Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles
Main page | Discussion | How to guide | Resources | Mistagged articles | Backlog drives |
---|
Dinosaur hunting
[edit]Alright I think I've done it. I set my record. Just found references for an article that was created on 13-June-2002. Almost 22 years of being unreferenced! This article is old enough to buy me a beer of congratulations in all U.S. states!
Any other contenders for longest unreferenced article? I'm almost mad I didn't wait two days to reference it so it could have been a perfect two years exactly. Kazamzam (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- My oldest currently seems to be The Memory of Earth, unreferenced (though an EL was added later) since its creation in 20-March-2002. The first revision even included a spoiler warning. It wasn't tagged until April of this year, and I added a ref about a week later.
- I'm currently going through
articletopic:books incategory:"All articles lacking sources"
which contains two even older ones (Winter's Heart from 3 March 2002, and List of horror fiction writers from November 2001), but I don't think I'll get to those for a while. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)- BANG! Former one's gone, ARandomName123. SilverserenC 02:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks!
ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks!
- BANG! Former one's gone, ARandomName123. SilverserenC 02:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a Quarry for the 100 oldest articles in Category:All articles lacking sources by creation date: quarry.wmcloud.org/query/84468. Our winner is Demographic statistics, which was created 7 Mar 2001, making it 23 years and 180 days old. Article number 100, Transport in Austria, born 25 Feb 2002 and aged 22 years and 191 days, can also easily buy those USA beers. Good hunting. Turtlecrown (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like Demographic statistics was just coincidentally referenced today by a new editor, @Noxanne. Many thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Below 90,000!!!
[edit]The backlog is now at 89,999 :) Well done, everyone. Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Woohoo! Congratulations everybody! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- 88,978! Amazing. Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Boleyn Wow that is a lot of articles that already have at least one reference you are finding. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there's loads! I tried searching for keywords like encyclopedia, but using 'Retrieved' incategory:"All articles lacking sources" got up hundreds with a reference, where the unreferenced tag just hadn't been removed. I have nearly finished those. Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Boleyn - have you been using the 'Mistagged articles' search that's pinned on the main project page? Is that helpful at all? Kazamzam (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't, Kazamzam, I will have to give that a try, thanks. Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I tried about 20 of the mistagged articles, but those did seem to be tagged correctly, not sure if there is a way I could use the tool better? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Boleyn, a shortcut that I find helpful is to do a Browser Search with the words "for references" to highlight articles to skip. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I tried about 20 of the mistagged articles, but those did seem to be tagged correctly, not sure if there is a way I could use the tool better? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Kazamzam for sharing about those 'Mistagged articles'. I just did a few & have to admit it's a fun break from the recent Category:Orphaned articles from June 2024 overload. Still learning "new tricks" for editing Wikipedia. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- 87,986!!! Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
September 2008
[edit]Down to the Final 16...! This part always reminds me of playing jenga. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Now down to the final two! Both are Indian village articles, which are fairly annoying to cite. I'm pretty sure they exist, but I can't find any RS for them. The villages are also sometimes spelt differently, like in Tadawas, which didn't show up in the census search under its original title of Tadavas. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit]Perhaps this is a common idea. But why don't we just... try to keep July 2024 empty for the whole month? If only 200-400 articles will be in it by the end of the month, that means only about 10 articles are added per day that won't get removed later. That's not too bad! If the project focused our efforts, couldn't we make it so all new tags are taken care of, thereby preventing new unsourced articles from entering the backlog?
It's only been 2hrs into the month but I already cleared the 10 articles in the category. What if we just kept it there? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- This was attempted a while back during March 2024 (#Killing Category:Articles lacking sources from March 2024). It actually started off pretty well, and we kept it below 100 for more than half the month, but there was a big uptick in new tags in late March. Definitely possible though, as long as the rate of tags is somewhat steady. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @PerfectSoundWhatever, sounds like @CactiStaccingCrane is the person you want to talk to about this. Kazamzam (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Kudos to the team that played non-stop whack-a-mole throughout the month of June 2024 so we finished sub-200 (177 unreferenced articles at last count). I reckon that means the actual number of articles tagged as "unreferenced" last month was closer to 500. Possibly even more. Well done to all. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Next backlog drive?
