Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Stub criteria for the bot

Hi. Can you expand how the count of the number of Stubs in, for example, this table are computed by the bot? Does the bot checks all articles in a specific project for stub template(s) that can be set by the editors or does the bot use some pre-defined stub criteria (minimum number of characters, minimum number of words in the main body of the article, etc.)?

Some background: in the WMF Research team, we are working on a research proposal that can help with the expansion of stubs. The very first step for us is to understand what constitutes a stub, and how your bot counts stub can be one input that can help us get closer to finding a common definition of a stub article. There is a conversation on wiki-research-l about this topic as well, if you're interested to chime in there. Thank you! --LZia (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@LZia (WMF): Stub status (as far as this bot reports are concerned) is determined by the presence of a WikiProject banner template on the talk page with the "class" parameter set to "stub". If there are no WikiProject banners, or if there are banners, but the class parameter is blank, the article won't show up as a stub in the statistics table. The bot doesn't count words or look for stub templates at the bottom of the article. Furthermore, the talk page banner assessments are often not updated when the article is expanded. There are certainly some lengthy articles that show up as stubs in this report solely because the assessment on the talk page is out of date. Because of this, 2,897,069 is a over-estimate of the number of stubs that have been assessed for a WikiProject (but when you factor in the articles that haven't been assessed for any WikiProject, the true number of stubs is surely over 3 million). Plantdrew (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Plantdrew. It's all clear now. :) One question that comes up from reading your response: Would it be useful for this bot or other bots/efforts if we build a model that can predict (with low false-positive and false-negative) if an article is a stub, and offer this information (via API, for example) as an input to the bot? Such an input can help updating the talk pages you refer to, for example. (We are in very early stages of this research, and I'm just trying to understand if there are specific outputs that can be helpful for a bot like this one.) --LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@LZia (WMF): Some sort of automated stub detection could be useful. A problem is that the editor base interested in labelling articles as stubs is rather low. For false-negatives (stubs not labelled as such) there are 520k articles have a WikiProject Banner with no class parameter set. That's pretty much solely due to lack of editors interested in setting the class, as these articles are fairly highly visible on almost any WikiProject page. There are also false-negatives that don't have any WikiProject Banner at all; these are harder to find, and many editors don't know about the tools that can be used to find them (e.g. PetScan); it still comes down to a small editor base that's interested in this work and that knows how to do it. For false-positives (articles labelled as stubs that aren't) being able to identify them in the first place is a much bigger problem than lack of editors. I'd be happy just to have a report that gave article size in bytes for articles tagged as stubs with a particular WikiProject banner or stub template (then I could examine the larger articles to determine if stub status was warranted). Plantdrew (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I see. Let me look into this a bit more and report back here. One thing that I was reminded of off-thread is that ORES does the stub prediction, but it will probably suffer from the false-negative issue as the training set for ORES is built based on what editors have currently labelled as stub. I'll look into that, too. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @LZia (WMF): In my experience, the bot, in effect, checks the class parameter of the WikiProject template on the article's talk page. The article is a stub if an editor has set class=stub. There's no checking for stub templates or evaluation of the article against criteria. Where there are multiple WikiProjects, and they rate the article differently (e.g. Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965), for tables that combine WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics, the bot seems to report the highest class rating. I believe the English Wikipedia is the only one to use WikiProject templates with ratings, so this is not a language-independent method of identifying stubs. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Understood, Worldbruce. Thank you! --LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

