Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles

They actually aren't. We should probably change how we count these, Catfurball, now that we know about the "probably unreferenced" group that is untagged. If you look at the new chart on the main page, you can see from a month ago that while the unreferenced amount has gone up by 1,000, the probably unreferenced group has gone down by 5,000. So massive progress is still being made, it's just that some of the latter are being tagged and thus being added into the former, even while the total amount is going down a whole bunch. Silver seren^C 21:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want a November backlog drive?

Just thought I'd ask, since that would be a month out. On the one hand, the marathon team seems to be making steady progress. On the other hand, we have a sizable "shadow" backlog lurking that actually could use a lot of attention. If we're going ahead with another backlog drive this calendar year, I would ask @Bearian, @SunloungerFrog, and others to proceed in October with adding a LOT more Unreferenced tags to the rather large trove of "likely Unreferenced" articles uncovered by @ARandomName123 earlier this year. The logic is that we want to start November with a high number that everyone can feel good about making a dent in (rather than seeing the number climb during the drive).

Or maybe that is something we should do in October regardless... If there is any way to keep the total number of articles tagged as Unreferenced *below* 50k though, that would be my preference. Pinging @Boleyn as well because a large influx of more Unreferenced tags means more reviewing and sorting will be required.

(Either way...for those marathon editors who don't particularly enjoy Unreferenced article backlog drives, I might recommend the approach taken by @Frost who if I'm not mistaken didn't sign up for the backlog drive but was ~~one of the top editors~~ the top editor for the marathon in June.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the tags should be added in a large chunk before the drive, and preferably not during the drive like normal. I also wouldn't be opposed to pausing tagging entirely when a backlog drive occurs.

If we do tag, 50k might be a bit confusing as our last backlog drive did end below that at ~49,000. I doubt we would even hit 50k if we consolidate a month's worth of tagging, however. In the entirety of August, 2,291 articles were hand-tagged with the unreferenced tag or the BLP version, while in September so far, there was 1,632. @SunloungerFrog has also completed tagging of the BLPs (thanks!) so that stream of articles is no longer coming. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether to have a backlog drive at all during November, I'm able to help organize it as usual, but I'll be a bit more busy IRL compared to previous drives. Works for me though. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million @ARandomName123. I have started the WP:NOV25 page (and signed up for the drive). @DreamRimmer: Will you be available to support? @Kazamzam: What about you? Cielquiparle (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support this drive. Please remind me a few days before the drive starts so that I can set up the bot. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to do so. Bearian (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Bearian. Have we got past the letter "B" yet? Cielquiparle (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet ... but I'm working on it. Bearian (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to support a backlog drive in November as best I can; also happy to just continue with the Marathon (which is probably what I personally enjoy more). If we were to hold one as planned, I'd definitely concur with what ARandomName123 has mooted, that is, no processing of the likely unreferenced blob during the drive, so that progress is obvious. One target could be to get the unreferenced BLPs (here) down to zero again, which would be pleasing, and with much less likelihood of a severe increase, as the untagged mass has been dealt with. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SunloungerFrog. I have put you down as an organizer. As always, your curation of the Popular articles is appreciated. I was wondering if you could also create a page with basic Petscan tips for finding articles about specific topics, which we could link to from WP:NOV25 (and future drives perhaps)? Cielquiparle (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and pull one together. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Top 15 URA leaderboard for September 2025

Many thanks to all our intrepid marathon editors in September as we maintained steady progress. The top of the URA leaderboard looked strikingly similar to August, with 6 editors logging 100+ points.


Rank	User	Total articles in Sept 2025
1	Silver seren	255
2	Bearian	188
3	JoeNMLC	181
4	Coldupnorth	150
5	GünniX	119
6	Cielquiparle	108
7	JTtheOG	84
8	SunloungerFrog	74
9	Rfl0216	65
10	Sleepytimecat	47
11	Eva UX	36
12	Toweli	35
12	A.Deira.born	35
13	Elite words2	32
14	Wikishovel	31
15	Cloudz679	30

Congratulations to @Silver seren who once again took the top spot, followed by @Bearian in second place. While there was a larger gap between the two rivals compared to August, it's worth noting that Bearian was wearing a second hat – dutifully reviewing and tagging a rather large volume of articles as {{Unreferenced}}. (Many of which started with the letter "B".) Thank you for taking such care in dealing with the "blob" of likely unreferenced articles.

@JoeNMLC climbed up to take 3rd in September, rising to 6th place for the year to date. Impressively, @Coldupnorth achieved 150 points for the third month in a row – a rather striking strategy that took him to 4th place. Similarly, @GünniX was in 5th place after in putting in another solid performance in September, followed by yours truly.

@JTtheOG was in 7th place with 84 points...amazing when you consider that they were simultaneously dominating the New Page Patrol Backlog Drive in September. It was great to see @SunloungerFrog and @Rfl0216 on the URA leaderboard in 8th and 9th place, respectively, followed by @Sleepytimecat in 10th and @Eva UX in 11th. Applause as well for the rare tie for 12th place between @Toweli and @A.Deira.born, and the 3 other editors who logged at least 30 articles for the month (or 1 point a day).

