Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Archive 5

message: Not so long ago all the stats tables for individual projects have become two-dimensional in the sense of displaying quality vs importance data. Only the main table Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics is still 1D. I am considering making it 2D also. That would make it like the other tables, and would be one fewer subroutine for me to maintain. 
Of course, the bigger size of the table could be a problem, but from what I saw, it shows up only at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index as transclusion, and there it could be pushed  down or up the page so that its width does not cause problems. Any comments about that? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity: how would it handle articles that had been given different importance ratings by different projects?  Such cases are fairly numerous now. Kirill Lokshin 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Currently, when counting for the big table, if an article was encountered once in a project, it would be ignored when it is encountered second time in another project. That means obviously that the importance data is not perfectly accurate, but this avoids repetitions (when an article is counted twice). I don't see a good way to take into account that an article has different importance ratings in different projects. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally find that the higher importance rating is for articles within very specific WikiProjects, which can inflate importance that would be given to that article within a general encyclopedia (which the 1.0 release would be). The lower rating is usually given by a wikiproject that is (theoretically) only peripherally interested in the article. I've been guilty of tagging borderline articles for the attention of a WikiProject, usually on the basis that if that WikiProject won't deal with it, no-one else will. I've seen the film WikiProject 'claim' film sections of articles, which is fair enough, but the importance rating will generally relate only to that section, even if the quality rating is for the article as a whole. What happens when quality ratings differ? Carcharoth 12:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making the main stats table 2D 

message: Why are there two different templates for the same thing?  (Template:Dab-Class and Template:Disambig-Class) Cbrown1023 18:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both unofficial—the assessment system doesn't keep track of disambiguation pages—so it doesn't matter too much. I supect we can redirect one to the other with no ill effects. Kirill Lokshin 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig Pages 

message: This template has a variable "type", which allows the item to be labeled a temple/list/category. But it doesn't work if its assessed NA-class. See Talk:Lieutenant Governors of Nova Scotia for it working, and Template talk:St. John's landmarks for it not working. Any ideas? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Canada template problem 

message: For those wanting to intersect importance and rating (eg. to find all the unassessed top-importance articles in a WikiProject), a 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 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh $*%&!! "I'm using a copy of the relevant tables from November, so this isn't live data" - forget that, but hassle whoever can get this system up and running. It would be really good. See what I did at :Category:Unassessed Tolkien articles. Carcharoth 16:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Cbrown1023 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The developers are somewhat aware of this work: . Titoxd(?!?) 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would this intersection feature be that useful for this project? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would generate a link for every row/column intersection in the individual project stats tables. WP India asked for that previously, didn't they? Titoxd(?!?) 05:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And WP China seem to be doing by hand (see a few sections above). Carcharoth 23:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  The reason I want this is that if you look at the stats box currently transcluded at the top right on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth, you can see that we made an initial pass over the ~1200 articles to find around 330 that are of top, high and mid importance. Most of the other 870 or so are of low importance or perma-stubs that will be merged. Picking out these articles as a priority was easier than assessing them at the same time, though with hindsight assessing both importance and class at the same time would have been best. Anyway, the situation yesterday was that we had 969 unassessed articles, and I wanted to pick out from those the ones that had been rated important, without wasting time by clicking on the already assessed ones. I eventually did a manual intersection using Excel to compare lists from the unassessed category and the importance category. The result was the lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Assessment/Current work. I would have much preferred not to do those lists manually (it only took 30 minutes or so), as an intersection would allow people to work on the same dynamically generated intersection without needing to manually update a list. Also, I could have used Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tolkien articles by quality/1, but this was out-of-date as assessment work had been done that day. Working from the categories was the only option other than waiting for the bot to update the list. This type of set-up probably only applies to WikiProjects with large number of articles needing to be organised, and with large numbers of stubs, and needing to pull out a core set of articles. WikiProject Biography springs to mind. Look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality statistics. They've pulled out 200 top-importance articles. But say that they eventually have another, lower tier of 1000 mid-importance articles (I know they've deprecated that, but this is an example). If there were 1000 unassessed mid-importance articles, how would they be separated from the 133177 other unassessed articles? How would someone find those 1000 articles that one person had labelled as of mid-importance, to enable them to assess these mid-importance articles? Maybe the Film WikiProject is a better example. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality statistics. Now, can you see why someone might want to find out what the 52 high-importance stubs are, and work on getting them up to start level at least? Or the seven top-importance Good Articles, and work on improving those. Do you see what I mean by these examples? If your bot could provide links to those numbers, that would be so awesome. It could even just link to right section of the list here, if you can organise those lists by sections, rather than cut into the 45 lists at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality. The list is not ideal though, as that is only updated daily. A dynamically generated category intersection would still be best, as it automatically updates as people work on assessing articles. Carcharoth 11:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To pull out a single suggestion from that rather long post, is it possible to get the bot to add div-id tags to label the points where the following transitions are in the list: FA-top, FA-high, FA-mid, FA-low, FA-unknown, A-top, A-high, etc (for all 35 permutations down to unassessed-unknown)? Then, when it writes the number into the table, it would do it in the form NUMBER, but put no link if the number was 0. That sounds terribly complicated, doesn't it, especially as PAGENAME varies depending on where the cut-off point between pages is. Don't worry, I'm sure Category Intersection won't be that far away, and I don't mind doing manual intersections for now, waiting a day and copying off the list after the bot updates. Carcharoth 02:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so if I understand it correctly, the category intersection thing does not yet work. It will be rather simple to modify the stats table to have links to the intersections, I will work on it when that tool comes live. You are right in that the div-id tags looks like it would be complicated to implement, and the fact that it would be just a temporary solution makes me even more reluctant to work on it. Will it take long until the category intersection thing works? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't like to say. Single unified log-in and stable versions are touted as the big things that developers are working on at the moment. After that, I don't really know. I would hazard a guess at anything from a few months to a few years, depending on what time the developers have free (and I don't know any developers, this is just from memories of what I've read elsewhere). It is possible that technical problems delay it indefinitely, but I really, really hope not. There is meta:DynamicPageList (installed on WikiNews), and meta:DynamicPageList2 (intended for WikiNews), but those are not (yet) available on en-Wikipedia. Carcharoth 12:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi - sorry to take awhile to get over here.  The issue is entirely performance.  The implementation of category intersection I'm testing may have good enough performance for en, but honestly, I think it's probably borderline.  Performance is why DPL isn't installed on en, too (conjecture on my part, but from a point of some knowledge - the SQL DPL uses get's really bogged down with large datasets).  I think we're right there though - I'm not a full fledged developer; this is my first only real contribution to the codebase, but I think everyone thinks I'm on the right track.  I'm going to collect more data with this test script, and also write one that uses Lucene.  I'm sorry though - I don't have solid plans to update the data; it took me awhile to download and then build the table I'm using for testing.--Aerik 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial category intersection 

message: Does the bot often miss articles? It seemed to miss Elvish languages. I assessed it here at 21:32 on 21 January 2007. The bot updated the list Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tolkien articles by quality/1 with this edit at 22:20 on 22 January 2007, but the article is still listed as unassessed? Anything to worry about? Carcharoth 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two templates on that page, so it appears in both categories.  The bot went with the unassessed as that is where it would likely get more attention. Cbrown1023 01:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROTFL! I've come across that before. So easy to miss that. At least I'll know next time! Any way to scan for duplicate templates? Carcharoth 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot missed an article? 

message: ... due to scheduled computer network downtime at my work. The bot should run tomorrow as usual. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot down for today 

message: I see that we have finally made it to 250,000 articles assessed!  Not bad for about 8 months work.  Hats off to all of those hard working people across 300+ projects, as well as to Oleg for his patience and dedication!  We should celebrate and publicise this achievement. Walkerma 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quarter million articles assessed! 

message: The statistics page for the Caribbean WikiProject links "Unassessed" to the empty :Category:Unassessed-Class Caribbean articles, but it should link to :Category:Unassessed Caribbean articles, which is where the unassessed articles actually are. I've tried changing the link by hand, but mathbot changed it back with the next update. Anyone know how to fix this? Jwillbur 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two categories were duplicating each other. In that case, the bot links to whichever it finds first. I deleted one of them and now the bot links to the other one. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caribbean unassessed articles category 

message: Is there something wrong with the bot? It is adding articles to the LGBT log as being unassessed, but most of them already are. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a bug, sorry. It was affecting the log only, not the lists themselves. I fixed it now. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with bot? 

