Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Archive 3

message: I've been reading up today on the use of the /Comments pages, but there's still one problem I don't see addressed.  What happens when a page is renamed through the Move action?  I've seen many cases where todolists are orphaned at the old page name until they are manually moved to the new location; this is easy to spot through the red links on the talk page, but what mechanisms are there for detecting orphaned /Comments pages?  On the project banners that I've looked at, the orphaned comments would just seem to disappear because the category isn't included any more on the talk page (since Talk:NEWPAGENAME/Comments doesn't exist yet, even though Talk:OLDPAGENAME/Comments remains). Slambo (Speak) 19:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a page is moved /Todo and /Comments get orphaned, unfortunately. There's not a great deal we can do about it, I think, so I guess WikiProject representatives must vigilantly check the logs. --kingboyk 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  /Comments and page moves 

message: Two issues that we might want to consider:
# The combined article counts are becoming increasingly inaccurate, because any article tagged by multiple projects is counted twice (or more!).  Is there any way we can resolve this (possibly contingent on having much faster database access for Mathbot, but I'd like to know if this is practical even in that case)?
# At Wikimania, Anthere asked if we could put together consolidated statistics across broad subject areas, which might each include multiple projects.  Is there any way we can leverage the existing system to do this, or will it need to be done by hand?
Kirill Lokshin 14:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rather easy to make sure everything is counted once only. I see a problem only when an article is assessed differently by different projects (for example, if The Beatles is assessed A-Class by the Beatles wikiproject and B-class by people wikiproject -- hypothetically). I will work on it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you should use The Beatles as an example, as yesterday I amended  and will today tackle  in the same way. What I've done and will do follows on from the work of MilHist and Biography, and that is adding extra parameters and conditional code to assess our articles for - and expose that an article is within the scope of - other projects. I'm using the same assessment for each article (thereby negating the problem you mention) but allowing different importance levels for each project. See Talk:Last Train to Trancentral (shared with WikiProject songs and WikiProject electronic music) or Talk:Bill Drummond (shared with WPBiography and which transcludes the living persons bio warning) for examples. --kingboyk 09:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oleg, you are truly amazing.  I'll buy you a new wand for Christmas! Walkerma 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall statistics 

message: ... or maybe it should. I have just begun understanding this and thinking about it, so forgive me if I am blundering into a topic that has already been beaten to death here by people who understand this better.
Example. If WP:Novels and WP:Bio both own the Norbert Novelist entry, then not only do they bring both their "ownership" templates to the talk page (which is a good thing), they also bring their assessment tags to the same article. These tags might disagree, out of laziness or because the projects have different ambitions or criteria. My question: is this is a bug or a feature? One could argue for both answers. Especially, one could argue that this is a carefully thought out feature that forces both projects to reach consensus about the state of the Norbert Novelist article. But currently this situation seems more an artefact of the template structure than anything else. (There is the added problem of not being able to count this article in a tally of "all Wikiprojects by quality".)
Should not the assessment come in a separate template called "WikiProject-goodness"? Also, the stub, GA, and FA assessments are already there, as part of external information. So what we really would need is a way to tag articles as B-class etc. This way, several WikiProject (yes, that includes the fledgling WikiProject:Nominative Determinism and WikiProject:Aliterations) could subsume Norbert Novelist under their banners without having to coordinate their assessments. 
A concrete example that highlights the problem is Talk:Australia and weapons of mass destruction. This is marked externally as a GA, but the MilHist project lists it as unassessed. If assessment weren't part of the project template, this would be no problem.
Note that this idea does not prevent a project template to override an external (project-neutral) assessment. It would be easy to have a project insist on a different grade for a particular article, and we could even get automatic lists of such controversies.
Arbor 09:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the more active WikiProjects have moved away from declaring "ownership" towards concentrating on "within scope" (which I think is, for large projects whose scope covers articles it's participants have never touched, a good thing), but your point still stands. The problem you highlight does exist, although as you'll see in the above thread I've hopefully overcome this for WikiProject The KLF and will shortly do the same for WikiProject The Beatles. --kingboyk 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The major problem with proposals like this is that the combined template would still need to produce all of the project-specific categories, which means that every project would be editing it.  Considering how many pages it would be on, that would be a maintenance disaster. Kirill Lokshin 15:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really in our case; we're not such a large Project, and I'll assess on behalf of the other Projects too. We have a much stricter scope so "claim" our articles to the maximum extent that a WikiProject is allowed to so claim! :) (In other words, don't make too much of a fuss Kirill, as the new template is in my sandbox ready to go! :P) --kingboyk 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I wasn't talking about your template, but rather about the general "WikiProject-goodness" idea.  Sorry if that wasn't clear. Kirill Lokshin 15:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If didn't projects want to rate an article differently or not rate it, so what?Rlevse 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment should not be part of Wikiproject ownership 

