Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced BLP Rescue/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Keeping track

In re the current discussion at AN (above), would anyone be interesting in keeping track of the amount of contentious material or articles (ie negative unsourced statements) we actually find from now on? I was thinking of a simple manual log such as this:

  • Articles speedy deleted (CSD): (number)
  • Article retained, contentious material removed: (number)
  • Article sent to deletion process for any other reason (PROD, AfD): (number)

which we could update as we find relevant articles.--Plad2 (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm not sure tracking CSD, PROD, and AFD is useful for identifying stats for contentious material. For CSD on this project, my memory tells me they've been for copyvios. For the PROD and AFD articles I've nominated, I don't think any of them have been due to contentious material, but rather because they fail to satisfy notability. In fact, most articles that I've worked on in this project have not had contentious material to deal with. At least not the negative kind. If anything, its peacock exaggerations likely added by the subjects themselves. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
One way to calculate the number deleted after the fact is, before you start, save a copy of the month's articles into WP:AWB or just cut and paste them onto a subpage of your task - and then at the end, count up the redlinks and/or click on each one to see if it was an AFD/PROD/CSD etc. The-Pope (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Futher thought. Perhaps I was was over-complicating things. Would a simple count of seriously contentious articles found (libel, attack pages etc) be simpler? I know I've only had one. I think Joe's had two. Don't know about the rest of the team. Combined with The Pope's suggestion above, we could build some relatively easy to maintain data. --Plad2 (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing DJs

Not one of my favourite themes in this project. Since Discogs is not a RS, does anyone have a good place to start they can recommend for the next time I come across one and so we can add to the Resources page (apart from Google News)?--Plad2 (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A bit of levity

A note to all the original URBLPR members, the first article I click on to reference from December 2008....is an Irish Hurler. <hangs head, sobs a little>. For those new to this project, if you do come across Irish Hurler articles, http://www.hoganstand.com/HomePage.aspx is a very valuable website for sources). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The first one I clicked on is a former Miss Universe contestant, Desiree Durán. What with JP's Irish hurler this makes me think it would be helpful to build up a little list of useful RSs for some of the common themes, to save newer members of the project wasting time casting around through the Google multiverse to find them. Did you find a good source for these beauty pageant bios?--Plad2 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Keeping a page with valuable sources is a great idea. For the beauty pageant winners, I had little trouble sourcing them as GNews generally at least one or two useable hits. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
My first was a beauty pageant (sourced through GNews - once I switched languages), my second an Irish hurler (thanks for the Hogan Stand link - that saved a lot of time), my third an African politician...which will have to wait until I get back from work. Let's start a URBLPR/Resources page (I'll do when I get back unless somone wants to get on with it now).--Plad2 (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I've come across another hurler, but I have to say the articles have been predominantly African politicians. Searching the Pan-African parliament website (http://www.pan-africanparliament.org/) has been helpful. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Since joining the BLP team, I consider myself one of the world's foremost experts on Hurlers and African politicians/royalty" :P TiMike (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do any of you want to take a crack at John Bennett (hurler)? We have here a hurler from the 60s & 70s with a very common name. J04n(talk page) 00:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Guidance re PROD please

