Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via WikiProjects

message: Recently we tested out User:MartinBotII on data from four projects, with a view to pulling out suitable articles for release versions.  I've got details of how it would work written up here.  Please take a look and give feedback. Walkerma 09:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting up for MartinBotII 

message: I have just set up an assessment department for our project. It appears the bot has already picked up on it. I think it's about time we joined in, but it's just that there is a lot of fandom in our area, which makes it hard to get the right people together at times :D
I was just wondering where all the "up to date" information for these kinds of assessment departments is btw. I'm somewhat lost in all the WP 1.0 pages and can't seem to find a set of clear rules TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may find what you need at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.  If the guidance is more on how to run an assessment workgroup, take a look at WP:COUNCIL and the "Resources" there.  I will also be writing up a guide to the 1.0 pages once V0,5 comes out. Looking at your project, it looks as if you still need to tag some article talk pages with assessments, so you can see things appear.  When you do that, check for capital/lowercase letters and make sure that the right categories appear at the bottom of the talk page after tagging. Cheers, Walkerma 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason why we have television shows in their current run listed?--Rmky87 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Television]] 

message: Maybe this is a strange idea, but a lot of the articles right now don't fall within the scope of any projects doing assessments. A proposal has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Assessment of unassessed articles regarding setting up a group to specifically engage in assessments, and I've made a sample tempalte at . I'm curious as to whether the rest of you think that this would be a good idea or not, and, if so, exactly what the formal arrangement should be. Should it be a WikiProject, a task force of some other project, or maybe something else? All responses are welcome. Badbilltucker 15:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible task force 

message: ; Description : There is currently a great deal of work being done across projects to assess articles for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, and that's great, but a great number of articles are not currently tagged by projects which assess for this, and may never be. Therefore, the purpose of this project would be to tag and assess articles not currently covered by an assessing project, for the purposes of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
; Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
# Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had originally planned the latter, however the former seems a better idea. The group could probably get away with also having it's own banner for articles with no project whatsoever, including some quite important ones; Hell comes to mind. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I myself am in the process of doing all the religion related articles, and just haven't gotten to Hell yet. However, I do enthusiastically support the idea. Badbilltucker 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  In cases where there's an existing project banner to use, it would probably be better to add that than to create some generic one. Kirill Lokshin 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the project could create it's own banner to use in addition to the other applicable project banners. Badbilltucker 17:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be the point?  The articles only need to get assessed by a single project in order to enter the system; having an additional banner that's not actually tied to a functional subject-area project doesn't seem useful. Kirill Lokshin 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of something like the existing automatic stub template, possibly with even similar wording. Or maybe a similar addition to existing banners along the same lines as that. Or maybe a small one similar to those used by the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors or similar to indicate that the work had been done by the project. I small three or four line ad, as it were. Also, some projects explicitly say only project members can assess articles, and they might want to know why outsiders assessed the articles for them.Badbilltucker 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For articles not covered by any project wahtsoever, these would need a seperate banner until a suitible project could be found. I guess part of the scope of this project would be to locate projects for such articles. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably work best if we ran User:PockBot or something similar on a given category we know falls within the scope of a given project, and assess those articles which aren't listed as being assessed yet. Badbilltucker 17:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do!  Certain projects would be very happy to have help with getting untagged articles tagged and/or assesed. :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how mnay people we would need to get this to go, considering it isn't at this point so much a project as a function. There is now a  template which could be added to articles to indicate who did the assessment. We'd still need some sort of project page. I've contacted the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team regarding this, and am awaiting  a response. Badbilltucker 15:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that sounds brilliant, probably by far the best way to do this. I too favour your former idea, much better to run as part of the project then to become a seperate one in our own right; it will probably get off the ground quicker that way, and gain more contributers, too. Also, the fact that the project has already existed for some time, and is well known, will greatly help us. Another deciding factor is that WVWP is on the verge (i.e. may do in a year or two, seems fine for now) of going inactive, which would be a great shame as it was a highly successful Wikipedia group, whereas this would keep the old project going, just under a new direction in adition to it's present duties. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 20:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great to me. Badbilltucker 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Should the 3 of us (+ other interested parties, eg Tito or Kirill?) get together on IRC, or have a conference call on Skype, to work out the best way to do this?  Or should we just thrash out our ideas over at Talk:WVWP? I'll try and do some cleanup at WVWP in the next few days, and also work on the site map I mentioned. Walkerma 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never used IRC, and don't have Skype, so I would be much more comfortable over at Talk:WVWP. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, funny. I just uninstalled Skype.  Unfortunately, I'm having some major connection problems on my house, as my ISP decided to knock down a wire when they went to repair it, so I don't know how long it will take to fix that. Ideally, talk pages were designed for these kinds of things... we should still use them.  If necessary, I can try connecting from school to IRC, but a set time, during the work week, would need to be scheduled. Otherwise, I like Walkerma's first suggestion better. More groups = divided effort. Titoxd(?!?) 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from the above WP:COUNCIL link

