Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Assessment

message: How about another status update. Hasn't it been two weeks?-MBK004 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated the table. I've lost my voice from a stupid cold; can someone else give the motivational speech today? Maralia 15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, we have nearly doubled the number of articles in just two months!  I continue to be amazed at all the new articles we have added.  While members of this project have taken care of 159 of the unassessed articles in the past two weeks, we tagged and assessed 1192 new articles!  --Kralizec! (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Table now updated. We've passed the 10,000 article milestone!-MBK004 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for updating the table here! I should have pointed it out earlier, but the most current count is always available on the main project page, in the sidebar template , which substs this page: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ships articles by quality statistics. It's auto updated by bot every three days. Maralia 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: November

message: We've also got all these to deal with at some point... :Category:Unassessed-importance Ships articles Martocticvs (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been doing a few each day. It seems like the job will never end. -MBK004 06:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of un-assessed articles never seems to shrink much because the good folks at WP:MILHIST are also adding our project tag to applicable articles as part of Tag & Assess 2007.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the ship articles I've tagged thru Tag & Assess 2007 were done correctly as to not add to our backlog. Also, the next update is due within 24 hours when the assessment bot updates. -MBK004 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assessment status report updated again. We seem to be slowing down considerably. Importance assessment drive seems to be looming as well. -MBK004 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that we're necessarily slowing down; we did assess some 800 articles between November 15 and Dec. 3. It just seems we can't get the number down to one page. It's been steadily increasing at about the same pace we've been assessing. Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That didn't last long! Martocticvs (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brad101 has been on a tagging sweep already this morning—now that he's signed on to the project, someone go post him a quick and dirty 'how to assess'! Maralia (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading the instructions but so far have not begun to assess articles. I have been doing the disambig pages since those are no-brainers. I've probably put down at least 100 project tags, maybe even 200, so that should give us an idea of how many articles are still out there not tagged. Finding talk pages without the project tag is really easy. People have made a serious mess to the disambig pages, sometimes redirecting the disambig pages to one ship. USS Chesapeake was one good example. Another was USS Challenger where someone had pointed it to the Star Trek universe. --Brad (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This page started showing as unassessed about the same time as List and Cat classes were enabled for us (because it didn't show there last week when I was clearing up the unassessed, I'm certain of if). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed!  It appears that you inadvertantly added this page to that category manually .  Adding a colon  fixed the issue.  :-)  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Table updated as of 26 December. Also, for those of you who assess for WP:MILHIST too, note that they have enabled the dab parameter for class assessments. Maralia (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for not assessing those I tagged as WP SHips during the drive, which must have been in the hundreds; I though someone who actually belonged on the project should.  Since I joined thirty minutes ago, I'll try to assess for ships, and not just tag, from here on.--Bedford (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I left your welcome message just now, I was really tempted to add 'by the way, we have some articles to tag & assess'. . .I figured you might run screaming, though ;) Maralia (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to get to 10,000 for MH, but after that I'll see what I can do. :D --Bedford (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: December

message: Looking at the history of the bot, it seems as though this hasn't run since 2 January. Can someone make this bot run, since we are overdue for an update, especially since the bot usually updates every 3 days. -MBK004 06:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the table after the bot belatedly updated. -MBK004 14:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: January

message: Well, the unassessed category is currently empty as I type this. Good work to all who have assessed the massive amount of articles that were there when we started. Now I guess the next hurdle is the large amount of articles lacking importance assessments. -MBK004 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I cleaned out the last 10 or so that were in there earlier today. It seems that no matter how much we keep on it, articles keep popping up in there. I suppose that's just how it works though. On to the unassessed importance articles! Parsecboy (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Seems to me that a large majority of those tags missing importance ratings are due to some bot activity. The request was @ Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/PbBot_2. At least, looking at 10 different article pages with HMS xxx brought up PbBot as one culprit. From the RFA, you can see where the original request came from. Hopefully, bot tagging articles will be more thought out next time. --Brad (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the bot was purposefully set to omit importance because of the ability for us to have different importances to different individual ships depending on certain variables. Having a bot just make everything Mid importance wouldn't be useful and would be counter-productive. It seems to me that importance tagging is something that is best left to the humans instead of bots. -MBK004 03:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have long intended to arrange for another round of bot tagging to catch articles not even tagged for WPSHIPS—I just want to wait till our manual assessing is caught up. I should be able to make the next round of bot tags much smarter. From a coding standpoint it should be straightforward to drill down from :Category:Ships to find untagged articles, tag those class articles as high priority and everything else as mid; even co-tagging for WP:MILHIST with proper taskforce tags is feasible. Obviously, there will be some finessing of categories to exclude, etc—that's just a big picture summary. I'll tackle that beast when we have :Category:Unassessed-importance Ships articles under control. Maralia (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: PbBot was only authorized to put down  which was fine because looking in either maintenance category showed the same article and one person would clear both categories when they assessed the article. In late June, PbBot started putting down:  where the article was auto assessed by class only. This tilted the category to where a bunch of articles only showed in the one category and not the other. Finding where the mistake happened is important so that it doesn't happen in the next round. --Brad (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In :Category:Unassessed-importance Ships articles there are only (ha) 375 more to go as of now. Down from 500 or so a few days ago. --Brad (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been working on them on and off since the unassessed class was emptied out a couple of weeks ago. There's still 300+, but they're slowly being whittled down. Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As of right now, there are 178 articles left in the unassessed importance category. We're down to less than a page. Almost done! Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As of this writing, both categories are empty. Good work, everyone! Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! I was only good for about 10-15 a day before I experienced brain melt. --Brad (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet our job is never done. I just saw HMS Dryad (1795) sneak into both categories, but it's been taken care of. Maralia is planning on having the bot run again, but she's tweaking the bot's ruleset so it's a little more accurate next time around. So soon enough, we'll have plenty more to take care of. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how big of a run the bot will bring-in, because for the past few days, I've tagged upwards of 100 new articles a day with full assessments. -MBK004 20:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: February