message: It seems like the bot is reporting the new name of the page for both the old and new ones, resulting in a bunch of log entries like "X renamed to X"; here, for example. Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So one more bug. Last week I made a lot of changes to the script to make it much easier to translate to to other Wikipedia languages. I tested the code (carefully, I thought) but some bugs crept in anyway. I fixed this now. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange reporting of renames 

message: Please read this proposal and leave comments. Thanks, Walkerma 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using WP1.0 Bot for GAs 

message: This project was renamed, and this is now handled by :Category:Video game articles by quality.
The category is listed to be deleted, but I want to make sure you're all done with it first.
What's is the correct way to remove this from assesment?  
Please respond on my talk page ... -- Prove It (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all you need to is delete :Category:Computer and video game articles by quality, :Category:Computer and video game articles by importance, :Category:Computer and video game articles with comments, all the pages in that category, and all the subpages in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Computer and video game articles by quality. Since you guys wanted the rename so badly, I guess you've go to do all that cleanup. :) I will reply on your talk page too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think so. You guys wanted the rename, you've got to delete the old names (39 of them, see here). Sorry. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Computer and video game articles by quality]] 

message: For at least two days the bot took around or more than 36 hours to run. I think that we arrived at a time when we should run the bot once every two days instead of every day. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that. Or would it be possible to clone the bot and have one just hit the big ones (MILHIST, WPBIO, Album, France, Australia, Film, India, Computer & Video Game) and the other hit the rest?↔NMajdan•talk 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought of this too. But then it would not be possible to compute the total number of articles. Well, that can be accomplished by saving things to disk, etc. But I doubt it would be worth the trouble, I think updating the lists every other day should keep things reasonably up to date. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, that makes sense. Go for it, if you haven't already.↔NMajdan•talk 14:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Due to no objections, the bot has been running every other day for the last few days. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to run the bot every 48 hours 

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) 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above will be enough, the bot won't complain. However, the "Importance:None" column will still show up in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Aircraft articles by quality statistics, as you see now in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality statistics. Hope that helps. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the importance part from our projects assessments 

message: Can this page be divided up with a ? It'll make looking through it a bit easier, if people are looking to do so. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be archived. Something I can handle later unless somebody else does it before.↔NMajdan•talk 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I guess I should clarify, it's not the talk page that I think could use a TOC but Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, there is only one section there, called "See also". Not much for a TOC, right? :) Actually the whole page is a big fat TOC already, all it has is a list of lists. I don't see how adding a TOC would help. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok then. I just hate having to scroll,scroll,scroll,scroll,scroll down, oops too far, scroll up, to find the projects under, say, "M". - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's correct. But what we need then is not a TOC per se, but rather sections, in other words, the table may need to be split into subtables, for each letter in the alphabet, and each subtable placed into its own section. That should not be hard to implement, I can do it if there is good support for this. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please, that would be very helpful.--DorisHノート 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't ID divs or spans work? As in having  before the first B item, etc, and  (or better ) at the top? It would work inside the table, see for example Towns of Alberta#T. --Qyd 21:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs a TOC 

message: I've added a few projects, one :Category:Rotorcraft articles by quality two and a half days ago, the others  :Category:Red Bull Air Race World Series articles by quality and :Category:Gliding articles by quality more recently, and their statistics pages have yet to be created by the bot. They are using the same project banner as the aviation project, , in the same way that the Military history project uses the same banner for all its projects. Could someone look over them to see if I missed something that the bot looks for in order to "do its thing". Thanks. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! Rotorcraft just got done. I guess it just takes a lot longer than it used to to begin updates. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Projects are not having their stats created 

message: To help out with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive could the bot tally up the total of assessed articles? I'm trying to encourage folks to focus on how much they've achieved, not the bogus unassessed number (bogus because nearly 40,000 living person articles - and lord knows how many bios about dead people - don't have any  tag). --kingboyk 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the total number of assessed articles is the total number of articles minus the number of unassessed ones. The latter two numbers are in the stats already. I could modify the code generating the stats to print in addition the total of assessed articles also, but then that number will be printed out for each of the 400 projects stats. I can do that if people think that would be helpful overall  for the projects. Otherwise as a solution specific to your project one could write a bot to read the current stats, do the subtraction, and post that number in a place where you guys could easily see. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know how to do the maths Oleg, but I prefer to have machines do these things for me :) We're talking pretty big numbers at WPBio, and at some other Projects. I was thinking a line could be added to the Stats table to complement the (bogus) unassessed count. I'm happy to wait and see if other projects think this would be useful before you decide. Thanks for the reply, as always. --kingboyk 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am for it. It is a good statistic to have and more reflective of a WikiProject.↔NMajdan•talk 19:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I will work on this in the weekend. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be helpful.  The first thing I do when I look at a stats list is subtract unassessed from total to work out this number - it would be nice to have this actually displayed.  Thanks, Walkerma 04:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I did not get to that in the weekend, and I am very consumed by the real life this week. I'll try to do it this coming weekend. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I added the assessed row, as seen at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/African military history articles by quality statistics. Later today when the bot runs will add that row to all stats tables. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Oleg! Much appreciated. --kingboyk 15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats 

message: Somehow, my project has two unassessed categories. I think this happened when a bunch of empty categories were deleted awhile ago. Which one does the bot look at? My banner places unassessed articles in :Category:Unassessed University of Oklahoma articles but the statistics table links to :Category:Unassessed-Class University of Oklahoma articles. I want to make sure I delete the correct one. Thanks.↔NMajdan•talk 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the bot should be happy with either one. If you delete one of the unassessed categories, the bot will link to the other one in the stats. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unassessed question 

message: Every so often I find myself creating a new set of assessment categories for a WP Biography workgroup. It's a dull and repetitive task, so yesterday I knocked up a script in the shape of an AWB plugin to do the job. It's not a bot, it just asks the user for some config info, creates a category list which it adds to the AWB list, and then fills in the categories with some boilerplate text. User can review the text before save and is always in full control.
The plugin should ship with the next version of AWB, and source code (VB.net) is in the AWB subversion repository. Please try it!
Some examples created with this tool: :Category:Biography (baronets) articles by quality, :Category:Biography (peerage) articles by quality, :Category:Biography (peerage) articles by priority. --kingboyk 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also my script, at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Generate categories which has been working for a while. But that one requires admin privileges. So it's nice to have the AWB alternative. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, didn't know about that. Oh well, as you say there's an alt for non-admins now :) --kingboyk 14:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWB script to create article assessment categories 

message: The French Wikipedia now has about 13,000 articles assessed. Is it possible to add an interwiki link to this stats page from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics?  I'm hesitating because I know that page is edited daily by the bot.  Can we add a noinclude section that the bot will ignore?  I hope other languages will take off with bot assessments like the English & French, and if so we will want to have interwiki links.  We could also use such a section to add the page to a category. Walkerma 05:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to know the French are doing well. :) Tomorrow I'll modify the bot code to allow a section which the bot won't overwrite. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I modified the code so that text after a bot tag in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics will not be modified. I also added the "fr" link at the bottom. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I also appreciate your fixing the Hungarian link as well, I'd assumed they'd given up or something! Good to see things under way there, too.  Cheers, Walkerma 05:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki on statistics page 

message: Hi.  WP:WINE has a bit of a problem at the moment - we like to have the assessment log in some inner HTML on our homepage in order to keep an eye on what other people have been up to recently, but thanks to a stub assessment drive in early March our log is currently running at over 300kb, which is slowing down our home page a little. I appreciate that the logs expire after 3 months, but we can't really wait that long. I've had a bit of a poke round the talk archives here but hadn't found anything to match this problem. I've thought of two options :
=== Manual kludge ===
I was wondering if it would be OK if I just set up Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Wine_articles_by_quality_log/Archive, manually cut out everything over a month old, set up a link to the archive from the main log and then deleted it in two months time - would that break the bot horribly? Doesn't need any work on your part, and just gets us out of this temporary hole.
=== New feature ===
A more elegant solution that might be useful on many project portals would be a separate 'shortlog' page, that just had the changes since the last botrun, or the last week or something, plus a link to the main log page.  I appreciate this option involves extra coding, but I thought I'd float it.....
Of course there is a third option, to delete the log from our homepage for the next few weeks, but I'd only do that if the 'temporary manual archive' option isn't available. FlagSteward 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot will not be affected no matter what you do. It usually takes the log page as it is and just appends to it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK - I've now set up Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Wine_articles_by_quality_log/Archive to offload 300kb-worth of log ;-/ temporarily. I've appended a note to the end of the log to explain where the old stuff has gone, and a note to the top of the archive explaining where it came from. I hope this is OK - give us a shout if it breaks anything FlagSteward 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm missing something, there's no need to do that. Just truncate the log. I know it has a header saying in effect "leave this page alone" but that's really only to discourage people disambiguating links. If the log is too long for transclusion you can truncate it; I've done it often enough and the bot doesn't mind. The old revisions stay in the history, so there's really no need to archive it. --kingboyk 11:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short log or temporary archive 

