Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 15

message: Can someone inspect the link below? The page, although done by a bot, is messed up for some reason; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Album_articles_by_quality/37&oldid=110517893 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something in Talk:Vicious Delicious/Comments is messing it up, but I can't figure out what... Titoxd(?!?) 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance needed

message: Apparently, many empty categories are being deleted. Normally, I would be fine with this but many are placeholders for various WikiProjects. You can see the list at User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted. As you can see there are many unassessed categories, A class, FA class categoriy, etc in there. Is it a problem for these to remain? Was there a discussion about this deletion that I missed? Thanks in advance.↔NMajdan•talk 20:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my!  That was definitely a very bad idea on the part of whoever deleted those. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so it wasn't discussed. We probably should take action so they are not deleted again.↔NMajdan•talk 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I see you already have. Thank you!↔NMajdan•talk 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody point me towards the discussion.... 

message: Hey.  I just started up Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Assessment.  Can you please set up whatever else is needed.  Thanks  :)  Joe  I 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you've got everything you need, now just wait for the bot to automatically add the project to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. It should happen within the next two days. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks.  Joe  I 01:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New assesment

message: Since the addition of GA, the A-grade seems to be a rather un-needed level. Most articles goes straight from GA to FA, without landing on A in between. I suggest firstmost to remove the A-level from the assessment scale. But by doing that, the B-level seems to be rather strange, as then it's the only level that is defined by a letter only, so I also suggest to rename that level into something else. Suggested renaming could be "Ok", "Mid", "Standard" or "Well" 
The resulting scale would then be: Stub → Start → Okay → Good → Featured. →AzaToth 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed many, many times now; the upshot is that (a) there's a strong consensus against removing A-Class, as the projects can't actually use GA-Class as an assessment level, and (b) there's a practical effort being undertaken to remove GA-Class from the scale entirely now. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that last point (b), I should clarify that we didn't get unanimous support for removing GA from the scale, but I think we plan to discourage use of the GA level where possible.  We also plan to flag GAs automatically in the tables, so you can see that this A-Class article in the list is a GA, but this other one is not.   On that note, I have been working on a template, so as to get the GA project using the bot.  Note that the template does NOT have the class parameter (is this unique?), but it does include the category parameter like , since GA uses these same categories.  The main thing it should do is to place things into the oxymoronic :Category:GA-Class good articles (to keep WP1.0 Bot happy), as well as the main GA category; at present these cats have a colon in front, until I take the template out of my sandbox.  Could someone knowledgable at templates (Kirill, Titoxd?) take a look over my crude cut & paste job for the GA project here? Thanks, Walkerma 03:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NB: That's a redundancy, not an oxymoron; "GA-class stubs" or "Stub-class Good Articles" would be oxymora. :-)  Anyway, I don't see any problem at all with removing GA from the assessment scale, since the two are not really related, other than it will take a lot of cleanup work - every article GA-rated by a WikiProject banner will need to instead be not-actually-downgraded to B-Class (or genuinely-upgraded to A-Class, if one is willing to do a close assessment and the article warrants the A rating), and then tagged with a GA header if not already so-tagged (either directly or in that new article history template that is making the rounds).  An alternative that I don't think anyone has proposed before would be to fork GA into a "general" Wikipedia-wide GA assessment process at :WP:GA and a new aspect that also empowers WikiProjects to do equivalent GA assessments, possibly obviating the need for A-Class to exist any longer, and with :WP:GA able to countermand any WikiProject-assigned GA rating if the GA criteria were not actually met.  I'm not proposing that, I'm just saying it is a possibility worth looking at and either discussing in depth for possible implementation, or consensus-rejecting (for) now "on the record", since it would almost certainly come up later anyway.  I don't think this is :WP:BEANS, as the "authority" of WikiProjects is growing all the time, and they are focusing more and more on assessments and ratings (cf. the rather new branch of the V1.0 Ed Team specifically about how WikiProjects tie in and assess importance/priority level, not to mention the near-Policy level of SfD, to which even CfD defers when it comes to stub categories, which was generated by WikiProject Stub sorting); if it's not discussed now it will still have to be at some point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: :Category:GA-Class good articles is a redlink.  Did it get moved, or did you mean something else? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for correcting my English - correctly right!  Yes, the proposed cat is a red link, because I won't create it until the template goes "live" (ie., after people have checked it).   Thanks for your thoughtful comments.  Walkerma 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I used the bot to create :Category:GA-Class Good articles et al. The template looks ok, for the most part, although I'll tweak a thing or two. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just found a typo, and that was pretty much it. It should work ok now. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the assessment scale 

message: How do we rate stub articles which have absolutely no scope of expansion? For example Guz is an obvious stub, without much chance of expansion, but for the topic it covers it can be rated as a class B too. (relatively speaking) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, stubs with no potential for expansion are good merge candidates, which solves the problem rather neatly. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs 

