Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability

{{Citation needed}} removal drive?

(directed from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Citation cleanup, carried over here.)

Hi! I'm pretty sure this is the place to ask, so I'm asking if we could do {{citation needed}} tag removal drives. There's a large amount–according to Category:Articles with unsourced statements, there's more than 500,000 articles containing either citation needed or {{failed verification}} tags. So, in order to reduce those by replacing the tags with reliable sources, should we start a drive to remove and replace the tags listed above? Thanks! Tails Wx 14:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: I like this idea a lot; I've drafted a mock-up of the drive page here. Hopefully that will help get this off the ground. I'd be happy to help coordinate the drive if it does happen. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow, @Tails Wx: Happy to help as well, if needed. imo, the bare url drive you mentioned on the other talk page also sounds good, since its simpler to clean up, and has no concerns about citogenesis. (though the cn tags are probably more important/time sensitive) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this looks great! It would be awesome to see the backlog number come down (instead of go up) after such a drive. huntertur (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123, @Edward-Woodrow, @Huntertur, @Tails Wx, any update on this? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: I don't believe there are plans for one any time soon. Edward did draft a mock up of the page, so planning could be started up again, if necessary. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the drive was going ahead, so I didn't touch the drive draft until there was more activity here. I think what we should do is set a hard date for the drive (June?) so that everyone's on the same page. —{The user formerly known as Edward-Woodrow} Cremastra (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: June sounds fine. @CactiStaccingCrane, how do you feel about pushing the unreferenced article drive back to Aug/Sept? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx, Huntertur, and CactiStaccingCrane: Here's what I have for scoring, but I fear it is a bit too complicated. What do you think?

Each tag replaced with a citation is awarded 4 points. Removing the unsourced statement is worth 1 point.
Clearing an article of tags is awarded two extra points if the article had five tags or more, and four extra points if it had ten or more.

Cremastra (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, ARandomName123 has bowed out of co-ordination, so we might need a second user besides myself to help answer questions, resolve technical problems, hand out barnstars, etc. I'll be moderately busy around the end of June, and will have less time than usual. Any volunteers? Cremastra (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that scoring criteria is too complicated. Unless its done on an honor system, without a script/tool to assist, that level of granularity would make verifying scoring absolutely laborious. czar 04:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Cremastra, I'm also busy through June as well - early July could also be a bit busy for me. However, I think I could co-ordinate this drive! Any opinions on hosting the drive in July instead? That month could be less busier for us both.

Also, I agree with Czar's point above - it seems like it's a bit complicated without having scripts or tools. We could have the scoring similar to CactiSteeringCrane's unreferenced articles backlog drive back in February 2024...and additionally, I feel like the 4 points for replacing a tag with a citation could be bumped down to 3, since I think it's a bit too much. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, ⛈️) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: Unfortunately, it's a bit last-minute to change the date: I've already moved the drive page, advertised the drive at WP:WPRE, and filed an edit request for a watchlist notice. I'll make the scoring adjustment, though. And look into semi-automatic scoring; however, the GoCE drives seem to do fine without it. Cremastra (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that’s alright, @Cremastra. Thanks for implementing the change! However, since we’re doing it in June (that month’s when I’m on vacation), I think I’m not going to co-ordinate this drive, actually. I did like to clarify above that if the drive was pushed back to July, then I could’ve. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, ⛈️) 15:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. No worries. Cremastra (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, @Tails Wx:, since we seem to be alternating vacations (I'm away in July), would you consider handing out barnstars some time in July after the drive is finished? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m out for the first few days of July; but afterwards, I think I’m okay with doing so. Is that alright? :] ~ Tails Wx (🐾, ⛈️, ⚧️) 23:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks. I'll probably be able to lend a hand now and then. Cremastra (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Relatedly, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism#Cleanup drive is a live {{citation needed}} cleanup drive right now czar 04:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Correction

Can someone please make a change? Regarding Mother of God Church in Covington, Ky.. The full name of the church is The Annunciation of the Ever Virgin Mary,Mother of God. (Not Assumption, as listed). Thank you. 72.49.116.75 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sign ups