LZia (WMF): Thanks for posting here. (You might also consider posting at WT:STUB.) The answers above are good technical answers, but I think you're left with the question of "what is the best way to identify a stub" (as opposed to "what ways are used by this existing tool"). Stub templates might indeed be a good indicator to consider. You might, for instance, look for the presence of class=stub in one or more WikiProject banners, check whether there is a conflicting designation in other WikiProject banners, and also check whether there's a stub template on the article itself. In cases of conflict, you might consider the most recent relevant change to be the most authoritative. And...you might also set some kind of threshold (like 5 paragraphs, or 10 citations, or something) that overrides a "stub" designation, to reduce the number of false positives (catching articles that have been incrementally and significantly expanded, without being reassessed). Lots of judgment calls, but I'd urge you to take an approach along those lines if possible, rather than simply reimplementing an existing automated process's approach. -Pete (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Pete, thanks for your note. I agree with you. Two things to share: 1) We want to make sure that we don't start working on something that has a clear answer if you ask editors. From the different conversations happening here and in the wiki-research-l list, I'm leaning towards agreeing with you, i.e., we need to build a model that predicts if an article is a stub, and that model will have, as its inputs, many of the features you mentioned (I'm doing some literature review at the moment, cuz that model may have already been built by someone). 2) One aspect we haven't touched so far here is the issue of false-negatives: all the articles that are not stub but are not labelled as such either. I don't have a good sense if this is a serious problem, especially in other languages, but if there is, building a prediction model should hopefully address that, too. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The actual criteria for assessing stubs is in the table at WP:1.0/A:

A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category. The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article all together.

See also WP:STUB § How big is too big?. Depending on your use case, it might be easier to come up with your a new term that roughly correlates with "stub", but with a more precise definition. You may also be interested in SuggestBot, which uses algorithms to give articles a 1-, 2-, or 3-star rating - Evad37 [talk] 00:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Evad37. Very helpful. Do you have examples of articles that are a collection of information in need of more work to become meaningful, and as a result they're currently labelled as stubs? I have not run into them, at least frequently, and looking into a collection of such articles would be be valuable for us, to identify other features in the article that can help us predict whether an article is a stub more reliably. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@LZia (WMF): WikiProject U.S. Roads uses that sort of assessment model, focused more around structure/organisation. See WP:USRD/A for their criteria, and see Category:Stub-Class U.S. road transport articles for the articles. - Evad37 [talk] 00:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Evad37: Thanks for the links. Just to make sure I get this right: I see Enchanted Circle Scenic Byway in Category:Stub-Class U.S. road transport articles listed as a stub. Is the article really a stub or is this one of those cases that the talk page template is not updated?

Personally I think that looks like it was not updated. But I say take away a couple of the prose sections and you would be left with mainly the lists and then you have that large stub talked about earlier. Agathoclea (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Project quality listings not updating

Hi, I destubbed some mid-importance stubs on WP:MICRO, the Microbiology project. The number of those articles was 90 when I started. After I finished, I ran the bot on the project to update the list, but the number of mid-importance stubs (90) stayed the same, even though it should have changed. I did change the classes on the respective talk pages from stub class to start class. Does the bot in fact change this number? Icebob99 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I see 86 mid-importance stubs, you may want to purge the project page. I've had this problem before when updating 'manually'...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it also refreshes automatically after 24-48 hours. Icebob99 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A class versus GA class

Hi, I'm still settling into editing at a WikiProject, so please excuse any apparent ignorance. About the scale for average WikiWork: the steps are calculated in respect to distance from FA, of course, so that means that both A class and GA class are counted along the way; however, I think it would be more accurate to count either A class or GA class as one step. My reason: GA class and A class are often evaluated at the same standards, with any differences being more academic than practical. In fact, I haven't seen too many A class articles, but I have seen many GA class articles in various WikiProjects and it does seem like GA is more of a priority compared to A class. Thus, it makes sense that the purpose of A class is to rank up articles without going through the GA nomination process. How about adjusting the WikiWork calculation to consider A class and GA class as the same rank? That would mean the scale of average WikiWork would be out of 5 and every average WikiWork value for every project would be decreased by 1. I think this change would make the amount of work shown by WikiWork to be more accurate; after all, once an article is A or GA class it can practically pass for the other as well. Thoughts? Icebob99 (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A-Class is above GA-Class on the standard scale. A-Class requires a minimum of two reviewers to award in the default method, while GA-Class only requires one. The criteria for A-Class are also a bit more stringent than GA-Class. Projects that offer their own A-Class Review (ACR) may have additional requirements; some projects may require an article to be listed as a GA before it can be nominated at that ACR. Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikiwork factors

Hi any TPS for this bot's owner, can you give a direction as to how the bot can be fixed to update the wikiwork factor parameters in the WikiProject tables? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

