Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Adding Quality (FL) to the Assessment table

In Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel#Assessment, I have added the FL tag and created the categories like the FA does but when putting the class=FL in the talk page of the articles I only get ??? (like in here Talk:List of Israeli football champions) and an empty note in the FL-class category. After using the toolserver updater the FL was removed. Can anyone see what I did wrong and add FL correctly to the Assessment of WikiProject_Israel so we have it aswell.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Answered at Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Adding Quality (FL) to the Assessment table. Please see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Statistics template / bot for WikiProject Indigenous languages of California

Haven't gotten the Statistics template / bot for WikiProject Indigenous languages of California to work yet. Does someone here know how to do this? Djembayz (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now the toolserver is having problems, and the data there that the bot uses is several weeks out of date. I can debug the problems with your project, but until the toolserver is fixed even if your project is set up correctly it will not work until the toolserver catches up with the data for your project. I will keep an eye on it and see what happens. I'm sorry to say I cannot fix it may take a couple weeks before I can get it working, because of the toolserver delay that is out of my control. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Date/Time Stamp

Given that the bot can't keep the tables updated in real time, would it be possible for it to add run-time Date/Time stamps so that viewers can see how old the information is? (Judging by the assessment log and my own edits, the WP:TREK tables are somewhere between one and a half and two and a half weeks old right now...) Cbbkr (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is not too hard to do. But the problem is that the tables are often out of date not because of the bot, but because the data on the toolserver is out of date. The bot thinks that it is updating the tables every day or so. In general, if there is no change in the table data, the bot will not re-upload the table. Now if there was a timestamp, it would be clear that the bot has regenerated the table, but the data in the table would still be out of date. So if the bot put a timestamp on the table, I am afraid it might mislead people to think that the data is up to date. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks... The implication appears to be that there is no bot-accessible audit trail (or something similar) that can tell it when the toolserver's data was last updated (That couldn't be addressed, could it?). Cbbkr (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
There are graphs of the replication lag online at [1]. The problem is that, to work out what data a table would have, you would have to know the replag at the time the table was created. The general rule is that the delay in data getting into the table is about (toolserver replag + 1 day). — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot temporarily down 2012-8-7

The bot is temporarily down pending two issues. The first is the toolserver replag, which is excessively high, preventing the bot from seeing data up to two weeks old. The second, which may be related, is a technical issue with database tables appearing to be locked while the bot is running. Until further notice, the bot will not be making on-wiki updates and the web tools have been disabled. I apologize for the delay, but there is simply no way to make the bot run in a functional way until these issues are resolved.

If other bot developers are interested in assisting with these problems, I would be very happy to add you to the WP 1.0 multi maintainer project on the toolserver. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Further issue: It appears that the toolserver has been reorganized completely. As a result, all of the numerical links in the data tables return a "Forbidden" message instead of the usual listing of articles. Possibly not related, but it is another problem to be addressed if the process is to continue working. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Forbidden" is expected. I hope that over the weekend I can code a more gentle way of turning off the web tools, but for now I have just forcibly blocked everyone from accessing them. On the plus side, it appears I may be able to do some limited updates, although the data will still lag behind because of the toolserver replag. But the web tools will be unavailable for a while, although I hope to make that as short a time as possible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Partial progress 2012-8-10

Running the bot manually, I was able to do an update of all the non-Biography projects and upload project tables, which took the last two days. I am running another update, after which I will upload tables and logs if everything goes smoothly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your perseverance it's greatly appreciated. Brad (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: 2012-8-15

Here is a status update. The toolserver has two database servers that hold copies of English Wikipedia, one of which also has the custom data for WP 1.0. All the custom data is being copied to the other database server, which has lower replag. Once that is finished, I should be able to run another update of all the on-wiki tables and logs. The database server that WP 1.0 is currently using (where the data is being copied from) will go offline for maintenance after the data is copied from it. Because toolserver will be down to just one enwiki database server temporarily, the web tool will remain offline to help limit the load on that server. Once both enwiki database servers are back in operation, I should be able to re-enable the web tool. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: 2012-8-25

