![]() | 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 2 |
I'd like to offer awards for this. For every article correctly assessed with the oldid and the topic, editors can get credit towards various awards.
My recommendation:
50 = The Barnstar of Diligence
100 = The Tireless Editors Barnstar
200 = Good Article Medal of Merit
--
Lara
Love
04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Awards will be given out at the end of the project.
Could someone clarify what purpose adding the date to {{ GA}} does? Giggy U C P 00:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sooooo.... to get a feel for this, I took a pass through the more recent additions to the GA level, adding topic fields where instances of {{ GA}} lived. I had no problem figuring out appropriate topic values, because these just map to the eleven top level classifications at WP:GA; it was a routine lookup: find where reviewers put an article, read the top level header, find the equivalent value for the topic key word, set the key=value pair in the GA template ... next. The eleven topic categories repopulate nicely, and the uncategorized article category lose members. How nice. As Walkerma noted in the parent discussion, one can get a picture of how GA rated articles distribute across the eleven major categories.
But — not a complete picture. {{ ArticleHistory}} neither knows nor cares about the GA template categorizing scheme. You may have noticed that reviewers who tag with ArticleHistory don't see the talk page get chucked into Category:Uncategorized good articles. The gacat field of ArticleHistory bears no particular relationship to the GA template categorizing scheme; use it, and the articles get thrown into various Biography related categories, categories that are not applicable to most articles; Gimmetrow, who seems to have put together ArticleHistory, advises that the field is undocumented, don't worry about it. pretend it isn't there. So, gacat notwithstanding, ArticleHistory tagged pages won't contribute to the categorization scheme that the GA template drives; they remain uncounted.
This is of concern, because, in time, we are to migrate GA tagged pages to ArticleHistory, and are sort of, kind of, asking people to use ArticleHistory with new pages. I suspect, if/when Gimmetrow's GimmieBot tool does most of the heavy lifting in this migration, it will simply ignore the topic field because ArticleHistory has no use for it. So what's the point of our effort with regard to topic? It seems to me, we have an upfront choice here, one that should be made Real Soon Now before much more work is done:
If the latter, we should engage Gimmetrow and SandyGeorgia; ArticleHistory is more-or-less 'owned' by Feature Article classification schemes; one can't do anything with ArticleHistory without disturbing those classification schemes.
Discussion? — Gosgood 09:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The main problem why there're so many uncategorized good articles is that it's not in the instructions! Perhaps a good way to avoid more uncategorized good articles from showing up is to include this in the instructions in good article process. OhanaUnited Talk page 17:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
If filling out this topic field is really supposed to be so helpful, it seems to me that a bot could do this task for us. All GA's are already listed under a specific heading on the main GA page, so all we have to do is figure out how each GA page category compares to topic= categories, and have a bot run through the GA list and tag each GA accordingly. Homestarmy 01:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(<--)I'm not sure about {{ ArticleHistory}}, but yes, for {{ GA}} that's correct. I can't find a topic= parameter in {{ ArticleHistory}}...so I'm not sure what the deal with that is. Anyway, that template also supports FA (etc.) and this will be limited to GA, so just leave it with {{ GA}} for now. Giggy U C P 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
oldid=123456|topic=Arts
form, as it would impact
GimmeBot. He also
had a hand in gacat implementation.So I'll go ahead and do this on {{ GA}} templates, shall I, while waiting on word on {{ ArticleHistory}}? — Madman bum and angel ( talk – desk) 13:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Done — Thank you for your patience. The bot categorized 1,149 articles in
Category:Uncategorized good articles, and I got a couple it missed. There are 12 pages remaining in the category – all of the pages either aren't articles or they aren't listed on
WP:GA (except for
Talk:Shintō Musō-ryū, which I categorized, but for some ungodly reason it didn't work.)