Perhaps some instructions on how to sign up might be in order? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Same question. I've clicked the "signup" button, but I'm not sure exactly where to put my name on the resulting form. Joyous! Noise! 18:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 and Joyous!: Click the "sign up" button, as Joyous! said. Your username automatically gets added as the header of your own tally section. Just click Publish Changes, and update your own tally section as needed. Cremastra (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Joyous! Noise! 20:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Too simple! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)

Backlog drive question

Just signed up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive, not sure how many I'll get through, but it definitely seems like a worthwhile endeavour. I did want to check though, what happens in the case we need to change a sentence due to inaccuracies found in the article? Does it count as adding a citation or removing the sentence for the purposes of scoring? CSJJ104 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you change a sentence, that's a copy edit. The goal of this drive is adding references. For the purpose of scoring- no points. Cremastra (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If you change a sentence and remove the citation needed tag, doesn't that count as a removal? Isn't that effectively the same as removing the unsourced statement and, separately, adding a correct statement? If that would confer one point, I'm not sure why this wouldn't. XabqEfdg (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Right. I think I misunderstood the question being asked here. If you remove the unsourced statement, that's one point. If you replace {{cn}} with a citation the verifies the content, that's three points. When you add a citation, you usually have to rephrase the sentence, and that's good. But if you're just rephrasing an unsourced claim, without either removing it entirely or adding a citation—well, that's a copy edit, and isn't the focus of this drive. Cremastra (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What if you find an article that has unreferenced tag, which is related to the article that has a citation needed tag. By applying the citation to the article with the cn tag, I understand I get 4 points, but what about applying a citation to an unreferenced article. In essence applying a citation to an article listed as unreferenced rather then citation needed? Demt1298 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure I understand this question, but I'll give it a shot.

This drive absolutely only applies to tags. Adding a citation to an unreferenced article is great, but is beyond the scope of this drive, and is not worth any points. That was WP:FEB24 – unfortunately, you're a few months late! :) Cremastra (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I knew i worded the question poorly. I will fix both the article with citation needed and the article with unreferenced tag because the source is correct for both articles and just take credit for the removal of the citation needed. Demt1298 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Other templates

Question, do related templates like Template:More citations needed on a section also count for the reliability drive? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@MtBotany: No. This drive is solely focused on {{citation needed}}, not {{no sources}} or {{verification}} or similar templates. Cremastra (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Cremastra. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If an article has both citation needed templates and other templates, only the citation needed templates will count? For example, at TV on the Radio. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This drive focuses exclusively on {{citation needed}} (and, I suppose, {{citation needed span}}, although that template is rarely used.) Cremastra (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thought so. I wanted to be sure. Thanks! :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I've run across templates that redirect to citation needed:{{cn}} {{fact}}. As long as these redirects give [citation needed] tags, do these templates count? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Cremastra (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for the confirmation. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Leaderboard

How exactly does the leaderboard in the June drive work? Is it only limited to 3 spots or does it change depending on how many people score at least one point? Mox Eden (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @Mox Eden, It is just for the top three spots. Cremastra (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Backlog drive requests

Hi there! I was wondering, is there a place where users can add requests for the backlog drive? Such as, "Hey, if you're looking for an article to source, how about these from my watchlist?" Of course, users can review them or skip them or pick anything else they want to pick from, but might it be nice to have such a list? BOZ (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@BOZ Hmm, that's a good idea. I'll set up a "Requests" section, although if it grows too big I'll move it to a subpage. Cremastra (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice. :) I'll try to think of some later today. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I've found quite a few so you may want to do a subpage. Still, it's a lot less than the 500k that are just in the category. :) Some people may prefer this, some may just prefer to pick random pages or some other option. BOZ (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If anyone wants an article with lots of citations needed tags, Dionne Warwick has over 100 of them. I did some. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for future backlog drives

In the 6 hours since this month's backlog drive started, there have been 55 edits to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive page. That's great and shows there's a lot of interest in taking part, but I'd like to suggest a change in the way tallies are recorded for future drives. Seeing the number of people who had signed up, I guessed there'd be a lot of edits to that page so I decided to keep my tally at a subpage in userspace (User:Adam Black/WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive) and have transcluded it onto the main drive page, with the intention of substituting it at the end of the drive. The reason I've done it this way is to reduce the risk of an edit conflict. I'm adding entries to the page while I work and saving it each time I take a break. This reduces the risk that I'll lose my own entries and have to dig through my contributions, or accidentally overwrite someone else's entries.

