/Archive1: January to April 2007
/Archive2: October 2007 to August 2008
For some reason, all articles under WP:F1 scope shown here have "Unused" importance, despite the fact that the importance is shown clearly in the actual template on the talkpage, see here and here for instance. Dunno why that problem is occuring. Also, it says that it was last updated at "Sunday, 14 September 2008, 04:25 UTC." - that is wrong as 1995 Japanese Grand Prix has been a featured article for several weeks, yet it shows up at the link as a good article. D.M.N. ( talk) 16:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to hide these edits from my watchlist but the hide bot option isn't working - have they not been tagged correctly?-- Matilda talk 23:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Orienteering is assessed Top class within WikiProject Orienteering, but in the SelectionBot listing it appears as Unassessed. Is that normal behavior for this bot? -- Una Smith ( talk) 02:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It is my guess that Nevada will not meet the requirements set out here to be released, but I don't see this article on the list of non-selected articles either! Just a curious question, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 04:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Could the word "holiday season" be replaced by a more specific and region-neutral time frame? "Holiday season" as in the western hemisphere is not the same across the world. Thank you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the faux paux. Several people edited the announcement, but we all failed to notice this issue. I think Qwfp is right that it's too late now, but I'll remember this in the future. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
According to an automated message — Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for The Who — you've asked for help in reviewing articles related to The Who. Please note that WP:THEWHO is inactive and has been for at least a year; it is marked as such using {{ inactive}}. Perhaps the bot should be improved so that inactive projects are better detected. 67.100.125.156 ( talk) 08:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC).
Should importance not be replaced by priority? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the BOT, or whatever is calculating the scores, is not registering Top importance category, e.g. on Lepidoptera— GRM ( talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been reviewing the long version of the list for the Bristol WikiProject, it doesn't appear to contain any of the articles tagged by the project during August. Is this intentional? Fortuantly, they would not have met the inclusion criteria anyway, but it may be a problem in the future.
NullofWest ( talk) 18:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
At the time of the last database dump only 26 articles in the Melbourne project had been assessed as Top or High importance. In the last two months I have assessed the importance of all 2546 Melbourne articles which now has 193 articles rated as Top or High importance. Is there some way that a "bot boffin" can update the Melbourne articles to reflect the new assessments? - Cuddy Wifter ( talk) 01:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi! While taking a look at WPTC's selected articles, I noticed some weird behavior with the fomulas being used for importance scoring. From Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot:
Importance score = Assessed_importance_points + External_interest_points.
Importance_score = External_interest_points * (4/3).
The problem is, it's possible for a project to un-assess an article and raise the importance scoore. It's also possible for this to affect whether or not the article gets selected. For example, take Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, with scores taken from http://toolserver.org/~cbm/release-data/2008-9-13/HTML/Tropical_cyclone.0.html . It scored 1229.
Its importance score was 829, composed of 200 from the "Mid" importance rating and 629 from external interest.
If the project were to un-assess the article, it would instead score 629*4/3 = 839 total importance points, raising its score by ten points. (While this wouldn't affect selection in this case, I think the example illustrates that it's certainly plausible.)
This doesn't seem like desired behavior. Perhaps for an assessed article, take the maximum of the two scores? — AySz88 \ ^-^ 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, this is probably apparent now, but to be clear about the bad behavior:
The main worry seems to arise if you have fair-quality Mid articles, the bolded line above (for example, 700 external interest + 200 Mid importance + 300 B-class = 1200, almost at the threshold). — AySz88 \ ^-^ 01:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this assessment is giving sane results for a lot of projects. Why didn't you just ask the projects, then weed out ones that were problematic? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to alert you to the possibility of bugs in the SelectionBot? First, as I wrote back in June, whole WikiProjects seem to be missing from the Release Version, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics. Second, some articles are missing, such as the Featured List, List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. Third, I noticed that the evaluation data are sometimes out of date, e.g., Newton's theorem of revolving orbits which has been a Good Article for almost a month but which is listed as a Start class on the most recent SelectionBot evaluation [1]. It hasn't been a Start-class article since July. Thanks for looking into these, and good luck with the publication! :) Willow ( talk) 16:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Select the Pier Gerlofs Donia article. It is of great importance to both the piracy project, Frisian project and Netherlands project. It has been rated of Top importance and B-class quality. Thanks in advanche,
Jouke Bersma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 ( talk) 07:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have run a new version of the selection data, which is available for preview here. I will double-check it tomorrow when my eyes are fresh, but I wanted to give others a chance to look over it as well. The following issues should be fixed:
I am also checking to verify that all articles previously selected are still selected. There will be a handful (under 20) that the fix to #2 causes to no longer be selected, but I will handle those with the nominations page myself.
