Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Table request for WP1.0 bot[edit]

I'd like to ask that the bot add an additional task. Just as the bot updates User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1 and User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Canada-Roads-1, I'd like a similar table for WP:HWY. The rows needed would be based on the following assessment trees:

In parentheses I noted how the should be marked, with some appearing with gray backgrounds. Thanks, Imzadi 1979  04:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump. Imzadi 1979  23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Bump again Imzadi 1979  03:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Some reply would be appreciated. Archiving has been terminated for this thread. Imzadi 1979  01:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@Theopolisme: thoughts here? Imzadi 1979  23:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Theopolisme: it's been over a year. The courtesy of some reply would be nice. Imzadi 1979  20:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, indeed it has and for that I can only apologize. This is not a project I'm actively involved in developing aside from "fixing things as they break", frankly--I could look into something like this, but I don't want to promise anything prematurely, since I've never touched any of the custom tables code. The ideal solution would really be some more active eyes (and hands) on the project & the codebase. Theopolisme (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


USRD and the other highway projects are using AL-Class, but when our first list was promoted at ACR, the bot logged that the page has been removed. Can someone apply whatever fix is necessary to recognize this class? Thanks, Imzadi 1979  09:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump. Imzadi 1979  23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Bump again Imzadi 1979  03:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Some reply would be appreciated. Archiving has been terminated for this thread. Imzadi 1979  01:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@Theopolisme: thoughts here? Imzadi 1979  23:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiWork factors[edit]

We have a couple of WikiWork factors and they are nicely explained. All good. I wonder whether we could or should have a third metric that deals more explicitly with the proportions of articles that are rated stub class. The Stub Contest gives some ideas why it might be good to expand stubs to something more useful for users of Wikipedia. To that end, I suggest we should consider a metric that directly shows the proportion of stubs. I'm thinking of summing up all articles from FA down to Stub (i.e. not including list or book classes or the likes). The number of stub articles divided by that sum would give a percentage stub articles of the total. This would be between 0% (no stubs at all) and 100% (i.e. every article within a project's scope is a stub). Thoughts? Schwede66 20:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Schwede66: - I'm confused - does it go on existing ratings or does the process make its own? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll explain what I mean based on the assessment table shown. I'll make some calculations, and these refer to the numbers in this version of the table; the table on the right is dynamic, i.e. it will update itself over time and you could no longer understand the numbers that I'm talking about, hence the link to a particular version of the assessment table.
There are currently two WikiWork factors shown: ω and Ω. The first one counts the number of articles that have a quality rating of relevance, i.e. it excludes things from List class down. The second counts the number of quality improvement steps that those articles would have to go through to all become FA class. The number of steps divided by the number of articles gives omega. That is, it looks at it from the FA class perspective. The aim is to all articles to FA class. If a Wikiproject had no stubs whatsoever, you could not determine that by looking at the omega value. What I am proposing is to look from the other end. How many stubs are there as a proportion of all articles with a relevant quality rating? This would be expressed as a percentage, from 100% (all articles within a Wikiproject are stub class) to 0% (none of the rated articles within a Wikiproject are stub class).
I've worked through an example. When I use the figures in the table that I have referenced, I get slightly different figures (ω = 17,933; Ω = 5.279), but that may be because those values get calculated at a different time that the assessment data are compiled. Based on those values, the "stubbiness" would be 42.9% (1,456 stubs divided by 3,397 rated articles). Let's assume that we had a blitz on stubs, and 100 stubs were improved to start class. Resulting values are: Ω = 5.250 (i.e. it hasn't moved much) and "stubbiness" = 39.9%. The closer you get to getting rid of the stub articles, the less meaningful the omega value becomes, as it measures the number of steps to FA class. But with the "stubbiness" percentage, you have a good indicator how a particular project is going. Makes sense? Schwede66 17:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot status?[edit]

I noticed the last update to User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Bangladesh (and all the other individual project tables I checked) was just over a week ago, on 16 June 2015. Is there an estimate of when ordinary daily updates will resume? Thanks, Worldbruce (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed the same for the Louisville and Kentucky projects. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 07:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the problem was due to a recent file system failure at the Tool Labs. Everything seems to be in working order now, manual update works, so I'd like to see daily updates continue too, I suppose nothing is preventing them now. GregorB (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, pinging Theopolisme... GregorB (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Since the manual update only updates the tables, I'd like to see logs being updated again. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Me too (maybe a cron job which have to be readded after the big crash) - I tried "the manual update", [1], I have never used it before, and typed "chemistry", and the result was this Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/chemistry articles by quality statistics new page ... Christian75 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That's odd - true, you typed a lower case "c", and the page got created by error, but still these things should not happen... GregorB (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
IIRC Theopolisme is more easily contacted by email rather than pinging. ww2censor (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, a good point, I've just dropped him an email... GregorB (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't remember if it was lower case or not, and I didnt play with it afterwards. Christian75 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note, this was replied to & fixed at User_talk:Theopolisme/Archive_21#WP_1.0_bot and via email Theopolisme (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding a project to the project list[edit]

I am probably missing something simple. But how do I get WP:GLAM/Pritzker added to the Project list? TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeriEmbrey: Are you referring to the index of participating Wiki projects [2]? Pritzker is listed as "Pritzker Military Library-related" - or did you mean a different list? You can also search for "Pritzker Military Library-related" in "Project summary tables" and "Article lists" - both seem to work OK. GermanJoe (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: I found it. Many thanks! TeriEmbrey (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Double counting?[edit]

There are now more than 5 million articles in the overall stats, approx. 100k more than in the Main Page counter (4909k at the moment), so is there some double counting going on? GregorB (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