message: A more elegant solution that might be useful on many project portals would be a separate 'shortlog' page, that just had the changes since the last botrun, or the last week or something, plus a link to the main log page.  I appreciate this option involves extra coding, but I thought I'd float it.....
Of course there is a third option, to delete the log from our homepage for the next few weeks, but I'd only do that if the 'temporary manual archive' option isn't available. FlagSteward 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot will not be affected no matter what you do. It usually takes the log page as it is and just appends to it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK - I've now set up Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Wine_articles_by_quality_log/Archive to offload 300kb-worth of log ;-/ temporarily. I've appended a note to the end of the log to explain where the old stuff has gone, and a note to the top of the archive explaining where it came from. I hope this is OK - give us a shout if it breaks anything FlagSteward 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm missing something, there's no need to do that. Just truncate the log. I know it has a header saying in effect "leave this page alone" but that's really only to discourage people disambiguating links. If the log is too long for transclusion you can truncate it; I've done it often enough and the bot doesn't mind. The old revisions stay in the history, so there's really no need to archive it. --kingboyk 11:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New feature 

message: I modified the bot code to fetch the latest history version of articles as suggested a while ago by Titoxd and Salix alba (I remember it was both), by doing a query of the form 
 
which does a bunch of articles at the same time (five in this case). The bot should be faster as a result, but in the last several days since it's been running I have not noticed great improvements. Well, at least it does not get slower. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small update on the bot 

message: The bot is taking around three days to do the update nowadays, which is not good. I have a proposal. If we remove the "last updated" tag and the date at the bottom of subpages (see here for an example of what I mean), then the bot won't need to update subpages on which no changes happen except the datestamp. The main indeces for each subject would still get their datestamp (like the index Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Aircraft articles by quality of the above subpage). Would people agree with this? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a pain, but I think it's worth it for faster updates.  The only exception I'd like to see is that entirely new pages should still be done (ie. if they've never been done before).  -- TimNelson 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They will be done, but the datestamp won't show up in subpages (one can always find the last update date from history). I now implemented this, let's see if it makes the bot faster. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to make the bot faster 

message: on 30 May, the bot didn't make it to the zebras again. Something should be done about the alligators and jackals always getting an update and the sloths and zebras missing out all too often.Rlevse 12:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot missed the end of the alphabet AGAIN 

message: I just added the importance scale to a new task force I helped create. But, no articles are being added to the categories. I know this isn't an issue with the bot but I was wondering if anybody else has ran into this issue and what you did to resolve. I was able to resolve one article by simply removing the rating then re-adding it but that is not a solution for hundreds of articles. For instance, Talk:Tulsa Zoo is properly tagged and the correct category (:Category:Mid-importance Tulsa articles) is at the bottom. But if you go to that cat, there is nothing in it. Any ideas?↔NMajdan•talk 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're there now. Must've been a huge backlog in Wikipedia's queue.↔NMajdan•talk 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles not in categories 

message: I stopped the bot because there is something wrong with the query which finds articles in a given category. For example, consider the large :Category:Stub-Class mathematics articles. To find the articles in there, one has to do several consecutive queries, each giving 200 articles. The following query
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=category&cptitle=Stub-Class+mathematics+articles&format=txt&cpfrom=Cl
works, but if you replace "Cl" at the end by "Cm", so instead of giving the articles starting from "Cl" on, give the articles starting from "Cm" on, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=category&cptitle=Stub-Class+mathematics+articles&format=txt&cpfrom=Cm
the query gives an error. I contacted Yurik about this. Any ideas in what is going on? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I spent some time looking at the code, but I'm not experienced enough to make any further progress without being able to see the data that query.php gets from the SQL server.  I also let Yurik know about it, and there is a note at User_talk:Yurik/Query_API#Categories (copied from VPT) about the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, the links above work well indeed now. Carl, thanks. I restarted the bot. If anybody notices it behaving oddly, at some point, it just should be blocked. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot stopped for now due to a problem 

message: Soon after getting restarted it appears the Bot has come to a grinding halt again - this time just after "Biography (science and academia) articles" . thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is running, see Special:Contributions/WP 1.0_bot. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly appears to be I assume you gave it a "bit of a kick". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I woke up in the middle of the night, kicked the bot in the butt, and forgot everything by morning. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Stick - Biography (science and academia) articles 

message: And again soon (but not as soon) after getting restarted it appears the Bot has come to a grinding halt again - this time just after "Former country articles". thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be going again after a short hiatus!. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either I was wrong or it has stopped again. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Stick - Former country articles 

message: And another occasion (but again not as soon) after getting restarted it appears the Bot has come to a grinding halt at
Military historiography articles by quality log. (Nearly at the WP:Novels articles, so near but so far - being selfish of course) :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aardvarks 3, Zebras 0. I do appreciate all your effort on this, but something needs to be done.Rlevse 10:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bot did not come to a halt, it is running, see Special:Contributions/WP_1.0_bot. Kevin, the bot can't edit all the time, it has to read information too. That's why you see it pausing every now and then. Hopefully we'll get to the zebras too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, my mistake - but it was thinking for quite a "long" time, hence my error I suppose. Is there a log of it's thinking to watch as there used to be with Mathbot!? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The logs are large now and I can't keep them in the public-visible portion of my user account, I don't have enough room there. As a rule of thumb, a large project can take several hours. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: question--the Scouting project got a bot run today 12/13 Jun GMT, but the log entry is for 10 June, even though the history of the page shows it's real date of 13 June....?? Just curious here.Rlevse 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because the bot has been running for three days so far, that's why. :) Today I made a couple more of changes which should make the bot a bit faster. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just curious. Thanks for all your help. Rlevse 10:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Stick - Military historiography articles 

message: Here is a message I left at User talk:Oleg Alexandrov. He told me to raise this issue here. I've also copied his reply here. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 11:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea, but perhaps a bit too late (I wish I thought about it earlier). It would require doing hundreds of moves to fix all the existing pages (in order to be consistent among them). You could try raising this at WT:1.0/I, but I am not sure if it is worth it given the amount of work needed to bring all the existing page in the same naming convention. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Oleg, great idea but lots of work, esp if done by one person. Coordinating help via project coordinators would be a nightmare too. Rlevse 12:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there exist bots that can automatically move pages according to some rules? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. The bigger problem is to synchronize those bots with WP 1.0 bot which runs all the time. Again, it is doable, if people agree it is worth it, we may go for it. I myself am not sure. (Note that bots need supervision too, double redirects may need to be checked, and all for hundreds of pages.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could stop the WP 1.0 bot for a day or two to allow the other bot to complete its task, couldn't you? It's hardly a critical bot anyway, unlike some vandal protection bots. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 11:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, if there is support for your proposal. Then a move bot needs to be hired too (I don't have one). So let's wait and see what others say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Log and statistics subpages 

message: Well, it was bound to happen. In spite of a few optimizations and an increased edit rate (one edit per five seconds), now a bot run takes almost three days (and a good chunk of CPU and memory too). I switched the bot to a run every three days. As before, people who need an instant run can use the online tool. Hope that's fine with people. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem at all - I would anticipate that the regular schedule would take this route further  (4 or 5 days soon) and have got there earlier. However the problem with the requested run remains for those with a large article base like NovelsWikiProject, it just never completes at all. So in our case the "regular" and now less frequent run is the only thing we have. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot to run every three days 

message: Hi. Few things:
* I have greatly (i hope) improved the API documentation page at mw:API. Feel free to browse, add examples, correct...
* Backlinking queries (backlinks, embeddedin, imageusage) are now using a new parameter ??title=xxx, instead of titles=xxx. Titles is still supported, but will be obsolete soon. Please update bots once the main tree goes live.
--Yurik 07:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Our project does not use backlinking queries as far as I am aware, but only category and  history queries, but this is good to know. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  API change heads-up 

message: To continue from here, we are having a problem with articles disappearing from categories, and then from the lists maintained by the bot. 
Here's the deal. Talk:Gireum Station is obviously in :Category:Stub-Class Korea-related articles, yet when one clicks on that category, the article is nowhere to be found. This is very odd, and some kind of Wikipedia server tricks.
The consequence is that the bot massively removes articles, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Korea-related articles by quality log. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like something that needs to be asked in higher-level (dev?) discussions, maybe. Girolamo Savonarola 02:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I've noticed that before but never thought anything of it. It could be the non-alphabetical sorting of these categories that is causing problems here. I'll try removing this feature from  and we can see what happens next time the bot runs. PC78 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with categories and disappearing articles 

message: Hi. Is it normal that this page says we have 1610 FAs and 2710 GAs, whereas WP:GA says 1547 and 2744? How often is the bot running? I don't remember us ever having that much FAs.--SidiLemine 11:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA count likely includes a fair number of FLs as well, so that's not a surprising discrepancy.  I have no idea what's affecting the GA count, but it may very well be a legitimate change, given how rapidly that status can be added or removed.  (It may, of course, simply be articles marked as GA-Class without GA tags.) Kirill 12:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FLs! Right, didn't think of that. As for the GAs, as you say it seems possible. Thanks!--SidiLemine 16:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with counting 

message: Are we sure this Bot process hasn't stiffed again, seems to get so far then stop! Maybe wrong but looks that way. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the bot did not finish its run because of some odd error a few days ago. Let's see if the current run goes well. I'll try to think of what is going on. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot hasn't run on LGBT articles in almost a week - should I be concerned?  Should I run it manually? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to run it manually at any time. Apparently now the bot is running well (currently at "I"). I made the script more robust at the place it crashed last time. 15:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's at "i", I'll let it run to "L" :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stiffed again? 