message: Hey, would someone mind looking over  for me.  Right now it doesn't include the dab, list, template, portal, image or cat classes.  I have used those with the template on pages, but then it asks for an importance rating, which all but the list don't need.  I tried updating it the way I know how(I'm very non-template knowledgeable) but I think the comment section was screwing me up. Anyways, would appreciate the help, thanks.  Joe  I 04:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template help

message: I am trying to set up assessment for my project but am having trouble understanding what i am doing. Are there any instructions on how to do this? Simply south 19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot is a good place to start. Do you have your WikiProject template set up to accept ratings? I can create the categories for you using the bot, if you'd like. MahangaTalk to me 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently experimenting right now via a user sub-page on the WPTIS Banner. Simply south 20:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment help 

message: Version 0.5 is now for sale at http://www.wikipediaondvd.com.  The pricing is as follows:
*US: $13.90 + $1.54 shipping = $15.44
*Canada: CN$16.10 +$1.10 shipping = CN$17.20
*UK: UKP7.04 + UKP1.54
*Germany: E10.40 + E2.25 = E12.66
*Aussies, Kiwis and others will unfortunately have to order in Euros or US$, but the shipping to anywhere outside North America is a flat $US3.01 or E2.25.
For some reason the site doesn't like Mastercards, but I successfully bought two using my Visa. Please give us your feedback - remember this is our alpha test run, so we want to learn from our mistakes! Walkerma 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose this should be the place for discussion about the release, since the project page has information about offline releases in general. Like I said on WP:0.5, good work everyone! I added an image of the software used, Kiwix to the project page. I'm going to post an announcement on the Community Portal. Has Wikipedia issued a press release (are they?) MahangaTalk 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The press release is going out on Monday.  The WMF thought Friday afternoon (night in Europe/Asia) would be a bad time for a press release, I think that's valid. It's only a limited press release, since it's only a test release, so don't expect to see this on CNN or the BBC.  Thanks for your work. Mahanga! Walkerma 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * What costs does the payment cover? Does any of the money go to any third party? Delta Tango • Talk 03:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Great! But why are there external links? Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 14:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cost covers the pressing of the CD, some of the development cost for the Kiwix reader software, as well as a contribution (around E1.50 I think) goes to the foundation.  The external links go to the website selling the CDs, and to the Kiwix wiki where the software is managed.  The site is expected to be multilingual, as they hope to do releases in English, French and many other languages. Walkerma 05:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The website is now back up again. Walkerma 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats Wikipedia for this release.  :) Samboy 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 0.5 now released! 

message: There are now more than 500 WikiProjects participating in the assessment program and over 765,000 articles tracked by these projects. I think that's great and felt that needed some exposure. :) MahangaTalk 05:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  500 WikiProjects 

message: How can I get a chart like this for WP:WPChi?  Please reply to my talk page if possible. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have it right here. :) Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Chicago_articles_by_quality_statistics MahangaTalk 00:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats 

message: Mahanga has rightly pointed out (just above) the recent milestone in getting 500 projects or teams involved in the assessment scheme.  We now have another big milestone reached - half a million articles assessed (see April 19th statistics).  When you remember that these assessments are not done by the bot, but by the sweat of human toil, that represents a truly great accomplishment.  We also need to say a huge THANK YOU to all of the people who have put in thousands of person hours of time.  From our side, we need to make sure that we make good use of the metadata productively in our next release.  Martinp23 tells me that the toolserver should be fixed very soon (that's what he was told, anyway!) and then he will be able to get this new bot work underway (please give us input & ideas).  I believe this next step will really demonstrate the huge power of the metadata we now have at our fingertips, and provide us with a scalable way to assemble large releases quickly and on an ongoing basis.
As if that wasn't exciting enough, our fairly low key announcement of our test CD, Version 0.5, did generate some media attention.  This is excellent news for the 1.0 project - I think the first time we have made it into a major news network - and I hope that it will bring in more interested people to help us for the next releases.  By the way, they did rather exaggerate my academic standing, IM(H?)O, please laugh when you read it!  Walkerma 15:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! Oh and regarding mention on the BBC... just as I expected. ;) MahangaTalk 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it was the importance of the article and not the quality of the article that got it included in the 0.5 release. Also keep in mind this is a test release; we're working on not getting comments like this from people. JoeSmack Talk 12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is also well referenced and pretty comprehensive, and it only needs copyediting in places - that's why it's a B, not an FA.  Please can you improve the English, 75.166.83.175, so we have a better version for our next release?  Walkerma 13:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, congratulations for your very efficient assessment team ! About the CD, I would ask if someone can post a news on Slashdot, which is the most famous tech~. news site in english ? Best regards Kelson 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slashdot link Wow, I'm surprised they accepted my submission. I'm even more surprised no one had submitted the story until I did it. I'm glad it's led to more coverage in the news and I hope we can take make use of their feedback. MahangaTalk 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also made most of the newspapers in the US and a few places elasewhere, and some online places too:
*New York Times
*Washington Post
*San Francisco Chronicle
*USA Today
*Taipei Times
*Sydney Morning Herald
*Yahoo
*MSNBC
*CNet
*Fox
*tech.co.uk
*tech.co.uk
*WebPro News (this one's quite amusing!)
Now the onus is on us to continue to deliver! Walkerma 05:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more good news 

