Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Archive 1

message: Besides the global log to be kept at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment log, would it also be possible to generate individual category logs such as for :Category:Chemistry articles by quality?  This topic was raised recently here, where the person posting said the military history project (who have a huge worklist) would be interested in converting their worklist over to the bot/category based system, but {it was implied) only if an individual project log can be produced.  If I understand the system correctly, this should be easy - am I right?  By the way, :Category:Chemistry articles by quality now has around 50 articles in it in total, enough to test the bot there when you are ready for that (I left some of the assessment spaces blank to see if the bot can fill them in OK).  The list is at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Chemistry_articles and the chemistry article log can be at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chemistry article log. Thanks again Walkerma 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been a few changes to the WP Cyclones listing. Could we get another run to test-debug the log? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A barebone log works now, at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment log.   Last step is to split the log into subsections by subject (chemistry, music, tropical cyclones) and have the individual subjects logs also go to the corresponding wikiprojects. To be done in a day or two. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice!  Any chance the headers could be nested one level deeper, though, at least in the subject logs?  That would make transcluding the log pages into WikiProjects easier.  Or are you planning to have Mathbot update the relevant WikiProject pages directly? Kirill Lokshin 22:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There will be individual logs, for each wikiproject. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment logs 

message: Sorry to add more work, but new ways of working tend to raise new questions that aren't always obvious at first.  I had a lengthy phone conversation this weekend with User:Maurreen, trying to map out the future for 1.0 and how/when we will get versions released (this fall, probably, for 0.5).  One issue that arose when I described the bot is, "How do we know that the assessment is valid?"  In other words, let us say an assessment was done on Jan 1st as "A-Class."  Then a vandal comes in and changes some of the data.  We (WP1.0) come along on Feb 1st and download the article onto a CD - but the article is no longer A-Class.
What I would like to propose is that the bot does not simply save the article name, but rather it lists the actual version it found on the day it found the assessment was changed.  This is likely to be very close to the version that was actually assessed as A-Class.  Obviously this is not perfect, but it should make the problem I've outlined very rare.  So when we come along on Feb 1st to download the article, we are downloading the Jan 1st version.  I realise we can click through histories for this, but if we have to do this for 10,000 articles the handful of dedicated WP1.0 people are going to get very bored!  So, can the bot save the specific past version rather than just the article name?  Walkerma 16:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do, both the suggestion above, with changing the order of items, and the current suggestion with article version. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot! Walkerma 18:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I implemented for now the link to specific version as I thought you would want it above, so if an article improves (say from B-class to A-class), then the link to specific article version is changed to the most current (best! :) version, and if the article gets worse, or its assessed quality does not change, the old link to specific article version is kept.  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've been out of town, but yes, what you've done sounds eminently sensible.  Cheers, Walkerma 04:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessed version (approx) vs. current version of article 

message: Just wondering, is the bot going through the  categories too? I see that they're being processed, just not added to the table. Also, will the bot be run with a cron job or something similar? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot is now going through , not sure of why it did not go before. Yes, this will run as a cron job once all the issues are ironed out. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Something I noticed is that in the last run, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was listed in the log correctly, but is not in the table anymore (it was a change from A-Class to FA-Class, to help with debugging purposes). As the changes are being processed correctly for the log but not for the table, is that a bug? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You have sharp eyes. :) That was a bug, fixed now! Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA's 

message: Any chance of getting :Category:Military history articles by quality included in Mathbot's rounds? :-) Kirill Lokshin 01:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works now, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality log. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great; thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military history 

message: Would setting up automatic updating of the "Importance" field (from categories like "High-importance military history articles" on the talk page) be possible?  As the generated worklists grow, they're going to be more difficult to edit directly, so it would be nicer if all the fields could be filled in directly from the article. Kirill Lokshin 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do, tomorrow. As well as some of the things suggested above.  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Importance" field 

message: Any chance we could get the removal of ratings from an article flagged for attention somehow?  Maybe bold the line in the log? Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had mentioned this before - I suggested that anything other than a single level upgrade should be bolded as unusual.  What do you think?  Downgrades at WP:Chem do happen, but are rare, as are upgrades like Start -> A in one step. Walkerma 04:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had forgotten about Walkerma's suggestion, will do. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating removed 

message: Oleg, I just wanted to thank you, this feature is beautifully done!  I had assumed we would need either two columns, or we would lose the link to the current article, but you have managed to include both in a way that is both clear yet compact.  Thank you! Walkerma 04:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking assessed versions 

message: If let to run like now, the logs will always grow. What would be a good length of the log? I would think something like 30 days in the past. Anybody thinks a longer log is necessary? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since the logs are archived to page history too, I'd say 30 days is enough. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  I'd go for something even shorter—like two weeks—but that might not be needed for projects with shorter logs. Kirill Lokshin 12:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I like a month as a default - I think these logs will be less active once all of the templates have been updated, and most projects are smaller/less active than the test projects. Walkerma 13:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of logs 

message: I had to create this for the statistics tables, see for example Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chemistry articles by quality statistics. So it is good if people are aware of it, and maybe put it on a few people's watchlist, in case it gets vandalized. Also, if anybody feels like giving it a background color, be my guest. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Unassessed}} 

message: I moved User:Mathbot/WP1.0 to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index of subjects which I think will be the permanent home and the  place containing links to all pages written to by the bot. You may want to take the old User:Mathbot/WP1.0 redirect off your watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move