Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012

Ask all your queries about assessment or this competition here! AshLin (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Queries

1. While assessing Talk:Telugu films of the 1970s and other similar lists, i have given andhra-importance as "High". Thus i see a red-linked category List-Class Andhra Pradesh articles of High-importance. Will this category be automatically created by some bot or some admin or do we have to create it? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I fail to see how these are of high importance, it would probably not even qualify for mid-importance (WP India pov). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• I consider it this way. Not all films will be of high importance to Andhra Pradesh Project, but atleast the compiled list of all films produced in Telugu should be of high importance. Shouldnt it? Not for India or Indian Cinema but atleast for Andhra Project. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• An article on Telugu cinema will be of High value but lists are basically accumulators of links to information and not the information themselves plus, you will have so many of them - at least one such list per decade. So "mid" is what I recommend, if you feel "low" is not warranted. AshLin (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Okay! Will change it to "mid". -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"Mid" is acceptable. I usually give such lists "low" importance for the state project. Also, "low" importance for Indian-cinema workgroup. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Experienced eyes required

List down the articles which you feel should be seen by other editors giving your reasons of concern.

1. Talk:Murli Sharma - Article redirected to Murali Sharma. Thus two talk pages. - Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Talk:Maria Susairaj - Article redirected to Neeraj Grover murder case. Thus two talk pages. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two approaches:

1. Tag class as "Redirect"
2. Redirect talk page to relevant talk page. Eg. Talk:Maria Susairaj to Talk:Neeraj Grover murder case

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay! will go with option one. Looks simple to me. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should have nil/minimum redirects. Since the target article is contained in WikiProject India, the redirect should not have a WikiProject tag, indeed it should definitely be without WikiProject India templates. I do know that other projects have talk page templates on redirects but here I dont think we have a compelling reason for one. AshLin (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This issue does not seem to be limited to a few articles, Iv come across atleast 15 such redirect talk pages tagged WP:India while assessing articles. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I could be the reason for few of them. Thats what i am doing. I tag it "redirect". -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There are 238 as of 12:50 IST in Category:Redirect-Class India articles. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I always remove the WP india template and redirect the talk page to new talk page, (option2) i was doing this even before i read this discussion, and will continue as per Ashlin. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Let us discuss this & other issues after the drive uis over. AshLin (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is some talk and /or there are other projects tagged in talk page, I have marked WP India class as redirect only. I have also found that later FlagSteward has converted many of these redirects to be removed after appropriate merges of information (I think). The number of redirects have dropped drastically from WP India project. This is fine, as we should ideally have 0 redirect tags, i.e., a talk page of a redirect should redirect to the talk page of the target article and should not have any tagging. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 03:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll say from the start that I'm not a huge fan of the redirect class in WP banners, but I was happy to respect what seemed to be a consensus to use them on Talk pages where there was content. There were 341 articles classed as Redirects when I started, I removed banners on ~100 of those as there was no other content. I don't regard Project banners as "content" in this context. If there's a consensus to completely eliminate the use of the Redirect class then I'm fine with that. One thing I would advise against is redirecting a Talk page. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it is a real pain in the neck. There's seldom any reason why someone would want to land on the Talk page of a redirect if you think about it, but Talk page redirects are the reason for a lot of the problems with Talk pages getting detached from articles, either through getting gummed up by double-redirect-fixing bots or humans not realising which page they are on, because they don't expect Talk pages to get redirected. So I'd vote strongly for no #REDIRECTs on Talk pages, separate from whatever is the decision about the Redirect class in the banner. There's about 2200 redirect pages currently tagged with the banner but not classed as redirects; I was planning to go through them as my next job after disentangling the mismatched articles/Talk-pages, so it would be handy to know what the consensus is to do with such pages. I will certainly remove the banner from all those without any talk on them, and am quite happy to remove the banner from those with talk on them if that is the consensus.FlagSteward (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Importance assessment

While quality assessment is not always easy either, importance assessment remains quite subjective. One example that I came across today was the article Binayak Sen which was tagged "High" importance under India, and "start" class. On the other hand, Talk:Ministry of Home Affairs (India) received "mid" importance.

While the home ministry article is better being "high" importance for WPIndia (barely ok being "mid" importance) of course Binayak Sen is not "high" importance for WPIndia. I downgraded the importance to "low" (may be it is borderline "mid").

These things are bound to occur. I do not know if there are any very general guidelines to follow. For example, most biography articles are of "low" importance, some are of "mid" importance. Very rarely one should find an un-assessed bio article which is of "high" importance for India project. (today I assessed Jyoti Basu high importance, may be "mid" from some other's point of view). And ideally no "top" importance WP India bio article should remain un-assessed by now.

Most important/ influential national political personalities should be "mid" to "high" (mostly "high"). State political persons are more likely to be "mid". All these importance I am talking about importance under the umbrella India project. The importance might and would vary under its daughter projects, such as Wikiproject Indian politics.Any comments? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

One more issue I faced in rating is that apart from importance scale, there are workgroup specific importance scales. (delhi-importance, education-importance, railways-importance). I am skipping workgroup specific importance scales whichever I am not familiar with. I think, these specific scales are best assessed by the members of the workgroup. I request views of others on this issue. --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are completely unaware of or uncomfortable assessing for the daughter projects, I think one should try to do it, as this drive is providing a great opportunity. Most of the daughter projects are not as active or does not have so many interested participants. So, let's try to assess for as many daughter projects as possible. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of the important people in the link should always fall in mid/high. As already noted, the national importance may be low, but for sisters, it can be top. For most of the cases that commonly fall into the generic categories of one-time MLA politician, a normal movie, places of lesser importance (archealogical/historical/political/tourist) fall into low. You can go ahead rating importance for sister as well and in case of doubts, please seek an assessment here. Ssriram mt (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)ssriram_mt

Anbu, please assess daughter WikiProjects and provide maximum parameters for the WikIproject India template to the extent possible. In this context, please understand the template documentation thoroughly. Part 2 of the User's guide will also help you to understand. (It is a work in progress as of now). AshLin (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ashlin, I dont have any problems with the template documentation. I perfectly understand the intricacies of the template. The issue is that judging the importance of an article to a daughter project is a bit time consuming, subjective and also needs some local knowledge. Anyways, I will try my best to include daughter project importance in all the articles. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you will do a great job, Anbu. It's just a matter of common sense and judgement. If you need help with any particular judgement, just ask on this page, my friend. :) AshLin (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-assessment

Over the period, there would be many articles that might have been modified but still remain at a lower rating. I propose such editors to change the class to "unassessed" so that it is treated as another fresh assessment. Suggestions from participants are welcome to find ways (automatically) to find out such articles. Participants who might have expanded can seek reassessment here by posting such articles. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)ssriram_mt

I am assuming that you mean this for articles which would be modified in this 3 months of time of drive. Well.... not all editors are reading this msg. Who are reading are part of the drive and they will probably just put a suitable tag on their own, instead of marking it is unassessed. Isnt it? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Recommended parameters - "assess-date"

To help resolve this issue, I strongly recommend that every one adds the parameter "assess-date=March 2012" to each assessment/re-assessment.

Alternatively, you can added a subst message-based version also such as:

"{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}"

WikiProject India template with "assess-date" set to "{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}".

but it is far simpler, just to type in "March 2012". AshLin (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I do this and have seen this being used by our participants as well. My question is about the already existing articles - is there an automated way to pull out the articles that have been expanded considerably after their last assessment. Based on this we can publish in the noticeboard or to all the participants of India project. A simple approach which i see in some of the articles is to change the class to 'unassessed' and take it as a part of fresh assessment. Either of the approaches need to be taken up to all the India project participants. The scores part in the dashboard can be one indicator to plan for bots. I feel many articles are sure to move off from their current stub status. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)ssriram_mt

Redirects introduced

During the assessment, found many talk pages with WP India tag (list or stub class) while the article itself has been redirected to an appropriate page. These WP India tags have been modified to redirect-class. There is some talk history in some cases. Hence, thought that the redirect class is more appropriate, than changing the talk to also redirect to the talk of the main article. Any opinions, suggestions, anyone? --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel that redirects should be given talk page templates. The sheer numbers, usually greater than one per article will swamp us. We will delete them later on or at they very least re-examine the policy subsequently. AshLin (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

True. Redirect need not be given talk page templates as they grow exponentially. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)ssriram_mt

I agree with the points, but removing the template is not immediate solution due to following reasons. (a) There are comments in the talk page. (b) Other wikiproject templates are included in the talk page.

Hence the decision I had made to change the stub/start/Unassessed class to redirect class. Later, as you both have suggested, we can revisit to take appropriate action. I just wanted the team to be aware of this assessment method being used when page is redirect, but talk page has 2 or more wikiprojects and/or comments.

--VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambig/redirects under normal circumstances should be treated as NA class, correct? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

They are NA importance and redirect class. The general principle followed here is that if an article is a redirect to another article, then the talk page of the first redirects to the talk page of the other article. Hence, usually, the talk page of the first does not have a WikiProject India banner. In the case of several talk pages found during past week, however, I have not removed the existing content of talk pages of redirects, in order to replace them with a redirect to the talk of the target article. The comments content and/or the presence of other project tags meant that the WikiProject India banner is retained but with a redirect class. This can however be revisited easily and modified to remove the banner and replace it with a redirect to the talk of the target, at a later time. Hope this clarifies. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This is probably something that I can do more easily than most people, using some of the data thrown up by FlagBot. I've not previously come across a Project with so many redirects, looking at the number of very short articles with no categories I'd guess there's over 2000 of them lurking in the unassessed/unassessed pile. I'll tweak the code so that I can scan them explicitly for redirects and disambiguation templates, once I've generated a list I should be able to knock through it fairly quickly with AWB to remove the banner from ones with nothing else on the Talk page.FlagSteward (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Examples in Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Assessment#Quality_scale

I observed that the B class example in the table is highly substandard compared to the C class example. IMO, we need to upgrade the B class example. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have modified it. Thanks a lot for pointing this out. Ssriram mt (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)sssriram_mt

Added in the documentation earlier and now modified the template as well for most of the assessement categories. Ssriram mt (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)ssriram_mt

?? I am talking about the Jammu and Kashmir example at Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Assessment#Quality_scale. IMO, new reviewers will follow these examples so it should be refined. I propose replacing it with Manmohan Singh as of March 2012. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Good observation, Redtigerxyz. Thanks for detecting and sorting out. AshLin (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Guide Part 2 is complete

The Part 2 of the Guide to Assessment ( or more correctly, the Guide to WikiProject India template) is finally completed. I request everyone to please go over it and to make suggestions. AshLin (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty comprehensive. We can update the assessment page and also the daughter projects with this one. Ssriram mt (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Already assessed articles in the list

While asessing 2003 Nadimarg Massacre I realised in the talk page that the article is already asessed. So what's going on here? Why is it the list of unasessed articles? Wikishagnik (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Which category are you looking at? The importance for the sub-projects are not yet assigned - jandk and history. If you look at the bottom of the talk page, you can see the list of categories in which this article is included, and some of them are: Unknown-importance Jammu and Kashmir articles, Start-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles of Unknown-importance, Unknown-importance Indian history articles and Start-Class Indian history articles of Unknown-importance. The article will be removed from these only on assessment of importance at sub-project level (jandk-importance and history-importance are set). Hope this helps. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 14:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wishi - If you are looking at the stats table, please note that it is not dynamically updated. The artcile needs to be evaluated for importance in the daughter projects as well, which in the above case is J&K and history. Unassessed category against the relevant subproject will have correct details soon you assess the particular sub-category.Ssriram mt (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have encountered this before. At this point it may be best that we just concentrate on assessing the articles which are not assessed. Once they are done, we can see what is preventing them from being reflected correctly. AshLin (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it completed?

Hey I think I completed all the unrated pages of Indian Railways.Then why isn't it mentioned in Individual Tallies? Regards, Srikar Kashyap^<<Talk>> —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

Individual tallies should be updated by editors themselves. feel fee to do the needful. AshLin (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Automating assessment with Flagbot

Hi guys. I'm a bit reluctant to suggest this because I'm potentially volunteering myself for a lot of work <g>, but I operate a bot that could save you a lot of time which could be better spent on the important stuff, improving articles. Unlike User:TinucherianBot, my bot User:FlagBot tries to assess articles for both class and priority, based on various criteria. Class assessments are based on a mixture of article length, references and images; originally the bot was intended for Italian settlements and so priority was based on population size, but it can also look at things like pageviews. I know that people may have qualms about these algorithms, all I can say is that empirically it works pretty well. When I did a dummy run to bot-assess Italy articles that had already been manually assessed, FlagBot left 5% unassessed and disagreed with the humans on just 15 articles out of 2529, all of which were debatable - a different human might have assessed the same way as FlagBot. I'd also emphasise that I end up doing a lot of manual review at each stage to adjust assessments that are obviously out of line, but I'll admit that as a Brit living in the UK, I don't have a deep knowledge of India. However you find that in fact a lot of the articles which might ever be assessed "weirdly" are precisely the ones that are already assessed - a tiny village might have been the scene of a famous battle and so is disproportionately well-known - and the unassessed articles are less complicated. Just as a general comment, it concentrates on Stubs and Start articles - obviously more judgment is needed for C and above so FlagBot is happy to leave long articles to the humans. At least they are a lot more interesting to assess than stubs!
The bot can also analyse other aspects of an article in ways that could add information to the Project banner :

• Taskforces - FlagBot analyses the categories on an article, and so could assign articles to a taskforce based on those categories. I wouldn't promise too much on that front as some categories don't match well to taskforces, but categories like "Villages in XXX" or "Indian film studios" are fairly easy to assign to a geographic taskforce or the Cinema taskforce respectively. I would obviously try to be conservative on this front, part of my initial work would be working out which categories can be reliably matched to different taskforces. I could stamp any that aren't obvious with orphan=yes if that helps. I wouldn't attempt to assign a taskforce importance, but at least once an article is in a taskforce then it's easy for a "local" to find it and prioritise it.
• needs-infobox - FlagBot can detect infoboxes fairly reliably. Obviously not all articles are suited to infoboxes, but I could restrict it to only add the tag for articles in categories such as "Villages in XXX". Not comprehensive, but it helps.
• image-needed - Flagbot looks for GIF, JPG and PNG as part of the assessment process. If it doesn't find any, it can add image-needed to the banner.
• Missing categories - since Flagbot looks for categories, it can flag up articles that are missing them. So I end up adding some manually.
• General maintenance - There's usually a few articles that are malformed in some way - eg redirected when their Talk pages haven't been, it confuses the bot but that alerts me to fix them manually

That's what the bot can do. I'm open to suggestions as to how to proceed - if indeed you guys want me to do anything here at all, I understand if you'd rather just assess by human. Things like adding taskforces represent a lot of extra work for me so I might not do that in the first run of assessment - on the other hand it's quite easy to do for anyone with access to AWB, just load up a category, switch to the Talk pages and paste it in.
If you want me, I'd start by looking at the articles that have already been assessed. As has been mentioned above, there's a useful job to be done just in looking again at articles whose assessments may have become out of date, and it would also allow me to tweak the algorithms to reflect existing patterns of assessment. The bot runs quite slowly (it does a lot of read/writes) and it involves quite a lot of manual intervention on my part, so it is not a "push a button" operation, this would happen over a period of weeks I'd guess.
Two other things - FlagBot would use the auto parameter but the text produced by that parameter would need tweaking to remove the reference to stubs. And do you really need the assess-date parameter when the standard article lists like this automatically note the dates on which both class and priority were last changed? FlagSteward (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble, Flag. What you offered is mighty fine and I, for one, will be scratching my head as to how we can take you up on your generous offer.

We are at present proceeding on three different paths:

• Manual - an important skill to be learned by editors. Even if each editor does about a handful only, it increases his knowledge, involvement and interaction with us. Its more important that moe editors edit here than their actual output as of now.
• Users with AWB & other means - they are doing the bulk of the editing to date and majority of our achievements are due to them. Since they understand bot action more than I do, (I partly comprehend what you wrote but I cant place all the facts in a broad picture), I'll request them to continue discussing the details on this thread.
• User:Yuvipanda, on my request, is hacking a js script which will help manual editors do this much more easily & simply than AWB, which is too complicated for technically challenged guys like me. Its now under testing and development and we hope to have it very soon indeed. It will increase the speed of assessment of our manual editors.

WikiProject India faces many challenges, after assessment, cleanup is next. Definitely, we don't have the wherewithal to go check our already assessed articles anytime soon, if ever. Perhaps we could get Flagbot to recheck all the already assessed articles for correction/improvement? I think that would be an easy way to start, a separate area for Flagbot to work, and we can get great value from your bot, one which we would probably never get otherwise - and this to me appears to be the low hanging fruit, one could say, we could take advantage of.

In the meantime, all of us will give thought to your offer and come up with more ways to benefit from your proposals.

• Do let us know in a separate thread what help, clarifications, interaction you need from us for Flagbot to re-assess our assessed articles of the past (preferably not those assessed in 2012). AshLin (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this thread is staying pretty quiet, so I might as well keep it all in one place. I've actually been working pretty hard on WPI for the last week, but not much of it has involved assessment... That's the thing with the FlagBot data, it throws up all sorts of lists of articles to look at. For instance there was something like 1200 articles either assessed or likely to be assessed as non-stubs, that had stub templates. Don't worry, I'm quite comfortable with the idea that some (but not a lot of) articles that fit the Start criteria will also fit the criteria for having stub templates - but at the very least they need going through and in most cases either the stub template removed or the assessment dropped down to Stub class. And whilst I'm at it, I tend to do a bit of sorting out, by definition they tend to be longish articles that haven't had much attention from experienced editors. So I've done about 700 of those so far.

For the Italy project I found myself using it.wiki a lot, and grabbing a lot of population data which could then be used as the basis of assessment. I was a bit surprised that only ~6% of WPI articles had a Hindi interwiki - but that 6% is quite useful, I've generated some lists over at User:FlagSteward/sandbox of Hindi articles that have images or text that could be useful on their English equivalents, and interwiki "loops" that are either damaged or incomplete. I don't know any Hindi so I can't do any of this once the lists are generated, but I'd invite anyone who does know Hindi to go over there and take a look at some of those articles. I'll have to tweak the code to cope with multiple languages, but I could do eg Telugu and Tamil if people show signs of using the Hindi page. It all takes time to do, so it's just a question of priorities.

I'd hoped that the Hindi articles would at least show up inconsistencies in population data, but it seems that it's generally such a mess, with a lot of vandalism and eg widespread use of district data on municipality pages, that I'm not sure how much work is justified until the full results of the 2011 census come out. I've spent a couple of days cleaning up population data - anything ending in ,000 is likely to be unreferenced for instance, and anything wildly different to the Hindi article or most of the >1 million populations are either vandalism or inappropriate use of district data on a town article. Again I've another day's worth of that to do, then I'll have a think about where I go on the geographic articles.