I've just had a PROD tag removed from Ali Matan Hashi by Phil Bridger with the edit summary "Contest deletion. If you think that the subject is probably notable then this is not an uncontroversial case for deletion as required by WP:PROD. Please take this for discussion at WP:AFD if you think it should be deleted.". My question: I see nothing on the WP:PROD page to indicate that I should have gone straight to AfD. My summary on the PROD was that while the subject appears to be notable I was unable to source the article and the text of the stub was already duplicated in two other places - my grounds for proposing the deletion. Was I wrong to to PROD under those circs? Does it say anywhere that PROD for a BLP has to be uncontroversial? I suppose I could have gone for a merge or a redirect but it seems to me that a proposed deletion was also an appropriate course of action. Thoughts anyone? JP, I see that you have had a not dissimilar experience with this editor.--Plad2 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I would suggest asking Phil Bridger on his talkpage but since you asked I'll give my 2 cents. Controversial doesn't mean "X is sleeping with Y while married to Z" it means that that reasonable editors could disagree as to the merits of keeping or deleting the article. The fact that you even admitted in your prod rationale that the subject "appears to be notable" shows that folks may disagree and AfD is the more appropriate venue. Also the fact that there is a claim that he was Minister of Justice, a potentially notable position, it shouldn't be prodded. J04n(talk page) 23:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Thank you for your view on this.--Plad2 (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I just saw this now. I tend to default to AfD if I think anyone could come up with a policy-based valid argument to keep. If, after searching for sources, the individual clearly doesn't meet notability criteria, I slap a prod on it. My most recent PROD removal by Phil Bridger was for this article, which was essentially incomprehensible. If someone contests a PROD I've added to an unreferenced BLP without adding reliable sources, I always take it to AfD for additional input. If, after a reference search, de-prodding, and full AfD the article can still not be reliably sourced, it needs to go. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I would love to see an absolute rule (maybe an automatic application of a BLPPROD?) that anything that survives an AfD, even as no consensus, MUST be referenced within 10 days. I've come across a few where either the !keep voters were either very persuasive, or even supplied refs, but didn't actually add them to the article - such as this AfD. The-Pope (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I hear you, this is very frustrating. I think the 10 days is too lenient, the "sources exist" argument without putting them into the article is weak. I have been adding the following to these discussions:
  • Comment, the article remains an unsourced WP:BLP, if it is decided to keep this article I recommend that it be userfied or sent to the incubator until it is properly sourced. —J04n(talk page) 17:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
<ec>I tend to agree that any sources found during the AfD discussion should be added to the article. It would certainly preclude another editor coming across the article and nominating it again for the same referencing issues. It appears that two of the three keeps actually wanted the content merge and redirected to a now deleted article, so it might not hurt to renominate the article in a couple weeks with an emphasis on the fact that it remains unsourced. As it stands now we're essentially just hosting a resume that the subject himself posted. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The article remains unsourced because there are no sources I can find (nor has anyone else). The next step could be AfD, or a merge or redirect (which has happened on similar unverifiable stubs). BTW, I will get round to this (and the other unverifiable articles still in "M") at the weekend (probably) when RL issues are less pressing. My original question (possibly poorly expressed) was whether PROD should be used for articles where notability is asserted but unverifiable. Or not. PROD is clearly the correct step where notability is questionable (and the article text is also unverifiable). But a Minister of Justice (no sources); a Libyan national team footballer (who from the text appears to meet/ or may have met at some time in the past WP:ATH but is unverifiable; a DJ or model/singer (who from the text appears to meet WP:ENT or WP:MUSICBIO but all that one can find is tons of YouTube or WP:SELFPUB sources and no RS, etc etc...PROD or AfD? I've seen arguments that sending all of these to AfD ties up editors in comments and can be inconclusive and that PROD is a more straightforward process and yet J04N (above) has a different slant on this - which is also seems valid. Ultimately the article has to be sourced - or it has to go. That's the exercise we're engaged in here. I know that I spend a lot of time (probably far too much time) on WP:BEFORE on all the UBLPs I look at before I come to the conclusion that they can't be saved. Mostly, I do find sources eventually and there's a lot of satisfaction to be had in the detective work and getting the thing sourced. But on the minority of cases when I'm satisfied that I can't find any RS and that the requests for help from relevant projects I've posted has not improved the situation I don't really mind whether they are nominated for PROD or AfD. It just seems a bit redundant to have to do it twice. That's why I was looking for guidance--Plad2 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Ooops! Just realised that J04Ns comment above was an illustration. Sorry, it's been a long day. I've struck though the first part of my comment as that is not relevant. I think the rest is still valid.--Plad2 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
No biggie, we've all been there. With your examples I would say AfD. If it appears to be notable but you can't find verification someone else may be able to. I remove a fair amount of prods for articles that I would probably !vote to delete at AfD, but they are debatable enough for more eyes to see. —J04n(talk page) 23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If there is a strong claim to notability, I'd take it to Afd with a "it's claimed ... but I've tried, but can't verify" type of reason. Mention "longtime ublp" and I would hope that no admin would keep without sourcing - and it can be amazing what still isn't online that some editors can use to find sources. PROD really should be only for the "even with sources it would fail" type of obvious ones.The-Pope (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