Once I double-check the data, I will overwrite the old selection data so that links will still work correctly (having two copies that differ slightly would be a continuing source of confusion). — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've updated this to add the Palaeontology project. The current plan is:
— Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: I have uploaded two tables:
— Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the college football wikiproject has several Featured Articles. I am surprised to see that it looks like only one was selected. For instance, could you please help me understand why 2005 Texas Longhorn football team was not chosen? thanks very much, Johntex\ talk 17:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Are lists like this one ever updated? I'm asking because after this list was published, I made many changes in article assessment (especially importance) and having an update with those changes included would make room for more changes (if needed). -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions:
According to this, not only was Pacific typhoon selected when it clearly had issues (i.e. a tag), but I found fundamental flaws in the bot assessment itself, that have spread across all articles. Using this as an example:
I took a couple of hours off just to clear some of the backlog and then I've found this - I think I have a reason to be ticked off. What can be done to fix this mess? Or was this the way it's supposed to be assessed and is this what needs to be fixed? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
May I request that the following articles be removed: Bender (Futurama), Philip J. Fry, and Doctor Zoidberg? They're B-Class (though they look C-Class to me), and I don't think they'll be fixed to the deadline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I became uber interested in how scores were attained by the SelectionBot tonight and came up with this little study of example data for overall scores. Interesting how Project Scope doesn't account for much and everything else is 20% +/-5. Lwoodyiii ( talk) 22:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
We lowered our priorities and quality ratings over at WP:FURRY after the last run, as well as removing a bunch of articles. It would be interesting to know how we're doing now, and in the future. Is there any plan to run this bot regularly, or to allow for the use of custom runs that (say) use the API rather than database dumps to get information for a particular project? GreenReaper ( talk) 19:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No comma needed between "October" and "2010".
Rich
Farmbrough,
08:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
Selectionbot just popped into the Ontario Roads wikiproject, except it still thinks that its the Golden Horseshoe WikiProject. Not sure what to do here; figured this is the best place to let somebody know. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (Redirected from User talk:SelectionBot) JJB 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post these questions - should it be at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Help finding removed? Thanks for reading. -- trevj ( talk) 15:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to offer an alternative interpretation of what an article selection score means, it's also plausable to say the score is a function of three key factors - importance, quality and popularity. I also would suggest that's a more descriptive and useful way to say what basic criteria are used to select articles. None of the calculations change, they're just grouped differently in the presentation. Here are the basics.
Overall article score = Importance_score + Quality score + Popularity score.
Importance score = Base_importance_points.
Quality score = Quality_rating_points.
Popularity score = WikiProject_scope_points + External_interest_points.
The WikiProject scope points are based on the External interest points. Another name for external interest is popularity. Hence, the Popularity score fully encompasses the notion of External interest.
I see two key advantages to this presentation style of the article selection score. First, the Importance score is returned to its original meaning on Wikipedia. It's a simple numeric representation of the Top-, High-, Mid- or Low-Importance ratings. Second, the Popularity score is an intutively purer factor related to the set of External interest measures added to the established WikiProject assessment factors of importance and quality.