My suggestion for the next drive is that tallies be hosted on subpages instead of the main page for the drive, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/MONTH YEAR Drive/USERNAME and transcluded onto the main list. This would also save editors a little time as the section "edit" links have been hidden, it saves scrolling all the way through the source to find your entries (not sure how it works on Visual Editor, I refuse to use that). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 06:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion for future drives would be to request users to tag edits in the edit summary appropriately, as was done with WP:FEB24. A bot can then scan the edits and update the leaderboard automatically at regular intervals. Broc (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be even better! Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 12:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

While it's too late to mandate that, I've been doing that on my own to keep track and it's certainly a help, so I'd certainly encourage people to do that. Wizardman 15:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Amount of tags for June drive

In the June drive, for every article, are we supposed to fix all of the tags in an article, or do we just fix at least one per article? Mox Eden (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mox Eden you get points for each {{citation needed}} you fix. You can fix as many as you like/can per article. Broc (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Running total

Might be a bit late to do this now but would it be beneficial to add a running total of where the "all articles" category is at each day? I see it's at 521,410 as of me typing this (wow) and if we can knock it down to 510k or even 500k thought this it would be great to see. Wizardman 16:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just like the February drive! Mox Eden (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am keeping track of that in a spreadsheet, which I'll graph and upload to commons at the end of the drive. Cremastra (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Consider giving a few updates during the month too :) //Replayful (talk | contribs) 17:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, here's an update: at the start of the drive, the number of "all articles" was 521,422. Today it's about 520,728, but that number actually went up slightly from 7 June. Cremastra (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:JUN24 section editing

Is there a reason section editing doesn't work on the backlog page? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a consequence of Template:Box-header used at the top of the page. If the "EDIT" parameter isn't set, section edit links are disabled. I've gone ahead and been bold and set it to show edit links. Feel free to revert me if this was left off intentionally. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black Ahhh... thank-you, I was wondering the same thing. Cremastra (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Feel free to holler if I can help with anything else. I notice in a discussion above you said ARandomName123 has bowed out of co-ordination, so we might need a second user besides myself to help answer questions, resolve technical problems, hand out barnstars... if you still need an extra user to pitch in I'd be happy to help with technical problems. I'm away 8-10 June (it's my birthday on the 11th so I'm taking a weekend trip to London, and what better way to celebrate than with a Wikipedia meetup!) but I'll be available the rest of the month. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 23:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Barnstars for the backlog drive

I notice that there are two barnstars listed in awards for having 100 points. Will the one given depend on who is giving out the awards or is the points total for one of the listed barnstars off? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it was either fixed or I misread. Hard to tell when there's so many page revisions. Anyways, the issue is resolved regardless. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

For the record: The organizer increased several award thresholds after seeing the point totals posted on the first day, temporarily leaving two barnstars at the same point total. Then they fixed the inconsistency. Or, as Darth Vader would put it, "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that moving the goalposts, as it were, after the drive had already began isn't the best idea in the world (I'm guessing from your comments you don't approve). But I can see why Cremastra did it, and hopefully it's just a little extra motivation rather than demoralising for anyone. Before the drive started I was planning on aiming for The Barnstar of Diligence at (the original) 200 points over the whole of June. Two days in, I'm already at 96 points so I think I'm going to aim a little higher. The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia would look quite striking on my userpage ;) Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 00:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a criticism

Re:WP:JUN24

This shouldn't be construed as a critique of the drive, the coordinator/organizer, or any participant. I think this is a great initiative. A small feedback I have, would be to appoint someone, or maybe a team of non-participating editors to verify the citations added by the top 3-5 participating editors. I am not really concerned about the self-reporting and counting for the points tally. No reason to assume they aren't fairly reporting their count. I'd like a third party to test check a small sample of the citations added by top cn tag clearers. By verify, I mean, whether the citation added supports the claim made. Also, maybe a reminder in the opening para of the event page, that quality of citations matter more over quantity. @Cremastra: — hako9 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you come across any citations being added of questionable quality? The goal definitely should be to provide quality references, not just score points. I'd suggest a sort of peer review system, where all participants are encouraged to check out someone else's work when updating their own tallies. Maybe look at the sources added for 1-2 articles at random. There's a few articles I've seen listed that have piqued my interest and I've had a quick read, the history is only one more click away. I also wouldn't mind someone checking my work. I've used two sources that ordinarily I wouldn't have considered if it was an article I'd written myself, not quite the quality I'd like, but I didn't want to remove the content (see Derry and Teddy Sinclair on my list). Pretty sure the rest of them are solid, though.

