- Category:Articles with unsourced statements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am asking for review of my own actions. I restored this in August under special circumstances and in just the last few days, several people (including a couple other admins) have jumped on me saying that doing so was horrible and asking that it be immediately re-deleted.
This category, and its dated subcategories, are collectively used on slightly less than 50,000 articles, primarily through association with {{fact}}. The category is very similar to, but distinct from, Category:Articles lacking sources which is associated to {{unreferenced}}. (In case it is unclear, "fact" is applied to solitary unsourced statements in otherwise healthy articles, while "unreferenced" is a banner applied to articles that are generically without sources.)
Timeline:
- On July 19th, WP:CFD deleted Category:Articles with unsourced statements with 10 deletes and 4 keeps (log, closed by Syrthiss). The primary arguments of the nominator were that the category was too large to be workable and that the existence of such categories interfered with the user experience.
- After this was deleted, all references to it were replaced with Category:Articles lacking sources.
- On July 31st, CFD deleted Category:Articles lacking sources with 21 deletes and 8 keeps (log, closed by Kbdank71). Essentially the same reasons were advanced, i.e. that it was unworkable large and unhelpful to readers.
- On August 19th, DRV unanimously undeleted Category:Articles lacking sources with 23 undeletes and 0 endorse deletions (log, closed by Xoloz). Essentially the argument was that large meta-categories are a necessary evil and an accepted part of Wikipedia. I participated in this DRV, but did not close it. I had not participated in the prior CFDs.
- Later on August 19th, I undeleted Category:Articles with unsourced statements and restored it to {{fact}} rather than having it merged into "Category:Articles lacking sources". I cited the DRV reasons for Category:Articles lacking sources as justifying the undeletion, even though this second category with not explicitly mentioned in the DRV. For the record, I only became aware of the progenitor category well after the DRV had started. I explicitly asked ANI to review my actions, and no one directly complained about this undeletion, though there was discussion of the radical conflict between the CFD and DRV results mentioned above.
- On September 11th, Category:Articles with unsourced statements was again taken to CFD. This time it was closed speedy keep (after 2 days) with 8 keeps and 4 deletes (log, closed by JzG).
- On February 5th, Rich Farmbrough started the task of breaking this category into dated subgroups. Doing so seems to have provoked new complaints about how horrible and unusable this category is.
- Starting on February 18th, people began complaining that this category should not even exist because my undeletion was improper, including calls from admins that it be deleted without any further process.
Congratulations if you followed all that. So in summary, the category was deleted 8 months ago at CFD and unilaterally restored 7 months ago following a closely related DRV (all the same arguments applied in my opinion). This restoration was discussed at ANI at the time and unchallenged. Subsequently the category survived another CFD (6 months ago). And now there are calls that it should be "immediately deleted" because despite the ANI discussion and subsequent CFD, the appropriate "process" was not followed to justify undeletion several steps ago.
Frankly, I am bringing this here because I want to wash my hands of it. I'd ask people Endorse the undeletion, and oppose the kind of process obsession that led to these much delayed calls for deletion. At the absolute worst there ought to be a fresh deletion discussion given both that the last CFD was closed keep and that the dated subcategories didn't even exist at the time of prior discussions. Though I have said as much, several individuals have persisted in calling for immediate deletion. Dragons flight 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse status quo (with the category undeleted) If anyone wants this deleted on merit, rather than because the process wasn't perfect, I suggest a new CfD. There have been too many deletions/undeletions for any final state to truly have followed process, and the most recent CfDs and ANI discussions were to keep it. --ais523 11:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. First off, this is something of a "backwards DRV", in that it was deleted in July 2006, but unilaterally reinstated in August 2006 ([67] ,[68] , [69]), and a new_CfD was truncated when, after only two days of discussion by the community and votes on both sides of the issue, it was administratively terminated in a "speedy keep".
