Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive/June—September 2007

message: To keep your counter of articles assessed accurate make sure you don't click the grade you want to give an article more than once, since the script counts how many times you've clicked one of the grade links
Well, I accidentally clicked on the actual count figure for Outriggr' script and the count zeroed and that was that. Took me by surprise.  If you want to know your actual count, stay away from the figure as well.--Natsubee 08:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't mix it up with other project's assessment. My best bet is to keep a note of # of biography assessment you made on your talk page, then reset the counter to zero before you close your web browser. This way everytime you start an assessment you start with "1", and when you are done, all you need is get the total # that you did on that day and add up the one on your talk page. OhanaUnited 06:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's pretty much what I do. Whenever I finish up for the day (i always stop at an increment of 50 just in case) I reset it to 0, this way I remember where I left off. It's helping out quite a bit so far. I also assess things in clumps of 10 or so so that I know how many I've assessed, though the script hasn't been causing me too many problems.--Wizardman 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outriggr' script 

message: As we are assessing articles, I'd like to request discernment / restraint regarding the use of the "needs-infobox" parameter.  As per the header at WP Biography/Infoboxes, for some types of biographical articles, there are groups of editors that would strongly prefer not to have infoboxes on the articles.  My opinion is that the Biography project, within activities at the meta-project level, such as this article assessment drive, for the sake of good PR,  should avoid unnecessarily stirring up ill feelings.  Hence, with the assessment, let's just stick to setting the following parameters: living, class, (priority=<blank>), and assigning a work-group, where one is relevant.  I'd suggest leaving the needs-photo parameter, and especially the needs-infobox parameter, as something to be addressed at a future time, if necessary, by the appropriate projects or work-groups.  Respectfully, Lini 12:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this view; although I admit I would put that parameter. After realizing this point, I shall avoid doing that, and encourage others to do the same. Lordevilvenom 04:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "needs-infobox" parameter 

message: Along with chipping away at the vast amount of Unassessed articles we are faced with, if anyone else wants to be diligent and help tag new biographical articles as they come (before they just get slapped with the WPBiography template with no assessment) - let me know. Perhaps we can make a minor sub-task for that with this Assessment Drive. --Ozgod 12:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just count them in my running total. I've come across several of them already. It's the number of assessed articles that counts after all, isn't it? Errabee 23:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the table hopefully shows that we're counting all assessed articles. It's important to get the unassessed ones done, but new ones should be tagged as well. --Psychless Type words! 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessing new Articles 

message: Someone who knows more about redirect problems and who hasn't recently had a concussion (like myself), should take a look at Talk:Chon Duhwan. It may be that my brain is still addled, but something seems a little off to me here. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come across these as well. I think what happened is that an article was moved to a new location, but not its talk page. We should remove the biography template on the old talk page and add it to the new one, if it doesn't already exist. I did so on Talk:Chon Duhwan. MahangaTalk 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect problems

message: I do not know how many others feel this way, but in all the assessing I have done, I am beginning to see we definitely need more. Activists, religious figures, historical figures, etc.. I keep running into a lot of biographies from various Asian Dynasties and it is tough call to put them appropriate workgroups. --Ozgod 04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Personally, the addition of a religion workgroup and a literature workgroup would help out a lot. I'm skipping putting many in work groups since I flat out don't know where to put them.--Wizardman 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't literature fall under "arts"? Awadewit | talk 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say definitely P&G. Awadewit | talk 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I normally put Inventors in Science and Academia (if that helps any). --Ozgod 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I have been doing, but it seemed wrong. Awadewit | talk 18:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For crime there is WP:CRIMINAL, but I do not see much activity out of it. I think a workgroup for Criminal Biographies could be suitable - would have to inquire with that group. --Ozgod 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Workgroups

message: Can we have anti-awards for people who generate the most number of complaints? :-) Actually, unless :Category:20th century deaths has been added to WP:WPBio recently, then you might not get many complaints. Good luck with the assessing, but please can I ask that people don't take the race too seriously? It is better to read and assess ten articles accurately (and learn something), rather than rush through 100 articles. Carcharoth 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Carcharoth, with your last point.  I keep having to stop and read the article I'm about to assess, do a little clean-up, leave a template behind, click on another link, end up reading about the history of the Ming dynasty, forget what it was I was doing, etc, etc... :) María (habla conmigo) 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, but this idea is against WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I have caught someone giving out wrong assessment ratings but I didn't go ranting about this. I left a message on his talk page and ask him to be more careful next time. I think you can follow this as well to resolve this problem. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I missed something, but who's ranting?  I see Carcharoth's comment as a friendly reminder to take one's time in assessing articles, something I highly agree with.  Maybe we should all AGF, yeah?  María (habla conmigo) 17:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You read it wrong. Seems like I have to repeat this phrase that I told my buddies plenty times. "MSN (or anything in text) is the worse way of communication because you can't see the expression of the person who wrote it." On another note, I would encourage people to tag new articles that are not tagged. A good way to spot them is go to your local artist, politican, singer, or musician's page and start Wikilink-surfing. I just hope that everyone's still having good health and not take this kind of assessment as a full time job where you have to skip lunch to do 10 extra article assessments. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read anything wrong, I just didn't taste the flavoring you added to the stew.  Perhaps sarcasm (is that correct?) would be easier to detect if it were alluded to, what with the textual innuendo so hard to catch and all.  What am I, a mind reader? ;)  (Note winky-smiley for playful comment.) María (habla conmigo) 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I remind everyone to remember WP:AAGF - • The Giant Puffin • 19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? It was joke with a serious point to it. Sheesh. Maria took my comments in exactly the spirit they were meant, for which I'm grateful. Carcharoth 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-awards? 

