Category talk:Articles with unsourced statements

message: Er, can anyone think of an article that doesn't contain unsourced statements? Perhaps that would be a more useful category...
:— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.61.80 (talk • contribs) 
*Quite. I don't see this backlog ever being cleared :) --BesigedB (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it won't, but we can take a a good stab at it. I probably spend about an hour ever day adding the  tag to articles. Most of them actually get sourced. --Liface 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. This category is a pain and it will never be cleared. It gives an negative impression that is very often unjustified. I think it should be deleted. Athenaeum 05:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna start a subcategory for various different things, maybe Music articles with unsourced statements. Bsd987 13:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's true that pretty much every article contains unsourced statement. But that's like saying everything is pointless. Which is, of course, true if you think long enough about it. But it's ridiculous to put a bullet in your brains because of it. Just like it is pointless to put every existing Wikipedia article in here because all of them contain unsourced statements. This category should contain every article which contains one or more citation needed (, old) or fact () tags. That's it. (Is there a wikibot on it? Would be handy.) Instead of wasting our time on it, we should discuss when exactly we should use the fact tag. I guess we all agree to use it if a statement is really doubtfull and when we can not relay on our good faith assumption. But that doesn't really answer the question of course. -- Face 19:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The size of this category proves that too many people are too trigger happy with this kind of thing. People seem to go around reading articles and adding 'citation needed' to everything they're not sure about. What's the point? For one thing, if you did cite all the things that everyone wants cited, the references sections in some of these articles would be so long they'd take ten minutes to load on a 4Mb broadband connection. You can't source every statement, but it doesn't make them untrue. I miss the days when I could look at articles on Wikipedia and not see a massive template at the top of every page telling me why the article is rubbish. I don't think the problem is that there are too many unsourced statements on Wikipedia, I think the problem is that there are too many people who have to put "" at the end of every sentence they, personally, don't believe. --Stevefarrell 11:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That won't work because it is added by template. Clearly deletion is the only solution as at present all this category does is waste time and get in the way. Brammen 10:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree, people are extremely trigger happy in adding this tag. like one person said above, spending an hour ever day adding this tag to articles! we need to have a way more stringent requirement to adding this tag, such as an article without ANY sources at all. now that would be a very handy tag to have. hmm.. maybe it exists already? Mathmo Talk 03:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More useful category

message: The deletion review page quite clearly does not cover categories, and therefore the decision that was taken to restore it there is clearly invalid and meaningless. People who understand categories won't have seen the discussion, so the outcome was determined by people who don't appreciate the damage that there were doing because categories are not their focus. This category really needs to be deleted as it does nothing except to get in the way of easy use of the category system. Brammen 10:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion review is mandated to examine all forms of deletion.  Most disputes are about articles, but there is nothing "invalid" about it reviewing CFD decisions.  I will say however that if CFD and DRV can reach very different conclusions about the same category then it is likely indicative that one of these two communities is acting in a way that is out of touch with the desires of the Wikipedia community as a whole.  Dragons flight 15:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was the sent to "deletion review" when that page has no mandate to deal with categories?

message: Yes, I like this category because, having a half hour or so to spare, I can pull up a story, search for "Citation needed," hunt for one or two or more source or sources and, having found it or them, add it or them quickly to the article. Of course, sometimes it takes a LOT searching on Google or elsewhere, but upon doing so, I am always struck with how omnipresent the poorly sourced WikiP articles are in the Internet. And so those unsourced sentences and statements just multiply like bunnies.
I have no compunction about removing them either, hoping that they will soon vanish from the 'Net.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 02:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like this category. 

message: This category has been deleted at least once, undeleted following deletion review, and subsequently proposed for deletion, which was closed as a speedy keep, I guess because there was no chance of consensus (although that's not what the person closing the debate said). Andrewa 04:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some history

message: I'm working my way backwards through these pages, starting with the bottom of the "Z" page. I have already got rid of some 10 or 12 of them and am learning a lot about the Balkans, Turkey, Iran, Iceland and other countries that use those odd semi-Latin letters which you will find at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements&from=Z
Only 128 pages to go!
(If you want, you can grab Zen and the Årt of Motorcycle Maintenance — not one of my favorite books.)
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did it! There are now only 19 pages in the "Z" section, and I will be able to keep my eye on them in my so-called spare time. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, this here is a good example of how this tag is used too much! if there is this many PAGES of articles about articles starting with Z.. then how many with all the other letters?! Mathmo Talk 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me get rid of the Zs . . . 

message: This article has the references restored. Can someone remove the article from the category?
Thanks,
Raj2004 03:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it still had one reference wanted on the page, i improved the page a little so that the tag would be removed. is done now. Mathmo Talk 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Karma in Hinduism

message: Is it just me or is this category redundant, given the existence of Category:All articles lacking sources?--Vercalos 00:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  places articles into :Category:Articles with unsourced statements.  places articles into :Category:All articles lacking sources. The difference is that, in theory,  is for specific statements that need referencing, while  is for whole articles that have no references at all. —Seqsea (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant? 

message: I like many others of you when I have some spare time take a wander through this page and have a look at the articles on it and more often find the link and am able to untag it. My Question some articles that are otherwise excellent have one or two citation tags on very minor points or are of a speculative or POV nature, How long is a reasonable time before a small text adjustment and hence remove the tag is reasonable either in months or perhaps editorial frequency? --Matt 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much time for small unsourced statements  

message: :Category:Articles with unsourced statements since 2008-12 is a much better format on the monthly Categories, since the categories then automatically will be sorted correctly. Can we do this instead of using the unsorted month year? Nsaa (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format on subcategories 

message: Just cross posting a suggestion from Template_talk:Citation_needed#New_Category.  Please hold any discussion there  --Selket Talk 22:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new category 

message: There is a cross-wiki discussion in progress as to whether c: should be enabled globally as an interwiki prefix for links to the Wikimedia Commons. If the proposal gains consensus this will require the deletion or renaming of several pages on the English WIkipedia whose titles begin with "C:", including one or more redirects to this page. Please take a moment to participate in the discussion.
There is also a related discussion on the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#C:ATT to which you are invited to contribute.
Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments: <code>c:</code> link prefix for Wikimedia Commons 

message: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Articles_with_unsourced_statements&action=edit§ion=new 84.231.187.251 (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Articles_with_unsourced_statements&action=edit&section=new