Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Summary

Time saver

It occurred to me (while looking at the album assessment page) that you might simply turn to this page which, as I tracked down, comes from WP Version 1.0 to update your summary statistics. Easier than making your computer sweat running AWB. --Fisherjs 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I looked at this before I started the summary box. For some reason, the Grand Total (currently showing 40,120) differs quite a lot from the figure I came up with on AWB. I'm just running it to see why... I may have come up with another task, because in theory, it should only count talk pages with {{album}} tags on - if a bot is counting them with no filter, it means that the tags are not just on talk pages in some places... oh, dear. Apart from that, it is updated every day, so I could at least update "Unassessed" from it. Thanks for reminding me about that page, F. Bubba hotep 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. 4000+ pages which are not album articles. HERE!. And I only found one with the tag on the article instead of the talk page. I think I will take this to the WP:ALBUM talk page because there are a whole host of problems now! Bubba hotep 20:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For reference: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Album articles by quality statistics (standalone stats page)

Bubba, did you ever figure this out? There is still a gap of 5000 between the total counts on the two pages. – IbLeo (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, first I was going to say, "oo-er, I don't even remember what this was all about as it was 2 and a half years ago!", and then when I started looking at it I was going to say, "this is going to take a while to figure out!", but I think I've found the answer: on the Album articles by quality statistics it doesn't count the number of NA-Class Album articles – the summary at the top of Album articles by quality does, and so does WikiProject Albums articles – and there are 4,202 NA-Class pages. Sound about right? Well, that explains the difference, but it still inflates the number of articles with an album tag on which aren't album articles. Maybe I should make a note of this on the summary table. – B.hotep •talk• 08:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you got it rightly explained there. Thanks, I appreciate it. I also admire your energy for providing these daily updates. Now, I can't help asking: I understand you use AWB. Why don't you filter out all other result than talk pages in the article name space? Is there really any point in including these categories in the total count? I don't think so. WDYT? Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether I did raise the question of why categories, etc are included in the count (as I stated above that I would) or what the outcome was, but back then I'm sure the {{...|class=NA}} didn't exist. I don't use AWB for quantifying size of categories; for the number of album articles I use the figure from Category:WikiProject Albums articles – it gives the total figure under the section that says "Pages in category WikiProject Albums articles" – so you might want to reconsider your admiration for my energy (although appreciated :))... because I'm actually doing it the lazy way! Yes, I don't see much point in including them either, but for now (until I find a quick way of excluding them without having to use a calculator) they may as well stay with a *note for now. :) – B.hotep •talk• 20:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the real figure is here isn't it? D'oh! Next time I update it, I will do it from there instead! – B.hotep •talk• 20:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. But still, I maintain my admiration - however little work it is, you still do this once a day! :-) Now, your last statement makes me wonder if we really need the total count in this table as it is already in the Assessment table. Is there any point in having the same information twice on the project page? Maybe even less when those two numbers are different. That just leads to people like you and me having this kind of senseless conversations, hehe. – IbLeo (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You are, of course, 100% correct. There's not much point. I suppose I really use it for my own purposes to track my progress through project tagging hundreds of pages on a daily basis. The assessment table is only updated every 3-4 days by the looks of it. I think I will eventually remove it from the summary table (maybe sooner rather than later). It's strange to be doing this all again after a few months (years?) off and trying to find my place again. A bit like reading a novel from Chapter 10 when you read Chapter 9 a year ago, you tend to forget where you are! I thank you for your input – you're doing very well for the project also and it is very much appreciated all round. – B.hotep •talk• 08:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words, I really appreciate. I find it quite hard to figure out if I make sense to my fellow editors, so it is nice to get it spelled out and it motivates to continue. :-) I notice that you removed that column "sooner" rather than "later" - in fact it's already gone. Cool! – IbLeo (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)