Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Articles with no sources"
Sarna News
(Created page with "==Why this category?== It's a compromise: if we follow the letter of Policy, I should have marked all these for Deletion as they lack citations and have been up for ''years''...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Why this category?== | ==Why this category?== | ||
It's a compromise: if we follow the letter of Policy, I should have marked all these for Deletion as they lack citations and have been up for ''years'' in most cases. I would have been technically in the right but nobody would have thanked me for that. '''I''' would not have liked me for that. Over 1/3 of our pages marked "refimprove" have ''nothing'', and I am hopeful we can salvage some significant percentage, maybe even most. My next task is going to be to take another pass through and look at those without Bibliography sections and see if I can at least identify what book the original editors were working from, to give us a starting point.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 15:16, 25 May 2022 (EDT) | It's a compromise: if we follow the letter of Policy, I should have marked all these for Deletion as they lack citations and have been up for ''years'' in most cases. I would have been technically in the right but nobody would have thanked me for that. '''I''' would not have liked me for that. Over 1/3 of our pages marked "refimprove" have ''nothing'', and I am hopeful we can salvage some significant percentage, maybe even most. My next task is going to be to take another pass through and look at those without Bibliography sections and see if I can at least identify what book the original editors were working from, to give us a starting point.--[[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 15:16, 25 May 2022 (EDT) | ||
| + | :At least a few of those articles had many more problems than just a lack of citations, I have deleted some of the really old ones that would require a lot of work to bring up to any real standard, at least two where just data dumps without real context. What is left will mostly be fairly easy to track stuff down for... Some like the Warlord articles and the Grand Knight are just a case of harvesting the correct citations from the linked character articles. I will try and get that done at some point in the next couple of days.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 23:26, 25 May 2022 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 23:27, 25 May 2022
Why this category?
It's a compromise: if we follow the letter of Policy, I should have marked all these for Deletion as they lack citations and have been up for years in most cases. I would have been technically in the right but nobody would have thanked me for that. I would not have liked me for that. Over 1/3 of our pages marked "refimprove" have nothing, and I am hopeful we can salvage some significant percentage, maybe even most. My next task is going to be to take another pass through and look at those without Bibliography sections and see if I can at least identify what book the original editors were working from, to give us a starting point.--Talvin (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2022 (EDT)
- At least a few of those articles had many more problems than just a lack of citations, I have deleted some of the really old ones that would require a lot of work to bring up to any real standard, at least two where just data dumps without real context. What is left will mostly be fairly easy to track stuff down for... Some like the Warlord articles and the Grand Knight are just a case of harvesting the correct citations from the linked character articles. I will try and get that done at some point in the next couple of days.--Dmon (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2022 (EDT)