[edit]It's been a couple of months since our first backlog drive, which was a great success. Since then, the project's been doing pretty well, and it's been reduced by another 10k. Given the success of the first backlog drive, should we hold another one soon (Sep/Aug?; so presumably biannual drives), hold one next year (so annual, maybe in Feb again) or something else? Open to ideas. Pinging previous editors: @CactiStaccingCrane, Broc, Kazamzam, DreamRimmer. Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to help organizing another drive, the previous one had overall great participation and helped reduce the backlog significantly. After FEB24, some had suggested a yearly frequency, other 4-months or milestone-based. I think a 6-month interval is a good compromise. A few points that were raised during the previous drive and that we should address ahead:
- Set up automatic update of the leaderboard at regular intervals
- Reviews should be better organized, so one can see if a page has been reviewed already or not. This was raised by multiple editors during the drive.
- Criteria on types of acceptable sources should be clear.
- Then an extra one from me:
- Strongly encourage replacing {{unreferenced}} with {{more sources needed}} or {{one source}} if large parts of the page are left unsourced. Tags are important to highlight remaining issues in an article.
- Broc (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be game for one more sooner – as the August, September request suggests! I'll just add that we should continue the clarifications added through the drive; one was to give a point if the unreferenced tag existed and so did a source, but no in-line cites and the editor added in-line cites. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- A few thoughts:
- I think a semiannual schedule would be great so we don't overextend our asks for the larger editing community. It also gives us plenty of time to review and tweak features/aspects from the previous drive, i.e. the ones raised by @Broc, the initial bugs that @CactiStaccingCrane and others identified while planning the first drive, feedback from participants, etc.
- I strongly agree that the types of acceptable sources should be more explicit - it might even be worth having a two-source minimum to weed out people who are tempted to do drive-by sourcing to excel on the leaderboard without really contributing to the project overall. Having a tutorial (perhaps even a video) would probably be really helpful.
- Advertising the drive on high-traffic places (the Signpost being a big one) is also important to consider and I believe was largely overlooked last time.
- I think August is too soon if we're just beginning the pre-drive discussion (on the project page at least) but September is doable if everyone gets behind it as an idea. I think if we can agree in the next...72 hours that September 1 at 00:00 EST is our start time, we can really get in gear for planning, and if not, October will have to be in (permanent schedule to follow from there?). Let's also set a goal for the number of cleared articles - 15,000 sounds good to me! Cheers, Kazamzam (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I like the two source minimum requirement, so we don't just move it from this queue to the one source queue. I think a video tutorial is a bit too much of an ask. An explicit statement that you need to add a least two sources with in-line citations if there is no existing source (or the citations are not in-line) is sufficient enough instruction. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well FEB24 worked out with a similar timeframe for August, but September sounds fine. Any objections? If not, we can start creating the drive pages. We did have a mention in the Signpost last time in the News and Notes section, and I feel we might be asking for too much if we want a larger presence - I don’t think many drives are advertised on the SP in the first place.
- I don’t think having a two source minimum requirement is the way to go, mostly because some stubs only need one source to support everything. Yes, this will increase the backlog for articles with only one source, but that backlog is probably easier to deal with than this one. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- The way to encourage (not require) a two-source minimum requirement is to award 1 point per source added. We just need a different way to track multiple sources added per article. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if this the right time to throw in another suggestion, but I think there could be extra points for extra old tags. (eg. article has been tagged for 10+ years). -- D'n'B-t -- 06:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we could create different "tracks" or different paths for different types of barn stars. I had this idea for a Treasure Hunt Citation Barn Star, where you had to demonstrate citations in each of the following categories:
- Category: Albums
- Category: Association football
- Category: Military history
- Category: Villages in India
- Category: Geography of Germany
- Category: Railway stations
- Cielquiparle (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I like this idea! It would be a nice way to bring something to other wikiprojects, instead of collaboration just being about asking for something. Turtlecrown (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we could create different "tracks" or different paths for different types of barn stars. I had this idea for a Treasure Hunt Citation Barn Star, where you had to demonstrate citations in each of the following categories:
- I’m fine with this idea. We could just have editors leave a different edit summary. Though now that I think about it, we’ll just end up moving articles to the additional citations backlog instead of the single source backlog. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 09:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe something like a two-source minimum and/or one source + one external link? I think saying one source is sufficient not only moves things from the single source backlog but it allows a large portion of the article to go unreferenced if it's at all longer than a stub. I'm less concerned about the backlog than the reference quality; articles that state a basic location and then give a bunch of utterly unconfirmed facts being marked as 'cited' because the basic location is confirmed really grind my gears. While that's a personal view, I don't want to encourage drive-by editing from this drive and I think that's a valid concern if we're going to have a large number of participants in a somewhat competitive mindset with minimal oversight or instruction. Not saying this as a doomsday foreteller but because I have unfortunately seen this before.