They have not been working for a loooong time, at least not for projects that I know. If it is not possible to fix the wikiwork factors, they should removed altogether. No information is better than misinformation. Micromesistius (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio and Micromesistius: You might try posting a request at WP:Bot requests. --Izno (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Pie chart is off

Unless I am missing something, the pie chart at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics is inconsistent with the information in the table. Could someone take a look? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The pie chart should probably either be changed, removed or get an explanation of what it actually displays. It doesn't count articles but the number of WikiProject categories for the corresponding class. See Template talk:Articles by Quality Pie Graph#Completely broken. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Search is down

The search which should run when clicking on one of the cells in a WikiProject articles by quality and importance table is down, and has been down for more than a week. People have asked about what's going on with it on a couple WikiProject talk pages that I have on my watchlist. I'm mentioning it here in hopes of getting it fixed. Plantdrew (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. Hope it gets fixed soon, I'm not able to assess any articles right now. Icebob99 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew and Icebob99: The service has been restarted and is back up. --Bamyers99 (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Icebob99 (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

wikiproject Medicine

I'm not certain if this is the correct place to post, however our [1] isn't working because we assessed[2] several articles and it is not moving start and stub from "???" column, thank you for any help,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

See section "WP1.0 bot not producing many logs for WikiProjects" above. Keith D (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Amiga and importance articles

I came across Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Amiga and importance articles by quality statistics whilst looking through red link categories, which are discouraged by WP:REDNOT. It looks like gibberish and hasn't been updated in years - could it be deleted? Le Deluge (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Björk and Pokémon

The bot is changing Björk to Björk and Pokémon to Pokémon. I know it has done this many times before and has been fixed but it started again. The history of each page shows how regularly this happens. Can it be fixed for good, please? anemoneprojectors 12:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Same thing happened for the Beyonce project here. Have reverted the bot for now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No Stub Class?

Wikiproject articles by quality and importance tables generated by User:WP 1.0 bot don't seem to include Stub class articles. I'm looking at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Addiction and recovery, which I just manually regenerated using https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi I may have to switch back to using {{ArticlesByQuality}} over this issue. Bummer. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

On closer comparison of Wikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recovery/Assessment#Current status and Category:Addictions and recovery articles by quality, it appears the table may not have updated after all, in which case this bug report is moot. I'll keep you posted. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

6 Unassessed... assessed articles.

Link here

Shows 6 unassessed, but they all have Importance and Class ratings. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This is because the bot that updates the tables and logs hasn't been running properly, as mentioned in the thread above. You can manually force an update here (which I've just done for now, but you might want to do it in the future if the bot still isn't working).

Perfect, thanks for that link. Didn't see anywhere else to "purge" it :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Why was this created?

Three days ago, the bot created Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Belgium articles by quality statistics.

That page has no incoming links and no edit history. It is categorised in a non-existent category, and its only contents are a red-linked template.

I encountered this page while working through the latest update of Special:WantedCategories. In the course of clearing a huge backlog there, I found dozens of similar pages, often years old: no incoming links, and no content except a redlinked template. I speedily deleted them per WP:G6, and was about to delete this one until I spotted that that it was new.

Please can someone try to stop the bot from making these pointless pages? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a mixup with Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Belgium-related articles by quality statistics. {{WikiProject Belgium}} says |ASSESSMENT_CAT = Belgium-related articles. Many WikiProject templates use this parameter to choose another name in the category system, here changing "Belgium" to "Belgium-related". I don't know how the bot works but maybe somebody activated it with the wrong name. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have G6-seedy-deleted it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject Israel assessment

I have not seen any change in the assessment statistics for a very long time despite all my work. Can someone fix this? Thanks.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Gilabrand please look at the various posts above. For the time being your choice is to do nothing or run it manually whenever you want at https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi. ww2censor (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to update with that link but see no change at all.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gilabrand: It updates the table immediately, but you have the purge the page it's on to see the changes. The logs are generated separately, later in the day where I'm from (Eastern Time U.S.). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I just checked again and I do see a difference this time. I didn't realize there was a time lag.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a time lag for the table re-creation. It's just that it won't appear until the page it's on is purged, either automatically on a schedule or manually, by an editor. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