I've got lots of other cleaning up to do - for instance there's a bunch of articles with geographic categories but inappropriate infoboxes. I've gone through a list of articles where alternative names had been put in the article name as A/B/C rather than just A with redirects from B and C. There were a bunch of files that weren't tagged as such. As I said above, the redirects are probably a good place for me to start tagging. I recognise what you're saying about assessment as a "way in" for new editors, don't worry, FlagBot leaves at least 10% to do manually. In fact it's complementary to human editors, as the bot finds it easiest to deal with low-priority and stub articles, which are the ones that are most boring to do manually. But once I've got past the cleanup stage, it looks like the bot will be have plenty to do just scanning existing assessments for inconsistencies. Anyway, I thought I'd report back what I'd been up to - and please do take a look at User:FlagSteward/sandbox FlagSteward (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi FlagSteward, thanks a lot for the comprehensive replies in all the strings. WP India has lot of unknown importance articles and we would appreciate if you can effect it as done in WP Scotland or WP Italy. While the focus is to take up whole of unknown importance, the I would suggest taking from the sub-categories under Category:Unknown-importance Indian geography articles‎. Or if you would like to check initially with a smaller sample like Category: Start-Class Indian geography articles of Unknown-importance. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Review

Is there anyone keeping an eye on how the assessments are being made? I've seen some articles getting better ratings on quality than they deserve (see my contribs' re-assessments). Is there a plan for reviewing what happens during the drive, since it has clearly produced a lot of assessments and if there's no review during or after the drive; there could be a lot of mis-assessments (particularly by newbies). An idea of how the statistics are changing (how many articles of which class we had before the drive, and how many now/after; also the percentage variations) should be a pointer if something goes wrong.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye. I randomly review the articles assessed by the new reviewers and do a re-assessment wherever needed. Subjective review comments are provided as well. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think logistically it is feasible to review every article reviewed. Yes, we are seeing over or under-assessment in many cases. If we notice something, we can change. However, I think in many of those cases there was borderline difference. Indeed, it is sometimes very subjective to differentiate between start and C, or some substantial stub and start, even sometimes C and B. However, of course from C onwards, we need to be more careful. I do not know if it will be logistically feasible to review at least C onward articles. Also, importance-wise, if some article gets Top or High ratings, it would be great if those can be reviewed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Between C and B is a totally different matter. The reason is that C class was introduced sometime in the last year only. Hence, earlier, anything better than a start was assigned B class. Hence all B class have to be reviewed again, anyway, to re-assign to both C and B class appropriately. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reassessed a set of C and B and downgraded atleast 35-40 articles, while there have been few upgrading as well. While under-rating can be treated conservative, overrating is a big concern as it will always set a wrong precedent. I would leave it to the discretion of the users to decide on B or C. The next action should be review on top or high grade and plans to develop them. I suggest going by frequently read articles first and subsequently based on importance. Ssriram mt (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys - I wouldn't get too hung up on this stuff. Yes under-rating is less important than over-rating, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a "big" concern - it just means that an article that is still good enough to be a C, gets pushed back in the queue a bit, and so people might work on other C-quality articles first. Article assessment isn't exactly a life-or-death thing after all, it's just helping to set priorities. If you're worrying about the B's that should be C's, you might also want to worry about the 25% or so of Starts that should be elevated to C-class after a Project introduces the C-class, the overlap works both ways. Personally the ones that really worry me are the articles where someone adds a lot of copyright material, someone else assesses it as a B or so, and then the material gets deleted but the assessment remains - Bekal and Mar Yohannan Yoseph are examples where the deletion was for "good" (creating a daughter article) and "bad" (copyvio) reasons. Whatever the reason, anyone looking at the assessments would think that such articles are not a priority when they are in a bad state.

This is another area where the data I generate with FlagBot is useful - it's great for picking up "outliers", or at least creating lists of articles to be looked at manually. So I could easily take a look using a filter of eg all B articles with (length <12kb) OR (images = 0) OR (refs < 10) - experience says that should get you on the B side of the B/C grey area, and will at least take care of the obvious offenders. There's various other things I can do along those lines, so don't worry about it too much - concentrate on those new assessments! FlagSteward (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

clarification on parameter "attention"

Although its late to ask but better late than never Please elaborate the parameter "attention" assessment Guide says The parameter "attention" should be set to "yes" if the article requires immediate attention of any kind. It adds a notice stating "This article has been marked as needing immediate attention". This parameter should be used sparingly..

1. It would be nice if you can please include few examples as what cases amounts to needing attention,
2. Is using a relevant tag on the article not enough for problems such as these or should i go ahead and add this parameter in the assessment too. as of now i only use the tags on the article if need be regards -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, this needs to be applied for Top or High importance articles only. For the rest, as you have mentioned, the relevant improvement related tag on the main page is sufficient. For example, copyedit, insufficient lead, fan page, ref improve, etc., are tags applied on the article itself, which is sufficient for other editors to look at the article for improvement. Only in case of Top / high importance articles, we want WikiProject India members to also take a look at it. Hope this helps. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, this looks reasonable, i have just pasted an attention needed tag+assessment on CAG Vinod Rai's article , this would be popular now due to the recent CAG disclosure of Coal scam -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Think of it as an article banner being like going to the doctor, whereas the attention tag is like calling an ambualnce. Either because it needs urgent attention, or it needs specialist knowledge from a WP India perspective. But it's not something you'd normally use - I think I use those kind of tags less than once in 1000 assessments. Having said that I have added a couple recently as I've gone looking for problem articles - for instance there's confusion about whether there's a Mallapuram in AP, and the naming/continuing-existence of the article on Various Communist/Leftist Parties in India needs thinking about at a Project level. FlagSteward (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Replication Lag

Toolserver is having a tremendous replication lag of 2 days 11 hours. Is there any other way to check the number of our edits? Fauzan^{talk ✆ email ✉} 08:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Even summary counts and everything has to wait for it. One opinion is that we can wait for everything to catch up, since this task goes on till end of May. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I will start posting from the categories(a bit complex) till tool server lag is overcome. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

For those that don't know, categories such as Category:Unknown-importance India articles are updated within seconds, whereas the pretty table on the front page relies on the toolserver which can be a bit temperamental - and is having a major problem at the moment. Since there's few if any unassessed articles left that are assessed for importance but not class, that category gives you a fair overview of where we're at. FlagSteward (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

State wise lag

<<posting on behalf of Vasu>>

Hi, As I go through my own process of accumulating pages lists from various categories, I have come across many pages of interest to WikiProject India, which still do not have the tag. Hence, these will be out of radar of the people who are assessing those that are already within purview of the project. Initially I thought I could myself assess these additional pages (for want of better term), but have soon found that the numbers could be humongous. So, I am looking for suggestions from you as to how these can be taken forward in coordinated fashion.

Topic/Sub-project	Un-tagged articles*	Topic/Sub-project	Un-tagged articles*	Topic/Sub-project	Un-tagged articles*
Andhra	1768	Haryana	522	Kerala	3343
Assam	192	Himachal	178	Madhya Pradesh	466
Bihar	471	J and K	3679	Maharashtra	3832
Chhattisgarh	83	Jharkhand	126	Manipur	70
Gujarat	1162	Karnataka	1678	Meghalaya	28

*The above could include some false negatives (that is some pages may already be tagged as part of WikiProject India but still appears on this list), but is likely to be just a few or a few 10s of them, compared to the huge numbers above.

These are just the tip of the iceberg. I think I can identify approximately 5 times the above, if not more, for further action from our team.

Vasu - please post the categories here - we will share the tagging activity here. We can also seek out to bots like Tirucherian if it runs into a few thousands. I would prefer having a manual look as these would anyways be required to assessed after the tagging. Thanks again for bringing to the notice of the forum. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sriram. I am updating the counts partially above adding two more columns of what I have found. I plan to create lists with names like Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012/Assam (yet to be created) and will let each user pick their topic / sub-project for processing. Manual review is preferred as class and importance have to be assessed. AWB is extremely useful if you put the page followed by the talk page in the list and then you review the page first, followed by assessing the talk page. Please let me know if you have any queries. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Shriram - do you have any similar numbers for city projects? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have worked out the numbers for the state projects thus far. Delhi has been covered already - lag has been tagged. Mumbai city articles are likely to be included in the Maharashtra numbers, though we can have separate list for Mumbai. There will be good amount of over-lap in that case. Similarly Chennai with Tamil Nadu, Hyderabad with Andhra, Bangalore with Karnataka and Kolkata with West Bengal. I can get the city items done in a day or so. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• May i ask on what basis the list is generated. this comes out of curiosity as the very first article on Bihar Links which is Aakrosh (2010 film) is not on bihar but on UP, neverthless i read the article and few sources as well, showing nothing of Bihar, so i finished it with a UP tag. an explanation on methodology of this will help us to easily spot the false positives. Also i must state that I do agree that these are just a few exception and most of them are genuine bihar articles. regards -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Q2. will this list Bihar Links be continuously updated ? i mean what if i assess half of the list and some more un-assesed ones are added in between the top half as its an alphabetical list. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A1 - The lists are generated on the basis of articles belonging to the Bihar Category or any of the sub-categories of Bihar. It is possible that some category could overlap two areas (say Border disputes between UP and Bihar - a fictitious one). It is also possible that someone has linked a wrong category under one of the sub-categories of Bihar. Finally the article itself may have been tagged into one of the sub-categories of Bihar. The possibilities are many and automating any such false positives are very difficult. Hence they have to be manually handled.

