Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Article selection

message: 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)
replies: text: I think I understand now - these are posts to project talk pages - just there are a lot of them as I subscribe to a lot of projects :-( --Matilda talk 23:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing this out - it may be a behavior difference with the new api.php editing system. I will look into it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, there were some complaints about the behavior of the API being backward compared to the normal UI, that you have to specify &bot=1 or something like that. Though it seems like it would be helpful to have it run without marking the edits as bot. I know I don't check the talk pages of projects I'm associated with very often, so seeing the edit on the watchlist helped. Mr.Z-man 00:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had gone out of my way to choose, I would probably have chosen to make them visible, since like you said people may not check the talk pages otherwise. In reality, I simply didn't think about it, since I am so used to the automatic bot flag for the old editing system. Matilda's comment reminded me I need to remember to turn on the 'bot' setting for other purposes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why aren't these bot edits hidden from my watchlist? 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is a categorization issue, which is also visible at the statistics table made by WP 1.0 bot. The problem is that :Category:Top-importance Orienteering articles is not in :Category:Orienteering articles by importance. However, since the Orienteering article already had enough points to be selected, and is the only Top-importance article for that project, it turns out to be a non-issue here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We probably should fix that category tree to avoid this problem in the future, though. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. The current WP 1.0 bot has some that tries to keep the tree tidy, but apparently it doesn't cover this situation. At some point, I'll write a maintenance script to double-check all the categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance=Top shown as Unassessed 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's listed here with a score of 952. The reason the quality looks wrong is that the selection was made from a database dump before the article was promoted to GA. With the GA rating the score would go up to 1202, still under the 1250 threshold. I am not personally familiar with the standards for adding extra articles to the selection, but you can raise the issue on Wikipedia talk:Release Version Nominations and someone more knowledgeable will be able to help. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I missed it; I was looking through at only the GA's. Thanks! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 19:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Nevada (BB-36)|USS ''Nevada'' (BB-36)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd second that, though as the message has gone out to all the WikiProject Talk pages I'm not sure it's worth changing now. Something to note for next time perhaps. "Holiday season" is US English and little-used and potentially confusing even in the UK, where many would take it to mean July and August. How about "mid-December"? --Qwfp (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just checked Christmas and holiday season and read that it "is generally considered to begin with Thanksgiving", which surprised me and means I just unwittingly demonstrated my own point! So we have a month or so less than I'd thought. Qwfp (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: 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 .  Perhaps the bot should be improved so that inactive projects are better detected.  67.100.125.156 (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ACK; of course it isn't URG. :-)  67.101.7.211 (talk) (fka 67.100.125.156 (contribs)) 06:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for The Who 

message: Should importance not be replaced by priority? Kittybrewster  ☎ 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody seems to agree on that. Some projects use one term, some use the other. For simplicity we have just been using 'importance' in the selection bot, but it's just a piece of jargon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. This is a categorization issue; the Formula One project ran into the same problem. I am going to run the data again to fix this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, when will you be re-running the data? And ... what is the cut-off date for upgrading articles to 1250 points? Thanks—GRM (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top-Importance for WikiProject Lepidoptera 

message: 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)
replies: text: It was not intentional, but it is a known problem. The current selection system uses database dumps, which were unexpectedly halted at the end of July and are not back online yet. So the selection data reflects the July 22 database dump. If articles have been reassessed since then, and should be included in the release, the can be nominated at Wikipedia talk:Release Version Nominations. In the future, we'll use a different system to collect the data, that does not depend on database dumps. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm sure we can work out some solution. Let me wait a couple days to see how common this sort of issue is before I move forward. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a couple of days, and I've checked the Addendum and New Articles, but cannot find any new Melbourne articles. What's the story? - Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be corrected in the latest version. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Articles?

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Pier Gerlofs Donia]] 

message: 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:
# FL articles were not given the right importance bonus.
# Categorization issues with the WP 1.0 categories were resolved. These affected projects such as Formula One (higher on this page). The most visible symptom was that importance was always shown as "unused". 
# Some projects were inadvertently left off the original selection, including Electronic. These are included in the new data.
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)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for resolving the issues. D.M.N. (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SelectionBot bug fixes 

message: 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)
replies: text: That page is static. If pages should be included in WP 0.7 that were not included in the automated selection, you can nominate them at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, is there any way to update that page manually, regardless of WP 0.7? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates? 

message: I have a couple of questions:
*I noticed that the output of the bot does not include "law" as a category.  Did I miss something?
*How can I display the score of an article that I have written or contributed to? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is called "Legal" so the law articles are listed there.  There is no tool to display the score like that, though I was going to ask for such a thing to be written like that - currently you need to find what it was tagged for, then go and look under that project.  If the article is new, it won't appear.  The bot currently has to use a dump from July for some data, and so even something written in August may not be in there.  We may be able to do more in the future, but remember that this is a new bot!  Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it.  Thank you. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Futurama 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks!  This is really helpful!  It would be really interesting to see how this affects a wide range of articles, from obscure articles to popular ones, and from big projects to small ones.  I know that with a "large scope" project, the scope counts quite a lot.  As we think about the next release, we will want to tweak the formula, and this sort of visualization is very helpful.  Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: No problem!!  I really enjoyed doing it.  Where would be the most appropriate place to publish more visualizations? Thanks Lwoodyiii (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that most should be done here, but if we have a really nice one, it might be posted on the 1.0 talk page which is much more highly watched.  If you were doing a whole series, it should be on a subpage - but I don't want to distract you from your main work!  If you want to do more, probably the first thing would be to decide what to show.  Firstly, can you clarify what data are represented here?  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I would just like to be useful to the 1.0 Release version.  I'm an extremely new Wikipedian (~1 week), but I find this particular project to be of great importance for distributing a quality version of Wikipedia.  As far as the data, the first line is for the Software engineering article.  I was interested to see where it was in the list and how it got there in the first place.  The other rows are examples of numbers for each part of the score, starting with the minimum or likely minimum and going to the maximum.  I wanted to see if you increased certain parts of the formula how it would affect the overall score. Thanks for any guidance you can provide. Lwoodyiii (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Example Data for Study of SelectionBot 

message: 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)
replies: text: Unfortunately it is not possible to use the API instead of database dumps, because the scoring algorithm requires things like a count of incoming links that cannot be efficiently fetched over the API. However, the new version of the WP 1.0 bot, which is under development and almost ready for public tests, is going to include the ability to generate scores dynamically, so they will be updated all the time. This bot been delayed somewhat as my job-related workload is very high, and because the WP 0.7 release required much of the time I had for wikipedia, but the new bot has been moving forward slowly but surely. Once the academic semester ends, I will be able to devote more time to the bot in May. Of course, if anyone else would like to help with the coding I would be glad to find a way for them to do so; I have already had a great deal of help from one other person. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another run/custom runs? 

message: No comma needed between "October" and "2010". Rich Farmbrough, 08:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comma

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bot still checking old project title 

message: 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)
thread_title: Longevity COI

message: *Acorn Computers is a former featured article and was selected for V0.5. Time has since moved on and the article is not currently of an equivalent quality... but the article is in the process of being improved again. It wasn't selected in 2008 but is now part of WP:COMP (and WP:RISCOS). Is it necessary to check in the V0.8 tarballs to find out if it's been automatically included by future bot assessments? (And of what relevance is this list, currently dated '17 Sep 10')?)
*And what about the related article, RISC OS?
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)
thread_title:  Including articles from V0.5 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Score = Importance + Quality + Popularity 

message: 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)
replies: text: Even some high-importance animal articles don't have any external interest data. Perhaps the data is not yet updated? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing external interest data