message: I've created a new template for linking to the worksheets, logs and stats - . Usage notes are at Template talk:WP1. --kingboyk 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: I've split The Beatles articles out into subtopics. As a result, The Beatles articles by quality has gone from 2 pages to 1, leaving stale pages Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Beatles articles by quality/2 and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Beatles articles by quality/2. I'll delete it redirect them but maybe Mathbot could be programmed to blank or mark for speedy deletion redirect such pages? --kingboyk 11:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When a list gets much shorter 

message: I've been working flat out on this all week, and - hooray - they're all assessed (). A new article was added overnight which denied me the satisfaction of seeing the "Unassessed" row disappear, but hopefully tommorow it will be gone! :) Thanks again to Oleg for making this all possible. --kingboyk 12:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, very nice.  (Now if you'd said that you had all the Bio articles done, then I'd be really impressed ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW, we've done that too: () Titoxd(?!?) 04:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done and thanks! Walkerma 05:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles articles all assessed 

message: I've been out of the loop a bit here and a lot of stuff has changed (and gotten way more awesomer!!! but it means maybe I'm confused and stuff). Mal asked me for some help with comments regarding Belfast. I thought I knew what i was doing... maybe not. I looked in the Belfast project banner box () and it looked right to me. I put a test comment on Titanic: Talk:RMS_Titanic/Comments which was not picked up by the last mathbot run.... Talk:Kenneth Branagh/Comments on the other hand is being picked up by both Belfast and Biography tables, as you can see here. Wait another day? I think the comments category is set up right... Ideas? ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it picked it up.  I doubt it is bot's fault, there would be no reason why it would pick one article from a category while refusing to pick another one from the same category. Could be server issues. Anyway, it works now. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it's the bots fault either! I suspect user error (points at self). I just would like to know what error. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Belfast]]

message: Hullo Oleg.  I was thinking about adding numbers to WikiProject Aircraft's article quality list.  (Similar to a numerical list, with the first row having 1, the second 2, the third 3, and so forth.)  I would do this manually, but I'm sure it could be done much more easily with a bot, and Mathbot might erase my work anyway.
Could you add those numbers easily using Mathbot?  Ingoolemo talk 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people think it is worth adding numbers to the rows in the table, I can do it. But what would be the advantage of that? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For projects with large numbers of articles, it would be easy to get at-a-glance statistics for the total number of articles in a particular category, total number of articles tagged, etc.  Ingoolemo talk 02:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't seem much use to this as it doesn't break totals down anyway, it only provides a total which we already know. I also think the http jumps are distracting and ugly.Rlevse 02:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose I'll repeat my question from above: do projects with large numbers of articles actually use the generated tables?  Or is everything done via talk page tags & categories, with the only benefit of the central parsing being the log & statistics? Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I use it for biography --- plange 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I would have thought that one, in particular, would be nearly useless, as it's 80? (90? 100?) pages now, so it would be impossible to actually find anything there.  Oh well; I guess you learn something new every day! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I probably only use the first 8 or so pages-- the ones that have been assessed, to see what comments have been left, etc. For instance, on some FAs I left notes on which ones no longer met FA criteria so that I can go back and nominate them for FAR. I didn't want to flood the FAR process so am doing the nomination one at a time. I'm especially using the ones that are now divided by work group as they're more manageable. I'd say that the unassessed ones though are useless in the worklist. plange 04:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  If the main reason to look at the table is to see the comments, might we be able to get the addition of new comments recorded in the log?  (Or, if we want to be a bit more sophisticated, have the bot maintain a list at, say, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality comments that would be a simple list of links to the comment subpages; then, using Special:Recentchangeslinked on that page would produce an output of any changed comments.) Kirill Lokshin 04:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I find myself using them for odd things-- like when I was trying to find an example of a B-class with no importance assessment. Like last night when I was trying to create all the workgroup categories for importance I needed to find articles that had a Mid and was already marked for a work group, or failing that, browsing the main list for ones I could see were Mid (or whatever) that I knew would be in a work group so I could tag them and get the redlink to create the category. Don't forget I'm a WP noob so am probably doing things weird to get certain things done :-) plange 04:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use the tables a lot for 1.0 work, and I that will grow a lot in the future.  I'm usually looking for things like A-Class Arts articles that aren't GAs. I can see the value in having a number or primary key in the table, but it's not essential for what I do. Walkerma 04:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I refer to the tables too, and not just for WikiProjects I'm involved in. --kingboyk 10:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I use the table listings.Rlevse 10:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers as first column in quality stats