A2 - This list will not be updated by me - it is not in my plans - until one full round of processing is completed. That will avoid ALL confusion. I can re-run my methodology /process after a full round of assessment in order to identify any new additions OR missed articles. This will not happen mid-way. Hope this helps.

--VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• yes that helps, and your doubt was correct, for example the movie Aakrosh (2010 film) had category Movie sets in Bihar, instead of "Sets in UP" i have added the category sets in UP, -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 09:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Vasu for the comprehensive list. The users should tick off irrelevant categorization from the list so that the ones not tagged(due to relevance) should be kept off the project & categorization alike. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, the FlagBot data includes a list of every single category found in WP India articles. Once I've tweaked the code to pull out taskforce tags, I could in principle start have a play with matching some of those up. Not just the obvious ones like Category:Political parties in India going into politics, but also where an article is tagged for the Project AND is in Category:Lists of political parties - there's all sorts of clever things you can do using intersections in AWB. It's a fair bit of work, and I've got plenty of other things to do, so I wouldn't do anything in that direction for several weeks. So I'm happy to let you do your thing, and then maybe I'll be able to do some "sweeping up" behind you. Ultimately I could scan all the articles in the Project and pull out all those that haven't yet been assigned to one taskforce or other - but we could do with a couple of new ones, things like food/cuisine, education, religion, science, culture and maybe buildings, media, business bios? I see things like food seem to semi-exist - there seems some discrepancies between the documentation of the banner and what it actually can do - from memory roads doesn't get a mention either (or is that now deprecated in favour of transport - if so, it should say.FlagSteward (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

100000+ articles

During this drive, Category:WikiProject India articles has crossed 100,000 articles. Thanks to everyone for pitching in. As observed by others, it is encouraging to see the number of participants. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats to all the members of Wikipedia India for reaching this milestone -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Almost, the figure currently stands at 98,223. Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The tool server is not working, hence showing the old numbers. But if you look up categories, it has already crossed 100k. Just to note at the start of the activity we have a little over 92k articles. Three cheers for all the participants and special thanks to Vasu for pushing one step ahead with pulling in from categories. Ssriram mt (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Category:WikiProject_India_articles shows mentions as 101,279 in total. But if you look at that category, you will see subcategories like Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in India , Category:India articles needing attention where the articles are duplicated in the various subcategories. The near accurate number must be from Category:India_articles_by_quality only. The current number should be something around 98,223-98,640 as of now -- Tinu Cherian - 06:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The 101,279 are those that are in the main category Category:WikiProject_India_articles only. It does not include any of the sub-categories' counts. This number is the same as that reported against WikiProject India table in bottom right corner - total articles under WikiProject India. Hope this clarifies. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. I may be wrong. But why do you think there is such a difference 98,223 & 101,279 ? I tried manually running the bot and purge the stats..Is it possible the category contains namespaces not counted in that stats.. I cannot think of any though. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw on toolserver that the Replication lag is very high, changes newer than 6 days, 16 hours, may not be shown. Thanks to User:AroundTheGlobe for pointing it out. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The answer is in the Tag and Assess page itself. Part of the drive has been the "Fresh WP India tagging", where articles that were not under the WP India umbrella has been brought into it, by adding the WP India tag to the appropriate talk pages. In fact the whole rise from 92000+ to 101000+ is due to the articles that were hitherto untagged by India group. Hope that clears up your doubts. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned by Vasu, we are running the stats against categories of the master project. The daughter project counts are actually misleading as there would be pages with more than one daughter.Ssriram mt (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Daughter projects for Hindi films?

I usually focus on tagging Hindi films, and someone asked me to tag the daughter projects too. I'm confused on how to add the daughter projects. Based on filming locations? Also, what will the importance be for the Indian cinema workgroup on the article Tere Ghar Ke Samne? Low, I'm guessing? Fireblazex3 (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Some regional film articles have the state project as another co-project. For example, Tamilnadu wikiproject for Tamil cinemas. Taggng Hindi films for Wikiproject Maharashtra would be over-kill, IMO. Your example of Tere Ghar Ke Samne is low importance for Indian cinema wok group. The class of the article is probably higher than Start, it ma be C (WP Film template rats the article as B -- which may be over-rating).--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

While regional language films can have state also, Hindi films may not have daughter projects. Ssriram mt (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. So we just leave it like that without any daughter projects? I'll also add it as low-importance. Thank you. :) What do you think needs to be added for me to bring it up to B class? Fireblazex3 (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For B-class, comprehensive details with full set of references like in 3 Idiots. Ssriram mt (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm - that's probably overstating it a bit. The key assessment level is WP:GA, which is the only class that can really be measured against the outside world, I can't find the link now but broadly a GA is has content just short of an article in a "normal" encyclopedia, but with at least one ref per paragraph and a ref for all controversial statements and quotations. The average B class article will be "less" in some way than a GA - but since B is the highest classification that can be given without external review, it is theoretically possible for an article of FA quality to be classed as a B, just because it hasn't been reviewed yet. Film articles are a bit funny, because usually the longest section is the plot, which is referenced from the film itself so can appear light on references. I'd say that the current material in Tere Ghar Ke Samne is of B standard,what there is, but it's only a C overall because it's lacking some major sections on the "external" stuff like Production, Release and Reception/Box Office - subject of course to what you can reference. Have a look at WP:Manual of Style/Film for ideas on what's needed, but you're not a million miles away from being able to submit it for WP:GAN. Incidentally, Films aren't rating it a B - that symbol is "awaiting a review against the B-class criteria", but the implication is that at the moment it is less than a B.FlagSteward (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

assessed article going to the list of Unknown importance

I have observed that a number of editors knowingly or unknowingly forget to include the importance parameter for the sub categories for the articles that they are assessing and these articles goes to the Category:Unknown-importance India articles so sadly these article will have to be assessed again because of the 'Unknown importance parameter' and we already have a backlog of more than 50,000 articles of unknown importance , it would be good if they can include the importance parameter for the categories as well in their edits that they have done (so as to reduce the unnecessary double work),I think we need to bring this to their notice somehow. thanks and regards -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right that editors must also address the sub-projects' importance parameter to the extent possible. Technically, though, the articles are not added to the 50,000+ count if importance parameter is set (top, high, mid or low) but the sub-projects' importance is not set. Each of these has separate categories and only those are affected. Hope this helps to understand the categorization from the WP India template. Keep up the good push in adding articles and assessing the same. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Soumitrahazra not listening at all in spite of many messages on his talk page. Just patrolled his Contributions, reporting to an admin. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of 1500 articles that I have assessed till now, more then 1000 articles were such that were previously assessed by a editor but without importance. So, i reassessed them. But, this thing about not mentioning importance is getting increased in few editors which affects the Contest. Yasht101 :) 14:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if we set the "contest" aspect apart, not mentioning the importance (especially the importance under sub-projects) is simply increasing our workload. It is understandable that one may do this erroneously in the beginning. For example, Yash himself probably had done a few in the beginning; but when he was told he learnt it quickly, and has been mentioning importance always. But that may not be the case with everyone. So, please please mention importance under subprojects.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Even I did earlier. One more User. Please make sure they are not repeating the same. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I also did so earlier, as I was not aware about the parameter. But, if editors do so knowingly, they may be doing so because of their unfamiliarity with the subject. Fauzan^{talk ✆ email ✉} 08:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sister projects overkill!!

I just did this edit to Talk:K. Sankaranarayanan. He was governor of several states, so has the categories governor of Jharkhand, Governor of Assam etc. This edit was done by SSriram earlier, incorporating only project Nagaland.

Now, do we really need to tag the talk page with so many wikiprojects? If no, then we need to build at least a small guideline for similar cases. If yes, then let's try to add the sister projects (as many as feasible) in a single edit, rather than doing it in multiple attempts. (Now, I see this personality is even the governor of Goa, but Governor of Goa category was missing, so I did not notice that !). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the case of governors and officials of govt are running to overkill especially for smaller states. We can restrict to the state where he was born and where he ran prime. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If Im correct, the Governor is the Presidents representative at state level, i.e. representative of India's first citizen. Hence, it merits tagging with state projects where a person has been Governor, though in some cases it would mean multiple tags due to service in multiple states. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's take the mathematically simple approach, to include all the states. Otherwise, subjective opinions will come into play.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a balance between what's needed and what's nice to have. I'd take a similar line to WikiProjects - where possible/appropriate, you want a minimum of one and ideally a geographical and a subject-related taskforce - but any more than three is becoming too many. Yes being a Governor is a very important link to a state, but you need a bit of perspective - a good test is "will members of that taskforce work on improving the whole article?" In the case of Sankaranarayanan, his current (main) job in Maharashtra obviously takes precedence. Goa depends a bit - I assume it's another temporary thing like Arunachal Pradesh, in which case it's marginal. I wouldn't bother with Arunachal Pradesh or probably Assam, unless he did anything particularly notable in either; but his links with Kerala sound as though they were over a number of years and probably represent a more substantial relationship than most of his governorships. JMO, anyway. FlagSteward (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Community development blocks

Should Community development blocks article e.g. Barachatti have geography as a sub parameter ? i doubt it. I think Districts can have a geo parameter but not the blocks (unless there is something of geographical relevance in that particular block). An Experienced comment/suggestion is needed. thanks-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Geography seems to be the best daughter-project for community development blocks, CDOs are not cities, so cannot come under cities daughter project. The CDOs are, after all, geographic locations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance but what is a CDO ? -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, typo. CDB= Community development block.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

These are basically a set of villages in each district collated on administration frontier. The idea of blocks varies from state to state. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How can we check our score?