message: Is it possible to add rows for :Category:Disambig-Class_Chicago_articles, :Category:Category-Class Chicago articles and :Category: Template-Class Chicago articles to the template output? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  robust class statisitcs 

message: Will Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bus transport articles by quality statistics be created automatically now that WikiProject buses exists? Or do I need to add it somewhere? --NE2 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as all of the categories are in place, this page (and the log) should appear automatically once the bot does its cycle.  One or two things need a couple of cycles, it seems, and the bot now has so many articles to trawl through it takes a couple of days to do one cycle.  But you should see it appear soon!  If this stays red, I'll take a look into the problem for you.  Thanks for using the bot! Walkerma 02:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, or whoever is pesponsible, for making the bot! --NE2 06:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How do I get the bot to generate statistics?

message: Since you are useing it on wikipedia pages a version without the globe is needed since the globe is not free.Geni 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain exactly what you're referring to?  If you mean the CD (Version 0.5), the browser has the logo, but the articles don't, and the browser has a GPL licence.  The articles themselves don't carry the globe logo.  Linterweb has signed an agreement for the legal use of the globe logo within these Wikipedia releases.  You can download this from wikipediaondvd.com for free, or obtain it via BitTorrent.  Is there something else you're concerned about?  Please let us know, Walkerma 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean :Image:WP1 0 Icon.png that appears on a bunch of talk page headers.Geni 03:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we checked into this last year - you can see the "discussion" by scrolling down in the image file to see all of the details listed there.  I'll check that we're all above board, I think we did get permission to use it online, but I'll make sure.  Thanks, Walkerma 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, some people are under the impression that the Wikipedia globe can't be used on Wikipedia, because it's not a freely licensed image... ;-) Kirill Lokshin 11:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be corrct yes. Certianly it's use should be kept to an absolute minium thus a globe free logo is required. If you have any ideas I may be able to help with them although my GIMP-fu isn't brilliant.Geni 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The licence for Wikimedia logos is anyone, anywhere is allowed to use them if it is for the purposes of promoting Wikimedia projects, AFAIK. So it's not a problem. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes that is a problem since that a)doesn't allow derives and b) doesn't allow for other uses. Both are a required part of a lisence being considered free. The globe is non free and should non be used on wikipedia in this context.Geni 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: your logo

message: I was wondering what it would take to change a WikiProject's assessment term categories from Importance to Priority. Several members of WP:PUR were suggesting changing the term to Priority because it emphasizes the nature of the assessment project, and is less confused with the "importance" of a certain subject outside of WP:1.0. I know we would have to change Category names and such, but what about the template and the articles which have already received an importance assessment? Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several other projects do this, and I think the term "priority" is a good one.  The Biography WikiProject seems to use priority, and a smaller project using it is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cheshire/Assessment.  The only thing you can't change is the way the bot is written - it uses the word "importance" in the stats tables etc, and in the top level categories.  I think what you CAN change are:
*The template wording - just change the word importance to priority throughout.
*If you do that, you will see the categories generated will have names like "Top priority Puerto Rico articles" instead of :Category:Top-importance Puerto Rico articles.  That should be fine, I don't think the bot cares.  See :Category:Top-priority Cheshire articles as an example.
*Once you've created those categories, be sure to put them into the relevant general categories - these will need to use the word importance for the bot to read them, for example the above would go into :Category:Top-importance articles and :Category:Puerto Rico articles by priority.
*Place :Category:Puerto Rico articles by priority into :Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments and it should work.  
Once the template has been changed, the old importance categories will become empty and can be deleted.  Good luck! Walkerma 03:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, as far as the bot is concerned, you could as well call them even "Top-XXX articles" (no, here XXX is not a placeholder, but the real thing :) The bot ignores everything beyond the  "Top" word. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing terms from importance to priority

message: This is a great project, and I wish I could contribute in a major way, but I really only have time to report bugs that I happen across.  Is there a place where bug reports can be dropped off?  Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd love to have you report bugs - so I started a new page for doing this.  Let's hope it doesn't get too long... Thanks a lot! Walkerma 06:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I only have a couple to report now, and it was in one article I quickly reviewed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for trolling. Have a nice day. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reporting bugs in 0.5 CD

message: Will we ever find out how many DVDs are sold through []? -Ravedave 03:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually, I think we will, yes, but probably not any time soon. Walkerma 04:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious, did the press release ever come to be? Link? MahangaTalk 07:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought people here had all seen the press release!  I apologize if I didn't made it clear.  It was this press release that led to the surge of media interest a couple of weeks back.   Before that went out, there was nothing beyond a couple of blog posts.  It indicates the importance of working with the Foundation!  Apologies, Walkerma 03:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sales stats 

message: Is there some guideline that suggests foo should be a non-controversial term? -- Cat chi? 00:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Foo should simply be the name of the responsible WikiProject; there's not supposed to be any additional alteration involved. Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 1.0 Editorial Team/''Foo'' articles by quality 