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere, though I can't find it now, that points were going to be verified. It would be mind-numbingly tedious to check every single article improved by this drive so I assume someone will be checking a selection of everyone's articles. (I've been including a diff link for every tag I've removed to make that process a little easier for whoever's doing it). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 23:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you come across any citations being added of questionable quality? I haven't. And by test check I meant, maybe checking 5 random citations out 100 or so, and only for a few top participating editors. This kind of puts a deterrent on inserting shoddy citations. I agree with a peer review-like, internal control. And I'd like to know what everyone participating thinks. Reviewing other editors is also time-consuming. And others could think it's unnecessary prying. Maybe it's best to implement something on the next cn drive instead of this one. — hako9 (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I was certainly planning to spot-check some of the citations at the end. Cremastra (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

On what counts

For the full 4 points for adding a citation, does a {{citation needed}} tag have to be removed? Or is tagging any unsubstantiated sentence good enough for points? Like if a sentence should have a cn tag at the end but doesn't, does getting a source for it count for the points? Same for removal of unsubstantiated content. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be good, in principle, for fixing any unsourced sentence to earn points, but I think that this should focusing only on actual {{citation needed}}s. Adam Black, since you graciously offered to help out: what do you think? Cremastra (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to change the rules after the drive has begun, and it was quite clear that this was about removing citation needed tags. That being said, improving the reliability of Wikipedia should always be the ultimate goal and I think it would be nice to reward editors who have gone even further to improve articles.

I think an additional award could be feasible. Maybe the Special Barnstar. Contributors could list unreferenced content they've cited that didn't have cn tags at the bottom of their lists and a certain number, say 25 or more (equivalent to the number of points for the cleanup barnstar), would qualify for a separate award. It might make things overly complex, though. What do you think? Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to keep the drive focused just on {{citation needed}} tags. Some kind of award for people who go beyond that would be fair, but given that I've already changed the award brackets, it feels kind of unfair to suddenly introduce a new and slightly complicated aspect to the drive. However, if a second cn drive is ever held, I think it would be nice to have that as an additional feature. Cremastra (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be best. WP:DNER and WP:NO THANKS also come to mind. It's nice to reward deserving editors, but it shouldn't be expected. Adding citations to content not tagged with {{cn}} isn't part of the clearly stated goals of this drive. I might, however, feel compelled to personally give out an appropriate barnstar if I see someone going above and beyond to improve articles. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, my thinking was less along the lines of needing thanks and more about whether to log them here at all; if I'm doing it anyway, I may as well, right? Another thought I had was that it would cut down on the work needed for any subsequent drives, since all these unsubstantiated claims will be (or ought to be) tagged with {{cn}} in the future anyway. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

But what if you add the citation needed first? Should it count if you remove a {{cn}} that you added yourself during the drive? Not that I'm planning to, but that's a way of looking at it, and I add them where they're needed as I can't fix it all at once. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 16:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Multiple tags resolved with a single source

So, if I resolve multiple {{cn}} tags with a single reference because someone tagged multiple related items in different locations (e.g. different dates, and in the infobox as well as in the body), should I count that as one tag resolved or three (see Special:Diff/1227146821)? I feel a little silly scoring that multiple times when several tags were resolved relatively easily... -2pou (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's worth 3x (=12 points), since you got lucky and managed to fix three tags in one stroke. But I'm not going to force you to take the points if you don't want them. :) Cremastra (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra I think this can be made into an added note/explanation because even I came to check this and it can be an faq for new participants. >>> Extorc.talk 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I came to ask about the same thing. But mine are all near each other and placed at the same time, so even more so I don't think I should take a full 4 points for each one... Mgp28 (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Full table for a leaderboard

I suggest a better format to tally the drive. We can parse the tally into a table where we can sort the users by totals so that it is easier for a participant to evaluate their standing. As a participant myself, I claim this will be helpful. >>> Extorc.talk 15:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. It could include a link to each user's section. I was thinking of suggesting alphabetising the tally section to make it easier to find your own entry, especially on devices where it's not as simple as hitting Ctrl + F, as the list of participants has grown quite a bit. This would be a better solution though.