message: I'd like to participate in this.  I've copied as much of the relevant stuff as I could to Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science/Assessment and the related pages (based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction/Assessment), and copied in the assessment code to the .  Please let me know what else I should do.--ragesoss 21:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you have everything set up perfectly!  You should see MathBot pick it up during the next 24 hours, and things should settle down after 48 hours or so.  You can run MathBot manually through the project if you're really impatient.  Thanks for using the bot. BTW, speaking personally as a chemist we at WP:CHEMISTRY should probably collaborate with you on getting Antoine Lavoisier up to FA status some time! Cheers,  Walkerma 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science]]

message: The Work via Wikiprojects page (whose talk page this is) looks kind of messed up for the moment I think, with that large  on top, and now with a blown up Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics (the latter is my fault). It would be nice if the page were made more readable. I tried to reorganize things myself but I could not make it look good (and I don't know what's important and what should be on top). Anybody willing to work on this? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will move the navigation template to the bottom, if you think that looks better.  For a long time people have complained that they couldn't find their way around the maze of 1.0 pages.  I am slowly writing templates for all the 1.0 projects, as a way of dealing with that, and the WVWP template is "no. 2 in a series". I put it at the top so that people would be aware that it's now available, but perhaps the time to advertise it is over.  Another thing, I'm going to completely rewrite the description of the project (see "New direction..." above), so things on the page will change a lot soon anyway.  The current text is out of date. As for the statistics page being "your fault", I really appreciate that information, the project is gearing up to automate the use of it.  Thanks, Walkerma 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I think the the navigation template looks better at the bottom. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style of this page 

message: Is Martinbot ready to do a full test run? Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just sent Martin a message, then realised that only yesterday he left an update with "garhh" in the edit summary.  He's getting really annoyed with BT! Walkerma 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martinbot? 

message: Hi, I've just ran your bot three times and hundreds of articles seem to be missing. As you can already tell, there are several of child projects (Formula One, A1 GP etc.). Are the child projects included in the motorsport bot. The project members go round editing all parts of motorsport. Can you please try and get the children projects on the same bot as Motorsport, please. Many thanks. Can you reply on my talkpage, it's easier for me to get to. Davnel03 19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport]] 

message: The importance rating has cause enough controversy and is not being used to its full potential in the Aircraft project. What would be the easiest way of removing this part from our assessment profile. Can we just delete the related categories and remove the code from the project banner? What will the bot do after this is done? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you just delete the importance part of the template, this will remove all of the importance assessments at a stroke.  The table should (I think!) start to show all of these as unassessed for importance.  If you ever decide to revisit this (because we are starting to use importance for article selection at WP:1.0), you can go back into the history of the main worklist to dig out the information.  One compromise many projects use is to agree (by discussion) on a small set - perhaps 5-10 in a project like yours - of Top-Priority articles, and only tag these - that is usually less controversial than the levels below Top. Walkerma 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the importance part from our projects assessments 

message: Considering his term has now expired, I was wondering if it might make sense to replace Annan on the VA list with Ban Ki-moon, his successor? John Carter 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this would be fine, I think, though it should be changed at WP:VA as well (if not yet done - I know the French have made that update to their list).  The VA tagging list is in fact a "snapshot" of the actual WP:VA list from about a month ago, since we can't work with a moving target.  Walkerma 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible replacement of [[Kofi Annan]] on VA list? 