The thing is still listed as 27 March 2012. I just used AWB and I think my score has crossed 200. Any other way to check? :P Fireblazex3 (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You dont count when you start a CAT. If you dont, then as I know to maximum, now you should open your Special contribution page and start counting. If there is any other alternative, then I dont know. Thank you! Yasht101 :) 07:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Go to your contribution page, select the namespace to "Talk" and check the box of "Only show edits that are latest revisions". you can also select month there, then search and count for the exact score. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 09:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I also told the same thing but rather in a.. indescriptive way Yasht101 :) 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sister WikiProject for the Category:Villages in India

Hi, What is the descendant project of the WP:INDIA that we can tag while assessment drive the articles listed under Category:Lists of villages in India Thanks.. gauravpruthi 13:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravpruthi (talk • contribs)

A village page can come under two daughter projects - It is the respective state where the village is located and also geography. Ssriram mt (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Individual Score

During the latest update of the tally, my score has been reduced from 820 to 377. During the period I have made many edits, especially bringing new articles to the WP India project. Kindly check the discrepancies. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 02:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been accumulating the counts, but the top edit counts falls within the counts posted today. Let me recheck and update it.Ssriram mt (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The counts are actually right - if the same page has been edited more than once, only the top edits are counted.Ssriram mt (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

But, that makes my exercise futile as I generally tag the articles with the WP:INDIA banner and leave it to other editors to assess it. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me rethink about this option as the recent summary did not account this scenario. Ssriram mt (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Amartya, since the whole purpose of this is to reduce the backlog, may we request you to please at least for this period assess the articles too. We really dont have the community effort available for multiple passes and it has taken over 30K assessments to bring down the backlog by 15k, ie 200% effort as of date (though for related and unrelated reasons). AshLin (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have modified it to plain counts. I would appreciate if tag and assess(both importance and quality) can be taken up in one shot. With your experince in handling Assam/Haryana articles, this should be easily accomplished - thanks again for bringing more articles into the scope of the project. Ssriram mt (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Soumitrahazra

In spite of several messages and an admin warning this user is not listening and continuously assessing poorly. And also re-assessing articles (mostly bengal related) unnecessarily E.g. this, this, this, this, this and more. If I report again, he will be blocked. Can anyone review and let me know please. Thanks -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 14:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you're making a big mistake in being so aggressive - the way you are acting is the perfect way to make someone not do what you want. The damage is probably done now, but might I gently suggest you have a read of WP:BITE? As for the quality of those assessments you mention, they're not so bad. You could debate some of the existing assessments that he/she hasn't changed, but in terms of the positive changes that they've made, I'd say only Burdwan and WBUAFS are one step too generous on the priority scale, and they'd probably trip the Flagbot scanner when I do my big check of assessments in a few weeks time, so would end up getting lowered. There's plenty of examples out there that are worse. And who cares about reassessments? The important thing is that we end up with articles assessed as accurately as possible, with as many (appropriate) taskforces and other tags as possible. That's all that matters. If anything you could criticise User:Soumitrahazra for not having reassessed the class of some of the articles you mention, the existing classes are one step low in most of those cases.FlagSteward (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes maybe I am being aggressive but I don't think I'm making any mistake. How do I know if he is concerned or not. He doesn't respond to me or anybody. Not needed a long reply. Cheers -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ansuman, Soumitrahazra being relatively new to the forum may not be aware of it and this may be an oversight. Also as some participants indicated, the importance part can be left as such, if the user is unsure of it. Let us guide him through and try to see if importance can be added in as many articles possible.Ssriram mt (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I was not aware about this forum. but I want to say that my assessment is not poor as Ansuman say. Actually when I assess the articles, I follow some criteria. For Indian education related article, In case on the institutes of national importance or research institutes, (e.g. IIT, NIT, IISER, IISc, TIFR, IMSc etc) I give the articles top importance. While for University articles, I also give high importance because I think most of the common students mainly depends on the university. Also I think Universities takes a major role for advancement of our society than a reseach institute. In case of colleges , engineering colleges or schools, I mostly give the articles low importance (except few prestigious engineering or general college). For medical college, I give them high importance. Also I think temples are different from religion. In the case of temple related articles, I give them low importance also I do not include the articles in any daughter project like Hiduism, Christianity. because I think temples are related with architecture not with religion. Soumitrahazra (talk) 8:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wht does this mean?

In this '15 March 2012 0030'

What does '0030' mean which is in 'Individual tallies, As of (UTC)' ? Yasht101 :) 12:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yasht101, 0030 is the time expressed in UTC. I used to add "h" after 0030 so that it became 0030h so that people could easily understand it as a 24 hour time but the format was reverted to which I did not contest. AshLin (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for feedback to editors doing assessment

I request the Coordinators to kindly review some of our edits regularly and provide comments based on the assessments that we make, this would help the editors to improve their assessment. A lot of editors are missing the subcategories while assessing. As evident by some of the cases above, it would be good if the coordinators can identify the mistakes and guide accordingly so that possible damages and double work can be reduced. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is not only responsibility of the coordinators. I mean, officialy they should take care of it. But I feel that expert editors like us should also take steps in this direction. I think that we should distribute our work to review alphabatically. If coordinators, DBigXray and other editors support me, I m willing to do that. Yasht101 :) 15:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not mean to discourage you yash, but please leave the review/feedback for the coordinators as they are more experienced and polite and can do it without offending others as was done above. besides yash you also need to do a recheck on some of your assessments (still missing sub-categories ?) , charity begins at home .-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

About my home, out of my 2062 assessments, I m sure that 1800+ are assessed properly. And you are always free to check my contributions. Yasht101 :) 16:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

replied here, regards -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been reviewing the articles and posting review comments on the userg pages. Since the tool server is not functioning, the re-assessment/review is proving a bit difficult. I will shortly be publishing a work list for the reassessment and also alphabetic fresh assessment list. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The toolserver is now semi-fixed, they've cancelled the restructuring of the database that was taking so long, and imported a new copy. Which means they are now 3 days behind rather than 14 days, but will now be catching up rather than getting worse - it'll probably take them another day or so to work through the backlog and get fully up to date.

On the reassessment stuff - don't sweat it, it's really much easier for me to scan through, and I figure there's no particular hurry, the longer it waits the more articles will have been assessed and need checking. It seems that checking assessments for quality and completeness is probably one of the better uses for my tools. I will get round to doing some serious assessing, but for now I've just been working on cleaning up the stuff that's been assessed. I've still got some stub templates and population data to clean up, as a change I've been hitting the articles with no categories, which are either redirects, disambiguations, completely lacking cats in a very few rare cases (the uncatted patrollers do a pretty good job) or more usually, using a template to generate a cat or two but needing more for completeness. I've now sorted the disambigs and the articles needing extra cats. I've got a list of 2000 redirects to assess/de-banner, but first I've been looking at the targets of those redirects and making sure that the targets have been tagged if appropriate. I'm about halfway there now. Once I've got all that stuff done (which won't be until after Easter now, I'm going away and this kind of stuff is quite slow to do - an article with one thing wrong often has other obvious problems), then I'll do a fresh "big" scan and really start work on the assessment-checking. FlagSteward (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ending of this

The contest ends on 31st May and 44K articles are still left. I doubt that weather we will be able to finish it or not. Yasht101 :) 02:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Let us not start with doubts. We have seen more people join this effort in last few days as well. So, hopefully things should move along better. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Vasu, all we can do is give our best, without worrying about the ending. Besides we are all aware that doing hurried and flying assessments does no good and has to be done again. So its better to concentrate in doing our assessments properly making sure it does not need to be assessed again by others, we do not have so much resource to do it double or triple times-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statistically its not impossible, if you see we have assessed 30K articles in roughly 30 days. With still around 55 days in our hand, 44K is an achievable target. Lets give it more promotion through newsletters, banners, personal messages. I am sure we will achieve our target and that too before the last date. Fingers crossed. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be quite possible as you see from worklists completion. For some of the large fishes, we would be reaching out to bots to make things easier. The important point is we have added 12k articles into the project(and assessed most of them) from the starting point, which is 20% of the initial volume we had for assessment. So let us rock guys... Ssriram mt (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The manual editors are ones who have capacity for speeding up. Most you guys who already use AWB cant and should not attempt to speed upfurther. Please see my latest post on Assessment Bar. Please encourage editors who are not newbies to install this & improve their efficiency (absolute newbies are best served by manual editing at this stage of their experience imho). AshLin (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Tagging Questions

While tagging the articles I am confused whether the following types of articles should be under the ambit of WP:INDIA.

1. Articles or persons related to Tibetian Government in exile.
2. Persons born/involved during British Raj, especially if they are British or person not of Indian origin.
   1. Case 1: A person born in India, but have spend a significant time outside India.
   2. Case 2: A person born outside India, but have spend most of his later years in India.
   3. Case 3: A person both born in India and have spend a significant amount of time in India.
3. Person born in British India, spend their early years before partition in part of Present India, but moved to Pakistan/Bangladesh/other countries.
4. Person of Indian Origin. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Remember why we are doing this - it's not to tag for the sake of tagging but to make India-related better. The basic question to ask yourself is - is the connection to India close enough that members of WP India will want to work on this article? A good rule of thumb is that a talk page should have no more than 3 WP banners - obviously that's not appropriate for something like Bay of Bengal, but three is enough for the average article. Another rule of thumb is that you tag according to where they did things that were WP:NOTABLE - so being born or going to school or being in retirement isn't that interesting, you tag according to where they did things in their adult life.

