 | This category was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
| This category was nominated for deletion on 12 December 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | Reference works NA‑class ( inactive) | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Edit requests | |||
| ||||
Is this really a category? Really? What's the point of a category that, if it were complete, would include 95% of wikipedia articles? john k 20:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, categories like this ought to apply to talk pages, not article pages. Sigh. john k 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- This category is created from certain templates - which are necessarily on the article page. To my knowledge, there is no way for the current software to put the category on the talk page when the template creating it is on the article page. -- Tim4christ17 talk 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTlayl
- As I understand it, when you use the Fact tag, a bot adds the date. Couldn't this same bot instead add the talk page to the appropriate category? I just found an article where twelve of its thirty cats were maintenance cats. It doesn't help that those all have very long names. - Freekee 04:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
--- THIS ONE OF THE DUMBEST TAGS ON WIKIPEDIA. Every article has unsourced statements. Every article ever printed has unsourced statements. But what about the topic anal? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Themepark (
talk •
contribs) 07:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, JW has declared (see WP:BLP) that unsourced statements for BLP's should just be removed. I suppose for comic book characters, it does not really matter, but we have around 80K articles with this tag. It seems that this backlog will never get under control. You can see that it is one of the largest categories in User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary.-- RidinHood25 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It's also redundant, since articles are made by the template to appear both in Category:Articles with unsourced statements since month year (which is a subcat of Category:Articles with unsourced statements), and in this category. It is ridiculous to put the article in both, and it clutters the category list at the bottom of each article.-- Srleffler 22:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to work on articles needing citations, BUT, it would only make sense for me to edit within the context of a Category or even a Project. Would it be appropriate to somehow show sub-categories that relate to projects or top-level categories? Is there a bot that would show me articles tagged with the project banner "tennis" that needed citations? -- IrishDragon 06:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDragon ( talk • contribs)
This category is for all articles tagged with {{ citation needed}} and its redirects, correct? (I wanted to change the category description but wasn't 100% sure. Also, I noticed that if {{citation needed}} is used by itself without a date tag, the article gets put in Category:Articles with unsourced statements but not here. I assume that a mistake in the {{ citation needed}} template. Yes? Jason Quinn ( talk) 03:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Could somebody help me find out how to remove this category wrongly applied to an article? The article in question is: Charles T. Gidiney thanks Historian ( talk) 09:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- @ Dennishidalgo: This category is a side-effect of the {{ Citation needed}} tag. The article has about 15 of those. The article will remain in the category until they have all been dealt with. -- John of Reading ( talk) 15:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)