Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Archive 4

message: Thread moved from Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects
Hi,
There's a problem with one of the comments at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ethnic groups articles by quality. The article in question is "Obotrites," but it has weirdness in the comment section... help would be appreciated!--Ling.Nut 15:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if Mathbot had formatted the page correctly or not (I think maybe not, so please check the old revision Oleg), but one immediate problem was that Talk:Rukai people/Comments was redlink (it had been deleted). Another potential problem for including comments in tables was that one of your members has a | in his signature. --kingboyk 16:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was a bug in my code which was triggered by redlinked comment pages (as remarked above by Kingboyk). It was actually a big bug, I wonder how come it did not cause more trouble. Fixed now. Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem at [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ethnic groups articles by quality]] 

message: I would like to make two template suggestions:
#The Jim Thorpe Problem - If you look at the referenced talk page, you'll see banners for the following WikiProjects: Beisbol, Penn, OK, Indigenous peoples, Biography and NFL. It would be good to have a template with a single assesment and that allows more than one WP to be listed.
#The Overlapping Problem - If you look at WikiProject California and WikiProject Southern California 'or WikiProject Pennsylvania and WikiProject Philadelphia; you'll see that they overlap. It would be good to have a template for the lower group in the hierarchy that allows it to have its articles placed in both wikiprojects. 
--evrik 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, this is a problem we've been discussing here and at WP:WVWP.  The problem is the explosion of these templates and assessments.  We already have a few hybrid templates - all chemical elements are in Wikipedia 0.5, so we have a joint Version 0.5/Chemistry template.  The key here is not the technology - that's easy - the key is to get the projects to talk to one another.  I think this is probably best handled through WP:COUNCIL, but that's a pretty new group with little clout as yet, so much of the template consolidation for now will have to happen on a case-by-case basis, with projects agreeing things between each other.  Try posting a comment at the relevant WikiProject!  Thanks, Walkerma 21:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The fundamental criterion, I think, is whether there is (or should be) content in the article related to the scope of the project.  In your examples, Gandalf would be in Films because there's a discussion about him in films, while Bombadil probably isn't (but could be, if editors decide to add discussion of why he was cut from the films to the article).  In general, though, the projects themselves are usually quite content to let other projects tag "their" articles; it's mostly the people who don't like the tags that complain. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seems a bit silly for the film-project tag for Gandalf to have a rating of B-class. Is that a rating for the whole article, or just the paragraph on Gandalf in films. We know it is the film bit, but how does that square with getting a rating that means anything in a list of film-related articles? The Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc mentions films about her. Does that mean that there is any point in the WP-Film people rating the article? I'd say not. Carcharoth 06:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice, it's a rating for the whole article.  In many cases, the ratings will match among the various projects (sometimes because the same person will fill out all of them); in other scenarios, however, they may vary depending on what's being looked for.  For example, suppose that Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc discussed novels at length but glossed over the films; it might then get a high rating from the Novels project (as everything they looked for would be included) but not from the Films project (members of which would probably be more likely to notice the ommisions).  Kirill Lokshin 06:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I've also been considering whether to see if the Disaster management WP has the manpower to assess disaster articles. There, the logical course of action would seem to be to assess those articles that aren't already covered by, say, aviation, or trains, or earthquake, or hurricane, WPs. A kind of, fill-in-the-gaps approach for a broad, overview project. That could also apply to the Meteorology WP mentioned above. So having a parameter in the banner template coding that says "still part of this project, but not rated because a sub/sister project has rated it", or something? Worth thinking about? Carcharoth 06:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two template suggestions

message: The index currently shows 150 projects are participating in the bot process. Should this go to Signpost? -- Ganeshk (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will help recruit more projects to participate too. -- Ganeshk (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably could—I doubt anyone will look at it too closely—but I'll point out that we don't actually have 150 separate projects.  WP Beatles, for example, is responsible for a half-dozen different lists from the 150. Kirill Lokshin 18:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) I don't think we should send things too often - it's only about a month since they covered us reaching the 100,000 assessed article mark (and now we've passed 150,000!).  I think we should hold off until 200 or (preferably 250 projects, and/or 250,000 assessed articles.  I disagree with Kirill about the value of this, I know for certain that some people found out about the assessment program through our recent publicity.  Walkerma 18:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I wasn't very clear there; I meant people wouldn't look too closesly at the fact that we don't actually have 150 projects, not that they wouldn't care about the announcement. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ironically enough, Kirill brings a point that recently reared its head in WP:WPTC: whether it is a good idea to make navigation a bit more hierarchical, and put, instead of :Category:Tropical cyclone articles by quality and :Category:Meteorology articles by quality as separate entities, Tropical cyclones inside Meteorology, but still existing as separate entities. For the bloody details of the discussion, you can see here, but it would also be helpful for WP Beatles, perhaps. Titoxd(?!?) 05:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There's also a few empty entries and at least one duplicate (see Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Article_counts). --kingboyk 16:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  150 projects milestone 

