This 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.
I'm tempted to suggest either January or March, I sort of like the idea of trying to finish off the months preceding the BLPPROD deadline. But really, anything from 2010 is fine by me. --
joe deckertalk to me16:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Nod - I agree with Milowent regarding your amazing work on this project Joe; I've been terrible at helping out this past month! Sorry guys...--
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots19:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyone who can speak any Japanese here at all? I'm certain this can be referenced, JPWIKI has a number of off-line references to baseball reference books that are appropriate, but I'm not comfortable simply copying them without being able to see what it is they reference. Moreover, I found it difficult to get through sources for this fellow because of the far more famous politican of the same name. Any assistance appreciated. --
joe deckertalk to me16:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I suspect they are, but I'd feel far more comfortable if I could actually verify that one of them was real and make a connection between the reference and what it allegedly references. --
joe deckertalk to me19:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry guys
Found a whole load of unreferenced BLPs. Marking them accordingly, as I feel better identified so can be dealt with. Short term effect is not encouraging of course as the total spikes up. Regards,
SunCreator(
talk)21:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest a quick side-trip before we tackle the next month...
If you look
here, you'll find that there actually are a few unref'd BLPs that were marked unref'd on March 18, 2010 -- only because they got unmarked and marked again. It's about 100, and based on the first 10 or so, they're mostly easy pickins'. Anyone game for putting
the list Hut made there to bed? --
joe deckertalk to me02:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
First item that I tackle on the list turns out to be
Gary Pearson. It's weird because I am actually a fan of his, and used to go see the Chumps at the Big City Improv doing their Star Trek spoofs and improv shows. Gary Pearson was hilarious as William Shatner playing James T, Kirk. I also got to go on stage during one performance where the audience was being dragged up to play various bit parts. I was
Alexander Rozhenko. What a coincidence. --
Whpq (
talk)
14:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Both at AfD, now. Haven't looked at the former yet (it was already at AfD when I got here), the latter I found a single passing RS for, but perhaps there more info hiding somewhere. --
joe deckertalk to me14:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Roman is a borderline notable music producer/writer in the Latin music scene. No article on es.wiki and I always think that non-performers need to have won awards, not just writen/produced songs for others, even if they are notable songs by wiki standards. Links in the article show that he exists and has writen/produced songs, but I don't think it's enough. The deprodder was interesting... first edit was the deprod, never seen that before.
The-Pope (
talk)
15:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I suspect it's that change to email all users when their talk page is changed. Presumably your notification of the prod would have sent the creator an email, and if he couldn't remember his username/password he might create a new account to remove the prod. Hut 8.516:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Whats left
Joe made the comment that 2% of the remaining articles are Voice actors. So I thought I'd see what the other 98% are. All based on category trees, that aren't perfect, and it will add to more than 100% if people are in multiple cats, especially musicians and actors are generally also in entertainers.
Only 5 hurlers? Haha, amazing! Contained within politicians will be random government ministers. Pageant winners/beauty queens do crop up regularly as well.--Milowent • talkblp-r12:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh my god, if that were a BLP, the crotch-grabbing incident would totally be a BLP violation. :p (Darn, that was the girl, not TDO. Ah well.) --
joe deckertalk to me17:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
That is awesome, I'm sure that IP editor who added the uBLP tag was chuckling when he did so. (BTW, crotch grab video is here:
[4], darn you, Ponyo!)--Milowent • talkblp-r18:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I reluctantly sent
LaFarr Stuart to AfD but would love to see someone find a source for this one... J04n(
talk page)
Yeah. A couple references to involvement in the computer language Forth, which I expect is the same person, but nothing particularly solid there. I wish the archives for the magazine "Byte" were still on-line. --
joe deckertalk to me00:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been having a sniff around other related cats and noticed that BLPs are back-to-front compared to other cats on problems with sourcing.