message: I modified the bot code a bit so that each time it starts it goes through the list of projects not alphabetically, but rather in the order of oldest first, meaning that the projects that have not been run for longest time will come first. Hopefully this will put to rest the problem of the projects earlier in the list being run more often. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Hopefully that means everyone will get done eventually, even when there are a lot of problems.  Thanks a lot, Walkerma 03:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outstanding. Also, is there any progress on the idea of have a dedicated server for this at the foundation? That would likely help too.Rlevse 10:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am actually looking forward to getting the bot off my school's network since I no longer work there. A dedicated server may be too much to ask, but having access to a reasonable stable server with say 100 MB of storage would be nice. Otherwise I'll just make the bot a bit more stable to interruptions and move to the toolserver (hopefully it would perform better there than what it did last time when I tried this). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if we can get help with this. Walkerma 16:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A fix to the zebra problem 

message: It would be nice if the bot could add "(redirect)" to the tables it generates when it encounters an article which is a redirect, to help users remove the wikiproject templates from redirect talk pages.  --jacobolus (t) 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot can't do that, for the reason that it never visits articles, all it does is collecting talk pages from categories. It could be implemented, but would require visiting a million articles each run, which is infeasible. Perhaps anybody else would have any ideas. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May be this is better done as a one off job, it does not need to be done every day. Basically you would need to get a list of redirects and a list of assessed articles and find the matches. Theres various ways both lists could be obtained, but they are not trivial. --Salix alba (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can generate a list of all assessed articles (it will be huge). A list of redirects can be obtained by querying a database dump, I guess. But indeed, this is not something that can be automated and run on a regular basis. Perhaps a big cleanup once a year could be done, if anybody's willing to come up with a list of redirects. But I am not sure overall if the presence of a few redirects is such a big problem. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed this conversation earlier. It is possible to efficiently tell which pages are redirects using the API (see ). Up to 5000 pages can be queried per HTTP request. Given a list of all the assessed articles, this API feature would be straightforward to make a list of assessed redirects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any way to detect redirects? 

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: The bot doesn't seem to be compiling the data for the Marxism task force. The chart produced by this template:  as can be seen among the Philosophy task force assessments. I'm not sure why it would be different from the rest. Pontiff Greg Bard 23:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The log shows up recently activity. Is there any reason to suspect something is not right? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged articles in :Category:Marxist theory and then I ran the bot manually. Those articles aren't showing up in the worklist. There should be a bunch more. Pontiff Greg Bard 05:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you give an example of an article which should show up and does not? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cultural hegemony is one example. All of the rest of :Category:Marxist theory as well. Pontiff Greg Bard 03:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per the instructions, Talk:Cultural hegemony should be in a Marxism quality category, which in turn should be in the Wikipedia 1.0 category. Try to do this and see what happens. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxism task force 

message: Hi. I'd like to request a change be made to the formatting of the statistics generated by the bot, matching this change. This will remove some excessive whitespace after the table when it is transcluded (and remove some redundant bolding). Thanks in advance. --PEJL 19:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy enough to implement. I wonder what people think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, although I'm not sure of the necessity. John Carter 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is needed to remove excessive whitespace below the table when transcluded, like at WP:SONG#Progress (which includes the change). --PEJL 16:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. Kirill 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I modified the bot, as seen in this diff. The change will propagate on the next bot run. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --PEJL 12:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot: tweak formatting 

message: I know it would probably be insanely difficult, but would there be any way to structure the assessments such that for the main articles by quality chart on the page here, the articles contained in a given box could be pointed out. I'm thinking particularly here that it might be useful to be able to click on the box containing stub articles of top importance and seeing exactly which articles are included there. It might make choosing collaboration topics, if nothing else, a lot easier. John Carter 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that this would have to be done within the project banner template code, much the way that the current assessment does. So you'd need a whole new set of categorization in addition to the current sets. Although there probably are other ways to do it. The better question is how necessary it would be? I can't imagine a project with an overwhelming number of Top or High importance articles (bc that would cheapen the value of it), and it is unused in many projects altogether anyway. Girolamo Savonarola 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess you are talking about the intersection of two categories (say Top importance & Stub quality). There was a tool somewhere which did that (web-based I think). I don't know how I could implement it as part of the bot. I am also not sure there is a big need for such a thing in the table of stats. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I'd rather see the two list classes added as proposed above - I think it would be more productive to the projects, and it would require far less work collectively to alter the bot code instead of creating hundreds (if not thousands) of new categories for this proposed change. Girolamo Savonarola 04:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more work 

message: I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article Classification to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment as that seems to be the consensus name for such pages, but I was wondering if that will affect the bot.  I have updated most links to the name, the only links I haven't updated are the ones in the bot generated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Comics articles by quality page and subpages.  I can't work out how the bot generates the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article Classification, so I can't work out what parameter or variable I need to change or where that might be. Any help appreciated. Hiding Talk  14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your change in the index is enough, the bot will read and reflect that change in the subpages at the next run. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article Classification]] to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment]] 

message: We seem to have some automated process problems again. Novels have not bee updated since the 14th and no major processing appear to be happening at present. Or am I wrong? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I made a syntax mistake when modifying the cron job back then, that's why it would not run. I should have checked the bot every now and then of course, but did not get to it these days. I fixed that mistake now and started the bot by hand. Hopefully from now on it will run regularly again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, always difficult when questioning someone else's truly hard work, which in itself is appreciated by many. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  14th since Novels 

message: I was wondering whether the numbers on the table on this page count an article twice if both its project and its sub-project have v1.0 tables.  How does it work in the case of projects like WikiProject British Royalty, which uses the WikiProject Biography template with a parameter set to "yes" that adds it to both projects?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot counts each article only once in the big stats table on WP:I. At least, that's how I think I programmed it. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article is ranked at different importence levels between two projects, at what importence is it listed in the table?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this main table include articles in sub-projects twice? 

message: The other article space class that we need to clean up our reports is Dab, Disamb, or Disambig class.  Let's get the article space cleaned up in the reports.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now here's something we really don't need. Aren't disambiguation pages (only if they have talk pages in the first place, not just created to show some banner) just rated under NA-Class? If they are, I don't think we need to start creating a class for every new type of article. It's just making things slightly harder for new users when they start to assess articles. It's always been known: Featured lists and articles under FA, GA, A, B, Start, and Stub under themselves, Lists under , and anything else (category, portals, etc) under . That's a simple outline of assessment here, and I really don't think we should make the assessment process even more difficult. Spebi 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab-class 

message: Should the category-making bot be updated to make a category for list-class articles now that they are a regognised part of the project?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks, I forgot about that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update the category-making bot to add lists 

message: Here is an updated version.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I used the last one in Powerpoint presentations - it's very helpful to have this graphic. Walkerma (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the graphic to be fairly disheartening.  Those yellow and red regions haven't been getting any smaller.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I would like to get article space cleaned up.  I will start two separate debates. We should add FL class.  I think people have been doing patch jobs with FL=FA commands.  Let's just do it right.  Thanks for adding list class.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to be seperating lists into their own class, I strongly agree that there needs to be a class for FLs.  I spend a lot of my time here on lists, and I'd like to be able to see which lists are complete and which still need work.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I understand why this did not happen when list class was created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  02:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I personally thing that anything that is Featured should be listed, no matter what. So, having a Feature List class is a must.--Kranar drogin 17:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we create an FA class, we should also probably create at least one separate lower list class, and maybe turn the existing class into the equivalent of "Unassessed-class Lists?" John Carter 18:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Why doesn't  not meet the desired niche? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Lists don't really need a separate quality class, IMO. I think just sticking lists and articles under , there isn't much difference between the two as people think. Spebi 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I guess anything under FA is a completed work and isn't really our focus anyway.  I'll keep FL as an option in my projects, but put articles so tagged in with the FAs.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there ought to be a FL-class for the bot. I don't see a reason really to make A-list and B-list options. Just my two cents. --Pinkkeith (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I would like to see this incorporated, too. As of right now, FL-rated articles appear to be nonexistent at WikiProject Dartmouth College. Dylan (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that FA-Class is not right is because FA stands for "Featured Article" and lists are not articles.  Looking at sports projects, the NFL project specifically, there are 20 some FL's yet only 3 or 4 FA's.  In the stats it only shows FA so it seems that there is only 3 featured content in the NFL project when really there is like 28.  We have almost 600 featured lists and are promoting something like 35 a month, which means soon FL is going to rival FA.  I think the way to incorporate this is like what someone above said, where it is up to the Wikiproject to decide if they use FL or not.  I would really like to see this implemented.Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wait, you mean that although we have the tag and class available for FL and Lists - FL's aren't added to the statistics but Lists are? Thats... strange given that  has been taken up and is being used by so many (see :Category:FL-Class articles). Nanonic (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FL class 

