Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Error on the webpage to run the bot

Hi guys, just to notify you: When submitting a project to update the bot statistics for our wikiproject, I got the following error:

Global symbol "$project" requires explicit package name at wp10_routines.pl line 1174.

Compilation failed in require at /home/oleg/public_html/wp/wp10/run_wp10.cgi line 16.

Of course I also notified the webmaster. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

Sorry about that, I was editing the source code. It should work again now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New task for WP 1.0 bot

The WP 1.0 bot currently generates articles by quality indexes for each project, and if there are lots of articles, this gets split up into separate index pages. For project change patrol purposes, though, these pages are apparently too heavy to tie together to use the "Special:Recentchangeslinked" function on. Could the WP 1.0 bot be given an additional task of creating a page with just links to all of the articles in the project? Even better if it would include links to all the article's talk pages as well. This way, we could run Recent Changes against that, and we can better maintain our project's articles. Thank you for your consideration. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You can generate this yourself by using AWB. See Technical notes#Watchlists. There is also a Python source-code available for generating a watchlist. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for an automated solution that can run without my intervention, as my available time for tasks like this is limited. Thanks for the suggestion at any rate! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I will explore this for the next version of the WP bot. I am afraid, without having researched it, that some projects are too big to put all their articles on a single page. But I will look into it when working on the updated bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I may also bring this idea before the WikiProject Council and see if there's any possibilities there. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot died

It appears to have stopped. When you try to run it manually, it complains that it can't find the CGI file. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this; I should have announced it. The server that the bot was running on was on loan from a private company that decided to withdraw the loan (I do not know the full details). The bot will be moving to a new server ASAP. I only learned of the change yesterday, so there was no time to move the bot to a new server in advance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot has been blocked

The bot has been blocked due to some security issues. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Argh. Since CBM and Oleg seem to be away or busy, I enabled 1.0v2 at tools:~titoxd/cgi-bin/wp10/index.pl as a stopgap. It will take a while for the database to get populated, but it should work for the time being while the situation with the bot hosting and password is sorted out. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is back. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, CBM unblocked it now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

New address for the web form

The web form to run the bot by hand was moved to http://wp1en.kiwix.org/cgi-bin/wp/wp10/run_wp10.html. This was necessary due to the fact that the bot got moved to a different server. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing priority class

The bot has recently been re-classified all Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield-tagged articles with mid- or top-priority to no-priority (see log, statistics). They still appear in the expected categories. Has there been some change in the bot programming which has caused this? As a result, the information is less useful. Warofdreams talk 22:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason that escapes me, MediaWiki removed Category:Mid-priority Sheffield articles and Category:Top-priority Sheffield articles from Category:Sheffield articles by priority, even though the categories had all the proper code to belong in the parent category. A null edit fixed it, and I ran the bot via the web form to repopulate the WikiProject's table. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Thanks for looking into this and fixing it so quickly. Warofdreams talk 16:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry exodus?

I checked Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chemistry articles by quality and found that the total number of tagged chemistry pages dropped from 3138 to 2010 during the update on January 10. Umm... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I ran the bot from the web form, and it recovered a few of those articles with no apparent changes to the template or the categories. Maybe it has something to do with the null edit problem that Warofdreams reported above? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject U.S. Congress

How do I get Template-class and Category-class included in the table at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/U.S. Congress articles by quality statistics?—Markles 16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think these are non-standard classes, so the bot isn't set to read them. But we could look into adding them in for the next big update to the bot script. Walkerma (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

bot not running

Quality stats for WP:CHICAGO and WP:ILLINOIS have not run for 5 and 7 days respectively.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The bot was just migrated over to a new server with more memory. WP:BIO assessments haven't even been updated since December, because the temporary server was limited. But the bot is now running, and hopefully everyone should be happy once the new server has cleared up the backlog. Walkerma (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It just finished a full run today. — Carl (CBM · talk) 07:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't run since the last time you ran it (15 days ago).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot and {{cat importance}}

Someone should teach the bot to recognize that when a category page has {{cat importance}} it is already categorized by importance. Consider this edit, for instance. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The bot is somewhat stupid. Fortunately it will only make that edit once per category page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No harm done. Just wanted to make sure people were aware of the unnecessary edits. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointingit out. It's the type of thing where the marginal benefit (saving a few edits) is outweighed by the marginal cost of rewriting and retesting that part of the bot. But I will make sure that the next version of the bot handles these links in a smarter way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistics on numbers of articles by WikiProject

Is there a simple way of pulling out some statistics on the numbers of articles tagged and assessed by WikiProject (or by WorkGroup, where these are listed separately)? Personally, I would be interested (for all WikiProjects) in:

• No. A-Class
• Total assessed
• Total unassessed
• Total tagged

but if it's simpler to pull out all the assessment categories that's hardly a problem: maybe others are interested as well! Physchim62 (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to pull the statistics directly from the assessment tables via a script; here's a set I did at the beginning of February, for example. Kirill ^[pf] 04:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill! My JavaScript is about as fluent as my Javanese so, while I was fairly sure that such things were possible, I don't know how to do them myself or (previously) where to find them. Your data from early February are fine for my purposes. Physchim62 (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New work group help

I can't get the index to populate for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints work group articles by quality, a new work group. I think the code is all in order on the talk page template, since the red-link index appears on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Any help appreciated! —Eustress ^talk 02:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I ran the project manually and it seems to update correctly. The most common difficulty with a new project is the delay in the categories being updated. Anyway, you can run it yourself, using the link on User:WP 1.0 bot. Type "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints work group" inot the box, without the quotes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything seems up-and-up now. Guess it was just a matter of time. Thanks! —Eustress ^talk 15:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing classes at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Western Asia articles by quality statistics

This table seems to be missing GA, A, and C class articles. There was a bug in the project article template which I recently fixed causing C to be ignored, but I'm not sure about the other two. A manual run of the bot just now hasn't appeared to make any difference. Could someone take a look at this? Many thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 04:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The corresponding subcategories of Category:Western_Asia_articles_by_quality are empty, so the bot does not find any articles. Try manually purging a few talk pages that ought to be in these subcategories and see if that fixes the categorization. If so, you just need to wait for the job queue to update the rest. If not, you need to fix the template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious behavior with MILHIST statistics

The bot seems to be updating the statistics, but not editing either the log or the assessment tables themselves; does anyone have any insight into what's causing this? Kirill ^[pf] 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but it seems to have resolved itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Project moved, bot doesn't acknowledge

Recently WikiProject Historic sites was moved. For some reason the bot thinks the project is at the now-redirect-page instead of the correct page. Is there something I need to do so that it updates the tables and indexes with the new project location? Thank you, §hep^Talk 04:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? 98.31.12.146 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that the bot was already running when you edited the page, and so it remembered the old name. I will try editing the index once the bot finishes its current full run and see if that works. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dissapearing stats.

Any reason why over a million articles just disappeared from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the reason was; the log files are not conclusive. But I ran the stats again and things seem to be in order. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Bug in assessment page footer?

Great work guys. If you look at the bottom of Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Clans_of_Scotland_articles_by_quality you'll see a whole load of assessment assessment assessment assessment followed by assessment footer in the assessment column of the final article. It's happened a couple of times, it doesn't seem to be linked to what article is last, it's apparently produced by the bot. Is this just a bug with single-page projects? Le Deluge (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be people have been mucking around with the templates that are used in the table cells, and now the lists are exceeding the transclusion limits. So I will have to reduce the number of articles per page; I expect you will see this problem on lots of pages until they are all updated to be smaller. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the number of entries per table; see [[1]]. If the problem occurs again please let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Carl. I'm glad the pages are smaller anyway; even if they were easier for the servers to render, they took an age to download. Happy‑melon 08:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mucking around"... or "rationalising" :^) Actually I didn't know about any "transclusion limit" like this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Updating table to include Unassessed and A class articles

I recently updated the stats table for the SFBA Project Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SFBA articles by quality statistics. On the last run though the bot wiped out the those two rows. What do i need to adjust to include the A class and Unassessed information on the stats? Was it that the bot was already running when I changed the table? Thanks in advance. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot will not include a row for A-Class articles until the relevant category (Category:A-Class SFBA articles) is populated—right now it has zero articles. I'm not sure what you mean about the Unassessed articles, though... I see it in the table. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks, didn't notice that Unassessed hadn't gone anywhere. I just noticed the removal of the A-class[2] after I added it[3], and didn't notice that unassessed hadn't remained. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Home Articles

I ran the bot manualy and when it was done I checked home articles and is not correct (look at it. it's hard to explain) Can you please fix it? ThanksIrunongames • play 19:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of participating projects

Currently, there are 1582 participating projects. Currently, there are 1584 participating projects.

Hmmm... 75.4.146.213 (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot question

In this edit, the bot removed the additional sections I had added so WikiProject Japan could more easily keep track of tagged articles and other pages. Is there a way to have the bot not do this, and also update the sections I added? Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The current bot code is not flexible enough to support that. There is a new version that is slowly being developed that will support it fully. In the meantime, the only way to accomplish that is to have a project-specific bot create and update a separate table with the additional ratings. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Any idea when it will be done (projected date is fine)? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot: Categories

Could you please include categories in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics table? Thanks. SharkD (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The current bot does not support that; please see the section "WP 1.0 bot question" for more information. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot question

I just made a bunch of changes to the statistics table. It had all of the categories (feature list, template, disambig, NA), and the numbers were all up to date and correct. The bot just changed it back to the way it was before I touched it, only now there is not even an "unassessed" category, and all the numbers are wrong again. I think that category is very crucial. Is this a bot error? If not, can we fix the bot so that it actually allows all proper categories to be listed, and it works better? I had not even noticed that there was a bot because it takes so long for it to update this chart. Why not have it update daily? Just wanted to bring this to everyones' attention. Ryt 007 (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see the previous two sections. The bot is not designed to allow editors to manually change the tables. Since Category:Unassessed_Martial_arts_articles is empty, that category will not show up in the assessment table. Support for non-article categorizations is planned for the next version of the bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thank you for answering my questions. ~ Ryt 007 | ^Talk 14:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statistics totals

I just recently discovered this Statistics page for Wikipedia articles that's run by a bot of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. So I will ask a question that may have been answered many times before: how come the total pages of the table is 2259973 while the number of articles posted on http://www.wikipedia.org for English is 3041000 ?! ^AlainR345_{TechnoWikiGeek} 00:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, not every article is covered by a project which participates in the assessment program. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tamil wiki

Can the 1.0 bot be used to generate statistics on other language wikipedias (provided the article categories exist)? I would like to use it on Tamil Wiki (ta.wikipedia.org). Please let me know. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to meet you last week! Hopefully this should be possible - I'll ask around. Walkerma (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin, that wasn't me...it was User:Sundar :) I am guessing that you are talking about Wikimania where he gave a presentation. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was me who met you Martin! -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The current bot code could be used on other wikis without too much work. However, setting up and running the code would require an operator with some knowledge of both bot operation and PERL programming. I cannot take on any new bot tasks at the moment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl, thanks for the response. I am going to look for a bot operator who can set this up on Tamil Wikipedia. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to do it for Tamil. I'm fairly conversant in Perl. Let me find some time next week to set it up. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have put the latest version of all the code into my svn repository, here. You will also need my Mediawiki PERL modules, here. The whole system shows signs of being edited in place for too long, and by different authors. I would think about rewriting it, but I am planning to replace it anyway, and rewriting everything would be a pain. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Prevent bot from updating assessments

Hi,

How do I prevent the bot from updating assessment pages?

In this case, Category:Pokémon Collaborative Project articles by quality has been replaced by Category:Pokémon articles by quality during October 2007, but the bot has been updating the pages ever since.

I have more recently tried removing Category:Pokémon Collaborative Project articles by quality from category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, but the bot updated the pages anyway.

Also: Is there a case to merge the history of Category:Pokémon Collaborative Project articles by quality's member pages (up to October 2007) into Category:Pokémon articles by quality?

Regards,

G.A.S^talk 04:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you link me a page that is being updated, that you do not want to be updated? That will help me diagnose the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. After I removed [Pokémon Collaborative Project articles by quality from category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, the bot continued to update the pages in Category:Pokémon Collaborative Project articles by quality; for instance the statistics page. G.A.S^talk 04:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the bot was in the middle of a run, and had already made a list of the pages it was going to update. A new run has started today, and doesn't seem to include that page. I want to wait and watch it to see if that page gets updated by this run (which will take 4-5 days). — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you for the reply. G.A.S^talk 04:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot does not seem to be updating Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Pokémon Collaborative Project articles by quality statistics any longer. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Disappearing articles?

I just noticed that we lost about 100,000 articles from the assessment scheme recently. Any idea what happened? I'm guessing it's a glitch with the bot - or was it something else? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what caused that, but it looks like the count rebounded right away. Was there some template and/or category maintenance going on? Unfortunately it is very hard to debug this sort of thing. Usually I just wait to see if it gets better on the next bot run. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Book-Class

As part of the IRC sessions of last month, we talked about the creation of a book-class so projects can monitor Wikipedia Books (which are collections of wikipedia articles, and not Wikibooks).

The {{Book-Class}} has now been created and is currently being implemented across all the relevant templates, categories, documentation, etc., (such as Category:Book-Class articles, {{cat class}}, {{icon}}, {{classicon}}, {{class mask}}, and so on), or efforts are being made to that effect. For an example of a use of these banners see Wikipedia talk:Books/Hadronic Matter.

Walkerma said to bring this up here so I did. The book-class is currently only used by the physics project since its relatively new, but I plan to write a Signpost article on it + mention it in WP:AALERTS in the near-future which should be many projects on board. AKA not before {{class mask}} is updated to make adoption streamlined, and not before the relevant documentation is updated. Comments, feedback, and double-checking that everything is updated (or underway to be updated) will be both welcomed and appreciated. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The link for the manual bot run changed again

The new place to run the bot by hand from is http://wp1en2.kiwix.org/cgi-bin/wp/wp10/run_wp10.html. This machine is more powerful than the previous one. Thanks to the kiwix folks (Emmanuel) who ordered the new machine. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2009

2 million article milestone

This is a nice milestone to reach. It doesn't seem that long ago that we got excited at reaching 10,000! Anyway, I mentioned it to the Signpost, hopefully they'll give it a mention. Walkerma (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Related to this for the Signpost, I have a question about interpreting these stats. I seem to recall that this table doesn't double-count ratings from more than WikiProject for the same article. But how does it deal with cases where either the rating or the importance is different for different WikiProjects?--ragesoss (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know this, so I had to look it up in the bot code. The present bot uses a very naive algorithm. To make the global table, it goes through the list of projects and whichever project is the first in that list to assess each article is the one that matters for the global table. I think it has been using this algorithm since the beginning in 2007 or earlier. One factor in the choice of this naive algorithm was probably the memory consumption in generating the global table.

The new bot (under development) takes the "highest" rating for each article, which is more likely to be what people expect. The old bot is more or less frozen in its current state; the only changes I want to make to it are for bug fixes. The beta version of the new bot will be publicly announced in December. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.--ragesoss (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you need any additional projects for beta-testing, feel free to try it on Furry. We support animal-human hybrid testing in this case! GreenReaper (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance of getting a list sorted by importance?

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Rail transport articles by quality/1 isn't as useful as it could be, since it's sorted by class. If it were sorted by importance, one could see at a glance which top-importance articles need work. --NE2 23:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a thing is under development. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

version 1.1?

Shouldn't it be version 1.1 if its a new version? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest release version was version 0.7. The next will be 0.8. The bot itself, and the broader project, are called "Wikipedia 1.0" for historical reasons. Eventually, like 20th Century Fox, we will have to change our name. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maths rating

Is it possible to make this template allign with the "maths rating" template to a greater extent? The maths one has a class rating of B+, but does not use C. A perhaps simple thing to do would be to allow an entry of B+, but to have this interpreted as C. This would at least be an expedient way of dealing with cases where a B+ rating is copied from the maths rating template. Also the maths template has an option "field=", which would seem to be a very useful means of grouping articles where projects are dealing with substantial numbers of articles. I guess that would be a huge effort to implement. Melcombe (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, I am a member of the math project, so I have these things in mind already. Right now there is a separate bot (VeblenBot) that updates tables just for the math project, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0. This bot does make tables by field (example). It operates independently of the WP 1.0 bot.

The new WP 1.0 bot works with the B+ ratings already (table). Because this is supported is in the main WP 1.0 bot, instead of some other bot, all other WikiProjects can also specify custom ratings now, as well. Eventually the WP 1.0 bot will take over for VeblenBot, when all the features of VeblenBot are moved into it; I occasionally post to the math project's talk page with status updates. For the immediate future, VeblenBot will continue updating the math-project-specific data.