message: Congrats everyone! 12k+ articles assessed in the first week. At this rate we could easily wipe out the entire backlog of Unassessed articles by the end of August. --Ozgod 11:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Week 

message: I have tried my hand at assessing a few articles, avoiding the stubby ones in favour of the start/B class ones, and I came across Duke of Somerset, which comes across as a cross between a list of bios of different Dukes of Somerset at various times, and an overview of the history of this title. I've left it as a bio article, as it contains lots of biographical information, but was wondering what advice people would give about this sort of thing? There are also various "family" articles floating around as well, such as Fry family (chocolate). These shouldn't use the non-bio parameter, should they? But should some sort of label be used to distinguish these from ordinary bios about a single person? Carcharoth 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also removed the WP-Bio tag from the talk page of Forrest Gump. The article is about the film, not the character, it is a fictitious character, and if film people want to work on it, they have the film WP tag, and don't need the film bio-work-group tag. Carcharoth 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on. Does that count for the total. No, don't answer that, as I don't care about the totals! :-) Carcharoth 13:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've run across a few movies and non-biography related articles in the filmmakers and actors section, as well.  From what I gather, they were added by a bot to incorporate the film-bio workgroup, and it made a few mistakes because of the articles' eponymous titles like Forrest Gump and Annie Hall.  No biggie, I've just been removing them.  Silly bots.  María (habla conmigo) 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just removed one from Lighting technician... Do you think Duke of Somerset is a list or a bio? I don't like the list class, because lists themselves should be assessed in the same way as articles. Carcharoth 13:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, man, I'm not sure.  Technically the article is about a title and not an individual person, so I'd be tempted to remove it, but I can see how others could argue otherwise.  María (habla conmigo) 13:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about The Yes Men (about an activist organisation, rather than a person). I was going to remove the WP-Bio tag, but then realised that that would leave it with no WikiProject. Though that wouldn't be a disaster, I would prefer to replace it with something else. How are articles about music groups handled? Carcharoth 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there some sort of organisations wikiproject that deals with that sort of thing? Its definately not a biography, but I cant think of a wikiproject that it would fit in to - • The Giant Puffin • 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dumped it on the  and  projects... There, it is out of our hands! :-) Carcharoth 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The non-bio parameter 

message: Just pointing out guys, we need to keep an eye out for people who are removing the biography templates and our assessments. I rechecked by contributions and found a guy who's blanked a couple due to no comments after the article being assessed. I notified User:Opus33, one who I found blanking. I assumed good faith and told him about our drive, so we'll see about that. If you know of anyone else post them here so we can keep an eye out on them.--Wizardman 15:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can keep track of that at the end of each two day period by reviewing Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log. Look down the list and see if articles have been removed because they have been deleted, or if they have been removed because the tag has been removed, or if the assessment has been changed. Though having said that, I can't work out why there are so many "removed" on that log, when as far as I can see, they haven't been removed! Carcharoth 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that not everyone is able to use AWB because of its 500 mainspace article requirement. You could be the winner of this assessment drive race and still not able to use it. The admin in charge doesn't give a crap if you assessed 10,000 articles, answer 1000 questions at help desk, or partcipated in numerous MfD, AfD, RfA; he will just turn you down for approval to use it because you're not a "trusted member". And I was turned down as one of those "not-trusted member". OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: At this point, can we through "Assume Good Faith" out the door?  Will anyone press for action against him?  ludahai 魯大海 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the template? Uh oh 

message: If you assess an article as List, it will still be in the unassessed category. I think altering the template to accept List class would be more trouble than it's worth. The servers don't need that kind of strain. I think we should just assess list articles as normal articles. It would get B if the list was complete, or very close and it had references. Post your comments on this idea, and if consensus agrees with me then the page should have a notice about this. --Psychless Type words! 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing we can do about. The bot doesn't accept List, Template, Disambig (Dab), Category (Cat) or N/A. I have asked this question to an admin somewhile ago, and he says he's not sure about this. He directs me to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/Assessment#Frequently_asked_questions. What puzzles me is that there are articles tagged as list-class in this religion project, yet the bot doesn't recognize it as unassessed-class. However, going to the bot's page, it doesn't show any recently tagged lists treated as list-class, but instead assessed as stub class. There has to be a way to make the bot ignore list and non-article class. I just asked Warlordjohncarter because he tagged a list-class article recently and now I'm waiting for his answer. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would certainly be preferable if the bot did accept list-class articles. Many of the articles on here are lists, and yet they are still officially seen as unassessed, even if the list-class is applied. If we could get the bot to recognise list-class articles, I think it should be done. It would help to clear the categories a bit more - • The Giant Puffin • 18:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Warlordjohncarter answered me. He said he don't know. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, lists can be and are featured. Other projects I've seen have simply give featured lists FA-class, and I strongly believe that the best thing is to classify things as lists another way (using the template), and to assess lists like any other article (stub, start, B, GA, A, FA). Carcharoth 08:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carcharoth, please read what I wrote and think about it before you type it out. What I meant is that the major contributor/creator of the article don't score points, NOT the person doing the assessments. I stronlgy oppose the idea that only people specialized in the area are allowed to rate it. Once again, Wikipedia is a collabration project. It is intended for everyone to do stuff, not a few selected individuals receiving special privilieges. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. This is nonsensical because you have put your comment in the wrong section (search for "points" and you will find the right section). Would you like to move it to the right section, or shall I? For the record, I was talking about people doing the assessments getting points. What do you think the 'race' for awards on the front page of this drive is all about? Carcharoth 14:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Class dilemma 

message: Where is the list of articles that need assessment? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Unassessed biography articles contains all articles tagged with the WP:BIO template that have not yet received an assessment. Carom 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the list? 