I am trying a full update on the toolserver today. They have moved the WP 1.0 database and all other "user" databases to the other enwiki database server on toolserver, which should have less replag. If the update is successful, I will then test re-enabling the web tools. A typical update takes only about 1 day, but when there has been a long pause like now it will take several days to do the update and upload all the tables and logs (part of the extra delay is due to the page moves, which take extra work to process; the other part is due to extra time to upload the assessment logs to the wiki). — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The update of the WP 1.0 database is done, and the updated project summary tables are uploaded to the wiki. Started the log upload now, it will take some time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for doing all that. It's nice to finally see project numbers updated! —Torchiest talkedits 15:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. The log uploads took about 24 hours, and I also uploaded a new global statistics table. I should be able to get the updates back to every day or two now. I will work on the web tools next, and then the backlog of other issues on this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
And a hell of an update too! Thanks. Brad (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick replacement hack

I only noticed that this is down today. I hacked a quick interim tool for rudimentary display (demo) that uses only the Wikipedia API, not the toolserver databases. Can be improved if there is interest. --Magnus Manske (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Update 2012-9-2

I have re-enabled the web tools except for the "update project data" tool. The other ones seem to be a little slow, but I am not sure why. The "update" tool has always been problematic in terms of performance. The backend for it needs to be rewritten, and until I do that I am going to leave it disabled. If anyone else is interested in helping with the coding, I am always looking for additional maintainers. Of course the project data will still be updated in the background, just not "on demand" (not that the "on demand" worked very well). — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good to see the overviews being updated again, even if the 'update project data' is still disabled. Did an update action on WikiProject Tennis, could you run an update of that overview? Thx.--Wolbo (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality stats for new project?

I was setting up the new WikiProject Westerns pages, possibly round about when the above issues started, although Toolserver was accessible at the time. However, I haven't a clue whether or not I've even setup this project properly in readiness for WP 1.0 bot to produce a quality table. I tried the webform and it flashed up a bunch of queries results, but nothing resulted from that. I've got Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Westerns articles by quality statistics with a redlink on it, and 700-odd articles all tagged with project banner.. but apart from that, I don't know what else to do, or if I've even done it right given the issues. Any help, please? Thanks. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 06:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I will be glad to help, but until the toolserver issues are resolved the bot is not running. I will check the set up of your project the next time that I run the bot. I'm sorry for the delay, the toolserver issues are unfortunately out of my control. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, much appreciated. Please can you drop me a message on my talk page when you are able to check into it, as I may miss any reply left here, given the unpredictable behaviour of toolserver at present. Thanks again, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 22:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Aforementioned Westerns project table appears to be showing now, following the updates, thanks. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 22:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles by quality

Articles by quality logs haven't been updated in a while - since August 26, apparently. Is everything OK or there is still a technical problem with the bot runs? GregorB (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see two sections down. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality stats and table for WikiProject Endangered Languages too?

Haven't been able to get this to work. Can you help? Djembayz (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment log updates

I was looking at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/U.S. road transport articles by quality log and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Georgia (U.S. state) road transport articles by quality log pages. They (and probably the other [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/???? road transport articles by quality log]] pages) haven't been updated since August 25! What can be done to update all of them? Thank you for your help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I had turned off the log updates because of the high replag. I turned them back on now, and started a job to upload them. If things go well all the past logs will be uploaded to the wiki in the next 24 hours. The web tools always have the updated logs based on what data has been collected from the wiki - these are at http://toolserver.org/~enwp10 . — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Need help

Hi there! I set up this WikiProject, and I followed steps 1-3 in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. Now when I clicked on Run the bot right away, It's says Forbidden (403). Can anyone please guide me with the whole Assessment thing? I'm kinda confused. Sorry. Chihciboy (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay responding to you. The wikiproject table does seem to be working at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Kelly_Clarkson_articles_by_quality_statistics. The "update right now" feature had to be disabled due to problems with the toolserver where the 1.0 bot runs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality stats for Graffiti project?