Thanks! — Madman bum and angel ( talk – desk) 07:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Why, thank you! I'm honoured. :) As for the bot editing too fast, by the time I posted that, it was already done. It's a flagged bot, so the revisions don't show up in recent changes, which would be a problem. It used maxlag = 5, a non-aggressive value. The task took 1:41 to complete. Cheers! :) — Madman bum and angel ( talk – desk) 15:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | It looks like this task force will last longer than originally planned. | ” |
— OhanaUnited 12:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC) |
I'm having some doubts about the categories. Many are very vague and some don't fit into the categories listed yet it's reasonable to have a category for those topics. For example, I don't know what Chris Bosh should fall into. OhanaUnited Talk page 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there is an issue with the setup in regard to film articles. Another editor has been adding the "Arts" attribute to GA-class film articles, but the ensuing "good Arts article" link does not go to the right spot in the list at WP:GA. It goes to WP:GA#Arts, where there are no film articles; instead, the film articles reside at WP:GA#Media. (Though at WP:GAC, it's a subsection under Arts.) This matter needs to be cleared up because the "good Arts article" does not go to the proper place in the WP:GA list for other film articles. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm definitely willing to help here, but I'm a bit confused. There's some articles appearing at Category:Uncategorized good articles that ARE categorized and appear at WP:GA, examples include Bruce Willis which has "socsci" (note case) for a topic, but still appears in the category. Others I've sorted disappear from this list immediately. Is the case important?
There's also the subcategories. Big Fish appears on the list, but already is noted as in the "Media" category. It's also already listed over at WP:GA appropriately. Is the category page going weird with this? -- Masem 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
oldid=nnnnnn
is not useful; I believe older versions of the Pass procedure were unclear; the procedure writer did not make clear that the oldid
keyword should be given a numeric value, one representing the permanent page identifier of the article upon which the review was based. (oldid). Readers of the procedure thought that the oldid
keyword should simply be given the value 'nnnnnn'
. Replacing 'nnnnnn' with useful data entails historical research of both the Talk page and main article histories, to figure out when the GA template was posted, then finding the version of the article that was current immediately before the GA tag was posted; we assume this was the version of the article reviewed. LaraLove posted the lookup technique on the
main taskforce page.topic
parameter, say, topic=Dumbarse
, and the current {{
GA}} template script will dutifully render "…has been listed as a good Dumbarse article under the…" (Sigh). The piece of the template code that chooses categories, however, does not have a choice for the value 'Dumbarse'
, and places the article page in
Category:Uncategorized good articles. The only correct choices for the topic
keyword remain the eleven values given in the
table on the task force project page, in exactly the upper- and lower-case combination of letters shown in column one. This limited choice of values supports only a coarse 'top level' classification of articles; the more refined topic areas reflected on
WP:GA are not supported by the GA template, and using one of the more refined topic areas such as 'Media' result in a unclassified article, though the wording of the rendered template suggests otherwise. Thanks for your help in this project; I hope this answers your question. Take care. —
Gosgood
23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Noticed because a zillion more pages appeared in the uncatagorized list, but it looks like AH gained the topic parameter. Usage is same as GA. Only difference in procedure is that if there's an AH, one just needs to add "|topic=Correctcasetopic" as a parameter. I assume it's easy to bot-convert GAs to AHs from what I've read here, so it seems that if we see an GA template, we do what we've been doing, and if AH, do the other. -- Masem 13:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, trying to fill in the oldid values helps with the posted monobook script, but there's articles that the addition is still hard. I can work through the talk page history and find out when the GA was added, but then cross-referencing that with the actual id of the page can be tricky especially with older and more hotly contested articles (eg: Crusades was a pain). Am I missing an obvious way or an existing script/tool that can let me take a talk page entry and grab the version of the article that last existed of that talk page entry? -- Masem 15:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dr pda here. Actually there is some magic. Clicking on the word (oldid) in the output of the script gives you the oldid of the article page at the time of the corresponding edit summary on the talk page. For example, running the script for A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. produces
(last entry read: 2006-07-28, 11:34:02 )
Click here to enter a date manually
If you click on the word oldid in the first line (since that corresponds to when the GA was passed which is what you want) the output becomes
and indeed [1] is the version of the article at 03:20, 12 February 2007. Apologies if you already knew the above, however there is more magic. If you have had to hunt through the history to find the date when the GA template was applied, you can use the "Click here to enter a date manually" link to get the oldid. If you click on that line in the script output it should bring up a pop-up window (assuming your javascript settings allow it), enter a date in here and you will get a result like (e.g. typing in 12 February 2006 for the Higginbotham article)
The last version before 2007-02-12, 23:59:59 was at 2007-02-12, 03:20:22, with an oldid of 107474703. Click on the links to jump to the article history or talk page history at this point.