message: I made a very good random access compression, and a system for viewing
such files and very fast (almost instant fuzzy search)
it's very fast (in C and Python)
I think, we can use it, see www.thwab.net/index-en.html
see the Screenshots
English documents are in the src file found on downloads thwab-lib.tar.bz2
contact me on alsadi on google mail you know AT what DOT what —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Errormsg (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting, but we are not anywhere near publishing Version 0.7. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 16:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to post here, but I did point out this proposal to our developers; I'm not sure if they contacted you or not. Thanks for the pointers. Walkerma 04:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of iTar random access compression 

message: I have initiated a discussion on the scope of Version 0.7 here, please leave your comments on that page. Walkerma 03:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope for Version 0.7 

message: Now that the dust is beginning to settle after Version 0.5, we need to discuss direction and new developments for Version 0.7.  All team members are welcome to participate.  The French developers & publishers will be there.  
;Date: Sunday, 27th May
;Time: 1700h UTC (1pm US Eastern time, 1900h CET, 1800h British Summer Time)
;Channel: #wikipedia-1.0
;Help?: If you need help getting set up on IRC contact User talk:Walkerma or other team members. 
;Proposed agenda:
# Approx timeline to release
# Upgrades to Kiwix
# The new Linterweb search engine
# MartinBotII and reviewing for V0.7.
# Navigation pages - can we write them with a script or bot crawling through categories?
# Quick update on the French Version 0.5 (if time)
# Scripts we need to write or refine (if we have time)
# Advertising & distribution (if we have time)
# Scope for v0.7
# (add more if you wish)
;Attending:
* Walkerma 17:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC meeting to discuss Version 0.7 

message: Together with others at WikiProject Mathematics, I have been trying to refine the notion of importance or priority for rating articles. In doing so, I have noticed a few problems with the descriptors at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic. The main problem is that importance is described in different ways at the different levels.
* Top priority describes how important it is for an encyclopedia to have an article on the topic (although I'm not quite sure what a "must-have for a print encyclopedia" means).
* High and Mid priority describe how important the topic is in terms of its contribution to knowledge (in its field, presumably)
* Low priority is described in terms of the impact of the topic beyond its speciality (very little in this case).
The second issue is that the Low importance description is slightly dismissive, while the Mid importance criterion is not sufficiently robust. In combination, these two difficulties tend to encourage too many articles to be assessed as Mid importance, and not enough as Low importance. This is exacerbated by the use of the term "importance" instead of "priority" (which I know has been discussed previously here): no one wants to rate an article in their favourite field as "Low importance".
At Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance, an attempt is being made to clarify these issues. In our importance table, we have separated out the three ways of describing importance, and also beefed up the Mid importance description a little bit. I thought people here might find this interesting, or would like to comment. For related discussions, see also the project talk page. Geometry guy 10:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance (or priority) ratings 

message: The flagged revisions proposal is currently being discussed - I urge members of our team to review this and leave comments if you feel you can contribute to the debate.  This is a new variant of the stable versions idea that were announced by Jimmy Wales (for the German Wikipedia, at least) in August 2006 at Wikimania.  It involves a change in the Wikimedia software to allow for a particular version of an article to be "flagged" as unvandalised and in reasonable shape.
This change, if implemented, would have profound implications for our project.  For Version 0.5, when we performed the final dump of articles for a release we had to (a) try to locate a reliable version of each article (usually the last version by an established registered editor), (b) run a series of script to try and find problems such as profanities.  I had to personally check 2400 examples of possible profanities/shoutouts found in 2000 articles, this took quite a while.  Our next release is supposed to be 30,000 - I will probably be swearing at my children by the time I reach the end, if I have to do it all!  This system would release us from doing much of this - work which is helpful for the online version as well, IMHO.  Critics are mainly concerned that it would discourage anonymous edits, and possibly lead to elitism.  There is also some debate about how much would be simple vandalism checking and how much would be a more thorough quality assessment.
One thing this change offers us - if it is trustworthy - is the possibility of updatable (is that a word?) releases, in two senses of the "word".  This could mean (for example) that if the Tropical Cyclones project works with us to release a collection of articles on tropical cyclones, we/they could easily update it every year (including any major new storms) and make it an annual new release.  The second meaning would be a dynamic release, whereby we could do regular (monthly?), ongoing updates of our releases, and someone who had bought or downloaded Version 0.7 could go to the internet and get an update to that set of articles.  Currently such updates would be a lot of work - checking 30,000 articles ourselves every month would be a nightmare.  
Please take a look at this. Thanks, Walkerma 02:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Flagged revisions]] 