So how does one do that?--Geewhiz (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If there's not already a "Purge" or "Purge cache" option somewhere in your menu, you can add it by checking "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache" in Preferences/Gadgets/Appearance. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A similar issue applies for WikiProject Canada. The numbers in the summary table are frozen, and the log shows no updates since February 3rd. Can the powers that be please reactivate the bot? Thanks in advance! PKT(alk) 17:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Rather than pointing out the obvious, I ran the bot for Canada. Bot has to be manually run, which you can do anytime. Brad (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:ISOTOPES

wikiwork factor broke the table. yes. Product0339^{Talk  • Project}
_{Contributions} 08:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Other languages?

Is there any Wikipedia Release Version tools for other languages versions of wiki?Minh28397 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? Kelson (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality log no longer updates

Hello, I was wondering why this bot no longer updates projects quality logs daily? On Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Skepticism articles by quality log, the log hasn't updated since April 1st, yet many changes have been made since then. Thanks. Karlpoppery (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw the previous posts about this problem. Karlpoppery (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Karlpoppery I've just run it manually for you. The table is ready now and logs will appear a few hours later. ww2censor (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Karlpoppery (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem Karlpoppery. Because itthe bot has not been run on your project for quite a while it will have posted several chunks, so you may want to review the last few edits: see the history and you will see 3 edits to bring it up to date. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this problem, quality log nightly updates should be back Kelson (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears the bot made a full automatic run last night based on its edit history. Thanks for helping. Brad (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality log inactive?

Hello, I'm an active user from WikiProject African diaspora. Another informed me that the quality statistics table might not be updating regularly, just hoping to have someone check it out for me, much appreciated. WikiGuy86 (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I just ran it manually twice but Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/African diaspora articles by quality statistics has not been updated since 2010. Something else must be seriously wrong. ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Check again -- I just purged the page. It transcludes the updated table, so the last edit date from 2010 is misleading. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Stevietheman, I was looking for a way to purge that page, but that makes no difference to what I see in the edit history. However, I think what one sees are the transcluded statistics, so the bot does not actually edit the page after each run. What one really need to look at are the log pages and on checking I see this Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/African diaspora articles by quality log has been updated just now and the previous update was 2 April, so WikiGuy86 should be happy again. ww2censor (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ww2censor and Stevie is the man! for your work, all is well in the world again, lol! WikiGuy86 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

AL-Class

USRD and the other highway projects are using AL-Class, but when our first list was promoted at ACR, the bot logged that the page has been removed. Can someone apply whatever fix is necessary to recognize this class? Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 09:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump again Imzadi 1979 → 03:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Some reply would be appreciated. Archiving has been terminated for this thread. Imzadi 1979 → 01:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: thoughts here? Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Table request for WP1.0 bot

I'd like to ask that the bot add an additional task. Just as the bot updates User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1 and User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Canada-Roads-1, I'd like a similar table for WP:HWY. The rows needed would be based on the following assessment trees:

• Africa road transport articles (Africa, in gray)
• Asia road transport articles (Asia, in gray)
• Australia road transport articles (Australia)
• Canada road transport articles (Canada)
• Europe road transport articles (Europe, in gray)
• Hong Kong road transport articles (Hong Kong)
• India road transport articles (India)
• Latin America road transport articles (Latin America, in gray)
• Oceania road transport articles (Oceania, in gray)
• UK road transport articles (UK)
• U.S. road transport articles (US)
• Highways articles (HWY, in gray)
• Road transport articles (All Roads, in gray)

In parentheses I noted how the should be marked, with some appearing with gray backgrounds. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump again Imzadi 1979 → 03:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Some reply would be appreciated. Archiving has been terminated for this thread. Imzadi 1979 → 01:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: thoughts here? Imzadi 1979 → 23:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: it's been over a year. The courtesy of some reply would be nice. Imzadi 1979 → 20:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, indeed it has and for that I can only apologize. This is not a project I'm actively involved in developing aside from "fixing things as they break", frankly--I could look into something like this, but I don't want to promise anything prematurely, since I've never touched any of the custom tables code. The ideal solution would really be some more active eyes (and hands) on the project & the codebase. Theopolisme (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Table Problem w/ WikiProject YouTube