As for C-Class: if a project doesn't use a rating, that rating simply won't appear in the table for the project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-standard classes

Which all of the non-standard classes will be supported? I see the list above with examples, and the thing below with all the classes. If it is the top part are the ones that will be supported, then I recommend adding support for Current-class, for articles like Tornadoes of 2010 or 2009–10 Australian region cyclone season (I'm sure there are others, but I work mainly with meteorology articles). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Every non-standard class is supported in the sense that you can define your own non-standard classes. The classes that are currently supported by default are

FA-Class. FL-Class, A-Class. GA-Class. B-Class, C-Class. Start-Class. Stub-Class, List-Class, Current-Class, Future-Class, Book-Class, Category-Class, Disambig-Class, Image-Class, File-Class, Portal-Class, Project-Class, Redirect-Class, Template-Class, NA-Class, and Unassessed-Class

Using these classes requires no extra setup by your WikiProject. However, by using the {{ReleaseVersionParameters}} template, any WikiProject can invent its own classes. For example, the Mathematics project has a B+ class.

You can see in tables like this that Current-class is already recognized. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

List sorting by date tagged

I have been playing around with the new online assessment database thing, and it is excellent. However, it does not seem to be possible (as far as I can tell) to sort lists of articles by date tagged or date last assessed. The information is there, next to every article, but I can't get the list to sort based on it. This would be very helpful in, for example, seeing which articles have sat the longest without being assessed or seeing which articles were assessed three years ago and might need another look. Can this functionality be added?--Danaman5 (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that should not be too difficult. I have entered a bug just so that I can prioritize this and track when it is complete; see [4]. I will also contact you when it is done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

New bot rollout

I am planning to roll out the new "second generation" WP 1.0 bot on Saturday, January 23. This will replace the older WP 1.0 bot. Here are the key facts:

WikiProjects do not need to change anything

The new bot uses the existing assessment categories, so no effort is required from participating WikiProjects

The new bot provides a web-based interface

You can search your assessed articles using criteria including ratings and category membership. The starting page for the web interface is http://toolserver.org/~enwp10. The new system is already active there, and has been running a beta test for some time.

The new bot will still update pages on the wiki

Project summary tables uploaded by the bot have a slightly different appearance (example) and now include additional ratings shown at Template:Grading scheme. However, the lists of articles that were being uploaded to the wiki occasionally (example) will no longer be uploaded. These are available via the web interface.

The new bot is flexible

You can search for articles using numerous criteria. Each project can configure the bot to include custom importance and quality ratings. Feature requests are welcome (subject to volunteer developer time).

Volunteers are welcome

If you're interested in helping develop for the WP 1.0 Editorial Team, please contact User:CBM.

Feedback and questions are very welcome

Please post them to this page.

I hope that the new system proves to be even more useful than the existing WP 1.0 bot has been. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarifications

To clarify something: The summary tables will also be available on-wiki. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you had a project summary table on your watchlist to see when it was updated, you will need to watch the corresponding page in the WP 1.0 bot's user space instead. Eventually we may have multiple, separate tables for each project, so the tables are now being uploaded to a page of their own. This will give us more fexibility going forward. It also means you can edit your project's statistics page without fear of the bot overwriting it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Broken links?

Resolved

The links provided at toolserver.org are sometimes wrong. For example,

• go to: http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/table.fcgi?project=Evolutionary+biology
• try to click on "Data for Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology"
• it links to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Evolutionary_biology

I guess this is easily fixable? Gabbe (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. As was apparent, it was sticking the wrong prefix onto the link. I fixed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/table.fcgi?project=Pharmacology links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Review instead. That one might be less trivial to fix. Gabbe (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No idea what caused that. I updated the project's homepage in their ReleaseVersionParameters template [5] and updated the project's data using the web form. Now the link is correct. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alignment

Resolved

The old one was right-aligned I think. This new version appears to be centre-aligned causing problems on the layout of WikiProjects (example 1 and 2). Please get it right-aligned. Jolly Ω Janner 18:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see the problem. I'll change them to not be centered, like the old ones were [6]. I manually uploaded an updated Devon table to the wiki just now. Tables for other projects will change when they are automatically updated later today. The uploading task of the bot starts around 5am UTC daily, for the time being. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Two remarks

Some articles are displayed the "???" importance column, while others are displayed in the "Other" column - but they are tagged in the same way (e.g. using a template without an importance parameter). Why is that? GregorB (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In the articles by quality log, sections are now titled e.g. "2010-1-22". Is there a reason to use this date format? It's not even real ISO 8601. GregorB (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Other" / "???" thing can be confusing at first. Basically: '???' means that the article is rated as Unknown-Importance. 'Other' means that either the article has no importance category at all (not even Unkown-), or the article has an importance category that the bot does not recognize. The most common cause is problems with the WikiProject banners. If you tell me the project, I can diagnose the cause of the "Other" column pretty quickly and often fix it without too much work

The date formatting was a bug; I have all my dates formatted like "2010-1-22" when I view Wikipedia, so I did not think to check whether the previous bot code used a different format. I have updated the code for that, so that the format is now "January 22, 2010" as before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I get it - I could not understand why classification for some projects looked as expected (WP:Athletics), while others looked odd (WP:Croatia)... GregorB (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For the Croatia project, the issue is that the {{WikiProject Croatia}} assessment banner had a slight error in it. It was meant to add articles to Category:Unknown-importance Croatia articles if the importance was not assessed, but it was not doing that.

I fixed that template on Jan. 18 when I was doing a larger search for projects with these "Other" articles. Unfortunately, the behavior of the underlying Mediawiki software is a little strange. To logged in editors, it appears as if the categories are now correct. However, the actual category database is not updated immediately. For example, Talk:Cres appears to be in Category:Unknown-importance Croatia articles, but it is not actually in that category.

There is an automated system ("job queue") that will go through and update the category tables, but it takes time. Also, whenever a page is edited, the tables are automatically updated then.

So for the Croatia project, it should be just a matter of time - maybe a week - for the categories to all be updated, at which point the "Other" column should disappear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The "missing articles" problem is an old one, it persists for at least 6 months. It's a some kind of MediaWiki bug. IIRC the only way to fix it is to repopulate all categories, which is considered too resource-intensive. GregorB (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If the categories are not fixed by the job queue in a week or so, it's possible to fix them by doing a null edit on each affected page (via a bot). Just let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Links in quality logs

Resolved

Hello, folks! Interesting to see a new format of the logs, which seems richer in content and are updated more regularly. Although I haven't quite gotten used to the new layout yet, the change seems useful and valuable to projects, and thanks for that. However, it seems to me that the new format of the "Xxx articles by quality logs" includes links that don't go to the place you would expect them to. Let me take an example from the current version of "Sweden articles by quality log". Let me take two items out of the Reassessed section:

Reassessed

• Aaberg (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class (rev · t).
• Category:Companies of Sweden (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from High-Class to NA-Class (rev · t).

Now, the Aaberg link goes to the similarly named article just as expected, but the "(talk)" link doesn't go to Talk:Aaberg as I would expect, instead it also goes to the Aaberg article page! It is coded as ([[:Aaberg|talk]]). For categories it is even more strange: "(talk)" is a redlink, because it doesn't go to Category talk:Companies of Sweden, it in fact goes to the non-existing article Companies of Sweden. It is coded as ([[:Companies of Sweden|talk]]). Unless I've misunderstood something, this seems more like a bug than a feature... Could it perhaps be fixed? Tomas e (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out right away. It was a bug that appeared yesterday when I changed the system to sort the pages in the log by namespace. The weird output was caused by the namespace prefix ("Category talk:") not being inserted. The bug should be fixed now. I uploaded a new version of the Sweden log so you can see what it should look like.

If you see any other strange behavior, please let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now the links seem to go to where I expected. Thanks for the quick fix! Tomas e (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Additionally, now that we're discussing this... should the links to the talk pages be diff links? That also allows for the link to show the previous assessment status at the time of reassessment. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It's hard to detect the correct revid with perfect certainty. Right now I give a "t" link to the revision of the talk page that that bot thinks is the right one, but I'm not really convinced about its accuracy. Clicking "diff" on the far left side under the pink box in that old revision will give you a diff to the previous version. So the diff is just one extra click away. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Detection of renamed pages

Some of the pages are reported as renamed in the articles by quality log, while they are merely replaced with a redirect... GregorB (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I thought that some other options were worse:

• Use the word "redirected". I think people will might complain that if a page is moved, it is not just "redirected".
• Use the word "moved". I think people will complain that if the page is only redirected, then it is not "moved".

So I have been using "renamed" to cover both of these cases. Is there another word that is more clear? At the point that the logs are generated, the data has already been collected, and so it is hard to be more specific about whether the page was moved or "just redirected". Of course the move log and page history have the full info, nothing is hidden.

On the other hand, if you replace the page itself with a redirect but don't remove the assessment from the talk page, the bot does not call the page "renamed". The log entries for "renamed" only refer to pages that used to be assessed, but now are not assessed, and moreover are now redirected to some other assessed page. If you remove an assessment without redirecting the page, the logs will call that page "removed". — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these two cases could be distinguished in a reliable way. If there is no way to choose one over the other, why not say "moved or redirected"?

In the January 24 log for WP Croatia there are two articles in the "Renamed" section (Albin Starc and Vladimir Kočiš Zec) which were redirected without touching the assessment in the talk page (I commented these two out only after the log has been generated). GregorB (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I also don't know a good way to distinguish them. I could change the log page to say "moved or redirected". It seems longer, but I suppose there's no harm to it.

I'm confused about the two articles. It looks to me like those talk two pages were both redirected at about 11:52 UTC on Jan 24 [7] [8]. The bot update for that project ran about 18:03 UTC on the 24th. The debugging data from the bot run that day say the bot noticed the two articles were renamed at that time. That makes sense because the talk pages had been redirected before the bot run. I might be missing something here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in fact one can take a look at the page history and if an edit summary is something like "moved Foo to Bar: some reason", then it's a move. Not sure if the bot can actually check that, I don't know how it works. My guess is that it is not possible to distinguish between redirects and moves just by looking at the article content.

Not sure about those two articles either. Could be a glitch. I'll keep an eye on the logs, and if I find anything suspicious, I'll report it here. GregorB (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Problems over detecting state

There seems to be some problem over detecting the state of the article Grant Brown where the talk page has not changed since 11 June 2009 yet the bot picked up the incorrect ratings when it though it was added on 1 October 2009. Since then it has reported reassessment of the article on 20 January 2010, 22 January 2010, 23 January 2010, 24 January 2010, 25 January 2010 and 26 January 2010 in the log for WikiProject Lincolnshire. Can someone investigate what is going on here. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue I have known about (in general) for some time. The page was in both Category:Unknown-importance Lincolnshire articles and Category:Low-importance Lincolnshire articles, and also in two different quality assessment categories for the Lincolnshire project. At the moment this sort of multiple-categorization error makes the ratings appear to fluctuate back and forth. I would prefer for the logs to be more stable in this situation, but that requires changing a key area of the code, so it will take some time and testing to resolve. If the problem arises with other articles, it can be fixed by removing the extraneous categories from their talk pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I had not spotted a problem with the talk page as I was mainly looking at the log. Keith D (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Global statistics not being updated

For some reason JIRA is not letting me open a bug report, so I might as well do it here. The bot is updating the global stats table at WP:1.0/I, but not the transcludable table at WP:1.0/S. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

With the old system, I kept having complaints when people overwrote pages under "Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team/" and the bot reverted them. So the new bot is updating pages in its user space, which I can then transclude out. This will also help if we want to put some other statistics at WP:1.0/S someday (for example, a table that includes all the non-article classes...). But I forgot to change the stats page on Saturday. It now transcludes the correct table.

About JIRA: I am worried if you can't file a bug, because I'd like people to be able to. Were you logged in when you filed it? If you could leave some details on my talk page, I will check with the toolserver admins. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor namespace bug with new version

In listing this reassessment of Category:Pre-Soviet anarchism, the bot pointed to Talk:Pre-Soviet anarchism rather than Category talk:Pre-Soviet anarchism as the corresponding talkpage. Other than that the new set-up looks fantastic; congratulations and thank you very much, it is important work! Cheers,  Skomorokh  02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I think it is the same problem as the section Links in quality logs above. If so, it has been fixed. If the problem reoccurs with any new logs, please let me know and I will investigate further. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Code printing error

Resolved

Why is the toolserver page spewing out all sorts of code? If I go to [9] for example, I see:

QQ:
SELECT r_project, r_namespace, r_article, r_importance, 
       r_importance_timestamp, r_quality, 
       r_quality_timestamp, rel_0p5_category, 
       rev_value, ISNULL(rel_0p5_category) as null_rel,
       ISNULL(rev_value) as null_rev, r_score

etc. Why is this? Gabbe (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's for debugging, to make sure that what's going on is what should be going on. We'll get rid of that soon. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have disabled the debugging output again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Resolved

Shouldn't this bot's edit summaries be marked as bot edits? It's always a bit startling to see such large edits on recent changes. Marking them as bot edits would solve this issue, although I'm not sure if it's an issue to other editors. Just adding my two cents here. XXX antiuser ^eh? 01:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I should mark them as bot edits. I forgot that this is not automatic under the API; I need to add something to make the edit register as a bot edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the bot's code to mark its edits as bot edits. This shows up correctly in my watchlist. Let me know if there is any trouble with the recentchanges list tomorrow. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply! I'm not seeing the bot's edits anymore so it should be all good. XXX antiuser ^eh? 02:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It finished for the day already, so you shouldn't see much until about 23:55 UTC tomorrow (less than 24h from now). Except the edits should be marked as bot edits, so hopefully you won't seem them then either. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Double logs for Feb. 7, 2010

Many projects will see the same log was uploaded twice for February 7, 2010. Here's why.

The bot runs automatically after 23:30 UTC each day to upload the on-wiki tables. I ran a second instance manually around 22:30UTC to see whether it would fix a different bug. The code to upload logs checks the previous edit summaries of the page to make sure that the same logs are not uploaded twice, and this has been tested, so I was not worried about double logs.

Unfortunately the replication lag on the toolserver was too large (it's 40 minutes right now). Since the data on the existing edits wasn't yet in the toolserver database, it wasn't seen by my second bot process. That made it look like the previous log edit was yesterday, so the second process uploaded today's log again, resulting in a duplicate.

I'll be more careful not to run two instances close in time to each other now that I know not to trust the toolserver database to be completely up to date.

At some point, I'll do a one-off maintenance run to remove the duplicate logs. But for now, there are just two copies of the same log on the log pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Incubator log update

For some reason, the toolserver wouldn't update the Wikipedia:Article Incubator assessment log. Can smeone fix this for me? Thanks Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It ran for me without any (apparent) glitches, so the information on the web tool is all up to date. But I think I see what you mean: the on-wiki log is not updated at the same time. That was actually intentional: the web tool is the "real" data, while the on-wiki copy is now simply a daily copy of what is in the web tool.

I see how it would be nice if at least the summary table was copied right away when you update the project data. My concern with the logs is that right now the system looks at whether a log was already updated for the day before uploading it; if the log is manually updated, that might make that day's automatic log not be uploaded to the wiki.

Would it be reasonable for the table to update right away and the logs to wait for the next daily update?

I filed a new feature request in the tool's bug tracking page to keep track of this issue: ENWPONE-19. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The data should be updated right away. Someone should get the old bot to work again as an alternative. I've been waiting for many days for the new bot to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Squash/Assessment and Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Assessment, but they're still not being updated, until now. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The tables are already being updated every day at

User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Squash

User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Article_Incubator

If you if you would like to see changes appear on your watchlist, you will need to watchlist those pages. The tables are transcluded back to the locations of the old bot, so that links still work.

Note: the bot uploads a new table for every project every day, even if there are no changes, but Mediawiki does not register the edit if the page text has not changed. So the reason the Squash page has not changed since Jan 23rd is that the table has not changed since then. The article logs in the web tool show that the most recent change was on January 22. The bot nevertheless has been updating its internal copy of the table every day.

The article incubator project has very few articles assessed, but the category tree does appear to be correct. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The bot does now update the on-wiki table immediately when you do an update from the web tool. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary table, numbers wrong

Can't seem to leave bug report. For the last couple of days the table has said there are 78 A-class articles with unknown importance but when you click on the 78 to bring up a list of all these articles, there are no articles on the list. Normally there might be a lag, as the table is updated once per day but this has persisted for several days even though the table has been updated. The numbers in the summary table don't appear to match the numbers of articles in the lists that are generated when you click on a number on the summary table. Please can you fix Tom B (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the bug tracker not letting you file; I will look into it.