Obviously Partition makes things complicated. Someone like Jinnah obviously had enough of an impact on both sides of the border, but for the average writer or sportsman I tend to tag with just one or other country. If it's hard to say one way or the other than I'd probably end up doing it on whether they were Hindu or Muslim, as an indication of broader cultural affinity both from their point of view and for Wikipedians who might want to improve the article.

I've a similar thought process with British-born colonial administrators, if they spent most of their working life in India then I'd tag with India, but I wouldn't tag if they just spent a year or two there as a clerk. I know some people like to tag anyone who is born in a country with that country's WikiProject but it's counter-productive in my view, there's nothing much to say and it gets in the way of articles that are relevant to the Project. That's bad for the Project. Same with people who might have some Indian DNA. A good rule with these grey area cases is that you tag if they would be of Mid importance or higher to WP India, but only tag Low importance articles if they don't have alternative geographic Projects to call home.FlagSteward (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

ASSESSMENT BAR - A new tool from Yuvi Panda to help in Tag & Assess 2012

User:Yuvipanda has created an excellent tool to help editors who are assessing manually in Tag & Assess 2012. The tool is under Beta release and we request assessors to please install, use it and give him feedback. Since the post is long and includes the instructions to setup, to use & to give feedback, it has been made available as a Google document freely accessible to all.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/176bySLlr-fRcMYw-h4k-btL5x08qegY7Ipj2DQLHdQE/edit?pli=1

AshLin (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• thanks yuvi. A question from the Coordinators How to handle Orissa subroject, i think the WP India template does not support Odisha as of now, and only works with orissa, for an example please see Talk:Banaut so, I think this has to be changed in the implementation of the tool. Please clarify, regards -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Help

Do i need to add on this page that what i had assessed and total number of articles ??--Sandeep (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes - please add a column in the project page against your contribution and also the categories you are working on. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Increasing Assessment Rate - Suggestions

We are almost in middle of our assessment drive, which I can say is going pretty good. However, the rate of assessment per day is not much considering the number of volunteers registered for it. I have few suggestions, which I think will help in increasing the number of assessment done.

1) Personal messages can be sent to the dormant editors, who have signed but have not active in the assessment drive. Which includes a reminder regarding the status of the drive, the target left and statistical calculations, like with 40,500 articles left in 55 days, 59 editors need to make around only 12 edits per day (which won't take more than 20 mins with the Yuvipanda's tool).

2) Organising Two hours Assessment marathons every weekend on Saturday and Sunday (we have 7 more weekends) which may start at 22:00 IST. The person with the highest assessment in a particular weekend may get a special award or be awarded a wildcard barnstar.

3)Creating sub-pages which has more than 500 pages to be assessed. From my personal experience, I guess people are afraid to take up categories which has more articles to assess. Dividing the load, may encourage editors psychologically. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the ideas, all will be implemented. The original idea of breaking to individual categories is to close the fringes, now with all those closed, we need to define workgroups. I will also reach out the daughter projects' notice board to close the giants through. With the current rate, we are good to finish on time, and we always need to exceed. I also am planning to devise a mechanism to promote the top/high importance lists from their current stub/start status to higher - this can be carried out just when this project comes to the finishing stages(or much earlier). Ssriram mt (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekend special nominations

As a part of weekend drive suggested by User:Amartyabag, the contest for weekend special awards starts 8-Apr. Nominees for the week can add the names here.

1. Yasht101 - Sure!
2. Fauzan^{talk ✆ email ✉}
3. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 13:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Srikar Kashyap (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Madhuric (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Varities to dice down based on user interest

Some of the participants like to be oriented towards a subject or classification. With the update in the toolserver being current, users can choose a wild card search like with Kerala as search string. This makes related assessment a bit easy to carry out. Ssriram mt (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Odisha/Orissa  ? ?

First thanks yuvi. A question from the Coordinators How to handle Orissa subroject, i think the WP India template does not support Odisha as of now, and only works with orissa, (for an example please see Talk:Banaut, here i have marked it as odisha but it is not visible) so, I think this has to be changed in the implementation of the tool. Please clarify, regards -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The tag to be used is "|orissa=yes|orissa-importance=" and not Odisha. As per WP:COMMONNAME, the name is Orissa and not Odisha. So we will continue to used Orissa for the time being. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree and have the same opinion. so it seems that the toolbar needs tweaking to change Odisha to Orissa-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have requested Yuvi to restore the "odisha" to "orissa" as of now, once the complete drive is over, we can tweak the template carefully and request a bot to replace "orissa" with "odisha". Mid-assessment template tweaking should be restricted to bare minimum imho as it creates great potential for chaos. AshLin (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thats the best thing to do, lets follow "Orissa" for this assessment. as we did earlier, later on if need be orissa->odisha can be done later and would require to change all the articles,. I Request yuvi and AshLin to please notify here as soon as orissa is implemented in the toolbar so that we can reload. regards and thanks-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to orissa. Yuvi (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

West Bengal List

As the false positives and negatives in the West Bengal is very high, I request the coordinators to generate a fresh list on better data set (I don't know the mechanism how the list is generated). One suggestion would be to create the list out of the list generated in AWB, by adding category "West Bengal" and setting the source as recursive. Or a list may be based on Alexabot New Articles data ruleset, which negatives use of Bangladesh while selecting articles. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try to regenerate the same using the old methodology and post it here. The reason for false positives were that some wrong categories were linked under Bengal categories and led to Bangaldeshi articles being included into Bengal. I have stream-lined the categories my removing such inconsistencies and also double recursion (A includes B, includes A - forming infinite loop). Hopefully this time the numbers will drop down. Will take a day to get this done. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 15:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The links have been re-worked and count is now down to 1300. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 11:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reducing the load. Will try to tag the articles soon. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for assessing individual articles on tribes/ethnic communities of India.

FYI I'm outlining my rationale for assessing/reviewing all articles on tribes/ethnic communities of India. My judgement on the issue is that people are a valuable resource of India, so:

• it will have a few "top-importance" articles, such as Demographics of India.
• Other articles on our peoples as a collective wll be "high-importance", such as Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, Nomadic tribes in India.
• Individual tribes or communities will be "mid-importance" to the nation, e.g. Apatani people, Warli etc.
• Each tribe will be one rung higher in importance to the states that they belong to, so each tribe will be "high-importance" in the daughter wikiprojects of the states they belong to.

AshLin (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this, will include this in assessments, regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldnt individual tribes be of low importance? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, imho as a collective entity of our peoples, who themselves have attributes - language, culture, festivals, dance etc - it makes these topics more important than the aam janta articles and they deserve a step higher than low in general. AshLin (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, individual tribes should at least be mid importance for project India. What about all those jat articles (there are more)? I wish I could award something like the "lowest" importance to those.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. These are not really tribes. Technically, it would be Jat which enjoys the "mid" impoortance overall & "high" importance at state wikiproject level. Some of us may not be enthused by these exceptionally clunky community articles, on the other hand people value these beyond life in extreme cases. So I suggest that the overall importance of clan & sub-tribe could be "low" importance overall and state-wise importance of this could be kept as "mid". Which would be a fair rationale, imho. AshLin (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for "Assessment Bar"

Documentation for Assessment Bar has been created and integrated as Part 4 of the user guide :

• Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012/Guide - Part 4
• Redirect at User:Yuvipanda/AssessmentBar/WPIndia

Suggestions for improvement welcome on concerned talk page.

AshLin (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Backlog progress bar for WP IND

I have added this to our project page. I hope that editors won't mind that. Thanks! Yasht101 01:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

88.1% complete Backlog: Unknown-importance India articles Goal: 0 articles Current: 7,162 articles Initial: 60,037 articles

Removal of redirects

(Copied from "Experienced eyes required" above). I'll say from the start that I'm not a huge fan of the redirect class in WP banners, but I was happy to respect what seemed to be a consensus to use them on Talk pages where there was content. There were 341 articles classed as Redirects when I started, I removed banners on ~100 of those as there was no other content. I don't regard Project banners as "content" in this context. If there's a consensus to completely eliminate the use of the Redirect class then I'm fine with that. One thing I would advise against is redirecting a Talk page. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it is a real pain in the neck. There's seldom any reason why someone would want to land on the Talk page of a redirect if you think about it, but Talk page redirects are the reason for a lot of the problems with Talk pages getting detached from articles, either through getting gummed up by double-redirect-fixing bots or humans not realising which page they are on, because they don't expect Talk pages to get redirected. So I'd vote strongly for no #REDIRECTs on Talk pages, separate from whatever is the decision about the Redirect class in the banner. There's about 2200 redirect pages currently tagged with the banner but not classed as redirects; I was planning to go through them as my next job after disentangling the mismatched articles/Talk-pages, so it would be handy to know what the consensus is to do with such pages. I will certainly remove the banner from all those without any talk on them, and am quite happy to remove the banner from those with talk on them if that is the consensus.FlagSteward (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

We need to decide this proposal of Flagsteward. I agree that there is no point having a WikiProject template on a redirect talk page at all. As regard the talk page, it should not be redirected unless it has no content at all. This needs deciding and I request editors to give their views towards building a consensus. AshLin (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Even, I agree that the redirect talk page should not be tagged as it is of hardly any use. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO, redirects should be tagged if there is archived discussions. If its empty, they should be redirected to the present talk page. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It will increase the project count and wont reflect the actual articles in the project. The archived discussion can be moved to the main page under a separate section. The redirect talk page needs to be blanked out. Ssriram mt (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Individual Tallies not yet updated?