A handy bonus for WikiProjects is this Popularity factor can be added to Importance and Quality ratings of articles without any additional manual work, because the calculations are totally automated. So, some time down the road, the concept of popularity can be more fully folded into the overall WikiProject efforts to offer important, high-quality articles that are of interest to contemporary readers. -- RichardF ( talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Many articles seem to lack external interest data, such as in this list of unassesed athletics articles. Why is that? -- Klättermusen ( talk) 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Gabriel ramirez 2806:2F0:9180:FD32:541:A57E:5F6:F3F2 ( talk) 12:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
/Archive1: January to April 2007
/Archive2: October 2007 to August 2008
For some reason, all articles under WP:F1 scope shown here have "Unused" importance, despite the fact that the importance is shown clearly in the actual template on the talkpage, see here and here for instance. Dunno why that problem is occuring. Also, it says that it was last updated at "Sunday, 14 September 2008, 04:25 UTC." - that is wrong as 1995 Japanese Grand Prix has been a featured article for several weeks, yet it shows up at the link as a good article. D.M.N. ( talk) 16:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to hide these edits from my watchlist but the hide bot option isn't working - have they not been tagged correctly?-- Matilda talk 23:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Orienteering is assessed Top class within WikiProject Orienteering, but in the SelectionBot listing it appears as Unassessed. Is that normal behavior for this bot? -- Una Smith ( talk) 02:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It is my guess that Nevada will not meet the requirements set out here to be released, but I don't see this article on the list of non-selected articles either! Just a curious question, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 04:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Could the word "holiday season" be replaced by a more specific and region-neutral time frame? "Holiday season" as in the western hemisphere is not the same across the world. Thank you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the faux paux. Several people edited the announcement, but we all failed to notice this issue. I think Qwfp is right that it's too late now, but I'll remember this in the future. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
According to an automated message — Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for The Who — you've asked for help in reviewing articles related to The Who. Please note that WP:THEWHO is inactive and has been for at least a year; it is marked as such using {{ inactive}}. Perhaps the bot should be improved so that inactive projects are better detected. 67.100.125.156 ( talk) 08:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC).
Should importance not be replaced by priority? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the BOT, or whatever is calculating the scores, is not registering Top importance category, e.g. on Lepidoptera— GRM ( talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been reviewing the long version of the list for the Bristol WikiProject, it doesn't appear to contain any of the articles tagged by the project during August. Is this intentional? Fortuantly, they would not have met the inclusion criteria anyway, but it may be a problem in the future.
NullofWest ( talk) 18:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
At the time of the last database dump only 26 articles in the Melbourne project had been assessed as Top or High importance. In the last two months I have assessed the importance of all 2546 Melbourne articles which now has 193 articles rated as Top or High importance. Is there some way that a "bot boffin" can update the Melbourne articles to reflect the new assessments? - Cuddy Wifter ( talk) 01:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi! While taking a look at WPTC's selected articles, I noticed some weird behavior with the fomulas being used for importance scoring. From Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot:
Importance score = Assessed_importance_points + External_interest_points.
Importance_score = External_interest_points * (4/3).
The problem is, it's possible for a project to un-assess an article and raise the importance scoore. It's also possible for this to affect whether or not the article gets selected. For example, take Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, with scores taken from http://toolserver.org/~cbm/release-data/2008-9-13/HTML/Tropical_cyclone.0.html . It scored 1229.
Its importance score was 829, composed of 200 from the "Mid" importance rating and 629 from external interest.
If the project were to un-assess the article, it would instead score 629*4/3 = 839 total importance points, raising its score by ten points. (While this wouldn't affect selection in this case, I think the example illustrates that it's certainly plausible.)
This doesn't seem like desired behavior. Perhaps for an assessed article, take the maximum of the two scores? — AySz88 \ ^-^ 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, this is probably apparent now, but to be clear about the bad behavior:
The main worry seems to arise if you have fair-quality Mid articles, the bolded line above (for example, 700 external interest + 200 Mid importance + 300 B-class = 1200, almost at the threshold). — AySz88 \ ^-^ 01:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this assessment is giving sane results for a lot of projects. Why didn't you just ask the projects, then weed out ones that were problematic? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to alert you to the possibility of bugs in the SelectionBot? First, as I wrote back in June, whole WikiProjects seem to be missing from the Release Version, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics. Second, some articles are missing, such as the Featured List, List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. Third, I noticed that the evaluation data are sometimes out of date, e.g., Newton's theorem of revolving orbits which has been a Good Article for almost a month but which is listed as a Start class on the most recent SelectionBot evaluation [1]. It hasn't been a Start-class article since July. Thanks for looking into these, and good luck with the publication! :) Willow ( talk) 16:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Select the Pier Gerlofs Donia article. It is of great importance to both the piracy project, Frisian project and Netherlands project. It has been rated of Top importance and B-class quality. Thanks in advanche,
Jouke Bersma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 ( talk) 07:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have run a new version of the selection data, which is available for preview here. I will double-check it tomorrow when my eyes are fresh, but I wanted to give others a chance to look over it as well. The following issues should be fixed:
I am also checking to verify that all articles previously selected are still selected. There will be a handful (under 20) that the fix to #2 causes to no longer be selected, but I will handle those with the nominations page myself.
