User talk:Harej/Unreferenced BLPs
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Phoebe in topic May 2008
I like the idea of striking through names so we can see the progress we've made :) -- phoebe/(talk) 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oops... I didn't see we were supposed to be removing (or striking) names. --Ali'i 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be difficult to sort these by date? The ones that would have had the tag the longest are often the most worthless, whereas on a popular article if the tag was added a week ago it is very likely someone else is going to naturally do something to fix it it soon enough. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the what-transcludes-here lists that AWB generates are in order of when the tag was transcluded, but I am not sure. (messedrocker • talk) 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, when going through these, I have found that they are often grouped by the dated categories (eg. "Unsourced articles from May 2007", or whatever the actual name is.). For instance in the /16 page, I ran across a lot of them from January 2007. So it might list them by date in that way, but I don't know if it's done by date trancluded. And I would have no idea where the oldest/most recently tagged articles fall in these pages. Mahalo nui Messedrocker, btw, for maintaining these pages. --Ali'i 13:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
May 2008 edit
Thank you, thank you, thank you for updated this. I've been waiting for an update. Wow... something like 8,000 more poorly or unreferenced biographies? Yikes. <sarcasm>I'm beginning to think we might have a problem here on Wikipedia.</sarc> Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you! On the bright side, though, since the last time the script was run we've gained 400,000 articles, but apparently only +4700 unreferenced BLPs (at least as tagged as such). On the not-so-bright side, this is probably an underestimate :P It's a place to start, though. cheers, -- phoebe / (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)