Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles

The March 2026 backlog drive is open for registration.

Main page		Discussion		How to guide		Resources		Mistagged articles		Backlog drives

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

74,999! Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

73,996! Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] 70,085! Catfurball (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] A tasteful 69,589! Kazamzam (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] 68,992! Kazamzam (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] 67,924! Turtlecrown (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] 67,065 -- approaching 67,000 Mrfoogles (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] 66,994! Mrfoogles (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] 65,993! Turtlecrown (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] 64,921! Cielquiparle (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] 63,942! Cielquiparle (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] 62,987! SunloungerFrog (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] 61,903! Someonefighter (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] 60,929! SilverserenC 19:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

59,992! SilverserenC 02:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

59,090! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 20:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] 58,814! Catfurball (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] 57,954! Catfurball (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] 56,795! Catfurball (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] 55,456! Catfurball (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] 54,932! Catfurball (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] 53,557! Catfurball (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] 52,896! Catfurball (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] 51,967! Catfurball (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] 50,983! Catfurball (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

49,997 - well done everyone! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

48,979! Keep going. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] 47,956! Cielquiparle (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] 46,981! Cielquiparle (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] 46,367! Boleyn (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] 47,036! The backlog has increased. Catfurball (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] 47,423! The number of unreferenced articles are going way up. Catfurball (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] 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. SilverserenC 21:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

44,940! Cielquiparle (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

43,994! Cielquiparle (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] 42,802! Catfurball (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] 41,651! Cielquiparle (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] 40,694! Catfurball (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] 40,332! It's so close to going under 40k. It's a year and a week ago since I started this thread, to celebrate it going under 75k! 35k less in a year is amazing. Boleyn (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] 39,970! Catfurball (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] 38,999! Catfurball (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that under Progress, we include three numbers: 1) the total number of articles tagged as unreferenced (including BLPs and lists) as we do now; 2) the total number of articles that are "probably" unreferenced (including lists); and 3) the total of those two numbers. By tracking all 3 instead of just 1, it eases some of the anxiety around the number in category 1 going up, while providing an overall view of actual progress. @SunloungerFrog @ARandomName123 Cielquiparle (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. SilverserenC 17:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I agree. Because really the grand total should only go down now provided we keep it refreshed, and I think ARandomName123's refreshing script does a great job in that regard. Certainly the graph's trajectory is very encouraging. I will have a think about automatically gathering those numbers. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sure, sounds good to me. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] 71,984! Cielquiparle (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] 71,214! Cielquiparle (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] 70,752! Cielquiparle (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] 70,342! Cielquiparle (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] 69,925! Cielquiparle (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] 68,970! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] 67,766! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Progress box now reports, below the graph, these three numbers, the change with respect to the day before, and a prediction about when the backlog might disappear. The progress report will automatically update once a day. I'd like to thank ARandomName123 for sterling help behind the scenes to ensure that the chunk of "probably unreferenced articles" is refreshed every day. Any questions, give me a shout. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SunloungerFrog and @ARandomName123. Looks great. Liking the prediction of when the backlog might finally be eliminated and that it is all automated. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Below are the Top 20 finishers in the November 2025 backlog drive, factoring in adjustments. Congratulations and thanks again to all who participated in adding citations to Unreferenced articles.

Looking at the very top of the table:

• @JTtheOG retains the title as Unreferenced articles backlog drive champion for the fourth backlog drive in a row with 1093 points. @The joy of all things came in second overall with 635.
• Third place finisher @Chorchapu was also the top Reviewer. The second most prolific reviewer was @Ivebeenhacked.
• @AwerDiWeGo who finished 5th and @Dumelow in 6th place actually tied in terms of the number of articles they added citations to (239).