UBLPs by year

As I am a "clear them by topic" type of guy, but can see the reasoning behind the "clear out the old ones first" approach, I've created some "UBLP by year" categories to help lump all of those pesky 2008 months together. This makes searches like this possible, which will keep everyone happy. I've also made up a Category:Unreferenced BLPs from 2009 cat, but haven't done 2010 yet, as I don't see it being a useful cat yet (2009 is not that good either, still too big, might as well stick to the months). Also, I've noticed that the CATSCAN tool works better if you list the UBLP cat first and the topic cat second, especially with big cats like some of the the "occupation by country" or "Fooian people" ones. The-Pope (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, your technical assistance makes sourcing these articles much easier. —J04n(talk page) 17:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Neat! Thanks!!!! --j⚛e deckertalk 06:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Curious, would it be possible to do a sort of UBLPs that have interwiki links? Many times if an article has an interwiki link, there are sources available at a corresponding foreign language article (especially French and German). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As an FYI, you can even break it down by month, see here. —J04n(talk page) 19:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pan African Parliament

I've come across two African politicians that are members of the Pan African Parliament. This reference ("List of Members of the Pan African Parliament (as of 15 March 2004)". African Union. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 November 2010.) might be useful as it lists all members as of 15 March 2005. Thanks to user:Msrasnw who found it due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed El-hadhiri. -- Whpq (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Psst --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeesh. I disappear for a month and I miss all this new stuff added to the project! -- Whpq (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It's brand new and shiny; you can thank Plad2 for putting it together. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK eligibility for sourcing BLPs discussion

Via this notice at WT:URBLP, I was led to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#unsourced_BLP_Drive, where there is a discussion of making unreferenced BLPs which are fully referenced eligible for Did You Know? nomination, perhaps with a relaxed expansion requirement. (Current rules are that an old article must be expanded 5x to be eligible for DYK). This sounds like a great idea.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Neat! I'lll keep that in mind, so often I only manage partial sourcings, but... neat! --j⚛e deckertalk 17:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Next month to tackle?

We are close to finishing up December 2008. We can pick another random month (October 2008?) or whatever we want. Thoughts? Whatever month we do pick, I'd like to save the list of articles tagged before we start and then go back and keep track of what happened to them all. Whoever references the most will also get highly expensive barnstars.--Milowent • talkblp-r 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So...I guess we hit our "finish the 630+ December 2008 articles by the end of Decemeber 2010" deadline? We rock. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Oct 2008 was one of the months Uncle G suggested for the trial blanking. Should we pick another month, or do we think the trial blanking idea ran into the sand? BTW, I'm impressed by how quickly you've all got through this month. I did some but I make no secret of the fact that I found it tough going at times with a much higher level of dross than in previous months. A few gems still made it worthwhile, however.--Plad2 (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Its find to pick other than October, though I have no idea if the Uncle G proposal is going anywhere. (Some good discussions about monitoring unwatched BLPs have been had though.) January 2009 has 1,008 if want to be really bold -- it worked well on the 600+ for this project.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the blanking idea is either dead or will take a few weeks to implement, and they can always choose another month. After starting off at about 50 articles/day, Dec 08 will be done at about 35/day avg. At that rate, each of the remaining 2008 monthly cats are a week or less to do. The symbolism of completely finishing 2008 before the end of 2010 will be huge, IMO. The-Pope (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. October 2008 has my support in that case--Plad2 (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
As they are all around the same size, it will be interesting to see if you can complete at about the same rate, or if they are harder to complete as the easy articles in cats that old may have been done or if "referencing fatigue" sets in, especially as we get closer to Christmas and holidays, shopping, travel, parties start to eat into our wikitime!The-Pope (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, as a guide, of the 1421 articles remaining in the combined 2008 cats, based on their wikiprojects, there are about 267 are sports related (inc 30 hurlers!), 150 political (only 5 African politicians!), 208 music, 387 other entertainment (actors, writers, etc), 194 are in other topical projects (science, religion etc) and 215 are only in regional (countries/states etc) projects.The-Pope (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Oct. 2008 sounds good to me. Whether we can clear out 2008 by the end of Dec. 2010....hmmm...with a few more bodies it would be quite easy.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Jumping ahead slightly, would File:Africa Service Medal obv.gif be an appropriate medal/trophy for December (given the staggering number of African nation politicians)? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

haha. That's perfect!--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Concur that this would make a good trophy for the month -- Whpq (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed! --j⚛e deckertalk 20:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2008 Final Push

The following articles are the remainder of the December 2008 list with the articles at PROD and AFD removed. We are on the home stretch.