message: I've started going through some of the articles on the VA tagging list to ensure that the relevant projects have their banners on the talk pages. I would add the WVWP tag someone mentioned on the main page here, but I don't know what it is. Can anyone help me in this regard? Thanx. John Carter 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we may need to create a template.  I'd suggest that (for now) we just write a note next to the article name on the VA tagging page.  We need to discuss exactly what we plan to use for a template, how it's used, etc. Walkerma 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were to create a template, I have seen various 0.5 and 2006 CD article templates on several of these pages already. Might it be possible to create one standard Version 1.0 Editorial Team banner which might be able to function for the entire group? Maybe add criteria for which release if any the article is being considered for, etc. It might be easier to just update an existing template than having to keep adding a new one for every new release. John Carter 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good idea.  We'll need to get various people to agree with that.  This will be much easier to do once the CDs are released - both are due to come out in the same week (the last week of March).  I'd say we should plan and write something now, but hold off implementing it until after the CDs are out.  Thanks, Walkerma 16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would encourage people to use this javascript tool when looking for assessments.  I haven't tried the latest "killer app" version, but even the basic version worked very nicely, and saved a lot of time when looking at what had been assessed. Walkerma 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VA tagging 

message: I notice only Harvard University, Princeton University, and Yale University are included on the VA list. This seems to me slightly US-centric. Shouldn't at least Sorbonne, University of Cambridge and University of Oxford be included as well? John Carter 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VA Universities 

message: I think the bot may be getting confused by the ampersand in the quality category. It should be depositing the stats in Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/D%26D_articles_by_quality_statistics, but instead they're showing up under Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/D. The D&D articles by quality and D&D articles by quality log links aren't showing on the main page here either. How might they be fixed? Would changing the category names from the ampersand to the word "and" work? That'd be an easy fix, if so. Please to advise, thank you very much. :) --Ebyabe 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the amphersand is most likely the problem - if I recall correctly, the bot has had problems in the past with unusual characters in project names.  If that doesn't solve the problem, the best place to raise the issue is here. Cheers, Walkerma 03:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons|WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons]] 

message: The template isn't working properly on certain articles - specifically the one on Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I'd fix it but I'm not sure how to and don't want to screw up a bunch of articles. Koweja 18:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reporting this.  I'm not able to fix it, I'll see if we can find someone who can. Walkerma 03:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:WP1.0 Arts]] 

message: I'd like to propose we have an IRC meeting soon to plan a strategy for this project for the next year or so, held at #wikipedia-1.0.  Please read this discussion to see what we're planning. I will be away in Chicago (& busy during daytime Chicago time) from 24th-29th March.  What dates & times (specify time zone) would be good for people who are interested?  Weekends work well for me, during evenings UTC. Walkerma 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite my concerns on your talk page, this could turn out OK for me to join in. Afternoons UTC are generally when I can get online, and Friday and Saturday evenings are very good aswell (also UTC). Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 07:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Weekend evenings are good for me as well this week. When and at what time? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, how about this Sat evening UTC (afternoon in the US) - perhaps 1900 UTC? Walkerma 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: On second thoughts, we probably need some time for people to download and set up Chatzilla (or whatever).  Would Sunday evening 1900 UTC (afternoon in the US) work OK? Walkerma 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be able to be there at that time. John Carter 19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming I can set it up OK, I should be able to make it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The time works for me. MahangaTalk to me 02:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should say that it apears I will no longer be able to make it - my computer is getting nothing but 404 errors from Freenode, and I don't think it's a problem their end, as previous attempts have had a similar result. My computer just doesn't like it. :-(. All I can do is ask that someone drop a note on my talk page saying what was decided; I'll just have to go along with it. Sorry, wish I could be there, Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 18:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can try http://www.ircatwork.com if your IRC client acts up. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That works fine. Thanks! Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC meeting 