message: I have a sugesstion - due to recent removals of the WPBIO tag on some article pages, is that after the Summer Assesstment Drive is over, we sweep through all the Stub/Start article, providing comments as to why they are only of that class and improvements they can use. The Winter Comment Drive :-P :) --Ozgod 05:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the old "do it in two separate stages or do it all at once" dilemma! I still think a boilerplate comment could be added to all stubs and starts. There are several standard reasons that crop up again and again - lack of pictures, lead section needs expanding, some sections are short and stubby, material is not organised into sections, lacks references, and so on. It should be possible to have those (and others) as options to check when assessing, and dump a bullet-pointed list into the comments section. Even better would be if that included categories, so you could then go to a category of articles lacking in one particular way, and work on improving that. Some such categories already exists, such as the ones for "needs a picture", but more could be done on this. Would be quite a lot of work to set up though. Carcharoth 09:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no skill at scripting, but if this could configured into  Outriggr's Assessment Script (possibly via checkboxes and a comment entry bar), so when we do the assessment it automatically does the assessment and leaves the comments we placed in the bar on the comment page for the Article. --Ozgod 11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something automated would certainly make it easier and faster. Stub articles all need basic improvements like expansion, sources, etc. Most start articles need more sources and basic expansion. Although there would be a few exceptions, automated comments would apply to the bulk of start and stub articles, so somehow building that into the template would be very usefel. As for B articles, maybe a link to GA criteria would be appropriate? - • The Giant Puffin • 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I would also say link to FA as well as GA. Some of the better B-class articles have editors who look down on GA and see it as an insult to suggest they go there, and are aiming directly for FA. As for A-class articles, how many formal processes are in place for that? As far as I know, not that many, but if people are aware of relevant ones, then link to those as well. Carcharoth 13:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats true. Linking to GA and FA for B-class articles would be preferable. We could also link to FA criteria for GA- and A-class articles, as that is the next step to take in most cases - • The Giant Puffin • 18:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Although that would be endless hours of fun for all of us, I think a scripting option would be best. And comments are useful in stub/start articles, as some people may want to improve the article but don't know specifically is required. Either way, it makes things easier for future improvement - • The Giant Puffin • 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A comment drive on stub-class articles is not really effective, I think. There is still so much to expand upon with stubs, that I wouldn't even know where to start. To a lesser degree this is also the case for Start-class articles. Where comments are really helpful, is with B-class articles. These contain the majority of the material needed, but need help in presentation, where gaps in material are, etc. Errabee 23:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In retrospect a drive would be silly - but an updated script with a comment bar would be extremely helpful. --Ozgod 02:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I think it would be difficult to implement. Errabee 08:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that comments for the most part for stub and start class articles are pointless.  The weaknesses and needs are usually pretty obvious.  After this rating drive is over, I will endeavor to upgrade any Taiwan, China, Korea, Japan, or Vietnamese related article to start status, though this will take a lot of time.  ludahai 魯大海 15:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment Committee? 

message: I see that we are now assessing lists as normal, and not using List-class. Is there any alternative way to tag lists as lists? Also, would articles about titles, and the history of titles, count as non-bios? See my edit here for an example. The Peerage workgroup category has a lot of these lists as well. I'll find some more examples. Carcharoth 18:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we are assessing List articles as normal, are there any guidelines on how to assess them? I am a bit confused as to what would make a list a stub- or a start-class article for example. --Belovedfreak 12:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List class again 

message: We do need to keep going through our logs. Some people think this:
"Removing ratings - you shouldn't rate unless you leave comments"
"These banners serve no useful purpose, please don't post them."
Look out for people like this and try to make them see reason. We cannot peer review 100,000 articles. --Psychless Type words! 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He even removed it from an article where I had added comments. I will discuss on his talk page. Carcharoth 00:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I especially like his comments here as to why . --Ozgod 02:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Opus33 Not to name names...] 