On the articles side we have:
Starting a discussion at
WP:CFD seems like a good idea. My present view is the the BLP/unreferenced categories are not layed out in any logical way so the result they are unusable for some purposes. Regards,
SunCreator(
talk)17:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
One issue is that {{
Unreferenced section}} is categories the same as {{
Unreferenced}}, so that articles that have cat:Living person and Cat:Unreferenced cannot be identified as an unreferenced BLP because it may only apply to a section! Because of that much effort is wasted with zBot and others to look through them. When if fully unreferenced and section unreferenced was simply categoried seperately it would be easy to find them. Regards,
SunCreator(
talk)17:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate another pair of eyes on this one. Article is littered with refs, so I've down-graded it to a "BLP sources" tag but I feel there's something odd about it. Most of the refs used are either by the subject or derived from one of his companies. On a quick search, I'm not finding anything to support the status accorded to the subject by the text. My antennae are twitching. Normally, I would dig into this and deal with it one way or the other but I've got to go to work now and have to leave it.--
CharlieDelta (
talk)
06:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The
GigaOM article cite is a legitimate source, so the tag change to BLP-sources is good in my view. As to actual notability, your antennae are rightly twitching. We have tons of blps like this lurking around, created circa 2005, of internet/computer field mid-level people of questionable notability. I might have added a notability tag to this one, for example, as some of the claims if better sourced might make a better case for notability. Someday hopefully soon we'll have eliminated the uBLP backlog (can we ever actually get to zero? For 1 minute, maybe? I dunno). Some future projects could include going through all the "BLP sources" articles, and all the "BLP IMDB sources" articles.--Milowent • talkblp-r12:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
What a coincidence. I had looked at the article and it looked a bit dubious, and a quick scan didn't pan out so I was going to look at is some more later. I'll see if I can add more sources, but the claims for notability are little weak. --
Whpq (
talk)
13:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
And after some searching about, the sense I get is that he is a capable technologist who has written for tech magazines, worked on various startups, involved himself with various standards committees, and been quoted in the press, but has not actually had any signficant coverage about him. I've tagged the page with {{notability}}. --
Whpq (
talk)
13:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a lot of stuff that's named after
H. M. Khoja, but no sources about him. I've dropped a
note at Wikiproject Pakistan asking for help. Anybody able to better than draw a blank like I did? --
Whpq (
talk)
18:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Well spotted! It's unreferenced, but probably true. I'll add the info to the article and mark it as plain old unreferenced. --
Whpq (
talk)
23:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or just a train about to run us over?
Currently the BRB (big red button) or
Category:All unreferenced BLPs is about 140 lower than the total of the months, as shown in the box on the right of our main page. This is because articles marked with
WP:BLPPROD are added to the monthly cat, but not the All unreferenced BLPs cat, unless a separate {{BLP unsourced}} tag is added as well. Should we "fix" this? The argument against doing so is that they are on death row already, so why worry. The argument for is to have a single number, rather than a mix. As we get smaller, this BLPPROD only group becomes more significant, as it's always around 100-150 articles.
There is also a strange bug of there actually being 10-20 more articles listed in
Category:All unreferenced BLPs than what the PAGESINCATEGORY total indicates! Maybe a lag issue, but quite strange.
On a slightly related link, I think that there are about 100-200 articles marked with {{ unreferenced}}, not {{BLP unreferenced}}, but in the
Category:Living people cat. Some have the "unreferenced section" bug as mentioned by Suncreator above, but some are definitely mistagged, so I might do a sweep through them soon, which will bump up the numbers again.