I understand the reason for the error you are seeing, although I didn't think of it until now because it only affects the global table. The issue isn't the numbers, it's the program that generates the lists.

The underlying difficulty is that the global table takes the highest quality rating and the highest importance rating for each page. So if a page was rated as A-class, Low-importance by one project, and B-class, High-importance by another, it will show up as A-class, High-importance in the table, which is the behavior I was aiming for. But the list will not show the article as an A-class High-importance article because the list looks for ratings assigned by the same project. I have some idea how to fix this: make the list use the same data as the global table when it is linked from the global table.

There is a separate issue that affects just the "Unknown-importance" articles, which is why this is where it was noticed. But the issue in the previous paragraph is really the underlying reason for the lists being visibly wrong, and fixing that will solve the problem with the lists.

In the meantime, I will remove the links from the global table, because the software right now is not capable of making those lists accurately. The lists of articles on a project-by-project basis are fine, so the links from the project-specific tables are fine. It's just the global table where this is a problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: The problem with the bugs seems to be that the toolserver admins require you to sign up for a JIRA account to sign bugs. I have added documentation about this to the web interface. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

righto, would be cool to fix the tables when you get a chance, Tom B (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I put this in the bug tracker as ENWPONE-23. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Unassessed-Class articles removed

On January 28, 2010 the bot removed all of the unassessed articles from the statistics table. Just wondering why. Also wondering if the statistics table could be customized to show only certain ratings. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I keep detailed debugging logs that let me diagnose this sort of thing.

The issue is that both Category:Unassessed-Class Ships articles and Category:Unassessed Ships articles exist, but they don't have the same articles in them. The bot goes through Category:Ships articles by quality looking for quality classes, and both of those two look like they should be the category for Unassessed-Class articles. The bot will accept both names because there are many projects that put their Unassessed-Class articles into a category like Category:Unassessed mathematics articles, but it will only read one category.

For reasons that I don't know, the database changed the order that it reports the categories to the bot during its scan (I see this by comparing debugging logs). It used to be that the bot thought that Category:Unassessed-Class Ships articles was the one to use, but now the bot thinks that Category:Unassessed Ships articles is the one. Since that latter category is empty, the articles disappeared from the bot's notice.

The easiest solution would be to delete the category Category:Unassessed Ships articles, which the WPSHIPS template does not populate anyway; that will fix the data immediately. Or just remove it from Category:Ships articles by quality.

A slower fix is to change Template:WPSHIPS to put Unassessed-Class articles into both categories. That is slower because the updates to the individual articles will take a while to percolate through the job queue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As to making a custom table that only has specific quality classes in it, that can certainly be done, although it may take me a little while to implement it. The new system is very flexible for that sort of thing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I had the category deleted. The table gives out more information than is necessary from an appearance pov. Most project members want a quick look at the "rated" articles, stub to FA and maybe lists and books. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know which classes you would like to appear, and I will let you know when I get the code in place to do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Using the current table as an example. Everything from Book up through FA should remain and category down through template removed. That should allow totals on real articles. --Brad (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can do that; I will contact when it is done (probably in a week or so). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The table is at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Ships-1. It will be updated daily (assuming that it has changed since the last time it was uploaded). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with new project's assessment table

Resolved

A new task force of WP:MED, the Toxicology task force was recently created and we are trying to use the bot for assessment statistics. While the bot appears to be doing something, it is not updating the assessment table. It has updated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Toxicology articles by quality log, but not Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Toxicology articles by quality or User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Toxicology. In the process of the task force creation, someone copied an existing assessment table to User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Toxicology. I don't know if this is related, but even after blanking that page and zero-ing out the cells, the table will still not update. I created the other pages that the bot normally creates in an attempt to fix the problem. I tried running "Update project data" on the toolserver, but this does not appear to be updating the database or Wiki pages properly. Thanks. --Scott Alter 06:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The table at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Michigan road transport articles by quality statistics isn't correct either. The parent project updates a table weekly at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/States based off the individual states' tables, and it's been updated by a bot for our project with at least the Michigan line incorrect. For instance, 2 GAs were passed this week, and several articles have been reassessed from Start to C or B class. I checked, and the table hasn't updated for Michigan at [[10]] since 2/2, even though the log is updating daily. The other 50 states seem to have the same issue. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently no project's tables uploaded during the past few days; the code to generate the tables was not completing. That's fixed now. User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Michigan road transport and User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Toxicology uploaded today, and since the table bug is fixed they should be fine going forward. If they give problems again, please let me know. As long as I am not traveling, I watch this page very closely. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears to be working now. Just a minor thing - the toxicology project is listed, but there is no link to the project from the Project index on the toolserver. Also, does the bot still write the "by quality" files (as in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality), or is this list only available on the toolserver? If it is no longer used, the links to it can be removed from templates like {{WP1}}. --Scott Alter 03:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For the link, the bot needs to know where the project's home page is. I added the necessary template to Category:Toxicology articles by quality, setting the homepage to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force, and updated the project's data. If that is not the correct page, please edit the template parameters and update the project data again.

The lists of articles are no longer uploaded. I am planning to go through and mark them as historical in the near future. The link in {{WP1}} can be changed to link to the web-based tool; I will work on that this morning. Thanks for pointing out that template, I was not aware of it (the WP 1.0 system is so big that it is very to keep track of everything). — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the template, but it will be a few days until all the pages that use it are updated through the job queue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Importance score

The score is an output in the tables and i think is generated from adding an importance score plus quality. Would it be possible to get just the importance score as an output, please? Tom B (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: yes.

The algorithm for computing the score is explained in (painful) detail here. I think you are asking for the "importance score" that is calculated as

Importance score = Assessed_importance_points + External_interest_points

but I want to double-check that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah i've read that, i think it's a score just for external interest points that might be useful but i wouldn't make it your top priority. you might not be able to separate it out from assessed, Tom B (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you check the box "show external interest data" in the article list program, you can already see the three pieces of data the bot uses. This is not live data; it takes too long to update. So it is just updated from time to time. I can add another column for the importance score, or just the external interest score, but maybe these three data points are what you were looking for? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

yep saw the external interest data, though it wasn't clear what PL and LL meant, that explanation may need to get put in the guide, also it might be worth changing things so one can sort on them using output options. i've just realised if you hover over PL, LL, hit count that a pop-up box comes-up explaining what they mean but there's an error as it says "Number of Pages that link to this page" for all PL, LL AND hit count, i'm guessing PL is page link and LL is interwiki links. It might be useful if you could get an external interest score (i.e. combining PL, LL and hit count) and then be able to sort on it. Likewise for 'importance score', if that's too many columns, then maybe just external interest score for the moment, cheers Tom B (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that was pretty useless documentation. I fixed it so the captions are accurate; added a dotted underline to make it slightly more obvious to hover over those headers; and edited the guide to document the meanings of the three columns.

I agree that sorting by external interest score (or actually, any of the three subcolumns) makes sense. Unfortunately it is not as easy as it seems, because the external interest score is not stored separately right now. But I will fix that, and then it will be possible to both (1) show the external interest score and (2) sort by it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

cheers Tom B (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This morning I did half of the solution: now the external interest score is stored in the database (previously it was just calculated as part of computing the overall score, but not stored). The article lists also show the external interest score when you turn on the external interest data.

This still leaves the sorting to be done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks, i think it adds value. i pasted to excel to sort, Tom B (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Release version

On here, I know that USS Nevada (BB-36) was selected for release in 0.7, but that doesn't show up. It's not a big deal, but is this part of a larger bug? Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is: the 0.7 articles are not displayed on the tool right now. One thing that is slowing it down is that we need to tag them on the wiki first. Things are moving forward towards getting this fixed, but slowly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like you already know about it. Sorry for the bother. :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem; I am happy to have bug reports, because in most cases I don't already know about the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about the new format

1. - Why is this page no longer updated: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Scouting_articles_by_quality/1 — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Those pages were started when the original WP 1.0 bot used the wiki to store lists of articles, when there were only 50,000 articles assessed [11]. This was a reasonable design at the time, but eventually the load of updating all those wiki pages became unsustainable: it was taking several days to update the assessment data, and a large part of this delay was due to editing the wiki pages to store lists of articles.

Also, for many projects, the lists are too long to read manually, and are split over many subpages. The splitting makes the lists essentially unsearchable, as well. The wiki is simply not very useful as a database. Some examples: Australia has 214 pages in its list, and Biography (the largest project) has over 1800.

The updated bot stores lists of articles in an actual database on the toolserver. The data is accessible via the web tool at http://toolserver.org/~enwp10 , but it is no longer copied to the wiki. The summary tables and daily logs are uploaded to the wiki, and are now updated daily.

Honestly, I think it was only a matter of time until one of the site admins noticed that the bot was storing so much data in wiki pages, and told me that it had to stop. I am happy that the new system was implemented before that happened. The old system had completely outgrown itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Importance: a logical oddity

Hi all,

I have an issue relating to this chart, and I hope some of you can offer your insights. I'll just point out upfront that I don't know what the best solution is, and am hoping for a bit of brainstorming!

As background, I am doing a fair amount of outreach work that involves explaining to non-Wikipedians (and, hopefully, future Wikipedians) how things like article evaluation, quality assessment, and a collaborative approach to article improvement are handled. I am constantly on the lookout for bits of "under the hood" Wikipedia work that I can show around, to give non-Wikipedins a taste of how things work. Needless to say, the excellent suite of assessment tools developed by(?) supported by(?) the Wikipedia 1.0 project is something I turn to repeatedly.

My concern: this overall chart, which includes all assessed articles on Wikipedia (and as distinct from a chart associated with a specific WikiProject), aggregages "importance" tags in a way that doesn't really make sense.

When a WikiProject assigns an importance to an article, the assignment reflects the article's importance to that project. But unless one has a pretty sophisticated understanding of what's going on, this overall chart appears to reflect an article's importance in a general sense.

I believe this is most clearly illustrated with a few examples. Although all of the following are listed in the chart under "top importance" articles, I don't think anyone would claim they are truly among the encyclopedia's most important articles in the abstract: Big Brother (Romania), along with every other country's version of this television program; Age of Empires, a video game whose article lead states that it's been a "commercial success" and "popular," but not that it's been especially impactful even within the world of gaming, much less in the world at large; and List of state routes in Arizona.

Beyond that, there's an issues of WikiProjects that never really got off the ground with assessment. For instance, WP:WikiProject ACC rates only one article as "top" importance, Boston College; nobody has bothered to tag the article on Atlantic Coast Conference for that project.

Wikipedia does, of course, have separate efforts aimed at assessing overall importance, at least at the high level: Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000, and perhaps others.

It seems to me that this chart should be either altered in a fundamental way, or annotated in a way that explains the issue of article importance in a way that is very clear to a broad audience.

Thoughts? -Pete Forsyth (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a legend to the bottom with a link to an explanation in the FAQ. I don't think that there is much that can be done; there are too many projects to try to do anything much more complicated than just "pick the highest rating". The global table is just meant to be a rough summary of the overall assessments; it isn't a precision instrument. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah -- I wasn't aware of the FAQ, thanks for mentioning that. I think what you suggest is probably a good way to go, but I'm not seeing what you did. At least, no changes to this page since my comment. Can you clarify? -Pete (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics and the link at the bottom. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Strangeness on the philosophy log

Cubism is currently being reassessed every day according to the Philosophy articles by quality log but none of these changes are actually taking place on the talk page itself.

Does anyone know what's going on? Am I asking in the right place? Pollinosisss (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that the talk page had more than one rating; I removed the extra templates [12]. For example, the talk page was in both the Low-importance and Unknown-importance categories. Oscillating logs are a symptom of this problem. It should be fixed now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Pollinosisss (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CHERUB

We set up this task force as the instructions say, but the bot does not seem to be including us. Where did we go wrong? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 09:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably need to update the instructions; could you tell me which set you looked at? I checked the project, it seems to be set up correctly, and when I told the bot to update it, everything worked. So the tables should be updated automatically from now on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I still can't find any pages related to the project - specifically, I was hoping for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/CHERUB and Henderson's Boys articles by quality statistics (let me know if the location is wrong). I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that I forgot that those pages would not be created for new projects... I fixed the "manual update" tool to create them. The actual table is uploaded to a subpage of the WP 1.0 bot's user page, to the Wikipedia: page just transcludes that table.

In any case, the page is created now. I'll work on updating the documentation this evening. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 13:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I messed something up

Trying to add additional classes to {{WikiProject Big 12}}. However, instead, it removed nearly every article from the project. For instance, go to Talk:List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches and you'll see the Category:FL-Class Big 12 Conference articles link. Clicking it takes you to a category page that is empty. However, Talk:Oklahoma Sooners still appears to be working but I have no idea why. So, I would appreciate some assistance setting up the above project to have additional classes (the ones already specified here).—NMajdan•talk 14:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You have run into the job queue. If the category links appear at the bottom to the talk pages, then the template is correct. However, when you edit a template, the system does not immediately update the actual category membership records. That would be very inefficient if the template was used thousands of times. Instead, the system creates a "job" to do the updates, and sticks that job into a line of other jobs to run. If you wait for a while (it may take several days to a week), eventually the records will all be updated. Alternatively, whenever a page is edited (even a null edit), the records are updated. So when I did a null edit on Talk:List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches just now, it fixed the categorization of that page. If there are only a few pages that need to be updated, is can be faster to do it by hand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh....ok. I am aware of the job queue, but was not aware it could take several days as its been around 18 hours since I made the change. Thanks for the info.—NMajdan•talk 14:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Still nothing.—NMajdan•talk 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The FL-class category is up to 3 articles now. Do you have a sense of what articles should be in it? As long as the articles "seem to be" in the right category, it's just a job queue delay. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

More than three. In addition to the ones listed, there are these: List of Oklahoma Sooners football seasons, List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches, List of Oklahoma State Cowboys head football coaches, List of Texas Longhorns head football coaches, List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons, List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons. Plus, I know we have more than 0 stubs. Maybe I'll take it to VP.—NMajdan•talk 17:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Documentation please!

In January (2010) WikiProjects got this message:

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage.

While I appreciate that some guys work hard to enhance the Wikipedia tools at hand, I must say I recently clicked on each of these links and could not derive a practical idea as to what was going on with that. I don't think finding more information in the middle of an 'Archive 6' page is so great. Putting it on a talk page was already questionable at best. Then on the sublink thereof, Template:Grading_scheme, what's a Current class, what's a Merge class, what's a Needed class? No explanation. One would hope that reasonably decent documentation about what is going on in Wikipedia would be put up in timely fashion and located where it belongs logically... (Note: I took notice of the doc effort at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SelectionBot/Web/Guide but that's only a solution for THAT part of the changes.) --AlainR345^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 19:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point - we'll try to make sure there is some permanent documentation. Walkerma (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot offline?

It seems that the WP 1.0 bot has been offline for two days, and the toolserver reports a Bad Gateway error. Any idea why this is the case? Thanks for your great work! G.A.S^talk 06:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out! I looked into the problem and contacted the toolserver admins. The problem is that the database was not properly restored after a server change. They are going to reload the database from a backup, and that should start the tool working. Because I am traveling, I will not be able to look into it more until tomorrow. Please post here if other problems come up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As of right now, the bot will run if told to do so, and reassessed articles are shown on the reassessment log page, but they are improperly shown as not existing before the reassessment, and the assessment table shows 0 articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The database was restored, but only in part. I have contacted the toolserver admins about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why no articles

what happened here? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like something similar happened for Nevada. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was broken somehow by toolserver maintenance. I am trying to get it fixed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am still trying to get it fixed. I'm sorry for the delay, but it's not something I can fix myself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Same for WP:WikiProject Human rights. Is this a general problem or limited to some projects? Rd232 ^talk 14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that WP:WikiProject Paintball has the same issue. Jwoodger (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

When running the bot manually, I noticed this error - "Transaction aborted (updating 'Paintball')... execute failed: Table 'p_enwp10.selection_data' doesn't exist at database_routines.pl line 1018.... Table 'p_enwp10.selection_data' doesn't existRollback database" Jwoodger (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got the same error. Was just coming to post it. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just tried it again, and it's working. Thanks! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 02:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of the outage on 2010-3-17

Sometime around 2010-3-17, one of the toolserver admins accidentally deleted the WP 1.0 bot's database during server maintenance. They didn't go out of their way to delete it; instead, they forgot that it existed, and so they didn't take the necessary steps to keep it.