In a world where large language models are being trained on Wikipedia articles as the "gold standard", the work this WikiProject is undertaking in verifying and adding citations to Unreferenced articles is more important than ever. Thanks to everyone for your ongoing contributions. Sign up for the WP:NOV25 backlog drive if you are interested, and please do give The Wikipedia Library (WP:LIBRARY) another look if you haven't been using it because it could save you an incredible amount of time.

Happy October and happy referencing! Cielquiparle (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Bearian (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Still chipping away at Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2009 the oldest & largest, closer to getting Done. Including link to Year-to-date chart for anyone would like to check there. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The initial for that category being 110,000 articles is so difficult to fathom now so far past that point. Silver seren^C 21:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, well done all on another great month of progress Coldupnorth (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate No Sources Tagging

Boleyn's speedy work this month so far on the list has revealed an issue with our unreferenced articles backlog and article tagging that I honestly didn't think was as large as it apparently is. For them to get to nearly 600 articles in less than a week from inappropriately tagged articles implies a much larger magnitude than even that.

Is there a way to properly check for not only how many articles are inappropriately tagged as having no sources when they have them and, secondarily, figure out why so many articles were inappropriately tagged in the first place? Was it just completely different editors over time contributing to the issue or is some specific editor or some bot more largely responsible? Silver seren^C 20:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren: There are editors who are adding references and not removing the unreferenced template in articles, I have had to tell two editors to please remove the unreferenced templates after adding references. Catfurball (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's that common of an occurrence, I guess? Seems like we might need a bot run through the remaining articles to see if the tag is still accurate. Silver seren^C 21:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful. @Silver seren: Catfurball (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC mentioned above that their bot has this functionality. Fairly liberal with the removal criteria though. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been working through this: [1] and about half of false positives, but lots that are mistagged. Boleyn (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -my two-cents worth. While going through an Unref. category, maybe 5% or less, I do find articles with references & I just remove the unreferenced tag. Sometimes I myself forgot to remove the tag & I'm sure the same for other editors. Over the years since 2009 this mistake can accumulate. Any tool to identify those mis-tagged article will be helpful. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military History backlog drive

Hi all, just wanted to highlight that over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history we will be running an article improvement drive throughout November that will include targeting improvements to the circa 1,100 MILHIST articles tagged as citing no sources. Hopefully this has synergies with your November drive and I have included a note on our drive page linking to yours. Anyone interested is welcome to join the MILHIST drive, whether you are members of the WikiProject or not. Would be great to eliminate this backlog! - Dumelow (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a mention to our drive page. Hope your backlog can be eliminated by the end! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a list of untagged unsourced articles, if you're interested in that. The list filtered for milhist articles is at petscan:39762799. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Will see how we get on, if we run through the other list then we can attack this one too! - Dumelow (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123 and Dumelow: If an improvement could qualify in both drives, presumably by being listed in the articles for improvement in both drives, can it be submitted for points in both drives? I note that the points may differ in the two drives. If they would qualify for both, should a note to that effect be placed in the information of the two drives? A hashtag proceeds the edit summary in the overall drive. I will look again at the military history drive instructions but I didn't see the reporting procedure at my last glance. Donner60 (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60 can it be submitted for points in both drives of course, certainly with respect to this project. To participate in the WikiProject Unreferenced articles WP:NOV25 drive, all you have to do is register and then make sure that, every time you add a reliable source to a completely unreferenced article as an inline citation, you include the hashtag #NOV25 in the edit summary somewhere (once per article, and there must not be any immediately preceding characters before the hashtag). Then the magic counting thing will tally your contributions based on the presence of the hashtag, and you'll see them on the leaderboard. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Registration open for the WP:NOV25 backlog drive

We have 10 signups so far. The direct link to the signup page is here. @ARandomName123, can we send the URA newsletter to everyone who is registered for notifications? Cielquiparle (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: I updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Newsletter, so it should be good to go. Might be a bit early now, so maybe in a week or so? I don't have the mass message thing, so I can't send it out. @DreamRimmer could you help with this like last time? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, please remind me if I forget. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good @ARandomName123 and @DreamRimmer. Maybe on Wednesday or Thursday (technically mid-month). I can apply for the Watchlist page notification for the week after that. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer OK happy for the mass message to go out if it hasn't already. (We are up to 16 participants.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Petscan tips

@Cielquiparle, you asked I was wondering if you could also create a page with basic Petscan tips for finding articles about specific topics, which we could link to from WP:NOV25 (and future drives perhaps)? I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Petscan tips as a start, which I intend to add to over the coming weeks.

Other PetScan aficionados - please do add to the page, and if you'd like to add yourself as a point of contact for PetScan troubleshooting, add your name to the bottom of the page.