We did it! Onto October 2008....--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dating tags query

  • So I just sourced Jerome Toobin, but found he had been dead since 1984. Appears the article was created in September 2008 (it didn't say he was dead, but the bare stub could have intended to convey that). In October 2008 it was tagged as having no sources. On September 2, 2010, however, an editor updated to tag from unreferenced to BLPunsourced, but did not change the tag date, hence it appeared in this month's project pile. Query: Should the editor have updated the date for the new tag? I would think so, because if this practice is common it grows the backlog, yet no one was alerted that the article was of an unreferenced living person until recently (though here, he actually was dead--but presumably happens to the living as well).--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, if its a new tag, then it should have a new date as far as I'm concerned. Others may feel that it is resetting the clock. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
If I am simply correcting a reference tag without making any changes to the article, I always leave the original date it was tagged. However if I add a source and change the tag from 'BLP unreferenced' to 'BLP sources', I update the date as well. Whenever I have seen this topic raised, this is generally the most common approach. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, yeah. In this case (adding a source and downgrading the "sourcing threat level", heh), I've typically not updated the tag date, but I do see the argument for changing it as well, and if that's standard practice, I'm happy to adopt it. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It sounds confusing, even as I'm reading my own words. Essentially if I'm looking at an article and the reference tag is incorrect (the it should've been x example) I correct the tag and leave the original date. If I add sources or such to the article (theit is now x example), then the updated tag gets an updated date to match. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a danger that this causes an article get lost in a backlog if it gets categorized to a different cleanup category? For example, we are clearing out BLPs. We aren't (right now) revisting the months we've completed. Somebody correcting from unreferenced to unreferencedBLP for a month we've already done will likely cause that article to be ignored for quite some time. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It actually draws more attention to it, it shows up in red on the 'Category: Unreferenced BLP' list and someone usually zaps it within a couple of hours. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, those don't last more than hours usually. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's my "learnt something new for today". I will endeavour to date tag corrections in this way going forward. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I found an example of when this was previously addressed here; it's a lengthy and mostly unrelated read, however if you scroll down to just below the two reference templates that are displayed you can see that the gist of the conversation was to leave the date the same if you are correcting a tag without adding sources. That being said, I've never seen a guideline that covers dating the tags, so it remains a matter of personal preference. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in some of those discussions and the key change we achieved was to persuade one of the taggers to change the date when changing unreferenced articles to unreferencedBLP. I'm not normally a fan of changing dates when retagging articles, but I thought it was necessary to change on this occasion because with so much focus on this one particular backlog, some people were saying that the backlog wasn't shifting, persuading one of the Bot operators to change the date made it clear that there was a huge amount of work going on both adding articles to the backlog and removing them from it. At the moment there is less drama around the RefimproveBLP backlog, and when I've changed either refimprove or unreferencedBLP to refimproveBLP I think I've been leaving the date. ϢereSpielChequers 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; if there was a large-scale retagging operation that would suddenly inflate the back-log it would need to be addressed in more detail, however for onesie-twosie corrections there is no particular drawback to simply leaving the date. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
My practice has been to change the date when updating from unreferencedBLP to refimproveBLP. when i've run across a bare unreferenced tag on an unnoticed BLP, i've generally added a source and change the tag date. But I agree with Ponyo that for small numbers of articles, it not worth worrying about.--Milowent • talkblp-r 22:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thai footballers