message: Wow, we've just passed one million assessed articles. :-) Kirill 12:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet as per this chart, we aren't making any progress against unassessed articles and untracked articles, we're just keeping up with the new ones.  Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Partially because there have only recently been created assessing banners for several projects, like Micronesia, Melanesia, and many of the countries not covered by individual WikiProjects. I've been blindly arrogant and created separate work groups for each extant sovreign state on the planet, and am shortly going to adjust the various relevant regional Project banners to accomodate them. When we've got that accomplished, and when those banners are placed, I hope that we'll see some improvement then. It'll take awhile to adjust all the banners, though. User:Phoenix-wiki is working on the Africa project banner, and I sincerely feel for the amount of work that's going to have to go into that one. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we're going to have wikiprojects without any members that exist solely for the purpose of 1.0 assessment?  I guess that makes sense.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no. They all have one member so far, me. My obsession with userboxes scares even me sometimes. :) And these aren't Projects per se, but work groups/task forces of extant Projects. They were basically created because of Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa's somewhat untenable scope. Basically, the reason behind it is that there already are projects out there with one "central" member who does most of the orchestration and development, and the separate assessments will allow any individual an opportunity to review the relevant material and, hopefully, improve at least the core article for each nation, knowing a bit more easily what the other related content already does and does not contain. In time, of course, I hope that the tagging will draw more members into the parent projects. But, this way, at least there is a slightly better chance of some of the smaller nations, like say Marshall Islands, which is currently only at Start class, getting a bit more attention than they do today. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,000,000 

message: I just started a WikiProject (I think), at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deftones, and am in the process of tagging the articles (I think). If someone could have a look at Deftones for instance, and tell me if I'm on the right track, I'd greatly appreciate all the help I can get! I just made the jump from editing sporadically to trying to do something more substantial, so I'm learning by doing and could do with some hand-holding. Thanks in advance, Seegoon (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have no idea what is going on 

message: Well, the time has come again. :) The bot takes a lot to do its runs, I think even more than four days. Three days is not enough any longer, and the way things are now there are often two instances of the bot at any time stepping on each other's feet which slows things down. So, I propose to run the bot every four days instead. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - the bot has over 50% of the English Wikipedia to go through! Projects can survive the wait. Walkerma (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, looks fine to me. Kirill 14:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a suggestion awhile back. I wish there was a way to have the bot skip inactive projects for a period of time. I would think that would cut back (a little) on the workload.↔NMajdan•talk 14:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Long term such an algorithm could be hard to maintain and may not add much (the bot goes rather rapidly through inactive projects, since it is smart enough to realize that a page does not change so it should not attempt to edit it -- it is the later which takes most time). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed, anything to make sure it runs; sometime! It looks like it has stuck again at 9.15 today (again!). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. The bot will run every month on the following days: 1,5,9,13,17,21,25. So it will have a 5-6 day break at the end of each month before resuming on the 1st of next month (otherwise, if it runs on 29th also, it may run too often, and that can have two bots running at the same time which slows both of them down). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Go to  and run it. --NE2 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If there would be any way to create the biography project statistics page simply by adding together the stats for the work groups, I'd probably support it, if we got to the point that we have enough work groups to cover most of the biography articles. Unfortunately, as it stands, many still aren't assigned or even necessarily relevant to any work groups, but I'll see what I can do regarding that in the near future. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe you can create a category for "biography articles not assigned to a workgroup", like :Category:U.S. road transport articles without a state parameter? Of course it would need a change in the bot's code to look up the quality/importance for each of those. --NE2 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If and when I get done with what I'm doing and get access to the template, that sounds like a very good idea. I think it might be workable by the end of the week. I hope. Wish me luck. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to run the bot every four days 

message: I created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley in November and ran the tool. I recall, I believe, that the table was updated immediately. However, I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Tool, ran the tool and nothing. Have I done something wrong? Lara❤Love 17:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you categorised the quality articles wrong. Compare :Category:B-Class Tool articles and :Category:B-Class Elvis Presley articles.--Peter Andersen (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! It's working now. Lara❤Love 14:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did I do it wrong? 

message: The stats for Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in Ireland seem a little off and the bot appears to be ignoring anything higher than Start class - see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Unionism in Ireland articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Unionism in Ireland articles by quality. Could someone with the technical know how take a look and see if the project assessment is set up correctly? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA, GA categories are empty, that's why they don't show up. I think there was agreement a while ago that empty categories should not show up in the stats. So just add some articles there, and hopefully the stats will reflect that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats problems 

message: would it be difficult to add a simple "number of articles" column to the table in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index? It would be really interesting to see the breakdown of the different wikiprojects.. then you could easily tell the 'big' projects from the 'small' projects. thanks! 131.111.8.97 (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The disadvantage would be that all the table monitors yet is the number of articles tagged, which has less to do with the size of the project as the amount of tagging its done. Also, generally, if any party were to want to do that, all they would have to do is compare the totals for the various projects. However, at this point I can't see how useful it would be. Several projects now take the assessments of a more focused project as their own, by adding that group's categories to their own. The France project now takes the assessments from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/French Africa work group, for instance. Those articles very likely would not appear in the list of articles tagged for France. Also, and I am speaking from experience here, several projects have much greater scope than the amount of tagging they have been able to do to date. The WikiProject Biography is probably the one project which hasn't tagged the biggest number of relevant articles, simply given the scope of that project. Any such numbers as you are proposing would probably be both time-consuming for the bot to generate, and less than productive in terms of actually measuring the real scope of a project rather than its amount of tagging to date. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree it wouldn't measure the size of the project, but how much tagging has been done - which is nevertheless an interesting statistic, isn't it? and i ask because i didn't think it would actually take that much of the bot's time to do (i.e. a single edit to the page regularly).. unless i am mistaken. 82.6.96.66 (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiproject breakbown 

message: I am a member of WP:Elements and I would like to know if it is possible to get a box like this one for the project. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be specific about what box you are referring to? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  basically an entry in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index called "Chemical element articles by quality" that links the pages using the template . Nergaal (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can go to the index page and follow the link to the instructions from there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I request one of these boxes? 

message: Copied from Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Assessment_graph.  I also support this proposal. Walkerma (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with this, as well. Any project which has decided to use the class clearly is going to regard these articles as having already been assessed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, see here. The changes will propagate to the other projects when the bot does its run. Walkerma, thanks for posting that request here, this is a better place for bot-related discussion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  And how appropriate to use WP:Aesthetics as the example!  Walkerma (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format of the stats table 

message: Is there a step-by-step guide to how to add "FL" class to a WikiProject's assessment scheme? Off-hand, I think the things that would need to be changed are:
*(a) The project article talk page template would need coding for the FL parameter.
*(b) The new FL-Class category would need to be created and categorised (where?).
*(c) The project's assessment documentation would need updating.
*(d) Existing featured lists would have to be switched from FA to FL class.
I think that's it. Can someone confirm that the bot will automatically pick up such changes and change the pages it updates? I can do (b)-(d) OK. Could someone help out or write a guide for how to do (a)? I would like to implement this for some projects, especially as my recent attempts to use subcategories of :Category:FA-Class articles to see how many featured articles some projects have, has been hampered by the featured lists being mixed up with the featured articles. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having done the same thing myself in the past, all I did was copy the FA class parameters in the existing banner, place the copy right below the original, and alter the FA to FL. I hope that makes sense. I can't find a specific example right now, but if you give me an example of a banner you're considering, I could demonstrate how to do it there. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like this? I then created :Category:FL-Class dinosaurs articles and categorised and added documentation based on :Category:FA-Class dinosaurs articles, and made sure the current featured list now appeared in this category. I couldn't find the project assessment documentation, so I left a note on their talk page. Now I just have to see if the bot will pick up the new category. Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding FL class to a WikiProject's assessment scheme 