One nice thing about toolserver is that they do have routine backups. So they just needed to restore the database from the backup of 2010-3-15, and then the bot could catch up on the changes since then. Unfortunately, the initial restore of the database stopped in the middle, leaving only partial data; this led to the bot uploading a lot of tables that said "0 articles".

A complicating factor is that I am away from home and only have occasional internet access. Therefore I was not able to diagnose problems and contact the toolserver admins as rapidly as usual, which added almost a day to the recovery time. However, last night I was able to contact them and have the database restored completely. The bot appears to be working correctly now, and I expect it will do its daily automatic run today as usual. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Essay Index?

Hi, I'm with WP:ESSAY C/C and we've recently gotten our essays all tagged with a Wikiproject banner, and just conducted our first bot-assisted assessment. I'd like to have a page that shows assessment statistics, like many other wikiprojects have (like the one at WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Is there some way we can make that happen, so we have statistics on how many essays in each importance level exist? Thanks. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you will need to make some slight changes to your wikiproject template and category tree. Using the bot in this way is possible, but it's not quite the way the bot was designed, so you have to fit your project into the design specs.

1. The WP 1.0 bot requires you to give some quality assessment to the pages you have tagged. You can just make the wikiproject template assess them all as NA-Class; I did that.
2. The bot requires categories named Category:Wikipedia essays articles by quality and Category:Wikipedia essays articles by importance. The phrase 'articles by' is required. I created these categories.

The resulting table is here. The three redundant rows are because you only have one quality rating, which is unusual. This weekend, I should be able to set up a custom table for you that does not have three duplicate rows. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Very, very kind of you, sir. Thanks a million. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work. New question: How do we get it to update? It discovered that there were 150 NA-class essays, and we've run a bot to fix that. Is there a way we can tell WP 1.0 bot to update? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It updates automatically every day. You can do a manual update at any time via the web tool at http://toolserver.org/~enwp10. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Very cool. Thank you. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your custom table is at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Essays-1. It will update daily. The code is in the project's subversion repository, here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Article lists obsolete

I saw that Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/India articles by quality/1 and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality/1 and all similar lists weren't updated since January and that it's now possible to summon the list via the toolserver. If so, why not delete the outdated and obsolete lists? Regards Hekerui (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The shouldn't be deleted, since they may be a useful source of data someday. I do plan to eventually overwrite them all with a message saying that they have been replaced by the new WP 1.0 bot's web tool. But that keeps getting postponed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the "summon the list via the toolserver" instructions? Ta. Ben MacDui 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you load http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/ there is an 'article lists' tool there, on the left-hand side. You can use it to search for articles by WikiProject, assessment level, and other criteria. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gracias. Ben MacDui 07:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Smaller logs

I created {{WP1.0Log}} a while ago, so the WP1.0 logs wouldn't be so massive. Feel free to tweak it.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you converted over a full log page (one of the ones that is split over multiple edits by the bot) to see whether the template gets close to the template limits, or extends the rendering time too much? That would be my only concern about switching the bot to use the template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No (doing a full log manually would just take way too much time), but a full page of logs (100K) is pretty small, about 300 entries. I doubt calling a small template 300 times will make things explode. The size limit of a page should probably be lower than 100K however, since this would save hundreds of characters per entry. A limit of 500 entries per page sounds reasonable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing we need to make sure however, is that the parameters are well-chosen so updates to the template won't screw up backwards compatibility. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A different bot request

I don't know who to ask for help, but I have a different kind of request. The US Roads WikiProject maintains a page, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/States that tracks the assessments for all 50 states, 5 of the 6 territories, 3 task forces and the main project. The table also has columns for two additional figures, a cumulative WikiWork (ω), and a relative WikiWork (Ω). WikiWork is a calculation of the number of assessment class levels of improvement necessary to reach the theoretical goal of all articles featured. The relative figure can be used to compare projects' average quality in numerical form, and rank them accordingly. Featured Articles are scored as 0; Stub-Class articles score a 6.

Originally, this page was updated by hand, manually calculating the WikiWork figures. A project member wrote a script that he used to automate the task, parsing data from the different assessment tables and updating the underlying wikicode that generates the table. However, this editor has now "retired" from editing and can't release the code to someone else for various reasons. Another editor, Fredddie and I were working on a concept of an automatically updating table based on {{AbQ}}, but unfortunately we ran into a problem. The concept works, but the server software only allows 500 "expensive parser function calls", and the table needs over 1,000 or more to show the complete contents of the 59 rows. The table reaches the limit in the middle of the North Dakota line of the table. The concept of an automatically updating table works, we just have too many rows. If MediaWiki had a way to code a table similar to a spreadsheet, we would be able to call the numbers once only and get all of the calculations. (We may pass the current code over to our sister project in Canada should they express interest in a similar table.)

We've thought about splitting the table in half, with one table for the assessments, and a second, separate table that would calculate the WikiWork statistics. Another concept is that the table auto updates only the assessment ratings and the totals in each row, and one of us could separately calculate the WikiWork numbers and update them in the table on a weekly basis.

Since the WP1.0bot already updates assessment tables on a daily basis, we're wondering if there is some way that it could generate and update a table such as this. The key differences are:

1. We would need updates from 59 sets of assessment categories (American Samoa has no articles, only a list at this time, but this could change in the future.)
2. The table only tracks the standard article assessments (FA, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub)
3. We would need a way to generate the two WikiWork calculations.

Any assistance is greatly appreciated, either with ways to make our concept work another way with so many table rows, or with a bot task that would update a table on a regular basis. Until we come up with some sort of automated solution, we will revert to full manual updates of some kind in the interim. Imzadi1979 (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The WP 1.0 bot could update that table once a day (and the code for doing it would be released...). I would need a more detailed description of how to calculate ω and Ω, I don't understand them yet. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing from the WikiWork page linked above:

ω = a + 2g + 3b + 4c + 5s + 6t ; where a = the # of A-Class articles, g = the # of GA-Class articles, b = the # of B-Class articles, c = the # of C-Class articles, s = the # of Start-Class articles and t = the number of Sub-Class articles

Ω= ω / n ; where n = the total # of articles or f + a + g + b + c + s + t; where f = the # of FA-Class articles

Basically Ω is a weighted average where Feature Articles are weighted 0 and the Stubs are weighted 6, with the other classes distributed evenly in between. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand now. I will need a little time to implement this. I'll let you know when it's ready. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It is much appreciated!! :) In the mean time, we have the table auto-updating using the parser calls, but not displaying the assessment class numbers, which will work for our newsletter and other updates. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Any updates. We're just curious is all. Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any updates yet. I've been busy with job-related projects and travel, so my free programming time has been almost zero this month. I should be able to complete the script for this new table it in the next couple weeks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I managed to finish this today. It is at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1 and will update daily. The code that generates this table is here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That's about an hour's work once a week eliminated now. It looks great. Imzadi 1979 → 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Guatemala table broken

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Guatemala table at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Guatemala has been broken for several days. Anyone have any idea how to fix it? Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is from this edit to {{WikiProject Central America}} - the assessment categories were changed for all WikiProjects using {{WikiProject Central America}}. Because the template is protected, you need an administrator to fix this. --Scott Alter (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've asked the user who made the edit if he/she can fix it. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't. I've tried, it's a mess - categories and templates aren't matching up all over the place (which is what I was trying to fix in the first place). Please panic at the WP:HELPDESK. Rd232 ^talk 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems to have fixed it; the categories in Category:Guatemala articles by quality are repopulating slowly. It will take time for the job queue to catch up with all of the uses of the template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

There appears to be a minor problem insomuch that the bot is listing several songs as reassessed even though no edits have been made in several months, notably Sweet Georgia Brown, I Want To Hold Your Hand, Paperback Writer and several others. Regards, --Richhoncho (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is because the articles have conflicting assessements. For example, Talk:Sweet Georgia Brown is in both Category:Unassessed song articles and Category:C-Class song articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.

Following the rename of WikiProject Macintosh, I have renamed all categories that used to be "Macintosh..." to "Apple Inc. ...". {{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Macintosh articles by quality statistics}} therefore needs to be updated to

Apple Inc. articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA			3				3
FL			1				1
GA	2	7	11	6			26
B	13	40	49	55			157
C	6	80	163	248			497
Start		30	131	555		75	791
Stub		2	12	263		218	495
List	1	4	13	21	1	2	42
Category					258		258
Draft					22		22
Disambig					10		10
File					219		219
Project					30		30
Redirect		2		7	527		536
Template					78		78
Assessed	22	165	383	1,155	1,145	295	3,165
Unassessed						19	19
Total	22	165	383	1,155	1,145	314	3,184
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 9,441			Ω = 4.79

. Also, Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Macintosh_articles_by_quality_log should now be located at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Apple Inc._articles_by_quality_log. The same applies to Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Macintosh_articles_by_quality. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 01:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! Airplaneman ✈ 16:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Degree of update

Follow-up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#"Other" Album Class in Grid

I am assuming that for stats grids which are updated daily, the 'bot doesn't do a 100% rebuild, because that would take too long. How often is a complete rebuild performed for any given grid? I'm thinking of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Album which has a row titled "Other". On that row, in the High-importance column is just one article, Talk:Menace II Society (soundtrack), which if you examine the actual talk page banner, is rated Stub/High. It's been Stub-class since the talk page was created on 30 May 2007, although it didn't rate High-importance until 18 October 2007. Similarly, the six shown on that row under Mid-importance are all either Stub-class or Start-class, as are the 13 under Low-importance. A random sample of the 798 under ???-importance tells a similar story. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed intriguing why so many articles within WP:ALBUM are assessed as "Other", while they have a valid class coded in the project template. I found that the total number in the "Other" line jumped from 7 on 15 March (this version]) to 1,026 on 20 March (this version), after a 5 days period without updates. Bug? – IbLeo^(talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Responses:

1. The bot does rebuild the table every day from scratch. It does not take very long to download the contents of a few categories.
2. I did some research and found the technical reason for the problem, but I do not know what caused it.

The issue is that some change to the assessment template has not made it through the job queue. For example, the page Talk:Menace II Society (soundtrack) was not actually in the Stub-class category in the database, although an bug feature of Mediawiki makes the page appear to be in that category for logged-in users. Because the bot reads data from the database copy on toolserver, it has no way to tell if a page is supposed to be in a category.

I did a null edit to that talk page and a second page that was listed as "other". Then I updated the stats manually. The table showed that the count of "other" articles dropped by 2, as expected, to 816.

I ordinarily would not go through and do null edits, but given the large time lag here, I think the simplest solution is for me to do null edits on the pages in question. If any pages remain in the "other" section after that, more examination is needed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The null edits seem to have worked. This is not a change to the bot; the edits just update the actual category membership records in the enwiki database, which the bot reads as input. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carl, thanks a lot for your explanation and prompt actions to fix the problem. Indeed, no more articles shows up as "Other" in the current version of our assessment table. Out of pure curiosity, I wonder what you mean by a "null edit"? Looking at Talk:Menace II Society (soundtrack) I don't see any recent changes... – IbLeo^(talk) 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You click "edit", then "save page", without making any changes. No changes are made to the text, so no revisions are calculated, but the page is passed through all the link, category and template calculations that MediaWiki would otherwise do for pages being changed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. And I hope you had a tool to assist you going through those 816 articles! Again, thanks. – IbLeo^(talk) 19:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Provide computer readable output

I think it would be useful, if the data from this tool (mainly assessment logs) would be available in a format easily readable by other applications, e.g. XML. It could help with this proposal, but I'm sure there would be many other uses. What do you say? (I could parse the HTML this tool generates, but I think that is needlessly difficult.) Svick (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I replied at the original discussion, to keep the comments together. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is very easy for me to share the tool's database tables in a reasonable format. However, if you just want a tool to list articles by order of when they were assessed, that would be easier to implement by just adding additional sort orders to [13]. I would be happy to have additional devs for the WP 1.0 bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think adding the additional sort order is sufficient. Svick (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Empty article lists

User:WP 1.0 Bot seems to have created a fair number of "articles by quality" pages that have no actual content. Each of these pages is notable for having been assigned to a non-existent (redlinked) category (although it's possible the categories existed at some point, possibly including when the bot created the pages). The following is only a partial listing:

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/African history articles by quality
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/African history articles by quality log
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/African history articles by quality statistics
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Asian history articles by quality
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Asian history articles by quality log
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Asian history articles by quality statistics
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Australian and Oceanian history articles by quality
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Australian and Oceanian history articles by quality log
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Australian and Oceanian history articles by quality statistics
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/BFT articles by quality
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/BFT articles by quality log
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Coventry-related articles by quality
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Coventry-related articles by quality log
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Coventry-related articles by quality statistics

Is there any reason why these and similar empty pages cannot be deleted? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

These are the remnants of the old listing method; they have been superseded by the Toolserver bot listings. I don't see why they can't be deleted, besides breaking WikiProject navigation templates. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Islam table fix

Hi, could someone please fix the table used for Wikiproject Islam (User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Islam-related). Currently for importance sorting it only shows 'Mid' and 'NA' and doesn't show 'Low', 'High', 'Top' and 'Unassessed'. I'm not sure how to fix it myself, when I tried to edit the table, the formatting was broken when I checked the preview. Thanks in advance! EuroPride (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem was categories such as Category:Low-importance Islam articles. I edited their categorizations, updated the table, and it's better not. If those categories are not supposed to be populated, let me know and I can just delete them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Football in France table

I created a new French football task force, with all the relevant categories (main category: Category:WikiProject Football in France articles). There are now over 5,000 articles tagged as coming under the scope of this task force, so I would like a table of statistics similar to what I have seen on many WikiProject pages. By running the 1.0 bot over a week ago I created this page: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football in France articles by quality statistics, but I wondered when the table will be created? According to the WP:1.0 instructions, this should happen every three days, but it hasn't. Cheers, BigDom 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The only issue was a missing category [14]. I ran the bot and had it upload the table. The table should be automatically updated from now on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a lot. BigDom 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

API to get the list of articles with certain quality and importance

Hi, I would like the use the list article too to get the list of articles with a certain quality and importance as it is provided now but not in HTML output format. I was wondering if the tool has an API available to get the list of the articles as plain text or any other format. I want to avoid, getting the HTML page and having to parse the page to get the list. I appreciate if someone can help me with that. You can contact me at rfarzan@cs.cmu.edu.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Rostaf (talk)Rostaf —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC).

V1.0 Bot Wiki Upload Bug report

(Diff) It seems like external links has issues with quotation marks which breaks the links uploaded by the bot. G.A.S^talk 04:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• E.g. Hikari "Kari" Kamiya (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class ("Kari"%20Kamiya&oldid=373470935 rev · "Kari"%20Kamiya&oldid=374312689 t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class ("Kari"%20Kamiya&oldid=373470935 rev · "Kari"%20Kamiya&oldid=374312689 t).

What a bug. I looked into it and this is a bug in the URI::Escape module of Perl. I hope it will be fixed very soon. I will talk to the toolserver admins to see if they are willing to just edit the file. But it will be a couple days before I have a real solution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimarkup request

Please see this request. Can anyone here help? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Universal Parks & Resorts WikiProject

I was wondering if someone can give me a hand in setting up the assessment pages for the Universal Parks & Resorts WikiProject. I think I've got most of it done, but when you look it up here it doesn't appear to be working correctly. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Themeparkgc (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything seems OK. The bot is able to create the table at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Universal Parks & Resorts, which will be updated each day. Please let me know if you run into any issues. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed it. It seems the categories have to be named with “articles” in them. Svick (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering if someone had cleaned it up before I saw it. The "top level" categories do need to have certain names, so that the bot recognizes them for what they are. Also, just after the category tree is created, the project will not be visible in the project index until the bot has scanned it. This should happen automatically during the next daily run, even for new projects, but I used the "update" tool to manually update this project earlier today to force the bot to scan it right away. You can just type the project name into the update tool if the name isn't on the list. Once the project is scanned once, it will be in the project index. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

North and South Aral Seas

I am new to the project, and the bot needs to make the North and South Aral Seas C-class and Low importance in all its projects. The spesh man, My talk, and My other wiki pages 16:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Log archive

The bot's last update to WikiProject Cape Verde's log removed the older entries. Were these archived somewhere? If not, can we choose to keep the old entries, or to have them automatically archived somewhere? --Waldir ^talk 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are archived in the page history. But you can also search for logs using the web tool [15]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Article missing in table

I've raised an issue with user XLerate and he suggested that I bring this up here. Basically, there's an article missing in the New Zealand politics articles by quality and importance table. The article is First Māori elections, it was moved into mainspace on 1 September and has been sitting there unassessed ever since. It's not showing up in the table of the New Zealand politics project. The table is updating itself every few days as it should, but this one is missing. XLerate has put a few more thoughts on his talk page as linked to above. Would anybody know what's going wrong? Schwede66 03:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What assessment do you think it should have? According to [16] the article is being detected, so it should be counting towards the table. It may be that it took some time for the page to be updated by the wiki system after the move; this is independent of the bot, which relies on the wiki's internal data about categories. If you notice pages that seem to be in the wrong place in the wp10 tool, try editing the talk page. Then the next update should get the correct data. This log may also help [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/New_Zealand_politics_articles_by_quality_log. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, the log is rather interesting. I quote from it: "September 13, 2010 - Reassessed - First Māori elections (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Unassessed-Class. Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Unknown-Class" So apparently, this article went from assessed as NA to Unknown. If it was NA, then it wouldn't show in the table. What's odd, though, is that this reassessment doesn't show up in the revision history.