- Perhaps instead of trying to deter with guidelines that might not fit every article, we could award more points for good referencing. I did a lot of work on Die Kuranten back in September 2023 and I think if someone puts in that kind of overhaul effort because of our drive, it would be great to reward or at least acknowledge it, which so rarely happens. Kazamzam (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK. I could live with the two-citation minimum. (Not so keen on the external link exception, as it seems open to abuse.) If nothing else, finding two citations tends to improve accuracy because it allows you to cross-reference.
- The Reviews part of the last Backlog drive was very instructive and revealing; it definitely gave you a sense of the range in quality of citations, also by editor. It wasn't clear to me that all of the points deductions were actually applied as a final step, as it seemed more important to fix the bad citations (and to give editors a chance to either explain or to fix the bad citations themselves). But we should make it clear that if they haven't addressed any outstanding
marks by a specific date, points will be deducted from their final total.
- We need to discourage people from slapping a footnote onto an entire paragraph, when it's only one sentence within the paragraph that is verified by the citation. To me it's potential grounds for
deductions as well.
- I like the idea of giving extra points for good referencing but not sure how to implement. Maybe if you get a
during the reviews process for a specific article, you get awarded the extra point. (At the same time, it seems subjective and open to abuse and collusion.)
- Cielquiparle (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if this the right time to throw in another suggestion, but I think there could be extra points for extra old tags. (eg. article has been tagged for 10+ years). -- D'n'B-t -- 06:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The way to encourage (not require) a two-source minimum requirement is to award 1 point per source added. We just need a different way to track multiple sources added per article. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- A few thoughts:
- I'd be game for one more sooner – as the August, September request suggests! I'll just add that we should continue the clarifications added through the drive; one was to give a point if the unreferenced tag existed and so did a source, but no in-line cites and the editor added in-line cites. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- August works well for me because there's an NPP drive scheduled for September, and I might not have time for both. Doing this in August would be ideal. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @DreamRimmer - that's really good to know. Maybe this makes October a more appealing option instead of August so we're not overlapping with other big drives? Is there a schedule that we can reference to find our niche? I know November is Asian Month which is a big one for me. Kazamzam (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is a GAN backlog drive scheduled for October. You can check out all the scheduled NPP drives here and find the GAN backlog drives here. August would be ideal because it allows us to plan another drive six months later, in February 2025. I apologise if you already have other plans for August. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- August seems fine imo. We managed to get FEB24 up and running within a similar timeframe. With most stuff reusable from FEB24, we could be fine. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ARandomName123 - exactly, we "managed" and we "could" be fine. It was a pretty last minute scramble because we were committed to something that we had not prepared for; the edit history will attest to that. If we're still discussing basic aspects like 'how do we award points' and 'how do make sure people know if a page has been worked on', I do not think we're ready for this. We're a week into July and still discussing when the drive should start. I'd rather have a really good drive in October/November than a slapdash one in August for no reason other than that puts us on a semiannual schedule based on the February drive which was called at the 11th hour. Looking at the GAN backlog drives, they're not on a fixed schedule and I see no reason why we should nail ourselves to one if it's not actually conducive to a good product/outcome. August is also an extremely popular vacation month so we might get lower turn out by virtue of a lot of people not wanting to edit from a beach. Kazamzam (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point. October then? We'll have more than enough time to set everything up, and there shouldn't be much conflict with the GAN drive or other drives. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- What about November? A GAN drive is planned for October. Broc (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t think there’d be much overlap, but sure, I guess. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, let's do it. I'll create the new topic below in a minute. Kazamzam (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t think there’d be much overlap, but sure, I guess. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- What about November? A GAN drive is planned for October. Broc (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point. October then? We'll have more than enough time to set everything up, and there shouldn't be much conflict with the GAN drive or other drives. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ARandomName123 - exactly, we "managed" and we "could" be fine. It was a pretty last minute scramble because we were committed to something that we had not prepared for; the edit history will attest to that. If we're still discussing basic aspects like 'how do we award points' and 'how do make sure people know if a page has been worked on', I do not think we're ready for this. We're a week into July and still discussing when the drive should start. I'd rather have a really good drive in October/November than a slapdash one in August for no reason other than that puts us on a semiannual schedule based on the February drive which was called at the 11th hour. Looking at the GAN backlog drives, they're not on a fixed schedule and I see no reason why we should nail ourselves to one if it's not actually conducive to a good product/outcome. August is also an extremely popular vacation month so we might get lower turn out by virtue of a lot of people not wanting to edit from a beach. Kazamzam (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- August seems fine imo. We managed to get FEB24 up and running within a similar timeframe. With most stuff reusable from FEB24, we could be fine. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is a GAN backlog drive scheduled for October. You can check out all the scheduled NPP drives here and find the GAN backlog drives here. August would be ideal because it allows us to plan another drive six months later, in February 2025. I apologise if you already have other plans for August. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @DreamRimmer - that's really good to know. Maybe this makes October a more appealing option instead of August so we're not overlapping with other big drives? Is there a schedule that we can reference to find our niche? I know November is Asian Month which is a big one for me. Kazamzam (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Backlog progress
[edit]86,998! Well done, everyone :) Boleyn (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looking good! Anything you'd like to see highlighted on the August update on the 4th? Kazamzam (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, Kazamzam, I have just seen this. Nothing in particular, just lovely to see it heading downwards. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
It's very strange for a WikiProject template to not start with "WikiProject" (only 2 templates in Category:WikiProject banners with non-standard names don't start with "WikiProject" vs. the 1076 in Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment & Category:WikiProject banners without quality assessment that do) , so Template:Wikipedia Unreferenced articles improved should be renamed to Template:WikiProject Unreferenced articles improved, unless there's a good reason to keep it as-is.
I put in a RM to do so 2 weeks ago, but admittedly forgot about it until I noticed its recent close (as no consensus), and realized I should have posted here after initiating it, so am posting here now for visibility & historical purposes, and in case anyone else feels the need to re-RM. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 06:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding - excellent catch, thank you so much for alerting us to this. Definitely agree that it would benefit all to have the template reworked. Paging some of the usual suspects (@Boleyn, @CactiStaccingCrane, @ARandomName123, @DreamRimmer, @Cielquiparle) to get more feedback. Kazamzam (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Looks good to me, though Gonnym’s suggestion could work as well (ex. {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, {{WikiProject Unreferenced articles}} works for me too, and it's probably the most intuitive option, but I'm agnostic about whether or not "improved" is kept, since it's been used since 2010, so I'll defer to project participants on that. Redirects for either case can be made if desired. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ARandomName123 @Tom.Reding I think alerting people to the project's existence by changing the template name but also the discussion would be very useful, especially as we gear up for the drive. We could also revise the edit summary that we use for main space for a talk page summary as well. Kazamzam (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, {{WikiProject Unreferenced articles}} works for me too, and it's probably the most intuitive option, but I'm agnostic about whether or not "improved" is kept, since it's been used since 2010, so I'll defer to project participants on that. Redirects for either case can be made if desired. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Looks good to me, though Gonnym’s suggestion could work as well (ex. {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
November 2024 Backlog Drive
[edit]The URA Backlog Drive 2 (Backlog vs. Jason) is now in planning stages. Comrade in arms @CactiStaccingCrane brilliantly made a backlog drives tab for the project so I think we can shift most of the discussion over there; it might be good to add a message on the project landing page as well for anyone who would like to be involved. There are several points for discussion that I think all previous planners are aware of and hopefully, since we have a lot of time, we can really iron them out and have an excellent drive (15k reduction is my personal goal) and then be on a good course for a semiannual schedule. Cheers, Kazamzam (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- For this drive, could we include a secondary goal of clearing all unreferenced BLPs? There’s only about 800 left, and with a push, we can probably bring it to zero. Regarding the drive pages, I’ll start creating them using February’s as guidance in a few hours, unless someone wants to get to them first? Looking forward to working with you all again! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 10:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Getting through unreferenced BLPs seems like a great idea. I reckon once its down to zero it'll be possible to keep it there which would be good for the whole project. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Started Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2024, feel free to make changes. Keeping in line with FEB24, I believe NOV24 is the correct shortening for the November drive, and have created WP:NOV24. Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ARandomName123 - brilliant! Kazamzam (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Would any of the redirect templates listed at Template:Unreferenced count? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MrLinkinPark333: Well assuming they all generate {{unreferenced}}, I see no reason not to count them. I wouldn’t count anything under the related tags header (ex. {{one source}}or {{more citations needed}}), however. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 04:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense as those tags indicate at least has at least one citation. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @MrLinkinPark333: Well assuming they all generate {{unreferenced}}, I see no reason not to count them. I wouldn’t count anything under the related tags header (ex. {{one source}}or {{more citations needed}}), however. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 04:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Talk page
[edit]Do we want to create a November 2024 drive-specific talk page? The February 2024 one redirects to the main project but it would be useful to have a dedicated space for planning purposes. For example, I think the phrasing of 'To encourage additional reviews, the drive will be extended for one week (December 1-8) as an additional review period.' is wonky but I don't want to clog up the talk page here. However the drive talk page should be the place for drive participants to discuss issues they might be having, not just to how to see how the soyrizo is made. Maybe we start the discussion there and then archive everything on October 31st to start fresh (fresh-ish)? Kazamzam (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, sounds good to me! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- On a related note, I noticed this talk page doesn't seem to have auto-archiving set up. Should we add it? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit]Shorter update than usual but happy 17th anniversary to the launch of the Phoenix spacecraft! I hope everyone is doing swimmingly.
- Headline: We cleared 5148 articles since June! For yourself and your fellow editors, please clap.
- Highlights: September 2008 is in the bin! There was also tremendous work done by editors @MIDI on geography stubs, reducing September 2013 from 1,489 to 627 (57%!), and to @Gnisacc for whittling December 2023 down to 73 articles, a 71% decrease.
- Low-hanging fruit: October 2008 is only a measly 8 articles left, dangling precariously like a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Give it a nudge.
- High-hanging fruit: Everyone's favourite BFC (Big Friendly Category), December 2009, is a shapely 11,593 articles as of this writing - so much freshness and only 2 calories. The other high-hanging fruit are, still, the Frustrating Five (name open for revision): January 2013 (1,118), April 2019 (1,037), May 2019 (2,103), June 2019 (4,433), and September 2020 (1,393). Once again, September 2020 had the lowest percentage of change between updates. Godspeed to anyone working on these.
- Announcements: The second URA drive is in the planning stages! We will begin 1 November 2024 and end 30 November 2024, with a proposed extra week for review where participants can earn extra points. The planning is active and ongoing so please feel free to get involved.
- New challenge: no ties this update! Carry on.
Next update will be 4 October 2024 and then, after a pause for the drive, 4 January 2025. My personal goal is to have 2008 entirely finished by the new year and it seems more doable than ever. Happy editing! Kazamzam (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
84,960! Still steady progress. Well done, everyone. Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Boleyn for the round up! And thanks to @Cielquiparle (and whoever else is responsible) for again working to clear up the dregs of another month. October 2008 is dead! Turtlecrown (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Anytime! 💁🏻♀️ Kazamzam (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thenks for the update, @Kazamzam! (And for dealing the final blows to October 2008.) Curious whether we collectively succeeded in decreasing every category by at least 10, as you suggested back in June? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle - thanks so much for the follow-up! There were eleven categories that didn't make the cut. Both February and June 2009 only decreased by 7 articles, which is...not great but that means there's just more room for improvement. Kazamzam (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thenks for the update, @Kazamzam! (And for dealing the final blows to October 2008.) Curious whether we collectively succeeded in decreasing every category by at least 10, as you suggested back in June? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Anytime! 💁🏻♀️ Kazamzam (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- 83,996! Still heading in the right direction. Boleyn (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)