(the words article history and talk page history are actually proper links, I just can't copy them). Hope this helps, Dr pda 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if I seem a bit overbearing on this, but we are in general agreement that the source of our topic settings stems from the placement of the article in the
WP:GA page? I came across an editor who works on articles concerning the roads of Pennsylvania and who
changed one of my topic settings from topic=Engtech
(where roads live at
WP:GA) to topic=Geography
because (1) that seemed a good choice for a small road in Pennsylvania, and (2) that's how he saw it was set on an article on a similar Pennsylvanian road, via an UCGA-related edit by a member of this august task force. I trust such a topic setting was a mistake, but if, in contrast, editors are not referring to
WP:GA for their topic data, and are, instead, making topic judgements on the fly, then I'm afraid we're creating a bit of confusion that might require another task force to straighten out. We should be making topic judgements only in the case where we've encountered a GA that is missing from
WP:GA, and in that case, should classify the missing article in a manner similar to that of related articles,and then adding the missing article to the
WP:GA listing. We are clear on this, aren't we?
This argues for seeking out automation for this particular chore, as advanced above. Quite apart from my concern, this is an error-prone process; I've certainly made some errors (and I think I've gotten them all). Take care — Gosgood 22:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(←) Once the drive is over, I propose that we standardize the categories at WP:GA and WP:GAC. I prefer the breakdown at GAC, but I think it would be easiest to keep the GAs where they are listed, and transform GAC categories to match GA. Subcategories, to be more specific. That way, wherever the article is nominated, it is so listed (upon passing, of course). Any objections? Although this is not the official proposal, I do appreciate comments. Lara ♥Love 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Come on guys! We're almost there! Backlog tag removed by the way :) Giggy Talk | Review 07:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
(←) Many articles were promoted before there was any criteria. If an editor saw an article and thought it was good, it was so tagged. There was a drive that was supposed to ensure all tagged GAs were reviewed and either brought up to those new standards or delisted, however, MANY fell through the cracks and end up at WP:GA/R in a steady flow.
If anyone is interested, we can now shift our attentions and move the task force to Wikipedia:WikiProject GA quality task force or something like that. We can ensure that all GAs meet the standards and include the oldid to easily identify what version was deemed to be GA. Comments? Lara ♥Love 16:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
topic
field, should they pass an article.(←)GA/R cannot handle any sort of influx of articles without additional participation. I've done everything short of whoring myself off (okay, not really, but it seemed like it might help make my point) to get editors involved. I think the mass advertising might be starting to work now, but it's really too early to tell. There are so many changes I think need to be made, but I think these are a good start. What about the creation of another bot like Gimmebot? (We can name it Larabot ;) ... or not. Just an idea.) That would help considering Gimmebot only runs on request. Lara ♥Love 06:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Category:Good articles with no article history action from {{ ArticleHistory}} and added this error to the ArticleHistory error category. No need to have extra categories for this one issue. Gimmetrow 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed there's a huge difference between {{ GA number}} and the number of GA posted on WP:GA. Something must be wrong. OhanaUnited Talk page 15:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, before we do that , I think we want to do:
-- Masem 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What is that? Why are there GA templates on user pages with a "notacutalga" field filled as yes. What's the point? Lara ♥Love 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Both uncategorized GAs and GAs without oldids are now completely empty. AH's without GANs was taken care of already, apparently. Could this mean this task force is done?... -- Masem 00:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I propose this task force be merged into the newly created, broader Project quality task force. Lara ♥Love 06:41, 9 August 2007 (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 2 |
I'd like to offer awards for this. For every article correctly assessed with the oldid and the topic, editors can get credit towards various awards.