The article has been showing up in the toolserver report since earlier today when XLerate ran Update project data. Maybe these two things are related? But it's still strange that the assessment changed without this showing up in the revision history, isn't it? Schwede66 05:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it was because:

1. User talk:Schwede66/Contributions/First Māori elections got assessed as NA/NA, a test shows the User Talk namespace defaults to NA/NA with empty parameters
2. it wasn't reassessed after the move to Talk:First Māori elections
3. Talk:First Māori elections was edited today by DYKUpdateBot[17]
4. the next update then reassessed the page to Unassessed/Unknown, defaults for empty parameters in Talk namespace

There are 3 other pages in Category:NA-Class New Zealand politics articles, but they don't appear to be related to this. XLerate (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As XLerate says, the change of ratings was due to the move to a different namespace. Apparently the wiki didn't recompute the categories when the page was moved. But whenever a page is edited, the wiki updates all the templates, which updates the categories. Unfortunately, there is nothing that the WP bot can do about this, it's an occasional problem with the underlying wiki software. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to know that all is ok then. There's not too many articles created in userspace, so I will keep an eye out for them. Thanks for everybody's input. Schwede66 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment box for the Classical music articles

Could the bot please update the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Classical music articles by quality log? I am trying to get an assessment box Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Assessment Box, but the bot is not operating it. Thank you for your help and please let me know what the issue is if it's not the one I mentioned! --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the log, it seems that your WikiProject template is not categorizing your articles into assessment categories (e.g. Talk:Choral symphony). This is not related to the WP 1.0 bot, which only reads the contents of assessment categories. You will need to fix the template so that it starts putting the articles into the right categories again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The banner in Talk:Choral symphony seems to categorize pretty well. You can see in the bottom of that page that the categorization is properly done. Also see this categorization which is full. Sulmues ^(talk) 00:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)`

That's not the sort of categorization I mean. There are no quality or importance categories on that talk page. The reason your template isn't doing adding them is this edit. This seems to be based on a discussion on this talk page. You should talk to the classical music project and figure out if that old discussion is still valid. If you want to re-enable article assessments, I would contact User:MSGJ, who can configure the template to do what you want. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested change

Seeing as the assessment grading scheme table now features FL class placed beneath Stub class, but above List class, wouldn't it make sense to change the statistical table to reflect this too? I decided to be bold and do it myself, but I foolishly didn't consider that the bot would need to be altered, as it just restores the old placement back again. --Dorsal Axe 08:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Which assessment grading table? I didn't intentionally change anything, so I'm not sure what's changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't explain it very well at all. See how FL has been moved down on this template? I think it would provide more consistency to move FL to the same point on this as well. It's just that the bot itself seems to be designed to update that template with the classes in a particular order, so any changes to the page itself will get overwritten. --Dorsal Axe 10:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it now. I need to look into what effect it would have. You would think that it's just a matter of sorting differently, but the sorting by the bot is done based on a number associated with each class, and I need to make sure that changing that number for FL won't have any side effects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Help for the WP 1.0 bot Article lists Search Page

For users not fluent in the quality and importance scales, perhaps expand "Note: leave any field blank to select all values." to:

Notes:

– Leave any field blank to select all values.

– "Quality" is one of:

FA-Class, FL-Class, A-Class, GA-Class, B-Class, C-Class, Start-Class, Stub-Class, List

– "Importance" is one of:

Top-Class, High-Class, Mid-Class, Low-Class

– The Score scale is between X and Y

Alternatively, link to the Wikipedia pages:

– Click here [18] for the Quality grading scheme

– and here [19] for Importance rating classes

RickJP (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I added some additional help in the form of popup tips. Let me know what you think. I really appreciate the feedback. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! I like the popups for quality and importance. For the namespace we need to give the user the information in table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Namespace. If too much for a popup, perhaps give a link to there?

Note that I tried non-zero values (90 and 2) and they don't seem to work - gave "Total results: Error". Do we really need namespaces other than main?

Note also that with the Google Chrome browser (version 6.0.472.62 on Windows XP) the pop-up is tranparent (compared to IE8 and Opera, where it is opaque).

See screenshot at http://www.flickr.com/photos/69176384@N00/5009434254/

RickJP (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Some projects do have pages in other namespaces. For example, here are the Book-Class mathematics articles. [20]. I agree the help could be more helpful. I'll see what I can do.

For the transparent popups: try flushing your cache. I don't see that behavior in Chrome on my computer, but an older version of the .css files had that problem, so you may have it cached. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, clearing the cache "untransparented" the popups. RickJP (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot acting funny...

I have no idea what's going on, but could the bot owner take a look at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/LGBT_articles_by_quality_log? Starting on January 9th of this year, the bot has routinely listed the article as "Reassessed" - either from B to C class or from C to B class. The talk page of that article hasn't been changed since September, 2009, so that isn't an issue. And none of the redirects to that article have any ratings (or anything) on them, so that's not it. I'm surprised I haven't noticed before now, but if you could take a look, it's rather annoying to have that re-assessment show up every day :) Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This edit [21] should fix it. The page was inadvertently in two assessment categories, which makes the bot think it is switching back and forth. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dang - and my fault, even! Sorry about that - and thanks for fixing it! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects North America and East Asia

We don't seem to be getting the autogenerated pages such as Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Chemistry_articles_by_quality/1 or Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Chemistry_articles_by_quality_statistics . Have we done something wrong? The categories are categorized into 1.0, and have the subcategories as required.

Only the logs seem to be generated

• Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/WikiProject_North_America_articles_by_quality_log
• Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/WikiProject_East_Asia_articles_by_quality_log

• http://wp1en2.kiwix.org/cgi-bin/wp/wp10/run_wp10.html -- is also dead
• We do appear at http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/pindex.fcgi?sec=W

76.66.203.138 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I found the tables at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/WikiProject East Asia and User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/WikiProject North America... but these locations are not documented in your instructions. I think your instructions need updating. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Maximum size of log

What is the maximum size of the log? Is it limited by a number of lines or is it a certain number of bytes? I am wondering because the log on WP Hospitals is always overwritten rather than appended.Ng.j (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The maximum size is 100,000 bytes. Could you give me a link to the log that is always longer than that? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking a few other projects shows a maximum log size around 100k. It usually varies a bit, but I would think that is because the length of the final line before it splits varies as well. I figured it was around 100k but did not want to assume. Thanks for answering my questions, I will add it to the documentation in case others are curious. Ng.j (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Display an assessment color in category entries

Similar to the assignment of colors to page headers by User:Pyrospirit/metadata, would it be possible to display each article entry in a category in an assessment color that reflects the underlying article's quality assessment? For example, the article entries at Category:Public relations people now appear the same color. By selecting "Display an assessment color representing an article's quality as part of each article entry in a category," the entries at Category:Public relations people would appear in different colors, where those colors represent already made article assessments. I raised the issue at this thread and User:Dispenser suggested that it may be best to implement this as a feature of the WP:1.0 bot/tool (so I am posting here). Also in that thread, Gary King was concerned about having 200 queries executed every time someone views a category. If that is a concern, then perhaps this feature can be added to one of the tabs so that it actively has to be selected each time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a nice feature. In the past, I had trouble making it efficient enough to do this well inside the web tool - I should look into that again. However, I think that it would be completely possible for me to work with a javascript programmer to enable this sort of thing as an add-on when browsing categories on the main site. It would not take 200 queries, just one query that includes a list of 200 pages. But I don't know enough javascript to be able to do that side of the implementation without beating my head on the wall. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with Computing reassessment log

I need help understanding what's happening with Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Computing articles by quality log. It shows years worth of reassessments going back years.

Does it have to do with the presence of multiple banners which include Computing?

Having some useful output could really help with monitoring computing assessments. I'd appreciate your help! --Pnm (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is messed up. I have noticed some other articles being reassessed daily in other projects, but never on this scale.

What sometimes works is untagging the talk page and running an update manually, and then retagging and letting it update automatically on the next cycle. Ng.j (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that many articles are double-rated in the computing project. For example, Talk:.NET Remoting is in both the 'Unknown-importance Computing articles' category and the 'Low-importance Computing articles'. That inconsistency causes the bot to think the article is reassessed each day. You'll need to go through and make sure that each article is in at most one "quality" Computing "quality" category and at most one Computing "importance" category. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like I need to make some changes to those banner templates. Thanks. --Pnm (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Any idea why the log for Computing wasn't updated this last run? --Pnm (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it looks like I put it off cycle a little when I fiddled with it on the 19th. It seems to have jumped back on cycle somehow on the 22nd, and now it is where I expect it to be - the edit about 3am UTC should be for the previous day's log. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The last few days have been good. What a great tool - so nice to be able to use it now. --Pnm (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to request that a future version of the bot group the articles with assessment conflicts in an Errors or Assessment conflicts section. They're difficult to identify without opening every talk page or comparing to the previous day. Is this the right place to request that?

cant see next 100 items

For one example this view of the High importance Start quality articles in WikiProject Connecticut gives u the first 100 of that type. The link to next 100, at bottom, doesn't work. Same if u click on any other >100 cell in Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Assessment table, and try to see the next 100. It's a bug! --Doncram (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, thanks for pointing it out. This must have been caused by a server config change, since it was working and the code hasn't been edited recently. But I found what in the code started to cause the problem and changed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Connecticut Summary

Why does this summary table omit any unrated articles?

Connecticut articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		3	4	9			16
FL		2	1	6			9
GA		14	22	110			146
B	20	55	83	137		12	307
C	23	162	397	810	3	23	1,418
Start	18	339	744	3,899		238	5,238
Stub		92	305	2,111	1	275	2,784
List	6	26	67	77	7	12	195
Category		1	2	3	3,798		3,804
Disambig					30		30
File			1	1	566		568
Portal					90		90
Project		1			24		25
Redirect		12	24	130	605		771
Template			1	2	350		353
NA					1		1
Other					44		44
Assessed	67	707	1,651	7,295	5,519	560	15,799
Unassessed				4		109	113
Total	67	707	1,651	7,299	5,519	669	15,912
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 49,761			Ω = 5.02

The Unassessed row and the ??? column do not appear in this summary table.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Any category you want to appear in the table needs to be populated and included in Category:Connecticut_articles_by_quality. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I tested this by changing an existing article to populate the importance=??? and the class=??? and it worked just fine. It is unusual to see a state summary table without any unrated articles. Thank you for the information. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Maine summary table

An attempt at a Maine summary table produces nothing at all.

Maine articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		1		11			12
FL		1					1
FM					5		5
GA			8	23		1	32
B	2	12	34	80		9	137
C		35	165	364		32	596
Start	4	36	369	2,811		179	3,399
Stub		3	38	1,337		601	1,979
List		5	27	84		15	131
Category				2	2,997		2,999
Disambig					5		5
File					125		125
Portal					1		1
Project					10		10
Redirect			4	29	361		394
Template					247		247
Other					27		27
Assessed	6	93	645	4,741	3,778	837	10,100
Unassessed				2		148	150
Total	6	93	645	4,743	3,778	985	10,250
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 31,728			Ω = 5.15

Why is this?--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You need the wikiproject's category to be in Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. I fixed it, ran the update script, and now you have User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Maine. You may need to create the Wikipedia namespace page; the bot only updates the page I linked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to work fine without creating anything else. Thank you for the very prompt fix. I will add the table to the Maine project page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote too soon. The category can be updated and the summary table can be created from the tools page, but it does not work above. I added the same call on the Maine project page, same result. Help, please.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I recently got Wikipedia:WikiProject Fencing/Assessment to work, you may want to compare those pages to Maine's. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You just need to transclude User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Maine in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Maine articles by quality statistics. The bot tries not to change those Wikipedia: pages in case a project uses them somewhere else. So you have to include the bot's table out it its user space. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality on Summary Tables varies

The Quality column on some summary tables, such as New York City, include Book, Disambig, Portal, Project, Redir and others, while other summary tables, such as Pittsburgh, do not. Why is this? Can it be changed? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons:

1. Each project decides what assessments to use. Some projects put tags on those types of pages, other projects don't.
2. The table only shows the assessments that are used by that project. So if a project starts using Book-class, the table will show that the next time the bot runs.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 20:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about Book and Redirect

This is a followup to the section above, restated.

Why does Pennsylvania have both class=Book and class=Redirect articles, but the summary does not show those articles that way, while New York City has class=Book and class=Redirect, which are shown in the summary?

Also, who gets to determine such things? Can I, as a Pennsylvania Project member ask for class=Book and class=Redirect to be shown in the summary table and on the talk page? --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Examples

Pennsylvania has no class=Book or class=Redirect shown in the summary table Pennsylvania articles by quality and importance

Pennsylvania articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	2	8	44	44			98
FL		4	9	11			24
A			5				5
GA	2	21	91	334		1	449
B	13	185	737	903		26	1,864
C	8	168	670	3,621		52	4,519
Start	11	65	3,292	21,298	1	74	24,741
Stub		1	99	6,265	1	48	6,414
List		16	83	492	9	12	612
Category			1	2	6,589		6,592
Disambig				2	262		264
File					354		354
Portal					99		99
Project				2	34		36
Redirect		2	36	646	1,126		1,810
Template		1		1	680		682
NA					3		3
Other					38		38
Assessed	36	471	5,067	33,621	9,196	213	48,604
Unassessed			1	3	1	221	226
Total	36	471	5,068	33,624	9,197	434	48,830
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 186,754			Ω = 4.90

Pennsylvania has class=Book articles, including:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_talk:Hot_Cross&action=edit

Notice how the preview shows Book for the Biography template, but NA for the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia templates.

Pennsylvania has class=Redirect articles, including:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yellow_Belt&action=edit

Notice how the Preview shows NA for the Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh templates, but Redirect for the U.S. Roads template

New York City Examples

New York City has class=Book and class=Redirect in the summary table New York City articles by quality and importance

New York City articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	11	27	55			94
FL		1	8	15			24
FM					70		70
GA	18	39	210	660		5	932
B	30	85	327	744		56	1,242
C	16	96	566	2,839		167	3,684
Start	1	121	816	9,509	1	960	11,408
Stub		10	469	4,692	1	1,263	6,435
List	3	10	53	424	1	6	497
Category					3,446		3,446
Disambig			1	1	32		34
File					157		157
Portal					76		76
Project					67		67
Redirect		1	13	151	1,445		1,610
Template					823		823
Other				2	112		114
Assessed	69	374	2,490	19,092	6,231	2,457	30,713
Unassessed				9	1	642	652
Total	69	374	2,490	19,101	6,232	3,099	31,365
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 115,935			Ω = 4.87

Sorry for such a long entry, but it is needed for the examples. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Answers

Humm... WP Pennsylvania doesn't have any Book-class or Redirect-class pages... so why would the bot report any? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you mean that some articles have {{WP Pennsylvania|class=book}} on them and aren't reported as book-class, that is probably because the {{WP Pennsylvania}} banner doesn't support them. Change the banner to accomodate redirects and books, and they'll be reported in their own category, rather than as NA-class. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I want the Pennsylvania banner to support Books and Redirect. It would seem that Template:WPBannerMeta is relevant to making the change, but I do not understand just where the change is made. Please tell me where the change is made.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ask on Template talk:WPBannerMeta. They should know what to do. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It just so happens that I recently had to do the same for WikiProject Croatia, and it was fairly simple, though less than obvious. I needed to:

1. Create a subpage of the banner template named "class" (Template:WikiProject Croatia/class, see its content)
2. Make a change to the banner template itself (diff)

I hope this answers your question... GregorB (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Odd behavior

The assessment of Organ theft in Kosovo has been flip-flopping between Unassessed and Start for a while now (see the log), without anyone actually changing the assessment. Predrag Miletić is also flip-flopping from Stub to Start and back every day. A bug? GregorB (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's because the articles have more than one assessment on their talk page (e.g. "Start-class Serbia article" and "Unassessed Serbia articles"). I removed the extra categories, which should make the assessment logs settle down. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. GregorB (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Help finding removed

Hi

Is there a way to check which, and when, articles had their tags removed. I was hoping there was some way to compare historical and present information.