Rank	User	Tally	References	Reviews	Total
1	JTtheOG	Tally	1009	84.0	1093.0
2	The joy of all things	Tally	555	80.0	635.0
3	Chorchapu	Tally	118	295.0	413.0
4	Cielquiparle	Tally	400	3.5	403.5
5	AwerDiWeGo	Tally	239	37.0	276.0
6	Dumelow	Tally	239	0.0	239.0
7	Itzcuauhtli11	Tally	174	37.5	211.5
8	Bearian	Tally	206	0.0	206.0
9	Local Internet User	Tally	161	42.5	203.5
10	Engrigg22	Tally	197	3.0	200.0
11	Ivebeenhacked	Tally	20	135.0	155.0
12	Coldcoldwind	Tally	100	50.0	150.0
13	Nayyn	Tally	124	0.0	124.0
14	Aviationwikiflight	Tally	66	54.0	120.0
15	Rsnbrgr	Tally	50	63.0	113.0
16	Bunnypranav	Tally	2	102.0	104.0
17	Rublamb	Tally	100	0.0	100.0
17	Yaaaaargh!	Tally	100	0.0	100.0
17	Penny Richards	Tally	100	0.0	100.0
20	Coldupnorth	Tally	96	0.0	96.0

In terms of next steps: @DreamRimmer, would you be able to do the honors in awarding barnstars? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Bearian (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Had a great time contributing to this event. Appreciate it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I take this opportunity (...ehem) I take this oportunity (...ehem, ehem) to thank Dumelow for his hard and thankless (ehem) work on the other November drive. He deserves my 5th place and maybe also Cielquiparle's 4th pl... ("stop, you're not funny!", someone shouts from the audience). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I was really pleased with how the MILHIST one went and was glad to see some good crossover in participation between the two projects. Excellent work all! - Dumelow (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I learned sooooo much from this drive (my apologies to anyone who had to put up with me) and I definitely want to participate in the next one! Rob Rosenberger (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] thank you! Until next time! Coldcoldwind (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] When is the next... Davidindia (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] March 2026. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! I enjoyed it. See you at the next drive. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you find references added to articles that appear suspiciously garbled, hallucinated or fake, the place to report them is WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard.

If you are an ace reviewer like our recent backlog drive medalists (@Chorchapu, @Ivebeenhacked, @Bunnypranav), or the marathon crew fixing mistagged articles (@Boleyn, @Bearian, @Silver seren), there are many pages listed there requiring review as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will start on it this weekend. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a list of false positives from the "Probably unreferenced" set:

• 1600s_(decade) <- has refs though could use more
• 1700s_(decade), 1000s (decade)
• 2006_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(CAF)
• 1750s, 1760s
• 2024 Indian general election in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Pinging @ARandomName123 Cielquiparle (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: Thanks for listing those. Dealt with the decade articles by adding } to the filter. The 2024 Indian election article is now filtered through #section-h, and the FIFA one is filtered through } (this isn't the ideal solution but it seems each one has a different template). ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks @ARandomName123! Listing a couple more:

• Cabinet of Libya
• Here is a new variation of "unreferenced" to filter out: "unrf" (!)
• Canadian federal election results on Vancouver Island <- there seem to be multiple articles like this

Cielquiparle (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, } added for Libya, unrf added (never seen that before!), and added } for the first (probably only works for this specific article, as there's many templates on that page). Added } for the ISO page. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @ARandomName123 @SunloungerFrog How did we end up *adding* 145 "probably unreferenced" articles to unref8? Cielquiparle (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Cielquiparle, in an effort to keep abreast of any new "probably unreferenced" articles - for example, if an editor goes on a spree removing unreliable sources from articles but subsequently fails to tag the articles if they happen to end up unreferenced - @ARandomName123's bot now scans all articles that were last edited by a non-bot the day before yesterday, in addition to the existing task of refreshing those already in the "probably unreferenced" blob. We thought that this gradual approach was better than an infrequent scan across all mainspace articles, which would almost certainly have the undesirable effect of a big disheartening spike in "probably unreferenced" articles. The conversation ARandomName123 and I had about this is here: User talk:ARandomName123 § URA scripts, continuously check for probably unref articles. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] (And actually it was only 24 additional articles as you can see from the diff - the other 121 articles were already in the "probably unreferenced" blob). Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Got it. Thanks @SunloungerFrog for the update and link. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More false positives:

• Manshiyet Zabda
• National Register of Historic Places listings in Alabama
• National Register of Historic Places listings in New Mexico
• Electoral history of Mark Carney

Cielquiparle (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added } for the two NRHP ones, added } for Carney, and added } for Manshiyet Zadba. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] More false positives:

• Secure Hash Algorithms
• Tufino

Cielquiparle (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added }. Added }. I'm not too sure about the last one, since it doesn't directly link to the source, and it seems to be the same URL regardless of what place it is. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 05:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also added } and } for the NRHP ones. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 06:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Another false positive:

• On Air (Queen album)
• Detroit Mercy Titans track and field

Cielquiparle (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Added } for On Air. Added } as well, though I'm not sure if there's any false negatives ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 05:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New year, new marathon. In January, our hero was @Bearian who logged 434 points as the undisputed leader...followed by @JoeNMLC, @4meter4, and @Silver seren with 177, 163, and 102 points each.

Hats off to all who have been plugging away, adding citations, correcting tags, and helping newer editors understand the importance of reliable sources. There are still quite a few popular articles (and lists) lacking sources – and more sources available than ever in the Wikipedia Library – so we have our work cut out for us.

And if you're new to this WikiProject and want to get involved, you can track our collective progress on the 2026 marathon leaderboard. Your stats should show up once you have added citations to at least 5 articles and removed the {{Unreferenced}} tag.

Rank	User	Total articles in Jan 2026
1	Bearian	434
2	JoeNMLC	177
3	4meter4	163
4	Silver seren	102
5	Cakelot1	52
6	SunloungerFrog	49
7	Cielquiparle	38
8	Boleyn	36
9	Coldupnorth	30
10	Earl Andrew	28

Happy referencing! Cielquiparle (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Almost 300 of those were mistagged, and probably 109 were redirects, but I did source 24 articles sources, which is less than one per day. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] It all counts and is appreciated. Reviewing articles can take a long time too but seems increasingly important. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2009 is still large. I remember when it was about 100 times that size, but it's still an unusually large category.

I wonder whether we could get it broken down into lists of articles per WikiProject, and then send personalized messages to the bigger groups to ask for their help? For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football has 43 unsourced articles left from that month. That's feels like a manageable number for a strong group. Maybe if we gave them a curated list, they would get some of these done. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think enlisting the help of WikiProjects is always worth a try, and sometimes it bears fruit. I personally tend to do that kind of personalised message when we're holding a backlog drive (e.g. here or here). I wonder whether clearing the Dec 2009 category - only just over 1000 articles now - could be a particular goal for the March 2026 backlog drive? Then we could do some prep work petscanning chunks of articles for WikiProjects in advance, so that we can message all the pertinent WikiProjects on 1 March. @WhatamIdoing do you have a sense of which ones are larger / more active, i.e. that are worth targeting? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes is potentially useful. Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers is less directly useful. It tells you how many watchlists the page is on, but it doesn't tell you how many of those accounts are inactive or just not using the watchlist. But looking through that list, with ?action=info it's possible to find groups that had more than n watchlisting editors actually check the talk project page during the last month. For example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics each had 50+ watchlisting editors look at that page during the last month. It is probably possible to generate a useful list through some automated process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] IMO any subdivision should retain the existing category with the same name for consistency with the other month categories. A division similar to Category:All articles lacking sources vs Category:Articles lacking sources would make sense.  novov talk edits 12:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Mir Novov, the intent is not to split the category as such - it will still be Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2009. The proposal is that we extract themed subsets of articles from that category using PetScan and publicise them on the relevant WikiProject talk page to get their help finding sources. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that all indexes beginning with "Index of..." should be automatically excluded from the "Probably unreferenced list" (currently at unref3). An example is Index of software engineering articles. I think this is relatively clear cut for our purposes. (How this category of indexes as a whole should be treated within Wikipedia is a separate question which can be dealt with elsewhere.)