message: I can't figure out why articles aren't showing up in :Category:Dallas articles with comments.  An example of a page that should is Talk:Oak Lawn, Dallas per Talk:Oak Lawn, Dallas/Comments and coding from .  Any help/advice would be great!! drumguy8800 C T 19:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fixed. I had to add a little space before the sort key. That did the trick. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with [[WP:Dallas]] 

message: I am not able to connect to my UCLA machine today, the network is down. I guess that explains why mathbot stopped running in the middle of the night. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My school's network came back up, and the bot should run as usual tonight. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Today the network was down again. Now it is up. The bot should run as usual tonight. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathbot down 

message: While looking through Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tropical cyclone articles by quality/1, I saw that the "edit comment" links are malformed. Am I the only one who saw that? Titoxd(?!?) 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bug, and I guess it spread everywhere. Sorry. I fixed it now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot bug? 

message: :Is it possible to link the numbers (#) to sub-pages that contain the articles that related to both (intersection)? For example, A/Top will link to a new page, "List of A-class articles with Top-importance". I would suggest the new stats table be added to a new page since the existing stats table is used at the bottom of many project navigation boxes. -- Ganeshk (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the latter but do you know how many categories the former would create? Cbrown1023 20:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking for the bot to create sub-pages not categories. It would be like 24 of them. :) But it would be really useful. How do I find a list of stubs that are of Top importance. Is there a way? -- Ganeshk (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: May be the former can be programmed into the project banner templates to create the intersection categories. And the bot could link the numbers to the respective categories. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This idea might help Oleg actually. Similar to how the bot uses the categories to look up class and importance, Mathbot could use just these interesection categories instead of doing the computation. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I modified the India project banner to implement the 30 intersection categories. I can now find out Stub-Class India articles of Top-importance. Now can Mathbot be programmed to read these categories? What do others feel about this? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally think the method we use currently is already complicated to set up, so having 30 categories is close to a nightmare, and that it will put a barrier to entry to new WikiProjects who don't want to go through roundabouts to get two or three articles assessed... Titoxd(?!?) 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it be made optional? Projects that have these intersection cats will additionally get a new page with the above statistics table? It didn't take me too long to setup these cats.  If new projects don't create these cats, the rest of the system still works for them. -- Ganeshk (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh for Wikipedia:Category intersection which would make these problmes go away if implemented. I've also a slight concern that changing the size of the statistics table may mess up some of the project pages, I know the mathematics and portugal projects transclude the statistics page in to the project pages. --Salix alba (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't like the idea of more links in the table, either with subpages, or with categories.  It would be a lot of work to set up, and really, I don't see the gain. And the idea of optional features is not good either I think; it just creates a bloated code with features with few people if anbody uses. If I see good support from the community in implementing this, I will, otherwise I think it is not worth the trouble. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I personally think it is redundant with the main tables, as they are already sorted by quality, then importance. Any desired combination is already visible through there... Titoxd(?!?) 05:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The numerical count of combination is visible, but the list of articles behind the count is not. As Salix alba pointed out, Wikipedia:Category intersection may be the answer for this. But it is still in development stage. I do see a need for this however it is finally implemented. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't mean the summary table; I mean the actual assessment tables, like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/India articles by quality/1. Those include the sorted info, so the need for those pages is already fulfilled... Titoxd(?!?) 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/India articles by quality/1 is same as what I am asking for. What you point to is just a list of articles sorted by the quality. They don't show the intersection. Can you show me how I can see "A Class articles of Top importance" using those pages? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pages are ordered by quality and then by importance... so you scroll down to A-Class and then look at which ones say Top-Importance (they are all grouped together). Cbrown1023 22:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally that is a round-about and tedious way of finding them. Categories are straight-forward and don't need any scrolling on a list that has thousands of articles. I never use those quality pages and don't understand how they help. -- Ganeshk (talk)
Update - trial Category Intersection system is at http://aerik.com/wikintersections.php. Please don't overload it! :-) See Wikipedia talk:Category intersection for details of the person who set that up. Carcharoth 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category intersection

message: Following a comment by Mike Peel on my talk page, I modified the date stamp at the bottom of lists to GMT from my local time (PST). Today that will cause the bot to jump a day, see here, but from tomorrow on, the datestamp output by the bot will actually correspond to the current day to most users at most times. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Datestamp  changed to GMT 

