Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Archive 2

message: Hi Oleg. When the bot makes such pages as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Beatles articles by quality, could you have the header (== Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles ==) be wrapped in noinclude tags please? Both the Beatles and KLF articles by quality pages get transcluded, and the header ruins formatting on the host pages. Thanks. --kingboyk 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will look into that tomorrow. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if decided to wrap the heading in noinclude tags, it should happen for all projects, as I am rather reluctant to have per-project preferences which would complicate the code. Would it be a good idea to have the section heading not be included if the page in question is transcluded on another page? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my intention, certainly. I don't see why any Project would want a fixed-level header transcluded, and they can always add one of their own choice in the target page if needed. The pages will be too large to transclude onto Wikipedia 1.0 pages. That said, I'll not try to speak for others so if anyone agrees or objects please speak up! :) --kingboyk 09:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, when the bot finishes updating the pages (in half an hour say) hopefully the change will be seen. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Oleg. --kingboyk 10:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using noinclude for section headings 

message: The UCLA math department computers are down, and consequently mathbot won't update the lists today. Should be back up tomorrow hopefully. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot down for today 

message: I just added the assessment categories to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains banner .  I went through the current FA and GA lists to sort them into the appropriate classes, so at least those two levels are properly populated.  I used the Military history assessment page as the model for the Trains assessment page.  Is there anything else I need to do beside work on assessing and sorting those articles in the unassessed category? Slambo (Speak) 16:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We will see tonight (in 10 hours) when the bot runs. :) After that you need to take a look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index of subjects and see if all looks good. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project category added 

message: :We should also watch for an entry from Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, who have set up :Category:Novel articles by quality today.  Walkerma 18:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thanks for that - I wasn't sure of the correct protocol for getting on board - you have been most helpful. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels]] new project added 

message: With many thanks to the WPBeatles guys we have begged, borrowed and stolen! Well sorry just stolen, the fruit of your labours and made it work for us as well. Thanks should go to all envolved. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, but some of the links (the quality/importance scales, in particular) don't go anywhere useful yet ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to that page still being very much work in progress - they will go somewhere. Getting the structure ready before the main announcements associated with getting the assessment deptartment page ready. Thanks for the input though. I follow WP:Milhist development's with interest, and appreciation as an ideas factory, thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, thanks to them as well so is Firefly, but I know we're small-fry so it doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things, but we do appreciate it :-) plange 16:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Beatles project is small-fry too compared to Kirill Lokshin's herculean endeavour :) (Also very small, the other Project I represent: WP:KLF) --kingboyk 16:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neat hiding log! :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep. The military history project shows either that somebody is having an awful lot of fun evaluating ten thousand articles, or that there were awful many battles in history, or both. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ten thousand?  That's quite unacceptable on our part; we'll have twenty thousand, at least, by the end of the year! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not as much fun as evaluating 700 hurricanes.  Titoxd(?!?) 18:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:NovelsWikiProject]] is also now transcluding comments

message: Mathbot seems to have removed ~500 articles; anybody have any ideas why?  Nothing seems to have changed as far as the categories or templates are concerned, and the removals appear to be fairly arbitrary. Kirill Lokshin 05:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We at WP:NOVELS have had a couple of examples of this as well. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one marked as removed in Rail transport today too, however, it's due to a page move.  Further down the list is the destination page listed as Added.  I took a look at a couple of the MilHist listings and found that some of them were also page moves, but one, Ground warfare, had its project banner removed by an editor who suggested a page move (I've restored the banner to that page). Similarly, the project banner was removed on Exit to Eden (I didn't restore the banner there since the edit summary explicity says it was removed), while others like Lirael are the results of page moves.  So, I don't think there's a bug in the bot yet, but each of the removed notices needs to be reviewed for accuracy. Slambo (Speak) 11:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a few removals that seem normal, but a lot of them (Talk:Normandie-Niemen, Talk:Northern Expedition, etc.) haven't seen any page moves or tag changes, so that can't be the only reason here. Kirill Lokshin 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd check the template for edits - we had some (good faith) edits at WP:Chem which accidentally caused ALL of our articles to disappear from the bot list.  I changed a capital back to a small letter, and they all magically reappeared! Another possibility - check to see if all of the "missing" articles are from the same category, if so, look at that.  Walkerma 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I can't see anything that would be different; the categories all match the previous ones.  (There were some edits made to the template, though; if the bot isn't using an up-to-date version, that might be the issue.  I'll see if they reappear after today's run.) Kirill Lokshin 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it seems to be back to normal now. Kirill Lokshin 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny bot behavior? 

