This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Not so long ago all the stats tables for individual projects have become two-dimensional in the sense of displaying quality vs importance data. Only the main table Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics is still 1D. I am considering making it 2D also. That would make it like the other tables, and would be one fewer subroutine for me to maintain.
Of course, the bigger size of the table could be a problem, but from what I saw, it shows up only at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index as transclusion, and there it could be pushed down or up the page so that its width does not cause problems. Any comments about that? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 20:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Computer and video game articles by quality statistics, one of the table headers is "None", which uses {{ No-Class}}, but actually refers to Category:Unknown-priority computer and video game articles. Since the statistics page is generated by Mathbot, I didn't just want to change it. Would it be ok for me to go ahead and change that label? JACO PLANE • 2007-01-2 18:03
Why are there two different templates for the same thing? ( Template:Dab-Class and Template:Disambig-Class) Cbrown1023 18:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else noticed the monstrous maze of categories created by WP China? For example: Category:Stub-Class China-related articles of High-importance.
Should anyone be in the mood for a mass CFD or indeed a spot of rogue adminship there's a target for you... -- kingboyk 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This template has a variable "type", which allows the item to be labeled a temple/list/category. But it doesn't work if its assessed NA-class. See Talk:Lieutenant Governors of Nova Scotia for it working, and Template talk:St. John's landmarks for it not working. Any ideas? - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 01:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
For those wanting to intersect importance and rating (eg. to find all the unassessed top-importance articles in a WikiProject), a trial Category Intersection system is at http://aerik.com/wikintersections.php. Please don't overload it! :-) See Wikipedia talk:Category intersection for details of the person who set that up. Carcharoth 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Does the bot often miss articles? It seemed to miss Elvish languages. I assessed it here at 21:32 on 21 January 2007. The bot updated the list Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tolkien articles by quality/1 with this edit at 22:20 on 22 January 2007, but the article is still listed as unassessed? Anything to worry about? Carcharoth 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
... due to scheduled computer network downtime at my work. The bot should run tomorrow as usual. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that we have finally made it to 250,000 articles assessed! Not bad for about 8 months work. Hats off to all of those hard working people across 300+ projects, as well as to Oleg for his patience and dedication! We should celebrate and publicise this achievement. Walkerma 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The statistics page for the Caribbean WikiProject links "Unassessed" to the empty Category:Unassessed-Class Caribbean articles, but it should link to Category:Unassessed Caribbean articles, which is where the unassessed articles actually are. I've tried changing the link by hand, but mathbot changed it back with the next update. Anyone know how to fix this? Jwillbur 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I created a new bot account, WP 1.0 bot which I am considering using instead of Mathbot to update the WP 1.0 pages. That because updating these pages takes so many edits that Mathbot's supposedly mathematical edits can barely be seen in its contributions.
Nothing should change but the bot name. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WP 1.0 bot on the frequency of bot runs. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
seems a tad slower if that is possible. Quite a bit of slippage from the first days updates! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 13:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with the bot? It is adding articles to the LGBT log as being unassessed, but most of them already are. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the bot is reporting the new name of the page for both the old and new ones, resulting in a bunch of log entries like "X renamed to X"; here, for example. Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read this proposal and leave comments. Thanks, Walkerma 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This project was renamed, and this is now handled by Category:Video game articles by quality. The category is listed to be deleted, but I want to make sure you're all done with it first. What's is the correct way to remove this from assesment? Please respond on my talk page ... -- Prove It (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was afraid of that. So is there any fast way to delete a bunch of subpages at once? -- Prove It (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For at least two days the bot took around or more than 36 hours to run. I think that we arrived at a time when we should run the bot once every two days instead of every day. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The importance rating has cause enough controversy and is not being used to its full potential in the Aircraft project. What would be the easiest way of removing this part from our assessment profile. Can we just delete the related categories and remove the code from the project banner? What will the bot do after this is done? - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The KLF articles by quality log hasn't been updated in some weeks and it looks like we dropped off the Index too. Has something broken or has there been a change in my absence? -- kingboyk 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Can this page be divided up with a {{ CompactTOC}}? It'll make looking through it a bit easier, if people are looking to do so. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a few projects, one Category:Rotorcraft articles by quality two and a half days ago, the others Category:Red Bull Air Race World Series articles by quality and Category:Gliding articles by quality more recently, and their statistics pages have yet to be created by the bot. They are using the same project banner as the aviation project, {{ WPAVIATION}}, in the same way that the Military history project uses the same banner for all its projects. Could someone look over them to see if I missed something that the bot looks for in order to "do its thing". Thanks. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
To help out with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive could the bot tally up the total of assessed articles? I'm trying to encourage folks to focus on how much they've achieved, not the bogus unassessed number (bogus because nearly 40,000 living person articles - and lord knows how many bios about dead people - don't have any {{ WPBiography}} tag). -- kingboyk 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a question about Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Numismatic articles by quality statistics. Pages in this project now have a category class, template, dab, etc. These new classes can be found at Category:WikiProject Numismatics articles. Do you think you can upgrade the bot to identify these classes? Thanks. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that somewhere, 17 articles as FA class when they are not. According to Wikipedia:Featured articles there are 1307, but according to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics there are 1324. Can the bot be programmed to catch this? Or is this just a problem for the project's involved to correct?- Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 00:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
my $Root_category = 'FA-Class_articles';
my @tmp_cats;
my @tmp_articles;
&fetch_articles_cats($Root_category, \@tmp_cats, \@tmp_articles);
my $cat;
my @tmp_cats2;
my %FeaturedArticles;
my $featured_article;
foreach $cat (@tmp_cats) {
print "fetch 2 $cat\n";
&fetch_articles_cats($cat, \@tmp_cats2, \@tmp_articles);
foreach $featured_article ( @tmp_articles) { $FeaturedArticles{$featured_article} =1;}
print "$cat " . (scalar @tmp_articles) . "\n";
}
print "Count: " . (scalar keys %FeaturedArticles) . "\n";
currentstatus
is FA
. So by cross referencing it would be easy to make a list of the exceptional articles.
CMummert ·
talk
02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Somehow, my project has two unassessed categories. I think this happened when a bunch of empty categories were deleted awhile ago. Which one does the bot look at? My banner places unassessed articles in Category:Unassessed University of Oklahoma articles but the statistics table links to Category:Unassessed-Class University of Oklahoma articles. I want to make sure I delete the correct one. Thanks.↔ NMajdan• talk 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
WP 1.0 bot is so slow. Can you increase the speed of the bot. I read recently that many bots could increase their speeds. Don't remember where I read that, but I just think your bot is going too slow. -- Paracit 02:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The bot did its last two runs on the toolserver. I can't say if it was faster because neither run was finished. Either the machine was rebooted or the script died or something. I am moving it back to my department's machines. I'll also think of ways to make the script faster. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Every so often I find myself creating a new set of assessment categories for a WP Biography workgroup. It's a dull and repetitive task, so yesterday I knocked up a script in the shape of an AWB plugin to do the job. It's not a bot, it just asks the user for some config info, creates a category list which it adds to the AWB list, and then fills in the categories with some boilerplate text. User can review the text before save and is always in full control.
The plugin should ship with the next version of AWB, and source code (VB.net) is in the AWB subversion repository. Please try it!
Some examples created with this tool: Category:Biography (baronets) articles by quality, Category:Biography (peerage) articles by quality, Category:Biography (peerage) articles by priority. -- kingboyk 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
More ideas:
-- TimNelson 09:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia now has about 13,000 articles assessed. Is it possible to add an interwiki link to this stats page from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics? I'm hesitating because I know that page is edited daily by the bot. Can we add a noinclude section that the bot will ignore? I hope other languages will take off with bot assessments like the English & French, and if so we will want to have interwiki links. We could also use such a section to add the page to a category. Walkerma 05:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the bot? Many projects haven't had a run since 7 Apr while others have had two runs since then. It's always the projects at the end of the alphabet that lose out.23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Folks here might be interested in what the Maths wikiproject have done with assessment. We have a field parameter which is used to place the article in a sub field, say algebra or geometry. User:CMummert has now written a bot which reads this field and produces field specific lists like Geometry and topology. A similar scheme could be useful for other wiki projects which have very large number of articles. -- Salix alba ( talk) 16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there interest here in VeblenBot's tables? There are examples at User:VeblenBot/Version_0.7/MainTable and subpages. If there is interest in doing something with them here, I'll put in a bot request to update them daily. CMummert · talk 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I was inspired by WP:MATH in its organization by fields. I used the Military history project as the model for WP:PHILO because it permits for more than one field. I am wondering if the bot can interface with this set up to produce information by field as the math project does. The banner produces categories for each field. You can view a test page which has displays all options for the banner. This has resulted in these charts for assessment info by field. Greg Bard 02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. WP:WINE has a bit of a problem at the moment - we like to have the assessment log in some inner HTML on our homepage in order to keep an eye on what other people have been up to recently, but thanks to a stub assessment drive in early March our log is currently running at over 300kb, which is slowing down our home page a little. I appreciate that the logs expire after 3 months, but we can't really wait that long. I've had a bit of a poke round the talk archives here but hadn't found anything to match this problem. I've thought of two options :
I was wondering if it would be OK if I just set up Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Wine_articles_by_quality_log/Archive, manually cut out everything over a month old, set up a link to the archive from the main log and then deleted it in two months time - would that break the bot horribly? Doesn't need any work on your part, and just gets us out of this temporary hole.
A more elegant solution that might be useful on many project portals would be a separate 'shortlog' page, that just had the changes since the last botrun, or the last week or something, plus a link to the main log page. I appreciate this option involves extra coding, but I thought I'd float it.....