message: 
----
I was wondering if we wanted to have a userbox for the drive. This would be the current version. When the drive is over it can be edited to a past tense version. When there is another drive it could be edited to say "This user is invited to join the Biography Project's Autumn Assessment Drive" or the like for a period of a week before being switched back to the past tense version. What do you think? -Thereen 07:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I just put it on my userpage.  Like I needed another userbox... ")  ludahai 魯大海 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a good userbox, I'll add it to my userpage - • The Giant Puffin • 17:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good userbox, I'll add it to my page. I hope we won't need another assessment drive though. --Psychless Type words! 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drive Userbox 

message: Please look at my proposal and comment on it. --Psychless 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template has been updated. See here for the bot discussion. --Psychless 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 
I like it.  Thank you for your work on it.  ludahai 魯大海 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, unfortunately we aren't finished yet. Trying to figure out how to transclude the comments into the show/hide section... --Psychless 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on template change 

message: I tried to run the bot to update the total articles assessed, but it didn't work. Is there a problem with it? Awadewit | talk 03:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have this problem. The bot stopped after reaching 460. I think, but this is only guessing, that IE has a time limit on how long a page loads before disconnects. Since the bot limits how many times it gooes to the server per minute, if the assessment has too many items then it will exceed IE's limit and disconnects regardless if it's finished or not. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't it. Oleg said it's the server that cuts you off. Either way I guess we just have to wait... --Psychless 18:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only way to get the job done is to ask Oleg to speed up the bot so that it finishes prior to the server cuts the connection off. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot

message: We got the total number of unassessed articles below 100,000 - way to go everyone! --Ozgod 14:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the current rate, you should be able to get it done before the end of July, a whole month early!! Carcharoth 17:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be amazing :). Keep up the good work everyone! --Psychless 18:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like everyone's doing their part. Even the guy with under 50, every part counts. Remember if you find tagless bios, rate them too. I'm exhausted with my pace yet I'm only in 4th...--Wizardman 23:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done less than 20, I think... But if I get a bot to do 50,000, do I win? :-) There is a list of 1000 WPBiography-tagless articles floating around somewhere. I'll trade that in for, ooh, 10,000 points or so. :-) Carcharoth 00:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to tagless biographies. I've recently had this odd obsession with clicking random article and adding a relevant wikiproject template on it's talk page if it has none. It's unsettling how many times I've had to add the WPBiography template. Even more unsettling how many articles aren't part of a wikiproject. --Psychless 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Behold - our next project! Scouring for untagged biography articles and tagging newly created ones. All of us will have OCD when this over (if ever). --Ozgod 02:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have really enjoyed this so far.  I am reading about a lot of interesting people I have never heard of before.  I am also helping other Wikiprojects (like WikiProject Taiwan and CHina both of which I also work on) by tagging relevant articles with their templates as well.  Thank you guys for giving me the impetus to kill three birds with one stone in this way.  ludahai 魯大海 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Psychless, I do the same thing. I typically go to the main page and click on some of the biographical articles from the Did You Know, On This Day, and In the News sections and add the WPBIO template and assess them. I think the next project could be assigning WikiProject templates to articles that don't have one. For example, Wiki is not associated with any WikiProject! MahangaTalk 04:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I just hope that when people start doing the alphabets, they should also tag related workgroups because many fall into their workgroup categories but haven't tagged yet. OhanaUnitedTalk page 09:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm tickled pink by all this, to be honest. After that I think we all really focus in on our respective workgroups now that we will have thousands of articles now correctly assigned to them. And of course, watching all new articles coming in hourly. --Ozgod 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wizardman - My pace should pick up in July and August as those two months are relative down times for me in terms of work.  I will be working on Chinese history articles, but I will keep up with assessing articles as well.  ludahai 魯大海 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad that the assessment drive has been a success so far. If anyone would like to help with tagging articles that haven't been tagged, then articles in :Category:Uncategorized people would be a great place to start. Add categories to the article as well though :). Please check this out too! --Psychless 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is light work for you Ludahai? Wow, 90% chance you're gonna win then. But yeah, i never thought of looking in that category, that should help. And since i'm takign part in Gnome Week i can double dip there.-Wizardman 23:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone who has access to AWB please do a favour for me. Drop a note to the active assessment members and tell them when doing A-Z, continue to put those individuals into workgroups if applied. I just did 20 assessments and 19 of them can be put into workgroups. The only individual left out is because there's no workgroup for business people. OhanaUnitedTalk page 09:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Religious figures also do not have a work group. --Psychless 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There may be as many as 50-100,000 articles we haven't tagged yet. Some of these are "known", i.e. they're in a category my bot hasn't got to yet, others aren't known about (miscategorised, recently created, etc). My bot is currently doing :Category:Uncategorised people which will add about another 1000 or so. --kingboyk 22:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want to get it to 0, we all have to work a lot harder actually, the counts are starting to fall. I've done very few assessments of late, I guess I'm partly to blame about that. Wizardman 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos to Everyone

message: Everyone's done a great job so far. We know have less than 80,000 articles left! Sadly of the 315,000 articles assessed so far only almost 11,000 are B-Class or above, which is about 3.5% of articles assessed. For more numbers check out the main assessment page, the tables there should be updated for June shortly. Keep up the good work everyone. Psychless 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be as many as 50-100,000 articles we haven't tagged yet. Some of these are "known", i.e. they're in a category my bot hasn't got to yet, others aren't known about (miscategorised, recently created, etc). My bot is currently doing :Category:Uncategorised people which will add about another 1000 or so. --kingboyk 22:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want to get it to 0, we all have to work a lot harder actually, the counts are starting to fall. I've done very few assessments of late, I guess I'm partly to blame about that. Wizardman 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos to everyone, again