My recommendation:
50 = The Barnstar of Diligence
100 = The Tireless Editors Barnstar
200 = Good Article Medal of Merit
--
Lara
Love
04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Awards will be given out at the end of the project.
Could someone clarify what purpose adding the date to {{ GA}} does? Giggy U C P 00:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sooooo.... to get a feel for this, I took a pass through the more recent additions to the GA level, adding topic fields where instances of {{ GA}} lived. I had no problem figuring out appropriate topic values, because these just map to the eleven top level classifications at WP:GA; it was a routine lookup: find where reviewers put an article, read the top level header, find the equivalent value for the topic key word, set the key=value pair in the GA template ... next. The eleven topic categories repopulate nicely, and the uncategorized article category lose members. How nice. As Walkerma noted in the parent discussion, one can get a picture of how GA rated articles distribute across the eleven major categories.
But — not a complete picture. {{ ArticleHistory}} neither knows nor cares about the GA template categorizing scheme. You may have noticed that reviewers who tag with ArticleHistory don't see the talk page get chucked into Category:Uncategorized good articles. The gacat field of ArticleHistory bears no particular relationship to the GA template categorizing scheme; use it, and the articles get thrown into various Biography related categories, categories that are not applicable to most articles; Gimmetrow, who seems to have put together ArticleHistory, advises that the field is undocumented, don't worry about it. pretend it isn't there. So, gacat notwithstanding, ArticleHistory tagged pages won't contribute to the categorization scheme that the GA template drives; they remain uncounted.
This is of concern, because, in time, we are to migrate GA tagged pages to ArticleHistory, and are sort of, kind of, asking people to use ArticleHistory with new pages. I suspect, if/when Gimmetrow's GimmieBot tool does most of the heavy lifting in this migration, it will simply ignore the topic field because ArticleHistory has no use for it. So what's the point of our effort with regard to topic? It seems to me, we have an upfront choice here, one that should be made Real Soon Now before much more work is done:
If the latter, we should engage Gimmetrow and SandyGeorgia; ArticleHistory is more-or-less 'owned' by Feature Article classification schemes; one can't do anything with ArticleHistory without disturbing those classification schemes.
Discussion? — Gosgood 09:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The main problem why there're so many uncategorized good articles is that it's not in the instructions! Perhaps a good way to avoid more uncategorized good articles from showing up is to include this in the instructions in good article process. OhanaUnited Talk page 17:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
If filling out this topic field is really supposed to be so helpful, it seems to me that a bot could do this task for us. All GA's are already listed under a specific heading on the main GA page, so all we have to do is figure out how each GA page category compares to topic= categories, and have a bot run through the GA list and tag each GA accordingly. Homestarmy 01:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(<--)I'm not sure about {{ ArticleHistory}}, but yes, for {{ GA}} that's correct. I can't find a topic= parameter in {{ ArticleHistory}}...so I'm not sure what the deal with that is. Anyway, that template also supports FA (etc.) and this will be limited to GA, so just leave it with {{ GA}} for now. Giggy U C P 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
oldid=123456|topic=Arts
form, as it would impact
GimmeBot. He also
had a hand in gacat implementation.So I'll go ahead and do this on {{ GA}} templates, shall I, while waiting on word on {{ ArticleHistory}}? — Madman bum and angel ( talk – desk) 13:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Done — Thank you for your patience. The bot categorized 1,149 articles in
Category:Uncategorized good articles, and I got a couple it missed. There are 12 pages remaining in the category – all of the pages either aren't articles or they aren't listed on
WP:GA (except for
Talk:Shintō Musō-ryū, which I categorized, but for some ungodly reason it didn't work.)