The category consists of articles with one or more "citation-needed" or "fact" templates on individual clauses, statements, sentences. It is a quagmire that constantly changes as these templates are added or removed by users throughout the wiki, and currently consists of over 40,000 articles (double the size of several months ago). It is easily conceivable that the vast majority of articles on the wiki could be in this category at some point in the future, given the rapidly increasing demand for citations on minutia throughout the wiki. Some of the relevant issues related to this DRV can be found in a recent exchange at Category_talk:Articles_with_unsourced_statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here,_AFAICS. Please note carefully that this category is a sub-category of the more basic category "Category:Articles_lacking_sources" (articles with the large "unreferenced" templates placed at the head of articles). This subcategory ("Articles with unsourced statements", involving "citation-needed" or "fact" templates on individual statements) currently makes up the overwhelming majority of the backlog at Category:Articles lacking sources, involving tens of thousands of articles and still rapidly expanding. Category:Articles lacking sources, the more basic category, pertains directly to articles asserted to be not-in-keeping with the core WP policies of WP:Verifiability and/or WP:No original research. This category, on the other hand, deals with the same issues on a completely different level of operation, that is, little clauses, phrases and sentences within articles that users assert need citations for a specific statement. As most of us know already, that constitutes, and will likely continue to constitute, most of the entire wiki. And so the category continues to grow rapidly as more and more users put up "citation-needed" on one or more statements in tens of thousands of articles.
Here is the current orientation of categories relevant to this discussion: As of February 20, 2007, Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_categories_sorted_by_month includes both Articles_lacking_sources and Articles_with_unsourced_statements. As of February 20, 2007, Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements currently includes a monthly list, many of which are obsolete and in need of maintenance, and all of which were top-level categorized as "Wikipedia:Maintenance categories sorted by month", a circular event from which there is no escape. The reason that there is no escape from this circular event, currently involving over 40,000 articles, is the increasing demand for sourcing of statements made on the wiki. Indeed the category foreseeably could ultimately involve virtually every article on Wikipedia. In other words, it's a real mess, beoming more and more of a mess as time passes, with no end to the mess in sight.
- Among the reasons this category should be deleted are:
- 1) it is by far too overly inclusive, rapidly heading towards 50,000 articles and involving a growing mass of individual "citation-needed" or "fact" templates;
- 2) the category constantly changes in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki);
- 3) it is impossible to ever "fix" the issue this category represents, involving such a massive list, as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki constantly on a second-by-second, minute-by-minute, and hour-by-hour basis, with the net number continually growing fast on the average and creating an ever-increasing backlog that is impossible to properly maintain;
- 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are an absolutely massive number of facts on the wiki in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template;
- 5) the previous CfD for this category was administratively truncated or short-circuited. The community process with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements" was bypassed and it was reinstated along with the higher-level category "Articles without sourcing" with no community review. Then a new CfD was truncated with a "speedy keep" after two days, well prior to seven days normally allotted. This development was interesting because the "vote" was tied between "keep" and "delete" after a little more than a day, then within a matter of about four hours several votes to keep were lodged and the discussion was administraively terminated. Since then, the talk page for this category, "Articles with unsourced statements" has had the appearance that the community had decided to keep this category, when in fact it was a virtually unilateral administrative decision.
- 6) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007. ... Kenosis 11:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with fire and brimstone. No possible use for this category and its child categories. Completely agree with all of Kenosis' statements, with the additional issue that editors of an article are the best equipped to judge whether a statement is correctly sourced or not; hence adding this "backlog" (which it will be now and forever amen) solves nothing and diverts attention from the very real issue of articles with no sources whatsoever. Incredibly bad idea which results in reverse-productive allocation of editor time. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'll side with the nominating admin that he did nothing wrong in restoring the category. Honestly, I find the category a little annoying, but it works much the same way as the "cleanup" and "wikify" categories, which are also very large and could theoretically be much larger still. Having a note at the bottom that says "Articles with unsourced statements" is just a useful caveat that's worthwhile to know if you're looking there. YechielMan 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Interesting, and appreciated. Unlike the article templates placed at the top of the article page, though, these are just all over the place, and thousands of articles come and go and quite readily return again in an instant or two--Put up a "citation-needed" request and "poof" the article is in the cat; provide a citation and "poof" it's gone a couple hours later, perhaps to return shortly when another editor catches another little clause, etc.. In the meantime virtually no one looks for the category note, or lack thereof, at the bottom of the article, but instead the editors tend to be responding to the particular point of interest within an article rather than the article as a whole. Moreover, sometimes there's just a few citation-needed templates in an otherwise well-sourced article and editors not