Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Archive 10

Active discussions

Bug report- moving categories results in double-namespaced target link

Small bug report on the new article assessment report (and hooray for getting it back up!) - As per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality log#Aug 25, 2019, when categories are moved, it's being listed with "Category:" twice on the target link- so "Category:Contra (video game series) renamed to Category:Category:Contra (series)". Same for draft-space targets. --PresN 04:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[]

Interesting, good catch! I filed a bug for that. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Similar case for

Skipton Building Society Camerata renamed to Draft:Draft:Skipton Building Society Camerata

for 29 August in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Yorkshire articles by quality log Keith D (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[]

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Women's cricket

Would it be possible to fix the columns on this one? Harrias talk 11:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[]

Thanks! The new bot has been updating these well over the last couple of days, but it seems to have hiccuped on this one! I'll report it. Walkerma (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Done here Kelson (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[]
@Walkerma and Kelson: The columns are still off unfortunately; it looks like it improved slightly (although was still wonky) for a couple of edits, but is now back to where it was to start with. Harrias talk 11:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Indeed. Thx for the report. The bug has been reopen. Kelson (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[]
@Harrias and Kelson: Can you look now and tell me if my manual update has fixed it to your satisfaction? audiodude (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Audiodude, it doesn't look like this has been fixed. Ideally, if a project is only using quality assessment and has WikiWork factors turned on, the assessment table should be formatted so the WikiWork factors are pushed to the next row (underneath the existing columns), instead of sticking out and forming their own columns (i.e. how User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Women's cricket looks right now). I don't know if this is a bot issue, as much as it is an issue with User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork. The easiest solution, possibly, would be to create a separate version of of the WikiWork "template" (i.e. User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork 2) that can be used for projects that only have quality assessments in their tables. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Hi Gonzo_fan2007, I see what you mean, but I think the issue that was originally being reported was the superfluous extra column. The WikiWork columns "sticking out" is not a regression from earlier versions of the table that were generated by the old bot (see here). I'm not sure I'm the best one to try and make a new version of the WikiWork template, because I'm not the best at wikicode, but if someone else does it I'd be happy to modify the bot so that it is used on two column tables. audiodude (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Log entries for "WP 1.0 bot"

Greetings, Looking at the bot's log entries here, I notice some lines contain Copying assessment table to wiki and others Update logs for past 7 days. My question is: are the "Copying" lines from a manual WP posting (user requested) and the "Update logs" from WP1.0bot? If yes, a good way to distinguish between the two processes. JoeHebda (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Video game project log not updating

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality log had been updating daily since the new launch on August 25, but it hasn't run for the past few days- looking at the bot's contributions from tonight, it seems to have made it all the way to the Vs, but not done that project. --PresN 02:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Hi @PresN: As I mentioned below, we've been battling with disk space outages on the production machine at the moment. It has been writing far too many logs and we needed to both clean them up and prevent it from further doing so. So yes, there may have been a "brownout" so to speak at various times in the past week. Hoping to get this fixed in the next day or so. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[]

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1 not updating

Exactly what the headline says. This USRD state-by-state table hasn't been updated since August 12. -happy5214 01:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Hi @Happy5214: Wow, I didn't know that any "custom" tables actually existed. At around that date, we turned off the "old" WP 1.0 bot permanently. It had code to handle the so-called custom tables, but I wasn't aware that there were any extant ones out in the wild. You have successfully proven me wrong on that. I've opened an issue on Github to track this and hopefully restore the table soon. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Is WP1.0bot down?

Hi audiodude - looking a bot logs, it shows only two entries for 15 September. JoeHebda (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Which logs are you looking at? There have been some issues with the production machine running out of disk space, so it may be that the upload logic (that creates the logs) hasn't run in a couple of days. Luckily, it posts logs for 7 days now, so it should "catch up" if it runs tonight or tomorrow. Generally speaking, if you see two entries, that means it's running! (Not running would mean no entries, or outdated entries. The logs should say "no logs for this day" if there are no entries for a specific day though). Hope this helps, audiodude (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: - When I click on "Contributions", then change my username to WP 1.0 bot, and click on Search, it shows the bot's log entries. Looks like last posting for "(Update logs for past 7 days)" was 19:19, 14 September 2019. Blog entries since then appear to be manual requests. JoeHebda (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Catholicism project log not updating

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log last updated on September 10, and has stopped updating. JoeHebda (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Also Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Saints articles by quality log as of September 14 has stopped updating. Purely speculation but wondering if these log pages which were previously "protected" then "un-protected" are now "protected" again? JoeHebda (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Add User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Book stopped updating on 9 September 2019‎. JoeHebda (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Draft-Class?

Is there any reason why Draft-Class isn't included in the assessment tables? It's used by many WikiProjects so seems like an odd omission given that oddities such as SL-Class are supported. PC78 (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[]

Not sure, @Walkerma: do you have any idea? @PC78: do you know if it was included previously (like two weeks ago)? audiodude (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[]
I don't believe it's ever been included. PC78 (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[]
@PC78: This is not new. Many assessment tables don't show draft class because Draft space didn't exist when most WikiProjects configured their categories. It's usually fairly easy to turn on the display of draft class. See Category:Bangladesh articles by quality for an example. The key code is the |extra1 parameters for template {{ReleaseVersionParameters}}. Add them to your favourite WikiProject, and presto, you'll see drafts in the assessment table the next time the bot runs. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Ah-ha, I see. Looks easy enough. Without getting too technical, is there any reason why the bot couldn't include these by default though? PC78 (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[]

@Worldbruce: Now you've mentioned it this all seems familiar, almost like I've done it before... :) Do you have any idea what's wrong with User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Film? It's been set up to include Draft-Class and SIA-Class in the assessment table, but since this diff on 25 July this year both have been excluded. PC78 (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[]

Good question. So in the case of WikiProject Film, the problem is new, having started with the 24 July 2019 bot run. It wasn't related to any configuration change in Category:Film articles by quality, which has been stable for a couple years. The bot operators will need to take a look at it. They're also the ones to answer the more general question of whether Draft-class could be included by default rather than each project having to use one a set of their extra parameters to opt-in to Draft-class. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[]
@Worldbruce and PC78: Thanks for bringing this up! I've logged an issue for it in the bot code repository. audiodude (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Okay I've pushed code to hopefully fix this issue, it was a small bug in the re-write from the old bot. I'm not sure how it will look when it is fixed, but it should probably start counting articles in those classes again and showing up in the table starting with tonight's run. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Hmm, Draft-Class and SIA-Class are still missing from User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Film. I set up additional class types on a couple of others too, but no change there either. PC78 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[]
You are correct, good eye! I've filed a bug for this. Thanks. audiodude (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Interesting... I had the bot do an update for WikiProject Film less than an hour after the scheduled update and SIA, Book & Draft class have all appeared in the table. [1] PC78 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Sorry for the late reply. The reason for that is because manual updates are still run on the old codebase, which doesn't have this bug. Thanks. audiodude (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Ah-ha. But they are still there after the scheduled updates? Not to worry, I'll leave it in your capable hands! :) PC78 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Okay so after changing the code so that custom categories such as 'Draft-Class' get at least "picked up" properly and read from the project configuration, we now have a number of issues with downstream processing of those categories. This is leading to about a 10% error rate on the update job, which of course will lead to stale table and log data for the projects that are affected. I have tracked a bug for this issue and I'm treating it as a P0, which means highest priority. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[]

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography

Can anyone see what I've done wrong with the parameters at Category:Biography articles by quality? I've attempted to add a custom "Core" importance to the table and sort Draft-Class below Disambig but after a manual run of the bot neither has worked. PC78 (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Hmmm, the last few runs have picked up "Core" importance but have also dropped "Top" importance which doesn't seem intentional. Still no Draft-Class, and now Book-Class has disappeared as well. PC78 (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[]

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Korea-related

Just wondering, but is there a reason why nine drafts are being classed as "other" in this table, as opposed to Draft-Class like the rest? PC78 (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Hi PC78 - That's a known bug. audiodude (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: I see, but your answer there doesn't seem to apply in this case, since Draft-Class is already configured for this project. PC78 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Ah, wait, I missed your initial comment there. PC78 (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Right I was just about to say: the answer is just in that one project's case. The general bug is still "some articles inexplicably show up as Other". I think that's what you're describing right? audiodude (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Yeah, in this case most drafts are showing up as Draft-Class but a few are classed as "Other" for no apparent reason. PC78 (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[]

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Vital

Another problem table, this one with misnamed categories. Hasn't been updated since 2011 and a manual run of the bot didn't seem to work. PC78 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[]

@PC78: if it hasn't been updated in that long and manual runs don't work, the likely explanation is that the project setup is incorrect. Aka it's not in the right category, doesn't have the right templates on the right talk pages, etc. I actually don't know much about how to do that stuff, but I should probably learn. audiodude (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Well slap me with a wet fish... the correct table is at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Wikipedia vital and is working just fine, the other appears to be an old version that is no longer in use. Case closed! PC78 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Wording Bug

audiodude, on the logs it is currently using the word "Class" when it should use "Importance". See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Green Bay Packers articles by quality log. Dominic Olejniczak was reassessed from Low-Importance to High-Importance (instead of what is actually written, which is "Class" instead of "Importance"). Class should only be used for the assessment of the condition of the article (i.e. Stub-Class). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Gonzo_fan2007 - Thanks for catching this, I've filed a bug which shouldn't be too hard to fix. audiodude (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[]
So looking into this just now, it looks like Low-Class, Mid-Class and High-Class are the actual ratings that are stored in the database and from what I can tell, they have always appeared this way in logs, for example here. Any ideas, Walkerma? audiodude (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Interesting, I guess I never noticed until now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[]
I don't think it used to be that way; I'm sure it used to say "High importance" not "High class". Does it also say "Top class" for Top importance? Walkerma (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[]
@Walkerma: If it "didn't used to be that way", are you talking about like last year (which, for example, I linked a logs page from the old bot where it clearly was that way). Or do you mean like 10 years ago? audiodude (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[]
I really mean when the bot code was written, i.e., 10 years ago, and also when we did the last full collection, Version 0.8 (which was around 2011). I don't know when it got changed - it could have been two years ago, or six. Walkerma (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Logs as Historic Record