Thanks! — Madman bum and angel ( talk – desk) 07:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Why, thank you! I'm honoured. :) As for the bot editing too fast, by the time I posted that, it was already done. It's a flagged bot, so the revisions don't show up in recent changes, which would be a problem. It used maxlag = 5, a non-aggressive value. The task took 1:41 to complete. Cheers! :) — Madman bum and angel ( talk – desk) 15:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | It looks like this task force will last longer than originally planned. | ” |
— OhanaUnited 12:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC) |
I'm having some doubts about the categories. Many are very vague and some don't fit into the categories listed yet it's reasonable to have a category for those topics. For example, I don't know what Chris Bosh should fall into. OhanaUnited Talk page 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there is an issue with the setup in regard to film articles. Another editor has been adding the "Arts" attribute to GA-class film articles, but the ensuing "good Arts article" link does not go to the right spot in the list at WP:GA. It goes to WP:GA#Arts, where there are no film articles; instead, the film articles reside at WP:GA#Media. (Though at WP:GAC, it's a subsection under Arts.) This matter needs to be cleared up because the "good Arts article" does not go to the proper place in the WP:GA list for other film articles. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm definitely willing to help here, but I'm a bit confused. There's some articles appearing at Category:Uncategorized good articles that ARE categorized and appear at WP:GA, examples include Bruce Willis which has "socsci" (note case) for a topic, but still appears in the category. Others I've sorted disappear from this list immediately. Is the case important?
There's also the subcategories. Big Fish appears on the list, but already is noted as in the "Media" category. It's also already listed over at WP:GA appropriately. Is the category page going weird with this? -- Masem 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
oldid=nnnnnn
is not useful; I believe older versions of the Pass procedure were unclear; the procedure writer did not make clear that the oldid
keyword should be given a numeric value, one representing the permanent page identifier of the article upon which the review was based. (oldid). Readers of the procedure thought that the oldid
keyword should simply be given the value 'nnnnnn'
. Replacing 'nnnnnn' with useful data entails historical research of both the Talk page and main article histories, to figure out when the GA template was posted, then finding the version of the article that was current immediately before the GA tag was posted; we assume this was the version of the article reviewed. LaraLove posted the lookup technique on the
main taskforce page.topic
parameter, say, topic=Dumbarse
, and the current {{
GA}} template script will dutifully render "…has been listed as a good Dumbarse article under the…" (Sigh). The piece of the template code that chooses categories, however, does not have a choice for the value 'Dumbarse'
, and places the article page in
Category:Uncategorized good articles. The only correct choices for the topic
keyword remain the eleven values given in the
table on the task force project page, in exactly the upper- and lower-case combination of letters shown in column one. This limited choice of values supports only a coarse 'top level' classification of articles; the more refined topic areas reflected on
WP:GA are not supported by the GA template, and using one of the more refined topic areas such as 'Media' result in a unclassified article, though the wording of the rendered template suggests otherwise. Thanks for your help in this project; I hope this answers your question. Take care. —
Gosgood
23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Noticed because a zillion more pages appeared in the uncatagorized list, but it looks like AH gained the topic parameter. Usage is same as GA. Only difference in procedure is that if there's an AH, one just needs to add "|topic=Correctcasetopic" as a parameter. I assume it's easy to bot-convert GAs to AHs from what I've read here, so it seems that if we see an GA template, we do what we've been doing, and if AH, do the other. -- Masem 13:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, trying to fill in the oldid values helps with the posted monobook script, but there's articles that the addition is still hard. I can work through the talk page history and find out when the GA was added, but then cross-referencing that with the actual id of the page can be tricky especially with older and more hotly contested articles (eg: Crusades was a pain). Am I missing an obvious way or an existing script/tool that can let me take a talk page entry and grab the version of the article that last existed of that talk page entry? -- Masem 15:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dr pda here. Actually there is some magic. Clicking on the word (oldid) in the output of the script gives you the oldid of the article page at the time of the corresponding edit summary on the talk page. For example, running the script for A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. produces
(last entry read: 2006-07-28, 11:34:02 )
Click here to enter a date manually
If you click on the word oldid in the first line (since that corresponds to when the GA was passed which is what you want) the output becomes
and indeed [1] is the version of the article at 03:20, 12 February 2007. Apologies if you already knew the above, however there is more magic. If you have had to hunt through the history to find the date when the GA template was applied, you can use the "Click here to enter a date manually" link to get the oldid. If you click on that line in the script output it should bring up a pop-up window (assuming your javascript settings allow it), enter a date in here and you will get a result like (e.g. typing in 12 February 2006 for the Higginbotham article)
The last version before 2007-02-12, 23:59:59 was at 2007-02-12, 03:20:22, with an oldid of 107474703. Click on the links to jump to the article history or talk page history at this point.