uncommonly decide to leave it(or them) in place for any of a very wide variety of editorial reasons, depending on the article, how many participants, how controversial the topic, etc. Again (speaking as just another user of WP whos's already invested a number of hours researching this particular matter) I genuinely appreciate this additional perspective into the complexities of perceptions of the issues involved here. ... Kenosis 02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Kenosis and KC. Horrendous category with no positives. •Jim62sch• 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse status quo, relisting on CfD optional. WP:IAR, after 6 months of (relatively) peaceful existence this should really go to a new CfD if you want deletion. BryanG(talk) 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse undeletion. The "delete maintenance cats because they are too large and scary" reasoning is laughable. These categories will eventually become useful when the community develops a plan to tackle the problem of unreferenced information. Until that happens, there should be MANY distracting categories on the bottom of tagged articles. If you don't like the categories, then you should provide references for the questionable content. If these categories are annoying and distracting enough to cause editors to complain, then the system is working. --- RockMFR 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May as well begin discussing the merits of the likely upcoming CfD so it can be as informed as possible on both sides of the debate. "Large and scary", in my estimation, is not a problem because merely "large and scary" categories can easily be automated. Here, though, a constantly shifting, quantum particle-like category where fact requests dodge in and out of the cat is genuinely questionable. Keeping track of large quantities is doable, no question about it. I question the utility, on balance, of having a massive category where if there happens to be one little clause in the article that someone requests a citation for it, now the article's in the category; provide the citation, an instant later it's out of the category. For the moment, use the imagination to see the other implications of this. More importantly, each placement of a "citation-needed" on some little clause, sentence, or paragraph is an individual editorial decision by an editor somewhere on the wiki. I've only been here for a year now, and I have numerous "fact" templates in place, several of them having remained in place for the majority of that time on topics I'm quite familiar with. In some cases they're there as a courtesy to the editor who placed the clause or sentence. In several cases I myself placed the template on something I inserted, anticipating a day when I would get around to citing it (etc., etc., etc., etc., depending on the editorial decision-- and I'm just one editor among perhaps millions). Is the expectation here that every statement on the wiki will be expectied to have a citation attached to it??? And that the WP policy (one of three, we recall from the mouth of Jimbo) will ultimately not be "verifiable" but "verified and cited in writing for each and every statement on the wiki"? There's more to this potentially important analysis of course, but I just wanted to give these additional thoughts for the moment. ... Kenosis 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'm not of the opinion that every statement should or can have a citation attached to it. However, when a citation is requested, this request should be taken seriously. The "lacking sources from DATE" categories at least provide encouragement to editors. They will also become informative of the article's reliability in years to come. When it is 2008 and I see an article with a "lacking sources from September 2006" category, I'm going to seriously question whether anything in the article is valid at all. --- RockMFR 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, now the category exists for purposes of futher tagging the tags with a date? ... Kenosis 03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An update: Dragons flight left a note for me that the orientation of the categories has just been changed somewhat. [[:Category:Articles_lacking_sources (articles with the large unreferenced" templates) and Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements (articles with the little "citation-needed" tags on one or more particular statements in an article) are now separate categories. Previously the latter had been a subcategory of "Articles lacking sources". Leaving aside potential naming issues involved in the phrase "Articles lacking sources" in reference to "unreferenced" templates, this new orientation of categories makes better sense in my estimation. And possibly it allows the existence of a category involving the little "fact" templates within articles to be debated on the merits with slightly less confusion between the two categories that was previously the case. Dragons_flight, this was a very sensible change in my opinion-- more importantly here, the change is duly noted for purposes of this DRV. ... Kenosis 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse undeletion. Category:Articles with unsourced statements may not be useful to readers, but it is useful to editors. Not all editors enjoy going from article to article to source entire sections. Some (like myself), however, don't mind going through and sourcing (or performing other cleanup on) a couple of articles which have only 1 or 2 unsourced statements. Just like we have multiple {{cleanup}} and {{stub}} templates, we should also differentiate between articles which lack sources completely (and may thus be subject to deletion) and articles that lack sources for a few statements (which can be sourced or removed). For those who find the category "too large" or "unworkable" I have this to say: don't use it. But leave it available for others who do wish to utilize it. I extend my thanks to Dragons flight for the undeletion. -- Black Falcon 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment to Kenosis. I would like to reply to the 6 points you bring up (especially as I get the feeling this article will be going to CFD if it kept).
- 1) it is by far too overly inclusive, rapidly heading towards 50,000 articles and involving a growing mass of individual "citation-needed" or "fact" templates;
- With 50,000 articles, it currently includes only 3% of the English Wikipedia's article. Yes, the number of articles is high, but this is because the issue of unsourced statements is prevalent.