Hi! I have had a problem with this bot's table updating recently. A couple of hours ago (As of 03:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)), I revamped this page to this revision. A little while later, a bot changed the table to this revision. Can someone help me to get the bot to update with this table instead of this table? Thanks Jamesjpk (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC) (On a side note, is there any way to add WikiWork in the table too? Thanks!) Jamesjpk (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, this pages "belongs" ("User:WP_1.0_bot" namespace) and is modified by a bot. You can not change it. Kelson (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Kelson:! I am wondering how I could get this page, to be the table style to this page. I am wondering how WP:GOOGLE got their table to look like this, and how the WikiProject YouTube table could look this way.

I do not see the difference of style between the two pages you have given. Kelson (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The request is apparently not about style but about which quality classes to include. Each class corresponds to a category. I suspect the bot uses Category:YouTube articles by quality to look for subcategories so try placing the wanted categories there. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

WP1.0 bot not producing many logs for WikiProjects

Hello, I just wanted to report that logs for Louisville and Kentucky, and apparently many others haven't been produced since early February. Thanks to anyone who will look into this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The last logs I've seen were on 12 February and the project assessment tables are not being updated either though I have run some manually here https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi. These two very useful reports were regular for years with very few failures but in the last year or so have become erratic and offline for longer and longer periods. What can we do as no one appear to be maintaining them? ww2censor (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: and @Wolfgang42: can you take a look at this? Keith D (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Keith D: I doubt there is any use in trying to contact Wolfgang42, as he does not have permission and according to their contribution history, he has not been active here for almost 3 years and I recall Theopolisme has only responded when emailed and even he is quite busy IRL and he too is rather inactive here. We really need someone new to maintain these reports. ww2censor (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Thanks, I had not investigated their edit history just took the names from the page that indicated they were maintaining the tool. May be we need to ask at WP:VPT or possibly Wikipedia:Bot requests to see if there is someone who could look at getting it going again or even take over the maintenance of it. Keith D (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone made a request at VPT or Bot requests yet? Erick (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Sounds worth doing. I don't know if anyone has done that yet. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been running the bot manually and it works but it takes several hours to post the report. Brad (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two steps. The bot should be automatically updating the statistics table. That step isn't happening, but if you do a manual update, the table appears immediately. Once the statistics table is updated, the bot produces the assessment log. That step still happens automatically (provided the table has been manually updated), and it happens at a particular time of day, so it can take hours for the assessment log to update. It looks like what used to happen is that the statistics tables were automatically updated beginning around 0:00 GMT, then the bot did the assessment log run when the table updates were completed. Take a look at the time stamps in the edit history of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Plant and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality log. In recent months, the times for the table are all over the place (reflecting whenever somebody did a manual update), but the times for the log remain consistent (although often going days without an update). Plantdrew (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No matter what way you look at it, we really need a knowledgeable person to maintain this feature is some timely way. It's been breaking too often in recent years. Does anyone know anyone who might take on the job? ww2censor (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The bot is working if you manually start it for a set project and eventually it will post a report. Good for now but it needs a new attendant. Brad (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we need to find someone to maintain tech support; I'm starting to ask around. Is there a page to post this request to the bot approval people? Theo used to do the tech support, but I see he's gone largely inactive on Wikipedia in recent months. As ww2censor says - do you know anyone who can do this? Walkerma (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:BOTREQ I believe. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It has already been mentioned there: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#WP_1.0_bot. I've emailed Theo to ask if he knows anyone who can assist. ww2censor (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I got an offer (from a very capable programmer) to look at it (as a one-off) next month - I'll let you know if this goes ahead. In the meantime, though, we still need to find a permanent person to look after the bot. Walkerma (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Need help eliminating erroneous matrix outlier

