User talk:Harej/Unreferenced BLPs

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)[reply]

Oops... I didn't see we were supposed to be removing (or striking) names. --Ali'i 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]