Audiodude, is there a reason that the bot only keeps the most recent changes in the log? Historically the bot has just added to the log and not removed old entries. See this version of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Green Bay Packers articles by quality log compared to its current state. I would prefer at least a few months worth of logs to stay, maybe the most recent 6 months or something similar. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[]

It's a change, but not actually as much of one as you think- I follow the Video game project logs (I have a script that scrapes them and creates a "new articles" report for the project), and while the v3 version of the bot only keeps the last 7 days "live" on the page, the v2 version of the bot only kept X number of records on the page- for video games, that was usually around 3 days' worth, but if there was a hiccup or something that caused a ton of records to pop up for a single day, it would actually put less than a single day's worth on the page: it would post part 1, then delete it and post part 2, etc. until it ran out. I haven't seen yet if the v3 bot does that kind of splitting; even the hiccup this past week didn't trigger it. For smaller projects it may be annoying that you can't see the last >7 days on one page, but on bigger projects it's possibly an improvement. --PresN 04:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[]
@Gonzo fan2007: It basically boils down to: the splitting behavior that PresN is describing was actually very complex and would have been difficult to implement in the new bot. It was a conscious design decision to have it simply post the last 7 days, always. The only splitting/truncating behavior currently is that if 7 days of logs won't fit, the bot will put 6 days, and if that won't fit, 5 days, etc. I think that really, if you want 30 days of logs or logs for a specific month in the past, you should be using the (as of yet undeveloped) web tool for that. audiodude (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[]
I understand. I guess it's just personal preference to be able to see recent history. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[]

Bot link

Where can I find the BOT link so I can update several WikiProjects? I have had to change from my desktop to my Laptop but I don't have the link on my laptop. Adamdaley (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[]

Hi @Adamdaley: - Above section Alternate process has the links you are needing. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[]
@JoeHebda: – That's not the official link to the bot. It's something like this: https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/pindex.fcgiAdamdaley (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[]

Error: 503 Service Unavailable

Greetings (audiodudeKelsonWalkerma) - On wikitables, clicking on links (not category) gives the 503 error. No webservice - The URI you have requested, /enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Saints&importance=NA-Class&quality=Stub-Class, is not currently serviced. Last entry for WP1.0bot log 02:07, 23 October 2019 diff hist -39‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Speed skating. JoeHebda (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[]

I posted at Bots / Noticeboard, asking for help. JoeHebda (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[]
I think audiodude is working on the web service right now, so it's very possible that some features will be down temporarily. Walkerma (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[]
As noted elsewhere, this is the old version of the bot and it simply hangs from time to time. It has been restarted and should be working properly. Thanks. audiodude (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[]

WP 1.0 Bot Web Tool Survey

I am supposing I can answer the WP 1.0 Bot Web Tool Survey as many times as there are projects I am maintaining or can see a difference among them, and not the particular projects for which I received an invitation to do the survey.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[]

The Google survey is at this Google form for editors to answer.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[]
Yes definitely answer the survey if you have any familiarity with the web tool. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[]

BOT not updating...

Over the last 2 days, the bot hasn't been updating. For example, the Biography/Military certain articles have been assessed but the bot is not moving it from unassessed to the right assessment. It remains in the same assessment box. Adamdaley (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[]

@Adamdaley: It hasn't been updating in the last day either (still?). Do you know if there's anything to be done about it? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[]
@Shrinkydinks: – It's updating now. It was only those days that it wasn't. Adamdaley (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[]
@Adamdaley: Ah! Thanks for letting me know! Cheers, Shrinkydinks (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[]

Error: 503 Service Unavailable

Alert to (audiodudeKelsonWalkerma) - enwp10 tool is not running. For example:

No webservice
The URI you have requested, /enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Saints&importance=Low-Class&quality=Stub-Class, is not currently serviced.

Please restart. JoeHebda (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[]

⟹ This morning, I reported issue at Bots/Noticeboard. JoeHebda (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the message @JoeHebda: I've restarted the tool and it appears to be running again. Let me know if there are any additional problems. audiodude (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[]

WikiProjects by article count

Is there a way to sort the WP 1.0 list of all WikiProjects ("https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/pindex.fcgi?sec=[All]") by article count, or is there another report that could provide that information more easily)? –Mabeenot (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[]

I don't know of a way to do that, but I'll ask. Walkerma (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[]

WikiProject Akwa Ibom

Hi! Please remove WikiProject Akwa Ibom from the bot's task list, as it has been deleted (sorry, I don't see any instructions or hints on how to go about doing that). Since I'm here: I don't think the bot should be able to remove/overwrite a speedy deletion tag, as it did at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Akwa Ibom articles by quality log. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[]

Adding new classes to WP:Curling assessment

WikiProject Curling has had an assessment system running for a while but I'm running into trouble trying to add more quality classes. I created Category:Category-Class Curling articles and tagged Category:1851_in_curling as Class=Category but when I run the bot it doesn't pick that up in the category class, it still picks it up in the NA-class. What step am I missing here? Ultimately I'd like to add classes for Draft, Category, Template, File, Redirect, and Project. Thanks for your help. A202985 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[]

I've resolved this.A202985 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[]

Misclassified Article Importance

I was looking at the report of Top-importance Stub-quality articles for Wikiproject Buddhism here, and it consistently includes Daochuo in that report. The article is actually tagged Mid importance and has never been tagged as anything else. Any idea what's going on? --Spasemunki (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[]

It look's like it's tagged mid importance for WikiProject Architecture, but top importance for WikiProject Buddhism, if you look at the talk page. Cheers. audiodude (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[]
That's true for the Buddhist Temple article, but the one I was talking about (Daochuo) is only part of a single project. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[]

Hospitals Project

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals uses the plural name, not the singular, 'Hospital'. The table that is generated showing the number of articles by class and importance uses the singlular, hospital, vice plural, hospitals in the heading and other entries. The results are fine. However, it would be less confusing to use the plural form in the tables and documentation.

G. Moore 03:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The name of the table, and the name of the project, is taken from the entries in this category. As you can see, the subcategories are "Hospital articles by importance‎" and "Hospital articles by quality‎". To change it to use plural, you would have to rename those categories, however you might break all of the existing links from your WikiProject pages. Maybe there is a way to do wiki magic and redirect to the new category automatically? I'm also not sure that the bot has any way of "deleting" the singular project, so in the web tools you would wind up with both "Hospital" and "Hospitals" and editors would have to know which one is current and which one is outdated. So overall, I don't think it's really a good idea. Additionally, the "new" project, Hospitals, would not have log data for the first 7 days because as I mentioned, it would be treated like a new project. audiodude (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the explanation. Probably should just leave it the way it is. G. Moore 11:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[]

poultry

Hey, WP 1.0 bot (talk · contribs). I'd like you (or your operator) to assess several new poultry articles. They can be found at Category:Poultry task force articles by importance. Thanks so much, 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 12:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[]

Unsubscribing

How might I unsubscribe a WikiProject? It seems that the bot will continue to do this indefinitely, even though the WikiProject was deleted some weeks ago, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages in the Brooke Benefice, England. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]

@Redrose64: I suggest you contact @Kelson: and @Audiodude: they are the operatos of the bot. I am very interested in the answer as well. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[]
I believe you want to remove Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments from this page. The bot bases its list of projects solely on those which appear with a "_____ by quality" listing in that super category. Hope this helps! audiodude (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[]
OK, done that. Let's see what happens. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[]

I know this is a broader comment, but it would be helpful to have more clarity around how to handle WikiProjects after they are either deleted or shut down. I have previously come across this issue a couple of times, e.g., here and here, and it has never been clear to me what to do with pages such as User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Legal, User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Nagorno-Karabakh, and User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Version 0.5. There appears to be no way of deleting them as long as they appear on the [All project index] at WMF Labs, and I have no idea how to remove them from there. And what about a page like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Nagorno-Karabakh articles by quality log. I redirected it to its successor project, but should it be deleted instead or marked as historical? Will the bot simply overwrite any manual edit? -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[]

Bot not updating

The WP 1.0 bot isn't updating the desired results. The bot that you can update by selecting a WikiProject and it moves around the articles. It's not updating. Adamdaley (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[]

@Kelson and Audiodude: See WP:TH#Cannot add pages to a wikiproject for another report of, apparently, the bot failing to make updates. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[]
According to the bot contributions it's been steadily updating for the past week at least. @Adamdaley: in order to help you better, can you provide information on 1) what the desired results you intended to see were and 2) what you saw instead? Thanks, audiodude (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: --- Updating of Military Biography articles from no importance to assessed importance for that Military Biography. Just slow when I click to update, it needs to wait several hours. Adamdaley (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[]

Missing importance level

Any idea why this table only shows "mid", "NA", and "Others" importance, and missing Low, High, and Top? It's not like there's no article with those importance, see this. HaEr48 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[]

Greetings (HaEr48audiodudeWalkerma) - I suspect that years ago when WP Islam was setup for Bot assessments, there were a small number of articles. So not all Importance rankings were added (or not setup correctly). Template ReleaseVersionParameters gives guidance of how to add the additional Importance, however IMO it is complicated, and I do not know where to add. Asking if Walkerma or Audiodude could please help with adding those Low, High, Top importance for WP Islam. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[]
Those importance rankings went missing only last year (see Special:Diff/902165521). No idea why, though. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[]
I think I now know why they went missing: the missing importance rankings have two associated categories, e.g. Category:High-importance Islam articles‎ and Category:High-importance Islam-related articles‎, which probably causes a malfunction. I have tagged the empty the categories without "-related" for speedy deletion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[]
@HyperGaruda: That seems to have fixed it, this happened shortly after deletion. Nice find! HaEr48 (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[]
Glad that it worked :) --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[]

WikiProject Lakes - files and other items don't link correctly - missing article title prefixes

I'm not sure if this was introduce in the new version or if it has always been this way, but the Files category for the lakes project has a list of files, but all the links direct to Wikipedia new article pages. They are missing the "File:" prefix. Under the NA importance / Project quality the project pages don't have the "Wikipedia:" prefix to direct to the WikiProject pages and like the files instead land on new article pages. The Lakes articles - NA importance / Template quality results are missing the "Templates:" title prefix to land on the content. And a general question, should Set Index Pages be set as Disambig, List, NA, or Other as their own class would be even more convenient. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the report! This is almost certainly a bug with the new interface. I've filed a bug on Github and will look into fixing it soon. audiodude (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Update: this should be fixed now, thanks again! audiodude (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Overall table?