Well done everyone... hope someone can find a good source for Thai footballers!The-Pope (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Some Thai footballers playing in 2008 can be found here but this is by no mean foolproof. I've just tried one off the top of your catscan list and drawn a blank.--Plad2 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I spent some fruitless time last night trying to find a good source for these Thai footballers. There's loads of likely looking Thai news sources with sports sections but the few with English Language sections don't appear to have search functions (or if they do, they come up blank with the names we have). I think we'll need help from the Thailand Project.--Plad2 (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Because there are literally dozens of different ways a Thai person's name will be transliterated into Roman script - and different every time it is written - the only logical way to do a search is to enter the name in Thai in the correct Thai spelling into the Thai Google. You'll soon see from the results list which are football sites. Then use Google to translate them.--Kudpung (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This has been my experience for a number of languages as well, e.g., Arabic. By the way, it's not necessary to use "Thai Google", type Thai (or Arabic, or whatever) into www.google.com from the US and you get results in Thai (or Arabic, or whatever.) One additional thing--I find it helpful to use Google Chrome when doing these searches. When Chrome loads a page that appears to be in a language other than English, it offers to translate it for me. This makes "Google Translate" less of a chore, more of a one-click option. Major win. Occasionally its servers are busy and you have to press "try again" a few times, but it's still easy and automatic. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, both, for the advice. I knew how to use Google's "translate" functions, of course (though not about Chrome's advantages). I confess my heart was sinking at the thought of the time spent needed to plough through a whole slew of non-RS links for these football stubs (having to translate each one) when someone with the right language skills could do it so much more quickly.--Plad2 (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I tried to do one of these Thai footballers without any luck. I put a note on the talk page of Druryfire who appears to be an active editor in this area (and created the one I looked at), pleading for source help, because if we can't even verify their existence, we'll have to send them to AfD or Prod I guess.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I sent the one I came across in the L section to AfD. I tried every permutation I could think of, but....nothing. If it's not verifiable, then it has to go. Hopefully by bringing attention to it at AfD some referencing site will make its way out of the woodwork that may help with referencing the related articles from this month. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been failing on these guys as well, one footballer who was (incorrectly) in "A", not sure if he's still around... it felt like looking at searches on the Thai that I was possibly getting some hits, but the machine translations didn't seem very convincing, I've had more success with footballers sourced in Arabic. If I find a magic bullet, I'll be glad to share it! --j⚛e deckertalk 03:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Update: If the player's article on wikipedia includes its Thai spelling, it is sometimes possible to find a thai news article (Siamsport seems to be a primary news source covering Thai football) which identifies them as a player on the team, which will provide one bare source to verify their existence. Also, if you look at the wikipedia article on the team the player is currently attached to, it should link to the team's website, which should include a player roster. Pay attention to the the player's assigned jersey number listed on wikipedia, and you may be able to match it up to the player even if the Thai spelling is not listed on wikipedia. Also note that when you use Google translate to translate Thai player rosters you seem to get some odd literal translations, e.g., Nantawet Chanuthai, who I determined was "นันธเวศ จันทร์อุทัย", translates to "Anan H U Wet Monday" on Google translate.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I've posted a plea for help at WikiProject Thailand. It doesn't appear to be a particularly active project but perhaps someone will take an interest.--Plad2 (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

After October

I'm assuming that the next month worth going for will be Sept 2008, so I've jumped the gun by starting an initial trawl, prodding some very obvious non-notables and project tagging about a third of the rest. There were 183 when I started. My previous experiments with project tagging is that it does result in increased activity from the projects so hopefully a few more of these will have gone by the time October is finished. ϢereSpielChequers 16:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea!--Plad2 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to setting this up as Project #8? If we're going to start September, we might as well do it officially. Hallucegenia (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should hold off. The point of this project is to attack each month systematically so that all efforts are concentrated on dropping the number to zero prior to proceeding to the next month. This doesn't preclude project members from bouncing to other months and sourcing as they wish, but it dilutes the effort if multiple months are targeted at a time. I believe WereSpielChequers' intent was to remove some of the chaff from the wheat in order to prepare for the Sept 08 effort once October 08 is complete. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
At the rate we are going, October 2008 will hopefully all be cleared or in some deletion process within a few days, let's encourage everyone to jump in there (please!!!), with the plan that September 2008 will be Project #8. For the record, September 2008 has 175 listings as I write this, down from 183.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, while I totally support September being "queued up as the next project" and WSC's efforts to perhaps encourage some sourcing by the original authors, I'd rather make sure (as per Ponyo) we finish October before we turn our attentions to September, it's all too easy otherwise to leave the hard cases for the last.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 19:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Focussing on October then, how about this for the trophy at the end of it? Hallucegenia (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's awesomely appropriate. I now officially have my eye on the prize...--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Awesome! --j⚛e deckertalk 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That trophy is exactly what we need, described only in Thai.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • September 2008 is down to 170. Its nice to see other months trending down even if slowly.--Milowent • talkblp-r 22:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)--Milowent • talkblp-r 22:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think we're pretty much done with Oct 2008. Just a few Thai fotballers to sort one way or another. Is that the fastest clean-up we've achieved so far? Looks like 250+ UBLPs sorted out in 8 days to me (but as someone pointed out earlier, my arithmetic can be a bit off sometimes). Perhaps the trophy should have "go faster" stripes on it.--Plad2 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Onward!!!!--j⚛e deckertalk 22:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thai footy