message: People here, who I believe use the comments subpages a fair amount, may want to comment at Template_talk:WPBiography#Proposed_template_change and WP:BOTREQ#WikiProject_Biography_Comment_Moving where the comments subpage code and category code was removed from the WPBiography template and a botrequest (later denied because other wikiprojects use the comments pages) was made to copy the comments subpage to the talk pages and delete the comments subpages. What is probably needed is to make that bit of the coding optional. If anyone here knows who originally wrote that coding, I'd be grateful, as the removal of the code may have had some unexpected side effects. I personally don't support the changes, especially not done so quickly without more discussion. The background seems to be that the assessment drive led to some requests for comments, so removing the comments page removes the need to leave comments. I think a more graceful solution is needed rather than simply removing the system altogether (at least for WPBiography). Any advice or ideas? Carcharoth 10:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem people have with leaving comments. It isn't compulsory, but surely it is a good idea to at least sign and date a new or updated project rating. I have commented further at Template_talk:WPBiography#Proposed_template_change, but editors more generally might like to know that at WikiProject Mathematics we now use /Comments pages to automatically generate many lists of articles and comments to help editors to find articles needing their input. Follow the navigation bar at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0 if you'd like to see the results. Geometry guy 11:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments pages are also trancsluded onto the bot maintained lists for other projects as well, though not many have extended it like the Mathematics project has. That looks good! Carcharoth 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think quite a few projects use the comments sporadically (not as well as Math - but maybe that idea can spread); for example, chemistry often has comments on articles being "worked on."  If people start deleting these comments, it could affect up to ~600 projects, I doubt they would want to see their work changed by an outsider.  On this 1.0 project, we see the comments for all articles we plan to include on the DVD.  I believe User:Kingboyk created this system originally, see here.  Walkerma 19:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments subpages 

message: Class with background
I've noticed some non-article pages (such as images, lists, disambigs...) are named for example , IMO all these types should be moved to eg:  and acroos all wikiprojects, let's discuss  --Andersmusician $ 02:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See our improvement of such actions at  --Andersmusician $ 02:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Articles by quality]] COMMENT 

message: Editors here may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_14#Category:Good_articles_by_quality. Geometry guy 10:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD 

message: I am running the bot though are brand new wikiproject.  it seems like the bot is unable to create an "&" symbol.  it creates a page called "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Texas A"  I was wondering if you guys could take a look at our wikiproject to see what we are doing wrong.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TAMU
:I suspect that it may be the amphersand, it looks like everything else is OK.  The bot can handle parentheses, but I seem to recall a similar problem to yours with a project name that had a / in it.  Try changing the category names to have "and" in them, and see if that solves the problem.  If you want technical input from Oleg (who wrote, runs and maintains the bot), post a message at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Thanks for using the bot. Walkerma 03:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed this problem for a while. There is a bug in the package I use to upload things on Wikipedia (so the bug is not in my bot). I'll try to see if I can fix it in the next few days. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Oldag07 04:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Texas A&M 

message: There is discussion at the Talk:Bob Dylan page wondering about whether the article should be counted a vital article or not. Someone who knows more about the procedure for selection might want to leave a comment at Talk:Bob Dylan#Vital article?. Thank you. John Carter 13:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know who Dylan was until I heard he won Asturias prize --Andersmusician $ 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there prizes for ignorance here, amazing to behold! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just people here come from many different cultures, social backgrounds and generations.  Bob may not have had much impact in Peru.  I see this in reviews here at 1.0, what one person regards as a major topic may be regarded as unimportant to someone else, that's why such things are vetted by several people.  I agree that Bob is a household name in many households, particularly in the US and the UK, but not in all households in all countries.  I might argue that Robert Burns Woodward, the greatest organic chemist (most organic chemists would agree) has had a greater impact on the world than Bob Dylan, but have you even heard of him?   These things are very hard to judge. Cheers, Walkerma 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind this is the english Wikipedia. I dare say there are probably articles that meet notability on en.wikipedia that don't in other languages, and vise versa. Anyways, i'm surprised he isn't listed as vital, I'll peek in. JoeSmack Talk 02:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bob Dylan]] possible Vital Article? 

message: I'm trying to set up the assessment department for the new Wikiproject U2. It's going OK except I am unsure about my progress in setting up the bot to update our statistics table. I have created this page and a table appears. However, I took this from the Indonesia project, and the numbers in the table still represent the stats for the Indonesia project. Am I on the right track? Do I have to wait for the bot to 'come past' or do i need to register somewhere? 
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Merbabu 03:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be all set now. For future reference, you don't have to create the statistics page. You can use a bot to generate the categories and statistics page. It requires admin privileges, so you'll have to ask someone here to do it for you. MahangaTalk 04:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But now that you did everything by hand, you can use this script to update the lists. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks - yeah, it seems to be fine now. Merbabu 05:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics bot for U2 project assessments... 

message: User:Atfyfe seems to have nominated and selected a large number of philosophy articles for inclusion in the release version here, stating that all 28 articles included in the  template,  should be included. I'm not sure if that's really acceptable by procedure, though. Anyone who knows more about the nomination process is more than welcome to look into whether this was done in the approved manner. John Carter 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'd like to do is to make that into a set nomination, since it clearly fits that definition.  I'll try & do that soon, but my laptop is dead right now so my contributions are more limited right now. Walkerma 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. John Carter 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy articles selected for V0.7? 