message: Did anyone else's script change? Mine no longer "unwatches" the page automatically, so I have to click an extra time now. Awadewit | talk 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed a change. :) I did update the script to respect the user's "watchlist status" for a page, which is conceptually an improvement. However, for users that have the preference "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" turned on, that setting is now going to be respected as well. In response to this, I'll create an option you can add to your monobook.js to turn off page watching. But you can't have it both ways—there is no way for the script to know whether you have the page watchlisted, or have that preference turned on. Wait, there probably is, but for now I'll create the override. –Outriggr § 10:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Place the following in Special:Mypage/monobook.js so that the page edited will not be added to your watchlist unless it was already on your watchlist (this will take care of all cases; in other words including the part I said I wouldn't do yet)...
 assessmentOverrideWatchPref = true;
–Outriggr § 11:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you! Awadewit | talk 05:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outrigger's script

message: Just to let you know, I just fact checked the progress table while not signed in. --Dial 01:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be rude, but please read the instructions in bold before you change the table. We're counting the difference between assessed articles, not unassessed articles. --Psychless 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact check 

message: We need support on a simple template change, see here.
I've also proposed a new wikiproject, see here. --Psychless 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please comment on these two things 

message: I thought I'd let other people know 2 monobook scripts I'm using. I'm not sure if this will be of any use to anyone but me, but just in case, here it is. The first script simply adds a 'Save' button in the header tabs (where the article, talk, history, buttons are). I don't like scrolling down after selecting a rating using outriggr's script and I don't always like to press Alt+Shift-S. image here
//saving tab
addOnloadHook(addsaveaction);
function addsaveaction() {
if(document.title.indexOf('Editing ') == 0) addPortletLink('p-cactions','javascript:document.getElementById("wpSave").click();','save','Save');
}
The second script is de-talkify, another tab button. The Unassessed category links the articles to their respective talk page. Well, it's a hassle opening the links and then going from the talk page to the article page. What the script does is make the Unassessed Category listing point to the article page, rather than the talk page. In conjunction with Linky, it makes assessing articles much faster. image here
 
// skip talk page on categories when assessing - time saver
function catSwapButton() {
  if(document.title.indexOf('Category:' == 0)) {
    addPortletLink('p-cactions','javascript:catSwap();','De-Talkify','ca-catswap','change category links from talk pages to article pages');
  }
}
addOnloadHook(catSwapButton);
function catSwap() {
  var cat = document.getElementById('mw-pages');
  cat.innerHTML = cat.innerHTML.replace(/Talk\:/g,).replace(/[_\s]talk\:/g,':');
}
Let me know if it's helpful. :) MahangaTalk 02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The de-talkify one is great. The "save" one doesn't do much for people editing with wikEd, though. Awadewit | talk 06:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much! These scripts look very useful. With Linky and Mahanga's scripts, nothing can stop us now!  –Psychless 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: They look wonderful - but I have a wretched time ever getting scripts to work right. Whenever I add a new one it messes up all the others I have and it's a matter of copying and pasting and trying to situate them in the right order so they do not cancel each other out, somehow. --Ozgod 19:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ozgod, I was checking your monobook and I'm curious, why do you have multiple imports for the twinkle script? Anyway, I think I remember the script not appearing because twinkle was taking up all the space in the header and pushed de-talkify out of the way. I'm now using TWINKLE just for reverting, so there's no more twinkle tabs and de-talkify appears. So, check if you have a lot of tabs being used (by twinkle or other scripts). You can also try decreasing the font size in your browser (ctrl+mouse scroll wheel) and see if it appears. Note, increasing the font size a lot makes de-talkify disappear, for some odd reason. Let me know if you get it to work. MahangaTalk 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have problems adding the code. I copy and paste the codes exactly and have problems. While I can add a tab for de-wikify, I can't get a tab for save. And I can't get the 2nd script working. I'm now reversing those codes added to my monobook. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re:Mahanga - Oddly where I placed the Detalkify script in my monobook everything seems to be working fine now. I'm still very clueless as to how scripts and monobook work together. --Ozgod 12:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think monobook has very stingy requirements on indentings. If you indent one code wrong, it screws up the whole thing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: scripts

message: The following pages are categoriezed as unassessed biography pages, but assessment is not possible and it is unknown how to remove the tag:
*Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_September_2004
*Template_talk:WikiProjectBannerShell/Example_WPBiography
I fixed that one, the other one transcludes the talk pages of some of the article so it also transcludes the WPBiography template, we're just going to have to forget about that one I guess. --Psychless 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a similar vein there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 13, with a couple of templates on, think the problem is similar - redirects from the VFD/AFD to the article so theres a transclusion of the talk page - doesnt this mean any future talk page edits are added the AFD/VFD log? RHB - Talk 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does, but it's "easily" fixed by moving the VFD debate into the redirect page. See below for instructions. --kingboyk 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've done the January 13 2005 page, though my edits were a tad messier than yours. RHB - Talk 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Has anyone else had problems using the new version of Outriggr's script? Firefox has crashed several times, which never happened on the old version, RHB - Talk 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it belongs in this section, but continuing from RHB's comment; I'm having errors with it as well.  Firefox and IE appear to be semi-running it, i.e., I can see what an article's rating is, but the drop down box, class parameters, etc. aren't showing up.  It was running fine this morning just before the massive lag/issues with the Wiki servers, so that may still be affecting it ATM, unless there was a change to the script right around that time.  I restarted too, no effect.  --BrokenSphere 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a change to my monobook.js that seems to have fixed it, added this: assessmentMyTemplateCode = [""];
 --BrokenSphere 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of problem pages