I'm trying to help make the WikiProject Graffiti look more loved and would be delighted if an article quality stats table could be generated for the tagged articles. Any chance of that? Thanks in advance. Sionk (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The tables seem to be set up correctly at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Graffiti articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Graffiti articles by quality log. Sorry for the slow response. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality stats and table for WikiProject Discrimination too?

Hey guys, same question here for WikiProject Discrimination. I tried to set everything up according to the instructions. Maybe I missed something?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be working correctly, although I made one last page. It is at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Discrimination articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Discrimination articles by quality log. I'm sorry for the slow response. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirect changes

When the target of a redirect is changed, why is the redirect itself listed as "Renamed" when no files are actually changing names? It seems to me that this should be a separate section apart from true file renamings. Cbbkr (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Renamed" means that there was a page A that used to be assessed, but now it is not. When the bot sees this, it then checks whether there is a redirect from A to some other page B. If there is, it will say in the logs that A was renamed to B instead of saying that A is now unassessed and B is now assessed. The bot does not go on to see what else might have happened with the redirects, it just notices that page A is no longer in the assessed articles list and A is a redirect to another page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


So click here for updates. --Lexein (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The bot has been back up for a little while - just responding so the thread is clearly marked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Tried to use the bot to update WP:TENNIS but still got the 'Forbidden (403)' message.--Wolbo (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The online "update now" tool will be disabled for a while - it was not working properly and parts of it have to be rewritten. But the bot does update each project on a daily or near-daily basis automatically. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought the 'bot' referred to the 'update' function. FYI the WP:TENNIS overview has been updated a few times recently but the last time was about two weeks ago.--Wolbo (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know - the bot has been collecting the data, but a separate toolserver issue turns out to have been killing the upload process. I made some tweaks today that should help it, and I will watch it for a few days. The new data is uploaded now [2]. The toolserver is surprisingly flaky, so I depend on error reports to know when a new problem has come up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if there is an issue but WP:TENNIS has not updated for about four days when previously it updated daily or at least every two days.--Wolbo (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. The toolserver admins are re-installing the enwiki database replica this week to get rid of the corruption mentioned in a lower section of this talk page. I left the WP 1.0 web tools up, although they may break from time to time while the databases are re-installed. But I turned off the automatic updates until the database maintenance is done, which should be later this week. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sortable columns on toolserver?

Would it be possible to make the project and article columns sortable when all WikiProjects are listed on toolserver (i.e. here). As a writer for the Signpost's WikiProject Report, I'd like to easily see which projects are the largest and be able to determine which have been growing most rapidly each month. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to sort that page because the list is broken into separate tables for each letter. Instead I just hacked a quick and dirty report that will show you a sorted list. It is at [3]. However, I know that the counts for all the Biography projects are wrong. Because of toolserver performance problems those are rarely updated. Most of the other projects should be up to date. I will work on making some tweaks to the code to see if I can get the Biography projects to update more regularly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
All the biography projects have been updated since then, so all the data is up to date. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Could we add this to the database reports as a monthly or annual report? -Mabeenot (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The report I sent you is dynamic: it always uses the latest data, so it will update itself. I suppose we could set up something to copy it to the wiki every month if that would help. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I've added a link to the report on the list of database reports. Thanks again! -Mabeenot (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Help- Table for Articles by Quality and Importance