message: Just checking before deleting, but is this article not referring to the same thing as sun-synchronous orbit? Maury 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Polar Sun Synchronous Orbit]] 

message: Some time ago I developed this script to make user interaction with the assessment system simpler. I no longer wish to host this script under my user-space, and am looking for different ideas. user:kingboyk suggested to me, "Perhaps a better alternative might be to move it into Wikipedia: space or to "donate" it to the WP1.0 team?" Is the WP1.0 team interested in hosting it? I'm not sure of the logistics, but it seems to me that a javascript must be fully protected if it is going to sit in non-user space. (I am not sure if javascripts outside user space are "allowed" either.) Your thoughts are welcome. –Outriggr § 09:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we would be happy to host it.  I consider your Javascript tool one of the "highlights of 2007" for us, it's been a real boon for this project and for the WikiProjects.  It'd be great if you could be available in case technical questions or suggestions arise.  We'd need an admin to advise on the technical side, but I think the answer is yes, and thanks once more for your contribution. Walkerma 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it move, we could definitely full-protect it instantly. You probably could leave a redirect in place in your old userspace, just to not break things, though. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks--I'll let you know later in the month what I decide to do. –Outriggr § 04:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The demand on maintaining this script has fallen off, so I think I'll leave it sitting where it is for now. –Outriggr § 07:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  assessment script hosting 

message: To keep consistent between the quality and importance rankings, I think it would be nice to have the importance templates (, , , , and ) link to their respective categories - like the quality templates.  For example,  displays  A (note the link to :Category:A-Class articles).  Could someone with access please add these links for the importance templates (ie Top for )?  Thanks.  --Scott Alter 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to categories on importance templates 

message: Why didn't this edit show up anywhere at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chicago articles by quality log?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the log generation was broken for a few days. That was discussed somewhere above, and is fixed now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glitch 

message: I see on the Talk:Gerald Gardner page that the article has been reviewed by us, but it gives no indication of whether it is included in a release or not. Can anyone verify if it is or isn't. Thank you. John Carter 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JohnManuel just added it today. He probably just forgot to do the other half of the process, adding it to the list. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough. Thanks for the quick response. John Carter 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gerald Gardner]] included in a release? 

message: :From the Saints project, the Oriental Orthodoxy project, and a few others I can't specifically remember right now I can agree to the proposal. I would however maybe suggest that you contact one of the projects which engages in active A-Class assessments, like WP:WPBIO and/or WP:MILHIST, to see if it could be done such that those groups, which have the stricter A-Class parameters and in some cases B-Class parameters, be the ones copied into other projects' templates. Doing so would probably be the most generally acceptable way to go. Granted, of course, that the Biography project gets a few more people involved in the A-Class review than they/we have now. John Carter 21:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure a bot could only do it for Stub/Start/B. But I stated above, every WikiProject would have to be contacted before this happens. I suppose you could make a list (like the one for the assessment table of the WikiProjects who would participate, which would give them the option of "if they want assessments made by other WikiProjects to be on their own" and then they could narrow it down to much smaller assessments eg "Only Stub, Start can be assessed from other WikiProjects" That would help solve WP:MILHIST who have a very strict B and A assessment classes. SpecialWindler  talk 06:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from WikiProjects

message: Is this bot proposal going any further? If you need a test project, WP:RL would be allright. SpecialWindler  talk 12:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: test

message: Yay!!! Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 04:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the toolserver has been upgraded - hopefully soon we can start USING those data to compile our collections! Walkerma 04:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than one million articles tracked so far 

message: The banner added to the talk page of the above article doesn't indicate which version the article waas selected for, if any. John Carter 23:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aleister Crowley]] 

message: This project's "statistics" page shows no content. I think there might be a mistake somewhere. John Carter 20:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Jehovah's Witnesses articles by quality was not placed in :Category: Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. I now fixed this and ran the bot. The stats are OK now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response! John Carter 20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses]] assessments 

message: Hi,
I recently launched WikiProject Argentine football could someone please give me a hand setting up the Statistics table, I have created the neccessary categories,  but can't go any further as I am not an admin and know nothing about bots. Could someone put a copy of the table on the Project page for me please? Cheers,King of the North East 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything seems to be working nicely, and you already have >200 articles listed in there! Fortunately you don't need to be an admin or a bot expert (I'm neither) to use the bot.  Walkerma 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentine football]]

message: Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 03:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that; I hope it was OK!  It's nice and thorough because it goes more in-depth than most stories on this, and it is based on three interviews.  I'm really glad Emmanuel was interviewed!  Thanks, Walkerma 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News article on Version 0.5 

message: Can somebody set the WP:CHICAGO log for  tagged articles to run.  It has not updated in 6 days and it usually does so every 2 or 3 days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot did not run three days ago since the machine it was running on got brutally shut down. :) The bot is running now, and hopefully will get to Chicago later today. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago Log 

message: Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 14:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slashdot article (Wikipedia reader) 

message: How often does the bot update the page with the project's statistics on it? our page (for WikiProject UK Trams) hasn't been updated in a while - there are loads more articles rated and tagged. Bluegoblin7 11:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Update 