message: Can someone who knows what they are doing start the "Everyday life" page and its subsections (incl. sports) please?  I have content to add, but there's not place for it yet, and I just wandered in.  I'm often :WP:BOLD but not when I don't know the templates and formatting yet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and get something put up tomorrow night.  Which projects are you reporting for, so I can make sure I cover those? Thanks, Walkerma 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just WikiProject Cue sports and its "child" WikiProject Snooker for now.  I'm sure once the section is open others will wander in. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't forgotten this, but it's almost 2am and I have to work tomorrow!  Maybe tomorrow night? Walkerma 05:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  Pushing 2am myself, and it's not like I need to spawn a flurry of beer-fuelled activity in the wee-hours.  No big hurry.  If a week passes I'll ping you about it.  :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Everyday life / Sports

message: As requested on the IRC meeting, here we have . This template will [hopefully] supercede all of the Editorial Team's banners, including v0.5, v0.7, v1.0, , and templates for Vital articles and core topics.
Currently, it is still in beta stage; while I think I did a lot of conditional statements right (see for the template voodoo), it is still missing several things. I did not add those things as I wanted to make sure they were going to be used beforehand.
The template can replace all of the v0.5 templates; the built-in functionality should do it transparently. However, I'd like someone to double-check the category structure I put in the template, as I'm not sure whether I missed something or not.
Some other issues:
# It doesn't work with small=yes yet, mostly because I don't know how to do so ;
# I would love to have something similar to the MILHIST "hide" function, to hide all the tags by default;
# I haven't put the class parameter in for VAs, CORE or CORESUP, mostly because I'm waiting for the go-ahead signal from those projects;
# I did not put importance in, as agreed to;
# I did not put the projects list parameter, because I wasn't sure how WP:1.0 would like to handle and display that info.
Please also review the wording, and feel free to take the template out for a spin. The usage is as follows:

Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a note, you should work with User:Kirill Lokshin who is the drive behind  and . I think that would benefit all. Too many templates are doing too many things already, and Kirill seems to know what he's doing when it comes to talkpage banners. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kirill already checked it, and added the collapsing feature, so that is done. Small=yes would be nice, but that I don't know how to do... however, checking the wording, checking the links within the template, and checking the category structure (meaning, did I forget to add an important category?) are still left to do. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the wording "is part of ... (article list)" to "is one of the (article list)" in two locations on the template, as I think the latter flows more easily. I might be wrong though. John Carter 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Installed it at Talk:Albinism.  However, I'm a little concerned that the template is pretty much undocumented.  There's nothing explaining what the orphan, VA, core and coresup parameters are for, and even other stuff is only documented in the templates being replaced.  Many users would also ask what is the different between pass and held.  Etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also installed it at Talk:New Delhi and discovered that "|v0.5=fail" doesn't seem to do anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the template, and for the examples we can look at.  I notice that the WPCD categories are not showing up at all- shouldn't we see those?  Also, on Albinism I see that 1.0 categories are being generated, but we don't have a 1.0 release yet, so these are all redlinked.  Could you remove the V1.0 references until we reach that point? As for v0.5=fail not doing anything, does it need to?  I don't know that we want to advertise too loudly the fact that an article failed V0.5 - unless there is a reason we need to? Thanks, Walkerma 04:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re: 0.5: I'm not sure hiding failure is good.  Highlighting it is fairly likely to generated fix-it editing action, esp. since it implies that unless fixed it will also fail 0.7 and 1.0.  Cf. failed GA and failed FA templates.  Maybe its just me, but it seems that they generate a certain amount of activity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, the template is not documented yet, mostly because I haven't gotten around to it yet. I will do that, once I have the time, or until somebody beats me to filling out Template:WP1.0/doc. As for the 1.0 cats - I thought I had removed them earlier today? Unless somebody changed the template while I wasn't looking, those should be gone. I'll have a look there. As for v0.5=fail, v0.7=fail, et al, what we did originally was to just remove the  template, so I just kept using that behavior on the new template. As for WPCD - that is exactly the kind of thing I asked about when talking about checking the category tree - it is too complex, and I was bound to miss something. I'll see what I can do. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I've commented out the 1.0 categories, and readded :Category:Wikipedia CD Selection. In the process, I found :Category:Wikipedia Release Version. What is that one for? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'm not really sure we will need the Release Version template at all; I think your new template covers the same ground and more.  We may need to delete it if it is not in use. Thanks, Walkerma 05:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shiny new template 