If anyone has a particular topic that they'd like a precanned query for, let me know, and I'll try and make it and add it to the table. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SunloungerFrog - Thanks for the Petscan info. Today I added to that page a "See also" section with one link to a "Petscan help" page that I made back in 2023. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million, @SunloungerFrog and @JoeNMLC. Looking great and added some links on the main Backlog page. We can also let people know at the start of the drive (or even slightly before) that it's there (and invite suggestions for pre-canned queries again). (Speaking of pre-canned queries: How about one for India, like in the last drive?) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle, your wish is my command. India added. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SunloungerFrog! Cielquiparle (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunloungerFrog Noticing a lot of Unreferenced articles related to Anatomy and Medicine and Mathematics. Not sure what exactly the right categories are but would you be able to create pre-canned queries capturing those? (To make it easy for those with specialist knowledge.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who knew there was a WikiProject Anatomy?! Every day is a learning day in WP:URA. All done, @Cielquiparle. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced articles statistics

Hi! Do you have statistics on all unreferenced articles, not just those in categories added by the {{unreferenced}} template and similar templates? In the pl wiki we use a bot to check the status of all articles in terms of source: pl:Wikipedysta:PBbot/statystyki artykułów z przypisami (with / without references, references lists, external links and footnote templates). Do you know any other wikis where such statistics are updated? We don't have enough people to run a project like yours continuously. But in November, we'll be launching a campaign to add missing sources to articles. We've been doing this since 2010, just like at fi wiki ;) H. Batuta (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@H. Batuta, take a look at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles § Unsourced and untagged articles thread at the top of the chat, and the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles § Chart and statistics thread in the middle ~~(sorry, on mobile, and it is a bit of a pain to get the links)~~. @ARandomName123 runs a bot to find probably unreferenced articles that aren't actually tagged {{unreferenced}}. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SunloungerFrog, THX! (edit conflict :D) ARandomName123, could you please check how many articles have neither templates/tags indicating citation nor References / Sources sections? Or number of articles only with External links without theese templates, tags and sections? H. Batuta (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@H. Batuta, I can answer your first question: as of today there are 25110 non-list articles and 10832 list articles that are not tagged as unreferenced and yet appear to have no inline citations, references or sources sections. I separated out lists and non-lists because some lists - purely navigational ones - are less required to have references. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. As for those with only external links - this concerns articles such as: Red Hot + Riot: The Music and Spirit of Fela Kuti, Andrei Suvorov, 1929 Australian Championships – Women's singles, Eat and Run. H. Batuta (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@H. Batuta: Hi, so you want all unreferenced or untagged articles with an external links section? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARandomName123, yes, only the number. H. Batuta (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@H. Batuta: Ok, I'll try to do this. Will probably take a while though, depending on how much time I have. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Unreferenced" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Unreferenced has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 27 § Wikipedia:Unreferenced until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Top 15 URA leaderboard for October 2025

This month's marathon update is early and brief – but there are many contests that are still up for grabs (and may require further updates). Let's take a look.


Rank	User	Total articles in Oct 2025
1	Boleyn	769
2	Silver seren	405
3	Cielquiparle	233
4	JoeNMLC	168
5	Bearian	167
6	Coldupnorth	150
7	SunloungerFrog	109
8	JTtheOG	90
9	Wikishovel	77
10	Eva UX	58
11	Rfl0216	44
12	A.Deira.born	43
13	Elite words2	42
12	Significa liberdade	41
14	Suriname0	37
15	Cloudz679	36

@Boleyn slogged through hundreds of articles mistagged as Unreferenced – important work, especially given the influx of Unreferenced articles in October. @Silver seren also put in an impressive performance, with a whopping 405 points. Yours truly somehow managed to leapfrog @JoeNMLC rather late in the month, but the interesting battle here is between JoeNMLC and @Bearian, currently with just 1 point between them (168 vs. 167, respectively).

@Coldupnorth once again logged an impressive 150 points, making this a remarkable fourth month in a row (and perhaps helping to "raise the bar" as everyone else debated whether or not to overtake). From there, we skip over the editor who was using LLMs for mass article expansions whose contributions have since been mostly reverted...to find @SunloungerFrog in 7th place with 109 points. @JTtheOG is just under the 100 mark at 90 points, while @Wikishovel is at 77, and @Eva UX is in 10th place at 58.

While not all marathon competitors are backlog drive fans, the good news is that we are at 137 signups for the November backlog drive. We hope to make a huge dent in the population of articles tagged as Unreferenced and look forward to your ongoing contributions via whichever platform you choose. Thanks everyone and happy referencing! Cielquiparle (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation

On the page it says Mass deletion or tag removals are strictly prohibited. Is this Mass (deletion or tag removals) or (Mass deletion) or (tag removals)? I assume it's the former but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an either. Saying that you shouldn't be doing either of them if you're a part of the contest. At the very least, just removing a tag for an already sourced article won't count for the contest and AfDs won't count either even if you remove the tag in the process of AfDing it.

But do feel free to do either if it's an article where that applies. If it's already sourced, then the tag should be removed (or replaced with a refimprove tag) and if it's an article where you absolutely can't find any reliable sources at all on it, then you should take it to AfD. Just know that neither action will count as a point in the contest. But they are definitely still things that should be done if relevant. Silver seren^C 17:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, thank you. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]