+1 Just noticed this, Sadads (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
+1, Is this because the same article may be rated more than once, for example by different wikiprojects? -- The Anome (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Could be, but I have the impression that, given the average number of WikiProject banners per article (1.5 or even more, perhaps?), this would result in an even higher count. GregorB (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The bot is designed to only count an article once - otherwise we'd have about 20 million "articles" by now! The answer, I think, is simple; WikiProjects now use the bot to count many things that wouldn't count as articles such as drafts or redirects - take a look here, for example. I'm not sure why they need to do that, but I'm sure they have good reasons! We should perhaps discuss whether or not we want to exclude these types of things from the total; maybe it's not important enough to worry about, as long as people understand what that "unassessed" group contains. Walkerma (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
That's probably it. Still, these pages are not really "unassessed" then, should perhaps be displayed as "Other". GregorB (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Walkerma and GregorB: thank you, between you, you have just answered a question that's been puzzling me – working on WikiProject Albums, I always wondered why there were literally thousands of album articles with an "NA-class" rating... it's because many of them were created by one editor and then AfD'd by another as being not notable... clicking on the album link in the list takes you to the redirected page, usually the article page for the artist. It does mean however, that it appears there are thousands and thousands of album articles that need to be improved upon, when really they don't "exist". Richard3120 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Richard3120, GregorB: Some projects reclassify such pages using Template:Redirect-Class, which generates a category based in Category:Redirect-Class articles. This is a "non-standard" class but it's well-used. Alternatives would be just deleting the banners, or ignoring them and accepting & making it clear that NA includes some of these redirects. The ideal, of course, would be for the bot to recognize, but we don't have an active coder at the moment for the bot. Walkerma (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Walkerma, thanks for your reply – what you say about the Redirect-Class category is exactly what somebody told me when I posted my query on the Help:Redirect page. I'll see if there is some way around this issue, if not, we just have to live with what the bot tells us. Richard3120 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Project table curiosity[edit]

In the Ireland Project table under the results for "Other" there appears an item that links to an apparently non-existing page Volunteer Ireland. There is neither a page nor a talk page and the log is empty. And it is rated "Mid". So why does it appear? Last time I checked there were 2 such results but one has since disappeared. ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: There's a Draft:Volunteer Ireland with a talkpage banner causing this entry. As far as I understand the problem, draft namespace is not fully supported by the bot. The bot can manage drafts as extra class, if that setting is configured in the assessment categorization (see drafts in WP:GER assessment table). But the bot's statistic views and lists don't know about drafts as separate namespace and will treat such pages as "regular" article links. GermanJoe (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Featured article FA  A-Class article A   GA  B-Class article B  C-Class article C  Start-Class article Start  Stub-Class article Stub  Featured list FL   List  Category page Category  Disambiguation page Disambig   Draft   File   Portal   Project   Template   NA   ???  Total
31 0 116 897 1,397 14,933 15,657 3 2,026 8,445 141 1 53 3 2 1,118 537 7 45,366
Can we get the code that generates the Version 1.0 Editorial Team tables changed to fully support "Draft" class (as it does the other extended classes - Category, Disambig, File, Portal, Project, and Template, and as template AbQ does above) instead of lumping drafts into other? That's what you're seeing, Ww2censor. Stick "Draft:" in front of the name of the errant page and you'll find it, e.g. Draft:Volunteer Ireland. The result that disappeared was most likely approved at AfC and moved into article space, or it may have been deleted or reevaluated as not in the scope of WikiProject Ireland. Worldbruce (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
That answers the questions. Thanks. Perhaps the code will be fixed so such draft pages get classified correctly. Either way I'll know if I see some again. ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Article bugs[edit]

I have found two articles that are non-existent, but are actually being counted as being articles. The first one is. The Windows Club being in the WikiProject Microsoft Windows section. The other article is in the WikiProject Military History Biography called Robert LaRue Miller. Unfortunately, in either one there no article exists. They are however countered towards the table statistics. Adamdaley (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adamdaley: Draft:The Windows Club and Draft: Robert LaRue Miller both exist. The bot has not been updated to support Draft-Class and the Draft: namespace correctly, and when it updates the assessment logs, it omits the namespace portion of the draft titles. Imzadi 1979  07:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's the Robert LaRue Miller article: [3]. Basically the same as the other one in the statistic table. Except in another table and different Project and article name. Adamdaley (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Adamdaley: let me try again to explain the situation. The Draft namespace was created in December 2013. At that time, the bot was not updated to account for it. When I tagged File talk:Interstate 696 pedestrian plazas Oak Park.jpg for the U.S. Roads WikiProject, the bot saw that new assessment. It knows about the "File" and "File talk:" namespaces, so when it added that new assessment to the USRD log, it linked to File:Interstate 696 pedestrian plazas Oak Park.jpg. The bot also knows about "File-Class", so it could log it as the correct assessment.
Now, when someone added the six wikiproject banners and assessments to Draft talk:Robert LaRue Miller, the talk page that corresponds to Draft:Robert LaRue Miller, the bot tried to process that assessment like it would for any other talk page. It doesn't know about "Draft:","Draft talk:" or "Draft-Class", so it gets confused. The bot drops the "Draft talk:" prefix from the talk page and doesn't replace it with "Draft". So instead of linking to Draft:Robert LaRue Miller, it links to Robert LaRue Miller, a redlink on the assessment log. At the same time, the bot can't handle Draft-Class as an assessment, so it logs it as "NA-Class"
In short, you don't have non-existent articles for those projects, you have mis-linked and mis-assessed Draft pages showing in the assessment logs because no one has bothered to update the bot in the last 19 months. Imzadi 1979  08:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)