Of course there is a third option, to delete the log from our homepage for the next few weeks, but I'd only do that if the 'temporary manual archive' option isn't available. FlagSteward 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I modified the bot code to fetch the latest history version of articles as suggested a while ago by Titoxd and Salix alba (I remember it was both), by doing a query of the form
[3]
which does a bunch of articles at the same time (five in this case). The bot should be faster as a result, but in the last several days since it's been running I have not noticed great improvements. Well, at least it does not get slower. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The bot is taking around three days to do the update nowadays, which is not good. I have a proposal. If we remove the "last updated" tag and the date at the bottom of subpages (see here for an example of what I mean), then the bot won't need to update subpages on which no changes happen except the datestamp. The main indeces for each subject would still get their datestamp (like the index Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Aircraft articles by quality of the above subpage). Would people agree with this? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
on 30 May, the bot didn't make it to the zebras again. Something should be done about the alligators and jackals always getting an update and the sloths and zebras missing out all too often. Rlevse 12:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added the importance scale to a new task force I helped create. But, no articles are being added to the categories. I know this isn't an issue with the bot but I was wondering if anybody else has ran into this issue and what you did to resolve. I was able to resolve one article by simply removing the rating then re-adding it but that is not a solution for hundreds of articles. For instance, Talk:Tulsa Zoo is properly tagged and the correct category ( Category:Mid-importance Tulsa articles) is at the bottom. But if you go to that cat, there is nothing in it. Any ideas?↔ NMajdan• talk 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I stopped the bot because there is something wrong with the query which finds articles in a given category. For example, consider the large Category:Stub-Class mathematics articles. To find the articles in there, one has to do several consecutive queries, each giving 200 articles. The following query
works, but if you replace "Cl" at the end by "Cm", so instead of giving the articles starting from "Cl" on, give the articles starting from "Cm" on,
the query gives an error. I contacted Yurik about this. Any ideas in what is going on? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Query.php is now working correctly on the math-related categories. I don't know what was changed to make it work. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Soon after getting restarted it appears the Bot has come to a grinding halt again - this time just after "Biography (science and academia) articles" . thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 09:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
And again soon (but not as soon) after getting restarted it appears the Bot has come to a grinding halt again - this time just after "Former country articles". thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The bot has broken at least twice in the last 8 days, and it always restarts with "A", so once again the Aardvarks get updates while the Zebras don't. Result: Aardvarks have had two updates while the rest of us have had zero in eight days. Why can't it restart where it left off when it breaks or do one run A-Z and the next Z-A? Rlevse 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
And another occasion (but again not as soon) after getting restarted it appears the Bot has come to a grinding halt at Military historiography articles by quality log. (Nearly at the WP:Novels articles, so near but so far - being selfish of course) :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 09:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a message I left at User talk:Oleg Alexandrov. He told me to raise this issue here. I've also copied his reply here. -- ZeroOne ( talk | @) 11:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you modify the bot from using page names such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality statistics to using Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality/statistics? That would create handy back links to the statistics and log pages too. Currently those pages do not link to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality which is, in my opinion, more essential than linking to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team which is what they do. -- ZeroOne ( talk | @) 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
We have just passed the 1,000,000 articles tagged for assessment. Is this a couse for celebration or for more umph for this Bot??! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 16:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was bound to happen. In spite of a few optimizations and an increased edit rate (one edit per five seconds), now a bot run takes almost three days (and a good chunk of CPU and memory too). I switched the bot to a run every three days. As before, people who need an instant run can use the online tool. Hope that's fine with people. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Few things:
-- Yurik 07:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to maintain a list (with a timestamp) of projects that have not had an update in awhile and not run the bot on those projects? For instance, if the bot hits a project that has not had an update to the log it 3-4 runs, it would add that project to a list with the date it was added. Then, when it ran next time, it would not process that project. When it has been 21 or 30 or however many days since it was added to the list, it would then re-run it on that project and see if there has been an update. If not, back on the list, if so, then it goes back to being apart of the normal process. Of course, if somebody from that project wants the bot ran on their project they can either ask here for it to be removed or run the bot manually themselves with the web form. I just went through the A's and there are six projects with no updates the last three bot runs ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Ideally, this would knock 75-100 projects off the normal bot run which should save some considerable time. Whether or not its enough to knock the bot run back down to 2 days, I doubt it but at least the bot won't be overloaded and it may hopefully reduce errors and crashes. The bot could still take a quick look at previous assessment counts for these skipped projects to get the overall numbers. Thoughts?↔ NMajdan• talk 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
To continue from here, we are having a problem with articles disappearing from categories, and then from the lists maintained by the bot.
Here's the deal. Talk:Gireum Station is obviously in Category:Stub-Class Korea-related articles, yet when one clicks on that category, the article is nowhere to be found. This is very odd, and some kind of Wikipedia server tricks.
The consequence is that the bot massively removes articles, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Korea-related articles by quality log. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe not. I tried to click on the "next 200" link in Category:Stub-Class Korea-related articles and I get the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category:Stub-Class_Korea-related_articles&from=3%2A
and if you click on "next 200" on the new page, the same link shows up, so one gets an infinite loop, never going beyond the first 200 articles. Something may be wrong with {{ WikiProject Korea}} but I can't tell what. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Is it normal that this page says we have 1610 FAs and 2710 GAs, whereas WP:GA says 1547 and 2744? How often is the bot running? I don't remember us ever having that much FAs.-- SidiLemine 11:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Are we sure this Bot process hasn't stiffed again, seems to get so far then stop! Maybe wrong but looks that way. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The bot has only made one full run in the last 12 days, Aug 31. This occurs more and more. Please find a permanent fix. Rlevse 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I modified the bot code a bit so that each time it starts it goes through the list of projects not alphabetically, but rather in the order of oldest first, meaning that the projects that have not been run for longest time will come first. Hopefully this will put to rest the problem of the projects earlier in the list being run more often. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the bot is deleting the index. What's going on? Girolamo Savonarola 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if the bot could add "(redirect)" to the tables it generates when it encounters an article which is a redirect, to help users remove the wikiproject templates from redirect talk pages. -- jacobolus (t) 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Proposal to remove the main biography project from the bot run. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the word "None" in Template:No-Class should be changed to "Unknown". Right now, the label implies that articles in that column of the statistics table have NO importance; in fact, their importance is simply not known.
I realize that if a bot (somehow) uses this label in its data gathering, then the bot code would need to be modified; if so, that seems worth doing, since "Unknown" gives the unwary reader a much better sense of the situation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
|Importance=mid
is not the same as |Importance=Mid
. I've found many errors like that.
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff)
21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The bot doesn't seem to be compiling the data for the Marxism task force. The chart produced by this template: {{philosophy task force assessment|Marxism}} as can be seen among the Philosophy task force assessments. I'm not sure why it would be different from the rest. Pontiff Greg Bard 23:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to request a change be made to the formatting of the statistics generated by the bot, matching this change. This will remove some excessive whitespace after the table when it is transcluded (and remove some redundant bolding). Thanks in advance. -- PEJL 19:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I know it would probably be insanely difficult, but would there be any way to structure the assessments such that for the main articles by quality chart on the page here, the articles contained in a given box could be pointed out. I'm thinking particularly here that it might be useful to be able to click on the box containing stub articles of top importance and seeing exactly which articles are included there. It might make choosing collaboration topics, if nothing else, a lot easier. John Carter 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article Classification to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment as that seems to be the consensus name for such pages, but I was wondering if that will affect the bot. I have updated most links to the name, the only links I haven't updated are the ones in the bot generated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Comics articles by quality page and subpages. I can't work out how the bot generates the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article Classification, so I can't work out what parameter or variable I need to change or where that might be. Any help appreciated. Hiding Talk 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been manually prodding the bot to assess the WP Films task forces, which it's had little trouble doing. However, it seems to stall in the middle of surveying the Stubs (which were 23k at last count), and my browser still shows "Waiting for..." in the status bar, but the tab icon indicates it's given up, and there's no continued building of the page, even after several minutes of waiting for what usually takes ~15 seconds. So is the project size choking the bot? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have some automated process problems again. Novels have not bee updated since the 14th and no major processing appear to be happening at present. Or am I wrong? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 09:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering whether the numbers on the table on this page count an article twice if both its project and its sub-project have v1.0 tables. How does it work in the case of projects like WikiProject British Royalty, which uses the WikiProject Biography template with a parameter set to "yes" that adds it to both projects? -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The other article space class that we need to clean up our reports is Dab, Disamb, or Disambig class. Let's get the article space cleaned up in the reports.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Should the category-making bot be updated to make a category for list-class articles now that they are a regognised part of the project? -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The current total of 701,787 is, I assume, the total number of articles with participating WikiProject tags on them (assessed or not). I know there have been updates on this and similar figures in the Wikipedia Signpost, but can anyone here provide a graph of how the total has varied over time? When is the figure likely to hit 1 million? Is it ever likely to catch up with the total number of articles (currently 1,698,947)? Carcharoth 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Next step is to program the bot to generate and update this graph itself. <ow! stop hitting me with that wet trout, Oleg!> :-) Carcharoth 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That's beautiful. Could you update it every month? Pretty please! -- kingboyk 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is an updated version. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've now also added the total number of articles. What's interesting is that the number of untagged and unassessed articles stays about the same. We've been tagging and assessing at exactly the same rate that new articles are created. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Copied over from Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#NEW_FL_debate, this post by User:TonyTheTiger: I would like to start a discussion about how the quality logs handle article space only. I think we could probably all agree that the quality logs would be improved by adding t(w)o more classes (FL-class and List-class) to handle articlespace contributions. This conversation would avoid all the likely pitfalls of numerous arguments about how to handle all the other spaces. Please contribute to a discussion which will hopefully lead to something being done. Can we agree to simply add these two classes to the reports?
I would like to get article space cleaned up. I will start two separate debates. We should add FL class. I think people have been doing patch jobs with FL=FA commands. Let's just do it right. Thanks for adding list class.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, we've just passed one million assessed articles. :-) Kirill 12:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I just started a WikiProject (I think), at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deftones, and am in the process of tagging the articles (I think). If someone could have a look at Deftones for instance, and tell me if I'm on the right track, I'd greatly appreciate all the help I can get! I just made the jump from editing sporadically to trying to do something more substantial, so I'm learning by doing and could do with some hand-holding. Thanks in advance, Seegoon ( talk) 05:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the time has come again. :) The bot takes a lot to do its runs, I think even more than four days. Three days is not enough any longer, and the way things are now there are often two instances of the bot at any time stepping on each other's feet which slows things down. So, I propose to run the bot every four days instead. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That'd be fine if the bot ran fully every four days. Right now the Zebras haven't had a bot run in TWELVE days (since Jan 2). — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Each time there is an issue or the bot gets overloaded, such things happen. Sorry. One proposal which I also raised earlier is to not have the very large biography articles project, which is largely duplicated by the smaller biography projects (which are still very large by themselves).