message: I can't get this page to load in either IE or Firefox. I'm wondering if it's massively large. --kingboyk 12:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've found the same, the page just hangs, I don't even see a "timed out" message.  I'm using a college super-fast internet connection, so there is something wrong. Walkerma 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 1013K in length ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I shortened that log, it loads now. Too many changes were happening and that's why the log was big. If this turns out to be a persistent problem I may need to teach the bot to cut long logs even if that means losing the log info for several weeks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Oleg. Only problem is, it's got no entries newer than June 20? I wanted to check the impact of a change I made to some WikiProject templates yesterday. (Doesn't really matter because I have feedback the changes were successful). --kingboyk 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I removed was old log. I guess my bot was refusing the update the log recently as it was too big. So, I think you can't verify the change you mentioned. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I modified the script to always keep the log under 500KB, as from what Kingboyk is saying it appears that the bot won't even bother to update logs if they are huge, and then we'd rather have a log shorter than one month than a log which can't be written to or read from. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality log]] 

message: Why on the stats box is the bot not recording importance for some projects, but is for others? For example Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/College_football_articles_by_quality is not but Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Computer_and_video_game_articles_by_quality is. There are several other projects that are or aren't processed, and I can't tell a difference why. Mecu 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:College football articles by quality is assigned to :Category:WikiProject College football articles, which is currently a red link. :Category:College football articles by importance appears not to exist. The bot can't pick up what doesn't exist, unless Oleg is even cleverer than I thought! --kingboyk 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's called :Category:College Football articles by importance ("College Football" <> "College football"; DIFFERENT CASE). Furthermore, :Category:College Football articles by importance belongs to :Category:WikiProject College football and not :Category:WikiProject College football articles. It's no wonder the bot can't find it! Remember, the bot doesn't (as far as I know) read the talk pages; it has to be able to find the categories so they should be logically named and located. --kingboyk 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, so it sounds like I messed up the syntax in Football/football. If I correct this will it be fixed? Or do I also need to change the category heirarchy too? Mecu 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly how the bot works and I don't know exactly how it finds the categories. In the absence of Oleg though I'm quite confident that if you have :Category:College football articles by quality and :Category:College football articles by importance residing in a bluelinked :Category:WikiProject College football articles category, the bot will find it :) You might also want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best_practices#Categorisation which I recently wrote; the categorisation system I detail there seems to work well for most small to medium-sized WikiProjects (probably Kirill's gang have something way more spectacular :P ) --kingboyk 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the category of :Category:College Football articles by importance to :Category:WikiProject College football articles. I'll let it run tonight and see if that works. Thanks. Mecu 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't work. Mecu 12:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "College Football" <> "College football", as above. To a bot "F" and "f" are not the same. Again, I'm not the bot's author so I don't know for sure, but I'd bet a dollar that's it. --kingboyk 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as it pains me to even touch these categories (most of the world knows that football is what you guys call soccer ;)), I've fixed the case of your categorisation. Let the bot run again and see if they get picked up. --kingboyk 15:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, I just noticed the same thing. Concurrently with Kingboyk I renamed :Category:College Football articles by importance to :Category:College football articles by importance (small f) and now it works, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/College football articles by quality/1. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Thank you for your help! --Mecu 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have way too many articles flagged as "Top" importance. As far as I know, that should be for the absolute core of articles (a mere handful for a Project of your size), and probably wouldn't include awards and individual seasons? I might be wrong... --kingboyk 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Different projects interpret the importance ratings slightly differently.  Given that they're meant to gauge things within a project rather than within Wikipedia as a whole, I don't think it's too much of an issue unless they do things wildly out of sync with everyone else. Kirill Lokshin 16:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We also are having a major discussion about how to rank items Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. We'll probably have much fewer Top items than 18, but we're still getting organized. --Mecu 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Backing up to the original question, it's not listing importance for Rail transport articles because we haven't added those flags/categories yet.  I'm working through the quality ratings first, then I plan to discuss the importance rating on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains and create and add the flags and categories. Slambo (Speak) 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a case of do what you can as you can, so that's all fine and dandy I'm sure :) --kingboyk 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, thought I knew what to do-- I sucessfully got WP:FIREFLY doing this with no prob, but for some reason for WP:WPBIO the importance ratings didn't pick up last night (which would have been the first night after adding this. What did I do wrong? plange 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, nevermind. Helps if I add the categories to the project banner! plange 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance Ratings not processed by bot? 