- 2) the category constantly changes in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki);
- So? I would wager that the total inflow/outflow each day is not much more than 1% of the total (500 articles) at most. Also, it is a maintenace category, so it should be variable as old articles are fixed and new problems are found.
- 3) it is impossible to ever "fix" the issue this category represents, involving such a massive list, as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki constantly on a second-by-second, minute-by-minute, and hour-by-hour basis, with the net number continually growing fast on the average and creating an ever-increasing backlog that is impossible to properly maintain;
- You are essentially saying that it is impossibly to ever satisfy WP:V for all articles on Wikipedia. And as long as Wikipedia keeps expanding, I think you are right. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't address problems that have been identified.
- 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are an absolutely massive number of facts on the wiki in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template;
- True, many statements need sourcing that aren't tagged with {{fact}}. But why ignore those that are actually noted? Over time, editors will get around to the rest of the untagged statements.
- 5) the previous CfD for this category was administratively truncated or short-circuited. The community process with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements" was bypassed and it was reinstated along with the higher-level category "Articles without sourcing" with no community review. Then a new CfD was truncated with a "speedy keep" after two days, well prior to seven days normally allotted. This development was interesting because the "vote" was tied between "keep" and "delete" after a little more than a day, then within a matter of about four hours several votes to keep were lodged and the discussion was administraively terminated. Since then, the talk page for this category, "Articles with unsourced statements" has had the appearance that the community had decided to keep this category, when in fact it was a virtually unilateral administrative decision.
- As I think this DRV indicates, there is, if not a consensus for keeping the category, then at least a lack of consensus for deleting it.
- 6) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.
- February 2007 may be overrepresented, but I assume the bot will start working properly from now on. Besides, this is really a minor issue.
- In summary, let me say this: I find the category to be a useful maintenance category that provides a distinction from and alternative to the broader Category:Articles lacking sources. I have never before utilized a WP:HARMLESS argument, but I think it is appropriate here. The category hurts no one, and is instead a useful tool for a certain portion of editors to help with ensuring compliance with WP:V. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Black Falcon, I'm amazed anyone has actually read through this discussion! ;-) I've about had it for tonight (-5hrs from Greenwich time here) and will re-re-respond when I have time to get back in here. I do think it's important for both "sides" of the debate to get as effective a handle as possible on the attendant issues, especially inasmuch as some of them relate to the core policies of WP. ... Kenosis 06:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Black Falcon, I don't have time to respond to all six points at present, but please let me quickly tally just how "overrepresented" February is. As of early today:
- The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, from January 2006 through November 2006 = a total of 21 articles on the wiki.
- The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, since December 2006 = 153.
- The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, since January 2007 = 1601.
- The total of "Articles with unsourced statements", according to this category, since February 2007 = approximately 50,000.
That's not harmless in my opinion. It's downright misleading. What it does, essentially, is say to everyone on the wiki: "OK, Wikipedians, here are your new marching orders. Starting February 2007 y'all are going to start keeping track of these "citation-needed" templates starting now. Date-tagging is now mandatory, or at least automated. All "citation-needed" tags that were lodged prior to January and February 2007 are hereby granted amnesty under our new program to more strictly enforce WP:VER (except for the ones from 2006 [in those 21+153=174 articles I mentioned] which fell through the cracks of our new program). We don't mind if you fail to put a "citation-needed" for those tens of millions of statements that should ideally be cited. But by golly, if you're going to use that template, we're going to keep track of those dates (starting February 2007 of course)." (END OF STATEMENT FROM WP BIG BROTHER) I'm sorry, but aside from that WP:HARMLESS is presently said to not be a valid argument against deletion, this situation is arbitrary, intrusive, and highly misleading as to the situation those "date tags" are supposed to address. If there's to be a new policy of this kind put into place, my belief is that it requires much more thorough discussions of the implications of such a "policy" among the interested participants in the broader community. And this DRV is a reasonable start in my estimation. Talk later; bye for now. ... Kenosis 14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kenosis, I don't see how {{fact}} tags lodged prior to January and February 2007 are granted amnesty. My personal rule is that any statement tagged for more than 2 weeks can be deleted (or moved to the talk page). This doesn't even give "amnesty" to most of those tagged in February. Also, if this is your main problem with the article, we can simply have the bot stop dating the citation templates and remove the ones that exist. I see no need to delete the category as a whole. I don't see what's intrusive about it (that one line at the bottom?? really??) or "misleading". Are you opposed to the existence of the category or of the citation template itself? To me it sounds like you want to get rid of both. If it's the date tags that bother you, there's no need to delete the general "Articles with unsourced statements" category. Also, WP:HARMLESS is an article to avoid in discussions about mainspace articles. I don't think it applies to cleanup categories/templates. -- Black Falcon 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidently you are willing to believe that the monthly categorizations are accurate? I have evidence to the contrary, among which are articles I'm involved in where there were templates placed upwards of a year ago and are now tagged "February 2007".