Because I was asked on my tp I've replied there. Do bear in mind that I can read Thai :) --Kudpung (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Popping in for two seconds only...someone needs to plaster a bright sparkly barnstar on Kudpung's talk page for helping with this. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 05:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Done.Opted for the Rosetta. Mind you, I think he's right about the relative value of these articles vs. time required. If it took him 5 hours to do 18 Thai footie players and that's with the relevant language skills, should we consider being a bit more ruthless in the future?--Plad2 (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, guys! Much appreciated.
Just so we know what we are up against with Thai footy: if the en.Wiki shows a Thai transliteration for the player's name, it's not so difficult to copy it and paste it into Google. If there is no translit. you can only sift through the Thai team web page and see if there is a name in Thai script that looks a bit like what it sounds like in English. Fortunately, Thai is a very phonetic language. The other problem of course is that if one uses a machine translation for for the Thai pages, there will be, as someone already pointed out, some extremely amusing results. Almost all words in Thai are monosyllabic, on the other hand, nearly all Thai family names, and many first names are polysyllabic, so Google translates every syllable with fascinating but ridiculous results. Some of the creators of those PRODed pages are still active on Wikipedia, so they will have seen the PROD notice and if they don't react, then tough. Others have been blocked and left the project long ago, leaving sufficient doubts as to the authenticity of their edits. IMHO I don't think it's worth the effort to try and reference every minor league soccer player in developing countries, especially in a world where we AfD prominent Western professors because we can't find better refs than their entry on the university staff list, or fight tooth and nail to keep children from Malvern whose only claim to fame was narrowly missing the final selection to appear on Britain's Got Talent. ;) --Kudpung (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Ooh I know, but... Malvern! Rich Farmbrough, 15:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

Asit_Bandopadhyay at afd, but maybe another pair of eyes

I'm not sure why this one felt like molasses, but I keep on feeling like I'm missing an obvious route to source this dramatist. He's at deletion now, but I'd welcome a clue-by-four if one is appropriate, the real issue is the maze of similarly named individuals multiplied by name variations. [2] --j⚛e deckertalk 17:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I had previously taken a stab at it and came up empty handed. I didn't send it to AFD because it wasn't clear to me then all avenues of search had been exhausted. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bengal to see if they may be able to help. I hope that doesn't constitute Wikipedia:Canvassing now that it is under AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. (FWIW, I don't think of that as canvassing, but it's not a policy I've really had much visibility to, I'm mostly gnomish.) --j⚛e deckertalk 20:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Legitimate requests for assistance in sourcing are certainly fine. Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

Barnstar

The Empty Set Barnstar
Awarded to the Unreferenced BLP Rescue team: For emptying a significant number of Unreferenced BLP monthly categories.
Rich Farmbrough, 15:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
 { }


A break from Thai footballers

Amidst all the messy stuff to wade through (like Thai footballers), I just finished referencing Mark James (songwriter), which I personally enjoyed. This is the guy who wrote "Suspicious Minds". I love both the Elvis, and Fine Young Cannibal versions (but especially the FYC version). And he also wrote "Always on My Mind", another great song. Again, wonderful versions from Elvis, Willie Nelson, and The Petshop Boys. Stumbling across this was a good spirit lifter. Maybe I didn't source it quite as often as I should have... -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Ahhhh, though far less worthy, I was amused to source Shannon Rubicam today, who co-wrote the late 80s cheese hit Waiting For a Star to Fall (Youtube) as well as two big Whitney Houston hits. This is what U.S. radio was pre-Nirvana, and why the FYC version of Suspicious Minds was radical at the time (it didn't chart in the US but was #8 in the UK).--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. So I see it didn't chart in the US. I don't know if it charted in Canada, but I would guess it did as it was on regular rotation on some of the radio stations that I listened to at the time. I don't know, though, how one can call a cover of an Elvis tune radical. -- Whpq (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Radical is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.[3]--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Great Backlog Drive

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Project merge?