I now started a new version of the bot. Hopefully it will get to the zebra soon. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley in November and ran the tool. I recall, I believe, that the table was updated immediately. However, I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Tool, ran the tool and nothing. Have I done something wrong? Lara ❤ Love 17:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just curious - what's the main source of delay in the bot, that makes it run so slowly? Is it the editing rate, or the download rate, or something else? It seems remarkable to me that it requires three days to complete - how many edits per run does it make? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The stats for Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in Ireland seem a little off and the bot appears to be ignoring anything higher than Start class - see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Unionism in Ireland articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Unionism in Ireland articles by quality. Could someone with the technical know how take a look and see if the project assessment is set up correctly? Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
would it be difficult to add a simple "number of articles" column to the table in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index? It would be really interesting to see the breakdown of the different wikiprojects.. then you could easily tell the 'big' projects from the 'small' projects. thanks! 131.111.8.97 ( talk) 13:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the bot doesn't get as far as the update to this table, doesn't mean that the time period should be adjusted to reflect the bot "failures". I as much should be reflecting the run frequency and the update intention. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
One intermediate solution would be to not count or list the stub and unassessed biography articles (for the main project). Those are mostly assessed automatically anyway, and there is no big need I would argue to know those numbers. That would speed up the bot very much. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the talks of adding additional classifications to the bot have been ongoing for some time with no consensus, I have a question regarding the behavior of the bot that could be a temporary solution. Does the bot go through articles located in a sub-category of a particular classification? For example, if Category:FL-Class medicine articles was a sub-category of Category:List-Class medicine articles, would the bot consider the articles in Category:FL-Class medicine articles as List-Class? If it did, then projects using the FL-Class assessment could at least get the proper statistics with List-Class and FL-Class merged, and still keep separate categories for featured and non-featured lists. What is the current behavior of the bot? If it does not consider sub-categories, could this feature be added? Only one sub-level of categories would need to be processed, so complicated scripting checking for loops would not even be necessary. -- Scott Alter 08:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am a member of WP:Elements and I would like to know if it is possible to get a box like this one for the project. Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Assessment_graph. I also support this proposal. Walkerma ( talk) 03:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there some way to have the list row line up above the assessed row? Because, as it is, there's assessed, list, total. It looks weird. Lara ❤ Love 04:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a step-by-step guide to how to add "FL" class to a WikiProject's assessment scheme? Off-hand, I think the things that would need to be changed are:
I think that's it. Can someone confirm that the bot will automatically pick up such changes and change the pages it updates? I can do (b)-(d) OK. Could someone help out or write a guide for how to do (a)? I would like to implement this for some projects, especially as my recent attempts to use subcategories of Category:FA-Class articles to see how many featured articles some projects have, has been hampered by the featured lists being mixed up with the featured articles. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Today I logged in to the server running the bot, to discover four instances of the bot running, with the older being 12 days. Here's the deal, the bot does not scale to the entire biography project. I suspect from past experience that as the bot keeps on getting pagefuls of a given category, if that category is huge and gets updated as the bot reads it, the bot may get confused and get into an infinite loop or something. Then we can't get the global stats either.
I propose we remove the biography project from the assessment, or at least, the Stub-Class biography articles, which are a third of a million and which are assessed semi-automatically anyway I think (that an article is a stub does not provide any real assessment value).
Note: the effect of this won't be that large. Very many biography articles are covered within subprojects. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose to include the date of when the information in the stat boxes (such as this one) was last updated. The date is already included in the edit summary, but not in the actual box. At this point I am simply looking for feedback regarding whether this is a good idea or not. Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been working to update a few parts of the WP 1.0 bot code to speed things up. The goal is to get the bot to finish a complete run in two days, rather than four or five. There should be no visible change in the bot's output; the changes are all to the underlying code to access the article data. So there is no new functionality, just faster processing.
The good news is that the new code is ready for heavy testing. I have already been testing it on individual projects by hand, but at some point I need to simply turn it on and let it go. I'm planning to do that sometime in the next few days. The cgi script that allows you to rate one project at a time will still be using the older code.
The new code puts "(test code)" at the end of the edit summary. If you notice any strange behavior in an edit marked that way, please let me know. If all goes well, the new code will replace the old code in a couple weeks. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I ran the new code a second time; this run took 49 hours. I did fix the issue with database locks - the DB locked 3 times during the test run, but the script just waits them out. So unless anyone has errors to report, I'm ready to set the new code to automatic.
We could hypothetically run the full assessment 3 times per week, but it would be tight. Conservatively, it takes 2.5 days to complete each run. I think 2 full runs per week should be enough, since individual projects can always run it by hand. I was thinking of running the full assessment Sunday and Wednesday. Does that sound reasonable? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I set up the crontab to run it Sunday and Wednesday. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I redid the Wikiproject Ohio template to include importance. It works fine as far as I can tell. The problem is that the chart that lists the number of articles by importance and class will not update to show importance even after running the bot manually. It just says "No importance" for all of them. Could someone please take a look at it? Thanks. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 00:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Totally looked that over. Thanks so much for your help! §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an issue with Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index showing up as a blank page (with 0 bytes of content). This is because the source for that page is too large. Hopefully the bot will be fixed soon to split the data over several pages. The bot is just about to finish a full run, so even though the index is not visible, the individual projects should be correct. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chicago articles by quality log, and Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/WikiProject Illinois_articles_by_quality_log had not been updated for ten days until PeterSymonds ran the bot automatically today. However, although I can see the tables have updated, these pages did not.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to know what projects the bot is currently or planning to work on? I've tried to get Albums updated (haven't been since the 22nd) but the bot seems to stop working once it gets to the Gs in the 29k stub category. It's still has the fun 33k unaccessed category, so I wonder if it's just been queued or it that just too much to ask for? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The tool that allows people to run WP 1.0 bot on demand from the web-based interface does not work for the moment. The system administrator on the network it was running on told me it takes too many server resources. I am now looking for a new home for it. In the meantime, the only way to run the bot is through the regular scheduled run. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I went on the link and typed in Devon. It appeared to be doing something and at the end said "Done with Category:Devon articles by quality!", but nothing appeared to have happened on Wikipedia regarding Devon. I also tried with Foobar and same as above happened. Meaty♠Weenies ( talk) 00:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
How does a given wikiproject start assessing its articles and getting indexed? I've looked around and can't find any instructions. -- Padraic 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases by putting a quality assessment box on their main project page. We aren't very good at working with the 1.0 bot. 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've been trying to get the bot to run for the newly created Category:Lost articles by quality but it keeps giving me the same error over and over again:
I don't know if it's a problem with the bot or if I did something wrong (most likely the latter) but if anyone could help it would be appreciated. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm having the same error that occured before. Mine concerns Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to generate a sporadically-updated list of all of the 1.0 groups by some basic statistics like total number of tagged articles, number of unassessed articles, and the like? It would be useful so that we can see which projects clearly have assessment issues, as well as projects which may have a small enough scope to be more useful as task forces of other projects, or - in the case of blatant inactivity - be brought to MfD. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 03:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(moved from User_talk:Mathbot) I see Mathbot compiles the tables of article status at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics.
Right now it links to articles according to either quality or importance. Could it be modified to link to a specific quality and importance? For example, if I'm interested in improved stubs of high importance, I can either click on High (35 of 366 are of stub-class) or on stubs (35 of 3787 are high importance). Or if I want to assess the quality of low-importance articles, I'd have to go through at best 488 low-importance article rather than 14.
I can explain more if that was not clear. Thank you. Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 07:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I previously suggested to make every sub-section a linked entry so it would be easier to target articles of a specific importance/quality rating, and I'm suggesting it again. I'm currently working on the
WikiProject Physics' Projects of the Week, and I've manually reviewed over 2,000 articles in the last week. I've reviewed all articles with an importance rating (and I'm now reviewing all articles according to quality rating. The problem is that I've already rated every article with an importance rating, so now I'm stuck re-reviewing a bunch of articles I've already rated/assessed.
I suggest implementing this feature for two reasons:
Oleg, CBM, there appears to be enough support for C-Class to warrant introducing this new level into the assessment scheme. This represents the first change to the quality levels since GA-Class was added to the manual scheme in late 2005. Can one of you add the new level into the code for WP1.0 bot?
Having read a LOT of people's ideas and thoughts lately, I'd like us to consider what other features might be added to the bot - or should we simply let others write scripts and bots to achieve the same thing. Should I raise such ideas here? Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine is beginning to create task forces, and we would like to have separate assessments for the task force articles. Our first task force is Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force, with articles to be in Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality. Our assessment template is all set up for task forces - we just haven't started tagging pages yet, and are intentionally holding off for a few days (so please do not tag any pages yet).
In the mean time, I am trying to set up the bot, but ran into a problem. While trying to manually run the bot, I received the following error message, and the bot subsequently got stuck in a loop:
Fetching Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine.
Retrieving http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject%20Reproductive%20medicine&action=edit&oldid=section= Sleep 1
Error message is: Could not get_text for Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine! at /home/oleg/public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules/bin/perlwikipedia_utils.pl line 93 eval {...} called at /home/oleg/public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules/bin/perlwikipedia_utils.pl line 82 main::wikipedia_fetch('Perlwikipedia=HASH(0x86d36ec)', 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine.wiki', 200, 1) called at wp10_routines.pl line 1350 main::get_wikiproject('Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality') called at wp10_routines.pl line 290 main::update_index('ARRAY(0x86d37c4)', 'HASH(0x86d392c)', 'HASH(0x86d3914)', 'HASH(0x86d38fc)', 'HASH(0x86d389c)') called at wp10_routines.pl line 145 main::main_wp10_routine('Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality') called at /home/oleg/public_html/wp/wp10/run_wp10.cgi line 53 Fetching Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine. Attempt: 2.
It seems as though the bot is trying to find "Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine", which does not exist. Is there a way to tell the bot that this is a task force, and not a project? I see that in the index, the wikiproject link for task forces accurately points to the task force page, but I am unsure where to set this. Thanks. -- Scott Alter 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
WPAssessmentCatCreator is a AWB-plugin that can help create the assessment categories required for the WP1.0. In addition to the basic cats, it helps create the non-standard classes such as Template, Category, Redirect etc. I had picked up Kingboyk's version and modified it a bit. There is a generate categories page that does something similar, but it is restricted to administrators. Please let me know your comments and suggestions. Thanks, Ganeshk ( talk) 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Oleg/CBM, I would like the bot to wikilink the numbers on the stats table with their respective intersection category. See Category:Tamil Nadu articles by quality and importance. This will not add any additional processing time to the bot. It will add the link if the category exists, otherwise it will leave it as a plain-number. This feature would really help in providing easy access to these categories. Can you please add this to the bot? Thanks, Ganeshk ( talk) 07:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes yes yes yes yes! As I've said before, we need this, as this allows people to target specific class of articles of specific quality.