The projects seem to get updated every day now, but the overall table was last updated on March 9? GregorB (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[]

Some of the projects get updated every day, but not all - various threads in the past, such as #Bot not updating immediately above, suggest that the bot starts its run, gets part way through, but doesn't complete. It's probably getting stuck in a loop somewhere; the edits to e.g. Biography (military) are suspicious - it shouldn't need to write the same table more than once per run. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[]
Oh I see - the overall table is probably the last step, and the bot never gets to it. GregorB (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[]
Actually, the bot attempts to update every single project every single day, and has done so with a 95%+ success rate (at least, I didn't actually calculate it) since September of last year (2019). The thread above about "Bot not updating" turned out to be that the bot was not updating fast enough for the editor's liking. Anyways, you're right that the overall table is essentially the "last step", in that it gets queued behind all of the individual table updates, but there's no evidence that it's not getting to it, because it resumes processing queue items the following day when it starts all over again.
All that to say that I'm sorry I didn't see this report sooner and I've opened a Github issue for this problem, and will look into it. audiodude (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
As it turns out, there was a missing import in the script that kicks off the job to generate the global table. If you look at that Github issue, I have made the fix and will deploy it tomorrow. Thanks so much for pointing this out, it would have been broken forever otherwise! audiodude (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Great, thanks! GregorB (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Just want to give an update that this has been fixed, and the overall table has been updated consistently for the last 10 days. Thanks again for the report! audiodude (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[]

CSS of links

I admit I've not looked too closely, but looks like visited and unvisited links are the same colour...? Kj cheetham (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the report, you're definitely right about that. I've filed a bug and will look into it soon. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Many thanks for looking into it! Kj cheetham (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[]
As a follow-up, maybe the visited colour is a bit too dark? e.g. on the banner that says "Please provide all feedback and feature requests for this tool on English Wikipedia." it's hard to tell the visited link is actually a link I think. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[]
I'm not too worried about the links in the banner since it's temporary anyway. I think the visited color provides a good contrast to the unvisited colors in the tables and article lists, which is where they are most used. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Yeah, that's fair. :) Kj cheetham (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Result table heading

Sorry for the additional issue! The tables seem to be missing a header row? I.e. to make it clear which is Quality, which is Importance, etc. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Yes the heading row was omitted, but it can be added back. Actually I was thinking of that as a good place for 'sorting' which we discussed above. You could click any header to sort by that column, then click again to reverse the sort. What do you think? audiodude (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[]
That's a good idea. I was originally thinking of little up and down arrows in the table header. As long as it's obvious to people how to use it. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[]

"NotA"

For example, when going to the Quality=Other Importance=Total link on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_scientists#Articles you get to https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Women_scientists/articles?quality=NotA-Class

"NotA" is a slightly confusing term.

It might also be helpful to indicate which articles are "Draft"? Even if just a visibile "Draft:" prefix on the article names.

Personally I use that list to look for articles which are in the wrong place - I only expect to see things like draft articles on that list. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[]

I also just noticed https://github.com/openzim/wp1/issues/73 which is connected. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[]
As far as "NotA", I agree that's confusing. If you look at this page, the quality in the top box is listed as "NotA-Class" which is correct, and is the designation for articles that simply don't have a rating for a specific category. Anyways, as you can see, the old tool uses '---' instead of 'NotA', which is probably more intuitive. I've filed a bug for this. Thanks for the feedback! Regarding prefixing with "Draft:", I noticed that was missing from the new tool and added it last week. audiodude (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[]
I think in my head I sometimes mix up "not assessed" with "not applicable" as it's meaning. Good up the good work! Kj cheetham (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Regarding NA-Class, "NA" means "Non-Article", and originally meant any page outside of mainspace - templates, categories and so on. This is reflected in the vanilla standard quality scale, which provides ten classes for mainspace pages (FA, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub, FL, List and Unassessed, the last of which is normally displayed as "???"), plus NA for everything else. When the Extended quality scale is used, seven additional classes are provided, one of which (Disambig) is intended for mainspace; under this scale, the number of pages that would qualify for NA-Class drops significantly, and primarily comprises Redirects - other qualifying pages are those in four namespaces: User:, MediaWiki:, Help: and Book:. Some WikiProjects use a custom scale, which is usually used to sweep up the redirects and maybe the books as well, so these WikiProjects should have only a handful of pages in NA-Class but potentially a large number in Unassessed-Class.
I don't know where "NotA" came from, the implication is that it is anything that isn't A-Class. Which will be pretty much everything because true A-Class is really only used by MILHIST and a few others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[]
'NotA-Class' is the internal representation that the WP 1.0 assessment system uses for articles that don't have a rating. It is not usually exposed to end users, and likely should never be, which is what this report is all about. Thank you for the detailed background on the other classes though, very informative! audiodude (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[]
WP:Lakes is just started displaying NotA on the project assessment Table under an "Other" importance for article WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index with rating stub and importance of NotA - I'm assuming this should not be displayed or at least shouldn't have the assessment stub. I don't see a way to remove the stub assessment for that page either. As for the non-standard class types, I've been looking to add a few to WP:Lakes to provide better clarification of some pages separating from NA. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Chart idea

Very much a nice to have rather than anything essential, but would a plot of say total number of articles in a project over time be possible? Kj cheetham (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[]

This would not be possible with the current architecture, because it only stores the most recent value for any given article rating. Cheers, audiodude (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Too slow

  • Try again? It just loaded in <1 second for me. --PresN 20:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Ah ok, the problem was the site's Javascript being blocked by NoScript. Once I allowed it, it loaded quickly. Thx. RedWolf (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Is this a bug?

The categories for WP:ANIME have just undergone restructuring, resulting in Revision 1 by WP 1.0 bot. This revision is the one we want, because it includes the new categories. Within the same minute, the bot overwrote the new categories with Revision 2. Could this be because our project is currently in the midst of a conversion to {{WPBannerMeta}}? > See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga § Revisiting the category schemes. — Goszei (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Addendum:
Problem seems to have resolved itself -- no need for help now. — Goszei (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Old tool currently down

The old WP 1.0 bot tool, which lives on toolforge, is currently down. It's related to a change they made yesterday or today to the way the paths and domains are handled. I'm currently working with the WMF Cloud folks on a solution. Thanks for your patience. You can still use the new tool. audiodude (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Old tool is back up! Thanks for your patience.

audiodude (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[]

more results truncated and link to table category

Is the pagination limit using truncated message a temporary thing or the longer term design? ie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ...(more results truncated) If truncated pagination is the design long term it is a total deal breaker as being able to sort and paginate through the entire list is very important in some tasks and browsing. Even with the categories being available the experience is not the same. You might also link to categories for the table displayed to aid in discovery for newcomers ie Lake stubs.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[]

The truncation was put in as a temporary solution, yes. It was to prevent the display of a "blob" of, say 100 numbers on pages that have 10,000 results. We already have a request above for "custom pagination", which I understand to be "Display -50- results starting at page -21-" where the items in dashes are editable. Would something like that suffice? Perhaps we could do that and combine it with simple -next page-/-previous page- links like the current tool has? As for your other suggestion, I think it makes perfect sense to link to the category where the category is displayed on the articles list page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Both the addition of next/previous page links, plus linking to categories sound like very good ideas to me! Kj cheetham (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Prefect, yes the the "Display -50- results starting at page -21-" is a nice option. Typically in that case of having a significant number of pages you could implement that as "Displaying items 1000-1100 of 11,500 Previous 5 6 7 8 9 [10 (current)] 11 12 13 14 15 Next - Display [100] per page" where items in brackets are editable. The Display selection would adjust the number of total pages while still allowing for jumping and browsing all in the same. Given starting at page 21 changes with the display selection I'm not sure how much that is relevant as a stand along configuration and could lead to selecting a page beyond the list length unless the start page is only editable after selecting the number per page. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Also, I think it would be good to have the next/previous at the top AND the bottom of the page, to save scrolling to the top when you've gotten to the bottom. --Kj cheetham (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[]
That seems reasonable. I've added a github issue to track it. Cheers, audiodude (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[]

SIA class articles don't display in table

The extended classes and even Redirect a non-standard class appears in the table, but the non-standard class SIA class is not being displayed in the table. It does display in the horizontal summary of Category:SIA-Class_Lakes_articles. Shouldn't SIA appear in the table like any non-standard class? Template:Class

Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[]

To clarify I was referring to the WP Lakes table.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[]
Hmmm, I don't see that category in the old tool either. And it doesn't even appear in the summary table on Wikipedia. I'm not exactly sure what the behavior should be here. Are you using a custom "replaces" directive in your template somewhere? audiodude (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[]
Hmmm, indeed. I'm not sure the SIA ever was implemented as its own class in the editorial table, but as a distinct type from disambig and being a specialized list the expected behavior would be similar to redirect, list, disambig and have its own row in the table. There is a chart of classes on the SIA page that are possibly used by project. At the very least set these as part of the list row or other rather than keep in Unassessed as it currently is being handled. The implementation in the WP Lakes Template is |QUALITY_SCALE       = inline |class={{class mask |{{{class|}}} |FQS=yes|redirect=yes|SIA=SIA|SETINDEX=SIA|SET INDEX ARTICLE=SIA}} which I don't know if that answers your question on the "replaces" directive. While WP 1.0 is used for primarily for identifying content to include in an offline version of WikiPedia it would make sense to track these classes in the table to assess for their type of readiness of inclusion and as a project it helps focus on types of pages that need development attention.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[]
I think this is what you need: ReleaseVersionParameters template. I believe you need to set the extra1-* attributes. You actually shouldn't use "replaces" because you're adding a new category. This template is used on your main Category:Lakes articles by quality page. For an example, see the Astronomy project. Hope this helps, audiodude (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the pointer, I'll read more of the docs rather than following an outdated or incorrect example that seemed like it should work... first time working on templates. Still learning. :) Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Table link bug

On say https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Women_scientists/articles?quality=B-Class if you go to the "Back to table" link at the upper left it takes you to https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Women_scientists which is effectively blank. It should actually go to https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Women%20scientists to make it work it seems? -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Thanks for reporting! Created a bug. I'll fix it right now. audiodude (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Sort order for diacritics and the like

Some (perhaps all) diacritics and similar should be ignored in sorting article titles.