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP 1.0 bot keeps logs of the changes, and posts them to the wiki. What WikiProject are you interested in? — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took a while to reply :¬)

I am coordinating the Robotics project. I noticed that the total number of articles had gone down but, as no-one every lets us know of any pending moves/deletes, it is the only way I can see if a talk page banner has disappeared. I thought the logs only showed changes to pages that have the banner and that it wouldn't be able to show which had the banner removed? Chaosdruid (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The logs will also show articles that are removed, although I don't see any for the Robotics project for some time at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Robotics articles by quality log and its older revisions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Volleyball project

I'm not sure if I post it in right place but I noticed that in WP:Volleyball and {{WPVolleyball}}, there was teached to put "|quality=" not "|class=". I changed it, but it could be in other WikiProjects too. The assessment doesn't work with "|quality=" but this kind of assessment might be in somewhere. Could some bot change "|quality=" to "|class=" everywhere? Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You should ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests. It seems like something that would not be too hard for a bot operator to do. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

World Rally

World Rally articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FL		1					1
GA	1	1	2	7			11
B	5	2	6	9		6	28
C	11	21	20	122		24	198
Start	16	63	136	308		144	667
Stub	3	7	31	131		196	368
List	1	7	4	21		10	43
Category					236		236
File					5		5
Project					7		7
Template					73		73
NA		1	2	4	16		23
Assessed	37	103	201	602	337	380	1,660
Unassessed		1	3	1		128	133
Total	37	104	204	603	337	508	1,793
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 6,441			Ω = 5.06

Is it not updated or why categories and templates are missing? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. The table is updated regularly [22]. What problem do you see? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no lines for "category", "template", "FA", "list" etc, but for example here is. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To set those up, you need to:

1. Change your project's assessment template to recognize them. If you would like help with that, User:MSGJ or User:Headbomb may be able to help. I don't know much about this part.
2. Tag the templates, categories, etc. that are relevant to your project using your project's assessment template on their talk pages.
3. Create the assessment categories (e.g. Category:Template-Class World Rally articles)

The bot will then detect the new categories and they will appear in your table when it is updated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

— Carl (CBM · talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

All the categories now seem to be set up correctly, but the bot is still not recognising the new classes. I'm not sure what is going wrong ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Pages are not going to correct categories somewhy (they are empty). Only the new tagged ones. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the web tool to manually update the data, and it found some more pages compared to the last time. The issue is almost certainly the job queue. By the way, the output that you get by running a manual update on the web tool will let you see which categories the bot looked at. For example

Fetching list for quality Project-Class

Get: Category:Project-Class World Rally articles

Listed 0E0 pages in 0 seconds

That means the bot did look at Category:Project-Class World Rally Articles but there were no pages in it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that if pages (including talk pages) are categorised by template, and the template is modified so that the categorisation scheme is changed, the categories will not repopulate straight away (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Categories#Why might a category list not be up to date?). The process of recategorisation is automatic, but it is not done immediately: instead it is placed in the "job queue". Unfortunately, there is presently a serious problem with the job queue; information at Help talk:Job queue#Where's it gone?. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How many pages are incorrect for this template at the moment? If it's just a few, we could do null edits on them to update the categorization. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

About 92 pages. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There is another factor here: the databases on toolserver, which the bot reads, are currently pretty far behind the live databases, because of toolserver maintenance. They had announced this, but I didn't connect it to the problem at hand here, and I didn't expect the lag to be quite as high as it is (it's near a day). This is unavoidable, I'm afraid, but it will catch back up once they finish with the DB maintenance. So in the meantime it will take a while for the bot to notice changes that people make to assessments. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Carl, Thank you for that explanation about the lag, which I am seeing for Pennsylvania. Now I do not need a bug report, just some patience. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the lag is still ongoing. I ran the bot manually from toolserver but only received bits and pieces. Brad (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When you run the web update, it updates the table on the wiki but not the log. The most recent logs are visible on the web tool [23] and will be copied here on the next bot run. The database lag has been resolved, and the toolserver database is in sync with the live database again. Do you know of pages that are still missing from the table (the table on the wiki is up to date)? — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems OK. You think something is missing? Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Tables for ships looks ok. I'm not really sure what has been going on. I'm looking at this from the WP end and not the toolserver. I can't make much sense out of the page history but I went and ran it manually because the bot hadn't updated in a couple of days and I had done some major project tagging in the meantime. It almost looks like the bot ran at the same time I was doing the toolserver update. Brad (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Things should be back to normal; the lag on the toolserver databases is down to normal low levels (a few seconds). If you see anything off tomorrow, let me know and I'll look into it again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon --> Pokémon again

The bot is changing Pokémon to Pokémon again here. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you testing something, or is it just randomly switching between the two on its own? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The error is not due to testing, but when you see the bot edit the same page several times in a few minutes that is due to me trying to replicate the bug.

Today I managed to locate the error well enough to reproduce it: when the cached version of the table expires, if it is regenerated by the web 'project tables' program instead of the automated update process, the resulting table isn't encoded properly. But I have no idea why, because the same code is creating the table in both cases. For now, I made it so that the web tool's tables are not cached, which I hope will at least mitigate the problem. I also lengthened the cache life of the tables made by the automated process.

I have the Pokemon table on my watchlist, so I see every time the bot edits it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

bot schedule

Been 3 days now since the bot ran. Used to be everyday. Is there a set schedule? Brad (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The bot does try to run every day. There has been some trouble lately with the toolserver databases, which has been preventing the bot from running on schedule. However, it did manage to fetch the assessment data yesterday, to update its internal lists. I have started the upload script to copy that to the wiki, so in a few hours it will all be copied.

I have been watching the bot closely, to try to get things back on track. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks; it did report. Ships and milhist are having an assessment drive which means there are a lot of changes going on. I'm probably one of the few people who use the bot reports to watch for tagged articles that aren't in scope or articles mistakenly removed etc. Brad (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth Brad I do that for WPUS as well. --Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Feature request

is useful, but could it have an added option of listing articles with incomplete B-class checklists? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a tracking category for these? If so, we should be able to do it by just searching by category. I am working this weekend to improve the category searching feature to make it more efficient. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, the best I can do is to point you to Template:WikiProject Poland and Template:MILHIST, which use the B-class system, and hopefully you can find the answer there. If they don't, I'd assume we can introduce such a category, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a category at present but we can definitely add it. I started a thread at Template talk:Class mask to start figuring out the best way to implement it. Without the category, there's no way for the WP 1.0 bot to know which articles have incomplete checklists; it is infeasible to try to scan the source code of every talk page, so it has to use categories to make lists of articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that Category:Ships articles with incomplete B-Class checklists and Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists are somehow populated by the project banner that has an active B-class checklist. An article rated at start class requires the checklist to assess a higher rating. If the checklist is absent or not filled out completely it will appear in the category. Brad (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, both the MILHIST project and the Ships project use a custom banner template. I had looked at the Poland project, which uses the standard WPBannerMeta template. I don't know whether WPBannerMeta has a way to add the tracking category yet, but we can find a way to get it into the Poland banner at least. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sort of bug like behaviour

• 1. Start at (e.g.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lincolnshire#Assessments
• 2. Click in table at intersection of 'template' and 'low'.
• 3. You end up at (e.g.) http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Lincolnshire&importance=Low-Class&quality=Template-Class

• 4. Now click on (e.g.) Axholme Joint Railway
• 5. you end up on the article page, not the template page

• 6. Go back to 3
• 7. Click on Bus companies in Yorkshire
• 8. You get Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

That's right, it doesn't. But you clicked a non-red link to get there. In what was allegedly a list of templates.

• 9. Edit 'Template:' into the url
• 10. You end up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Bus_companies_in_Yorkshire

Thats just about where you originally wanted to be (check the discussion page for the template. You will find the template-class banner)
Same story if you click the little 't' at step 3 - you end up at an article discussion page, not the template discussion page.

Surely step 3 should be linking to where the template-class banners are?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be related to the bug in the nest section as well: somehow there is a bug where the code is not putting the prefixes onto the links like it should. I will look into it today and fix it. Thank you very much for the report, it would have taken me a while to notice this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine now. Well done!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Log entry incorrect

There appears to be a problem when a category importance is reassessed as on 16 April in log. The article name is red linked as it drops the name space "Category" from the entry. Thus Category:People from Lincolnshire becomes People from Lincolnshire. Keith D (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It also appears to be for Category assessment, that were working in March, see log. Keith D (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly a bug. I'll look into it today and fix it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. The problem had to so with a switch to a different list of "namespace number to namespace name" translations, which didn't give a complete list. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The re-run of the Lincolnshire log appears to have it fixed. Keith D (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ships articles by quality log has some weirdness too. Look towards the bottom of April 17 entry. Brad (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a corrected version for you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Help!

What's happening here? I couldn't find any info on how to set the table up - maybe that could be made more easily accessible? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That table is being created by a template rather than by the WP 1.0 bot. The reason that there are so many 0s is that the table making template needs categories such as Category:FA-Class Grammy Awards task force articles of Top-importance to be created and populated. There must be a way to populate them with the assessment banner, but I don't know much about the banner template. Perhaps you could ask at Template talk:WPBM how to configure the banner template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Creationism

Why is User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Creationism classifying FA-Class Creationism articles (specifically Intelligent design & Evolution) as "Unassessed"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This category needed to be added [24]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot upgrades

Updates will be postponed for a couple days while I work on upgrading the WP 1.0 bot. The new code will make it much more efficient to search by category. The web-based update tool will also be unavailable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I presume the lack of a stylesheet is a side-effect of this process? dramatic (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

An inadvertent one. I'll fix that right away. Thanks for pointing it out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: Saturday April 16

I have time today to move forward with this. I did some offline testing during the week, and after doing some live testing today with individual projects I will run a full update on the new code. The new code for the web interface is already online.

For the technically-minded, the two main changes are:

• The database for WP 1.0 bot now stores articles with underscores in place of spaces
• The database schema for WP 1.0 bot now stores strings as VARBINARY instead of VARCHAR CHARSET utf8

There are also some other, more minor changes to the way data is stored.

The goal is to make it possible to do joins directly against the enwiki database without having to substitute for spaces or change character sets. This makes it possible for the database server to optimize these joins, which makes it possible to search for articles by category efficiently. This was possible before but it was inefficient.

Please note any bugs here, so that other people can see whether they have been reported. I will be watching this page and working on the code today and tomorrow. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Two examples of what we can do now:

• "Biography" project articles in the "Swedish Mathematicians" category [25]
• Articles assessed by both the "Mathematics" and "Computer science" projects and in the "Automata theory" category: [26]

The improvement is that these now run fast enough to be useful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a project is not in database error: [27]. I tried "Canada related" also but got the same result. It is possible to have the list provide subcategories? Finally, can you provide a NOT condition. For example: [28]. I am looking for a list of articles not added to the Canadian music project. As of this minute there are 14 of them in the Category:Canadian film score composers. Thanks Argolin (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

My mistake; I should have supplied "Canada-related". Can you do anything about the other two requests? Argolin (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

For the third request, I think it should be possible, but it will take some time. Negations are technically more difficult than they would appear. For the second request, I'm not sure what you mean by "subcategories", could you explain? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! I thought you're using a SQL database, but guess not. For subcategories see: Category:Canadian songwriters. There are 227 actual articles in this category along with 4 subcategories. However when you run the article list tool [29], it lists two of the subcats (and none of the articles in/under the subcats) and lists 184 articles (including one redirect).

I maintain an off-line database of all items assigned to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music. For a given category I take the list of articles to match to my database. All the articles without a match I work on adding to the project. This is the big reason for a NOT condition. For the subcats, I'd really like to ditch my off-line database. However, I guess you'd have to do multiple joins (as some subcategories in turn have subcats and so on). It may be possible, but technically not feasible to impliment? Argolin (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason that not all the subcategories show up there is that the project hasn't assessed them. The web interface is showing you the assessed (or at least tagged) pages for the project. Category:Quebec songwriters for example has no project tag on its talk page, so it won't show up. The system is not a category browser, and apart from when it's told to limit the results to a single category it doesn't look at the enwiki category structure at all. It just uses data about WP 1.0 templates that has been collected into its database.

The system does use a SQL database. Limiting results to articles in a category just takes a JOIN between the WP 1.0 table and the enwiki table of category data. To get articles that are not in a certain category requires a substantially different query, which I can write for a single project but which I would have to think about the performance aspects of before I try to put it into the main program.

I can make a different program that would dynamically give you a list of untagged pages, it will just take me a little while to work on it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to provide an example where items in the enwiki category are absent due to the non-placement of project banners on the talk page. It's been years since I've worked with SQL; I guess I got my SQL mixed up with VB :)

A separate tool query for untagged articles would be great! However, please don't make it specifically for WikiProject Canadian music. Many other projects can benefit. It's such a shame that the placement of a project banner on the article/category talk page is not stressed as equally important as properly categorising the article, stating notability, and providing citations. WP:Article Alerts, User:WolterBot, etc, will never select the article/category without the placement of the project banner. I'd love to work with you on it's development. Post a message on my talk when you're ready. Thanks very much. Argolin (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting a little antsy as to when the project update will be brought back online. Like other users, I review the logs [30]. Argolin (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I ran a an update yesterday, and copied the tables over. I just now ran the script to copy the logs from that. If this works smoothly, I should be able to start the automated updates again right away. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! I could tell you ran an update as Category:Unknown-importance Canadian music articles matched the statistics provided by the stats table. The upate log [31] usually takes a few hours to post. Argolin (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a problem with the log [32]. The log seems to indicate that some categories were removed as they are red linked (this isn't the case example Category talk:Canadian power metal musical groups). When you select "Books" the link goes to the related article and not to the wikibook. Is the colon the problem? Argolin (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There was an error in the logs uploaded on the 18th. The bug was fixed right after that. I had the bot re-upload the log for you. The new version has the right links [33]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick turnaround. Argolin (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Status report, 2011-4-26

The new code is in place and has been running daily updates for a few days in a row without any visible or reported problems. This weekend, I will look into the web tool to see about re-enabling the update tool. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I eagerly await the update tool, but in the meantime I appreciate the occasional updating that you apparently do. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope to get to the update tool soon. The bot should be updating everything each day; if it isn't updating your project please let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania is not being updated. I can tell by the numbers, including 1 Class C. I am not sure about Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Pennsylvania table shows one Class=C, importance=???, but clicking on the 1 shows no articles. That could be a bug. Same thing on the NA line. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Pennyslvania table has been updating every day [34]. Just now I manually told it upload the table based on the data from today's update, and the entry you mentioned in the table disappeared. Based on some research in the logs I believe that entry was changed because of this edit that reassessed the importance of a C-Class article on May 4. The new table would have been uploaded later today automatically; it only happens once per day, and so there is a little lag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Any updates on this? Between it and the new-article-alert bot being down, I can't figure out what new articles are tagged under a project. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Each project should be updated every day as is; the web update is not fixed yet. Which project is not being updated? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Status report, 2011-5-13

I have re-enable the web update tool. I don't know why it doesn't show any output until the update is done. I will look into that. There are also occasional problems with all the web tools hanging. I know the immediate cause of that but not the root cause. I have some ideas for workarounds that should make everything except the update tool avoid the problem. I will implement that in the next couple weeks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Too many connections" - possible fix

This morning, the toolserver admins and I discovered that the database backups on toolserver were locking the WP 1.0 database when they ran. This resulted in queries from the web tools being blocked (the web tool writes cache entries into a cache table of the database, even if the tools are only reading assessment data). I think this may have been one of the main causes (if there are others) of the "too many connections" error that sometimes appears on the web tool. The backup scripts have been changed to not lock the tables. I hope this will get rid of the "too many connections" problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality not showing in assessment table

Any pointers on why Wikipedia:GLAM/NRM is not getting Quality showing in its quality/importance assessment table gratefully received. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

