Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Audiodude (talk | contribs) at 18:27, 6 November 2022 (→‎Custom table updates: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Scottish Castles

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scottish_Castles#Assessment it says 308 stub articles. Clicking on that and on https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Scottish_Castle/articles?quality=Stub-Class it says "Article 1 - 100 of 1848 (19 pages)", which doesn't seem right? -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham: thanks for the question, and for your contributions. The report on openzim.org is bad: all of the entries appear multiple times (Castle Tarbet appears at 76, 994, and other places, for example). The assessment table (counting the articles in Category:Stub-Class Scottish Castle articles) shows the correct number. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UnitedStatesian Thank you for the clarification. Hopefully the openzim.org report issue will be resolved in due course. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Audiodude: Would you be able to comment on this? Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we need a bug on Github: here. Thanks for reporting. audiodude (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this has been fixed and pushed to production. Let me know if you see any other weirdness, thanks! audiodude (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Custom table updates

This bot has been responsible for two tables: User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1 and User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Canada-Roads-1. These have not been updated since 2019, and I'd like to request that they be restored to the bot's regular duties.

That first table for WP:USRD needs a couple of additions for a few task forces that have been added. (Along with this, the table name may need a new title since it's not for Roads writ large, but just the US Roads project.)

  • We need a row added with a gray background for Category:U.S. county road articles by quality with "CR" as the abbreviation in the first column of the table. It should be listed third after the USH row.
  • We need a row added with a gray background for Category:U.S. road junction articles by quality with "JCT" as the abbreviation in the first column of the table. It should be listed fifth after the Auto trail row. (That row's abbreviation can be changed to "TRL" to match the project's navbox.)
  • We need a row added with a gray background for Category:U.S. Route 66 articles by quality with "US 66" as the abbreviation in the first column of the table. It should be listed sixth after the JCT row.
  • The USRD row at the bottom should get a different shade since it's the project total row. Maybe a shade of green like #ddffdd.

The second table for WP:CARD only needs a background added for its project total row like the USRD table; that project uses red as its color, so a shade of pink like #ffdddd might work. That abbreviation of "CRWP" should be switched to "CARD" as well.

Along with this, there should be a third table created for WP:HWY. The rows needed would be based on the following assessment trees:

Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 15:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Audiodude: Any feedback on this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelson (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Audiodude: repinging because the previous comment was not signed by Kelson, thus it would not ping. Imzadi 1979 → 21:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't create tables like this for you. The bot creates the tables automatically based on the presence of articles in the proper "... by quality" or "... by importance" categories. As far as having a table with multiple sub-projects listed in it, I think I'm vaguely familiar with this, but I would have to look more into how it's done. Do you have an example from another project where the sub-projects are listed in the same table? This might be something that you do yourself by transcluding templates. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Audiodude: these are the only tables with such a breakdown. We created a similar table out of templates for USRD, but it has no historical record. There are no past revisions of the table to see the assessment data on past dates because the templates just live update based on the current category contents at the time the page is purged or otherwise refreshed. At least with the custom tables, until the bot stopped updating them, we can go back in time and look through the revisions, just as we can with the existing standard project/TF tables. Imzadi 1979 → 23:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, it looks like these were some of the "custom tables" that got deprecated when we moved to the third generation Python bot. See this github issue. I found the code for "Roads 1" and for Canadian roads. You can also see the entries in the Custom.tables.dat file that I preserved.
If you have someone who can write Python code, I'd be happy to guide them in submitting a PR that would "re-activate" these tables (aka re-write them from scratch). Assuming you have such a person, I would be willing to do the groundwork of creating the "custom tables" framework (storing schema/metadata in the database) that they would use to write the custom table code.
Otherwise, I guess it requires a bit of understanding about the use case for these custom tables, which we've avoided re-implementing for this long. Are they providing functionality that can't be found elsewhere, or are they simply a convenience? What has been done in the past three years while they were unavailable?
Thanks, audiodude (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Audiodude: that was colloquially our "leaderboard", and for the last three years, the friendly competition to improve states' relative stats in the project has been absent, and project progress has stagnated compared to what we used to have. Without the combined table, you'd literally have to consult over 60 assessment tables to do the comparisons we used to be able to do in a single location (for the US), or consult 15 tables for Canada.
The template-driven live table has a flaw: with that many data rows, we can't display all of the assessment classes because we run out of "expensive parser function calls" to get that many category counts. As a result, the page can only display one assessment class and the WikiWork calculations. And that page still has no historical record in the page history of past assessments. Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I might be working on implementing this. Stay tuned. Likely the first version will be a copy of the old table before I can work in the new requests. audiodude (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Imzadi1979, I've reimplemented custom tables for WP1, and added an implementation for the US Roads project. I will deploy this tomorrow and it should show up here when uploaded. I imagine there might be some bugs with the upload mechanism, since it is very hard to do an end to end test of that code in development/unit tests. Once that's figured out, keep an eye on the page I just linked, and let me know if it meets your expectations (keeping in mind that for this version I just copied over the current table configuration). Thanks, audiodude (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Audiodude: the table looks great. There is a math error though in the Ω column. That's the Relative WikiWork, which is calculated by dividing the Cumulative WikiWork, ω, by the total articles in a topic, or Ω = ω/T . Instead, we're getting the inverse (or Ω = T/ω), which isn't meaningful. Per the live table, the Ω for the IH row should be 3.691. Fix that, and it looks like the table is back. 😀 Imzadi 1979 → 00:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this should be fixed in the next bot run. Keep an eye on that page. Once I implement the requested changes for that page, I'll move the updates to a new name. Any requests? Should it be '../Tables/Custom/US-Roads'? Then I can get started on implementing the Canadian roads and the Highway pages you requested. audiodude (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Audiodude: that page name works for me. I'd suggest moving the old Roads page to that new title so that it's a seamless transition, if that makes sense. (That way the old revision history and the new history are "connected".)
Thank you for getting us this far. When I loaded the page yesterday, the table looked just like the old one, and was great to see. I'm excited to have this back up and running. Imzadi 1979 → 16:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: Glad it's working and you're happy with the result! I've added the specifications for Canadian Roads, which will go at the same location as before and Highways, which will be here. In the future, if you need updates to these tables, you will likely need to request them on this talk page again, since there is no UI for updating these tables in the app. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I've also added your modifications to the US Roads table. All of this will happen with today's bot run. audiodude (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pagination updates

I've fixed a bug with pagination that was causing 1) the wrong number of results to be reported on article listing pages on wp1.openzim.org and 2) the article sort order to not be stable. I've responded to the bug mentioned above, but also there was @FlagSteward talking about this a couple of months ago: 

> '''AAARGGGHHHHH!!!!!!''' Stepping through pages doesn't work, because the output is shuffled every time you request a page.
> You can see it on the web version if you [https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Scotland/articles refresh this a few times].
> Obviously it is sorted by "groups" such as High-importance FA's - but if you look within that group you will see that it is
> in a different order every time you refresh.

I replied on the archive page before I realized you're not supposed to do that (oops!). Anyways this should be fixed now. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Audiodude: Thanks for this. It seems to be halfway there - it's sorted by article name for Starts and Stubs, but not for articles classified as B or C, although it does seem to do so in a stable way. So for instance with my WP Scotland example, the Harris Tweed Authority seems to be stable at #519, but it also appears at #500 on the previous page. Looks like the higher classifications above B aren't sorting alphabetically either, but it doesn't matter because they don't go onto another page. Doncha just love computers.... FlagSteward (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the apparent stability is obviously some kind of caching - I tried it in a different browser yesterday and it was still coming back with the HTA at #500 and #519, but a day later it's at #500 and #628. FlagSteward (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FlagSteward: Okay I've fixed it again, with a real fix this time. Before I assumed that the duplicate results in article lists was also causing the instability of ordering, and my cursory check seemed to confirm that. Now I'm actually sorting by article title. This should fix any remaining issues with sort order and is nice to look at too! This will be deployed tomorrow morning before the next bot run. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Audiodude: Heh, that's great thanks - all seems to be working now. Unfortunately that now means I've got some work to do fixing up my old bot... FlagSteward (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject Protista having trouble with assessment