For an example of the current problem, see https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/New_Zealand_politics/articles?quality=Assessed-Class&importance=Top-Class. The title "Āpirana Ngata" (which begins with a macronised A) appears at the bottom of the article list (excluding templates and books) rather than among the A's near the top. This is a particular problem for New Zealand articles, where macrons are not infrequent.

For another example, see https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Hawaii/articles?quality=Assessed-Class&importance=High-Class&page=5. I believe the ʻokina should be ignored, so that "ʻAi Noa" and "ʻĀhihi-Kīnaʻu Natural Area Reserve" (for examples) should appear among the A's. Nurg (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[]

No new log entries?

Changes to WikiProject Theatre don't seem to be logged consistently at the moment. The bot didn't log a change I made a few days ago. It did however log some changes the next day. Then I made a bunch of changes to assessments yesterday. The bot cleared the older entries but no new ones were logged. Seems odd. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 11:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[]

This is WP:VPT#Toolserver replication lag for enwiki is now over 36 hours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[]
Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (séance) 23:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[]
Additionally Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Song articles by quality log hasn't has new content added for a couple of days. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Same cause. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Thanks for response, I guessed so, but worth mentioning. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Incorrect actions

Hello, there appears to be a problem on the 3 August 2020 run of the BOT. It has assessed items that were renamed in the previous run and removed the articles that they were renamed to. So it is indicating that it has reassessed redirects and removed that actual articles. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Yorkshire articles by quality log for example. Keith D (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]

This is WP:VPT#Replication lag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Suggestions

Things I miss from the old system:

  • Ability to specific which result number to start from, and how many per page (useful for long lists)
  • Sorting options (e.g. by title, date, importance, etc.)
  • Ability to easily change which quality level is being looked at
  • Talk/history links (t . h) for each entry

Kj cheetham (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Thanks for giving the new tool a try and reporting these issues! I've filed bugs for:
- Custom pagination (what result number to start from/how many results)
- Sorting options
- Talk/history links was already filed as a bug previously
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Ability to easily change which quality level is being looked at". Are you referring to the big block of options that appears above the old tool's article pages? If so, I assume you mean you are able to "easily" change the quality level by editing the options in that box. We've been trying to avoid re-introducing something like that box because it isn't always relevant and useful, and can be very intimidating for users. I'd love to work with you to think of any ideas about how to change quality level otherwise. Thanks for the helpful reports! audiodude (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Many thanks! For pagination, a column with a result number, like the old tool, would be good. To make it easier to know which number you want to display a list from.
For changing the quality level, yes I was thinking of the block of options, but I certainly agree the old tool isn't overly user friendly. Really don't want to be typing a string, but just selecting an existing option. If it was just A/B/C I'd say radio buttons, but given there are about 18 things listed on the main tables (including things like "Total" and "Unassessed"), maybe a drop down? Could also have another dropdown for Importance, to complete the filtering combinations. Then a button to actually update, rather than updating just when a different option is selected.
Filtering by the page title text would be the only other filtering option I'd personally be considering. Even just a simple "contains text", or "starts with" or "ends with" (I wouldn't object to a regular expressions tick box though). Kj cheetham (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: What are your thoughts on filtering mechanisms? Cheers. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: sorry for the extra ping, just thought this section might have gotten lost a bit. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Sorry for the delay. Here's the bug for updating quality/importance and another for filtering by article title. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[]

add ORES score and reimplement old score value display

The old table lists included a score which was useful to sort by to identify articles probably in need of reassessment especially in stub and start levels. Implementing these as a sortable field again would be useful. Though you might also consider displaying the ORES predicted vs the current rating as a prompt to review the article.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[]

We decided to omit the score column from the frontend output, because the value is not currently being updated by the WP 1.0 bot. It is stale, on the order of over a year. The ORES score definitely looks interesting, but I'm worried about if I can make a single API call with all the 100 revids of the articles on the page. And even then, we currently defer looking up revids for articles because it requires a Wikipedia API call, so I wouldn't even have the revids to look up. Also, I'm not sure how we would allow for sorting of this column across several pages of data. I know that all sounds negative, but I do appreciate the suggestion and it's definitely something to think about. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Fair enough to omit a stale score, but good to know why. As for the ORES lookup, no worries just a feature request to think about. Regarding the sort of the columns across several pages of data that actually would be switching between queries that have an order by for the column. Given exclusion of the ORES and old score an order by the date for the class, importance, and name would be the most obvious for a query as alphabetical, reverse alphabetical, chronological and reverse chronological. Selection of the new sort should probably land the user at the page 1 again for the selected order by. If the user has the ability to jump to any page one could reasonably navigate. Though there may be interest to jump to a year or year month or letter of the alphabet which could be based on the first item in a default set list length. Anyway, possible thoughts on the column sorting approach for you.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Without the ORES, could another option be to have the page size listed? That would at least in some cases serve as an indication that an article has been expanded and may need reassessment, or a quick indicator that an article has been merged and redirected without the assessment being updated. --Sable232 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[]
A sortable column for page size would definitely be useful I think if possible. --Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: What do you think about a page size column? -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[]

We don't store that data in our WP1 database, so we would either need to start doing so (but in that case wouldn't it get outdated?), or we would need to make an API call for each article in a given category. It might be possible for certain article item counts, say 50-100, to show the page size in its own column. But given 3389 articles, how do you allow the user to sort by page size without making API calls for all of them? It would be too slow and costly. I'm open to ideas if I'm missing something here. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[]

I guess it's a balance between keeping it up to date at a cost, and the data being too stale to be useful. Doing an API call for every article every time someone looks at a list is obviously too much, and doing it once a month and storing the data would likely be too old some of the time. But what about a weekly update of page size...? Just wondering really, not heavily pushing for it! -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[]
With some reworking of the bot's database schema, we could probably record the page size at the time that the article rating changes. However, I don't see how this is useful unless you could compare against the current page size, which is what I believe @Sable232: was talking about. The absolutely current page size would require an API call, however the once-a-week page size might be able to be calculated during normal ratings sweeps. So assuming this is possible, let's say an article was rated on 2019-08-20, and had a page size of 102,310 bytes. Then would it be useful to see "Page Size (this week)" of 110,407 bytes? I'm just trying to figure out the precise use case. Alternately, I just had a thought, which is: we could do the API lookup for a specific view of a specific project, as an experiment, and see if it ends up being useful. So if you're viewing all Low importance/Stub quality articles of Lakes, say, it shows the page size at article rating time and current. If it turns out to actually be useful we can figure out a way to enable a similar feature globally. audiodude (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[]
At a simplistic level of use case, I was thinking in terms of if you see a Stub article with a large page size, or a B class article with a tiny page size, you know it might be worth investigating if the rating is suitable. And could find what counts as "large" or "small" for that project by sorting based on page size. Wolfgang8741 might want to comment further. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude and Kj cheetham: I think the the page size at assessment is worth exploring and could provide the nudge to check if a page should be reassessed. I think the most useful information to present would be the current page size (weekly should be sufficient) and a calculated % difference from the original size. I don't know if presenting the size when assessed matters unless someone wanted to run an analysis of the deviations (then there should be a data download option for the table). That said logically the size between stub, start, and C might present the most significant changes in page size, while B and above may be less significant. Though that is a guess, where an analysis of the articles would confirm or deny this. I kind of wonder if the number of changes to the page since the last assessment may also be a hint. Again we should expect more stability as a page matures other than maintenance of the wiki styles. Though I don't know the origin of the original score and what that was based upon either. Even the most basic indication will be helpful over having no diff of bytes or number of edits since last assessed. To sum - lets run the experiment proposed on Lake Stubs and see where this gets us. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[]
@Wolfgang8741: That all makes sense for the most part, and we can try our experiment, sure. The thing I don't understand is that you say we should compare to the "original size". What is original size? The size at the very first ever revision? It seems to me that actually the size-when-assessed is much more useful information. Like "This became a Start article when it was 18k bytes long. As of this week, it is 30k bytes long". Added a bug on Github. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Just to add, I don't think the size when the article was first created (if that's what "original size" means) would be very useful after it has been first assessed, as Audiodude says, size-when-assessed would be more helpful. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Thanks. Audiodude, for the explanations, as well as your excellent work on this. Can you clarify which parts of the external interest scores are unavailable? There are three components to that score - page links, no. of hits and no. of other language versions of the article. Are any of those numbers available? Even one out of three could be useful here. I'm someone else who finds the scores useful. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[]
@Walkerma: From the last time I looked, none of the components of "score" are currently available. I think Kelson linked me to somewhere where there's a repository of code calculating some of those components, but I can assure you that none of it is integrated into the current 'wp1' codebase. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Renamed WikiProjects

What is the process for cleaning up WikiProject tables when a project and/or its assessment categories are renamed? For example, I just renamed the assessment categories of WikiProject Appalachia and triggered a manual update of the table, yet the update is happening at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/WikiProject Appalachia instead of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Appalachia, and the table still links to the old, now-deleted category names. I am also not sure how to change Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Appalachia articles by quality log to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Appalachia articles by quality log (in my experience, simply moving the page does not work), and puzzled by the separate existence of User:Audiodude/Tables/Project/WikiProject Appalachia. Assistance would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure of all of the answers here, but I can tell you that if you used the old tool (wmflabs) to update it, you may get unpredictable results. Of course, if you use the new tool (wp1.openzim.org) you might still get unpredictable results, but at least I could debug them. I can tell you definitively that the tables at User:Audiodude/Tables/Project/ are test versions that were generated early in the development of the latest version of the bot and can be categorically ignored. Maybe this helps a little? audiodude (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Important notice: You are making a lot of login requests

Hello,

my name is Martin Urbanec and I am a Wikimedia system administrator. We've noticed your bot, WP 1.0 bot, makes a lot of login requests (since 2020-08-25 08:34:37, it made at about ~14k of login requests, which is about ~5 % of all login requests).