message: I would like to propose to include the date of when the information in the stat boxes (such as this one) was last updated.  The date is already included in the edit summary, but not in the actual box.  At this point I am simply looking for feedback regarding whether this is a good idea or not.  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The date will show up everywhere where a stat template is transcluded. Many people may not like that. My take is that it is simpler to take a look at the history if you'd like to see the last update date (or even simpler, take a look at the bottom of the page, there is already a datestamp on the bottom of every wikipedia article). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including update date 

message: I've been working to update a few parts of the WP 1.0 bot code to speed things up. The goal is to get the bot to finish a complete run in two days, rather than four or five. There should be no visible change in the bot's output; the changes are all to the underlying code to access the article data. So there is no new functionality, just faster processing.
The good news is that the new code is ready for heavy testing. I have already been testing it on individual projects by hand, but at some point I need to simply turn it on and let it go. I'm planning to do that sometime in the next few days.  The cgi script that allows you to rate one project at a time will still be using the older code. 
The new code puts "(test code)" at the end of the edit summary. If you notice any strange behavior in an edit marked that way, please let me know. If all goes well, the new code will replace the old code in a couple weeks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be awesomely great! Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The full trial is now underway. If anyone sees something odd, please let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And complete, in about 44 hours, including an update of the global stats at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics for the first time since Feb. 14, and including updates to the category structure. I'm going to look through the logs it made during this run for any issues; if you see anything odd in the results, please let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool! Will this be the regular run from now on? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite yet. There are a few minor technical issues I need to fix (for example, two or three of the 1000+ biography pages didn't get uploaded because the database locked for a while overnight last night. I can avoid that problem.). Then I want to do another test run before I make it automatic. Also, I want to give time for any other bugs to be reported. But overall I am happy with this run. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot trials 

message: I redid the Wikiproject Ohio template to include importance.  It works fine as far as I can tell.  The problem is that the chart that lists the number of articles by importance and class will not update to show importance even after running the bot manually.  It just says "No importance" for all of them.  Could someone please take a look at it?  Thanks. §tepshep  •  ¡Talk to me! 00:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The category needed to be named :Category:Ohio articles by importance instead of :Category:WikiProject Ohio articles by importance. I fixed that, ran the script, and now the table is correct at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ohio articles by quality statistics. The rule of thumb is that whatever the statistics page is called, that's what the quality and importance categories should be called. In this case, "Ohio". — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought I did it right 

message: There is currently an issue with Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index showing up as a blank page (with 0 bytes of content). This is because the source for that page is too large. Hopefully the bot will be fixed soon to split the data over several pages.  The bot is just about to finish a full run, so even though the index is not visible, the individual projects should be correct. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I saw this yesterday, but thought I just had a browser problem. Walkerma (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed this issue. Now there is Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index2 where the second part of the index resides, with the first part in the old place, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. This is a stop-gap measure, more thought needs to be given to how best to split a big index into subindices. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Index page shows up blank 

message: Is there any way to know what projects the bot is currently or planning to work on?  I've tried to get Albums updated (haven't been since the 22nd) but the bot seems to stop working once it gets to the Gs in the 29k stub category.  It's still has the fun 33k unaccessed category, so I wonder if it's just been queued or it that just too much to ask for? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot does not provide the functionality you are asking for, and I don't know how I would implement it. The bot does not work with very long projects from the web-based interface, the server just cuts it off. For long projects it is better to wait for the scheduled run. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: As Oleg says, the web interface only works for small projects, as there is a time limit for a cgi script to run. The idea of having the bot give more detailed info is good, and I'll make sure it is considered in any updates of the bot code. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot queue 

message: The tool that allows people to run WP 1.0 bot on demand from the web-based interface does not work for the moment. The system administrator on the network it was running on told me it takes too many server resources. I am now looking for a new home for it. In the meantime, the only way to run the bot is through the regular scheduled run. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The tool is now at http://www.kiwix.org/~oleg/wp/wp10/run_wp10.html. The system administrator there asked me that people don't overuse it. My suggestion is that the tool should be used only for new projects or for small projects. Otherwise it would be better to wait for the standard run. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it keep a log of how often it is run? We can probably add some code to throttle it, so that it cannot be run too frequently. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does not keep a log. I would assume it is not used a lot. If it causes problems in the future, I guess we can introduce something to restrict the usage. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Nevermind it works now. I've changed the name of my assessment from "WikiProject Devon" to just "Devon", but WikiProject Devon still appears on the list. Could someone please remove it. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running the bot by hand does not work 

message: How does a given wikiproject start assessing its articles and getting indexed? I've looked around and can't find any instructions. --Padraic 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you visit Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index, then on top there will be a link to the instructions. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, thanks. --Padraic 15:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to add a project? 

message: the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases by putting a quality assessment box on their main project page. We aren't very good at working with the 1.0 bot. 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a trick to getting this to update? I've been assessing for a few days now but the chart doesn't reflect it. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Essentially, wait until it gets to it. The bot works in alphabetical order, and you can see where it is right now here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone please help out... 

message: Would it be possible to generate a sporadically-updated list of all of the 1.0 groups by some basic statistics like total number of tagged articles, number of unassessed articles, and the like? It would be useful so that we can see which projects clearly have assessment issues, as well as projects which may have a small enough scope to be more useful as task forces of other projects, or - in the case of blatant inactivity - be brought to MfD. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a pain in the ass with the current framework, as it would pretty much require scraping the statistic pages for each project. It might be better to add this to the new framework being thought about. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the list needed to be kept in sync with the statistics, perhaps.  But the actual task is pretty simple; if I have a bit of free time this weekend, I'll put together a script that generates the needed lists. Kirill (prof) 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the results are up at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Comparison. Kirill (prof) 17:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks, Kirill! Maybe we could update this infrequently, perhaps once a quarter or so? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of assessment groups by article number? 

message: (moved from User_talk:Mathbot)
I see Mathbot compiles the tables of article status at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics.
Right now it links to articles according to either quality or importance. Could it be modified to link to a specific quality and importance? For example, if I'm interested in improved stubs of high importance, I can either click on High (35 of 366 are of stub-class) or on stubs (35 of 3787 are high importance). Or if I want to assess the quality of low-importance articles, I'd have to go through at best 488 low-importance article rather than 14. 
I can explain more if that was not clear. Thank you.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 07:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are referring to User:WP 1.0 bot rather than mathbot. The feature you request is not supported. I am quite pressed for time recently, and can't implement it, I am also not sure how crucial it is. If you wish, you can try requesting this feature at WT:1.0/I and see if somebody would be willing to implement it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll do this at some point when I have time, unless Carl (CBM) gets there before me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine is beginning to create task forces, and we would like to have separate assessments for the task force articles.  Our first task force is Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force, with articles to be in :Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality.  Our assessment template is all set up for task forces - we just haven't started tagging pages yet, and are intentionally holding off for a few days (so please do not tag any pages yet).
In the mean time, I am trying to set up the bot, but ran into a problem.  While trying to manually run the bot, I received the following error message, and the bot subsequently got stuck in a loop:
Fetching Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine.
Retrieving http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject%20Reproductive%20medicine&action=edit&oldid=section= Sleep 1
Error message is: Could not get_text for Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine! at /home/oleg/public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules/bin/perlwikipedia_utils.pl line 93 eval {...} called at /home/oleg/public_html/cgi-bin/wp/modules/bin/perlwikipedia_utils.pl line 82 main::wikipedia_fetch('Perlwikipedia=HASH(0x86d36ec)', 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine.wiki', 200, 1) called at wp10_routines.pl line 1350 main::get_wikiproject('Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality') called at wp10_routines.pl line 290 main::update_index('ARRAY(0x86d37c4)', 'HASH(0x86d392c)', 'HASH(0x86d3914)', 'HASH(0x86d38fc)', 'HASH(0x86d389c)') called at wp10_routines.pl line 145 main::main_wp10_routine('Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality') called at /home/oleg/public_html/wp/wp10/run_wp10.cgi line 53 Fetching Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine. Attempt: 2.
It seems as though the bot is trying to find "Wikipedia:WikiProject Reproductive medicine", which does not exist.  Is there a way to tell the bot that this is a task force, and not a project?  I see that in the index, the wikiproject link for task forces accurately points to the task force page, but I am unsure where to set this.  Thanks.  --Scott Alter 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a problem there indeed. I'll take a look in the weekend. Some API changes which confuse the bot I guess. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a task force to be assessed 

message: WPAssessmentCatCreator is a AWB-plugin that can help create the assessment categories required for the WP1.0. In addition to the basic cats, it helps create the non-standard classes such as Template, Category, Redirect etc. I had picked up Kingboyk's version and modified it a bit. There is a generate categories page that does something similar, but it is restricted to administrators. Please let me know your comments and suggestions. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment categories plugin 