• I’ve been periodically running manual updates on Oregon articles by quality/importance matrix, but I can’t get rid of an unusual matrix outlier. Someone erroneously gave a Redirect page a quality rating and it was picked up in the “Other/Low” matrix box. That page no longer has any quality rating or even a Wiki-Oregon banner, but I can’t get that erroneously page off the Wiki-Oregon matrix. Is there any way to clear it off the matrix?--Orygun (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've had this problem for many years with the WikiProject EastEnders matrix. I eliminated importance for the entire WikiProject in 2013 but 70 pages remain listed under NA-importance, one of which no longer has the WikiProject banner (original page was moved and replaced with a disambiguation page). Even deleting the talk pages or even the redirects themselves doesn't help - it just moves them from redirect-class to other-class. —anemoneprojectors— 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Orygun: Drafts are frequently a culprit for anomalous entries in the matrix. For Oregon, it appears that the issue is with Draft talk:March Against Hate. I'm not sure what's going on with EastEnders; I checked a couple of the entries and they didn't have corresponding drafts. Plantdrew (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Code and maintainer for WP 1.0 bot

Gathering in one place information from here and the Bot's instruction page:

• Source code, last updated by Kelson a year ago.
• Last maintainers: Theopolisme + Wolfgang42. (We should update this if they're inactive or unavailable)
• Current active users looking for new maintainers: user:Walkerma, Kelson (since this bot and other kiwix tools are key to generating offline WP 1.0 snapshots)

– SJ + 00:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, SJ, for posting that here! I think they are both inactive, but we've not found a replacement. However, Kelson just emailed me to say that he thinks he fixed it, see #Quality_log_no_longer_updates. However, Kelson has too many responsibilities already on Kiwix to be able to be the official person here. Anyway, great news! Walkerma (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Beyonce

Can anyone tell me why the Wikiwork factors are not getting displayed in User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Beyoncé? Do I need to apply for it somewhere? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I can help, but no clue what you mean with the "Wikiwork factors"! Could you maybe give an example with an other project where this is working? Kelson (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kelson: See the bottom line (below Total) at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Plant for an example. Plantdrew (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thx, I understand better now. I need to have a look. Kelson (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Bot is down again

No updates in about 4 days and the manual run does not work either. Brad 04:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Kelson: @Walkerma:

This change is responsible of the problem https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AWikipedia_1.0_assessments&type=revision&diff=785312604&oldid=770687996. The bot relies on a certain structure of categories, changing it makes it fails. Kelson (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kelson. @Fayenatic london: your change has broken 1.0 bot for all wikiprojects. I could revert the change, but am wary of breaking anything else. Is there any solution to this issue? Obviously we can't have a bot that does not work. Brad 20:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, here[3] are some related changes that I made. That was just mopping-up; the vast majority were made by Cydebot, starting here.[4]

Wouldn't it be better to update the WP 1.0 bot?

Despite the many pages of contribs by Cydebot, I believe that only a small proportion of projects were in the WP 1.0 category; the rest were in Category:WikiProject assessments already. Presumably they cannot have been affected by the change; were they already being processed by another bot? If so, can the latter take over this assessment work from WP 1.0 Bot? – Fayenatic London 22:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Jc37 and Explicit: in case they can help. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

1.0 Bot is currently rudderless and does not have any assigned maintainer. I'm not fully aware of the ins and outs but it's my understanding that approximately 1000 wikiprojects rely on 1.0 Bot which is not running after your change. The category was clearly explained in a hidden note. So, we can wait two months for the bot to be updated or we can reverse the changes and get the bot back asap. Brad 02:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've temporarily reinstated category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments as a parent category over Category:WikiProject assessments. If we're lucky, the bot may process the grandchild categories. If that doesn't work, we will need to do a mass rollback on the 4,650 categories moved by Cydebot and myself. – Fayenatic London 06:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, we can wait a couple days to see if the bot comes out of it's coma however, I tried making a manual run which did not go. See 1.0 Bot contributions page. If you go back to the 10th and 11th, you'll see just how many projects the bot updates. Brad 15:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I also tried a manual run from User:WP 1.0 bot on "19th-century novels task force", since the first two categories moved by Cydebot were Category:19th-century novels task force articles by importance and Category:19th-century novels task force articles by quality. The manual run did nothing. Then I rolled back the changes on those two categories, which moved them back into Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, and manually ran 1.0 bot on the same task force; this time it had a result. – Fayenatic London 19:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I just have had a look again, and indeed the category Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments needs to be pupulated back with project categories Kelson (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried looking at the project categories that were already in Category:WikiProject assessments rather than Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, not moved by Cydebot or me. The first alphabetically is .NET, but this was moved in good faith by Gamebuster (talk · contribs) on 4 June; I reverted it. He also moved one of the top-level assessment categories, Category:Articles by importance, so I tried reverting that and Category:Articles by quality back into the 1.0 category, but I confirm after another test that that is not a sufficient workaround either. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