message: I think it would be more precise to call this "Index of projects" than "Index of subjects". Maurreen 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just call it "Index" and avoid the issue entirely? Kirill Lokshin 14:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the question would be Index of what?  Editors, projects,etc. Rlevse 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, index of subjects sucks. But index of projects is not good either. This is an index of lists of Wikipedia articles, each list a specific area of knowledge. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What it is, is an index of WikiProjects that participate in V1.0 and use Oleg's bot, so maybe it should be Index of WikiProjects, for short. Rlevse 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Index of wikiprojects could be confused with a list showing all wikiprojects (I am sure such a list exists already). I think simply calling it index as Kirill suggests is better, after all, it is the only index of WP1.0, and (as far as I know) the main goal of this project is to create lists of articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just 'index' is fine with me. Rlevse 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Maurreen, thanks for the change. If only you could also tell my bot that the change happened.  :) But fixed now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of page

message: This is really minor but there are a few projects with names that start with "the". Where does the bot get info on what order to put the table in? it might be nice to have "The Beatles" sort to B for example. (The Beatles is the correct name of the band, dropping "The" from the project name would not be a fix). Again, terrifically minor! ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List ordering 

message: Currently :Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments has a bunch of subcategories like this:
    * A-Class articles
    * B-Class articles
    * High-importance articles
    * Low-importance articles
    * Mid-importance articles
    * Non-articles
    * Start-Class articles
    * Stub-Class articles
    * Top-importance articles
    * Unassessed articles
    * Unknown-importance articles
Do they have a purpose to be there? I thought that :Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments should only contain "by quality" and "by importance" categories, which in turn would contain "high importance", etc., categories? 
I am also thinking those categories may confuse people following the instructions from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Adding to the lists of subjects and may require them to do more categorization work than necessary. Wonder if there are comments on this.
(And also see unrelated request above about how to best rename Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Adding to the lists of subjects). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting!  I was planning on working on something like that this evening, but I see someone has already started!  Now that we have a good number of projects represented, there are valuable data to be mined for used at WP1.0.  I would like to set up ten sets of categories (like "A-Class Arts articles") based on our ten top-level categories, and these categories can be shared with projects not using the bot (for which we have article information).  (Not sure if we'll need the broad ones that you refer to, we'll have to see)  This will allow us to find (say) all of the A-Class Arts articles, and nominate them for the CD releases.  To that end I want to create ten metaprojects for WP1.0 that will be read by the bot, called things like "Wikipedia 1.0 Arts articles by quality" and the like- do you mind me doing that? If you give the OK, we can try the Arts one tonight.  As for the confusion issue, I think we'll have to see, it seems worth it for the valuable data.  Thanks, Walkerma 00:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On our project, we use every one of the above cats, plus some custom ones (such as our prior selected article of the month), so we do need those cats. All of the ones listed above are subcats of quality or importance. Rlevse 00:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any objections, I will have a go at this idea tonight, though probably not till after the bot makes its run. Cheers, Walkerma 02:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 Arts articles by quality.  I tried an  at the A-Class category, but it didn't bring in the A-Class articles.  However, my main goal was to bring in the A-Class articles from our lists, such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPArts, so we can include information that is otherwise being missed by the bot because the project isn't using it.  There are few A-Class, so it's not a lot of work.  Thanks for you work! Walkerma 13:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The root category

message: This talk page starts jun 21, where's the old stuff? Rlevse 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link got broken during the page move from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index of subjects to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Fixed now (the archive link on top of this page is blue now). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: The Catholicism Wikiproject recently renamed itself (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism 101 to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism), and I was wondering if any work needs to be done here in order to keep everything working with the assessment. —Mira 08:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You changed the name in the index, from there it will propagate in the lists. So as far the assessment is concerned, nothing more needs to be done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thank you. —Mira 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholicism Project rename

message: What happenned with the 26 July bot run? I did lots of changes last night for the Scouting project and they didn't show up. The Military History project's didn't change either. Rlevse 09:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My fault, I was messing up with the script yesterday and forgot to turn off the debugging flag (which makes the bot run on a single chosen project only). The bot is running in normal mode now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 26 July Bot Run

message: Something curious: I know MathBot catches articles that get entirely removed from the "by quality" categories, but it doesn't seem to do the same for the "by importance" ones.  In other words, if an article's importance rating is removed (such that it is no longer present in any of the "by importance" sub-categories), the bot will still pick it up at the last valid importance rating it saw for it.  Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the bot keeps the last importance rating. I did that because at the chemistry lists they had some importance cells in the table before there was a system of using categories for importance, and I did not want that data to be lost. I can easily modify the bot to not keep last importance rating if that would be considered beneficial. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, everyone using the importance ratings is doing it through categories now, so it should be quite safe to have it update completely automatically.  It's a rather minor issue, though. Kirill Lokshin 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall, I went and added the original chemistry importance data into the talk-page templates, so nothing should be lost at this point if you switch things.  Walkerma 05:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I modified my script to not copy over old importance ratings and stick to what is in categories only. Let us see how it goes tomorrow. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "By importance" categories 