message: Oleg/CBM, I would like the bot to wikilink the numbers on the stats table with their respective intersection category. See :Category:Tamil Nadu articles by quality and importance. This will not add any additional processing time to the bot. It will add the link if the category exists, otherwise it will leave it as a plain-number. This feature would really help in providing easy access to these categories. Can you please add this to the bot? Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ability to view the intersection lists (quality/importance) is a feature that is on the todo list for the next version of the WP 1.0 bot code. I will be starting a discussion in July to discuss that project in more detail. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Carl. As a workaround, I used Erwin85's CatCount to create something similar at this page. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I like it, just without the percentages. Having an extra column on the tables would ruin pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment that depend on the tables being narrow. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats table - wikilink numbers with intersection categories 

message: Hi, I was setting up the assessment mechanisms this morning for the Catullus WikiProject, and I noticed that the new C-Class assessments are not being counted by the MathBot.  They turn up as "Unassessed" instead.  It's possible that I made a mistake in setting up the template, but if not, could this be fixed, please?  Thanks, all! :) Willow (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that C-Class has not been enabled yet in the system, because we are still writing the definitions of exactly what C-Class IS, and also how it will affect the other classes.  See this discussion for more detail. Walkerma (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I can confirm that the problem is with the Bot. I made a C-class article with  in my sandbox, and it doesn't show up when I run WP 1.0 bot.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Um, the bot is picking up C-Class assessments already, so the problem is not with the bot. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since :Category:C-Class Catullus articles is empty, the bot does not add its row in the stats table. This kind of behavior was agreed on a while ago. Oleg Alexandrov (talk)  02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you need to change the color of . Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, that's weird. It's the only page in which I've seen that problem. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-Class assessments not working with the MathBot? 

message: Unassessed (quality) articles are handled by the bot. Could it be possible to handle the unrated (importance) as well? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrated articles 

message: I wanted to check - is everything now OK with the bot for C-Class?  I know there were caching and colour issues, but from what I can tell, everything is now OK with the bot.  Can we announce it being "official" on Friday? Walkerma (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making C-Class "official" 

message: Right now the classes supported are: FA, FL, GA, A, B, C, Start, Stub, List, Template, Disambig, Category, NA
However, if one wants to tag an article such as List of mesons as a "List-Class" article, then one loses all information about the quality of the list. You can all think of an example I'm sure. For this reason I propose the creation of a new parameter, which is the type of "article" this way, you could follow the quality of a type of article. I propose this way of categorizing stuff:
 The three proposed parameters
Type    	Quality 	Importance
Article 	Featured	Top
List    	A       	High
Portal  	Good    	Mid
Project 	B       	Low
Category	C       	
Template	Start   	
Disambig	Stub    	
Image   	        	
Needed  	        	
NA      	NA      	NA
???     	???     	???
The basic assessment table could look like this:
Status of X WikiProject
{|class="wikitable"	   	    	   	   	  	   	
     	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
F    	   	    	   	   	  	   	
A    	   	    	   	   	  	   	
G    	   	    	   	   	  	   	
B    	   	    	   	   	  	   	
C    	   	    	   	   	  	   	
Start	   	    	   	   	  	   	
Stub 	   	    	   	   	  	   	
NA   	   	    	   	   	  	   	
???  	   	    	   	   	  	   	
Total	   	    	   	   	  	   	
While the "full" assessment table could look like this (probably that only the V.1.0 Editorial Team would use this one), but individual WikiProjects would probably sometimes use more than Articles and Lists (templates and categories I would guess, and maybe NA)
Status of X WikiProject
{|class="wikitable"	   	    	   	   	  	   	
     	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
F    	   	    	   	   	  	   	
A    	   	    	   	   	  	   	
G    	   	    	   	   	  	   	
B    	   	    	   	   	  	   	
C    	   	    	   	   	  	   	
Start	   	    	   	   	  	   	
Stub 	   	    	   	   	  	   	
NA   	   	    	   	   	  	   	
???  	   	    	   	   	  	   	
Total	   	    	   	   	  	   	
Not only would it allow to gauge the quality of lists and put people more comfortable with tagging an article as a "list" (which is IMO the most important reasons behind this), but it could also interesting stuff such as a bot handling of Featured Portals, help struggling WikiProjects to notice what the "higher rated" WikiProjects do, perhaps even create Featured WikiProjects, help to identify high quality-templates and draw attention to the poorer ones so they can be improved/merged, perhaps even create featured templates, etc... 
What say you? Is I insane or is I unto something? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In some ways,  is for WikiProjects who don't want to assess lists using the standard article criteria, for various reasons. I'm not sure this is needed, although others may differ. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll also note that this would probably require a bot to make the first batch of change, as there would be quite a lot. But I still think it's a sound idea nonetheless. If Projects don't want to assess lists, then they can always put NA-Class for quality. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm neutral on this proposal.  I can see how we could assess qualities for lists and even portal pages, but it seems to me that the quality rating is not applicable for image, disambig, redirect, WikiProject, category and template pages.  In working through the Trains project assessments, I've seen one other banner so far that uses a type parameter but I can't recall which project it is at the moment.  Slambo (Speak) 10:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well there's the NA-class rating for that. However, for Wikiproject Templates, having a rating for templates might not be a silly idea, a rating for WikiProject might be usefull for WikiProject WikiProjects (if there's one around). Ratings for images seems a bit overkill (especially if you want to establish the difference between a Start-Class and a Stub-class image), but a simpler Featured, A-Class, B-Class, C-class rating system could be of use. How to use the Type, Class, Importance ratings really is up to each Wikiproject. They might not want to assess the quality of their templates, but if they want, then the possibility is there, though this would probably be more useful for internal usage in Wikiprojects than for the WP 1.0 editorial team. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New parameter (article type) 

message: Is something wrong with the bot? If you look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film awards articles by quality log, the two most recent "removed" articles were actually promoted to FL-Class. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because :Category:FL-Class film awards articles was not in :Category:Film awards articles by quality, so the bot does not know about it. I put it in, the bot will pick those articles at the next run. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that! Will check the other task forces as well now... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FL-Class bug? 

message: :Template:OttawaProject and :Template:WikiProject Toronto don't seem to work - any ideas? --Padraic 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Ottawa and WP Toronto not showing up. 

message: If I want the bot to run here, should I request it here? -- iMatthew T.C. 11:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can look at WP:1.0/I and the link to the instructions from there. If it does not work, you can write here another message. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request? 

message: How to add C-class stats to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Poland-related articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Polish military history articles by quality statistics? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template did not contain C-Class; I've taken the liberty of adding it for you, so it should work fine now. Should you wish it, you can add List-Class and FL-Class in the same way. Regards. PC78 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll do so.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot not updating C-class stats? 

message: Could it be possible to add them? It's not critical, but it's ugly. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I removed the zeros originally at somebody's suggestion, it was assumed it would look better without them. I can put them back if necessary, it depends what people prefer. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm that's weird. Anyway, my reasoning is that it's a bit confusing when nothing is in there. You wonder if the bot got it wrong, or if your categories are set up inadequatly. There needs to be something in the table, if not a 0, then an em dash (although 0 seems more natural, as em dash could be interpreted as "not applicable" or something. Anyway, this ain't a major issue. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeros in table 

message: I was replying to this, and I just noticed in the bot's contributions page that it keeps stopping and starting.  Have they been doing work on the Kiwix server or something?  I'm sure the bot is supposed to be "awake" more than this - does anyone know what is causing this problem? Walkerma (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That the bot pauses, even for hours, is normal. Gathering the data it needs to display takes usually a larger part of its time than actually editing. As long as it proceeds it is OK. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Last week, a project had assessed so many pages at once (bot tagging) that the server was unable to save the daily log page. I lowered the maximum log length to try to avoid that problem in the future. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopping and starting? 

message: See here and here. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no problem - I was running the bot by hand and a second copy started running automatically. I stopped one of them to let the other one work alone. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot double-entering logs? 