message: I looked in one of the already-established topical sections on the page to which this talk page is attached, and all of the tables in it have headings like "Contact with Contact with WP Rational Skepticism". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Contact with Contact with" error

message: I have been inactive in this project for a while. I am coming back to work on the release version, but what happened to Martinbot? The assessments were originally going to start in January, but nothing has happened. Has British Telecom fixed his internet connection yet?  Also, we might want to consider letting projects rate each other after we do a full-scale test with the multiplication scale and linkranking. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 16:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back Eyu100!  Martin was inactive for a very long time because of the BT connection, or lack thereof. We chatted on the phone last month.  He now has a Toolserver account and is setting things up on there.  You can see a lot of the developments during your absence here and here.  He had told me he would be testing it last weekend, but I haven't heard anything as yet - he mentioned that he needs the Toolserver to be upgraded, supposedly happening soon.  I think it's also a very complicated piece of code to write, so it may take him a few weeks.  He plans to do testing over the next couple of months, then once some important exams are over in June he should be able to devote a lot of time to it. In the meantime we need to keep reviewing and nominating manually, I think.  Walkerma 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the results? Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the results will be posted here, but he had a bug in table generation (I think) which meant he couldn't display the test results for us to see.  The main progress has been in the speed with which he can get through the data - seconds instead of hours. Walkerma 16:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "hours rather than seconds" maybe? --kingboyk 16:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're making a dig at the progress, that's limited by Martin's time!  I'm referring to his comment "I was able to do a dummy run on all FA and B class medicine articles in less than 5 seconds!" - with the old MartinBotII system this would have taken an hour or so. Walkerma 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put up the centralised project ratings idea back up on the Martinbot discussion page (not his talk page). Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 14:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wasn't making a dig at all. Thanks for clearing that up! --kingboyk 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martinbot, yet again 

message: Is I believe set up for the bot. With any luck, the statistics will appear soon. John Carter 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting for results from the bot. Not entirely sure what's happening here, but the project started assessments around the first of the month. I would have thought the bot might have gotten to this project by now. John Carter 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to add the :Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. It's needed for the bot to detect it, which it now has. :) MahangaTalk 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel truly stupid for that mistake. Thanks for the pointer. :) John Carter 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy]]... 

message: has been engaged in assessment for some time, but has yet to show any statistics. I have no idea why. John Carter 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's deja vu all over again. ;) "You forgot to add the :Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. It's needed for the bot to detect it, which it now has. :) MahangaTalk 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, in this case it wasn't my creation, so I only tried to cobble together what already existed. Not a good excuse, I know, but people who have a habit of making the same mistake over and over and over again (like, well, me), have real trouble admitting it. John Carter 15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to you for taking the initiative to get it sorted! Walkerma 02:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies]] 

message: How can i add such a table to the WikiProject i work on ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 09:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Create the page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/(fill in the blank) articles by quality statistics and transclude it to wherever you wish. To have the chart populated, however, you would have to create the assessment categories to be displayed on the chart. If you would like to contact me personally regarding the specifics of which project you are referring to, I could probably help set up the assessments material. John Carter 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It'd help if you told us what project you're working on. MahangaTalk 15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SERIOUS TERRIBLE QUESTION :S 

