Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment

WT:IE/A

1 • 2 • 3 • 4
Archives

A POV assessment

I have just rated the pullover-wearer as start/mid. Because of his huge record sales, I can see that might deserve a high-importance rating, but I can't bring myself to do it. If anyone disagrees with start/mid, feel free to change it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed. I don't think he has had the needed impact on Ireland (or Music for such projects) for High. Mid still means very notable, and seems fair. SeoR (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IrelandProj template

Resolved

In the early days of the assessment project, some articles were assessed using {{Irelandproj}}, which now redirects to the {{WikiProject Ireland}} template.

The {{Irelandproj}} template is still in use on about 670 articles, and I would like to ask a bot to replace these uses with {{WikiProject Ireland}}. Is this OK with people?

BTW, ww2censor made a suggestion to this effect some months back, at User talk:BHGbot#Another_job. At that time I hesitated because I was unsure whether we had the right canonical name for the project banner, but a discussion at WT:COUNCIL shows a consenus that WikiProject Foo should be the name of a project's assessment template.

I know that it's generally not a good idea to bypass redirects, but in this case the redirect makes it harder to use the excellent assessment script at User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js, because it doesn't detect the redirect ... so an article which has already been assessed shows in the script's menu as unassessed ... and I have had several cases in which I have started assessing the article again, only to find that it has already been done. Standardising on {{WikiProject Ireland}} would avoid that problem.

(Just for clarity, I am not suggesting that we delete the redirect, only that we bypass the use of it).--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Yes! SeoR (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Seor. I was beginning to wonder of anyone would reply!

Is anyone else around? Sarah, ww2censor? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the others will be along, delayed myself as I have taken a few days in Rome, where most hotels + cafes have not yet, it seems, heard of WiFi. But I look forward to this template tidying, and thanks for tagging some new cats I created. SeoR (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we really should substitute the IrelandProj template as soon as possible. I just getting back into gear after a week in the Wicklow hills where there is no wifi, just mobile phone service, in places. Let's just replace it. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I think that's enough support to go ahaed.

SeoR, I hope you had a good time in Rome, and ww2c in Wicklow ... and glad to hear that neither of you was able interrupt your holidays by logging in here! (Holidays is holidays)

The category-tagging is a by-product of work I'm doing on BHGbot, to automate tagging of articles (tagging only, not assessment!). Good progress on that front in the last few days (after a long hiatus), and there may something solid to show for it soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Bot requests#Replace_IrelandProj_with_WkiProject_Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's now all done, as a peek at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Irelandproj will confirm. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. As ever, thanks! SeoR (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newly added FA

In reviewing the latest stats that are over 20,000, I noticed the listing of Paul Kane, a FA-class article. While I have added it to the {{Irish Featured Articles}} template I have reservations about this being classified with a Ireland WikiProject assessment as of significant Irish interest. While he was born in Ireland, most of his life, only his childhood, and work took place in Canada. Any thoughts? BTW, I notice that an ROI flagcion is used in the article. Should this not be omitted or replaced with something more accurate? ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the flags should be removed as flagcruft. The flags are un-needed, and the ROI one is completely inaccurate - he left Ireland decades before the flag was invented, and his departure was more than a hundred years before it became the official flag.

As to whether he needs a WikiProject Ireland assessment, that's a wider question which I'm glad you raised (and which I had meant to raise myself). I think it needs a wider discusion, so I'm going to reply under a separate heading below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Importance Stub.

I see that there is one article that is of Top importance but is only a stub. Is there a way to search for it. For example, could the 'New script for WP:IE assessment' create a table that would allow you to click on a number, for example '5' that would link to the 5 Top Importance articles that are FA rated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrchris (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to find things like that ids by using Catscan, a very cunning tool which rapidly lists all the articles in the intersection of two categories.

I just used it to run this search to find the one Stub-class/Top-importance article, which turned out to be 1847 in Ireland. I downrated it to low-importance, so re-running the search will show no hits, but you could also use it for similar tasks, such as finding Start-class/Top-importance articles. This search show stat there are now 17 of them, and they should be top of the urgent action-list for expansion.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table is already created - see [[1]] :-)))) I'm just passing through, but as a comment to BHG, IIWY I'd modify your bot task 0006 to categorise cats as importance=NA. Not only is it better to positively put them somewhere rather than in limbo, an NA importance is also a useful dumping ground for templates, dabs and other bits and pieces that clutter the place up. ;-/ FlagSteward (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very at all clear to me what that table actually lists, but it doesn't seem to be anything like what I suggested.

The category tagging is all done using a separate slim variant of the banner which has no importance scale (because it doesn't need one), and we don't have a non-article importance category, because it's pointless. Our project banner treats importance=NA as "don't categorise by importance". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class articles

There is a proposal to create a new C-class on the WP1.0 assessment scale, which may be of interest to members of this project. See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Proposal_-_adding_C-class_between_GA-Class_and_Start-Class. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now C-Class is with us...

The debate came to the right answer, I think, and C is now an option in our assessments. Do we need to talk about criteria, as recently (and helpfully) done for B? And do we need to do anything to make C results appear in the table, or will that happen automatically?