message: The bot does not seem to pick up the assessment of those articles within WP:WINE that were reassessed as C-class; they end up in the unassessed category. :Category:C-Class Wine articles exists, and after reading the question from WikiProject Poland above, I added C-class to Template:WikiProject Wine. However, a manual rerun of the bot after the template was updated didn't change anything. Where have I gone wrong? Tomas e (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is empty, that's why. It was agreed a while ago that empty categories should not be listed in the stats. Try to add an article there and rerun the bot. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added :Category:C-Class Wine articles to the talk page of one C-class article (Talk:Gewürztraminer). That article was duly picked up by the bot, and a line with 1 C-class article was created in the table, but the other 60 or so C-class article remain as unassessed. So that apparently didn't do the trick! Tomas e (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to check your template code for the project banner to make certain that it actually codes for the category. Some only pass along previously-specified classes, so if C-Class isn't specified in the banner, it may send it to a default unassessed class. Just a thought. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot seems to show a rather erratic behaviour! Today it had picked up 4 out of 60-something C-class wine article on what I believe was a scheduled rather than manually started run. When I reran it, it picked up 44 more, but left 17 clearly C-class marked in the unassessed class. While this, from a project point of view, seem to mean that the problem is getting smaller and may go away altogether, it does not seem like an ideal bot behaviour to mee... Tomas e (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Good to know that a reasonable explanation exists, for what seemed erratic to me! I think I'll just wait it out and do one or two manual runs of the bot until :Category:Unassessed Wine articles is empty of C-class articles. Right now 16 of the 18 articles there are actually C-class. Tomas e (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the pages (see Help:Null edit) and ran the bot. It counts 66 C-class articles now. The way the categories are slowly updated after a template edit, even though the pages look like they are updated, is one of the least user-friendly parts of the site. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, now they're all in the right place, thanks for that. Tomas e (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot not picking up C-class? 

message: When the C-class was added, it looked to me that the colour of the B-class in the assessment tables (those we usually have on project pages) was changed from yellow to yellowish green, with C inheriting the yellow colour. However, it seems that in the assessment lists, B-class is still yellow, i.e., B and C have the same colour. An example can be seen here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wine articles by quality/1, but it looked the same in all other places I checked. I guess the coding for these colours is in the bot, because I don't see them in the templates. It'd be good to have the same colour in both places. Tomas e (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is still an issue, please see this recent post.  I had wondered if this was a caching issue, but it appears not; even this new list (started July 15) is showing the yellow colour (wrong) instead of the desired yellow-green.  I don't understand why, because the template is shown as transcluding in, but I wonder if perhaps the colours are hard-coded into the bot or something?  Oleg or CBM, do you know the answer for this? Walkerma (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that  overwrites the color set by . G.A.S  09:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does. I see somebody added the  function to the template; wasn't the bot supposed to do this to begin with? We could pretty much nuke it, but I don't know if it would actually affect anything. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-class colour in assessment lists 

message: The "Unassessed" counts reported by the bot in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Russia articles by quality statistics are consistently off; the number shown in :Category:Unassessed Russia articles is always ~100 more.  I observed this oddity for the past several updates in hopes that the discrepancy was caused by some lag and would eventually go away, but it doesn't seem to be the case.  Counts of other categories all seem to be accurate, only "Unassessed" are misbehaving.  Could someone take a look into this, please?  Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is with pages such as :Category_talk:FC_Moskva. These are categorized as :Category:Unassessed Russia articles, so they appear on the category count. But the bot ignores pages that are not in the Talk: namespace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I forgot all about those!  I'll make sure cats and templates are untagged so they no longer screw up the counts.  Thanks much for catching this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counts are off 

message: WikiProject Fictional series ceased to exist a long time ago. It and its bot generated assessment pages can be removed. - LA (T) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a list of several of these that I'm generating, as I'm currently reviewing every WikiProject on the list.  I'll try to remember to post it here for the record! Walkerma (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing a project 

message: Hi, all. As we know, the Version 1.0 Index stores assessments for over 1.7 million articles. Originally, the bot was designed to process about 10,000 articles; we never actually thought that 70% of Wikipedia was going to be covered under some sort of assessment. That has slowly caused the bot to take longer to run, as bot runs that used to last about four hours now take about four days. To make the bot more efficient, changes to the way the bot framework operates are being discussed, and simultaneously, we are discussing which features it might be worthwhile to add as we are recoding everything. We really would like to have your participation at User:WP 1.0 bot/Second generation and its talk page as we do this. Thanks, Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements to the [[User:WP 1.0 bot|WP 1.0 bot]] under discussion 

message: Hi there. Instead of the logs being truncated when the page size becomes too big, would it be possible to archive older changes? – PeeJay 12:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The older changes are stored in the past versions of the page; this is inconvenient for browsing but the information isn't lost. The next version of the WP 1.0 bot will make it easier to browse and search the logs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not always.  If the log is too huge during a single update, then information is lost and irretrievable. --Millbrooky (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving logs 

message: Hello... is there a way the bot can use the  magic word with the displayed numbers so that they are easier to read ? 82.248.254.92 (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The next version of the bot will add commas. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers formating 

message: See WP:VPT#Pages showing up in CAT:CSD that shouldn't be there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. User:Gimmetrow diagnosed it in the above thread. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some pages maintained by [[User:WP 1.0 bot]] are showing up as candidates for deletion 

message: After vainly attempting to create an assessment template by myself for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities I now recognize that I am failing miserably. The template I tried to create is at Template:WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities. Please, someone throw me a rope before I sink too much deeper into the quicksand! HELP! --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DId some changes. Does it work now? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fixed. Thanks. Now I just have to figure out the categories.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! 

message: Hi, I have a feature request. We're currently in the process of working out how to implement good topics, and we are planning to try and automate topics moving between good and featured status (as the only difference between the two will be that featured topics will require 25% of the articles/lists that make them up to be featured). We have worked out using categories how to automate the moving process, but we still want to be able to see any moving between the two that occurs. Hence, we what a daily log of status changes, a la the sort that the WP 1.0 bot provides. Any featured topics will appear in :Category:Wikipedia featured topics and :Category:Wikipedia fully featured topics. Any good topics will appear in :Category:Wikipedia good topics. So all the bot would need to do is monitor and report any moving between the three categories. This would require the creation of new functionality for the bot, but I suspect this shouldn't be a huge change, as it is extremely similar to the type of task the bot performs at the moment.
Additionally, it might be useful if the bot could monitor any changes in status to articles found in :Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles and its subcategories, or any outright additions of articles/lists to these categories. This way, we can ensure that no-one does something with an article which they shouldn't, such as add an article to a topic without nominating it first, or if an article is demoted below GA and no-one at WP:FT is told. This is essentially the services the bot already provides.
I hope that makes sense, if not I suggest you have a look at the good topics plan I linked above. We're probably hoping to have good topics set up in the next week or two, and I hope that you will be willing to help us in doing this - such help would be much appreciated - rst20xx (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, but there is no :Category:Wikipedia good topics. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point being....? Anyway, nevermind about the request, we'll do what good articles does  - rst20xx (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you explain to us how the category structures for FTs and GTs work? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed this question at the time, but it looks like we may have a partial solution already ready to go.  We are proposing that the second generation bot will start to record that an article is GA or FA, in lists like Foo articles by quality - see feature request #12.  So if you do what GA does, then once we move to the new bot you will have that display available.  What we don't have is a record in the log - would that be needed for your work? Walkerma (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature request - Good Topics and [[Wikipedia:Featured topics]] 

message: Both of these templates and their categories have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 8#Future-Class and Current-Class. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomination withdrawn. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current-class" and "Future-class" nominated for deletion (withdrawn) 

message: Will someone help me figure out why all the C-Class articles are being categorized as unassessed for the Texas Tech University WikiProject? →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the reason, fixed now I hope, will take a while for the bot to run and fix the table but categories are correct now. --Stefan talk 06:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew I was missing something; just didn't know where. I really appreciate the help. Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with C-Class articles 

message: Wondering if it is possible to be able to modify the reporting table so that one can select articles of a given quality and importance.  For example, the table allows prioritisation of activity, but it would be nice to be able to pick on high importance start articles to work on, rather than click all the starts looking manually for importance.  This re WP:ARTHA. Heds (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean something like this Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Assessment? Where you can click inside the box to see only TOP/Start e.g. It is done with lots of extra categories done automatically inside the project template for assessment, how they get the links in the box I do not know, maybe the BOT does that only for geology or maybe it figures it out in some way by how the categories are named, I do not know. --Stefan talk 06:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, exactly like that. Thanks for the reference. Heds (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selecting articles of given quality and importance 

message: Hello Wiki Project Libertarianism, a fairly new project, would like to join the assessment scheme. WE have tagged multiple articles and have most of our framework in place. We would like the bot to start looking at our articles and populating our template for us. Our articles are in :Category:WikiProject Libertarianism articles and broken up by quality and importance. What do we need to do next? Charles Edward 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Libertarianism 

message: The WikiProject was merged to a task force of WikiProject Video games, and so it would be a good idea to remove it from the listing of projects. Can someone do that? --Izno (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Nintendo 

message: Has anyone done any work on listing all wikiprojects by relative size (in terms number of articles in scope)? The question came up on the refdesk --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Comparison has some statistics I put together in June; I'm not aware of anything more recent, unfortunately. Kirill (prof) 00:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master scorecard of wikiprojects?