I see the individual tallies are not yet updated today...What is the reason? Regards Srikar Kashyap (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You can go ahead updating the same. I validate periodically and run an update. Ssriram mt (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean when will you next update them?..Srikar Kashyap (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I run once in 4-5 days, next update is tomm. Ssriram mt (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Archiving old conversations

This page is getting long, Old conversations on this page need to be archived, I propose setting up a bot for this - any objections? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead. Ssriram mt (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer this to be manually done as bots move discussions which may be of relevance & need to be retained here for information beyond their time of completion. AshLin (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I cant take this up manually as Iv got quite a bit going at the moment. Ashlin/Sriram could you please take this up? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 14:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Mid Way Mark

At midway we are exactly standing at 50% completion, though we had a scope creep of 14k articles brought into the scope of WP India. Many thanks for all the participants and wish the project completes earlier than the schedule. Special thanks for the recent addition of assessment bar by YuviPanda - we have increased number of fresh assessments in the past one week leaving just under 7.5k articles behind. Some of the priorities i propose

• Completing unassessed articles - 7456 - 5 May.
• Completing fresh tagging - 10,000 - 12,000 (approx) - 31 May.
• Completing Unknown importance artilces - 29,059 - 15 May.

Let us rock guys... Ssriram mt (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think tagging must be given priority over other, as we tag new articles there is a possibility that all the articles are not assessed by the taggers. That would eventually lead to double work. Another observation, which I think we must address that there are articles from particular states which are not assessed or tagged as there may not be any dedicated editors from those states who are taking it as a passion to participate. We must encourage editors to assess such articles somehow. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

With so much expertise in assessment, i think there should not be a specific activity for tagging alone. I request participants at this stage to keep away from doing double edits, one each for tagging and other for assessment - Tagging and assessment should go as a single effort. Over the participantion from a given state lacking participants, there are backlogs for active states as well. We will definitely need to work out a mechanism at the India project level to choose single point of contacts for the daughters to streamline this process down the line. Ssriram mt (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We still need average of 770 assessments per day to successfully complete the drive. Guys we need to gear up a bit more. I promise to be back into action after 1st May. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary and Importance

This is a message for the recent joinees - please ensure you add importance, add as many daughter project applicable and have relevant edit summaries. This enables keeping track of the activities. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes for Project

I have also created few userboxes related to our project:

Code	Result
{{Template:User India Assessment Tag & Assess 2012 1}}	This user is a member of Tag & Assess 2012 contest India	Usage
{{Template:User India Assessment Tag & Assess 2012 2}}	This user has made assessments under the contest, Tag & Assess 2012 India	Usage
{{Template:User India Assessment Tag & Assess 2012 3}}	This user is a coordinator of Tag & Assess 2012 contest India	Usage
{{Template:User India Assessment Tag & Assess 2012 200+}}	This user has made 200+ assessments for Tag & Assess 2012 contest India	Usage
{{Template:User India Assessment Tag & Assess 2012 400+}}	This user has made 400+ assessments for Tag & Assess 2012 contest India	Usage
{{Template:User India Assessment Tag & Assess 2012 600+}}	This user has made 600+ assessments for Tag & Assess 2012 contest India	Usage
{{Template:User India Assessment Tag & Assess 2012 1000+}}	This user has made 1000+ assessments for Tag & Assess 2012 contest India	Usage
{{Template:User India Assessment Tag & Assess 2012 2000+}}	This user has made 2000+ assessments for Tag & Assess 2012 contest India	Usage
{{Template:User India Assessment Tag & Assess 2012 3000+}}	This user has made 3000+ assessments for Tag & Assess 2012 contest India	Usage
{{Template:User India Assessment Tag & Assess 2012 4000+}}	This user has made 4000+ assessments for Tag & Assess 2012 contest India	Usage

Hope that you might like it. Thank you and Happy assessments! Yasht101 09:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Special awards

When will given a special awards? 115.112.233.233 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am computing the stats - will update in a short while. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Finishing Line

With stellar contribution from our participants, we are closing in on 75% mark. The progress in fresh WP tagging has been pretty good - close to 7,000 articles have been added in the past one month and another 17,000 from the start of the project. Many thanks and let us keep the enthu going!!!

Some of the large worklists are still unassigned. Can some of the participants signup for the following ones:

Topic/Sub-project	Count*	Link	Volunteer(s)	Status
Indian geography articles‎	14,548	Category:Unknown-importance Indian geography articles‎ ‎	Many / bot required	down to 3,545
Karnataka articles‎	4,465	Category:Unknown-importance Karnataka articles‎ ‎		down to 1,013
Kerala articles‎	4,861	Category:Unknown-importance Kerala articles‎ ‎	Sesamevoila (talk)	down to 2,144
Indian history articles‎	2,351	Category:Unknown-importance Indian history articles‎ ‎		down to 1,365
Jammu and Kashmir - Fresh WP	3397 (high proportion of false +ve and -ve)	Jammu and Kashmir Links
Punjab, India - Fresh WP	1885	Punjab Links
Tamil Nadu - Fresh WP	2004 (other than Chennai)	Tamil Nadu Links		10% completed

Here are few suggestions / work:

• Is it possible to make a fresh list for J&K with reduced false +ve and -ve?
• Tagging newly created articles which we may have not tagged during the process. (Suggested after 15 May) The list may be made from the AlexaNewArticle bot logs/some other better way.
• Rechecking the striked out cats for any leftouts / new additions. (Suggested after May 20). Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

AWB seems to hang when i try to load the sub-categories. I have manually removed some of the irrelevant articles. Please try to load as per the help from Vasu here. Ssriram mt (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I've been doing the Kerala articles without actually officially volunteering for it:-) Never really figured all the different work lists Sesamevoila (talk)

Problems: Audit needed for FA/FL/A/GA/B/top tagging

I noticed that

• [1] Upanayana was tagged as GA without WP:GAN.
• [2] Acharya Shri Mahasharman tagged as A by anon.
• [3] Honey Singh as B and then as A [4] by anon

The same can happen for FA/FL and they too should be checked. Can some report check this or do we need to do it manually for FA/FL/GA too? I have checked A class articles and demoted all except Rang De Basanti as it is the only one that undergone an A class review from a different project. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm! I thought some bot must be working on reverting such things. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of new participants have marked GA without knowledge of the process - they have been instructed. Same goes with the B/C class articles - all of B have been reassessed till Apr 15. For GA/FL/FA, i will check if some bot can detect it. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As part of my other tag and assess cross referencing processes, I have taken down lists of FL, FA, etc., into a spreadsheet in early April and shoved it somewhere. I will dig it out and compare with current categories, which should lead us to articles added to these categories, which can be investigated. Hope to get it out by end of week. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry friends. I seem to have deleted my XL spreadsheet where I had the individual lists of India FA, FL, GA articles, etc., from early April date. So, I am not able to help with providing a short list for people to run through. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked the changes from March 01 till May 08 for assessment to A/GA/FA. While few were a genuine changes, I demoted a few of them. I haven't checked for downward changes though. The assessment bar doesn't have a FL option, which must be added as one of the article was changed from the status of FL to FA by a participant. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop tagging Pakistan-related articles

Fellow editors: while I appreciate the enthusiasm of all users involved in this initiative, I would like to point out a rather concerning trend that I have seen arise in the process. The problem is that there are dozens of Pakistan-related articles being tagged under WP:INDIA even when the subjects have very little to do with India. For example, I have just been through the user contributions of Ramesh Ramaiah (talk · contribs) and have seen talk pages of Pakistani personalities, universities, towns, newspapers, television serials, ethnic groups, fiction and what not all being tagged under WikiProject India for no reason. It is beyond my wisdom how such articles qualify under the scope of the project and it is becoming a rather disturbing trend. The end result is that there are several hundreds of articles being populated in Category:WikiProject India articles that apparently have nothing to do with the project. Not a long time ago, I had left a similiar note on another user's talk page too who had tagged several Pakistani district categories (please refer to this) but no action was taken.

I can only make a humble request that whoever is still tagging such articles, could you please for a moment.... stop? I really do not like to consume my time in having to clean up the mess that gets left over. I just recently undid some of the incorrect taggings, after over a month, that I pointed out in the user talk page linked above and now I find another user doing the same thing.