As WP:URBLP isn't really that active anymore - not compared to here - should the projects really be merged? Getting resources (both for finding UBLPs - Catscan, Dashbot lists, Database lists etc and external links for finding sources), ideas, background all into one place would make it easier the next time there is an AN/ANI/RFC on UBLPs. I must admit I prefer the name without the rescue - that makes this project sound like it's fully of inclusionists or a subbranch of WP:ARS. Opinions? Or are we all too busy referencing to really care? I'm a bit embarrassed I didn't even know you guys existed until the other day!The-Pope (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey The-Pope, whether merger makes sense or not, more coordination probably does makes sense. My sense is that far too few editors are working on this backlog, and if we could somehow find a way to channel more editors into it, it would work wonders. Editors have the option to join the month-by-month referencing we do here as generalists, or the category sorting approach that WP:URBLP supports. Both are critical. (As for the use of the term rescue, you'll have to blame me for that--to the extent you think ARS sullied it, we have to take it back! (though I am a member there too)).--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd support a merge or a more formal linking and agree that the "Rescue" may send the wrong messages (although it does underline the fact that editors in this project tend to be more interested in the methodical approach to scrutinising and improving BLPs and rooting out the bad apples than wholescale blanking or deletion). Perhaps "Focus Month" would be better. Perhaps this could be accomplished by an update section on the main UPBLP and BLP Project pages highlighting the focus month and the countdown stats (might also help attract more editors to this work). Also the category and Project lists you've been generating. I do think we need to find a more objective way of demonstrating the relative scale of the problem the UBLPs actually present and the progress being made. Every time one of the rows about mass deletions breaks out over at AN it's the big scary total number at the bottom that gets the attention, and editors actually working the problem have to stop what they are doing to go and weigh in with anecdotal evidence which is all we have and which is all a waste of valuable editing time.--Plad2 (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
As Milowent mentioned, the emphasis should be on better coordination, and the merge would be a great place to start. It's inconvenient to have two discussion pages focused on the same topic. The name "Unreferenced BLP" is perfectly fine, there doesn't need to be anything after it.--hkr Laozi speak 07:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with a merge and dropping the rescue tag, it would be much easier if there was just one project. Having two just dilutes things somewhat. Mattg82 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

September 2008

  • Looks like September 2008 is wrapped up with 12 articles marked for a deletion process. Any good thoughts for a trophy?--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Nothing sticks out for me. Given the speed that this month was laid to rest it was not unlike a hot knife through butter. Weak, I know. Hopefully someone will be able to come up with something a bit more creative? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
If we're looking for a trophy that says speed then this one may work, but I'd quite like to find a reminder (memorial?) of Obrad Zelić who is a Serbian dentist specialising in gum diseases, and who may have escaped two AfDs and a PROD by the skin of his teeth. Hallucegenia (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, someone rescued Zelić? Good show, good show! --j⚛e deckertalk 17:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
And to think I prodded Zelić! This looks official enough for a "trophy"--File:Medieval_dentistry.jpg--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
A very interesting picture. I'm on board with it as a trophy. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The trophy looks great! Well-spotted Milowent. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Perfect! --j⚛e deckertalk 16:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

URLs with square brackets in "Cite" templates

I had a URL that includes square brackets show up in an article, and I'm having trouble learning how to "escape it" so that it's just allowed to be part of the URL portion of a "cite news" template. (e..g, the link kinda looks like it has an external link in it. What's the trick? I'm sure I've had to figure this out before, but ... PS: It's Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy, ref 2, if you edit it I've commented out the URL in question and left it below the first paragraph. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

%5B and %5D are the codes, similar to the %20 code you often see replacing a space.The-Pope (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that syntax makes sense to me. Rockin'.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 16:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

August 2008 Trophy?

Rip Gerber

Would someone be kind enough to take a look at the Rip Gerber article? I've added one ref (publisher's website bio) but owing to a (remote) COI, I shouldn't do more to it even though my fingers itch to do so. No need to reply. Just wanted to to flag it and move on.--Plad2 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WORCS

I believe I have now refereced all uBLP that were within the jurisdiction of the Worcestershire project. If anyone comes across any others, please let me know. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Add Wikipedia:WikiProject_Worcestershire/Unreferenced_BLPs to your watchlist. I do the same with chess articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