We would like to ask you to be considerate of other users (including other bot operators), as well as about our infrastructure. Please make sure your bot makes use of session, or use other mechanisms like OAuth to reduce the amount of requests you receive.

If you have any question, or if you want to learn more about the context of this message, please see phab:T256533.

Best,
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[]

@Martin Urbanec: Why are you sending a boilerplate message through a proxy to a general discussion page, instead of s personalised message in your own name to the bot operator's talk page? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Hello, thanks for your question, User:Redrose64! It's because I was addressing more than one bot, and sending the same message explaining the same issue seemed reasonable to me. The bot's talk page, User talk:WP 1.0 bot, soft-redirects here, so I merely followed the redirect. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I've acknowledged the phabricator task and filed a bug against the project, which I'm prepping a fix for now. audiodude (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[]
In case anyone is interested in an update on this issue, we got our logins down from about 14,000 to about 30 per 24 hour period. Check the phabricator task for more details. This is done. audiodude (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Bot Does Not Recognize New Assessment Category

Hello! The Retailing WikiProject added a "bottom" category for importance assessment and it is correctly functioning (to the best of my knowledge, articles assessed as such correctly reflect that). However, WP 1.0 Bot has not yet caught onto that. As a result, if we edit the table to include Bottom (which does carry the correct number), the bot overwrites the table and removes it the next day. Is there something we need to do to fix that or is that a bot issue? Thanks in advance, the bot is awesome by the way. Tfkalk (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Hi, can you give an example of an article using this categorization? Generally, there is a method for adding "extra" categories to your WikiProject, it involves editing a template. Can you look at this answer I posted to a similar question and see if it helps? Specifically my response on July 9. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Hi audiodude! Thanks for your response. An example of a Bottom article would be the Auschwitz Supermarket. As you can see, the Bottom correctly displays as a designation there. I mention that because I did create the template to enable bottom and before I had done that, the Bottom would not display on the Talk page. I followed your comment on that page and edited the Category:Retailing articles by importance to include the ReleaseVersionParameters and add a new category for bottom. Hopefully that is sufficient? I guess we shall see tomorrow when the bot comes around. If there's more I should do, please let me know. Thanks again! Tfkalk (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Hi audiodude! The bot ran yesterday and updated the table, but it still did not include/add in the bottom category. What else needs to be done then to enable that? Tfkalk (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Update: I realized I had an error in the ReleaseVersionParameters (I forgot to change the project name and also removed the hidden flag), but then I ran a manual update and Bottom still does not show up so we're in the same spot.[]
I see you added the ReleaseVersionParams to the "Retailing by Importance" category. However, for historical reasons, not all projects have importance so I'm pretty sure that the bot looks for that tag in the "... by Quality" category, even though you are adding an "extra1-" that's an importance. Sorry for the confusion, do you want to try that? audiodude (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Hi audiodude! I added that to the quality category and then ran the Manual Update on the project a few hours ago. The bottom category does not display on the table on the webpage so I assume it will not magically show up on Wikipedia. Is there something else that needs to be done? Thanks for all your help, especially since I could not find a guide for this process. Tfkalk (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Hi Tfkalk, I've thought about this a bit, and I'm not sure that custom Importance categories are supported by the bot. Do you know of any other WikiProjects that are using a custom importance? Maybe we can check out what they're doing. audiodude (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Hi audiodude! Sorry, I meant to let you know that a day or two after the Manual Update, I checked the table on the Project page and it had the Bottom category! I'm not sure what happened that it all of a sudden started including it, but we're all good! To answer your question, Animation also has a bottom category. Thanks again for all of our help. Tfkalk (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Bottom importance is not in common use. See subcategories of Category:Bottom-importance articles, observe that of the 29 listed, only 17 actually have members - the other 12 are empty. Compare Category:Low-importance articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[]

WikiWork not showing

Why is the Wikiwork for Wikipedia:WikiProject Taylor Swift not showing? It does not have an opt-out at Special:PrefixIndex/User:WP_1.0_bot/WikiWork. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Updating problem

Hello, is there a problem with the update in the last few days? It appears to be updating the log files by removing the oldest entries but not actually adding the latest changes to the project. Having tagged articles or changed the assessment these do not appear in the listing. For example in WP:Yorkshire I tagged Coat of arms of the University of Sheffield on 9 September but though the log has been updated 9, 10 & 11 September no new entries have appeared since 8 September. Keith D (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[]

@Keith D: Please see my post of 08:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Editorial bot extremely slow

I would like to point out that the bot is extremely slow to update the newly assessed articles. For example, I may assess 5 articles on Military History and give it a few hours. Update the Military history, and they have not moved from their old assessment. It is not limited to Military History, other WikiProjects as well, such as Biography (Military), Firearms, etc. The thing I do not understand is that the old bot that is shortly going to be discontinued soon, it updates the changes very quickly and moves them to their new assessment given an hour or two then update. Adamdaley (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[]

@Adamdaley: Thanks for reporting this. I've been thinking about this, and it may be a bug in the new tool. The new tool caches the output of the assessment tables for display in the web frontend. It may be the case that the manual update job is accidentally retrieving the cached versions. I've filed a bug to track this issue, thanks! audiodude (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Okay I've attempted a fix to that bug and deployed it, let me know if it's any better in the coming days. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: -- It did work. I think it's gone back to not updating the assessed articles as not being transferred from the old assessment to the new assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Can another tweak be done since it isn't manually updating? Adamdaley (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[]
It's not the fault of any bot, but the fact that the replag is through the roof again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[]
I'm not blaming the bot for not doing it's job. There must be a reason for it not updating. Adamdaley (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[]
There is a reason, and the reason is that the the replag (replication lag) is through the roof (become extremely long) again. When this happens, it takes several days to clear up (it took nine days in July-August this year), and until it does clear up, any bots or scripts (including report generators) that depend upon the replicated data on Toolforge will continue to be backlogged before they can once again yield results that are reasonably up to date. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Would a restart of the bot help any? Adamdaley (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[]
No, it would not. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit count because the root cause since 7 September has been identical. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Minor page count bug

Hi, I was just playing with http://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Lakes/articles?quality=Stub-Class&importance=Low-Class&page=1&numRows=3 and adjusting the number of rows shown:

  • 100 is fine, 10 is fine, 3 is fine.
  • -1, over 500, and null gives a (!), which is good.
  • However, 0 makes most of the page disappear.
  • 1 and 2 work, but say 0 pages, e.g. "Article 1 - 2 of 4174 (0 pages)"

-Kj cheetham (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the report! I've filed two bugs and should get to them this weekend. Cheers, audiodude (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Mobile view

Hi, when viewing the tool on a small mobile device (my phone specifically, I've not tried on others), the "Update View" button appears more vertical than horizontal, with the individual letters stacked above each other. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Is this the only issue you've seen? If so I consider that a victory, because we haven't yet really optimized the site for mobile viewing, besides just generally using Bootstrap. I've filed a bug, thanks!
Only looked briefly, but was indeed the only thing I noticed! Keep up the good work :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[]

A feature which I hope will still be available with the newest version of this bot

Hi. I am the founder of WP:WPWW. Will I be able to continue doing this sort of comparison in October when the old version of this bot is no longer available? Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Hi @Rosiestep: I can't really tell what that feature is doing, besides that it has two projects specified. Are you trying to find articles that are in both projects? How does the quality/importance affect what gets displayed? The short answer is, the new tool doesn't have any feature like this, but we can certainly add it. If you can flesh out more of the requirements for me, I'll file a bug on the github of the project. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: That is exactly right: the feature shows the overlap between two projects, which can be narrowed down by Quality and/or Class. I use this feature all the time, and I assume I'm not the only one, but I don't know really know. If there's any way that this could be kept/added to the updated bot, I'd be appreciative. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@Rosiestep: Is that something that https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ could do? I use that myself to look for overlap between projects, or categories which are or are not in certain projects. I've never tried if it can handle quality or class filtering though - possibly not. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@Kj cheetham: No I haven't. Note, I'm not looking to compare categories. I'm trying to rate and/or update ratings of talkpage templates for WP:WikiProject Women writers. By pulling up the articles which have a talkpage template for WikiProject Women Writers plus another project, it's easier to concentrate on updating the WikiProject Women Writers talkpage template (using Rater). Today, I might focus on updating the talkpages of articles which have WikiProject Women Writers and a WikiProject Women Scientists talkpage templates. Tomorrow, I'll do the same for articles which have both WikiProject Women Writers and WikiProject Novels (or WikiProject Poetry, or WikiProject Military History) talkpage templates. By and large, it's just easier to work on updating WikiProject talkpage templates (and I always use the Rater feature) if I focus on overlaps vs. just trying to rate the 13K+ articles with no importance rating one by one by one. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@Rosiestep: Okay thanks for the elaboration, I think I understand it better now. I've filed a bug for this, and I'll consider it blocking for the shutdown of the old frontend, which means that we won't shut down or redirect the old frontend until we have this feature parity in the new tool. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: You are my hero! Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[]

@Rosiestep: Okay I've implemented a new page on the new site which lets you compare projects. Based on the URLs you provided in your original posts, I think the new URLs are: http://wp1.openzim.org/#/compare/Women%20scientists/Women%20writers?quality=&importance=&qualityB=&importanceB=Unknown-Class and http://wp1.openzim.org/#/compare/Women%20scientists/Women%20writers?quality=&importance=&qualityB=&importanceB=Unknown-Class. Looking at them briefly, it seems like the results are the same. Would you mind double checking that everything looks good? Thanks, audiodude (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[]

@Audiodude: everything looks just right. Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Bot shows up under "Human (not bot)" filter

On the Recent Changes Page, the bot shows up even if you have the "Human (not bot)" filter applied. Not sure what you can do to fix this, but I thought it was important to report. --Nokkromancer (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Could you perhaps provide a screenshot of that happening? I'm finding it very difficult to reproduce. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[]

New WikiProject question

I have created a new WikiProject with some colleagues, WikiProject Writing, and want to get it listed so its articles can be assessed though am unclear how to do this as the bot is in the process of moving between the old and the new system. Can you help me get this WikiProject listed for the assessment in this time of change? Thank you. ---FULBERT (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[]

I neglected to ping Kelson and Audiodude for help. Thanks. FULBERT (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Old tool has been shut down

As promised, the old WP 1.0 web frontend, which lived at enwp10.toolforge.org, has been shut down. All URLs from the old tool now redirect to the front page of the new tool which lives at wp1.openzim.org. As part of this months long process, many 'missing' features have been requested on this talk page and have been added to the new tool. We are not aware of any major use cases that cannot be accomplished using the new tool, though everyone is encouraged to continue discussing bugs and potential features on this page, or at the tool's github page (either is fine). We will continue to improve the new tool and fix bugs as necessary.