(the words article history and talk page history are actually proper links, I just can't copy them). Hope this helps, Dr pda 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if I seem a bit overbearing on this, but we are in general agreement that the source of our topic settings stems from the placement of the article in the
WP:GA page? I came across an editor who works on articles concerning the roads of Pennsylvania and who
changed one of my topic settings from topic=Engtech
(where roads live at
WP:GA) to topic=Geography
because (1) that seemed a good choice for a small road in Pennsylvania, and (2) that's how he saw it was set on an article on a similar Pennsylvanian road, via an UCGA-related edit by a member of this august task force. I trust such a topic setting was a mistake, but if, in contrast, editors are not referring to
WP:GA for their topic data, and are, instead, making topic judgements on the fly, then I'm afraid we're creating a bit of confusion that might require another task force to straighten out. We should be making topic judgements only in the case where we've encountered a GA that is missing from
WP:GA, and in that case, should classify the missing article in a manner similar to that of related articles,and then adding the missing article to the
WP:GA listing. We are clear on this, aren't we?
This argues for seeking out automation for this particular chore, as advanced above. Quite apart from my concern, this is an error-prone process; I've certainly made some errors (and I think I've gotten them all). Take care — Gosgood 22:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(←) Once the drive is over, I propose that we standardize the categories at WP:GA and WP:GAC. I prefer the breakdown at GAC, but I think it would be easiest to keep the GAs where they are listed, and transform GAC categories to match GA. Subcategories, to be more specific. That way, wherever the article is nominated, it is so listed (upon passing, of course). Any objections? Although this is not the official proposal, I do appreciate comments. Lara ♥Love 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Come on guys! We're almost there! Backlog tag removed by the way :) Giggy Talk | Review 07:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
(←) Many articles were promoted before there was any criteria. If an editor saw an article and thought it was good, it was so tagged. There was a drive that was supposed to ensure all tagged GAs were reviewed and either brought up to those new standards or delisted, however, MANY fell through the cracks and end up at WP:GA/R in a steady flow.
If anyone is interested, we can now shift our attentions and move the task force to Wikipedia:WikiProject GA quality task force or something like that. We can ensure that all GAs meet the standards and include the oldid to easily identify what version was deemed to be GA. Comments? Lara ♥Love 16:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
topic
field, should they pass an article.(←)GA/R cannot handle any sort of influx of articles without additional participation. I've done everything short of whoring myself off (okay, not really, but it seemed like it might help make my point) to get editors involved. I think the mass advertising might be starting to work now, but it's really too early to tell. There are so many changes I think need to be made, but I think these are a good start. What about the creation of another bot like Gimmebot? (We can name it Larabot ;) ... or not. Just an idea.) That would help considering Gimmebot only runs on request. Lara ♥Love 06:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Category:Good articles with no article history action from {{ ArticleHistory}} and added this error to the ArticleHistory error category. No need to have extra categories for this one issue. Gimmetrow 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed there's a huge difference between {{ GA number}} and the number of GA posted on WP:GA. Something must be wrong. OhanaUnited Talk page 15:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, before we do that , I think we want to do:
-- Masem 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What is that? Why are there GA templates on user pages with a "notacutalga" field filled as yes. What's the point? Lara ♥Love 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Both uncategorized GAs and GAs without oldids are now completely empty. AH's without GANs was taken care of already, apparently. Could this mean this task force is done?... -- Masem 00:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I propose this task force be merged into the newly created, broader Project quality task force. Lara ♥Love 06:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)