But why is it still updating this table in Category:U.S. road transport articles by quality, as that category is still in WikiProject assessments? – Fayenatic London 22:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No updates in WP Israel assessments for quite a while. Is this connected?--Geewhiz (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Geewhiz: Probably… It's interesting that you should ask about that project. Among the bot's few contribs yesterday, it seems to be trying to create the required pages for WP Israel: it created Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Israel Assessment Statistics articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WP Israel articles by quality statistics, each of which is a member of a non-existent category and transcludes a non-existent page. Did you by any chance initiate a process by the bot that would have made it create those two new pages?

In Category:WikiProject Israel I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Assessment/Statistics, which transcludes User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Israel-related, which has not been updated since 12 June; neither of these was in any assessment category (so I categorised the first one). The bot created the second new page in non-existent Category:WP Israel articles by quality, but the existing articles-by-quality category is called Category:Israel-related articles by quality, so I moved it there – not sure whether that will help. The new page probably shouldn't be needed; there was also already Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wikiproject Israel articles by quality statistics, which transcludes the same "Israel-related" bot-updated page. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't see any change, but yes, it was probably me who initiated the process. Last time the assessment stopped working I was told to update it manually with this link: http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi

But I guess it didn't work.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that does explain those pages being created by WP 1.0 bot, then. I just tried to force the bot to update "WP Polynesia" (as opposed to Polynesia or WikiProject Polynesia) and it created a similar red-linked new page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WP Polynesia articles by quality statistics. Evidently, then, the newly-created WP Israel pages are not a sign that the bot is on its way to put things right.

I deleted the new pages. I also went to the link you gave, and ran the bot for "WikiProject Israel", and that worked properly.

Now I have rolled back 150 of Cydebot's contribs, from "A" to "Alternative Views". Let's see if WP 1.0 bot starts working on those projects again.

But I would still like to know why the bot's contribs show that it is still processing the Roads project pages, which have not been moved back into the 1.0 category. – Fayenatic London 15:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Team, are we fixing this issue? I don't understand what was the need for this change at all. Seems to be the source of all trouble. Every few days some update happens on these bots and then everything fails :( —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there any good reason to revert all the changes? Then make sure everything is running properly and after that figure out how to make the changes that were agree to so as not to screw up the whole process as has happened. ww2censor (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I reinstated the category page pinpointed by IB on the 19th, and it did not fix the issue. Kelson diagnosed above that that category needs to be repopulated, which means reverting all the changes. – Fayenatic London 07:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: is that the only category to be deleted? The discussion seems to say that the bot is checking some different format of categories to tabulate the table parameters? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The CFD discussion resulted in consensus to merge Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments to Category:WikiProject assessments. However, Kelson says ([5]) that WP 1.0 bot only works if the categories "Foo articles by quality" and "Foo articles by importance" are in Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. So it looks as if we have to undo the merge, i.e. move over 4,000 categories back into that one. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at the assessment page for WP Israel and saw no change. So what is it that you say worked properly?--Geewhiz (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong about that. I checked the bot's contributions and saw an edit to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Israel articles by quality statistics, but that's just yet another unnecessary newly-created red-linked page. I'll delete that as well. The existing page has a non-standard lowercase p in wikiproject, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wikiproject Israel articles by quality statistics, which transcludes User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Israel-related. I tried running the bot for "Wikiproject Israel", and it did not generate any changes to the table. Then I reverted the Israel-related categories, i.e. moved them back into 1.0 assessments category, and re-ran the bot. Only then did it at last update the table. This confirms Kelson's advice. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for working hard to fix this. Much appreciated! 20:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Assessment table updated but now we wait and see if the assessment log will post. There typically are several hours between table and log updates. Haven't see any updates for the A changes you made. Brad 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The A tables are updating as I post this. Brad 00:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Break