message: Oleg, Just like the class categories link to the related project's respective class categories, could the same be done with the Importance parameter? Right now they show up with no links on the statistics pages. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, good point. I will do that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I implemented that. It will show up in all stats pages tonight when the bot runs as usual. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking Importance categories 

message: not working with the Mathbot assessment project. Lincher 19:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I fixed the category name in the template. It should work now.. I haven't set up the Importance catogorization though. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fix, the elements in the template make it too dangerous to touch by a n00b like me. Lincher 20:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada is still a new project, and probably just hasn't had all the categories and such created yet. I know it's a new project; I made the banner and userbox for them. Any objections to having the modifications dropping the assessment criteria reversed, IF the project is organized to work with the bot and regularize assessments? Badbilltucker 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't quite understand what your saying ... AQu01rius (User • Talk) 19:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: With Salix alba's help I switched to Yurik's API for reading categories (and will do that for history revisions soon also, that will make the code faster). Let us hope that Yurik won't change the API syntax, that would confuse the bot. The new API has the advantage that it always gets up-to-date info, rather than stale html the way it was before. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Switch to Yurik's API

message: I implemented a web form that allows one to run the bot for an individual project at any time, rather than waiting a good chunk of a day until it is scheduled. I think that could be helpful for new projects as then one could get a quick feedback if the project was set up right. The link is here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, as a common courtesy to you and your bot, projects like Biography should not run it happenstance and should wait for your scheduled update because their vast number of articles? Cbrown1023 14:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess it would be more of a curtsesy to the Wikipedia servers not to overuse the bot. But I don't know, if you have a large project, but you did a lot of changes and want instant gratification, I guess you could go for it. Up to your conscience. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running the bot on demand 

message: I posted the source code to the Perl script which updates the lists in the index together with all dependencies and instructions here. 
I think it would be a good idea if perhaps somebody could try it out. I am not going anywhere any time soon, but thinking long term, considering how important the Wikipedia 1.0 project is and the amount of work put into this project by the community so far, I think it would good if the code is public and more people than just me could run it and perhaps even have an idea of how to modify it. Following the instructions over there should take an hour at most, assuming that nothing goes wrong. So, any volunteers? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot source code 

message: I was just looking through the lists of all articles per WikiProject (xXx articles by quality/#). I'm just wondering why the dates were all wikilinked. It seems to me it doesn't really serve any purpose and WP:MOSDATE seems to hint that dates shouldn't be linked unless they give context, but I get the feeling that's only for ns0.
However, removing the wikilinks seems that it wouldn't trim much of the size of the file off. I was just wondering if perhaps switching to a YYYY-MM-DD format would keep file sizes down any. It wouldn't change anything on the user's end, since user preferences catch that format as well. thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking of dates 

message: Should we get excited about this commit to SVN? Apparently, we are now able to create sortable tables... Titoxd(?!?) 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an example, using a modified  found in my sandbox:  Titoxd(?!?) 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool! :) Very slow... :( But I'm assuming they're still ironing out a lot of the kinks. Definitely a good step towards resolving pesky issues of list ordering (eg chronological vs. reverse chronological). Girolamo Savonarola 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's awesome.  Except, doesn't it kinda take the place of India's multi-categories.  It's easy to see all these this way.  I hope Oleg implements it in the work lists when they iron out the kinks. Cbrown1023 01:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable tables 

message: When adding a new project, one should generate those FA-Class, A-Class, Top-importance and other categories. I made that step (semi-)automatic. One can visit Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Generate categories and specify what categories to create, and the bot will do it for you. Only administrators can use that tool (it requires editing a protected page). That way random people can't just generate any categories they want, and if the categories were generated incorrectly the admin in question can delete them.
One can argue this tool is not that necessary, but I think it can save some work when setting up a project (and for people who did not set up a new project for the bot before there is less to learn this way). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Generating some categories automatically

message: What's up with the bot. There hasn't been a full run in 3 days. Rlevse 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problems, see the above posts... Cbrown1023 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, if you would like to get a bot run now, try the automated version. Cbrown1023 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No update in 3 days

message: ... because of a power outage at my work. The power is still out, perhaps it will come back later tonight. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this grandiously proves Murphy's Law... :| Titoxd(?!?) 03:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever, as long as it is not bot's fault. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot did not finish updating the biography articles 