I've set up the new Wikipedia: WikiProject Collections Care, and I have tried to follow all the directions in the Version 1.0 guide, but for some reason I cannot seem to get a table in which it displays both Quality and Importance. Even the quality only scale that is showing up on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Collections Care articles by quality statistics looks different than the usual scale. Can someone please take and look and help me figure out where I went wrong? Thanks -AngelKelley (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything seems fine to me. You tagged an article as B-class on 6 October, then the bot generated the table on 10 October with the single entry. Since then you have tagged two more articles on 11 October. The two new articles should be added to the table the next time the bot cycles through your data. If the table still hasn't updated in a week I will be happy to look at the situation again. Road Wizard (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. I did tag that article for importance too. Is there a reason the table doesn't show that scale too? And as I tag more articles will the table adjust automatically to look more like the standard table used on WikiProject pages? Sorry for all the questions. I'm not the most tech savvy person in the world :) -AngelKelley (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your point about importance. I think it is isn't identifying separate columns yet because you just have 1 high importance article. When you have more articles with other quality or importance ratings the table should expand. Don't worry about asking questions, these templates and tables are confusing to everyone in the beginning. Feel free to ask anything else if you have any other issues. Road Wizard (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The table already looks more like a "regular" table. The table only shows the rating levels that it actually noticed the previous time it gathered data from the project. There is often a lag of a day or two, because after you save a change the bot has to gather data from your project (this runs once a day) and then upload the table back to the wiki (this usually happens the next day). Recently, the "update" didn't run one day because of an issue when the toolerver admins changed their job scheduling system; this added another day of delay. But if the categories are correct on the article then the bot will indeed gather the data the next time it runs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll tag a few more articles and hopefully the next update pulls it all together. Thanks again. -AngelKelley (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible cleanup

is this page, User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/SFBA, unnecessary now that we have User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/San Francisco Bay Area? note the redlinks in the first page.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The bot stopped updating the first page almost a year ago so there shouldn't be any problem with deleting it from the bot's perspective. However you will lose your project's historic record of article improvements. Whether your project wants to retain that historic record is another question... Road Wizard (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Please don't "clean up" any pages in the bot's user space. These are in user space to emphasize that the bot can edit them at any time, even if it seems like they are out of date. The other reason they are in the bot's user space instead of Wikipedia space is to emphasize that they are the responsibility of the maintainer. One reason these are kept is that there is no other record of the past article counts that the bot has generated, and these counts might be of interest to data gatherers, not just to the wikiproject itself. The job of the bot is not just to make current tables - it is to keep a permanent record of old assessments via logs and page histories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Article size

Would it be possible for the tool to display each article's size? This is something that I'm interested in (i.e., comparing the size of articles in the same rating-class). Thanks! Toccata quarta (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me investigate that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is an initial attempt [4]. It still has a few bugs but it should be in a state where you can try it and let me know if it lets you make the comparison you want. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WP 1.0 maintainer stepping down

To give myself more time to work on other interests, I am going to step down as the WP 1.0 bot maintainer at the end of November 2012. The WP 1.0 bot is used by over 1,000 wikiprojects and also used to make released offline copies of Wikipedia. I am looking for a new maintainer who is interested in taking over this important job. I want to announce this well in advance to allow for a smooth transition. I am not retiring from Wikipedia as a whole; I am just turning over the bot to someone else.

The new maintainer needs to have some programming skills and experience with Linux/UNIX. But the details of the bot can be learned "on the job"; you don't have to be an expert, and this project would be an ideal way to gain some real experience with a nontrivial bot and web programming project. If you are interested, please let me know or comment here. You are welcome to email me if you would like to discuss things privately.

Here are a few important details:

  • The WP 1.0 bot runs in a "multi-maintainer project" on the Wikimedia Toolserver. It is straightforward to get a toolserver account and for the toolserver administrators to add another toolserver account to the project.
  • I will be available for consultation during the transition to a new maintainer, and even after someone else takes over. However, I am not looking for a co-maintainer - I am stepping down and a new maintainer is needed.
  • There are many interesting things going on, such as the possibility of transitioning the bot to Wikimedia Labs after that becomes fully operational. The new maintainer would be able to help shape the course of the WP 1.0 project.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 17:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like an interesting project; I'd be interested in helping out/maintaining it (and am adequately knowledgeable in UNIX-esque fields...although PHP is my language of choice ) -- if you'd like to send me an email to further discuss, I'd be happy to talk! Theopolisme Boo! 17:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm interested in this too. If Theopolisme doesn't take this on, I'd be happy to. I already have a Toolserver account and experience with Linux & programming. — Wolfgang42 (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with class flipping