message: How do we populate the version column in the worklist? I see there's one, and our Wikipedia:Core biographies is interested in this column as we just set up an index for Biography (core) articles that contains our 200 picks for 1.0 and we'd like to record which have been nominated or accepted for 0.5, etc. - is that possible? plange 04:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, we'd be able to populate that based on the  tag on the article; but actually doing so might be too complicated. Kirill Lokshin 04:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was curious because it looks like it already has some code in place to pull this in since it has  next to each entry in the worklist... Oleg? plange 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's actually an undefined "version" parameter being output from the template that forms each row of the table. Kirill Lokshin 05:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Originally, we had planned to do it, but I don't think anyone ever got around to it... would it be too hard, Oleg? Titoxd(?!?) 06:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be great if it could pick up , ,  and  and fill that column in with which it is (0.5 nom, etc). I'm not sure what you mean about it not containing a version field because I see one here, unless you mean something different? plange 15:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is there, but that is added by default by . If you edit that page, you will see that there is no mention at all of "version". Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, then how do I use the  template so version will show up? Does that go on the talk page? Sorry if I'm asking stupid questions I just don't want to ask you to do something if there's already a mechanism available I didn't know about that will take care of it plange 19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bot will do that. My point is that there should be two steps, first to actually initialize the version field, and second, to fill it in from V0.5 or the other ones if available. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes sense. Would that be too much of a hassle? Titoxd(?!?) 20:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Today I modified the script to add the extra "version" field, as well as move the importance field so that it shows up in wikicode in the same position as in the generated html.  I will wait until tomorrow when this change will propagate through the lists, and then will work on actually filling in the empty version field (it did not have to be done in two steps like this, but would be easier to avoid bugs this way). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! So should we go ahead and start putting the relevant 0.5 and 1.0 tags on the Talk pages? Is that how it will pull them? plange 02:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags should already be there, no?  That's where the 0.5 worklist is coming from, anyways; I'm assuming we're going to try and read these fields the same way, rather than creating a new set of tags. Kirill Lokshin 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, tags are there. The bot will just visit all the version categories (:Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5, :Category:Version 0.5 Nominees, etc) and read the version info which will be added into the version field in all the lists (that will be implemented tomorrow). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version column 

message: This entry came up on the biography log, and I don't know if it's a bug or something to do with the tag changing when the bot was running, perhaps:
*Pauline Brailsford (talk) removed, was in Unassessed
The article has never been deleted nor the tag removed. See history and this diff. Category seems to be fine (:Category:Stub-Class biography articles). --kingboyk 11:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell what is going on. Hopefully it was a one time glitch either connected to the changes to the code or to chaging the tag when the bot was running, as you mention above. Let us see if such behaviour happens again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's been happening for awhile now... plange 03:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With just that article or others? If others, links please? --kingboyk 06:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography log 

message: To save me doing it manually would you be willing, Oleg, to have the bot place the index, log and statistics pages into the WikiProject's category and/or the WikiProject's articles by quality category? (Inside noinclude tags). I'm only asking because the last time I wasted hours doing a similar job you knocked up a script in a few minutes to do the same thing :) --kingboyk 16:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this happens, please use the article quality category rather than the main project one; for larger projects, the assessment pages will overwhelm the (presumably important for navigation) main category ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add I don't want every assessment page categorised, just the first page (which is the articles by quality log for smaller projects, and the index for larger ones). --kingboyk 16:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the categories, see :Category:Adelaide articles by quality. The effect will be seen in other projects when the bot runs tomorrow. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You da man Oleg! 3 cheers! :) --kingboyk 06:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorising the Mathbot-produced pages 

message: I'd like to suggest a proposal for help with others who might want to start projects. Is it possiblt to standardise some generic code snippits that people can add to their WPProject templates, which have different functionality.. such as adding assessment of categories, code for adding the comments. It could have some generic code with a variable such as:

Category:WikiProject 
.. etc.
Or maybe this could be automated in some way..? --Mal 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's actually a template that someone (Titoxd?) put together that does something like this; but, like any boilerplate, it tends to be somewhat inflexible for cases other than the nominal one. Kirill Lokshin 20:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The instructions give some help here, there are templates you can subst: into your project banner box to give you starting points for certain functions. ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: So... am I right in assuming that because I created :Category:U.S. road transport articles by quality, the wikiproject it's looking for is Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. road transport? And that I should have created :Category:U.S. Roads articles by quality instead? (which sounds... odd.) —Rob (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the bot guesses the name from the articles by quality category. No big deal though - I've just redirected Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. road transport to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Sorted. --kingboyk 08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category name requirement? 

message: Its probably something I've done (ie: added the template with incorrect syntax), but I was wondering if someone could take a look at the latest output from the Mathbot on the Belfast Project here.
The entry I'm referring to is the comments for the Stub article Belfast Harbour Police. It references the article Belfast, Mpumalanga and its talk page for some reason. I note that it is entry number 39 (the Belfast Harbour Police article is entry number 38), and it looks like the text for the comment has been filled with the output for the next row of the table. --Mal 07:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be related to a move of the article pages (the Main and Talk pages were moved, but the /Comments page wasn't). --Mal 19:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure but as per my talk we'll have to wait until Sir Oleg returns :) --kingboyk 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Mathbot output? 

message: I'm increasingly finding a need for a B+ category, these are articles which are close but not quite at GA status, and those which have either been delisted from GA. Pi is a typical example better than your average B-class article but not quite making the GA grade. There seem to be quite a lot of maths articles which fall into this cat Knot theory, Fractal, Chaos theory, Number, Statistics, Matrix (mathematics). Could the indexing bot cope with such a thing? --Salix alba (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think at this point it would be very tricky to introduce new general classes right across Wikipedia- part of the value of the current assessment scheme is that it's really simple for a diverse and/or inexperienced group to work with.  However, for any particular WikiProject such as Maths to have their own sub-classes, I think that is an excellent idea.  The elegant approach you describe here provides a simple yet powerful solution to the problem.  It even allows for the possibility of the bot having extra classes in the future.  Great work! Walkerma 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No need as far as I'm concerned. If an article isn't GA, it's B. (B-class is pretty good, make no mistake!). Has the GA badge or could get it and is approaching FA standard, it's A. With 4 grades already for good to excellent articles I don't feel any need to expand the gradings. --kingboyk 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  B plus articles 

message: Are there any plans to provide an "unassessed worklist"? :Category:Unassessed_U.S._road_transport_articles contains about 900 articles, and this doesn't include most of the sub-WPs in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads. As it is, the articles are displayed 200 at a time, and most people would skip most of the first 300 or so. —Rob (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's done automatically but you need to have the unassessed category visible to the bot like the A/Stub/etc classes are. I'll fix it for you now. --kingboyk 07:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Would you consider changing the wording of all your templates to "this article is within the scope of..." instead of "part of"? It's more editor friendly to concentrate on scope than "ownership", I think. --kingboyk 07:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I don't see the harm in that. —Rob (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unassessed article category very, very long... 