BTW Ganeshk, could you head over to {{ physics}} to make sure that the code you've proposed for the physics banner (I've modified it a bit) is sound? Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Chennai articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
GA | 2 | 4 | 2 | 8 | |||
B | 6 | 9 | 14 | 4 | 2 | 35 | |
C | 6 | 29 | 39 | 57 | 2 | 133 | |
Start | 14 | 63 | 151 | 409 | 20 | 657 | |
Stub | 8 | 32 | 101 | 447 | 24 | 612 | |
List | 1 | 11 | 5 | 3 | 20 | ||
Category | 1 | 170 | 171 | ||||
Disambig | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
File | 3 | 3 | |||||
Project | 1 | 5 | 6 | ||||
Redirect | 2 | 4 | 9 | 35 | 12 | 62 | |
Template | 22 | 22 | |||||
Other | 1 | 1 | |||||
Assessed | 39 | 152 | 322 | 957 | 214 | 48 | 1,732 |
Unassessed | 8 | 8 | |||||
Total | 39 | 152 | 322 | 957 | 214 | 56 | 1,740 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 7,610 | Ω = 5.27 |
This table is now up to date again.
It is updated by a tool on the toolserver; it will not work if the toolserver is
having problems.
If
this chart is showing much more than zero,
then the table will be updated slowly or not at all.
That's IMO, the perfect version of the table. Especially if it could be made to handle DAB, Cat, Temp and NA class, as well as NA importance ratings.
Headbomb {
ταλκ –
WP Physics:
PotW}
19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was setting up the assessment mechanisms this morning for the Catullus WikiProject, and I noticed that the new C-Class assessments are not being counted by the MathBot. They turn up as "Unassessed" instead. It's possible that I made a mistake in setting up the template, but if not, could this be fixed, please? Thanks, all! :) Willow ( talk) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The missing rows are a feature, not a bug! ;) No, the problem was that, on its initial pass, the bot ranked a "C-Class" article as "Unassessed" and included it as such in the table. It got the Importance correct, but not the Class. The problem seems to have fixed itself, however, since I just tried it again and it worked — yeay bot!
Oh, but there was one small glitch in the colors. In Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catullus articles by quality, both the B- and C-class tags are shown in yellow; shouldn't B-Class articles now be more yellow-green? Anyway, thank you all for your help, :) Willow ( talk) 11:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've tried for Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements to create the C-, List-, FL-, template-class pages but they are empty. This bot also sees them as unassessed. Anybody knowns why? Nergaal ( talk) 13:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Unassessed (quality) articles are handled by the bot. Could it be possible to handle the unrated (importance) as well? Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this edit supposed to be an improvement, and if so, how? Or has the bot simply lost its brain? -- Hoary ( talk) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to check - is everything now OK with the bot for C-Class? I know there were caching and colour issues, but from what I can tell, everything is now OK with the bot. Can we announce it being "official" on Friday? Walkerma ( talk) 03:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
C-Class works fine for Wikiproject Physics as far as the bot is concerned. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Right now the classes supported are: FA, FL, GA, A, B, C, Start, Stub, List, Template, Disambig, Category, NA
However, if one wants to tag an article such as List of mesons as a "List-Class" article, then one loses all information about the quality of the list. You can all think of an example I'm sure. For this reason I propose the creation of a new parameter, which is the type of "article" this way, you could follow the quality of a type of article. I propose this way of categorizing stuff:
Type | Quality | Importance |
---|---|---|
Article | Featured | Top |
List | A | High |
Portal | Good | Mid |
Project | B | Low |
Category | C | |
Template | Start | |
Disambig | Stub | |
Image | ||
Needed | ||
NA | NA | NA |
??? | ??? | ??? |
The basic assessment table could look like this:
|
|
|
While the "full" assessment table could look like this (probably that only the V.1.0 Editorial Team would use this one), but individual WikiProjects would probably sometimes use more than Articles and Lists (templates and categories I would guess, and maybe NA)
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
New type |
Not only would it allow to gauge the quality of lists and put people more comfortable with tagging an article as a "list" (which is IMO the most important reasons behind this), but it could also interesting stuff such as a bot handling of Featured Portals, help struggling WikiProjects to notice what the "higher rated" WikiProjects do, perhaps even create Featured WikiProjects, help to identify high quality-templates and draw attention to the poorer ones so they can be improved/merged, perhaps even create featured templates, etc...
What say you? Is I insane or is I unto something? Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I took the initiative of a building a generic WikiProject Banner (located at {{ WkP X}}) containing these "type" of articles etc... I also created the X-type template (altought colors could be better). (See User talk:Headbomb/Test Article for examples).
Is something wrong with the bot? If you look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film awards articles by quality log, the two most recent "removed" articles were actually promoted to FL-Class. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Template:OttawaProject and Template:WikiProject Toronto don't seem to work - any ideas? -- Padraic 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
If I want the bot to run here, should I request it here? -- iMatthew T. C. 11:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
How to add C-class stats to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Poland-related articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Polish military history articles by quality statistics? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Could it be possible to add them? It's not critical, but it's ugly. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I was replying to this, and I just noticed in the bot's contributions page that it keeps stopping and starting. Have they been doing work on the Kiwix server or something? I'm sure the bot is supposed to be "awake" more than this - does anyone know what is causing this problem? Walkerma ( talk) 14:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
See here and here. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 05:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The bot does not seem to pick up the assessment of those articles within WP:WINE that were reassessed as C-class; they end up in the unassessed category. Category:C-Class Wine articles exists, and after reading the question from WikiProject Poland above, I added C-class to Template:WikiProject Wine. However, a manual rerun of the bot after the template was updated didn't change anything. Where have I gone wrong? Tomas e ( talk) 11:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The category itself only shows 50 pages, not 60. The most likely culprit here is not the bot, it's the m:job queue. It can take a long time for changes to a template to be reflected in all the articles that use the template. One option is to do a null edit on each of the remaining 10 talk pages. Once you're sure all the pages are in the appropriate category, run the bot one time, and it will pick up the changes. But the bot has no way to know about changes pending in the job queue. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
When the C-class was added, it looked to me that the colour of the B-class in the assessment tables (those we usually have on project pages) was changed from yellow to yellowish green, with C inheriting the yellow colour. However, it seems that in the assessment lists, B-class is still yellow, i.e., B and C have the same colour. An example can be seen here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wine articles by quality/1, but it looked the same in all other places I checked. I guess the coding for these colours is in the bot, because I don't see them in the templates. It'd be good to have the same colour in both places. Tomas e ( talk) 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The "Unassessed" counts reported by the bot in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Russia articles by quality statistics are consistently off; the number shown in Category:Unassessed Russia articles is always ~100 more. I observed this oddity for the past several updates in hopes that the discrepancy was caused by some lag and would eventually go away, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Counts of other categories all seem to be accurate, only "Unassessed" are misbehaving. Could someone take a look into this, please? Thanks!— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 19:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Fictional series ceased to exist a long time ago. It and its bot generated assessment pages can be removed. - LA ( T) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, all. As we know, the Version 1.0 Index stores assessments for over 1.7 million articles. Originally, the bot was designed to process about 10,000 articles; we never actually thought that 70% of Wikipedia was going to be covered under some sort of assessment. That has slowly caused the bot to take longer to run, as bot runs that used to last about four hours now take about four days. To make the bot more efficient, changes to the way the bot framework operates are being discussed, and simultaneously, we are discussing which features it might be worthwhile to add as we are recoding everything. We really would like to have your participation at User:WP 1.0 bot/Second generation and its talk page as we do this. Thanks, Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Instead of the logs being truncated when the page size becomes too big, would it be possible to archive older changes? – Pee Jay 12:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello... is there a way the bot can use the {{formatnum:}} magic word with the displayed numbers so that they are easier to read ? 82.248.254.92 ( talk) 16:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC).
See WP:VPT#Pages showing up in CAT:CSD that shouldn't be there. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
After vainly attempting to create an assessment template by myself for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities I now recognize that I am failing miserably. The template I tried to create is at Template:WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities. Please, someone throw me a rope before I sink too much deeper into the quicksand! HELP! -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have a feature request. We're currently in the process of working out how to implement good topics, and we are planning to try and automate topics moving between good and featured status (as the only difference between the two will be that featured topics will require 25% of the articles/lists that make them up to be featured). We have worked out using categories how to automate the moving process, but we still want to be able to see any moving between the two that occurs. Hence, we what a daily log of status changes, a la the sort that the WP 1.0 bot provides. Any featured topics will appear in Category:Wikipedia featured topics and Category:Wikipedia fully featured topics. Any good topics will appear in Category:Wikipedia good topics. So all the bot would need to do is monitor and report any moving between the three categories. This would require the creation of new functionality for the bot, but I suspect this shouldn't be a huge change, as it is extremely similar to the type of task the bot performs at the moment.
Additionally, it might be useful if the bot could monitor any changes in status to articles found in Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles and its subcategories, or any outright additions of articles/lists to these categories. This way, we can ensure that no-one does something with an article which they shouldn't, such as add an article to a topic without nominating it first, or if an article is demoted below GA and no-one at WP:FT is told. This is essentially the services the bot already provides.
I hope that makes sense, if not I suggest you have a look at the good topics plan I linked above. We're probably hoping to have good topics set up in the next week or two, and I hope that you will be willing to help us in doing this - such help would be much appreciated - rst20xx ( talk) 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Both of these templates and their categories have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 8#Future-Class and Current-Class. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Will someone help me figure out why all the C-Class articles are being categorized as unassessed for the Texas Tech University WikiProject? → Wordbuilder ( talk) 19:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Wondering if it is possible to be able to modify the reporting table so that one can select articles of a given quality and importance. For example, the table allows prioritisation of activity, but it would be nice to be able to pick on high importance start articles to work on, rather than click all the starts looking manually for importance. This re WP:ARTHA. Heds ( talk) 04:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wiki Project Libertarianism, a fairly new project, would like to join the assessment scheme. WE have tagged multiple articles and have most of our framework in place. We would like the bot to start looking at our articles and populating our template for us. Our articles are in Category:WikiProject Libertarianism articles and broken up by quality and importance. What do we need to do next? Charles Edward 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject was merged to a task force of WikiProject Video games, and so it would be a good idea to remove it from the listing of projects. Can someone do that? -- Izno ( talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone done any work on listing all wikiprojects by relative size (in terms number of articles in scope)? The question came up on the refdesk -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I ask because this page hasn't been updated in almost 2 weeks. Thanks! - Drilnoth ( talk) 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
-removed indent-Oh, thanks. Sorry I'd missed it before. - Drilnoth ( talk) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Not so long ago all the stats tables for individual projects have become two-dimensional in the sense of displaying quality vs importance data. Only the main table Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics is still 1D. I am considering making it 2D also. That would make it like the other tables, and would be one fewer subroutine for me to maintain.