message: It seems various people's monobook pages (including mine) are turning up in the unassessed categories. I think it's a result of changes to Outriggr's script, but not sure how to fix it. --Belovedfreak 12:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone else had problems using the new version of Outriggr's script? Firefox has crashed several times, which never happened on the old version, RHB - Talk 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it belongs in this section, but continuing from RHB's comment; I'm having errors with it as well.  Firefox and IE appear to be semi-running it, i.e., I can see what an article's rating is, but the drop down box, class parameters, etc. aren't showing up.  It was running fine this morning just before the massive lag/issues with the Wiki servers, so that may still be affecting it ATM, unless there was a change to the script right around that time.  I restarted too, no effect.  --BrokenSphere 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a change to my monobook.js that seems to have fixed it, added this: assessmentMyTemplateCode = [""];
 --BrokenSphere 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outriggr script, monobook

message: is the #2 most linked to image. See Special:Mostimages. A little more work and we'll be #1! Jreferee (Talk) 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: What is the rule for assigning birth and death categories when you have a situation like the following: x person (b. c. 1091; d. c. 1155)?
Do you put it in 1090s births and 1150s deaths or 1091 births and 1155 deaths? My impulse has been to put them into the nearest year possible as I expect readers would expect that. Also do you link the dates themselves? I recently had an editor ask me about this. As I am assessing the articles, I like to make sure the appropriate birth and death categories are in place. Please advise --FeanorStar7 05:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would link the dates and put them in the exact birth and death categories. Just my two cents. Psychless 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a tough one, and it's been done inconsistently.  For a long time I used the exact year, like The Psychless suggests; then I was doing the decade (e.g. 1150s deaths); now I'm back to using the specific year again, when the source gives one year (e.g. born c. 1555).  Another problem occurs when you know someone's age at death (common with Renaissance composers) but that gives you two possible birth years.  In that case I usually do the "1550s deaths" method.  I don't think anyone has come up with a standard.  Antandrus  (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for your input; I will continue to use the most specific date; much appreciated. --FeanorStar7 07:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always use the decade in these circumstances. Using a specific year when the year is an estimate is simply incorrect, based on the knowledge we have. It implies a precision that isn't there (and in most cases never will be there). And different sources sometimes give different estimated years. Since yearly categories (like "1745 births") have direct links to the decades ("1740s births"), if you don't find what you're looking for on the first try it is actually easier to check the more general category than it is to check the one or two years on each side of the specific year. That will happen if you're working from a source that gives a different estimate for the year than we have in the article. And besides, these are precisely the circumstances for which the decade categories were created. Suppose you know the year is not known exactly; you're likely to go directly to the decade category. --Rbraunwa 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Use decade categories for circa. Also note, that where birth and death years are not known (and never likely to be known) there is :Category:Year of birth unknown. If it just isn't there, and you are not sure if it is known or not, then we have :Category:Year of birth missing and :Category:Year of birth missing (living people) (looks like a new category there). What I've never been able to work out is what to do when you only know the years someone was "active" (floruit). I suspect there should be a subcategory of :Category:Year of birth unknown, holding those where we do know when they were active. Hmm. Carcharoth 14:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization involving circa dates

message: Congrats everyone! Looking at the totals of Unassessed articles vs what we have assessed we are almost midway (what we've done vs what's left to do). I really do feel we can make this happen by September 1 - again, thank you to everyone! --Ozgod 11:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've done a very good job so far. I can't stress enough though, that everyone needs to make sure their assessments are accurate, otherwise they're worthless. Thanks to everyone who's helped so far. Psychless 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The progress looks good. If we keep up the pace, it should be complete by the end of August (or very close to complete). Please remember to tag the articles into appropriate workgroups if available. OhanaUnitedTalk page 10:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good work everyone!

message: I'm just starting to assess articles for the drive but, having not done assessments outside the Sci & Acad workgroup before, I'm a bit confused as to what goes in which workgroup. For example, which workgroup is appropriate for authors? Do popular science/health writers go under Sci & Acad? Do academics in arts/humanities go under Sci & Acad or Arts & Entertainment? 
Is there an easy reference for all this somewhere that I'm missing? Espresso Addict 00:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a second. Actors and musicians would go in filmbio (Actors and Filmakers) and musicians workgroup, respectively. If you don't know which group to put it in then simply don't, it's not a really big deal. If you come across any religious figures, we don't have a workgroup for them so you'll have to leave them without a workgroup. Psychless 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you look at the scope of the filmbio workgroup, their emphasis appears to be on film actors, not stage actors, which is why I was putting the latter in A&E.  It thus appeared to me that it wouldn't make sense to put say a Shakespearean actor under that workgroup.  However in looking at that workgroup's page and in their discussion, they seem to be moving to include stage actors within their scope as well, but it doesn't seem to have been concretely stated yet.  --BrokenSphere 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workgroups: what goes where? 