Thank you everyone for your patience and participation in this process. I believe the WP 1.0 bot and tool have a bright future! audiodude (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Thanks a lot, Audiodude! (also a shoutout to User:Kelson, for his work supporting and guiding this effort.) I know it's been an enormous amount of work over a couple of years to do the bot and this web tool, but WikiProjects now have a reliable system that should give up-to-date information quickly & easily. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Many thanks for both! -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Hey the new tool looks great! Definitely something that will take some getting used to. Is there a way to sort by the date an article was assessed? I like to go through and reassess articles on occasion, and it would be helpful to be able to start with articles which have not been reassessed in some time. Jay eyem (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
We have an open bug for sorting on the article page, but as of right now it's not possible. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Custom Roads table

The custom Roads assessment table, User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1, has not been updated since August 2019. Does the functionality to support this table still exist? --Sable232 (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[]

@Sable232: I brought this up last September (see Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index/Archive_10#User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1_not_updating). There's already an open GitHub issue on the matter. -happy5214 22:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Compairing WikiProjects -- Independent articles bug

I'm currently doing the WP:Biographies and WP:Military History. When I compare the two for the independent articles, for example for this article it states B class for both WP:Biography and WP:Military History, but WP:Biography is assessed as Start, not B class. Article: A. M. B. H. G. Abeyrathnebanda -- Adamdaley (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[]

@Adamdaley: Talk:A. M. B. H. G. Abeyrathnebanda has the following:
{{WikiProject Biography|living=n|class=Start|listas=Abeyrathnebanda, A. M. B. H.|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Low}}
{{WikiProject Military history|Biography=y|South-Asian=y|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
Notice that the first has |class=Start whereas the second has |class=B (plus a fully-satisfied B-Class checklist). This is not a bug. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[]
@Redrose64: --- Go to the compare WikiProjects of WP:Biography and WP:MILHIST side-by-side for this article, it states B class for both not just for one. Adamdaley (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[]
What is "the compare WikiProjects of WP:Biography and WP:MILHIST"? Please provide a link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[]
Here: https://wp1.openzim.org/#/compare Adamdaley (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[]
What on earth is openzim? Why are you directing me to outside websites? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[]
I thought openzim is where the new bot lives? Even User:WP 1.0 bot links to it, and it's mentioned in the 'Old tool has been shut down' section of this page we're on now too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[]
Yeah, see above section "Old tool has been shut down", the new tool is at openzim instead of toolforge. --PresN 23:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[]
That said, @Adamdaley: when I check the compare tool I'm seeing "A. M. B. H. G. Abeyrathnebanda ( t · h ) --- Start --- B "; can you check again? --PresN 23:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Still B class for both. Adamdaley (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]
When I look at https://wp1.openzim.org/#/compare/Biography/Military%20history?quality=&importance=&qualityB=&importanceB= I see "45 A. M. B. H. G. Abeyrathnebanda ( t · h ) --- Start --- B ", which looks correct to me. Maybe you need to clear your cache and try again? Seems odd. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I have cleared my cache. Several times over the last few days and it's B class for both. Adamdaley (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Trying to complete merge of WP:St. Louis Rams into WP:Los Angeles Rams

Hi, I need your help in shutting down Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/St. Louis Rams articles by quality log. It is replaced by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Los Angeles Rams articles by quality log, since the St. Louis Rams project has been merged into WP:WikiProject Los Angeles Rams. The template is Template:WikiProject Los Angeles Rams, and most of the pages and templates from St. Louis Rams have been redirected, but I can't figure out how to stop the bot from adding things to the old St. Louis Rams Version 1.0 page, above. Thanks in advance, Funandtrvl (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[]

pinging: @Kelson: and @Audiodude: Funandtrvl (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[]
figured it out, thanks anyways! Funandtrvl (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

WikiProject Update feature - No progress indication

I've run the progress feature for WP:Biography (military) and there is no blue indication to show how much of the "tracking" is left. It worked last night, but not today. Adamdaley (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

  • Has nobody seen my post about the BOT? I rely on this tool and not being able to use it is frustrating. Adamdaley (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Sorry for the delay @Adamdaley: Are you still experiencing this issue? What are the steps to reproduce? Thanks! audiodude (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • No. Problem has been resolved. Adamdaley (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Bot slow to update new assessment

The Bot is extremely slow in updating newly assessed articles from WP:MilHist and WP:Biography/Military History. Adamdaley (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Can you quantify this possibly? Is it slower than it "used to be"? When does "used to" refer to, a week ago? A year ago (before the version 3 rewrite?). On the other hand, is it just slow in general? And what part of it is slow? The time it takes to actually update the project from the Wikipedia replica database? Or, as I suspect, the time between making an edit on the live wiki and THAT change being reflected in the replica itself?
Also, as a semi-aside, I've always thought it to be a weird dichotomy that one of the largest and most difficult to process projects is the one that gets manual updates requested multiple times per day every day. Is there a way the bot could serve you better? What do these manual updates accomplish? Are they to update the project table? Do they do something else? Thanks! audiodude (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[]
I asked the Bot to update 3 hours ago. Then in the last 20 minutes, and the articles that have been reassessed several hours ago are still in the same column and has not been moved to the correct and updated column. Adamdaley (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Which table are you looking at, just so I can make sure I'm double checking the same thing? audiodude (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[]
WP:MILHIST Biographies --- It's now updating. Adamdaley (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Can you provide a link, I'm still not sure how to find that specific table. I see that WP:MILHIST has a bunch of custom tables and I have no idea how they work. Maybe by understanding the workings of these tables we can figure out how to speed up the process if possible. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Just put in Biography (military) in the Projects section. If you do not know how to use it shouldn't someone else be better at using it for maintenance? Adamdaley (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Okay so I *think* you're talking about the WP 1.0 web tool at wp1.openzim.org? I think there might be a bug where the table is cached even after a manual update. Let me look into that. audiodude (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Announcement: Tool outage

The WP 1.0 tool, including the web frontend at wp1.openzim.org, is currently offline. No tables or logs will be updated at this time.

I will update this page when the tool is back online. Thanks for your patience! audiodude (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Update: The web tool at wp1.openzim.org is back up, and should be up to date, but we are still unable to post updated logs and tables to Wikipedia. Thanks. audiodude (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • @Audiodude: --- It was updating successfully. Now I can't get the tables. Adamdaley (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Update 2: All services should be operating normally again. Please let us know if you see anything strange, and thanks again for your patience! audiodude (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • @Audiodude: -- Seems like the bot isn't working today. I type in the WikiProject and no tables appear. Adamdaley (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Pageviews as a proxy for significance?

So the old version of the tool used to have a numeric ranking number that accounted for things like length and pageviews -- I find that I would love to have some type of sense of the relative popularity of articles in WikiProjects. Would it make sense to add a "last month pageviews" element, that goes through and updates like the User:Community Tech bot does for popular pages? I think it would help a lot for finding gaps in coverage/pages to work on for WikiProjects, Sadads (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Alternate process

The following instructions are deprecated because the WP 1.0 bot is running again and has been since Sep 2019.

While WP 1.0 bot daily process is not running, there is a way to get current article counts (assessment wikitable) for your WikiProjects. Follow the two-step process below.

STEP ONE - Generate new project data - At Update project data page,

Choose your Wikiproject & click the Go button. Depending on how busy enwp10 tool is there may be considerable wait time. After completion, run step two.

STEP TWO - Display project table - At Project summary tables page, choose your Wikiproject and click the Make table button.

  • Both of these processes can be bookmarked on your laptop. Credit to User:Adamdaley for this helpful contribution. User:JoeHebda - 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not only bookmarked on a laptop, but also a desktop. Anyone doing this must remember to call each of the bookmarks differently to avoid confusion. User:Adamdaley - 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Note - Above instructions were archived, so I am posting again with "bump" to keep from archiving until the WP1.0bot daily process is running. JoeHebda (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Uhhhhhh I think I just destroyed something

I told the doodad to manually update and it sort of, uh, it did this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/United_States_Territories_articles_by_quality_log it removed everything. I didn't mean for that to happen, I was just confused why things like this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serranilla_Bank

still had the banner showing my project to be inactive.