I've been present on and off for the last few weeks, and have made reasonable progress with what was left of Unassessed Writers (including the plentiful Van Morrisson occurences)... SeoR (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watched some of the discussion and think it is a good move because the gap between Start-class and B-class is so wide, so C-class is a good choice for a better than start article that is not developed enough. I saw some suggestions that some projects might demote all B-class to C-class and re-evualate those which made the cut upwards again. Currently with 739 B-class, re-evaluating them is not too difficult a work load. However, we are missing BHG until at least September. Besides her, and her massive productivity, there are just a few of us and no one with the specialist technical abilities. I am not sure how to deal with making sure the C-class articles get added to the statistics, but I will ask someone. Will report back later but I added the listing of C-class to the main assessment page and I see that the Category:C-Class Ireland articles category already exists though it is unpopulated. I am pretty sure that many of the Start-class can be upgraded to C-class but that will have to happen over time as we have 7,000+ of these.

From what I can read on this page C-class is not being rolled out until late on Friday, or due to the July 4th holiday, even Saturday. I see the project template seems to need some editing and because it is protected, it needs an admin to edit but I think a bot will be used to update it. We shall see. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, clear as always. (Glad to see your name survived recent attack too!) I also welcome the move, as B is quite a steep climb, and C will allow better distinction. We will indeed miss BHG, but I think a gradual review of B is not difficult. I do not favour wholesale up or down moves, especially as many of our recent B ratings were made according to fairly strict assessment. But I am sure we will have plenty of downgrades. And as you say, for Start upgrades, may take just a little more time. SeoR (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-class statistics are now being compiled though please make sure to use an uppercase 'C' because the lowercase 'c' is not being caught yet. I am trying to get that fixed and hope it can be. More work to do reassessing. ww2censor (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The C-class statistics and category are working but we must us an uppercase 'C' in the template. It seems this cannot be fixed/modified to also use a lowercase 'c'. ww2censor (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Loyalism' Template

Can you advise on the suitability of using the flag of the LVF on all loyalist paramilitary pages? I have severe doubts as to it suitability (and I'm not referring to color!), since the LVF is a UVF splinter-group and yet its flag appears in the loyalist template that appears on the UVF page? I have removed the loyalist template from the page on the Shankill Butchers, as they were members of the UVF. Billsmith60 (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have also asked this question at Talk:Ulster loyalism and that seems like a better place to ascertain an opinion. This page is for WikiProject Ireland assessment discussions. You might also ask at WikiProject Unionism in Ireland talk page. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

22,000 exactly

What a way to end the year with 22,000 article in the project and only 88 unassessed! Well done folks. In 18 months we have gone from 1,100 articles to this. What's next? Review the Top and High importance articles to see if they fit the assessment. ww2censor (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment script

I used to use the script at User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js for assessments, but alas it is no more. I found it so useful that I have resurrected it, at User:BrownHairedGirl/metadatatest.js. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds great I miss it too, but now that I have pasted it into my monobook.js page and restarted the browser, now what - nothing shows up. A, do you have any specific instructions, and B, how do we select and modify the projects we want to be able to assess? Are you back or just visiting? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the script text from your monobook page and now it works fine. I made the mistake of pasting the text from the metadatatest page. A question is how does one set up default parameters, if possible. Great work, I am thrilled to have this working again because it allows assessment and reassessment very quickly indeed but if you are offering it publically you will need some instructions for other folks. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartily seconded. SeoR (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I intended only to copy the script for my own use, and just dropped a note here in case it helped you guys. I don't intend to advertise the script any further, so no instructions, and in any case I have no idea how to configure it other than what's in my monobook. If anyone else wants to use it, I'm afraid they'll have to figure it out themselves. Sorry!

Not sure whether I'm back or just visiting. Probably the latter, but I may try to visit again more frequently :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the note was very welcome - hand-classification became tedious after having had various scripts. I was seconding the script and welcome, no pressure re. instruction, I understand. I think most people with experience of assessment will find it pretty intuitive. Good to see one of Ireland's best contributors, visiting or otherwise. SeoR (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lovely thing to say -- thank you! :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, BHG, as you are an admin, perhaps you could copy the text from Outriggr's script documentation, if you can find it. I would be happy to modify it (if necessary) and post it somewhere. I have already assessed many new articles since you brilliant idea of resurrecting the script. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the documentation is still in place at User talk:Outriggr/metadatatest.js#Installation. There's not much, but I think that it's enough to get it installed. It might be a good idea to expand it, though, if you have the energy (and if you aren't put off by Outriggr's rather mistaken piece at the top about how assessment is not a good idea after all). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers of readers

Is there any way of assessing by numbers of hits as well? I've found a website - http://stats.grok.se/ - that can show readers on a quarterly basis. Can/could a script be worked out to add this to the Irish pages data?PatrickGuinness (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea but I'll ask around. I would imagine that because two different sources are used it might be quite difficult to combine them in any meaningful way especially as the assessment table does not provide any individual article data. Exactly what sort of stats would one add to the project assessment tables if it were even possible? Don't forget we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Popular pages. BTW, the "Traffic stats" button on the left toolbar call on http://stats.grok.se/ for its results which are in fact monthly with individual day stats available by clicking on the "toggle lables" button. ww2censor (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects in table

Is it possible to include numbers of redirects in the main table? Other Wikiprojects typically include them and redirect is a value for the class parameter in the Wikiproject template. Thanks Declangi (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All-assessed / to-do section

A previous landmark of 2008:

What a way to end the year with 22,000 article in the project and only 88 unassessed! Well done folks. In 18 months we have gone from 1,100 articles to this. What's next? Review the Top and High importance articles to see if they fit the assessment. ww2censor (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

is superseded by the 30th of September's all-assessed milestone, with over 90k articles in the bag, albeit quite a proportion not being main content items. Well done and thanks to all working on this over the years.

I trust that it's OK to now add a to-do section to the department's page, as we should probably do some structured review over time, at least of the higher-prio groups, for example. SeoR (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]