message: Replace:
 assessmentMyTemplateCode = [""];
with
 assessmentMyTemplateCode = ["{"+"{WPBiography}}"];
I didn't include any parameters in my example but the main part is seperating the first two curly braces. It's a fairly simple fix so please do it :). Psychless 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to get your monobook.js out of the Unassessed category 

message: The bot is not updating again. Can someone check on that? (Or try running it manually?) OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried manually running it yesterday - to no avail, apparently. --Ozgod 15:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It ran on the 25th, but nothing yet after that. Carcharoth 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now updated. Carcharoth 16:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography articles stats 

message: I've recently had a bot owner create a list of articles starting with J that don't have a talk page or their talk page isn't in any category. The lists can be found on /1, /2, /3, /4, /5, /6, /7. Each page is about 65kb long. They aren't all biographical articles of course, just look for some people's names and you can tag them. Anyone can do this if they wish. Regards, Psychless 13:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean when you've tagged something in the lists above? Removing them from the page would be easiest. Easiest still would be to take the entire list, strip out non-bio ones, then pass to a bot for WPBiography tagging. Carcharoth 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are disambiguation pages just remove them from the list. If you do assess the article please remove it from the list. You can't just take all the articles that look like biographies and give it to a bot though. Some of those would be fictional characters. Psychless 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fictional characters! <slaps forehead> Of course! :-) Carcharoth 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, on untagged/5 I removed all the dismbiguations, and some other nonsense ones. It's down about 10k after that so it's easier for yo guys. I can do the other 6 if you want. Wizardman 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Want to tag some untagged biographical articles? 

message: After two months of steady assessing, the total assessed by the drive (and others assessing in the same period) has reached 73,206 - well on the way towards the target of 113,385. The average is almost exactly 1200 articles assessed per day. There is a whole month left to assess another 40,179 articles and reach the initial target. However, reducing the backlog to zero will be difficult. Over the same 2 month period a total of 31,210 unassessed articles have been added and/or tagged with the WPBiography tag - just over 2 new articles added for every 5 that have been assessed! In terms of individuals, Ludahai (6757), The Giant Puffin (5600) and BrokenSphere (5050) lead the way. Congratulations to everyone who has been assessing so far. Please keep reviewing this talk page and others in the project for more news of any changes. Carcharoth 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, for now I've reached my goal and decided that I don't want to be assessing for the sake of racing for a top 3 spot as I have other things going on in Meatspace and my Wiki life that have been neglected during a hectic month + of assessing, so I'm done for now and taking a break from assessing; Giant Puffin seems to have halted as well as his total hasn't moved for a few weeks.  Personally, I've realized that if this drive doesn't reduce the assessment backlog to 0, we can always do another one later this year, can't we?  BrokenSphere 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, though the lessons from this one need to be taken on board first. Carcharoth 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if we kept Kingboyk and his bot locked up for the next two months we might get it to zero :). If we can get it down to the 30,000 range we might be able to get it done without another assessment drive. When the drive is over just continue to assess and optimistically the backlog will be gone, eventually. Thanks to everyone who's participated. Psychless 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I stand corrected, as Giant Puffin is moving again.  If him and Wizardman want to have at it, they're welcome to it by all means.  :)  --BrokenSphere 18:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had some stuff to deal with in July, so I don't think I assessed more than 1000 then; I'll see if I can move my total up to 10000 for the whole drive though. I wanted to go back to article writing, so I put this on the back burner for a while.Wizardman 00:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My busy season is over, so I will be doing more assessing.  I also hope to get to 10,000.  ludahai 魯大海 10:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress report 

message: Should articles like Deaths in April 2005 be assessed for the assessment drive? I am not sure if they are in the scope of WikiProject Biography or not. May I have some input on this, please? Captain panda 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a list, and should still be assessed. But we should really be marking these things as lists and assessing using different criteria. It does seem to be biographical, yes, but only in the loosest sense. We also need to distinguish these type of articles from ones about a single person. All the music group articles are about groups of people, and there are other examples of "group" biographies. Carcharoth 12:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assessing an article as a list does not remove it from the list of unassessed biography articles. Apparently, using the list class is not going to work. Captain panda 15:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I meant use the not-yet-existing list=yes parameter. :-) But whether or not this is biographical, it certainly isn't a 'normal' article, and we want some way to filter those out. Putting class=list, or list=yes is possible. The template can then be changed to recognise those parameters. What is needed at some point is another drive to identify all the lists and other "non-bio" articles. At the moment, we have :Category:Non-biographical WikiProject Biography articles and :Category:WikiProject Biography non-article pages, which are under-used. Non-bio is so little used, we could easily deprecate it and turn it into a "group/list/other" catchall parameter to filter out the 'complex' biographical articles that are not about a single person, but are a list, group, name, or other such article. Carcharoth 16:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should "Deaths" articles be assessed?