message: There seems to be a problem with this one, in that the articles on the list are getting "added" every day. --kingboyk 11:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed that one (the bot could not locate the subpages of that project since in Perl the parentheses are treated in a special way when doing pattern matching). I will deal with the importance/priority thing outlined above on this page in a few days. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Oleg, sterling work as always. --kingboyk 16:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality log]] 

message: You've probably already been "spammed" about this, as I've just written to all WikiProjects I think that it can help, but anyway - I worked hard on this so I may as well share it with as many folks as I can:
Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
*Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
*Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me.
For more information see:
*About the plugin
*About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
*User guide
*About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds very useful.  Maybe you should put a guide on this in Wikipedia space, and link to it from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot? Thanks, Walkerma 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging talk pages and assessing articles 

message: It looks as if we are close to reaching the great milestone of 100,000 articles assessed.  I think we should celebrate this with press releases to WP:SIGN and the community portal, and perhaps even see if they want to put out a press release to the outside media (newspapers and the like).  I'm not saying the New York Times will cover it, but some outside Wikipedia - particularly librarians - will be interested to hear about these efforts.  What do others think? Walkerma 16:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're already over 100,000. And since 62,000+ are stubs, that doesn't say very much except: "We've analyzed 100,000 articles and 2/3s barely talk about the subject matter." I could see it as a recruitment tool to analyze the rest of the articles, or get people to work on stubs instead of nit-picking if it should be "two-thirds" or "two thirds" for weeks. On already good (or B) articles. --MECU≈talk 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be mentioned in the Signpost, at least. So what if most of the assessments are Stubs? The average article on Wikipedia is below the standard we should expect, but it's improving every day. We have nothing to hide. --kingboyk 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the proportion of stubs is rather higher than our statistics would indicate, because a project will naturally tend to tag its most important articles first and leave more obscure tags till last. That doesn't bother me, I think already projects have found the system useful for spotting stubs on key topics and also possible GAs or FAs.  It's also fantastic for Wikipedia 1.0, it offers us the potential for a really big release next year of articles that are all B-Class or above (we already have over 10,000 articles of that quality).  Anyway, I posted this in the Signpost, as well as things here and this. Please edit any of these if I've messed anything up.  Walkerma 04:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milestone imminent 

message: This is a somewhat technical request: Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking - scroll down 2 or 3 screens, on the right side there is a yellow bar and at the bottom of this bar there is a list of filmmaking articles by quality - with the total numbers in each category, and links to these quality classes (FA: 3, A: 2, GA: 7 etc.). Problem is, the links (FA, A, GA etc.) link to the general page :Category:FA-Class articles instead of the much more relevant page :Category:FA-Class Filmmaking articles. I've tried fixing it myself, but it boils down to the template pages Template:FA-Class to Template:Stub-Class allowing a parameter to be passed ("which project") that it will link through. I was send here because I heard this is the correct place to ask sometbody if this is correct, and how to do it exactly, since "passing parameters" can sometimes be a tricky matter. Thanks! :-) Peter S. 09:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite know how to say. It is of course possible to modify the bot to link to the more relevant category when creating Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Filmmaking articles by quality statistics (if that's what you ar referring to). But is it really worth it? I would doubt if it is worth to make FA, Start, and Stub to be links to start with. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be handy. The stats page is now being transcluded on some project pages, for example on the maths assesment, it would be nice if they could link to the project specific cats so people can easily look at what the articles are, follow the principal of least suprise. --Salix alba (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: p.s. Did mathbot have a much needed day off today? --Salix alba (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Template:Stub-Class etc could be modified to have a parameter which specified part of the name of the category, this could be done without messing up the template for other users. The problem then becomes how that parameter would be set. For this it would really needs mathbots assistance as the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Filmmaking articles by quality statistics is automatically generated. Either the stats pages could have a parameter which is in turn passed through to Stub-Class or it sets the appropriate directory by default. There might be some esoteric way of using  but I'd advise against it as it would have far reaching consequences. --Salix alba (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Salix alba, thanks for your  helpful suggestions. I will modify the stats generation to link to the appropriate category in a few days. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks! Peter S. 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is where the meta:ParserFunctions comes in. Basically if you have  in the template then if the category parameter is specified then it will link the article in the specifed cat otherwise it will link to the default. --Salix alba (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the example. I implemented the linking, see Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Adelaide articles by quality statistics. Now the bot is running updating all the articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic stuff, thanks a lot, Oleg! :-) Peter S. 15:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: allow "Template:xx-Class" to create direct links 

message: I recently added the Bangladesh project to the bot list. But it does not seem to be working. Could you please check and let me know why? - Ganeshk (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just that the bot didn't run last night (see comment immed. prior to this post!).  I checked and you seem to have everything done correctly, we just have to wait for the bot to run, hopefully tonight.  If it doesn't show up when the bot runs I'll investigate.  Good to see another important subject area using the bot!  Walkerma 03:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for checking. - Ganeshk (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|WP Bangladesh}} 

