer @Cielquiparle - we have so many signups so far and we've already seen a bump in the number of articles referenced pre-drive. Very excited. My goal is that we get down to 60,000. Can't wait! Kazamzam (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam: We're now only a couple of hours out till the start of the drive, and we only have around half the number of participants as we did last time. Should we lower the goal back down to 10k? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 - looking at the signups from the February 2024 drive, many people signed up on February 1st and continued to sign up well into February (the last one was on February 28th). We also have an extra day and fewer articles to cite: in January 2024, we had 114,214 and now we are just north of 80,000. I think 10,000 is confident but realistically feasible, 15,000 is striving, and 20,000 can be our moon-goal. What do you think of that? Kazamzam (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll put it at 10k for now. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kazamzam: I think it's a bit late too make new additions to how the points work, but I've added a button specifically for BLPs to the top of the drive, next to the "Fix a random page lacking sources" button. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)