message: The VA articles have now all been tagged. Not all of them have directly obvious associated projects, but I have proposed projects when it seemed to me that there was sufficient volume of content to do so. I guess this leaves us somewhat up in the air. If I might propose a possibility, probably the single largest project out there, WikiProject Biography, still has a staggering number of articles unassessed. Other large projects, probably including the likes of Military history, probably have similar problems. If we were going to do any sort of other assessments, I would think that those two projects would probably be the best place to start for the possibility of reducing the backlog of unassessed/tagged articles. Thoughts? John Carter 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biography project is ten times the size of the Milhist project, and has one hundred times the backlog. Other than the mega-large Biography project, the projects with the most unassessed articles are those that don't have a large, active membership, that are set up for assessing but haven't done any. (Edit: WP:ALBUM and WP:SONG are large projects that could stand (a lot of) help.) Nifboy 01:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work on this, John, we've now covered the top 1000 or so.  I'd like to use the VA tagging page now for review as part of the Version 0.7 project (all VAs are were automatically nominated).  Does anyone mind if I use that page for V0.7 now? Thanks, Walkerma 02:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also well aware that WP:Chemistry has around 23,000 articles (most untagged), of which perhaps 18,000 are not covered by WP:Chemicals.  With only 1000 assessed, that leaves about 17k to be done.  Being a chemist and project member, I want to focus my energy on that 17k. I suspect there may be some other broad subjects like chemistry with similar issues. Walkerma 20:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VA tagging (again) 

message: Is there any way to get an automatically created list of the number of unassessed articles the various projects have made? Given the number of projects engaged in assessments, and the changes which are no doubt made every day, it's probably the only way to know which projects are in most and least need of help. John Carter 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent idea.  Can User:PockBot do this, perhaps trawling through :Category:Unassessed-Class_articles?  I'm not sure.  The alternative would just be to go clicking through A-Z till we found one that needed a lot of work - I suspect we'd probably get no further than WP:Adelaide... I'll try & help with this over the weekend. Walkerma 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Albums does have about 30K unassessed articles (yeah, I balked at that too) so they obviously do need a lot of work. If there would be any way to get the bot to just create a page listing the unassessed-articles by project (and maybe by importance?) that might help a lot when and if the albums backlog ever gets reduced to a managable number. John Carter 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not taking on any major new tasks until exams are over (about two weeks from now), then I'll see if PockBot will work. If that fails, I have a collection of "this would be nice" things which I raise in discussions periodically.  My priority right now is trying to get Version 0.7 active and MartinBotII operating - but I'll make sure I raise this idea when emailing or posting in the next few weeks.  It's also quite possible that MartinBotII could be easily adapted to do this if PockBot can't. Till then we should perhaps help the songs or albums people?  Thanks for all your sterling work, and I also saw your valiant efforts in talking to Bus Stop about Bob Dylan! Cheers, Walkerma 02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unassessed-Class articles by project 

message: The assessment for this wikiproject has not updated in 4 days. Not quite sure what to do. Acidskater 02:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it looks as if someone at your project has used this link to update the list, since Music venues is one of the few projects to have a May 7 log entry!  Checking the index, it looks as if the letter A projects were updated on May 6, but many lists have not been updated since May 2.  However the bot is hard at work (going through the Is as I type this), so I expect it will update the Ms later today. Walkerma 03:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Music venues]] 

message: I've setup everything to work properly and it does for the most part, the only problem I can see right now is this stats/quality page: Cyprus articles by quality. I don't get why it says Wikipedia:WikiProject Cypriot and Contact with WP Cypriot instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cyprus and Contact with WP Cyprus. Is there something I did wrong? How do I correct it, if it is wrong? El Greco (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed this post coming in.  From what I understand, the bot generates the name of the project automatically from the category name.  Since the category is called "Cypriot articles by quality" it generates the project name as WikiProject:Cypriot.  I was involved a little in setting up the Good Articles project in this scheme recently, and it created "WikiProject Good" which I thought might make a nice new project to spread Wikilove!  There are two solutions to your problem:
# Create a redirect from WP:Cypriot to WP:Cyprus (this is what I did with the WP:Good)
# Rename the category "Cyprus articles by quality"
Thanks for using the bot, and enjoy your trip to Greece! Walkerma 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much!!!! El Greco (talk · contribs) 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Cyprus]] stats/quality page 