message: Quite a lot of the articles in the list are redlinks, but their talk pages list the article as B-Class, etc. I wrote a script to tag such talk pages for speedy deletion. They will also show up in :Category:Wikipedia 1.0 problematic articles for people to take a closer look. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Mathbot is blocked, due to CSD'ing several inappropriate talk pages. Can I assume this is the reason why? thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 09:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles tagged so far seem to be mostly Talk archives. It would be better if you wrote a script to removed tags from archives. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry! The bot was doing the right thing for a while, then I went to bed, and then the mess started. The bot was rightfully blocked and hopefully I'll learn my lesson to supervise it more properly. My dumb tagging script finished by now, so I unblocked the bot and dealt with the few improperly tagged articles in :Category:Wikipedia 1.0 problematic articles which were not cleaned up by others. I also restarted the WP1.0 script. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But for the sake of completeness, and in reply to  Dev920 above, most articles were tagged correctly. The archives were a minority, but they were the only ones left in bot's contributions after  most of the other talk pages were speeded. Not that it matters of course. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlinks

message: :Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5 is very huge I think. Is perhaps time to split it according to individual projects, say :Category:Military history version 0.5 articles? That would require modifying the assessment templates for all the projects (e.g., ), but I'd think that at some point this may need to be done. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has a bunch of sub-categories for the broad topic areas; I'm not sure why the tag is also putting everything directly into the main category, but it would be trivial to change that. Kirill Lokshin 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 10 subcategories (and a "Misc") - such as History, Arts, etc.  See  for a full list.   I'm in fact using these to make navigation pages for the CD such as Wikipedia:Version 0.5/Language and Literature. There are around 2000 articles in the main category - I didn't think that would count as huge, does it?  I think there was a reason for having a global category, though I forget the reason now - maybe Tito knows.  Is there a problem with it? Walkerma 03:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Each time the bot runs  on demand or I need to do some debugging of the code, one needs to wait until all version 0.5 articles are read. Ideally, next to :Category:Physics articles by quality, :Category:Physics articles by importance, and :Category:Physics articles with comments there would also be a :Category:Physics version 0.5   articles, so instead of all the version 0.5 articles being read in bulk at the beginning, they would be read separately for each project when needed. Not a big reason of course, but I thought it would be nice if things are that way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mean that you should reshuffle the entire V0.5 naming scheme. If a physics article shows up both in :Category:Physics version 0.5 articles, and in :Category:Natural sciences Version 0.5 articles, and in :Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5, that would be perfectly fine. The bot would simply read :Category:Physics version 0.5 articles to get version information for physics articles, and ignore the other categories. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Tito!  I thought there was some reason like that.  Oleg, Version 0.5 is small enough that we didn't see the need to break down the categories any smaller.  We may need to switch to small categories (such as Physics) for Version 0.7 and later releases, as these releases may get pretty big.  I will be working on this sort of thing in the next six weeks, and I'll bear it in mind when I'm setting up the new systems for 0.7. Cheers, Walkerma 07:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there any reason we can't just have the tag add a "Miscellaneous" category explicitly when a valid one isn't provided?  That seems much more useful for finding things that fell through the cracks than simply putting everything in one category, no? Kirill Lokshin 10:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Version 0.5 

message: WikiProject Louisville has recently started seriously doing assessment work.  I was wondering if templates and categories covered by our project could also be hit by the bot for the sake of statistics/logs.  It would be very helpful. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's been doing that. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Louisville articles by quality and links therein. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  I just went through the lists again, and it's all articles.  No categories or templates to be found. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see what you mean now. I thought the whole purpose of this project is to assess articles by quality, and not templates. I'd suggest you put all the categories/templates either in a category or on a list. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think they belong with in the list of assessed articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, categories and templates are just as key to quality in the Wikipedia as articles, and given that we can set the class to 'Cat' or 'Template', it would seem we should be able to track these as well. I would at least like to see numbers for these, even if we don't necessarily assess quality. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can manually count the number of items in these categories : :Category:Category-Class Louisville articles & :Category:Template-Class Louisville articles, to have both the category count and the template count. Hope this helps! Lincher 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics/Logs for Category-Class and Template-Class articles

message: Something is strange here. Look at the Scouting project tag here: Talk:Stanisław Broniewski, the ratings display correctly, note the talk page show no change in Dec. Then look here under Dec 24, , the importance was removed and then here at the bottom the importance doesn't show up: . Why did this happen, the rating did not change but the bot processed it as if it were? Thanks. Rlevse 10:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was like this for several days, but has now cleared up. Go figure.Rlevse 01:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I just noticed the same thing. I did not do any changes to the code. I have no idea what is going on. I suspect the server is feeding lies to the bot. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating doesn't show up