message: Sory for not replying earlier to the above. The bot indeed seems to be broken. I suspect most likely it is because the syntax of categories changed recently (see for example :Category:Mathematics; those plus signs and stuff). The changes are not enough for a person to get confused, but unfortunately they are enough for a bot. :) I will work on fixing that, hopefully tonight (in 12 hours). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That changed some time ago Oleg. Also, is it not possible to turn the new formatting off in the skin file? --kingboyk 15:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right. A (tiny) syntax change in Wikipedia categories is indeed to blame, but not the (+) thing. I fixed bot's code now to reflect that change and now it works. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot, Oleg! We really appreciate the bot and its creator. Walkerma 15:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot has some problems 

message: Do you think it would be possible for the bot to count how many articles as a whole you have?  Also, do you think it would be possible for the bot to count articles how have different classess from the normal Stub, Start... Like for our project we have Future, Template, Cat, Disambig, List, and NA.  It would help if these were counted also.  Please respond below this post to see what you think about adding those classes (or your project specific classes). Cbrown1023 14:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the bot should already be giving an overall count; that's what the "Total" is in the statistics.  As far as counting non-standard classes, I suspect that would be more trouble than it's worth, as the bot would then have to be programmed with the additional classes on a per-project basis. Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are not that many classess templates (see :Category:Classification templates). Cbrown1023 16:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's beyond the scope of WP1, but of course WPs are using the bot's list for more than just WP1 anyway. Personally I agree with Kirill that it's likely to be more trouble than it's worth - more work for Oleg, more bot complexity, not much gain. --kingboyk 10:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Classes?? 

message: I've created a new template, , to put at the top of log pages produced by my bot, as I've found that folks come along and try to disambiguate links. This also happens on the Mathbot log pages quite often, so perhaps Oleg you'd want to have Mathbot use this template too (inside a noinclude)? --kingboyk 13:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite see the value of such a note. If somebody knows what a log is (the extrement of a computer program :) that person most like won't touch it. Besides, it matters little if people modify the logs, as each day the bot adds a new day and deletes the oldest day, so any modifications (or any content at all) will eventually expire from it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The value is that I don't waste my time reverting changes, which I've had to do twice today already. Alternatively, could you wrap the log inside a bot tag? Then I could add the template myself to the logs which are on my watchlist. --kingboyk 11:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good points. I did that, see . I chose to insert  rather than putting in bot tags, as that is simpler to implement. When the bot run tonight it will update the logs to all projects that way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Oleg, much appreciated. --kingboyk 09:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Log}} 

message: Currently when Mathbot picks up a new project/categories it places them into the appropriate cat like . Would it make sense to adjust things so its entry includes the piped placement Organized Labour so all articles don’t get clumped under the “G” letter? (and "S" for the Stub-class, etc.) I would think it means just stripping the standard “GA-Class” text off the cat name… (but I don’t really know what I’m talking about. :) --Bookandcoffee 19:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting articles in categories is not bot's job, that is accomplished by people who review individual articles. The bot only reads the categories. I hope that the wizzards who implemented the tags for evaluating articles (, etc.) have any suggestions about that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I'm not sure how to describe this. It's edits like these    that I was wondering about. All these Categories get clumped into the "S" letter in the --Bookandcoffee 03:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I had forgotten about those. Will do. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I modified my script to pipe the categories from now on as suggested above. Now the bot is adding pipes to already existing categories. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool! Thank you. --Bookandcoffee 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathbot placing cats

message: For some reason articles in :Category:Stub-Class mathematics articles were not included in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality today and marked as removed in the log. I guess some small bug. --Salix alba (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hit a bunch of B-Class military history articles as well, and probably some from other projects; the total count dropped by a few thousand articles today! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be catching, as Werdnabot went crazy yesterday (as you know Kirill). --kingboyk 12:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made my script more robust to server errors today (it will attempt several times to refetch categories which are returned as empty). I hope that will help. Let us see. I think these are all server errors, and ultimately the work the bot does needs (I think) to be done without HTTP requests which are not reliable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maths stub class articles