All of the tables and logs for Israel and the A's have posted successfully. Now what? Brad 12:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The A tables, and Israel, did update, and so did their logs. Therefore I have gone ahead and completed mass rollback of all the project categories that were moved out of 1.0 Assessments on 12 June. There is a weakness in using rollback: it also rolls back any immediately preceding edits by the same editor. So, if the previous edit to the same category was also by Cydebot (e.g. implementing a renaming of another parent category per an older CFD decision), that would have been rolled back too. I have therefore checked my rollback edits, and revised any where the page size changed by anything other than +2 characters. This still leaves the possibility of overlooking any preceding edits by Cydebot that did not change the character count. Well, that's the best I can do. At least we will have the vast majority of the assessments working again. Please ping me if you find any that I missed. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your excellent cooperation in this matter. Looking at the bot contribs, they appear to all be working as they should. If there are any problems left over, they will have to be pointed out as they're discovered. Hopefully some new attendants for the bot will be found. Brad 00:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Long term snafu caused by duplicate project tags

I seem to always find gigantic trouble. Let's use the Catholicism log as an example. If you look at the reassessed column you will see that through the history of the log that the same articles are constantly being reassessed. This is caused by some manner of a duplicate project banner on the talk page. See the old version of this page as an example; drop open the banner shell and observe two WP:Catholicism tags. If one is removed, the bot halts the repetitive assessments. Another manner of duplication is a page that contains task forces ie: WP:Albums and WP:TheBeatles|album=yes together on the same page.

Nothing too harmful is happening except that the problem causes 1.0 Bot to make edits for no productive reason. There are thousands of articles that have this problem; WP:Women has six entire pages of reassessments daily. Another project had one article reassessing for 18 months! I've picked through some of the smaller incidences of duplication but the problem is too large scale for one or two editors to fix. Brad 14:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm I just found a triplicate! Brad 16:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if we can get someone to look at this. Thanks for flagging it. Walkerma (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to have the bot ignore pages that have double tags or I could put in a botreq to clear duplicates. But the duplicates will always be an issue so having the bot ignore and or flag duplicates is the best solution. I've also discovered a few incidences where someone has placed a category ie: project: mid-importance-stonecutters articles within the text of the talk page. This too, counts as a double tag. Brad 00:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot is malfunctioning again....big surprise

The last few days when it comes to posting the logs, the bot is not posting past the D's. Table updates seem to be fine. This is a similar problem we had a couple of months ago and manual updates don't help. Another botreq was recently posted here. God save the Queen. Brad 01:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No way to fix problem if problem are not described properly? Please give an example/link of what goes wrong and explain clearly what is wrong? Kelson (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot isn't updating the articles by quality logs that are alphabetically past "Dogs"; see Special:Contributions/WP_1.0_bot. Plantdrew (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I still do not get it, I see here article William Corvinus reassessed yesterday and "William Corvinus" > "Dogs". Kelson (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And Football (F) is after Dogs (D) and hasn't been updated since July 2 (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football articles by quality log) even though the table is updated daily (User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Football). The question is why is it stopping at the end of D? Nanonic (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, so you are talking about the project names... Kelson (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

One more time: The bot seems to be updating the tables just fine but not updating the logs past any project name that starts with the letter D in its title. There are no logs being updated with the project names from E-Z. Brad 20:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So I finally discovered the following "smart move"... Unprotect that page and I strongly suspect this will fix our problem. Kelson (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: could you look at the page mentioned above that you deleted then protected which may be the cause of the problem with the BOT. Keith D (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that fixed it! Nanonic (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That's my observation too. Thanks for the help: all of you! Brad 03:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect link

The ??? column header should link to Category:Unknown-importance articles, not Category:Unassessed articles. --Jameboy (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)