Less clear cut is what to do about articles that are currently functioning as set index pages or disambiguation pages. The simple ones seem straightforward: no references required. It's when they start to include factual claims and contextual information that it seems like references would be preferred. (This is all triggered by History of the Jews in the United Kingdom, which I would argue is essentially a set index page and shouldn't require references.) @Bearian @ARandomName123 @SunloungerFrog Cielquiparle (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should exclude

• Articles whose titles begin with "Index of" (286 articles, petscan:42738978)

and further propose that we should exclude

• Articles that are in Category:Wikipedia indexes (209 articles, petscan:42738709)

That will reduce the "probably unreferenced" blob by a total of 296 articles - there is obviously a lot of overlap between those two sets of query results, but there are some articles whose titles begin with "List of" that are in the Wikipedia indexes category that I think we could safely remove too. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Ok. Bearian (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] To slightly complicate this, looking at the list of articles whose titles begin with "Index of", some of them I would class as lists not indexes (e.g. Index of Windows games (0–9)). I therefore think removals should go of the category not the names. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Interesting. What do you think about the "List of" pages in Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2023? Bearian (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] In what regard? If your asking if I think any of these look like indexes, no I think all of those all look like standalone or navigational lists. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Cakelot1, I'm curious, what is the distinction between an index and a navigational list? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] My understanding here (per WP:INDEXES and MOS:LISTTYPES) was that an index was an alphabetic list of articles surrounding a general topic (like an alphabetized version of an WP:OUTLINE) whereas what I'm (probably imprecisely) calling a navlist here is a restricted grouping of notable articles based on a selection criteria (the difference between Index of Buddhism-related articles and List of Buddhists, List of Buddhist temples in the United States, etc.). Perhaps, I'm mistaken, but I think all of the "list of" articles in Aug 23 could (and imo should) be referenced. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Cakelot1: that was my first thought--what about the misnamed articles. Although I agree that true list articles do not require sources. Rublamb (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] On the technical side of things, the easiest way to do this would be to add a filter for }, which this tool currently shows has 321 transclusions, though the title check for "Index of" would also work. Category checking would be a bit more complicated to set up, but I guess it could be doable. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The filter for the index footer sounds good. Categories keep changing all the time anyway. (Just saw Index of Angami-related articles turned up at unref8.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] In which case I suggest we go with the filter for the footer combined with the title check for "Index of". Whatever is most straightforward to implement. And I note that putting thoughtful filters in place to manage the "probably unreferenced" blob does not preclude editors looking at a list article and thinking "actually, this needs some sourcing" and putting } on it, whereupon we will deal with it in the usual way. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm curious about which of the List of... articles in Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2023 might have their tags removed? Bearian (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Index footer template and titles starting with "Index of" have now been added to the filter (see index cull at unref8). ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 06:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123 Can we still do the next backlog drive in March (pre-booked in the central calendar) or should we wait until August? Is there a tool that we can use to replace the hashtag tool? Cielquiparle (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: Well prior to the hashtag tool we used the edit summary search tool, which I suppose we could use again. We did run into an issue where it had a 500 article limit, but we got around it somehow (I'll have to look through the archives). I doubt the hashtag issue will be fixed any time soon Both drive timings are fine by me. If we go ahead with the March drive, I'll try and get the contribution search tool finished next week. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 07:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Sounds good to me. @SunloungerFrog Are you in for March? Cielquiparle (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I think March will be OK for me, so let's do it. I think we should keep using #MAR26 in the edit summary, and I think that there are three ways of getting the stats:

• using the hashtag tool, imperfect as it may be
• using the edit summary search tool as @ARandomName123 suggests above
• using this Quarry query courtesy of @The wub here

I don't know which is easiest to integrate into the scoring / updating code, but I am happy to help here if I can! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @ARandomName123 FYI – Here is the Collaborative contributions tool that @The wub had mentioned during the November drive. Having only skimmed I'm not sure if it's ready / suits our purposes but maybe it's another option for now or in the future. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I think that the collaborative contributions tool looks interesting, but we would need to do a little testing / dummy run first so that we know how to document its use in the instructions, and get everyone in the project familiar with it. Maybe that is something to tentatively plan for May or June, before #AUG26? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am just putting these out here as a starter for ten. Maybe some or all of:

• Add citations to at least 6,000 articles.
• Reduce the total backlog (that is, tagged unref and probably unref) below 60,000.
  • (Currently stands at just above 68,000)
• Clear the backlog of unreferenced biographies of living people completely.
  • (Currently stands at 42)
• Clear Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2009 completely.
  • (Currently stands at 1,058)

Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Cielquiparle (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Started the WP:MAR26 backlog drive page. Registration is now open...so sign up here! Cielquiparle (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm open to using the total backlog as a goal, but I'd also like for us to reduce the tagged backlog to below 30,000. Based on the progress chart, the amount of probably unref doesn't seem to be affected much by the drive. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 09:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Isn't that because we previously asked everyone to pause on tagging the "probably unreferenced" articles en masse though? Cielquiparle (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oh right, I forgot about that. Speaking of, did we ever start back up with the tagging? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 05:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Both @Bearian and I have been actively tagging in batches more or less daily. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] That's correct. I'm trying to tag between 11 and 30 articles per day, but I'm also prodding or redirecting some (that I see along the way) that would be a waste of time to try to source. Bearian (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Bearian @SunloungerFrog I've also been finding unref8 particularly helpful in uncovering a few instances of vandalism (articles with citations being overwritten, etc.). Pinging others who have recently tagged larger batches articles as unreferenced – @ScalarFactor and @Chorchapu: February is still a good time to tag articles that are unreferenced, as March is the next backlog drive. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I found odd attempts to source at 2025 ABSA Cup final. Bearian (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'll work on tagging as well. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Cielquiparle (who usually updates it), is there a reason why the number of unref BLPs is updated manually on the page as opposed to using } to automatically get the number? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Question for @SunloungerFrog maybe? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Chorchapu, which specific number are you talking about? All of the stats I derive are retrieved automatically once a day by ARandomName123's bot. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @SunloungerFrog Maybe @Chorchapu means the BLP section of the WP:MAR26 page? Maybe there is manual updating because we always subtract the number of unreferenced BLPs that are going through a deletion process. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Ah right. Yes, I just update the drive page with whatever the number is when I refresh the articles, if the number of articles is below 50. Otherwise I don't put the number in. And you're right, I normally weed out articles that are subject to an ongoing deletion process. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yes, sorry, that’s what I meant. This does make sense. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately I think the repetitive motion(s) of tagging with twinkle was starting to give me some regular wrist/hand pains, so I've mostly moved onto other tasks for now. I may get back to it in the future, but I'd want some sort of one button way to tag articles, semi-automatically with AWB or something. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Don't worry @ScalarFactor, it's not worth long-term injury. Those of us furiously trying to keep up with the number of newly tagged unreferenced articles don't particularly mind if we're not quite so fast with the batch tagging. Thanks for your contributions. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiProject URA fans: You're not imagining things. The sizzle in the air is palpable.

Roll up your sleeves and register now for the March 2026 Unreferenced article backlog drive! (We currently have 5 editors signed up.)

Next steps for WP:MAR26 organizers:

• The newsletter draft has been partially updated here. It still needs input from @ARandomName123 in case we need to adjust given the tool change. But once that is done, @DreamRimmer, would you be able to assist with newsletter distribution?
• I will submit the Watchlist notice message for publication next week.
• @SunloungerFrog Thanks for kicking off our #SquadGoals. Any other tasks we need to take care of now?
• Also pinging @Bunnypranav who kindly distributed barnstars in November, and @Ivebeenhacked who offered to help in future backlog drives.

Get ready to make a massive dent in the "total backlog" in March...but if you have time in February there is lots of room to climb the 2026 marathon-rules leaderboard...which counts every instance of unreferenced tags being removed. Thanks and happy referencing! Cielquiparle (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help with the barnstars again. @Cielquiparle please ping me when this is required. :) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]