National Railway Museum-related pages by quality
Quality
	Total
Assessed	0
Total	0

I believe it is due to a very large lag between the live wikipedia servers and the toolserver copies that the WP 1.0 bot uses. I will check it again tomorrow and see if that is the problem. I'm sorry for the delay. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm grateful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the toolserver database lag is the cause. It seems to be going down (so the databases are catching up). There's nothing I can do to expedite it, the WP 1.0 bot just uses the databases that are provided. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

1.0 bot RIP

When do we hold the funeral? Brad (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's hope instead for the resurrection! Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not dead yet… Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No table generated for new project assessment

Hi, I just set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas/Assessment with all relevant categories and tried to run the bot manually to set up the table but with no success. In fact "Protected areas" does not appear in the list of projects at all, and when the bot runs it seems to do the job with two other WikiProjects which start with the same name (Protected areas of India and Protected areas of Orissa - although the later doesn't even exist). --Elekhh (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Works now, probably was a cache issue only. --Elekhh (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Extended parameters problem

I set up the extended quality parameters on WP:WikiProject European history and ran the bot via the tool server, the bot updated and displayed most of the new categories but not "Template" It also is now showing an "Other" category which includes several templates and some others. Any idea what's up?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I will look into this today. I can look at the debugging logs and diagnose what's up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, it could easily be that I've set up the parameters wrong, but I expect you'll be able to figure that out better than I. :)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have fixed itself, since I don't see any edits you could have made to fix it. Maybe it was server cache issue. Thanks for your time.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It does look like all the assessment categories are being picked up by the bot. If you run into any other problems, please let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a minor bug

Hi, I just ran the bot manually for wikiproject Circus and got this table. Looking at the table I see one "unassessed, high importance" article - so clicking that I see that the article is Ringling_Brothers_&_Barnum_and_Bailey_Circus but the talk page for that article has {{WikiProject Circus|class=B|importance=high}} on it (except without the nowiki tags) so it should be categorised as 'high' importance, class 'B'. Perhaps it's the %26 causing the problem ? EdwardLane (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Talk:Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey Circus still exists even though the article itself was moved to Talk:Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus with a period. If you remove the assessment from the redirect's talk page, the ratings will be fixed the next time the bot runs (within 24 hours). — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks EdwardLane (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Score

I can find no information on what an article's score is. How is this calculated? What is it based on? Basically, what in the heck does it mean? VI_WS ^talk 05:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I finally found it. There really should be a link somwhere in the tool, or at least on the FAQ for that info. VI_WS ^talk 05:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record the info is at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Article selection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Project 'Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011' is not in the database.

Hi, I am trying to set this up for WP:WLM, but I can't seem to generate a table. I have lots of talk pages in the categories now, but no luck with the bot! Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Jane (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I ran the bot manually, and it created the table at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Wiki Loves Monuments 2011. The bot will keep updating the project table daily and will start uploading logs for your project at the next automatic run. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! You made my day! Jane (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory

We have a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory listings. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Music theory articles by quality statistics only gives us 76 pages, however Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory/Assessment gives 600 and Category:Music theory articles by quality lists 582. Can someone help us sort this out? Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I ran the bot manually from http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/update.fcgi and they all report 597 now. I can't speak for why they were previously inconsistent. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My guess (looking at the logs) is that it was just delay from when all the categories for the project were renamed in the past day or so. The bot only runs automatically once a day, which also makes it lag behind what you see on-wiki. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. --Kleinzach 01:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How do I get this to work for my WikiProject

I recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Pennsylvania. How do I get the bot to create an assessment table for the project? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot and follow the instructions at Setting up for the bot. It's mainly a question of creating appropriate categories, and creating and using an appropriate project template. Do the former by copying the categories set up for another project, and the latter by stealing & repurposing an existing template. Come back here if you're having problems with this, and someone'll give you a hand. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Project rename

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tyne and Wear was renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject North East England some years back; the project categories have just caught up. (They've also had "WikiProject" removed from them.) Can someone with the knowledge and tools check & update the index & bot? Timrollpickering (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just rerun the bot - the project was already listed there as North East England. All looks fine. There is some old Tyne & Wear cruft left in the wikiproject pages, which I may clean up. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Filter out FA, FL and GA

Hi

Is it possible to make an option to filter out FA, GA and FL material? This could be quite useful for my WikiProject to figure out what articles we should work on next. --Maitch (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand - what would you like to filter them out of? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We already have an option to only show which articles have reached FA, FL or GA. You mean a listing of articles which are none? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean the reverse of getting a list of FAs, FLs and GAs, so I only get B, C, Start, Stub, and List. That way my WikiProject could easily identify which articles are important, but still needs work. --Maitch (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree this would be useful, but unfortunately it is not trivial to do (it's not possible to simply flip a bit to make it happen), and I don't have time in the near future to do it. I filed a bug tracker entry about it at [35] so that it will be recorded in case another maintainer comes along. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem with BOT

Is there a problem with the BOT as it has cleared the assessment table for some reason? See this edit. Keith D (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The toolserver database connection was reset when the bot was running. This happens occasionally; the bot will upload the table the next day. I will look into trying to detect this error and have the bot stop when it occurs (it's impossible to test because I can't make the DB reset to see if my changes work). — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Keith D (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternating

As pointed out at WP:HD, the bot is confused at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Color articles by quality log, alternating on successive days. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, this seems to have been solved at Wikipedia:HD#Vacillating Bot .21, with the cause being duplicate tags on a talk page arising out of a transclusion snafu. If your results vacillate - an article moves from one quality rating to another on a daily basis, then check that the article does not have two different quality ratings on it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot not catching renamed categories

Category:Astronomical objects articles by quality and its subcategories were recently renamed to fix a capitalization problem (Astronomical Objects to Astronomical objects). I edited the page to get rid of the red links, but the bot reintroduced the caps. I can't figure out how to get this bot updated on the changes. Any help? — ξ^xplicit 20:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't a clue, but I suspect it may just be toolserver lag. If I understand correctly, the whole shebang is predicated on the Category:Foobar articles by quality category. Category:Astronomical Objects articles by quality was deleted at 00:59, 7 September 2011. The bot index currently shows both the upper and lower case versions of the category. I'd give it a day or so and hope the toolserver catches up with the state of things on en.wikipedia, and trashes the upper case version. But, as I said, I don't actually have a clue as to its internal workings. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The table for the new name is at [[User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Astronomical_objects]. The bot does not know anything about projects being renamed; it just treats every different name as a different project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

External Interest data not updating?

I'm wondering why the External Interest data for Jacobsville Sandstone is showing as all zeroes? How often does the data update? Or is something broken? Chris857 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The external interest data is not automatically updated. It is computed based on a database dump, and so it can't be updated more frequently than the rate that the dumps are made. In practice I update it manually for each release; the only real role that it has is to help with the selection of articles for release versions. For a particular article, you can count the interwikis on the left side of the window, count incoming links with "what links here", and count page views with http://stats.grok.se . — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

How to gather previous data for WikiProject?

WikiProject Wiltshire will be celebrating its first anniversary in three days. I need to make a table showing all the data of assessed articles in the project that have been covered throughout the year. Tables showing previous data like these on WikiProject Somerset but the problem is that I have not been recording the data monthly and I wondered if there was a way to get the old data from User:WP 1.0 bot? The draft for the table can be found at User:Jaguar/Sandbox/WiltshireFirstAnniversery. Thank you, Jaguar (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no existing, automated way to do it. However, the changes have all been logged at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wiltshire articles by quality log. In principle, you could write a script, or ask someone at WP:BOTREQ, to go through the history of that page from beginning to end and output the data you are interested in. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

History back to Sept 2010 the project was renamed prior to that so I don't quite know where to look. Agathoclea (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks like the one - thank you very much! I'll add that to the table and even introduce a monthly log. Jaguar (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football in Germany articles by quality statistics

Hi there, just noticed, somewhat late, that this bot used to update the page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football in Germany articles by quality statistics but has stopped doing so in January 2010. Does anybody know why and can it be made to do so again? Thanks, Calistemon (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ignore my completely stupid question, I found the answer in User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Football in Germany! Calistemon (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Updating Projects

Updating projects does not work like it once did. For example:

University of Pennsylvania articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA				3			3
GA		2	3	13		1	19
B	1	5	21	76		32	135
C	1	7	18	220		113	359
Start		11	70	818		664	1,563
Stub		2	42	273		429	746
List		2	3	5		1	11
Category					74		74
File					21		21
Project					2		2
Template					23		23
NA		1	2	6	20		29
Other					4		4
Assessed	2	30	159	1,414	144	1,240	2,989
Unassessed				8		28	36
Total	2	30	159	1,422	144	1,268	3,025
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 14,170			Ω = 5.02

This is a new project, and I have been working on adding many articles and categories to this project. I know there are far more than 19 categories, but running "Update project" says it is updated, but days go by without any change. I don't know if this is expected behavior, or what happens for a new project, or perhaps a bug. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks a bit borked to me, too. The update page returns a "job done" message within a second or so, without giving the nine yeards of detailed info it would normally give. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Borked? Are you referring to Robert? But yes, normally there is more detailed info, and then looking at the table, it is updated. Updates also happen overnight, perhaps not every night. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a bug in the code caused by a typo trying to fix a problem from Wednesday. I fixed that earlier today. I just ran an update using the web tool for this project, and it seemed to work correctly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There is still something peculiar about the University of Pennsylvania assessments, as shown above. I have run the "Update Project" twice, and the counts are too low. For example, Category:Provosts of the University of Pennsylvania is not in the categories count of the table. I could cite other categories not shown, and the same for articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania seems to run forever as "Update Project" but never finish. The numbers don't seem to change. I tried it again, it ended, but the numbers are the same.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If the bot is not seeing a page that you have just edited, and the page is categorized correctly, and the bot is already seeing the appropriate category, then you need to give it more time. The toolserver database sometimes lags behind the main database - right now the lag is about 5000 seconds [36]. The bot is correctly listing the categories as the toolserver database is reporting them to it - I looked up the list of U Penn categories manually and the toolsever db shows 25 of them, like the table above does. There is no way for me to speed up the rate at which the toolserver database lags catches up to the main database. Sometimes they run only a few seconds apart, but other times they can be off by hours or even days. The bot can only report data that has made it into the toolserver replica of the main database.

The manual update tool will only work for smaller projects. I ran it for U Penn earlier without difficulty. It cannot speed up the replication lag, though. There is no way at present to guarantee an up-to-the-minute update of assessment statistics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Tables blanked

The bot seems to have blanked (removed all the data) from every table.--DavidCane (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Doing a manual update fixes the problem for now, which makes me assume the bot is indeed to blame. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Updating assessments

Hi, I just tried running the webtool for WikiProject Rivers the table (right) doesn't look to have updated correctly - don't know when it last did so :)

River articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		2	7	11			20
FL			1	7			8
GA		6	18	83			107
B	10	29	71	188		46	344
C	14	68	233	1,244		107	1,666
Start	3	110	692	6,848		273	7,926
Stub		32	646	25,705		726	27,109
List	1	193	251	170	7	8	630
Category					4,273		4,273
Disambig				2	276		278
File					44		44
Portal					58		58
Project					11		11
Template			1	1	2,575		2,577
NA		2	11	7,645	767		8,425
Other					13		13
Assessed	28	442	1,931	41,904	8,024	1,160	53,489
Unassessed				3		209	212
Total	28	442	1,931	41,907	8,024	1,369	53,701
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 210,194			Ω = 5.65

The reason I noticed is that the article Save River (Africa) is listed as a stub, and top importance - but that table doesn't have any 'top+stub'

This (below) is what the webform output (which suggests it had a problem with 'river' (not riverS?) but did two other projects that started with the word river)

EdwardLane (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 Running /home/project/e/n/w/enwp10/bin/update-project-web.pl

Project: «River» Get: Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments Listed 3987 pages in 0 seconds Mode: 'all' Will update 1 projects Cannot get lock for River, exiting. Done.

--- Finished downloading assessment data, now uploading table to wiki Count: 1903

1 / 1903 River

A Maxlag set to -1

A Set maximum retry count to: 20 A Set base URL to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php A Set debug level to: 3 A Logging in A Making HTTP request (1) A Making HTTP request (2) R Login successful A Fetching information about logged in user 'WP 1.0 bot' A Making HTTP request (3) R Logged in user has bot rights A Fetching information mediawiki site A Making HTTP request (4) A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/River A Making HTTP request (5) A Making HTTP request (6)

2 / 1903 River_City

A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/River_City

A Making HTTP request (7) A Making HTTP request (8)

3 / 1903 Riverina

A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Riverina

A Making HTTP request (9) A Making HTTP request (10) A Maxlag set to -1 A Set maximum retry count to: 20 A Set base URL to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php A Set debug level to: 3 A Logging in A Making HTTP request (1) A Making HTTP request (2) R Login successful A Fetching information about logged in user 'WP 1.0 bot' A Making HTTP request (3) R Logged in user has bot rights A Fetching information mediawiki site A Making HTTP request (4) A Fetching content of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/River articles by quality statistics A Making HTTP request (5) Transclusion page exists

Wha Hoppen?

this edit seems to have caused the table to revert to redlinks at the San Francisco Bay Area Task Force page. I was clever enough to trace the initial redlinking there, and thought i had fixed it, but it looks like this bot did something to break it. I may not know exactly what my actions did, but they seemed to work at the time. Can you stop the bot, or let me know if this problem of redlinking can be fixed in some other manner than my edit, including letting the bot do its thing? I know NOTHING about programming or these higher level admin actions.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

See [37]. You cannot mix "SFBA" and "San Francisco Bay Area" in one WikiProject. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you seem to have identified the problem, that i had tried to fix the problem the wrong way. I really need your help, as i have no idea how to even begin to fix this, so maybe you can do something.(Mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.200 (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, i think i just fixed it, by seeing what pages it linked to via transclusion, and changing the letters SFBA on one of the pages to San Francisco Bay Area. I hope it stays fixed. thanks for pointing the way.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.200 (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent updates

After not running for 10 days the bot started updating results. In the case of Ships articles by quality log each additional update posted at the same time wiped out the preceding update. [38] [39] until its last update. The most recent update in turn wiped out the previous one. I have a hunch that Ships articles by quality log is limited to a size of about 100k and that's the reason the bot wipes other updates. The trouble is when the bot has been on hiatus it tries to ram several days worth of updates onto a page that is size limited and therefore the project misses updates. Is the bot supposed to run on any particular schedule? Is there a way the bot can be activated on demand if a project notices that no updates have been done recently? Just trying to figure out a solution here. Brad (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right that the bot tries to fit as much as possible on the page, but if it exceeds a certain size, the bot has to archive the previous entries into the page history. Sometimes several days fit on one page, and sometimes a single day has to be broken into several pieces like with Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/NATO_articles_by_quality_log. Nothing is permanently lost, though. You can see the "overwritten" logs by looking at the previous versions of the page in the page history.

The toolserver database has been having trouble lately, which is why the bot took a long time to update the logs. Along the way I did get the bot to update the data on its web tool and to update the project tables on the wiki, but not the logs. Ideally the bot would run every day, automatically, but I had to temporarily turn that off until the issues with the server are resolved. Sorry for the inconvenience, — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok; thanks for the answers. Brad (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Fictional characters

In trying to cleanup the quality classification of unassessed Fictional character articles, I've discovered that the statistics table is still separating articles by importance, even though the categories don't exist anymore. This project apparently no longer keeps track of importance, and most of the articles have no parameter in their project banner to remove, in order to clean up the table. I manually removed the importance categories from the table once, but they were added back the next time it was updated. Can the table please be modified, to no longer break down articles by importance? Fortdj33 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think I have to handle this sort of thing manually; it's not common for all the importance ratings to disappear so the bot just assumes they will come back. I will do it Saturday and update the table then. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. It does turn out that I have to manually change things if a project switches from having importance ratings to not having them. For the record (my notes), I just have to mark all the articles as not having importance ratings and set the counter for articles with importance ratings to 0. I did this and uploaded a new table. The bot should take it from there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, the table looks much better now! Another side effect, is that all the articles showing up in the table as "Other" are now being reflected in their proper quality class. Thanks again! Fortdj33 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Help setting up the WikiProject medicine/Translation task force.