message: Dear Mathbot, When you create pages such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Beatles articles by quality/1 which aren't the last, numerically, for that Project, could you add a link at top and bottom to the next page please? (Next Page). Also, I wonder if you might be able to place all of the pages being created into a category or categories (perhaps into the "Projectname by quality" category even?). Have a word with Oleg about it would you? Cheers bot. --kingboyk 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll see what can be done. Mathbot 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that would be a nice feature, I've noticed the same thing.Rlevse 10:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Oleg. Well, I find myself clicking on what links here and having to take longer steps than are necessary to navigate around these pages. I think we need something to improve navigation. Anyone else care to comment? --kingboyk 17:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation links

message: I have a question about the table each project get. In Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Aircraft articles by quality, what is the purpose of the "Version" column, and the "Comments" column? I would assume comments is where you may talk about what the article needs to improve or why its rated as A, B, etc, but what happens if you edit the page to put a comment in and the article is re-classified? Will the comment be erased by Mathbot? Is there a place to put a comment so that Mathbot will automaticaly add it in or move it with the re-classed article? Thank you - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 07:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Mathbot remembers the comment even if the article is reclassified: we'll have to wait for Oleg to reply on that score. However, there is a more foolproof method - see the above thread about the Beatles template now transcluding comments. Basically, a talk page can have a /Comments page and Mathbot will, if properly configured as above, pick up the presence of the Comments page and transclude it. --kingboyk 10:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the bot remembers comments even if it reclassifies or moves an entry. I agree that /Comments is a better way of doing things, but that feature is not really documented and kind of tricky to implement. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the "extra" columns 

message: I would think that this addition unnecessarily complicates the instructions (which already are complicated enough). Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably needs a copyedit to be clearer () but I think it's worth noting, otherwise I or someone else have to go along and fix these things. It took me more than a whole working day this time. --kingboyk 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So says a programmer of a bot! :) Those of us who take care of organisational matters might think the new points very important :P I think we needn't worry they're too complicated, presumably a WikiProject will always be using their most technically-savvy member to set this up and we haven't had any problems yet. Perhaps could prefix those extra instructions with "Optional but recommended" or something? --kingboyk 16:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Lol! Wish I'd thought of asking you to do it, could have saved a day of hard labour (/me sighs and curses). Unfortunately the one you've chosen is not such a great example because I already put it in :Category:A-Class Australia articles which belongs to :Category:A-Class articles. --kingboyk 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And yes, it took me under half an hour to write the script (basically start in :Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments and go two levels up). The power of automation at work. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate you and love you at the same time, Oleg. Is that possible? :) --kingboyk 18:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Minor point, but we now have both :Category:Unassessed articles and :Category:Unassessed-Class articles. Kirill Lokshin 19:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I had noticed that earlier in the day too. I deleted :Category:Unassessed articles and left in :Category:Unassessed-Class articles (the latter continues the same pattern as other classes, A-Class, B-Class, etc. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These edits ( and ) aren't correct, Oleg. Don't know if it's a bug or if I have the comments cats in the wrong place. --kingboyk 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was a bug. I fixed it now. Thanks for letting me know and for fixing some miscategorizations. I fixed a couple too, and I think none are left. Hope all is right now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intructions getting complicated

message: The bot didn't run last night, 9 Aug.Rlevse 10:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it did, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment log. The night of August 9 did not come yet, at least not where I am. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scouting articles by quality statistics, there is no change last night in the history. if the bot runs and no project articles changed ratings, I take it this file will not show a edit history update? It usually runs 0300-0500 UTC my time, so when I get it up in the am, there's usually an update visible. Rlevse 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I've seen; but there should still be an edit to the corresponding log with something like "No changes on this day." Kirill Lokshin 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's a no changes entry. Thanks. Now I know what to look for. Rlevse 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can also put Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scouting articles by quality on your watchlist. Even if no changes happen, the date of the bottom of that page will be changed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9 Aug bot run

message: This hasn't happened yet, but someone pointed out to me the possibility that eventually there could be a case where 2 wikiprojects are using the comments feature on the Talk template and so they are both sharing the /Comments page that mathbot crawls. It probably isn't an issue, as presumably one project's comments are just as valid with another project, but wasn't sure what others thought about this? plange 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the extremely small number of projects using the /Comments pages, I don't think this is a practical problem.  When it does come up, though, perhaps they can fight it out for our entertainment? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh but it has already come up: Some of WP:BEATLES' /Comments have been transcluded onto the Biography lists. I got around it by simply noting at the top of the comments page which Project made the comments. I don't think any more elegant solution is needed. --kingboyk 21:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, that isn't a bug. It's a feature!  Titoxd(?!?) 06:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment conflict