Well, I already pretty much gave my opinion. There's no need to date these templates, no need to categorize them, no need to do anything with them except let the editors that do the hard work decide on a case by case basis. If you work by a two week guideline then use it, consistently of course with the preferences of fellow editors on the articles you're working on. I already gave a perspective above that I am far more flexible about it, depending on the situation. Sometimes I remove them immediately or provide a cite, other times I place them and am comfortable, based on an assessment of the content to let them sit there for as long as need be. Anyone who wants to date them is welcome to date them. It's case by case, depending on the situation. But this current situation, in my estimation, is ridiculous and misleading. That is my opinion. ... Kenosis 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] One additional thing and I'm outta' here. This is not just my opinion. It was the community's opinion, after which the category was unilaterally reinstated without a DRV until now, and a new CfD was administratively truncated on the basis that it was an "obvious" keep in that administrators view, when in fact the debate had just begun. But I already spoke a bit about that above. ... Kenosis 21:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I know they are not accurate. However, I don't see how they accuracy or inaccuracy has any relevance to the main Category:Articles with unsourced statements. Truth be told, I don't see a need to date them. If an editor wants to know when a {{fact}} tag was placed, she needs only look at the article's edit history. However, in light of your arguments, I'm changing my initial suggestion endorsing undeletion to endorse undeletion conditional on "by month" subcategoreis being deleted and {{fact}} templates not being tagged. -- Black Falcon 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. We don't have a statue of limitations, but I don't think you can use DRV to overturn an undeletion 6 months after the fact. Take it to WP:CFD and see what the current consensus is. Chick Bowen 06:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse status quo (i.e. the category existing). One of the more important maintenance categories. The dating system will be useful after it has been operating for a few months, as something which has been fact-tagged for a couple months likely needs to be removed. No compelling reason for deletion presented, barring a broad rethinking of our use of maintenance categories; process issues are not a significant cause for concern. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist or delete. While I'd have a few words to spare about the usefulness of the category (for example, I'd like to hear some proofs for the assertions that it's useful or might have become), DRV is not supposed to be a XFD. Duja► 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Undeletion, BUT, this should be an empty category, that is - one with only subcategories. If we have to, date all the remaining undated ones as _now_, to start the clock ticking. --Random832 15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It amazes me how low down the list of priorities people put good presentation and user-friendliness. This and the related categories would be acceptable if confined to talk pages, but as presently implemented they get in the way of navigation. I also have great doubts about their usefulness as a prompt to improve referencing. Most of the cititation requests are made for trivial points on minor articles, and people who want to do citation work would make a more useful contribution by concentrating on the major articles in their fields of interest. Osomec 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Kenosis. However the ideal solution to this issue - for all categories designed for editors rather than readers - would be to develop a software function whereby adding a template on an article page can add a category to the related talk page. Perhaps such a facility already exists. Does anyone know? Sumahoy 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If we are going to have {{fact}} tags at all, then I think we need this category. And the SmackBot dating is part of being sure the 'fact' tags are addressed. Does anyone have an alternate plan for dealing with unsourced statements in Wikipedia? The excessive number of February, 2007 dates will presumably go away as SmackBot continues with the new pattern for a while. EdJohnston 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not a fact that any "plan" is needed for all fact tags on the Wiki. The plan was already in place, which is that editors who do the hard work of first noting that a citation appears needed or preferred on a particular statement, and later the harder work of finding citations, make these decisions on an article-by-article and statement-by-statement basis, in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS. I do not so easily accept in a cavalier way having an arbitrary starting point (e.g. "now", February, 2007) beyond which every fact tag will automatically have a date plunked onto it, at least not without the broader community participating in such a decision (and I know for a fact I am not alone in this opinion). I can just as easily plunk a date on the tag myself with the recently added date-attribute (and other users will learn too).