Hello, yesterday I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Protista and Template:WP Protista, but I'm having trouble understanding why the Assessment isn't working. I created all the necessary categories of "Protista articles by importance" and "by quality", but the bot's website doesn't seem to recognize Protista as a project. Any help is greatly appreciated. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 09:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just had to wait. I did a manual update of the project just now with the following results: https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Protista and User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Protista audiodude (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I think there's something wrong going on still. The template apparently doesn't assess a quality class, only an importance class, and I don't know why. Also, in the categories only the talk pages are showing up, not the articles themselves. Is that normal? ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 10:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the bot, that's something wrong with the talk page template: I see on Talk:Ciliate that the C isn't showing up and it's not being put in Category:C-Class Protista articles. The bot isn't populating the table because all of your quality categories are empty. --PresN 12:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Snoteleks: Your template had a few stray "Algae"s that weren't replaced with Protista; you didn't have the top-level Category:WikiProject Protista articles, or Category:Wikipedia requested images of protists, and the big one: you had "QUALITY_SCALE" set to "subpage", but didn't make a subpage: Template:WikiProject Protista/class. Please note that you have a bunch of class categories that weren't made (see that template for redlinks) - it's up to you if you want to add them or set the template to not use those classes. In either case, the template now knows what to do with the "quality=X" parameter, so the categories are being filled and the next bot run will populate the table. --PresN 13:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I was really confused about this. The class categories exist now. Can't wait until the next bot run ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 18:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with (not) physics article

This article: UPt3, is stubbornly refusing to not show up on searches for the physics Wikiproject [1], even though as far as I can tell, it's not tagged for the project any more. I can't figure out what else I need to do for the bot to stop picking it up. It's been a week at this point, so it shouldn't just be a question of waiting for a refresh. Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PianoDan where are you seeing the article show up? On wp1.openzim.org, on some category on Wikipedia? Or somewhere else? This will help us debug your issue. audiodude (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me a bit to reply - I was travelling. It was specifically at the link I added above, which is what you get when you click from the chart for the Physics Wikiproject. BUT, it seems to have resolved itself while I was away, so I may have just been impatient. Thanks for looking! PianoDan (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we destroy the assessment infrastructure for inactive projects?

Please see User_talk:Liz#Why_was_this_page_deleted? for details; long story short - when a project is declared inactive, it's assessments are not just hidden, but gutted - as categories are deleted! This might possibly result in reclassification of formerly asssessed articles into unasssed (I am not sure if this is the case), but we are certainly loosing useful statistics such as information about breakdown of articles assessed by now-inactive Wikiprojects. Examples of damage from the recently declared as inactive WikiProject Popular Culture:

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to "why", I have no idea. But I think the better way forward than just to change the template to include the categories would be to formally separate quality assessment from WikiProjects. (I know that there will need to be a special case for MILHIST since they are the only people who have A-Class, but the way forward there is to recognise that A-Class is not a part of the usual assessment criteria, but a special MILHIST badge of honour). Re-activating at least the assessment categories for inactive WikiProjects would still help and probably not do much harm, though. —Kusma (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kusma, ratings are redundantly repeated on every talkpage with multiple banners. We can split off MILHIST A-class or just let MILHIST rate articles as A-class for all Wikiprojects. That said, the rating for Marquis de Sade in popular culture is not lost; it is rated as "Start". This rating is still visible in the wikicode and so is likely still being read by the relevant bots. The category infrastructure and so on I'm not sure is very important, as it's all managed by bots anyway. (And we do need a better process to wind down or merge Wikiprojects.) CMD (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the categories are not created by bots, at least not by the WP 1.0 bot. In fact, it is the other way around: the WP 1.0 bot consumes the category listings (aka "Z-Class Foo Project articles") in order to generate the data for the assessment tables. For assessment, the article is defined as having Class Z if its talk page appears in that category, and that is the singular definition. I think there might be some confusion because the normal way articles are added to the categories is by adding templates to the talk page, but that is just template inclusion which results in category inclusion. audiodude (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rationale is that no one would be available to rate inactive projects' class and importance assessment and maintain that? But, I too personally do not appreciate it. We loose some useful statistics when we do this. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of assessment activity on pages related to the popular culture WikiProject, just check the history of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Popular Culture articles by quality log. Many "active" projects also do not have any maintenance for parts of their assessment categories; I don't think anybody has put any thought into WikiProject Germany's distinctions between "Low"/"Mid" and "Mid"/"High" importance for at least a decade. —Kusma (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index&oldid=1120382309"