I don't know what happened I hope this is fixable. Alex the Nerd (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[]

@Alex the Nerd: the activity status of the project is set in the banner template at {{ WikiProject United States Territories}}. You'll need to reactivate it first and then let the job queue catch up as the banners on talk pages switch from inactive to active and repopulate the assessment categories. Then the bot and assessment tools will start to update correctly. Imzadi 1979  01:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Ok, I had already submitted an edit request, I just panicked because everything disappeared. Thank you for the clarification of what happened. Alex the Nerd (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Redirect Row/Quality

I've noticed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guyana that a lot of redirect pages are just categorized as NA-quality NA-importance; but I've seen a quality-category called 'redirect' in some other projects when I do assessments with Rater. Is that a standard thing? I looked around for documentation, but I couldn't find anything pertinent. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Date created

There are currently two columns with dates, and both seem to correspond to the date when the project template was added to the talkpage.[2] It would be quite helpful if there were a column for the date that the article was created. Or is there are way that I can pull that up myself? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[]

I believe those dates correspond to the Class that they appear to the right of. So on this page, for "A Wizard of Earthsea", the date 2014-11-11 is when it received a Mid importance rating and 2017-08-11 is when it received a FA quality rating. For the specific articles that you linked, where the importance is "Unknown/???" (not rated), then I believe the date is just the first date that the tool saw the page.
As far as getting the created date into this table, while it is definitely possible, it would require significant modifications to the tool and specifically to the database schema. One possible shortcut would be, if you only need that data sometimes, we could add an option for fetching it for the current page of results or the current row only. This would be a relatively slow operation, but maybe is only needed occasionally? audiodude (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Duplication

Hello there! I'm seeing a strange bug where the same articles are repeated in the results 6 times. So far, this only seems to affect WikiProject Musical Theatre.

https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Musical_Theatre/articles?quality=FA-Class&importance=

This doesn't reduce the usefulness of the tool; I just thought it was an interesting curiosity. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 11:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]

I can also see duplicates on https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/WikiProject_Women/articles?quality=Unassessed-Class -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Tool Maintenance, Sunday January 31

Hello WP 1.0 tool users. We will be performing required maintenance on the WP 1.0 tool on Sunday, January 31 between 11 AM PST and 12 PM PST (19:00 - 20:00 UTC). During this time, the web tool at https://wp1.openzim.org will be unavailable, and no updates will be processed to Wikipedia. This should be minimally disruptive, since the scheduled Wikipedia updates happen later in the day. I will post here when I start the maintenance process, again when it is finished, and also if there are any unforeseen problems that are encountered. Thanks for your patience! audiodude (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[]

This maintenance has been moved to 10 AM - 11 AM PST (18:00 - 19:00 UTC) on Monday, February 1st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiodude (talkcontribs) 00:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Update: It turns out this migration only required 5 minutes of downtime, so I silently did it today, just now. Most likely no one noticed, but if the website went down for you for five minutes, my apologies. Thanks, this is done. audiodude (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Bug

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Television stations needs the underscore removed in the |project= parameter of the WikiWork line:

{{User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork|project=Television_stations|export=table}}

It is displaying blank when not fixed, and the bot currently unfixes it each day if you were to change it. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 03:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@Sammi Brie: Good catch! I've filed a bug on the project to fix this. Thanks. audiodude (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Updating WikiProjects

I am unable to view or manually update WikiProjects. It will not display either. Adamdaley (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Every time I try to manually run WP:Biography/Military History, it always comes up as "Your job has been scheduled, but hasn't started yet". I highly doubt that someone would have started a manual update before me. Adamdaley (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Audiodude: -- Yes. The last couple of days there is no progress bar after the manual update. Even without the progress bar, hours or then next day it still updates the one's to the new assessment. Still would love the progress bar. Adamdaley (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[]
  • We recently edited that page and I think there's definitely a bug. I'll file a bug for it and get to fixing. Thanks for the heads up! audiodude (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Filed the bug, thanks! audiodude (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Removing importance

Hello,

This is not a very high priority issue, but the "importance" parameter was recently removed from {{WikiProject Sports}}. I would have expected the bot to catch on for User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Sports that importance categories are no longer populated and revert to something like the tables seen for Wikiprojects that don't use importance - see User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history for an example. It's been ~5 days or so since, so I doubt it's stale database dumps either. Is the bot relying on some sort of cached data for importance here? Only looking at recent diffs to talk pages (but even then, you'd see some movement downward, so doubtful..)? Does the bot need to be explicitly told to repopulate and recreate its data?

Just curious, thanks! SnowFire (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[]

@SnowFire: Thanks for reporting this! So I think what's happening is that the bot doesn't have any logic to "remove" assessments. So even though the importance ratings have been removed from the articles, and they are no longer showing up in Category:Sports_articles_by_importance, the bot thinks "Oh yes, this article has Mid importance, because that's the last importance rating I saw for it." It might be the case that deleting the Sports articles by importance category will fix this, though I'd have to look into it. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: - Sure, please do look into it. If it turns out that deleting the categories is "safe" and would help, then we can drop off a quick speedy deletion request citing this discussion. SnowFire (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[]
@SnowFire: Okay so after looking at the code, I don't think deleting the category will help. When it's time to create the table, it will still see the old ratings and create the importance columns. Basically, we need a way to erase the importance ratings for the project. I could do that manually in the db, and I'm inclined to, but I'm wondering if this is something that should be possible in a general way? I mean it hasn't come up until now so maybe not? audiodude (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: My own instinct is that it's good practice to occasionally "rebuild the database" from scratch rather than rely only on deltas, for all projects not merely this one weird case. Who knows what other weird stuff is out there hiding, because a change was "missed" somehow or the like? This might be a good chance to test that hypothesis - back up the DB, wipe the Sports ratings, then see if they're recreated seamlessly. Can always rollback worst comes to worst, but it seems likely to work, and moreover might be a smart thing to do for everything every so often. SnowFire (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[]
@SnowFire: Okay I've deleted the importance ratings for Sports. This should get picked up in either tonight or tomorrow's update. Please post back if it's still not what you expect. As far as "re-creating" the data every now and then, the only reason I'm reluctant to do that is that the timestamp for looking at the article and talk pages is based on the first time that the bot saw the article with that rating. So if you wiped the table, you would lose that information. Cheers, audiodude (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Update: User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Sports looks good to me. Thanks! SnowFire (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[]

Bug in log relating to Draft->mainspace moves

In the 1.0 bot log for the video games project, I'm seeing (for ex. on April 3) the bot not only appending new logs but changing old ones; specifically it seems to be adjusting various links to be draft space or mainspace; this results in e.g. an April 3 log that was originally "Draft:Japan Pro Golf Tour 64 renamed to Japan Pro Golf Tour 64 changed to be "Japan Pro Golf Tour 64 renamed to Japan Pro Golf Tour 64", but I also see oldids removed from some links and replaced with "None", and "Box Critters renamed to Box Critters" changed to "Draft:Box Critters renamed to Box Critters". It seems to be trying to update old logs to point to where the article "is" now? --PresN 15:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[]

Table blanking

Could someone explain why this is happening? I know the project was labelled inactive a while back, but the table should still be preserved as it was, no? - Floydian τ ¢ 01:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[]

Something strange with the Motorsport articles by quality and importance

Hi,

In User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Motorsport, the column for unknown importance column is only showing superleague task force article, with the WikiProject Motorsport unknown importance article being shown in a column titled "other". How do I fix this so that the WikiProject Motorsport unknown importance articles are actually displayed in the unknown importance column?
SSSB (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[]

Never mind, I worked it out.
SSSB (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[]

Project list?

Is there a list of the projects being tracked? Is there a list with the article counts for each project? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@GhostInTheMachine: You can get a list of projects in JSON format with the API call documented here. So basically by loading this endpoint. That data doesn't include "article counts", though if you can elaborate on what you mean by that it might be able to be added. Generally the counts for each category are provided in the "table" endpoint for a project, which you can read more about here. Hope this helps. audiodude (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[]
It looks like the article count is in the table — Computing returns total=55519. The list with the article counts would then be a clone of the project list with the article count total added for each project — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Gotcha. I don't think it would be possible to add the totals to the v1/projects endpoint that lists all of the projects, because it would require an additional query for each project which would make the endpoint too slow (it's used to populate the Autocomplete search box). Plus it might just be too slow in general and might time out. What we could do instead is add the total field to the data returned by v1/projects/{projectId}. How does that sound? audiodude (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, but ... then building the full list would need 2563 API calls! Does Computing rebuild all of the data by scanning Wikipedia each time the API is called or is the data built from a scheduled task and cached? If so, the article count from the cache could be used for the overall list – with the health warning that the number is recent rather than live — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Could you cache the results from whenever an individual project is counted. Then pick up the cached totals for overall list. This would accept that the cache could be a bit out of date, but reasonable figures are better than none — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[]
  • BTW there is a bug in the main ZIM page — /projects/{projectId}/ needs to omit the final /GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[]

WikiProject Medicine Quality and Importance Statistics

Hi Audiodude and Kelson! I noticed that User:WP 1.0 bot hasn't updated the WikiProject Medicine quality and important statistics for 3 days. I tried performing a manual update using the external link Run the bot right away, but this seemed to have no effect. Is there something else I need to do to resolve this issue? Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[]

I believe the problem has been fixed meanwhile, right? Kelson (talk)
Hi @Kelson:, I came here to report a similar issue. The bot has not updated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Sri Lanka articles by quality log since May 1st. Would you be able look into that kindly?--Chanaka L (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Let's wait 24 hours to see if our fix applies for this problem as well. Kelson (talk)
Noted. Thanks for responce.--Chanaka L (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks Kelson - Medicine statistics back up and running! Bibeyjj (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[]
The bot has resumed updating the Sri Lankan pages. Thanks a lot, Kelson. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Super Heavy (rocket stage)

Super Heavy (rocket stage) was just assessed at Start-Class for WikiProject Rocketry. I just did a manual update with the WP 1.0 bot but when I checked if the article was with the Rocketry Start-Class articles, it wasn't there. See Category:Start-Class Rocketry articles. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@StarshipSLS: I see it in the category: [3]. It sometimes takes a bit for an article to show up, depending on how busy wikipedia's servers are. I see that a new start-class article got added to User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Rocketry last night, which was presumably this article? --PresN 17:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[]
@PresN: It's there now. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Userboxes pages by quality articles by quality log

I'm continually removing red link, nonexistent categories from pages that this bot places on pages like on this one. I'm not even sure what "Userboxes pages by quality articles by quality log" is supposed to mean. So far, this has happened twice in the past four days with this particular page and I don't want this habit to continue for weeks or months where editors patrolling Special:WantedCategories have to continually clean up after this bot.