Please, please and please try to keep the assessments as accurate as possible and minimise incorrect taggings. Wishing you all the best, Mar4d (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That's intriguing! It might be done by mistake. I suspect Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012/Untagged/JandK (which has high amount of false positives and negatives) may have something to do with this?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Ramesh Ramaiah's contributions, I'd say you're right. Perhaps we need to bear in mind that an article may be mistakenly tagged as wp-india! --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There are 3 links on Punjab, J&K and TN that have too many false ones. I have manually removed some of the blatant ones and request users to have a thorough check before tagging. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just spotted that the category:Social groups of Punjab, India, under recursive fetch gets all the Pak related people.Ssriram mt (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Even I had a hard time tagging Haryana articles. On a safer note, I have always tried to cross-check the article properly if it already had a WP:Pakistan tag. There may be a few wrong tagging because certain articles are related to pre-independent India, or share common history. Eg, a Jat community initially started in present India, but currently residing in Pakistan or vice-versa. I request the editors from Pakistan to be patient, please remove the tags if you feel it was prima facie wrongly placed. But on certain things we may join our hands together, to make a Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged Hindu temples in pakistan as wp India. Is that wrong ?? -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 06:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think in most cases it would be very much wrong to tag articles of Hindu temple located within Pakistan. In case some temple has some significant historical connection with pre-independence India, in that case only it may be tagged with WP India banner, with the parameter |pre=yes activated.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If the temple is an important hindu one, then it should be tagged under wikiproject hinduism (similarly, Sikh gurdwaras in Pakistan should be tagged in the sikhism project). Tagging as wikiproject india should be rare and probably only if there is some current connection (can't imagine what!) or significant historical connection with India. --regentspark (comment) 15:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A very colourful Village article

Among the thousands of articles that i have assessed, I had never come across something as colourful as this one. [Papannapet . sharing it here for others to see -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to end the spectacle :P --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Redtigerxyz for cleaning it up and wikifying. For interested people who missed it, the old version of the colourful page is here Papannapet, -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

First Milestone

	Thanks
	We have achieved a significant milestone of completing assessment and bringing down the Unassessed list to zero. Kudos to all the participants. Let us target speedy completion of the rest of the worklists as well. Many thanks for all the effort and wish you all happy assessment!! Ssriram mt (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats !!! --naveenpf (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

great!--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats!!!!! -- Madhuric (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A pat to all the fellow participants. Cheers Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Awesome! I can feel the Zero fast approaching lets all give our Assessment Express a final thrust wohoooo !!! -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A question

How do you assess Aryan invasion theory. It is a disambiguate page. How do I rate "na" as importance? --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "importance=NA". I might be wrong but I think it is not needed because without "importance=NA", it categorized to "NA-importance India articles" already. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  Should a disambiguation page have a project tag at all? Their primary purpose is for navigation, not for content. --regentspark (comment) 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It helps to keep a count from the tool server - the idea is no page is left unassociated. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Tagging with Geography sub-project

I spotted one glaring mistake that most of us have done is to tag all cities, states, districts and administrative units under the Geography project. While, the scope of the project is limited to geographical features and tagging with the same would be redundant due to existence of specific sub-project. Now, at this stage I don't think it would be possible to undo the mistake. Looking for some appropriate comments and what must be done in future. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 17:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

While districts is reduntant, others may not be. Administrative units strictly should not be under geo, but only under the respective states. Residential localites within a town/city can be kept off geo. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Post-Tag & Assess activities

This section contains the list of proposed activities in the WikiProject to be carried out post-Tag & Assess 2012. AshLin (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Since by definition this doesn't apply to T&A, shouldn't it be on the main Project talkpage? What tweaks do you intend to the banner - more taskforces like business, food and religion? The obvious next "big" project is to sort out the towns/villages, they're a mess at the moment and the release of the full 2011 census data (in a few months' time????) is an obvious opportunity to attack them. I'm not sure we've even got all the sub-districts covered, let alone below that level (personally I wouldn't do articles for every village listed in the census, but I can see some people will want to do that which would mean creating a lot of new articles). Just the naming needs some thought - do we just follow the census names of towns, if so then a lot of articles need renaming. Then there's the proposed conversion of ~16,000 IJ infoboxes to Infobox settlement, and most of the data in those infoboxes needs reviewing - eg a lot of the populations have either been vandalised or "updated" with unsourced data, and there's a lot of confusion between district data and town data.FlagSteward (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed actions as per sequence

• Tweaks to WikiProject India template.
• Inter-wiki improvements with Hindi Wikipedia as per User:FlagSteward/sandbox
• Grab free images from Hindi Wikipedia as per User:FlagSteward/sandbox
• Grab text from Hindi Wikipedia as per User:FlagSteward/sandbox

• Review guidelines, updates on the wiki india assessment page.
• Information to all daughters.
• Workgroups/worklists and other guidelines for article improvement.
• Closing out on need-infobox and image-needed.

Wikimedia Brazil has conducted an Grand Prix

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/21/grand-prix-wikimedia-brazil-racing-towards-a-better-wikipedia/

Can we conduct something like this after Tag and assess ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ganeshk/Contest

Our Ganesh Bhai has given the points if an article advance for stub to start, start to C, C to B.Instead of points can we have "Runs"

--naveenpf (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes - definitely the way to go. Ganesh or Naveeen, can you please initiate with the page and the worklist? Ssriram mt (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Individual Tallies

As the competition is coming to a close, can the participants update their individual tallies - both the top and full edits. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but, what's the difference between top and full edits in the tallies? Sesamevoila (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a icon called 'Only show edits that are latest revisions' under my contributions filter. That shows the edit that is the latest. Ssriram mt (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

New categories for assessments

The categories that are on the tag and assess page are almost completed, If it might be possible to create more such categories than it will be helpful for the editors to take up the list and help in giving the final push for completion. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There are still worklists under Fresh WP tagging for Maharashtra, Mumbai, Punjab, TamilNadu, Rajasthan and Gujarat along with reassessment as below. If those can be taken up, we are almost getting there.

Topic/Sub-project	Count*	Link	Volunteer(s)	Status
C Class	911	C-Class		first 100 completed
C Class	544	C-Class

Ssriram mt (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Zero Mark... :)

We have come to the stage where two of the primary targets of the drive, unassessed and assessed articles of unknown importance have been completed. Kudos to all the participants to have made it possible.

Last 3 days and some of the review and fresh assessment thingos..

Topic/Sub-project	Un-tagged articles count*	Text list	Links list	Volunteer(s)	Status
Andhra	1113	Andhra List	Andhra Links	Ramesh Ramaiah talk	Doing...
Gujarat	1162	Gujarat List	Gujarat Links	Yasht101 :) and kondiTalk	Doing...
Jammu and Kashmir	3397 (high proportion of false +ve and -ve)	Jammu and Kashmir List	Jammu and Kashmir Links		Not Started
Kerala	2426	Kerala List	Kerala Links	User:Sesamevoila	Tagged and assessed @2300..A and half of K remaining
Maharashtra (other than Mumbai)	1228 (other than Mumbai)	Maharashtra List	Maharashtra Links	Animeshkulkarni (talk)	Started
Mumbai	1636	Mumbai List	Mumbai Links	Redtigerxyz	Started
Punjab, India	1885	Punjab List	Punjab Links		Not Started
Rajasthan	958	Rajasthan List	Rajasthan Links		"V–Z" done
Tamil Nadu	2004 (other than Chennai)	Tamil Nadu List	Tamil Nadu Links	ssriram_mt	250 remaining
Uttar Pradesh	2035	Uttar Pradesh List	Uttar Pradesh Links	Ramesh Ramaiah talk	Doing...

Review items

Topic/Sub-project	Count*	Link	Volunteer(s)	Status
C Class	911	C-Class till 10-Apr		first 100 completed
C Class	544	C-Class till 7-May
C Class	203	C-Class

Yuvi tool

Has the Yuvi Panda assessment tool stopped working? --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been having the same problem for the past two days.. just after the chrome update Sesamevoila (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• agreed, its not working In Chrome, Tried it in Firefox, worked for a couple of assessments and then stopped working at Firefox too, no idea what is causing this. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment bar

It was super useful (thank you!) but how do I get rid of it? --regentspark (comment) 13:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I borrow yours if it's still working:-) Sesamevoila (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's working only too well - assessing stuff when I don't want to assess anything! --regentspark (comment) 18:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Stats count and awards

I am consolidating the stats and awards - i will update it same time tomm. The fresh tagging and review items can be moved over to the regular assessment tasks of Wiki India. I request the volunteers to carry on with their lists to completion. Thanks a lot for the support all through the 3 months. 01:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Below is the list of proposed awards. If there are any discrepancies, please let me know.

User:Ssriram mt is missing in the list.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not being humble here, but being the co-ordinator and knowing all the trade tricks, it would be totally wrong on my part. Ssriram mt (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I respect your decision, but it sounds unfair! (at least to me ;)) I knew you would do sth like this! Now I am stupefied :-) God bless -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Ssriram mt deserves the gold, because he had done the assessments over-and-above his role as coordinator. Hence, it is a lot more contribution from his side than probably anyone else in this drive. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• yup, SSriram should get a special Gold with Tricolour for being the maximum contributor and the coordinator. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• I feel honoured with the award, I would request coordinators to also award on the talk page. :) (would love to have it), I guess Sriram and Ashlin deserve special award for their awesome contributions. THe drive would not have been a success without them. And Sriram is a one man army, We are so lucky to have him guide us. He is truely a WAG 9 for our drive. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree DBig, he is indeed. :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with DBig .. -naveenpf (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Breaking up the page due to loading speed

I realized today that since there are a lot (seriously, a lot) of pics and info on the project page it would be nice to clean and tidy things a bit. The sections I moved will be:

• The rewards
• Special Awards

If anything else occurs to me. I will post them here (right here).--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Also moved Individual tallies--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• moving the awards and the rewards was a wise decision, Following your reasoning i have also moved the userboxes that also had images to the awards section. however I have re added the personal contributions with smaller images, as its a standard practice to keep them in the main page of the drive as an appreciation of everyone's work. I dont think this small reduction of size bothers too much, as the drive is closed now and there wont be much traffic to this page now onwards.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment Satatistics

How to update the Statistics --naveenpf (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at the page seems to show that these are hard-coded. Hence, it must have been updated by a bot in the past. Probably that bot has been decommissioned... Probably GaneshK would know more about this, as he has been an active admin working on such activities - need to post it on the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The page is updated by Erwin85Bot which is still working.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 12:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ankit, I dont think it is working; last edit is way back in 2010 [5] --naveenpf (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yah, that's right.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 13:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot does the work instead of Erwin85Bot although it does not update the Statistics page, now it appears on our assessment department page.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 12:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)