message: If we keep going at our current rate the backlog should be eliminated in two or three months. A decision needs to be made. We can extend the Summer Assessment Drive two more months, have another drive, or just let the drive end and hope that everyone will continue to assess article. I am personally in favor of letting this drive go on for another month so we can get the backlog down to around 30,000 articles. If we let it go for another month after that it would probably go below 10,000. Please discuss what we should do below, and welcome back plange :). Psychless 18:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not extend it quite yet.  I am rather tired and I have other things I want to work on, especially with the international baseball season right around the corner and I will work on 2007 Baseball World Cup and 2007 Asian Baseball Championships. We are also nearing the Republic of China legislative election, 2008, which I will be working hard on.  I also want to get back to working on Chinese historical biographical pages.  ludahai 魯大海 11:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer not to extent it either. There have been plenty of things that I want to do on Wikipedia that I have neglected in order to assess all these articles. Captain panda 12:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll third the non-extension. I'd like to take a wikibreak for a while anyway, but I'd prefer to concentrate on getting some articles put on WP:DYK and WP:GA, as well as my admin duties that I've neglected of late. Plus with school restarting, some of us may have far less time for this. Wizardman 12:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather not extend it either. As with many people, I have neglected other Wikiprojects I am a member of to participate in this drive. Perhaps have an Autumn or a Winter drive in a few months. I must also return to college in a couple of weeks, and so I would have far less time to spend on the drive - • The Giant Puffin • 09:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the top four assessors all saying no, I think that should put an end to this discussion.  ludahai 魯大海 14:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As the (as of now) #5 assessor, I would also suggest closing off the drive on its original end date, even though I've stopped assessing (no regrets) and have gotten things done I couldn't have otherwise.  Assessor fatigue is one issue, as the top 4 have mentioned.  Also, while overall the progress has been great, there were issues raised with this drive that should be addressed as was mentioned earlier and above to hopefully improve the assessment process and a future drive if warranted, otherwise they're likely to get raised again.  BrokenSphereMsg me 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What next? 

message: I have been trying to put in listas information where needed as I have been assessing articles.  However, I have noticed that many Asian names are being listed incorrectly.  Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Burmese names are generally written with the family name first.  I.E. Ouyang Xiu should be "listas=Ouyang, Xiu", not "listas=Xiu, Ouyang".  I just corrected it.  I have noticed the same problem with dozens of names.  Japanese names are a bit more complicated.  The Japanese also put the family name first, however, on Wikipedia, there seems to be no consistency.  Many are put in the traditional order (especially those of a historical nature) while many others are written in the Western order.  All I ask is for caution regarding Asian names.  If you aren't sure about how to alphabetize it, please drop me a note.  I will help.  ludahai 魯大海 12:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and more important than the listas parameter, is making sure that the article itself has a "DEFAULTSORT" value. Both DEFAULTSORT and listas should be the same. Carcharoth 20:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  listas parameter with Asian names 

message: Am I correct in presuming that this drive ends at 0000 UTC on September 1?  I, for one, am about all assessd out.  ludahai 魯大海 05:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so, meaning this is now over. Wizardman 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, where's the post-assessment drive party?  Or are the assessors going to get some real sleep for a change?  ;)  BrokenSphereMsg me 00:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sleep?  The fall semester begins on Monday.  You should see my teaching schedule this semester.  ludahai 魯大海 13:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess the drive is now over, lets hope the post-drive analysis paints a positive picture - • The Giant Puffin • 19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, I'll put up a notice on the project page and then we will dish out the awards. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  -0- hour 

message: I am planning on continuing to assess articles after this drive is over; my plan is to keep a separate tally from the one currently on the project page. Would I be able to enfold the tally into this drive or the next one (I assume we are having one)? --FeanorStar7 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'd rather we all start at zero when the next drive starts. I'm having some major problems with HughesNet and I can only stay logged on if I use the secure server, which is very slow and my assessment tools do not work. Regrettably, I will not be getting 5k articles assessed during this drive. Betacommand has had his bot do some auto assessing which should result in 15k less unassessed articles once the bot gets around to updating the statistics. Good job everyone, Psychless 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if I read this right, I should stop assessing for the moment (which is fine); thanks for the update; glad to be of service--FeanorStar7 01:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't deny it FS, you know you got addicted to assessing.  BrokenSphereMsg me 02:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Psychless, still having problems. Anyhow, you misread my response somehow.  PLEASE continue to assess if you would like. What I meant was any articles you assess from now until the start of the next drive will not be counted in your running total for the next drive. 66.82.9.110 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So no taking big leads to try and beat Ludahai next time.  What about those pages you set up that had articles that were tagged as potential bios by a bot?  If those haven't been cleared out, a possible task is to go through and pull the non-bio articles out.  BrokenSphereMsg me 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that school is back in session, my assessing will be limited.  However, during the winter vacation (late January and early February) I will come and assess more articles.  ludahai 魯大海 22:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if someone could go through some of my untagged pages and take out the non-bios it would be nice. Make sure you put them on the non-bio pages though! That, among other things, is still on my to do list. I will be taking care of #1 and Wizardman has done #5.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychless (talk • contribs) 13:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question regarding post-drive

message: I know people have said that we shouldn't compare this drive to the previous one, but one thing stands out. On the previous drive, as you can see here, a graph was produced to show how much of an impact we had made. I thought this was pretty interesting, as it showed the whole time line of biography articles on Wikipedia. Would a similar graph be possible for this drive? Its nothing major, but I think it would be interesting for the participants to show how much we helped in organising these articles - • The Giant Puffin • 09:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an updated graph. Note that it shows that the graph is representing all assessed articles, not just biography articles. I probably should have made a second one, but the first took enough time as it is.
Regards, Psychless 02:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have the awards been given? LordHarris 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. And you got WikiCookie. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, where/when were they awarded? Espresso Addict 02:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still, unfortunately, in the process of handing out awards. All WikiCookies were handed out recently. I've been busy lately with other projects and spending 30 minutes handing out six awards (I have a 22k dial-up connection) isn't at the top of my list. The rest of the "awards committee" could finish it off if they would like to. Psychless 01:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's going on with what was discussed above in the Awards section ~ mid September...  BrokenSphereMsg me 02:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of drive analysis?