Of course, the bigger size of the table could be a problem, but from what I saw, it shows up only at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index as transclusion, and there it could be pushed down or up the page so that its width does not cause problems. Any comments about that? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 20:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Computer and video game articles by quality statistics, one of the table headers is "None", which uses {{ No-Class}}, but actually refers to Category:Unknown-priority computer and video game articles. Since the statistics page is generated by Mathbot, I didn't just want to change it. Would it be ok for me to go ahead and change that label? JACO PLANE • 2007-01-2 18:03
Why are there two different templates for the same thing? ( Template:Dab-Class and Template:Disambig-Class) Cbrown1023 18:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else noticed the monstrous maze of categories created by WP China? For example: Category:Stub-Class China-related articles of High-importance.
Should anyone be in the mood for a mass CFD or indeed a spot of rogue adminship there's a target for you... -- kingboyk 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This template has a variable "type", which allows the item to be labeled a temple/list/category. But it doesn't work if its assessed NA-class. See Talk:Lieutenant Governors of Nova Scotia for it working, and Template talk:St. John's landmarks for it not working. Any ideas? - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 01:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
For those wanting to intersect importance and rating (eg. to find all the unassessed top-importance articles in a WikiProject), a trial Category Intersection system is at http://aerik.com/wikintersections.php. Please don't overload it! :-) See Wikipedia talk:Category intersection for details of the person who set that up. Carcharoth 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Does the bot often miss articles? It seemed to miss Elvish languages. I assessed it here at 21:32 on 21 January 2007. The bot updated the list Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tolkien articles by quality/1 with this edit at 22:20 on 22 January 2007, but the article is still listed as unassessed? Anything to worry about? Carcharoth 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
... due to scheduled computer network downtime at my work. The bot should run tomorrow as usual. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that we have finally made it to 250,000 articles assessed! Not bad for about 8 months work. Hats off to all of those hard working people across 300+ projects, as well as to Oleg for his patience and dedication! We should celebrate and publicise this achievement. Walkerma 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The statistics page for the Caribbean WikiProject links "Unassessed" to the empty Category:Unassessed-Class Caribbean articles, but it should link to Category:Unassessed Caribbean articles, which is where the unassessed articles actually are. I've tried changing the link by hand, but mathbot changed it back with the next update. Anyone know how to fix this? Jwillbur 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I created a new bot account, WP 1.0 bot which I am considering using instead of Mathbot to update the WP 1.0 pages. That because updating these pages takes so many edits that Mathbot's supposedly mathematical edits can barely be seen in its contributions.
Nothing should change but the bot name. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WP 1.0 bot on the frequency of bot runs. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
seems a tad slower if that is possible. Quite a bit of slippage from the first days updates! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 13:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with the bot? It is adding articles to the LGBT log as being unassessed, but most of them already are. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the bot is reporting the new name of the page for both the old and new ones, resulting in a bunch of log entries like "X renamed to X"; here, for example. Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read this proposal and leave comments. Thanks, Walkerma 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This project was renamed, and this is now handled by Category:Video game articles by quality. The category is listed to be deleted, but I want to make sure you're all done with it first. What's is the correct way to remove this from assesment? Please respond on my talk page ... -- Prove It (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was afraid of that. So is there any fast way to delete a bunch of subpages at once? -- Prove It (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For at least two days the bot took around or more than 36 hours to run. I think that we arrived at a time when we should run the bot once every two days instead of every day. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The importance rating has cause enough controversy and is not being used to its full potential in the Aircraft project. What would be the easiest way of removing this part from our assessment profile. Can we just delete the related categories and remove the code from the project banner? What will the bot do after this is done? - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The KLF articles by quality log hasn't been updated in some weeks and it looks like we dropped off the Index too. Has something broken or has there been a change in my absence? -- kingboyk 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Can this page be divided up with a {{ CompactTOC}}? It'll make looking through it a bit easier, if people are looking to do so. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a few projects, one Category:Rotorcraft articles by quality two and a half days ago, the others Category:Red Bull Air Race World Series articles by quality and Category:Gliding articles by quality more recently, and their statistics pages have yet to be created by the bot. They are using the same project banner as the aviation project, {{ WPAVIATION}}, in the same way that the Military history project uses the same banner for all its projects. Could someone look over them to see if I missed something that the bot looks for in order to "do its thing". Thanks. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
To help out with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive could the bot tally up the total of assessed articles? I'm trying to encourage folks to focus on how much they've achieved, not the bogus unassessed number (bogus because nearly 40,000 living person articles - and lord knows how many bios about dead people - don't have any {{ WPBiography}} tag). -- kingboyk 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a question about Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Numismatic articles by quality statistics. Pages in this project now have a category class, template, dab, etc. These new classes can be found at Category:WikiProject Numismatics articles. Do you think you can upgrade the bot to identify these classes? Thanks. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that somewhere, 17 articles as FA class when they are not. According to Wikipedia:Featured articles there are 1307, but according to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics there are 1324. Can the bot be programmed to catch this? Or is this just a problem for the project's involved to correct?- Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 00:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
my $Root_category = 'FA-Class_articles';
my @tmp_cats;
my @tmp_articles;
&fetch_articles_cats($Root_category, \@tmp_cats, \@tmp_articles);
my $cat;
my @tmp_cats2;
my %FeaturedArticles;
my $featured_article;
foreach $cat (@tmp_cats) {
print "fetch 2 $cat\n";
&fetch_articles_cats($cat, \@tmp_cats2, \@tmp_articles);
foreach $featured_article ( @tmp_articles) { $FeaturedArticles{$featured_article} =1;}
print "$cat " . (scalar @tmp_articles) . "\n";
}
print "Count: " . (scalar keys %FeaturedArticles) . "\n";
currentstatus
is FA
. So by cross referencing it would be easy to make a list of the exceptional articles.
CMummert ·
talk
02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Somehow, my project has two unassessed categories. I think this happened when a bunch of empty categories were deleted awhile ago. Which one does the bot look at? My banner places unassessed articles in Category:Unassessed University of Oklahoma articles but the statistics table links to Category:Unassessed-Class University of Oklahoma articles. I want to make sure I delete the correct one. Thanks.↔ NMajdan• talk 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
WP 1.0 bot is so slow. Can you increase the speed of the bot. I read recently that many bots could increase their speeds. Don't remember where I read that, but I just think your bot is going too slow. -- Paracit 02:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The bot did its last two runs on the toolserver. I can't say if it was faster because neither run was finished. Either the machine was rebooted or the script died or something. I am moving it back to my department's machines. I'll also think of ways to make the script faster. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Every so often I find myself creating a new set of assessment categories for a WP Biography workgroup. It's a dull and repetitive task, so yesterday I knocked up a script in the shape of an AWB plugin to do the job. It's not a bot, it just asks the user for some config info, creates a category list which it adds to the AWB list, and then fills in the categories with some boilerplate text. User can review the text before save and is always in full control.
The plugin should ship with the next version of AWB, and source code (VB.net) is in the AWB subversion repository. Please try it!
Some examples created with this tool: Category:Biography (baronets) articles by quality, Category:Biography (peerage) articles by quality, Category:Biography (peerage) articles by priority. -- kingboyk 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
More ideas:
-- TimNelson 09:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia now has about 13,000 articles assessed. Is it possible to add an interwiki link to this stats page from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics? I'm hesitating because I know that page is edited daily by the bot. Can we add a noinclude section that the bot will ignore? I hope other languages will take off with bot assessments like the English & French, and if so we will want to have interwiki links. We could also use such a section to add the page to a category. Walkerma 05:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the bot? Many projects haven't had a run since 7 Apr while others have had two runs since then. It's always the projects at the end of the alphabet that lose out.23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Folks here might be interested in what the Maths wikiproject have done with assessment. We have a field parameter which is used to place the article in a sub field, say algebra or geometry. User:CMummert has now written a bot which reads this field and produces field specific lists like Geometry and topology. A similar scheme could be useful for other wiki projects which have very large number of articles. -- Salix alba ( talk) 16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there interest here in VeblenBot's tables? There are examples at User:VeblenBot/Version_0.7/MainTable and subpages. If there is interest in doing something with them here, I'll put in a bot request to update them daily. CMummert · talk 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I was inspired by WP:MATH in its organization by fields. I used the Military history project as the model for WP:PHILO because it permits for more than one field. I am wondering if the bot can interface with this set up to produce information by field as the math project does. The banner produces categories for each field. You can view a test page which has displays all options for the banner. This has resulted in these charts for assessment info by field. Greg Bard 02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. WP:WINE has a bit of a problem at the moment - we like to have the assessment log in some inner HTML on our homepage in order to keep an eye on what other people have been up to recently, but thanks to a stub assessment drive in early March our log is currently running at over 300kb, which is slowing down our home page a little. I appreciate that the logs expire after 3 months, but we can't really wait that long. I've had a bit of a poke round the talk archives here but hadn't found anything to match this problem. I've thought of two options :
I was wondering if it would be OK if I just set up Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Wine_articles_by_quality_log/Archive, manually cut out everything over a month old, set up a link to the archive from the main log and then deleted it in two months time - would that break the bot horribly? Doesn't need any work on your part, and just gets us out of this temporary hole.
A more elegant solution that might be useful on many project portals would be a separate 'shortlog' page, that just had the changes since the last botrun, or the last week or something, plus a link to the main log page. I appreciate this option involves extra coding, but I thought I'd float it.....