I'll mock something up in my sandbox and post it here to see what people think. If Cremastra thinks it's a good idea, I'd be happy to keep it updated myself (save giving others extra work to do). I'd suggest one update around midnight UTC each day. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 15:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, this might not be as simple as I first thought. The problem is sortable tables can't have a default sort, readers have to manually click the sort button to order the data. It would involve manually moving the entries around every time the data is updated to get it to display in the correct order at first glance. Instead of calling it a "leaderboard", maybe "Participants" would be better, with participants listed alphabetically and sortable by point totals. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 15:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've made a participants list here:

User:Adam Black/sandbox

Let me know what you think. If it's acceptable, I was going to move it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive/Participants and transclude it onto the page in a section underneath Leaderboard.

This took a lot more time than I thought it would. Instead of updating daily, maybe twice a week would suffice? I thought about writing a script but given there's a lot of differences between how participants have formatted their tally sections, I decided it would be too much work trying to work around it. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Next time this runs, maybe provide a template for posting tally updates, so that everyone's lists will be easier to parse? Lubal (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't really figure out why the system works so differently from the February drive. It was really nice and had nice info during the drive! //Replayful (talk | contribs) 20:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. I didn't expect so many people to sign up, so a table is a good plan. Cremastra (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll add the participant list to the page. It is rather long, so if it causes any usability issues I'm fine with it being removed again. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black I think having a complete table is not viable, instead, we can have a top 10 or top 20 sortable leaderboard table replace the 3 plate leaderboard. >>> Extorc.talk 10:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Since a large number are still signing up, a full table is not useful for those with slow connections etc (assuming it remains sortable). top 20 would be OK but would need constand updating with the new leaders. Good luck with that! — Iadmc♫^talk  12:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I've done top 10, since that's useful, but still update-able without being a pain in the neck (or, more accurately, the backs of the shoulders). Cremastra (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the current situation is pretty good >>> Extorc.talk 20:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement that didn't need to be tagged in the first place

Do I get any points for removing a tag that didn't need to be there in the first place, because the page's next reference contained the information? I have come across two of these today. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have found a few of those, too. I haven't been counting them myself. GranCavallo (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I was about to ask this question. If, for example, an editor placed a citation needed tag in the lead that didn't really need to be added there since the information was cited elsewhere in the body of the article, would it count if the citation needed tag was removed? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If the content is potentially a BLP violation, contentious or otherwise problematic, it should be cited even in the lead. See WP:CITELEAD for more information. Particularly, it states any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. If a statement in the lead has a citation needed tag, it has been challenged and it would probably be best to provide a citation. I would just move the existing citation to the lead, name it if it hasn't been named already, and place the relevant ref tag back where the original source was. I think it would be reasonable to claim 4 points in this case. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs and the drive

I'm looking at Category:All unreferenced BLPs and wondering, since there is only the header banner, does adding say 3 references to one give you 12 points, even though I've only removed/updated the banner without removing any tags? — Iadmc♫^talk  09:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Iadmc: This drive only awards points for {{citation needed}} – not {{more sources needed}}, {{unreferenced BLP}}, {{unsourced section}}, or similar templates. Cremastra (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah! thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  20:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Deprecated sources

I added some sources identified as WP:deprecated. Should these count? They aren't really allowed except under certain circumstances — Iadmc♫^talk  09:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, nonsense citations (e.g. "Minogue's new song^{[Nasa space flight]}") should surely be uncounted as well — Iadmc♫^talk  09:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're using deprecated sources in an acceptable manner, they count. Otherwise it's disruptive. Cremastra (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. Thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  16:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Update

Cremastra (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The drive is going well! Great! — Iadmc♫^talk  12:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Updated for 11 Jul. The drive is not going well. :( Cremastra (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Who will win: This drive, or the secret drive to add ^{[citation needed]} to unsourced statements? I think that's the better way of interpreting this development! //Replayful (talk | contribs) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)