Could you configure the bot so that it doesn't invent categories that don't exist and places them on pages? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[]

@Audiodude: Any clue what is going on here? Kelson (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[]
It looks like there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes, but whoever set up the bot for that WikiProject created a Category:Userboxes_pages_by_quality category, which erroneously uses the name "pages" instead of "articles". The bot then picks this up as its own project which is named "Userboxes pages by quality", and thus creates the red link category when it processes it (Userboxes pages by quality articles by quality log). I think the best course of action would be to delete Category:Userboxes_pages_by_quality and Category:Userboxes_pages_by_importance, and once that is done, to remove the erroneous project from the bot. Cheers, audiodude (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[]
In similar vein, there's a couple of the WP:MILHIST taskforces that have changed names - Central & South America and Latin America are now just South America, Military technology and engineering is now Military science, technology, and theory. I've had to change more in the past (Soviet, Women etc), I don't know how current they are.Le Deluge (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Argh! It keeps doing it again on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial_Team/Userboxes pages by quality articles by quality log! And, yes, I've removed red link categories about regarding small countries military history task forces, or something but they haven't kept coming back like this one has. Once I removed the category, it hasn't been readded by the bot but perhaps that is because the Military History project has straightened things out. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Please stop updating Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Userboxes pages by quality articles by quality log. This is not a page that makes any sense at all and each day, an editor has to remove a red link category for this page that your bot has placed on the page. This has become very aggravating. Is anyone even reading this talk page? Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[]
It seems like the problem is that there's a self-service way to add a wikiproject to the bot (make the category tree and add it to a category), but once it gets in the sql table the bot uses there's no easy way to modify it or remove it besides asking Audiodude to do it. @Audiodude: presumably you saw this, but the "Userboxes pages by quality" project is ready to be removed now. An api call to modify/remove projects would also be helpful, but is obviously a much bigger ask. --PresN 13:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[]

ANNOUNCEMENT: Manual updates will require login

Hello. We are making a change to wp1.openzim.org so that manual updates performed using that web app will require a valid Wikipedia login. When visiting the manual updates page and not logged in, you will be prompted to link your Wikipedia account to the WP1 tool using OAuth. This should be a painless and self-explanatory process. After that is done, you should be able to perform the manual update as has always been done. This change makes the endpoint more secure and allows us to ensure that our computing resources can't be tied up by spam/abuse usages. Thanks for your patience as we roll out this change in the next few days. --audiodude (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@Audiodude:How long until this happens? Also, could I work with you? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 00:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[]
@StarshipSLS: I will probably deploy the change Saturday morning. As for working together, the code for WP1 bot and website are open source on Github, feel free to comment on any issue you'd like to work on. We're currently in the middle of Google Summer of Code and have a student working with us, so it might take some juggling, but we could make it work. Cheers, audiodude (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[]
@Audiodude: Could you give me some kind of tutorial on how it works? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 18:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[]
@StarshipSLS: Sure, I've uploaded a tutorial here. Hope it helps. audiodude (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mongols articles by quality statistics?

Hi, the WP:MONGOLS project's log (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mongols articles by quality log) is running accurately, but a quality statistics page hasn't yet been created by the bot. This project did change its name from WikiProject Mongolia. Should Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mongolia articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mongolia articles by quality log be deleted? The relevant project banner is Template:WikiProject Mongols. Your help is fixing this is greatly appreciated! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[]

I created the above page, but are we supposed to delete the old pages under Mongolia, or just leave them? --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikivoyage Expedition Statistics

Hello, @Kelson and @Audiodude. I noticed the great work you've done on the WP 1.0 bot and was wondering if either or both of you would be interested in helping Wikivoyage to automatically update statistics for our "Expeditions" (specifically the geographic expeditions). Wikivoyage Expeditions are akin to Wikipedia Projects. Currently editors have to make over 50 PetScan lookups and update the template table manually. Please see voy:Wikivoyage:Portugal_Expedition#Article_statistics for an actual use of the template. The community would appreciate any assistance with this. Thank you. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi, yes we are. We would like to use the WP1 engine for other Wikipedias (and why not Wikivoyage). The new codebase ihas been conceived to be very flexible. The first thing would be to open a ticket at https://github.com/openzim/wp1/issues and explain precisely how the Wikivoyage assessment works... and whe shoudl then probably have a call to discuss how to proceed. Kelson (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you! I'm happy to hear that. I have done so at https://github.com/openzim/wp1/issues/390. Let me know if you need any further details. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Excessive Pageview, Astronomy article "Skathi (moon)"

Hi, @Kelson and @Audiodude.

The bot for User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Astronomy appears to be running correctly. It may be a "long-shot" guess for me, but one Astronomy article Skathi (moon) since July of 2020 continues showing a very excessive number of daily pageviews here.

For the monthly run of Popular pages, that article now shows over 2,300,000 views for July. It keeps increasing every month. Just wondering if assessment bot might (for some unknown reason/bug) be repeatedly "viewing" that article? Or not setting daily pageviews count back to zero for that day? JoeNMLC (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi @JoeNMLC: Actually, the WP 1.0 Bot gathers its data from the wikipedia replica databases, and does not actually ever cause any pageviews on the Wikipedia website. You'll have to look elsewhere for your mystery pageviews, but the idea that this is some automated bot seems to make sense to me. It's probably just a bot that is operated outside of Wikimedia. Hope that helps, audiodude (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork spaces vs underscores for using omega

Hi, the documentation for User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork used to say (until I removed it just now) that spaces should be replaced with underscores. However User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork/om has the data using spaces, not underscores, which means that if spaces are replaced by underscores it fails (outputting blank). I've removed the note for now, but is the spaces behavior intended and were the docs simply outdated, or should it have been outputting underscores? -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi @Asartea: I think this is a manifestation of this old bug on the WP 1.0 bot. According to our research on that bug, the wikiwork template call should use spaces, not underscores. Sorry for any confusion, I think the docs were correct. Cheers, audiodude (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Suggestion: random article from these

It would be nice to be able to open a random article given a (category, importance, quality) filter. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi @BernardoSulzbach: Thanks for the cool suggestion! I've created a bug on the bot's github page to track this. audiodude (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Exclusion of template being deleted

Please see this discussion and whether/if/how the bot needs to be changed to reflect recent changes to the Book namespace. Primefac (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Second time I'm going to ask for input regarding the Book namespace, which has been deleted but is still being added by this bot. Please see the linked discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi @Primefac: are you talking about a "namespace" or a template? If the latter, when you say the template is being "added by this bot" do you mean the actual literal template article or just that the bot is using/referencing the template in its output? Or maybe I misunderstand and using the template in the output amounts to re-creating or "adding" it? Thanks, and sorry for the delay in response, I'm just a lowly volunteer around here ;) audiodude (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]
The bot kept adding the {{Book-Class}} to the lists, despite the Book namespace not existing. I did mange to track down the one remaining use of the Class designation and it seems to have solved the problem, but it would be problematic if someone were to re-add a |class=Book in the future. Primefac (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Roman military history articles by quality log

I have removed red link categories from pages like this now dozens of times. Could you please stop adding them to pages over and over again? This is really tiresome and it happens on a lot of pages. At this point, I'm ready to start tagging these pages for deletion discussions so they are so much trouble and add nothing to the project. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Central and South American military history articles by quality log has had a red link category placed by your bot removed NINE times by different editors on this page alone. Please get the bot to stop adding categories to pages that have no real updates to them and are uncategorized. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm also finding regular updates but this bot to WikiProjects that have been defunct for 15 years. Isn't there a way to turn off these reports when they are no longer wanted or needed? I guess the lack of response here shows that no one is actively maintaining this thing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[]
To be more specific, this is what I'm talking about. This is a defunct WikiProject and I don't know why the bot reports can't be turned off if there have been updates with 0 changes for years and years. I think this is happening with dozens and dozens of reports. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi @Liz: Thanks for your patience with this. As you have guessed, the project to run this bot is a bit understaffed at the moment. But also, I haven't responded previously because I didn't understand the problem fully and was hoping I'd figure it out later. Thank you for the detailed links, I think I have finally figured it out.

There are a couple of issues at hand: The first is that we have dozens and maybe hundreds of inactive WikiProjects and we don't know what to do with them. That question is a bit "above my paygrade" and involves debate and politics, and has no clear technical solution, which is fine, but I'd rather not pull on that thread if possible. The other issue is that, when creating a "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Defunct Place or Thing articles by quality log" table, which is itself innocuous, the bot labels that log with the category "Defunct Place or Thing articles by quality" and thus creates the category, even if it has been diligently deleted by human editors. Do I have it correct? I've created a bug for this on the bot's Github page. Once you confirm that I have characterized the problem correctly, we can allocate resources to fix it. Thanks again for your patience, audiodude (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]

@Liz:, @Audiodude:: as a temporary workaround I've put the {{nobots}} template on the handful of subpages related to WP:MILHIST while we figure this out. I think it derives from a problematic milhist template, and don't think a bug should be opened. I will update as I learn more. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/X articles by quality log

Please stop issuing these reports for inactive & defunct WikiProjects that never, ever assessed any articles. These reports are disruptive and are not useful at all because they contain no information. Every time they update (with no changes), they recreate deleted categories that only contain these reports that show 0 updates. There must be a way to turn off this bot. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]

It's logical to assume that this happens because the projects still exist on the WP 1.0 server where the bot gets its information from.

In the short term, could full protection on the log pages for defunct projects solve the problem? @Kelson:, @Audiodude: - would the bot error out if it encountered a full-protected page, or simply skip over it? Alternately, does the bot comply with the {{nobots}} template? --Sable232 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Although it may be obvious to you and I by manual inspection that certain WikiProjects are "inactive", these projects still have WikiProject pages and are using all of the WP1.0 bot templates and categories. So it's not just a matter of they "still exist on the WP 1.0 server", they still exist on Wikipedia which is the source of truth for WP 1.0 bot. I don't know what the process is to "sunset" or "archive" an abandoned WikiProject, but whatever it is, that's the route you should go down if you want to remove these projects from the bot. As far as protecting the pages, that would work and not cause the bot workflow to error out as far as I can tell. I'm not familiar with 'nobots', if it's built into the bot infrastructure or something we would have to explicitly support. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
UPDATE: I read through the nobots page, and it seems like it's something that our bot would have to explicitly support, so I'm confident that it would not work "out of the box". Also, those "X articles by quality log" pages are completely recreated every time the bot runs, and the bot doesn't read them before overwriting them, so I'm not sure where in the workflow attaching a nobots tag would help. audiodude (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Automated crawling of api.wp1.openzim.org?

Is someone doing automated crawling of the WP1 site backend API server? I notice a lot of logs where it seems like someone, probably a bot, is going through every page of certain datasets in the WP1 server. If this is you, please stop, and please reach out to us about how we could possibly provide the data you need in another format. These queries are causing the API backend server to become unresponsive. audiodude (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Return to the project page "Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Archive 10".