message: The assessment stats for WikiProject Maryland haven't been updated in six days, but the last time they were updated before that was three days before.  Is there something wrong with the bot or does it just sometimes take this long?-Jeff (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Qatar hasn't been updated even once yet, so I think this problem is with more than just the one project. John Carter 18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this must be the case aswell: please read the above. Bluegoblin7 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maryland statistics not being updated 

message: The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chicago articles by quality log has been updating like clockwork  every third day.  It skipped yesterday (UTC).  Can someone manually set it to run?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot is running now. Let's hope it does not stop. I don't know what the problem is yet. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It failed to run on the 3rd.  Please run it for us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can run it yourself, per the instructions. The bot is now at "B", it should get to Chicago in half a day or less. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. I am trying to run it myself for the first time at this moment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago Quality Log 

message: How would the logs react to  a talk page with 
::Category:Start-Class Chicago articles
::Category:Low-importance Chicago articles
What about if it came across --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I understand completely your question. But you can try your "what if" scenario and then run the bot by hand (see the appropriate link in the instructions), and see what would happen. Then you could revert if that would not be what you wanted. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if 

message: It looks like maybe the assessment bot has stalled again? John Carter 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot is still running. The last edit was two hours ago. Maybe it is just having a heavy load. Let's see if it turns out OK in a few hours. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now it resumed editing again. A break of several hours (or even half a day) is OK, the bot spends a lot of time actually collecting information, not just editing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. :) Sorry for bothering you like this. John Carter 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed a silly bug in the code I introduced recently when trying to make the code more robust. The bug was making the bot very slow. I'll have to restart the bot now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot stalled again? 

message: For those who speak French, you may be interested in this conference in Paris next month.
http://colloque.wikimedia.fr/2007/
It's the first French language Wikipedia conference, and the goal of the conference is very relevant to our project.  This is a BabelFish translation: 
:"This conference aims at exploring concrete problems : how to attract the specialists guaranteeing in the quality of many articles ? How to sensitize the users, in particular youngest, to control the reliability of its information ? How to solicit and s’appuyer on a network d’experts ? Opened with all, the conference wishes to accomodate scientists, teachers, experts like contributors moved by the project. Researchers of various specialities will bring complementary lightings to us."
I will be talking about our 1.0 projects on the English language Wikipedia, and our assessment scheme, bots, etc.  Please come! Walkerma 09:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. As you know, the Wikipedia in French imported, 6 months ago, the WP1 concept. The way it works now, is analog to the original one. I think that it is a success, more than 100 different wikiprojects have assessed more than 80.000 articles. We have started a selection process too and have a bit more than 300 selected articles. We experience, more or less, the same problems like the english speaking community. In fact we are fewer and the average articles quality is not as good as yours. For this reason, it is still complicated to keep the selection process moving on, without giving up on the quality side. In fact, it seems to me that we are facing now the same challenges. That why, it's really great to welcome Walkerma (and everybody else from en: WP1) in Paris to speak openly about them. Best regards Kelson 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Conference 

message: Does the template above have a option for indicating that an article is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools release? John Carter 15:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the wpcd parameter is used for both 2006 and 2007, I've never seen anything else being used. Although the template says 2006, the category is actually :Category:Wikipedia CD Selection, which covers the latest release.  Walkerma 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:WP1.0]] 

message: I posted this message up in the assessment area and didn't get a response, so I am going to post it here also if people don't mind:
I know this prolly has been asked a lot, but I was wondering that with a project, is there a way to add our other classes such as List, Image, etc to our assessment. I work with the Illinois Project, and on our Assessment Page we have that list off to the right. Is there a way currently for us to add the other classes to this list so that we can keep track of them better and know what we have. If there isn't, is this something that could be created? I am sure there are other projects that would be interested in knowing this, so any help in this matter would be much appreciated. Thank you!--Kranar drogin 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot can add extra classes, as long as people agree on the need for them and on what specific classes to add. My only concern as the bot maintainer is that there be no features for specific projects, as that kind of thing is hard to maintain (given the hundreds of projects now enrolled). So, if people agree on what else to add to FA-Class, Top-Class, and the other existing ones, I can implement it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are two that come to mind right away with Illinois that we use alot which is List and Image. I know a lot of projects don't tag images, but it is an easy way for us to keep track of our images that we have. That is minor, but would be something that I would like to see. We also tag our categories, so that way we can have a bot run something for us on our categories, rather than making and maintaining a list (and us NA for others, but we shouldn't use that one). So, I guess there is really three I would like to see, but two aren't a neccessity. So List should be, with Category and Image being a prolly as long as no one really have a problem with it.--Kranar drogin 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some WikiProjects assess lists as if they were articles, so I'm that sure that  should be employed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other classes 