message: Would it be safe to stow this thread in the archives with the rest of the assessment discussions now that it appears the bulk of this campaign is over with? At least, no further updates are applicable to the graph above. --Brad (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps an assessment status/discussion subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/Status and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/Status as a place to move status updates and related discussions? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable to me. Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that starting a new project page is needed. What would that do that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment#Current_status doesn't do? --Brad (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea for the next drive. When I get a bot to do the next round of tagging, I'll start a subpage as suggested, for the next batch of follow-up assessments. This conversation is definitely ready for archiving. Maralia (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: March

message: Hi, about 2., 3 and 4. i have a question, lets say i make a new article, as always, i am trying to ad the right category under the article as wel, now we have assesment, do you want me to put the assesment template on the talkpage as wel (unassessed) like this Talk:Hydra_%28ship%29. ?  In that way i am also dropping the article in the scope of assessment, or does the project prefer to select its own articles for assesment. Cheers . Mion (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. If you're not sure what to do with assessing class and importance just make sure you leave  on the article talk page. Someone will be around later to assess. --Brad (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Brad, yeah i thought so, by hand can be done, question is there also a bot operating to lift new articles in ship categories to auto add the template ? i know there is a bot running that checks categories for new articles en lists them, however i made a new subcat which maybe prevents the bot from detecting the articles ? Mion (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the bot: User:AlexNewArtBot . Mion (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That bot doesn't auto add the project template, but rather produces a list for humans to tag. It doesn't choose articles based on categories, though—it looks for a key words like ship. In other words, if you miss tagging one of your new ship-related articles, it will probably still get picked up in our new articles feed and then tagged by a human. Maralia (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks, completely clear. Mion (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about tagging

message: There is some minor controversy at HM Bark Endeavour about the quality of the article. On behalf of WikiProject Ships I have reassessed the article as class=Start rather than class=B, based on my interpretation the criteria found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment#Quality_scale. However, a more experienced member of this wikiproject may wish to review my interpretation of these criteria. (sdsds - talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that you were spot on to reassess to start class. That article is a train wreck. --Brad (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HM Bark Endeavour 

message: If there were an article on a ship class that was planned but for which no ships were completed, what importance should be assessed to it? If you look at the importance scale for ships where "Medium" is the standard and "Low" is used for incompleted ships, it looks like incompleteness drops the importance down a notch. So if ship classes are normally "High", would an incomplete ship class be dropped one notch to "Medium"? Does that sound reasonable? (I'm assuming a case where there are no separate issues with reliable sources, notability, etc.) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance question for uncompleted ship classes 

message: The quality scale table has links to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships#References and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships#Citations, yet neither of these sections actually exists within the WikiProject Ships article.  In fact, referencing and citation is not even mentioned anywhere within that article!  These links either need to lead to useful information or else they need to be removed entirely.  Hopefully someone knows the real location of the WikiProject_Ships referencing and citation policy so that we can do the former. Riick (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the links. No idea what the plans were for those but not important imo. Brad (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad links in quality scale table 

message: FYI, the page could include a better tabulation of counts by importance and quality.  It is now possible to have a subtotal of the regular articles only (separating out categories, lists, other non-articles), and for cross-tabulation of importance vs. quality.  See here for an example at another wikiproject that is now working well.  Editor Dudemanfellabra there, not me, was involved in getting it improved recently. --Doncram (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  better table of importance and quality assessments now possible