March 2008 now clear - future planning

  • You've all done fantasticly well and it's all on track to have all 2008 completely empty (post the prod/afd delay) by the end of the year. Is it too early to start thinking about what next, after 2008? April 2010 with only 287 looks good as an easier one for over the holiday season - the impact of having blank months in the middle of big months is also very effective - especially if we could keep the cat active, but empty (ie not deleted), with a message about how it was cleared and a link to the current task. The-Pope (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ha, we originally tried to keep a placeholder linking to the trophy page for each month we finished (like the 370 we knocked out from November 2009 was hard for people to miss), but random editors kept deleting it! As for what's next, I'm open to anything myself.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of working from the back of the queue, and think we should clear 2009 before 2010, though Jan 2009 is rather big. April 09 has just 459 articles, would that make a good task once 2008 is complete? ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Generally I agree with the same idea, of working from the back, but over the past month, the UBLPs have been cleared at a rate of about 30/day. So, the 2008 ones should be done by about the 16th Dec. Given that referencing fatigue, holidays, parties, vacations, family time etc could decrease the amount of time some will be able to spend, it's fair to assume that the speed may drop. (on the other hand, being not at work/school may increase the pace?) 460 articles at 20/day would be 23 days and pushing past the new year. 260 would be about 13 days, so even if the pace dropped more, it could still be done this year. Have you tried using the {{empty category}} template, rather than a single page to keep the cat active? I don't think we should keep the 2008 cats active (delete them ASAP!), but having a 2009/2010 empty cat acting as an advertisement for this project would be very useful. Can cats be protected against deletion by a friendly admin other than the empty cat template? The-Pope (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
OK if we want another month cleared before New Year then April 2010 makes sense, but if we want to clear another month by the tenth anniversary on the 15th Jan then April 2009 would be better instead. I'm inclined to the latter, especially as we'd then be able to say that two out of 12 months in 2009 were complete. ϢereSpielChequers 16:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm in favour of tackling 2009 as these articles were a significant part of the original number of UBLPs which caused the rumpus at the beginning of the year. It would be good to see them all gone and then move on to those discovered post Feb 2010. We're going to have to tackle the bigger months at some point but I'm happy starting with April 2009--Plad2 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I am also in favor of doing 2009 first, and April 2009 is the best candidate for quick disposal. Articles tagged after March 18, 2010 were not part of the original backlog where none are subject to BLP-PROD. There are currently 19,284 tagged UBLPs, 5443 of which were tagged in April 2010-December 2010, meaning from the original backlog only 13,841 are left. That's pretty amazing.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Head's Up

There is a conversation pertinent to the sourcing of BLPs taking place here for all of those interested. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Is this messing up the backlog count when he changes the tags and blanks it?--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I haven't noticed any issues yet; I don't think the categories are removed when the blanking template goes up - I assume it is similar to the copyright template. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Follow up to my own post: Apparently the categories are also being blanked, which is a HUGE problem. Will see how it plays out over at the drama board...--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been tracking all of the monthly cat counts for the past month, so I'll see how it looks in a while. I think he's mainly targeted June 2008 so far. Removing the cats is just stupid.The-Pope (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I saw a note from Doncram that he has actually reverted the majority of the blankings and is currently working on the remainder, so that may be why we don't notice a difference. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh good, I hadn't seen that yet. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: Discussion now moved here --j⚛e deckertalk 17:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I may be new to this project but not to its goal. Without the effort done by this group there would likely be more support to the blankings or even mass deletions. Because of the work done here and by a few others there is an argument against these acts. I just want to offer kudos to you all because the efforts are making a difference. —J04n(talk page) 18:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    And yours! I've seen you working there, and have thought of you for quite some time as part of our team whether or not you'd signed the paperwork. *grin* --j⚛e deckertalk 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Followup: The Wordsmith is nominating many of the old UBLPs for deletion--which includes many from July 2008 and June 2008, the months we have left from 2008. As long as AfD is not overwhelmed this is something that can be handled. Not a shock, a number are probably non-notable, but some are proving to be notable in my view and are hasty nominations, so extra eyes might be useful.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Followup A new dicussion on the topic at the AfD talk page, here: [4] --j⚛e deckertalk 17:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Final 17 of July 2008

Only 17 left not in deletion processes:

Pretty certain that's a self-pub source but I'm watching the article and if nothing more happens following my appeals for help I'll deal with it at the weekend.--Plad2 (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Now sent to AfD--Plad2 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  • All handled now, june 2008 is next!--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_BLP_Rescue/Archive_2&oldid=1080660860"