message: I want to ask about assessment rating. I know that any article can move up to GA or FA status regardless of their previous ratings as long as they meet the criteria. When a GA article is downgraded, it's pretty obvious that this article belongs to B class. However, when a FA article downgrades, which class does it go back to? A class? GA class? Or B class? A good example is Gene. There doesn't seem to have a "safety net" to "catch" these articles when they are demoted. OhanaUnited 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A-Class is basically, "Just needs a bit of work to be FA".  So if the FA failed because of something fairly minor, and it could reasonably be renominated in a month or so, then it is probably A.  If it failed for a whole bunch of reasons, and needs a lot of work, then it's B.  Walkerma 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up question, though. If an FA had previously passed GA, and is then downgraded, would it be downgraded to GA, which it had earlier passed, or not? John Carter 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way GA status can be revoked is by going through GAR, just as with FA/FAR.  So it would be at least GA.  I've sometimes tagged such things as A-Class, if I've thought the FAR was a close call; nearly all GAs these days would also be A-Class. Walkerma 04:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downgrading an article 

message: Hi, I was wondering if someone could help setup the assessment code for . I copied/adapted the code from , but I'm not sure how/where to create the various other pages and categories that are needed (and still need more coffee...). Much thanks :) --Quiddity 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :) --Quiddity 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Veterinary medicine 

message: Hi, I thought that I hade dropped entries to the appropriate categories to get the bot to operate last night. Though the categories were later modified by another user. Wondered if there was something I was missing from the instructions that would cause bot not to operate on them.
Thanks
Keith D 10:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Yorkshire

message: I am running the bot though are brand new wikiproject.  it seems like the bot is unable to create an "&" symbol.  it creates a page called "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Texas A"  I was wondering if you guys could take a look at our wikiproject to see what we are doing wrong.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Texas_A%26M Oldag07 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Texas A&M 

message: Hi!  I've just run the bot on :Category:LGBT articles by quality.  It updates the statistics page, but it doesn't update the log page.  Any ideas why?  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There looks to be a general problem as the latest BOT run has not updated any of the log files towards the end of its cycle. Keith D 17:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, that was a bug I introduced recently. I fixed it now. Thanks for noticing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Log page not updating? 

message: Where and how do I ask for articles to be rated? Fainites barley 19:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Proposal to remove the main biography project from the bot run. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove the main biography project from the bot run 

message: Where's all these FAs coming from? Wikipedia:Featured articles says we currently have 1,652, but according to this page, we have 1,894! That's a big difference. Can anyone explain this? Rocket000 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be that maybe several FAs are assessed at different importance grades by various projects, and that those articles are showing up under each importance grade. That's just a guess, though. John Carter 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think Oleg was strict about not double counting any article.  This is a standard problem - the difference is caused by FLs listed as FA-Class, I believe. If you take a look at the list I think that should confirm that. Walkerma (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA count 

message: There are 1268521 articles w/ a wikiproject dividing this by the number of total articles of 2,121,722  we get 59.787333119041985707835428015546% (about 3 out of 5) of articles have a wikiproject --Java7837 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Percent of articles w/ a wikiproject

message: I am trying to kickstart a somewhat new/became dead WikiProject.  It seems like after its creation, no one knew about it and the list of proposed members dwindled into a couple people.  Anyways, I've set up project banners, sidebars, and now I'm trying to get this whole assessment deal squared away.  I've been working with WP:UNI a little bit, and I've noticed that I cannot get that table of # of articles vs. assessment class made.  It looks like a bot operation, which I've ran http://www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/wp10/run_wp10.cgi the bot]] for Robotics already, but I don't know how to view the results yet (part of it might also be I don't know how to seek out all of the robotics articles and then assess all of them, and then get it on that table).  If I can get some pointers as to how I could do all of that, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks!  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bot operation. I'll look into it and see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much!  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ROBO|WikiProject Robotics]] 

message: This table only shows the articles assessed as stubs but not the other classes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Opera_articles_by_quality_statistics
Can anyone fix it?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with this table?