The-Pope (
talk)
01:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The Unreferenced BLPs progress box currently shows 699, that figure is correct. It puzzles me how the BRB is different but it's not easy to work out how either of the figures are worked out. Can a Unreferenced BLPs be listed in two categories somehow? Hopefully as the figures get smaller it will become more obvious what is going on. Regards,
SunCreator(
talk)12:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
"The 699 includes BLPPRODed articles" - nope. BLPPRODed article are not included unless they are marked with BLP unsourced as well. You can get to the 699 figure by adding up each individual month +1 for Undated articles. Regards,
SunCreator(
talk) 14:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC) unsure now. Regards,
SunCreator(
talk)14:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Categorisation here really wants sorting out it's such a mess! Most of the problems are with the templates where the majority of the categorisation done but as an after thought with most templates are locked. Regards,
SunCreator(
talk)14:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Being able to edit protected templates and the slowness of the edit protected system is one of the few things that actually makes me think I should run the RfA gauntlet.
The-Pope (
talk)
15:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
My reading of the unreferenced template code is that if a {{Unreferenced|section|date=September 2011}} is added, then it is added to the "needs more refs" cats, but if they do a {{Unreferenced|section, except for a single ref|date=September 2011}} then the text in the box look nice, but the coding doesn't detect it as being for a section. My assessment of the oldest 20 articles of the
202 unreferenced articles with living people cats, is that most have refs or external links and should be refimproved, not unreferenced.
The-Pope (
talk)
15:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
A whole range of things on these article but the most common is a source that doesn't appear to be reliable. What is appropriate thing to do in such a case? Regards,
SunCreator(
talk)15:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Category problem again, on a permanently protected template. Glad I'm not an admin because this makes them look incompetent. Regards,
SunCreator(
talk)02:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That article's AfD was removed from a daily log at some point by accident. I've relisted it under today, it'll be closed in a week. Hut 8.513:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been asked to tag them up but I may not get to it for a while. It's not all of the articles, some have a source of some type that would mean that it's not suitable to tag hence they all require manually checking. I made a short list yesterday(last thing), here is it.
I haven't created an "unsourced BLP" in years. And there are far worse problems on wikipedia than unsourced short BLPs anyway..♦
Dr. Blofeld14:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I realize these are from 2009, which is why I stated "the gift that keeps on giving" since it's been years that these unsourced sub-stubs have sat unattended. It would be a fantastic help, since you admit they are a problem, if you could go through and start sourcing them yourself?
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots14:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Try
Category:Centre Party (Sweden) politicians. Looks the trial obviously didn't work any admin here can go through Centre Party politicians and delete any bio created by myself as a db-bio from back in March 2009, its no loss given that the Swedish wiki articles are mostly stubs anyway. As long as no expanded articles is deleted. The Dutch and Lithuanian though are worth keeping.♦
Dr. Blofeld19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
No, not the
big hair 80s song, but is this the last month that we can attack? Whilst the lack of being able to set up a "start list" or "start number" isn't a fatal flaw, I think it does make this project unworkable as a series of "set tasks". Also I just noticed that this project isn't actually named as a WikiProject! Not sure if that's a problem, but I think that once Sept is done, then it should all be moved over to a sub-task of the original
WP:URBLP project. Or should we just leave it all as is and stick a giant "Job Done" label (would be insensitive/too political/too US-centric (remember I'm an Aussie) to use a cropped version of
File:USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) Mission Accomplished.jpg, or does the connotation of "it's done, but still ongoing" actually fit this task very well!)
The-Pope (
talk)
02:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
We should certainly celebrate ... but yeah, it'll always be on-going. Hopefully just less work! (And I'd love to have that celebration by a month from tomorrow (I'm in the US, so I mean the 25th, as that'll be a fairly significant birthday for me.) --
joe deckertalk to me04:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Yay! But yeah, the structure of this project isn't suited to working on current material. I would say that what is needed is something more like a new BLP page patrol which can review and deal with newly tagged BLPs as they occur. But in any case, cheers to all! --
Whpq (
talk)
15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Congrats to all, this has been an extremely successful project! Back in January 2010, the
BLP mass deletion greatly disturbed me, which ultimately led to the creation of this month-by-month project. We've gotten rid of some chaff, effectively patrolled well over 20,000 BLPs for any concerns, and ultimately made a measurable improvement to Wikipedia as a whole. I think Pope's suggestion to fold this into
WP:URBLP going forward probably makes sense, at least once we finish the September 2011 category.--Milowent • talkblp-r15:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
...or when we really hit "everything left is at deletion", not sure we'll get there before October 1st (I'm gone for about ten days starting Thursday), but soon enough, yeah. I couldn't agree more with everything you've said, the work we've done here, all of us, has made a real difference to the encyclopedia. Bravo! --
joe deckertalk to me06:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I certainly haven't been able to contribute as much as I would like, but kudos to everyone who made this happen. It appeared to many naysayers to be an insurmountable task at the beginning, yet here were are. Bartender, a round for everybody! --
Jezebel'sPonyobons mots15:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This round's on me.