Of course there is a third option, to delete the log from our homepage for the next few weeks, but I'd only do that if the 'temporary manual archive' option isn't available. FlagSteward 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I modified the bot code to fetch the latest history version of articles as suggested a while ago by Titoxd and Salix alba (I remember it was both), by doing a query of the form
[3]
which does a bunch of articles at the same time (five in this case). The bot should be faster as a result, but in the last several days since it's been running I have not noticed great improvements. Well, at least it does not get slower. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The bot is taking around three days to do the update nowadays, which is not good. I have a proposal. If we remove the "last updated" tag and the date at the bottom of subpages (see here for an example of what I mean), then the bot won't need to update subpages on which no changes happen except the datestamp. The main indeces for each subject would still get their datestamp (like the index Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Aircraft articles by quality of the above subpage). Would people agree with this? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
on 30 May, the bot didn't make it to the zebras again. Something should be done about the alligators and jackals always getting an update and the sloths and zebras missing out all too often. Rlevse 12:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added the importance scale to a new task force I helped create. But, no articles are being added to the categories. I know this isn't an issue with the bot but I was wondering if anybody else has ran into this issue and what you did to resolve. I was able to resolve one article by simply removing the rating then re-adding it but that is not a solution for hundreds of articles. For instance, Talk:Tulsa Zoo is properly tagged and the correct category ( Category:Mid-importance Tulsa articles) is at the bottom. But if you go to that cat, there is nothing in it. Any ideas?↔ NMajdan• talk 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I stopped the bot because there is something wrong with the query which finds articles in a given category. For example, consider the large Category:Stub-Class mathematics articles. To find the articles in there, one has to do several consecutive queries, each giving 200 articles. The following query
works, but if you replace "Cl" at the end by "Cm", so instead of giving the articles starting from "Cl" on, give the articles starting from "Cm" on,
the query gives an error. I contacted Yurik about this. Any ideas in what is going on? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Query.php is now working correctly on the math-related categories. I don't know what was changed to make it work. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Soon after getting restarted it appears the Bot has come to a grinding halt again - this time just after "Biography (science and academia) articles" . thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 09:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
And again soon (but not as soon) after getting restarted it appears the Bot has come to a grinding halt again - this time just after "Former country articles". thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The bot has broken at least twice in the last 8 days, and it always restarts with "A", so once again the Aardvarks get updates while the Zebras don't. Result: Aardvarks have had two updates while the rest of us have had zero in eight days. Why can't it restart where it left off when it breaks or do one run A-Z and the next Z-A? Rlevse 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
And another occasion (but again not as soon) after getting restarted it appears the Bot has come to a grinding halt at Military historiography articles by quality log. (Nearly at the WP:Novels articles, so near but so far - being selfish of course) :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 09:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a message I left at User talk:Oleg Alexandrov. He told me to raise this issue here. I've also copied his reply here. -- ZeroOne ( talk | @) 11:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you modify the bot from using page names such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality statistics to using Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality/statistics? That would create handy back links to the statistics and log pages too. Currently those pages do not link to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chess articles by quality which is, in my opinion, more essential than linking to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team which is what they do. -- ZeroOne ( talk | @) 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
We have just passed the 1,000,000 articles tagged for assessment. Is this a couse for celebration or for more umph for this Bot??! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 16:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was bound to happen. In spite of a few optimizations and an increased edit rate (one edit per five seconds), now a bot run takes almost three days (and a good chunk of CPU and memory too). I switched the bot to a run every three days. As before, people who need an instant run can use the online tool. Hope that's fine with people. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Few things:
-- Yurik 07:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to maintain a list (with a timestamp) of projects that have not had an update in awhile and not run the bot on those projects? For instance, if the bot hits a project that has not had an update to the log it 3-4 runs, it would add that project to a list with the date it was added. Then, when it ran next time, it would not process that project. When it has been 21 or 30 or however many days since it was added to the list, it would then re-run it on that project and see if there has been an update. If not, back on the list, if so, then it goes back to being apart of the normal process. Of course, if somebody from that project wants the bot ran on their project they can either ask here for it to be removed or run the bot manually themselves with the web form. I just went through the A's and there are six projects with no updates the last three bot runs ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Ideally, this would knock 75-100 projects off the normal bot run which should save some considerable time. Whether or not its enough to knock the bot run back down to 2 days, I doubt it but at least the bot won't be overloaded and it may hopefully reduce errors and crashes. The bot could still take a quick look at previous assessment counts for these skipped projects to get the overall numbers. Thoughts?↔ NMajdan• talk 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
To continue from here, we are having a problem with articles disappearing from categories, and then from the lists maintained by the bot.
Here's the deal. Talk:Gireum Station is obviously in Category:Stub-Class Korea-related articles, yet when one clicks on that category, the article is nowhere to be found. This is very odd, and some kind of Wikipedia server tricks.
The consequence is that the bot massively removes articles, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Korea-related articles by quality log. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe not. I tried to click on the "next 200" link in Category:Stub-Class Korea-related articles and I get the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category:Stub-Class_Korea-related_articles&from=3%2A
and if you click on "next 200" on the new page, the same link shows up, so one gets an infinite loop, never going beyond the first 200 articles. Something may be wrong with {{ WikiProject Korea}} but I can't tell what. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Is it normal that this page says we have 1610 FAs and 2710 GAs, whereas WP:GA says 1547 and 2744? How often is the bot running? I don't remember us ever having that much FAs.-- SidiLemine 11:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Are we sure this Bot process hasn't stiffed again, seems to get so far then stop! Maybe wrong but looks that way. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The bot has only made one full run in the last 12 days, Aug 31. This occurs more and more. Please find a permanent fix. Rlevse 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I modified the bot code a bit so that each time it starts it goes through the list of projects not alphabetically, but rather in the order of oldest first, meaning that the projects that have not been run for longest time will come first. Hopefully this will put to rest the problem of the projects earlier in the list being run more often. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the bot is deleting the index. What's going on? Girolamo Savonarola 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if the bot could add "(redirect)" to the tables it generates when it encounters an article which is a redirect, to help users remove the wikiproject templates from redirect talk pages. -- jacobolus (t) 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Proposal to remove the main biography project from the bot run. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the word "None" in Template:No-Class should be changed to "Unknown". Right now, the label implies that articles in that column of the statistics table have NO importance; in fact, their importance is simply not known.
I realize that if a bot (somehow) uses this label in its data gathering, then the bot code would need to be modified; if so, that seems worth doing, since "Unknown" gives the unwary reader a much better sense of the situation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
|Importance=mid
is not the same as |Importance=Mid
. I've found many errors like that.
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff)
21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The bot doesn't seem to be compiling the data for the Marxism task force. The chart produced by this template: {{philosophy task force assessment|Marxism}} as can be seen among the Philosophy task force assessments. I'm not sure why it would be different from the rest. Pontiff Greg Bard 23:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to request a change be made to the formatting of the statistics generated by the bot, matching this change. This will remove some excessive whitespace after the table when it is transcluded (and remove some redundant bolding). Thanks in advance. -- PEJL 19:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I know it would probably be insanely difficult, but would there be any way to structure the assessments such that for the main articles by quality chart on the page here, the articles contained in a given box could be pointed out. I'm thinking particularly here that it might be useful to be able to click on the box containing stub articles of top importance and seeing exactly which articles are included there. It might make choosing collaboration topics, if nothing else, a lot easier. John Carter 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article Classification to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment as that seems to be the consensus name for such pages, but I was wondering if that will affect the bot. I have updated most links to the name, the only links I haven't updated are the ones in the bot generated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Comics articles by quality page and subpages. I can't work out how the bot generates the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article Classification, so I can't work out what parameter or variable I need to change or where that might be. Any help appreciated. Hiding Talk 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been manually prodding the bot to assess the WP Films task forces, which it's had little trouble doing. However, it seems to stall in the middle of surveying the Stubs (which were 23k at last count), and my browser still shows "Waiting for..." in the status bar, but the tab icon indicates it's given up, and there's no continued building of the page, even after several minutes of waiting for what usually takes ~15 seconds. So is the project size choking the bot? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have some automated process problems again. Novels have not bee updated since the 14th and no major processing appear to be happening at present. Or am I wrong? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 09:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering whether the numbers on the table on this page count an article twice if both its project and its sub-project have v1.0 tables. How does it work in the case of projects like WikiProject British Royalty, which uses the WikiProject Biography template with a parameter set to "yes" that adds it to both projects? -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The other article space class that we need to clean up our reports is Dab, Disamb, or Disambig class. Let's get the article space cleaned up in the reports.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Should the category-making bot be updated to make a category for list-class articles now that they are a regognised part of the project? -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The current total of 701,787 is, I assume, the total number of articles with participating WikiProject tags on them (assessed or not). I know there have been updates on this and similar figures in the Wikipedia Signpost, but can anyone here provide a graph of how the total has varied over time? When is the figure likely to hit 1 million? Is it ever likely to catch up with the total number of articles (currently 1,698,947)? Carcharoth 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Next step is to program the bot to generate and update this graph itself. <ow! stop hitting me with that wet trout, Oleg!> :-) Carcharoth 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That's beautiful. Could you update it every month? Pretty please! -- kingboyk 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is an updated version. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've now also added the total number of articles. What's interesting is that the number of untagged and unassessed articles stays about the same. We've been tagging and assessing at exactly the same rate that new articles are created. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Copied over from Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#NEW_FL_debate, this post by User:TonyTheTiger: I would like to start a discussion about how the quality logs handle article space only. I think we could probably all agree that the quality logs would be improved by adding t(w)o more classes (FL-class and List-class) to handle articlespace contributions. This conversation would avoid all the likely pitfalls of numerous arguments about how to handle all the other spaces. Please contribute to a discussion which will hopefully lead to something being done. Can we agree to simply add these two classes to the reports?
I would like to get article space cleaned up. I will start two separate debates. We should add FL class. I think people have been doing patch jobs with FL=FA commands. Let's just do it right. Thanks for adding list class.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, we've just passed one million assessed articles. :-) Kirill 12:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I just started a WikiProject (I think), at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deftones, and am in the process of tagging the articles (I think). If someone could have a look at Deftones for instance, and tell me if I'm on the right track, I'd greatly appreciate all the help I can get! I just made the jump from editing sporadically to trying to do something more substantial, so I'm learning by doing and could do with some hand-holding. Thanks in advance, Seegoon ( talk) 05:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the time has come again. :) The bot takes a lot to do its runs, I think even more than four days. Three days is not enough any longer, and the way things are now there are often two instances of the bot at any time stepping on each other's feet which slows things down. So, I propose to run the bot every four days instead. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That'd be fine if the bot ran fully every four days. Right now the Zebras haven't had a bot run in TWELVE days (since Jan 2). — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Each time there is an issue or the bot gets overloaded, such things happen. Sorry. One proposal which I also raised earlier is to not have the very large biography articles project, which is largely duplicated by the smaller biography projects (which are still very large by themselves).