message: I'm probably being dumb, but I can't fathom why the bot isn't picking up the importance splits on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Gymnastics articles by quality statistics. IfI'm being dumb, how do I go about fixing this? Thanks! -- ratarsed (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably because the bot doesn't like :Category:WikiProject Gymnastics articles by importance when there exists :Category:Gymnastics articles by quality. (Note that there is no "WikiProject" in the category name.) Renaming the importance category to use the same format as the quality category should fix things. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Told you I was being dumb -- thanks for that, all working now :) -- ratarsed (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance with bot 

message: Can anybody help on how to ask for a re-assessment? Reactive attachment disorder (a DSM and ICD-10 classification) was assessed as mid-importance and Attachment disorder (a vague term) was assessed as high. This really ought to be the other way round. Its not particularly important but I can't work out who decides these things. Fainites barley 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Importance can be hard to assess, particularly outside your area of expertise.  Thanks for fixing it, I see it's been changed.  These assessments are organized and done by the relevant WikiProject, in this case Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology; if there's some discussion needed, it should be raised there.  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-assessment

message: The project page says "People conducting assessments are encouraged to use/evaluate Outriggr's tool (currently being beta tested).". The problem is that Outrigger has recently had the script deleted is there an alternative tool that can be used to perform assessments? Keith D (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pyrospirit has taken over this script, it's the metadata.js script linked from here. I'll try to update the link from here. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information. Keith D (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment tools

message: Is there are reason why Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates was omitted from the automated selection of articles for Version 0.7? - Visionholder (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're baffled by that - I had reviewed the Primates project so it was on our list, but the bot skipped over it for some reason.  We'll try to find the problem ASAP and generate a list. Walkerma (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission of WikiProject Primates 

message: Hi there - just wanted to leave a note saying that the ITC Entertainment Wikiproject is active and an ongoing project.  I saw that a note was left on the project discussion page a long time ago but no response had been given from us (for my part, it was during a time when I wasn't very active on WP).  Howie ☎ 14:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject ITC Entertainment 

message: * When assessing articles, is there a way to drill down and find those that are at the intersection of TWO qualities?  (I.e. stub, but high importance, or such), when using this sort of table of evaluations: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Theatre articles by quality statistics ----Mdukas (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a way to find those articles that have two assessment characteristics? (i.e. High Importance, Stub) or such 

message: Not sure what's changed with the latest release, but with the manual tool down, I can't find how to create an assessment table for :Category:Ontario_road_articles_by_quality. I can make one on the Toolserver, but the page on wikipedia (Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Ontario_road_articles_by_quality_statistics) is blank, despite there being an entry on the index.
What'd I b0rk? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Ontario roads 

message: I noticed that several wikiprojects put assessment tags on redirect pages.  Does 1.0 have any official opinion on this?  Doing so has some organizational benifits, but it also greatly inflates the class=NA category and gives a lot of extra work to the bot, so I was wondering whether the people running Work Via Wikiprojects care either way.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging redirects 

message: The Public Policy Initiative is  recruiting Wikipedians to assess article quality improvement. We are testing the metric for consistency and to see if there are differences between Wikipedian scores and subject matter expert scores. We are looking to identify the strengths and weakness of the current assessment system since we are using that system to evaluate article quality improvement through the project. Check out  WikiProject: U.S. Public Policy if interested. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject: U.S. Public Policy Requesting Assessment Volunteers 

message: Greetings.  I'm working with the WP:Article Incubator, and would like to improve the assessment structure.  Currently only articles that have graduated out of the Incubator are assessed (see :Category:Article Incubator articles by quality).  But the Candidate articles are not.  Candidate articles are outside of mainspace, and are 'works in progress' (see: :Category:Articles in the Article Incubator).  
Is it possible to set up assessments for the Candidate articles, even though they are outside the mainspace? For example, Move :Category:Article Incubator articles by quality to :Category:Article Incubator Graduate Articles by quality, then Create :Category:Article Incubator Candidate Articles by quality. So the Incubator would end up with 2 assessment groups, one for public articles, and one for internal work. Thanks.       Eclipsed   ¤      11:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Incubator Assessments - Graduates vs. Candidates