What I want to know is "What is the plan to deal with the tens of millions of unsourced statements on the wiki that do not have fact tags attached to them?" How about this solution: Program a bot to fact tag every sentence on the wiki without a citation and also attach a date to it starting February 2007. ... Kenosis 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Close without prejudice to listing at CfD. Given the time lapse since the last deletion debate, DRV is not the proper forum for this discussion. Eluchil404 10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Close and Support undelete if the category hadn't been undeleted a new one would have been needed to perform it's role, perhaps "Unsourced statements from an unknown date".... And the name of the sub-cats is "... since XXX" which is intended to mean that they are at least that old. As remarked above, any really old unsourced statments need to be examined to understand whether they are unsourcable (and hence rmovable), or just "not got round to" (or maybe don't need the tag). What constitutes "really old" shuld become clear s the project progresses, and I hope will become less aged as time goes by. One suggestion above is 2 weeks, which means all the January and earlier ones should be dealt with now. While I respect the suggestion that examining the history is all that's needed to identify when a "fact" tag was added, with high traffic articles it would be somewhat time consuming, and with 50,000 articles (maybe twice as many tags) that's a lot of time spent. Rich Farmbrough, 00:05 24 February 2007 (GMT).
- Endorse undeletion, Keep and Close without Cfd. I strongly support the dating of the fact tags, as it helps editors know how long the tag has existed, and remove it if it has been uncited for too long. Specially in articles that get constantly updated, its really time consuming to go through the history to find when the tags were added.
- Although the cats may not seem useful now, editors could start going through them in he future and either cite the text or remove them completely. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The participants in WP:BOT have authorized many bots that correct spaces before commas, semicolons, various syntax issues, capitalization conventions, and all manner of minutiae on the wiki that do not involve categories. Why would a category be needed for the month-dating of fact templates as discussed by several WP-users in Template talk:Fact?. ... Kenosis 02:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:NorthTonight.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Granada_Reports.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ScotlandToday.png){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVLookaround.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVCalendar.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Scotsport.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ShatteredLogo.gif){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Primetime.gif){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:TaggartTeam.png){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Vic_R_Big_Night_Out_DVD.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Des&Mel_logo.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Terrygaby.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:TFI_Friday.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Animalhospitallogo.gif){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Catterick_dvd.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Night_And_Day_intro.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Tonight.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Star_Maidens.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVCashCab.JPG){kind=link}
![[20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Love_Soup.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Hyperdrive_main.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Space-cadets.png){kind=link}
![[23]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Bleakhouse2005.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITV_NET.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:BBCspaceodyssey-cover.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Itvfromhell.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVSoapstarSuperstar.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Blinddate.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Morningglory.gif){kind=link}
![[30]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Petrolheads.png){kind=link}
![[31]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:AdrenalineJunkieDVD.gif){kind=link}
![[32]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Snuffbox.jpg){kind=link}
![[33]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVWestcountryLive.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:SundayLive.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:60MM.jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVChannelReport.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITV_Love_Island.png){kind=link}
![[38]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:JeremyKyleShow.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Fun_Song_Factory.jpg){kind=link}
![[40]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Feeltheforce.jpg){kind=link}
![[41]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVAngliaTonight.jpg){kind=link}
![[42]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVWalesTonight.jpg){kind=link}
![[43]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVTheWestTonight.jpg){kind=link}
![[44]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:PoliticsNowSTV.gif){kind=link}
![[45]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVWorldCuppa.gif){kind=link}
![[46]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVSundayFeastlogo.gif){kind=link}
![[47]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVSaturdayCooks.gif){kind=link}
![[48]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVMumsonStrike.jpg){kind=link}
![[49]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVLookingGood.jpg){kind=link}
![[50]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Dayofthetriffids1981.jpg){kind=link}
![[51]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:CITV_FingerTips.gif){kind=link}
![[52]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVCentralTonight.jpg){kind=link}
![[53]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Lrtvlogo1.png){kind=link}
![[54]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITVBadLadsArmy.png){kind=link}
![[55]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Livetvbingo.jpg){kind=link}
![[56]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:MnbfTitleScreen.jpg){kind=link}
![[57]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Cbbc_crush_logo.gif){kind=link}
![[58]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:STVClubCupid.gif){kind=link}
![[59]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITV_Thames_Valley_Tonight.jpg){kind=link}
![[60]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Playdate.jpg){kind=link}
![[61]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:STVUnsolved.jpg){kind=link}
![[62]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:ITV_Play_the_common_room.jpg){kind=link}
![[63]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Britains_Got_Talent.PNG){kind=link}