I now started a new version of the bot. Hopefully it will get to the zebra soon. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley in November and ran the tool. I recall, I believe, that the table was updated immediately. However, I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Tool, ran the tool and nothing. Have I done something wrong? Lara ❤ Love 17:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just curious - what's the main source of delay in the bot, that makes it run so slowly? Is it the editing rate, or the download rate, or something else? It seems remarkable to me that it requires three days to complete - how many edits per run does it make? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The stats for Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in Ireland seem a little off and the bot appears to be ignoring anything higher than Start class - see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Unionism in Ireland articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Unionism in Ireland articles by quality. Could someone with the technical know how take a look and see if the project assessment is set up correctly? Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
would it be difficult to add a simple "number of articles" column to the table in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index? It would be really interesting to see the breakdown of the different wikiprojects.. then you could easily tell the 'big' projects from the 'small' projects. thanks! 131.111.8.97 ( talk) 13:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the bot doesn't get as far as the update to this table, doesn't mean that the time period should be adjusted to reflect the bot "failures". I as much should be reflecting the run frequency and the update intention. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
One intermediate solution would be to not count or list the stub and unassessed biography articles (for the main project). Those are mostly assessed automatically anyway, and there is no big need I would argue to know those numbers. That would speed up the bot very much. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the talks of adding additional classifications to the bot have been ongoing for some time with no consensus, I have a question regarding the behavior of the bot that could be a temporary solution. Does the bot go through articles located in a sub-category of a particular classification? For example, if Category:FL-Class medicine articles was a sub-category of Category:List-Class medicine articles, would the bot consider the articles in Category:FL-Class medicine articles as List-Class? If it did, then projects using the FL-Class assessment could at least get the proper statistics with List-Class and FL-Class merged, and still keep separate categories for featured and non-featured lists. What is the current behavior of the bot? If it does not consider sub-categories, could this feature be added? Only one sub-level of categories would need to be processed, so complicated scripting checking for loops would not even be necessary. -- Scott Alter 08:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am a member of WP:Elements and I would like to know if it is possible to get a box like this one for the project. Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Assessment_graph. I also support this proposal. Walkerma ( talk) 03:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there some way to have the list row line up above the assessed row? Because, as it is, there's assessed, list, total. It looks weird. Lara ❤ Love 04:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a step-by-step guide to how to add "FL" class to a WikiProject's assessment scheme? Off-hand, I think the things that would need to be changed are:
I think that's it. Can someone confirm that the bot will automatically pick up such changes and change the pages it updates? I can do (b)-(d) OK. Could someone help out or write a guide for how to do (a)? I would like to implement this for some projects, especially as my recent attempts to use subcategories of Category:FA-Class articles to see how many featured articles some projects have, has been hampered by the featured lists being mixed up with the featured articles. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Today I logged in to the server running the bot, to discover four instances of the bot running, with the older being 12 days. Here's the deal, the bot does not scale to the entire biography project. I suspect from past experience that as the bot keeps on getting pagefuls of a given category, if that category is huge and gets updated as the bot reads it, the bot may get confused and get into an infinite loop or something. Then we can't get the global stats either.
I propose we remove the biography project from the assessment, or at least, the Stub-Class biography articles, which are a third of a million and which are assessed semi-automatically anyway I think (that an article is a stub does not provide any real assessment value).
Note: the effect of this won't be that large. Very many biography articles are covered within subprojects. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose to include the date of when the information in the stat boxes (such as this one) was last updated. The date is already included in the edit summary, but not in the actual box. At this point I am simply looking for feedback regarding whether this is a good idea or not. Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been working to update a few parts of the WP 1.0 bot code to speed things up. The goal is to get the bot to finish a complete run in two days, rather than four or five. There should be no visible change in the bot's output; the changes are all to the underlying code to access the article data. So there is no new functionality, just faster processing.
The good news is that the new code is ready for heavy testing. I have already been testing it on individual projects by hand, but at some point I need to simply turn it on and let it go. I'm planning to do that sometime in the next few days. The cgi script that allows you to rate one project at a time will still be using the older code.
The new code puts "(test code)" at the end of the edit summary. If you notice any strange behavior in an edit marked that way, please let me know. If all goes well, the new code will replace the old code in a couple weeks. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I ran the new code a second time; this run took 49 hours. I did fix the issue with database locks - the DB locked 3 times during the test run, but the script just waits them out. So unless anyone has errors to report, I'm ready to set the new code to automatic.
We could hypothetically run the full assessment 3 times per week, but it would be tight. Conservatively, it takes 2.5 days to complete each run. I think 2 full runs per week should be enough, since individual projects can always run it by hand. I was thinking of running the full assessment Sunday and Wednesday. Does that sound reasonable? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I set up the crontab to run it Sunday and Wednesday. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I redid the Wikiproject Ohio template to include importance. It works fine as far as I can tell. The problem is that the chart that lists the number of articles by importance and class will not update to show importance even after running the bot manually. It just says "No importance" for all of them. Could someone please take a look at it? Thanks. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 00:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Totally looked that over. Thanks so much for your help! §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an issue with Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index showing up as a blank page (with 0 bytes of content). This is because the source for that page is too large. Hopefully the bot will be fixed soon to split the data over several pages. The bot is just about to finish a full run, so even though the index is not visible, the individual projects should be correct. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chicago articles by quality log, and Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/WikiProject Illinois_articles_by_quality_log had not been updated for ten days until PeterSymonds ran the bot automatically today. However, although I can see the tables have updated, these pages did not.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to know what projects the bot is currently or planning to work on? I've tried to get Albums updated (haven't been since the 22nd) but the bot seems to stop working once it gets to the Gs in the 29k stub category. It's still has the fun 33k unaccessed category, so I wonder if it's just been queued or it that just too much to ask for? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The tool that allows people to run WP 1.0 bot on demand from the web-based interface does not work for the moment. The system administrator on the network it was running on told me it takes too many server resources. I am now looking for a new home for it. In the meantime, the only way to run the bot is through the regular scheduled run. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I went on the link and typed in Devon. It appeared to be doing something and at the end said "Done with Category:Devon articles by quality!", but nothing appeared to have happened on Wikipedia regarding Devon. I also tried with Foobar and same as above happened. Meaty♠Weenies ( talk) 00:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
How does a given wikiproject start assessing its articles and getting indexed? I've looked around and can't find any instructions. -- Padraic 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases by putting a quality assessment box on their main project page. We aren't very good at working with the 1.0 bot. 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've been trying to get the bot to run for the newly created Category:Lost articles by quality but it keeps giving me the same error over and over again:
I don't know if it's a problem with the bot or if I did something wrong (most likely the latter) but if anyone could help it would be appreciated. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm having the same error that occured before. Mine concerns Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Cod. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to generate a sporadically-updated list of all of the 1.0 groups by some basic statistics like total number of tagged articles, number of unassessed articles, and the like? It would be useful so that we can see which projects clearly have assessment issues, as well as projects which may have a small enough scope to be more useful as task forces of other projects, or - in the case of blatant inactivity - be brought to MfD. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 03:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(moved from User_talk:Mathbot) I see Mathbot compiles the tables of article status at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics.
Right now it links to articles according to either quality or importance. Could it be modified to link to a specific quality and importance? For example, if I'm interested in improved stubs of high importance, I can either click on High (35 of 366 are of stub-class) or on stubs (35 of 3787 are high importance). Or if I want to assess the quality of low-importance articles, I'd have to go through at best 488 low-importance article rather than 14.
I can explain more if that was not clear. Thank you. Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 07:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I previously suggested to make every sub-section a linked entry so it would be easier to target articles of a specific importance/quality rating, and I'm suggesting it again. I'm currently working on the
WikiProject Physics' Projects of the Week, and I've manually reviewed over 2,000 articles in the last week. I've reviewed all articles with an importance rating (and I'm now reviewing all articles according to quality rating. The problem is that I've already rated every article with an importance rating, so now I'm stuck re-reviewing a bunch of articles I've already rated/assessed.
I suggest implementing this feature for two reasons:
Oleg, CBM, there appears to be enough support for C-Class to warrant introducing this new level into the assessment scheme. This represents the first change to the quality levels since GA-Class was added to the manual scheme in late 2005. Can one of you add the new level into the code for WP1.0 bot?
Having read a LOT of people's ideas and thoughts lately, I'd like us to consider what other features might be added to the bot - or should we simply let others write scripts and bots to achieve the same thing. Should I raise such ideas here? Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine is beginning to create task forces, and we would like to have separate assessments for the task force articles. Our first task force is Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force, with articles to be in Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality. Our assessment template is all set up for task forces - we just haven't started tagging pages yet, and are intentionally holding off for a few days (so please do not tag any pages yet).
In the mean time, I am trying to set up the bot, but ran into a problem. While trying to manually run the bot, I received the following error message, and the bot subsequently got stuck in a loop:
Fetching Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine.
Retrieving http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject%20Reproductive%20medicine&action=edit&oldid=section= Sleep 1
Error message is: Could not get_text for Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine! at /home/oleg/public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules/bin/perlwikipedia_utils.pl line 93 eval {...} called at /home/oleg/public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules/bin/perlwikipedia_utils.pl line 82 main::wikipedia_fetch('Perlwikipedia=HASH(0x86d36ec)', 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine.wiki', 200, 1) called at wp10_routines.pl line 1350 main::get_wikiproject('Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality') called at wp10_routines.pl line 290 main::update_index('ARRAY(0x86d37c4)', 'HASH(0x86d392c)', 'HASH(0x86d3914)', 'HASH(0x86d38fc)', 'HASH(0x86d389c)') called at wp10_routines.pl line 145 main::main_wp10_routine('Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality') called at /home/oleg/public_html/wp/wp10/run_wp10.cgi line 53 Fetching Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine. Attempt: 2.
It seems as though the bot is trying to find "Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine", which does not exist. Is there a way to tell the bot that this is a task force, and not a project? I see that in the index, the wikiproject link for task forces accurately points to the task force page, but I am unsure where to set this. Thanks. -- Scott Alter 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
WPAssessmentCatCreator is a AWB-plugin that can help create the assessment categories required for the WP1.0. In addition to the basic cats, it helps create the non-standard classes such as Template, Category, Redirect etc. I had picked up Kingboyk's version and modified it a bit. There is a generate categories page that does something similar, but it is restricted to administrators. Please let me know your comments and suggestions. Thanks, Ganeshk ( talk) 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Oleg/CBM, I would like the bot to wikilink the numbers on the stats table with their respective intersection category. See Category:Tamil Nadu articles by quality and importance. This will not add any additional processing time to the bot. It will add the link if the category exists, otherwise it will leave it as a plain-number. This feature would really help in providing easy access to these categories. Can you please add this to the bot? Thanks, Ganeshk ( talk) 07:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes yes yes yes yes! As I've said before, we need this, as this allows people to target specific class of articles of specific quality.