Once I double-check the data, I will overwrite the old selection data so that links will still work correctly (having two copies that differ slightly would be a continuing source of confusion). — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've updated this to add the Palaeontology project. The current plan is:
— Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: I have uploaded two tables:
— Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the college football wikiproject has several Featured Articles. I am surprised to see that it looks like only one was selected. For instance, could you please help me understand why 2005 Texas Longhorn football team was not chosen? thanks very much, Johntex\ talk 17:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Are lists like this one ever updated? I'm asking because after this list was published, I made many changes in article assessment (especially importance) and having an update with those changes included would make room for more changes (if needed). -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions:
According to this, not only was Pacific typhoon selected when it clearly had issues (i.e. a tag), but I found fundamental flaws in the bot assessment itself, that have spread across all articles. Using this as an example:
I took a couple of hours off just to clear some of the backlog and then I've found this - I think I have a reason to be ticked off. What can be done to fix this mess? Or was this the way it's supposed to be assessed and is this what needs to be fixed? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
May I request that the following articles be removed: Bender (Futurama), Philip J. Fry, and Doctor Zoidberg? They're B-Class (though they look C-Class to me), and I don't think they'll be fixed to the deadline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I became uber interested in how scores were attained by the SelectionBot tonight and came up with this little study of example data for overall scores. Interesting how Project Scope doesn't account for much and everything else is 20% +/-5. Lwoodyiii ( talk) 22:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
We lowered our priorities and quality ratings over at WP:FURRY after the last run, as well as removing a bunch of articles. It would be interesting to know how we're doing now, and in the future. Is there any plan to run this bot regularly, or to allow for the use of custom runs that (say) use the API rather than database dumps to get information for a particular project? GreenReaper ( talk) 19:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No comma needed between "October" and "2010".
Rich
Farmbrough,
08:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
Selectionbot just popped into the Ontario Roads wikiproject, except it still thinks that its the Golden Horseshoe WikiProject. Not sure what to do here; figured this is the best place to let somebody know. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (Redirected from User talk:SelectionBot) JJB 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post these questions - should it be at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Help finding removed? Thanks for reading. -- trevj ( talk) 15:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to offer an alternative interpretation of what an article selection score means, it's also plausable to say the score is a function of three key factors - importance, quality and popularity. I also would suggest that's a more descriptive and useful way to say what basic criteria are used to select articles. None of the calculations change, they're just grouped differently in the presentation. Here are the basics.
Overall article score = Importance_score + Quality score + Popularity score.
Importance score = Base_importance_points.
Quality score = Quality_rating_points.
Popularity score = WikiProject_scope_points + External_interest_points.
The WikiProject scope points are based on the External interest points. Another name for external interest is popularity. Hence, the Popularity score fully encompasses the notion of External interest.
I see two key advantages to this presentation style of the article selection score. First, the Importance score is returned to its original meaning on Wikipedia. It's a simple numeric representation of the Top-, High-, Mid- or Low-Importance ratings. Second, the Popularity score is an intutively purer factor related to the set of External interest measures added to the established WikiProject assessment factors of importance and quality.
A handy bonus for WikiProjects is this Popularity factor can be added to Importance and Quality ratings of articles without any additional manual work, because the calculations are totally automated. So, some time down the road, the concept of popularity can be more fully folded into the overall WikiProject efforts to offer important, high-quality articles that are of interest to contemporary readers. -- RichardF ( talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Many articles seem to lack external interest data, such as in this list of unassesed athletics articles. Why is that? -- Klättermusen ( talk) 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Gabriel ramirez 2806:2F0:9180:FD32:541:A57E:5F6:F3F2 ( talk) 12:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)