message: Just a suggestion, but I think that each individual Wikipedia 1.0 should be editable.  Who knows? Maybe some people who would be vandalizing wikipedia would end up vandalizing Wikipedia 1.0 instead.  It's worth a shot.  --Use the force (Talk * Contribs) 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a fun idea!  I'm not sure how easy it is, but I'll ask the developer when I see him next month. I can see it - you could rewrite the article on the US President to include your own picture, etc.  Just as long as they don't start releasing it on DVD....! On a more serious note, we do hope eventually to make the releases updatable if you go online.  Walkerma 03:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editability 

message: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomical Objects articles by quality statistics and similar bot maintained lists, don't seem to list how many articles are "NA-class"... Is this possible? 70.55.87.147 16:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot does not recognize the NA-class, for now. I think there should be a big discussion somewhere about increasing the number of classes beyond the existing ones (the List-Class above is another candidate). Once people agree on what to do and what is needed, the bot can implement that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could find this discussion I would be most interested to read and/or join in. IvoShandor 22:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomical Objects articles by quality statistics 

message: Is it anywhere near ready? I haven't heard anything about it in a long time. Also, this project is nearly inactive. What happened a bit more than a year ago that revitalized this project? Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant Martinp's bot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyu100 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bot... 

message: What happened to the combined statistics table?  On both Firefox and IE I'm just seeing the main headings round a collapsed form of the table. Walkerma 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that thing is broken. I had too little time this week to look into it. I'll fix it the first thing tomorrow morning. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats table 

message: It looks as if MartinBotII will not be used as our bot for selecting articles after all, because Martin is too busy to develop this.  However, User:CBM (who looks after User:Veblenbot) is going to step into the breach and write a bot for us!  This is very good news, because it will mean that we will be able to select perhaps 20-30,000 articles for Version 0.7 using this bot.  Those of you who have been reviewing, please watch this space, as we will want help during the testing phase. Walkerma 02:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Reviewing has nearly stopped now, so this might motivate people to come and review the articles selected by the bot. I haven't been very active because I cannot use Wikipedia very often now. I also thought not much was getting reviewed, but after looking at the history page, I might start reviewing if I can use Wikipedia. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 21:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at my proposals for option B (an additive algorithm) and feel free to make appropriate changes.  I have put in a selection of articles - please peruse this table, and make your comments here. Remember, any changes to formulae must also result in changes to the article scores as given in the table. Remember, this bot may well pick out next 30,000 articles, so we need to get it right.  Thanks! Walkerma 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection bot update 

message: Above you see much continued banter which resulted in nothing.  I would like to start a discussion about how the quality logs handle article space only.  I think we could probably all agree that the quality logs would be improved by adding to more classes (FL-class and List-class) to handle articlespace contributions.  This conversation would avoid all the likely pitfalls of numerous arguments about how to handle all the other spaces.  Please contribute to a discussion which will hopefully lead to something being done.  Can we agree to simply add these two classes to the reports.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a reasonable suggestion, IMHO, I just think that many of the people involved with this scheme have been pretty tied up lately.  I've copied the post over to here, where such things are usually debated.  See my reply there. Walkerma 04:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEW FL debate 

message: I have seen Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team A-class reviews on Chicago.  It has recently been demoted to B-class.  However, I am wondering if there is any interest in doing A-class reviews for :Category:GA-Class Chicago articles.  We don't currently have A-class reviews set up within WP:CHICAGO or WP:ILLINOIS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  23:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really more of a WikiProject question. Where projects don't reserve the class for review, it can be assessed as such at whim. Girolamo Savonarola 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand your response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People can just go ahead and give an article an A-class rating if there is no A-class process within a wikiproject. FunPika 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-class review 

message: The stats for WikiProject Maryland haven't been updated since Oct. 14.-Jeff (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go here] and run it yourself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  17:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's happening again... 

message: I've only started putting assessment settings into this template. What do I do next? And how do I get the chart like this for WP:FF? You can tell me in my talk page if you want. Thanks. — Blue。 06:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, I think I got it. — Blue。 06:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment table 

message: The date for the Chicago articles by quality log is not working correctly.  It ran on the 30th and claimed to run on the 28th.  I think the same is true of the run dated the 24th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because the bot take three days to run, and the date is calculated only at the beginning. I changed now, the date will be refreshed for each project. This may still not be perfect since the biography project takes more than 24 hours, and besides, the date is calculated in GMT while your local date may be different. Still, this change will make the bot more accurate in dating. Thanks for pointing this out. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date not working 

message: This paper was apparently presented at Wikimania 2007.  I have my doubts, but it's certainly interesting reading for 1.0 folks! Walkerma (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper on automation of quality assessment 

message: Is this going to be a commercial product, or available for free, or subsidized, or what? 66.28.71.162 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being sold or not? 

message: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/California road transport articles by quality statistics shows that nothing has any importance, but they are tagged with importance within WikiProject U.S. Roads. Is there any way to make the bot use these without creating the redundant categories? Thank you. --NE2 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessing as a "child" project

message: Hi there, I removed the V 1.0 template from Talk:Johnny Cash since it was transcluding five sections on your Wikiproject to the top of the talk page. (see old version). Is this a problem with the template or just a problem with how it was placed? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Johnny Cash - V1 template error