I have just set up a task force here Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force. Have tagged all the articles in this task force. Now trying to fill in the assessment statistics as seen here [40]. Not sure what I do next. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I can help get that working. Right now the categories for the task force are named e.g. "Start-class translation articles". Would you mind if I make that something more descriptive, such as "Start-class WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles"? I am traveling for several days, but I will be able to respond at least every 24 hours; I apologize for the slowness. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes if you can get it working that would be great. I have already edited the template here Template:WPMED. WAID has provided further advice here [41] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay. This project will be my first priority when I have regular internet access. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks really appreciated it. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I set things up, and it seems to be working [42]. If you notice any problems, please let me know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor assessment bug

The article Robbie (short story) appears to be listed as |class=Stub |importance=Mid but when I ran the bot (I tried wiki project novel and wp science fiction) it seems to remain in the |class=Stub |importance=??? category

Not bothering me particularly - I was just going to give it an importance assessment and found it already had one, I thought I'd better flag it up in case it was indicative of some larger underlying problem. EdwardLane (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The enwp10 data currently matches the category data on the bottom of the talk page: for the Novels project the article is marked as Mid importance and for the other two it is marked as Unknown importance. The bot follows (with some delay) the categories on the talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK understood - thanks EdwardLane (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Task Force set up

I've just adjusted the Template:WikiProject LGBT studies to create Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Task forces/Person. How do I make sure the bot is reviewing this task-force's articles? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Unaccessed Articles not showing up in summary table

Given the large orange warning at the top, let me first apologize if this isn't the correct place for this. I have been working on WikiProject Sports Car Racing and we've start accessing articles using the standard Wikipedia scale. So far so good, but when the chart or our progress gets created by WP 1.0 Bot it leaves out the unaccessed row. See Assessment. Any ideas why?? --Sabre ball ^{t c} 20:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit [43] fixed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! --Sabre ball ^{t c} 13:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding a project

Can someone help me add Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto Blue Jays to the database? I'm sure I've been able to add projects to the database on toolserver myself, but I can't remember what I did. Either that, or it isn't working this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institution Archives project - help needed

Hi everyone. I thought I did everything right - I've been trying to do all of the metrics stuff myself (my previous Wikipedian in Residence role at the Archives of American Art, I had volunteers help me) to learn the ropes and now I'm stuck. On this page Wikipedia:GLAM/SIA where it shows the assessment section, that is where the table is supposed to pop up, similar to the one on the very chaotic but button portion of the AAA project page. Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong (if anything?) Or is it just a patience situation regarding a bot? Thanks everyone SarahStierch (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The bot would have created the table automatically on the next run, but I ran it manually so the table exists now. It will be updated approximately one time per day, but only if things have changed since the last time it was updated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks CBM! SarahStierch (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot misbehaving

If you look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Nevada articles by quality log you will see where the bot is behaving oddly for two entries, Manika (singer) and Henderson Home News. For an example see Feb 22 and Feb 23 in the reassessed section. I removed the entries for a while, but the problem returns when added back. In a nutshell, the problem is that these two entries change from the correct class to unassigned class and back with every run of the bot. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This always means that the affected articles have more than one quality category on them. But in this case I have no idea at all why, and the only way to see it was to look at the data on the toolserver. I fixed on page by deleting and undeleting it, but I want to keep the other one for a moment so I can report it to the devs later this evening. I will follow up in a day or so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for hyperlinking the infobox title

It is requested that the title on this page User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/India which says "India articles by quality and importance" may please be hyperlinked to the toolserver page which generates the statistics in order to give an easy navigation tool for WikiProject members. AshLin (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Latin America music task force problems

I've having some problems at the Latin music task force. The JL-bot does not find any recognized content, the article alert bot doesn't detect any alerts, and the music-importance doesn't seem to work at Template:WikiProject Latin America. Erick (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other bots, but the WP 1.0 bot is able to find the Latin American Music project. It has been keeping a table at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Latin American music for you. You might ask User:MSGJ about the template issue, he may be able to help with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I did not notice that. Thanks. Erick (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Log problem?

WP 1.0 bot (contribs) has posted the same log content with the same edit summary (Log for March 19, 2012 (2G r340)) for three days running at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football in Germany articles by quality log (see history). I thought this would be an isolated issue but judging on the bot's edits seems to be further widespread. What's wrong here? Jared Preston (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the toolserver database is more than a day (actually, several days) out of sync. This database has a copy of the data from wikipedia which is usually up to date but occasionally falls behind. When that happens, I have to turn off the log code until the toolserver database is fixed. Thank you for letting me know about it; I have been traveling and didn't see the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I had no idea that the bot works from toolserver information. Could have guessed! I'd already noticed yesterday that the replag was over 48 hours, saw a thread at WP:VPT about it; and now it's lagging 63 hours behind. Just stuck there, which is quite a nuisance; but thanks anyway for your speedy answer! Jared Preston (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that why the project data (specifically Robotics) are not updating? It seems to be ignoring changes on reassessments. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You could automatically shutdown the bot if the replag gets too high, see tswiki:replag for the query. — Dispenser 13:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, yes, I'm not involved in anything related to tool server aside from utilizing the great tools. While I know that tool server has had problems, I'm really concerned, mainly because of my internship (I'm a Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian and I'm struggling to provide metrics!) dues. Of course, all projects are struggling because of this as well, I'm sure! I haven't had any updates in at least three weeks. Anyone have any idea on when, if possible, this can be fixed? Thanks so much! Sarah (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

All WikiProjects depend upon this most excellent of tools. I request that this may be expedited. WikiProject India would be greatly hampered in its progress. We need it for our Assessment drive but have been forced to do without. :( We are really looking forward to this tool cming back online soon. AshLin (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Vpt#Toolserver_replication_lag. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot hasn't run in days

I'Ve just noticed that the WP:VG update hasn't taken place since 20-March-2012 (the last edit made to User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Video game). I just manually ran the bot, dunno if it'll kick it back into working form. Salvidrim! 22:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The bot is down due to a replication lag issue on the Tool server. The manual run will not solve the problem. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the toolserver replication backlog finally was cleared earlier today. So running the bot again could get everyone caught up. Or does it need a new database dump? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right. It worked. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind too much if I have to run it manually for the time being. :) Salvidrim! 22:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone run it manually for any project? If so, how? Getting Nevada and Gambling run would be nice for me. I'm asking since it appears that it is only doing a small handful of projects. Most are not being processed. The toolserver problems appear to be fixed as of a few days ago, so is this bot having other issues? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you can go here and pick the project from the dropdown list. I just did Nevada & Gambling. Salvidrim! 17:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot not updating WP:JAPAN article assessments correctly

According to User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Japan-related, there are only 6 unassessed articles in Category:Unassessed Japan-related articles, but according to the actual category listing, there are 245 articles. How is the bot counting them? Is there something WP:JAPAN can do to have the bot correctly count these? Note that I haven't checked any of the other categories for accuracy in the table. Thanks for any help! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have been coincidence... most of the articles were only tagged after User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Japan-related was updated (e.g. [44][45]). The latest update takes them into account[46] (although the latest log has not been updated at time of this writing). G.A.S^talk 05:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Name change of project

We are in the process of changing the name of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing and are having difficulties. I believe we may require a name change at Project Index in order to get assessment statistics, but we do not know how to effect this. Could a member of the Editorial team please help. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you will need to create brand-new assessment categories and project template for the Horse racing project. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

For several weeks the bot has been updating User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Horse racing quite happily, but suddenly it's decided to update the old version instead. How should this be suppressed? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It's happened again. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yoga

Resolved

would liek

I like to create a {{WP1|Yoga}} page for the Wikipedia Yoga Project and this tool seems like the best way to get started. Can an admin help me run the tool to create the directory tree? Thank you! Supaiku (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Supaiku (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried it but I'm not sure if it's working. However I have added quality ratings to Template:WikiProject Yoga and it shows the categories you need to create. If you press the "create" it will help you create them properly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added the necessary categories. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

When does the bot update on its own?

I ran the bot for User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Umpires the first two times since the project is just starting and I was making sure things are being done correctly. How often does it update on its own? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be every day or two. Walkerma (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem count

Hi, on User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Yorkshire there is single article in the Unassessed/??? cell but when clicking on it to find out what the article is it gives on the form "Total results: Error". Looks like there is an article causing problems with the database entries, but it could just be that the article has been assessed since the table was created. Keith D (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you run the bot? I attempted to but ran into an error (I actually attempted, it took a while so I refreshed, so it could be that I attempted twice at the same time through doing that) In any case, the error doesn't appear any more. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No I did not run the bot, just that it had been there for several runs of the bot and thought that something must have got stuck. What you did appears to have cleared it. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Project renamed, how to delete old entries

Hi, WikiProject Electrical engineering got renamed now using "Electrical engineering" as project name for the WP 1.0 bot. But we have still two old project entries "WikiProject Electrical engineering" and "WikiProject Electrical Engineering" in the toolserver. And we have still two articles around:

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Electrical Engineering articles by quality statistics
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Electrical engineering articles by quality statistics

What is the procedure to get the old project entries removed and to delete the two "quality statistics" pages? Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 07:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like to actually delete the old data; the goal is to have all the history available indefinitely. Because Category:Electrical Engineering articles by quality doesn't exist, the bot will not try to update anything using the old name. I will look into the toolserver side, and find a way to manually move the data from the old name to the new name. Then I will redirect the old pages on the wiki to their new locations, so that the edit history is still available. But that cannot be done until the changes are made on the toolserver side, because the bot will still copy the project tables for both names until I deal with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carl, thanks for helping. Except for the two mentioned "quality statistics" articles above, is the whole category-tree underneath Category:WikiProject Electrical Engineering is empty. Everything else is already moved to the new category-tree Category:WikiProject Electrical engineering, with their history. At the time of the move only a few articles were marked under this project and only two other member editors were active on this project.

What other history must be kept? The only history I see right now, are the one or two changes to the old project categories in the category-tree Category:WikiProject Electrical Engineering. But every contributor was attributed in the edit summary, when recreating the new project categories. Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 15:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I will remove the old name from the database. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Category WikiProject Electrical Engineering not found

Ok, let me know when this is done. I still see the two old names ("WikiProject Electrical Engineering" and "WikiProject Electrical engineering") in the project index.

Than I can ask to delete the two "quality statistics" pages, and the not used category-tree Category:WikiProject Electrical Engineering. Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 19:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Before I forget there are also following categories under the never created category Category:Electrical Engineering articles by quality

• Category:File-Class WikiProject Electrical Engineering articles
• Category:Book-Class WikiProject Electrical Engineering articles
• Category:Category-Class WikiProject Electrical Engineering articles
• Category:Disambig-Class WikiProject Electrical Engineering articles
• Category:Portal-Class WikiProject Electrical Engineering articles
• Category:Redirect-Class WikiProject Electrical Engineering articles
• Category:Template-Class WikiProject Electrical Engineering articles
• Category:Unassessed WikiProject Electrical Engineering articles

Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 20:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleaning! SchreyP ^(messages) 21:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

link to project in project index?

Hi, I see that in the project index some projects are linked and some are not. How can we get the entry Electrical_engineering be linked to WP:WikiProject Electrical engineering? Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 20:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It just takes a template on the project's main category. I fixed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Super! SchreyP ^(messages) 19:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Bot not updating table properly?

WP:USRD has a custom table (User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1) summarizing the number of overall project articles (by class) and various state/topic task forces which WP 1.0 bot generally updates daily as part of its run . Starting with the July 1st run, the bot has merely changed the hidden "last update" tag at the bottom of the table and hasn't changed any table data July 1 diff, July 8 run. The only time it seemed to work in the last week was on July 4, which may have been a manual run cause there were two edits that day and only one updated the table. This table probably should have had changes each day since July 1, as the project has produced new GAs almost daily over the last week or so. Any idea what the problem might be? -- LJ ↗ 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a manual run, just to check, and it made no change. Can you spot check a few of the articles and make sure the |class= parameter was updated to coincide with the GA? Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In an IRC discussion, I learned that it might be an issue with a corrupted database. Here is the relevant ticket. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I just looked through logs on some USRD Texas articles that I added assessments to a few days ago, and those haven't shown up either in the assessment log yet either, so I guess it's a wide-ranging problem with the database. Thank you for investigating.

BTW: Your link to the "ticket" just went to the GA category page, was it supposed to go elsewhere? -- LJ ↗ 05:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It was supposed to go elsewhere, I must have made an error when I copied. Sadly, I don't know where the ticket was supposed to go. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noting that Ships articles by quality log has not updated since June 30 which gave results for June 29. I ran the bot manually and it seemed to have made a successful run but it did not update the page. Brad (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Same issue with WikiProject Feminism. Last update was for June 29th and running the bot manually has no effect. Kaldari (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Running the bot manually seems to cause an update to the page the next day. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the toolserver database is very lagged - its data is far behind the data of the live servers [47]. This has two consequences. First, even when the bot updates a project successfully, it uses the toolserver data, which is out of date. Second, the toolserver has a process that kills long-running queries when the lag is high, which can stop the bot from making much progress even on the out of date information. The bot itself it doing its best, it's just the database that is being difficult. If the problems continue once the toolserver database catches up, I can look into it, but at the moment there's not much I can do. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The lag was 15 hours last I checked, doesn't that mean data will be 15 hours old, not 4 days old? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, although the lag is 44 hours right now. But that is only if the bot is able to finish its update of a project. The automated process that stops long queries tends to catch the WP 1.0 bot and prevent it from updating a project at all. There's nothing I can do to force the queries to complete, unfortunately, except hope that they finish and wait for the lag to go back down. — Carl (CBM · talk) 09:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The question of the accuracy of the replag has also been brought up at WP:VPT#Toolserver replag. This tool shows the replag in seconds; dividing the current figure 173377 s by 3600 gives a bit over 48 hours. By contrast, X!'s Edit Counter shows 16 hours, 35 minutes, 21 seconds. It would be nice to know why one figure is almost three times as great as the other. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The lag might not get better for a while... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

break

K, the bot updated Ships articles by quality log today. It gave results for July 9 and 10. The results from the 9th appear to include changes since June 29 as I can recall making many of those changes myself during the interim. The results for the 10th appear to contain changes I made about two or three days ago. Left to figure out is whether this update was the result of my manual run yesterday. Brad (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I should mention that in the past 48 hours or so I've done a lot of tagging for ships with AWB but those results aren't showing yet; probably the result of lag as said already. Brad (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some projects still not updating

Some projects are still not updating properly. Several projects that I have made edits in the last couple days, have not shown those edits in the quality logs, even thought the logs seems to be updating with the proper dates. However, some such as the Batman articles by quality log, G.I. Joe articles by quality log and The Simpsons articles by quality log, have listed the exact same information from July 10, 2012 for the last three days, instead of posting any new changes. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The repetition is a problem. It is because the toolserver database is sufficiently far behind reality that the bot cannot even tell, from the toolserver database, that it has already written that day's log to the wiki. The bot is not designed to handle that sort of database lag, and my usual practice is just to turn off the on-wiki log updates until the toolserver database catches up. I will need to do that again here in a minute to eliminate the log repetition. The bot will continue (trying) to update the data that is visible at http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/ . Unfortunately the bot was designed around the idea that the toolserver database would work in a certain way, and that expectation is not always satisfied. I apologize for the lack of updates in the meantime. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Tennisoverview, {{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tennis articles by quality statistics}}, is not updating properly. Will the overview eventually catch up with the updates or will the updates have to be redone? --Wolbo (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have edited the talk pages, that only needs to be done once. The statistics will catch up once the toolserver database catches up. Right now the toolserver is about 138 hours behind. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear that the WP Tennis assessments on the talk pages do not need to be redone. I largely halted these updates as I was not sure if they would eventually be registered. Now I know they will I can safely resume updating WP Tennis articles talk pages with missing assessment values. --Wolbo (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to allow the bot to run and catch up on the last 10 days up until the current lag? Obviously stats from a week ago or more have been recorded. Afterward turn the bot off again. Brad (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be uploading the tables; there is a separate load issue that seems to have been preventing that. I ran the upload job manually today, which should have updated the tables for all projects (up to the data that is actually in the toolserver database). — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I made an update on 18 July that still does not show in the overview (Diff). Is the toolserver database that far behind? --Wolbo (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just checked and the toolserver thinks that talk page is still in the unassessed-importance tennis category. At the moment the most recent edit reflected there is from July 17, around 13:00 UTC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line is that the toolserver DB is over 8 days behind and this increasing hourly. The long stubs report has not been updated since June 25! So if anyone has a pointer to a discussion about the root cause and the solution we are not going to be able to do anything. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a post on the toolserver-l email list that attributes it to the WMF populating the rev_sha1 field in the revisions table. That post estimated the process would be done in August sometime. I haven't looked into the cause more deeply since that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)