Ponyo: I've been saving this image reference since you placed it on my user talk page a couple years back (or, at least, I think it was you!), I think it's time to share. --
joe deckertalk to me17:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
We've suddenly got a bunch of old months pop up again, thanks to someone discovering that BLPunreferenced as a parameter in the {{multiple issues}} template wasn't actually showing up correctly as a BLP unsourced. I never actually saw the
movie, but I remember the
song.
The-Pope (
talk)
14:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow! It was a tough slog, especially those hurlers. But we did it! Cheers to all!
Cheers to all on a job well done!
So, about 20 months after the proverbial hit the fan, we've done it.
Peter H. Thomas goes down in history as the last of the backlog to be cleared. Of course, there will be more tagged tomorrow, and next week and next month, but I am proud of all of you who helped out. I honestly thought that a "topic" based approach would work, but in the end there were just too many topics and not enough people interested in most of them and the month by month, letter by letter approach here, especially Joe's incredible consistancy and hard work, paid off. I wonder if we'll get any well dones from outside of this project, or just a "you've just moved the problem elsewhere", "you took 12 months too long" or "UBLPs aren't the real problem anyway"! When Australia won the
America's Cup in 1983 they released a beer called
Swan Premium Lager that had a commercial with a song along the lines of "They said you'd never make it, but you finally came through, for all of you who've made it, this one's made for you." Pretty sure they don't make it anymore, but guys, this one's for you! Cheers,
The-Pope (
talk)
17:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
How can that video not be on youtube? (I just looked.) Anyway, I am completely sure that for every "kudos" we'll get someone pointing to flaws--that's the wikipedian way, to some extent, isn't it? But there is no question that the project is better because of what we've managed to do.--Milowent • talkblp-r17:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow! Well done everyone! Now back to....? Seriously,though, I guess we still need to keep an eye on this project in order to avoid a backlog building up again.--
CharlieDelta (
talk)
19:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an incredible and virtually unprecedented achievement. Like WSC above I haven't done much on this recently, but it doesn't look like you've missed me. Well done!
Alzarian16 (
talk)
19:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I only just came across this news - can't believe it didn't get a mention in the Signpost or some other prominent place. Anyway, congratu-bloody-lations! I never thought the backlog would ever be cleared, but it just goes to show the difference that a team of dedicated and hardworking editors can make. Thanks to you all for your work.
Robofish (
talk)
14:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Going forward
What should be the direction going forward? I read a suggestion somewhere to focus on BLP's with risky words and make sure they are sourced, NPOV etc. IS anyone interested in this? I could perhaps scan BLPS with
WP:AWB for set risky words. Is that of interest to anyone? Regards,
SunCreator(
talk)23:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth a try. Are these sorts of edits not already caught by vandalism bots? I don't have much familiarity with how those work. Another thought I had -- I wonder if there is a way to see which of the 50,000+ articles in
Category:BLP articles lacking sources are the most popular articles (by daily/monthly viewcount)? It could help pinpoint popular BLPs that are in bad shape source-wise.--Milowent • talkblp-r19:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
not a good edit, almost as bad as creating a duplicate article and then instead of redirecting it, sticking merge tags on it.
The-Pope (
talk)
17:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)