BTW Ganeshk, could you head over to {{ physics}} to make sure that the code you've proposed for the physics banner (I've modified it a bit) is sound? Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Chennai articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
GA | 2 | 4 | 2 | 8 | |||
B | 6 | 9 | 14 | 4 | 2 | 35 | |
C | 6 | 29 | 39 | 57 | 2 | 133 | |
Start | 14 | 63 | 151 | 409 | 20 | 657 | |
Stub | 8 | 32 | 101 | 447 | 24 | 612 | |
List | 1 | 11 | 5 | 3 | 20 | ||
Category | 1 | 170 | 171 | ||||
Disambig | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
File | 3 | 3 | |||||
Project | 1 | 5 | 6 | ||||
Redirect | 2 | 4 | 9 | 35 | 12 | 62 | |
Template | 22 | 22 | |||||
Other | 1 | 1 | |||||
Assessed | 39 | 152 | 322 | 957 | 214 | 48 | 1,732 |
Unassessed | 8 | 8 | |||||
Total | 39 | 152 | 322 | 957 | 214 | 56 | 1,740 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 7,610 | Ω = 5.27 |
This table is now up to date again.
It is updated by a tool on the toolserver; it will not work if the toolserver is
having problems.
If
this chart is showing much more than zero,
then the table will be updated slowly or not at all.
That's IMO, the perfect version of the table. Especially if it could be made to handle DAB, Cat, Temp and NA class, as well as NA importance ratings.
Headbomb {
ταλκ –
WP Physics:
PotW}
19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was setting up the assessment mechanisms this morning for the Catullus WikiProject, and I noticed that the new C-Class assessments are not being counted by the MathBot. They turn up as "Unassessed" instead. It's possible that I made a mistake in setting up the template, but if not, could this be fixed, please? Thanks, all! :) Willow ( talk) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The missing rows are a feature, not a bug! ;) No, the problem was that, on its initial pass, the bot ranked a "C-Class" article as "Unassessed" and included it as such in the table. It got the Importance correct, but not the Class. The problem seems to have fixed itself, however, since I just tried it again and it worked — yeay bot!
Oh, but there was one small glitch in the colors. In Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catullus articles by quality, both the B- and C-class tags are shown in yellow; shouldn't B-Class articles now be more yellow-green? Anyway, thank you all for your help, :) Willow ( talk) 11:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've tried for Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements to create the C-, List-, FL-, template-class pages but they are empty. This bot also sees them as unassessed. Anybody knowns why? Nergaal ( talk) 13:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Unassessed (quality) articles are handled by the bot. Could it be possible to handle the unrated (importance) as well? Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this edit supposed to be an improvement, and if so, how? Or has the bot simply lost its brain? -- Hoary ( talk) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to check - is everything now OK with the bot for C-Class? I know there were caching and colour issues, but from what I can tell, everything is now OK with the bot. Can we announce it being "official" on Friday? Walkerma ( talk) 03:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
C-Class works fine for Wikiproject Physics as far as the bot is concerned. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Right now the classes supported are: FA, FL, GA, A, B, C, Start, Stub, List, Template, Disambig, Category, NA
However, if one wants to tag an article such as List of mesons as a "List-Class" article, then one loses all information about the quality of the list. You can all think of an example I'm sure. For this reason I propose the creation of a new parameter, which is the type of "article" this way, you could follow the quality of a type of article. I propose this way of categorizing stuff:
Type | Quality | Importance |
---|---|---|
Article | Featured | Top |
List | A | High |
Portal | Good | Mid |
Project | B | Low |
Category | C | |
Template | Start | |
Disambig | Stub | |
Image | ||
Needed | ||
NA | NA | NA |
??? | ??? | ??? |
The basic assessment table could look like this:
|
|
|
While the "full" assessment table could look like this (probably that only the V.1.0 Editorial Team would use this one), but individual WikiProjects would probably sometimes use more than Articles and Lists (templates and categories I would guess, and maybe NA)
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
New type |
Not only would it allow to gauge the quality of lists and put people more comfortable with tagging an article as a "list" (which is IMO the most important reasons behind this), but it could also interesting stuff such as a bot handling of Featured Portals, help struggling WikiProjects to notice what the "higher rated" WikiProjects do, perhaps even create Featured WikiProjects, help to identify high quality-templates and draw attention to the poorer ones so they can be improved/merged, perhaps even create featured templates, etc...
What say you? Is I insane or is I unto something? Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I took the initiative of a building a generic WikiProject Banner (located at {{ WkP X}}) containing these "type" of articles etc... I also created the X-type template (altought colors could be better). (See User talk:Headbomb/Test Article for examples).
Is something wrong with the bot? If you look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film awards articles by quality log, the two most recent "removed" articles were actually promoted to FL-Class. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Template:OttawaProject and Template:WikiProject Toronto don't seem to work - any ideas? -- Padraic 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
If I want the bot to run here, should I request it here? -- iMatthew T. C. 11:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
How to add C-class stats to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Poland-related articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Polish military history articles by quality statistics? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Could it be possible to add them? It's not critical, but it's ugly. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I was replying to this, and I just noticed in the bot's contributions page that it keeps stopping and starting. Have they been doing work on the Kiwix server or something? I'm sure the bot is supposed to be "awake" more than this - does anyone know what is causing this problem? Walkerma ( talk) 14:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
See here and here. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 05:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The bot does not seem to pick up the assessment of those articles within WP:WINE that were reassessed as C-class; they end up in the unassessed category. Category:C-Class Wine articles exists, and after reading the question from WikiProject Poland above, I added C-class to Template:WikiProject Wine. However, a manual rerun of the bot after the template was updated didn't change anything. Where have I gone wrong? Tomas e ( talk) 11:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The category itself only shows 50 pages, not 60. The most likely culprit here is not the bot, it's the m:job queue. It can take a long time for changes to a template to be reflected in all the articles that use the template. One option is to do a null edit on each of the remaining 10 talk pages. Once you're sure all the pages are in the appropriate category, run the bot one time, and it will pick up the changes. But the bot has no way to know about changes pending in the job queue. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
When the C-class was added, it looked to me that the colour of the B-class in the assessment tables (those we usually have on project pages) was changed from yellow to yellowish green, with C inheriting the yellow colour. However, it seems that in the assessment lists, B-class is still yellow, i.e., B and C have the same colour. An example can be seen here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wine articles by quality/1, but it looked the same in all other places I checked. I guess the coding for these colours is in the bot, because I don't see them in the templates. It'd be good to have the same colour in both places. Tomas e ( talk) 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The "Unassessed" counts reported by the bot in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Russia articles by quality statistics are consistently off; the number shown in Category:Unassessed Russia articles is always ~100 more. I observed this oddity for the past several updates in hopes that the discrepancy was caused by some lag and would eventually go away, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Counts of other categories all seem to be accurate, only "Unassessed" are misbehaving. Could someone take a look into this, please? Thanks!— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 19:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Fictional series ceased to exist a long time ago. It and its bot generated assessment pages can be removed. - LA ( T) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, all. As we know, the Version 1.0 Index stores assessments for over 1.7 million articles. Originally, the bot was designed to process about 10,000 articles; we never actually thought that 70% of Wikipedia was going to be covered under some sort of assessment. That has slowly caused the bot to take longer to run, as bot runs that used to last about four hours now take about four days. To make the bot more efficient, changes to the way the bot framework operates are being discussed, and simultaneously, we are discussing which features it might be worthwhile to add as we are recoding everything. We really would like to have your participation at User:WP 1.0 bot/Second generation and its talk page as we do this. Thanks, Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Instead of the logs being truncated when the page size becomes too big, would it be possible to archive older changes? – Pee Jay 12:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello... is there a way the bot can use the {{formatnum:}} magic word with the displayed numbers so that they are easier to read ? 82.248.254.92 ( talk) 16:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC).
See WP:VPT#Pages showing up in CAT:CSD that shouldn't be there. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
After vainly attempting to create an assessment template by myself for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities I now recognize that I am failing miserably. The template I tried to create is at Template:WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities. Please, someone throw me a rope before I sink too much deeper into the quicksand! HELP! -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have a feature request. We're currently in the process of working out how to implement good topics, and we are planning to try and automate topics moving between good and featured status (as the only difference between the two will be that featured topics will require 25% of the articles/lists that make them up to be featured). We have worked out using categories how to automate the moving process, but we still want to be able to see any moving between the two that occurs. Hence, we what a daily log of status changes, a la the sort that the WP 1.0 bot provides. Any featured topics will appear in Category:Wikipedia featured topics and Category:Wikipedia fully featured topics. Any good topics will appear in Category:Wikipedia good topics. So all the bot would need to do is monitor and report any moving between the three categories. This would require the creation of new functionality for the bot, but I suspect this shouldn't be a huge change, as it is extremely similar to the type of task the bot performs at the moment.
Additionally, it might be useful if the bot could monitor any changes in status to articles found in Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles and its subcategories, or any outright additions of articles/lists to these categories. This way, we can ensure that no-one does something with an article which they shouldn't, such as add an article to a topic without nominating it first, or if an article is demoted below GA and no-one at WP:FT is told. This is essentially the services the bot already provides.
I hope that makes sense, if not I suggest you have a look at the good topics plan I linked above. We're probably hoping to have good topics set up in the next week or two, and I hope that you will be willing to help us in doing this - such help would be much appreciated - rst20xx ( talk) 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Both of these templates and their categories have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 8#Future-Class and Current-Class. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Will someone help me figure out why all the C-Class articles are being categorized as unassessed for the Texas Tech University WikiProject? → Wordbuilder ( talk) 19:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Wondering if it is possible to be able to modify the reporting table so that one can select articles of a given quality and importance. For example, the table allows prioritisation of activity, but it would be nice to be able to pick on high importance start articles to work on, rather than click all the starts looking manually for importance. This re WP:ARTHA. Heds ( talk) 04:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wiki Project Libertarianism, a fairly new project, would like to join the assessment scheme. WE have tagged multiple articles and have most of our framework in place. We would like the bot to start looking at our articles and populating our template for us. Our articles are in Category:WikiProject Libertarianism articles and broken up by quality and importance. What do we need to do next? Charles Edward 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject was merged to a task force of WikiProject Video games, and so it would be a good idea to remove it from the listing of projects. Can someone do that? -- Izno ( talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone done any work on listing all wikiprojects by relative size (in terms number of articles in scope)? The question came up on the refdesk -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I ask because this page hasn't been updated in almost 2 weeks. Thanks! - Drilnoth ( talk) 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
-removed indent-Oh, thanks. Sorry I'd missed it before. - Drilnoth ( talk) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)