The BOT appears to be having a problem with article Grade I listed buildings in Coventry on WikiProject Coventry and keep flipping the class between Unassessed and FL-class. Cannot see any problem with the talk page that would cause the problem. Can someone take a look. Keith D (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You cannot see it on the wiki, but there is some corruption in the toolserver database, which caused this article to look like it was in multiple assessment categories when the bot consults the toolserver database. On an article by article basis, when problems are noticed, I can fix it by deleting the talk page and restoring it, which cleans up the list of categories in the toolserver database. The global solution is for the toolserver admins to re-import a dump of the enwiki database. They are in the process of working with the WMF admins to get a fresh dump to do that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Keith D (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

We're having a similar problem at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/English non-league football articles by quality log with Spelthorne Sports F.C.. It keeps flipping between stub and start and has been since 27 October. It should be a start class article. Cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same problem. I deleted the page and undeleted it to cause the toolserver database to refresh the categories. There have been some emails on the toolserver-l mailing list about progress on getting a new dump; it will be a few days at least. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that the problem you are dealing with, is one that has affected multiple wikiprojects, but I wanted to provide a few more examples: Gabriel Allon and Ollie Reynolds have shown up on the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Fictional character articles by quality log every day for a week now, with no corresponding activity on their talk pages. And the fluctuating Quality rating has made The Last of the Jedi: Against the Empire appear on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Star Wars articles by quality log 11 times in the last 2 weeks, and Transformers: Fall of Cybertron has appeared 9 times in the same period on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Transformers articles by quality log, again with no corresponding activity. Hope that helps! Fortdj33 (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
These should be fixed now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Applied linguistics table

Hi everyone. The table generated by WP 1.0 bot for applied linguistics isn't working how I expect it to, and I was wondering if anyone here could help. The Applied Linguistics Task Force used to have task-force-specific importance ratings, but it doesn't any more. The problem is that some of the importance categories still appear in the table when they shouldn't (even after the categories themselves have been deleted). Does anyone know what's going on here, and whether it can be fixed? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius. As with this and others, the problem seems to be Toolserver database corruption (of the actual Wikipedia database) combined with a rather confused bot — articles appearing in 'phantom classes' and such. Carl's (user:CBM) been deleting/undeleting pages, which seems to help a bit. Please hold for the next available representative... —Theopolisme 03:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, it is much appreciated. If deleting and restoring the talk pages will fix this particular case, then I can do that when I get back on my admin account as there are only two individual pages involved. For anything more than that I'm happy to wait for the new database dump. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 04:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The original problem was the database corruption. But even once you deleted and recreated these, the bot would not have fixed the problem, because there were no importance categories at all any more for this project. The bot was therefore never going to update the importance ratings; this is a safety measure in case someone accidentally deletes the 'articles by importance' category for the project.

So I fixed the problem manually for the two articles in question, and then had the bot recreate and upload the table. You can see on the new version that, once all the importance ratings are gone, the bo no longer tries to sort the articles by importance.

For co-maintainers: when I was fixing this I put a log into typescript.linguistics.20121122.txt in the top level directory of the enwp10 project on toolserver. So you can see in there the commands that I used, which were some SQL commands and then an manual update of the project using the bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this for me! I really appreciate it, and I want to thank you for everything you've done with the WP 1.0 assessments. I'm just getting a sense of the amount of work that has gone into this, but even with my limited understanding I can tell that it's A Whole Lot. Thank you. :) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Updates

What is the current situation regarding the frequency of updates? It was mentioned recently that the assessment overviews should update every day or every other day but this seems to be hit and miss. For instance the WP:TENNIS overview has not been updated in at least the last five days. It would be good if we can get some stability and reliability in this, at least until the option for the users to run their own updates has been re-installed. Thx. --Wolbo (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

They are infrequent right now because the toolserver admins have been planning some maintenance on the databases, and so I am running the updates manually instead of on a fixed schedule. Once that database maintenance is done, things will go back to the regular schedule. An email to the toolserver-l list this morning says they have finished one of the main steps of the maintenance, so things are moving forward. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thx for the explanation.--Wolbo (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It appears I misread the email. The latest news on toolserver-l is that they are going to request a fresh dump from the Wikimedia people, and then they will be able to do the maintenance. The problem is that there is some bad data in the toolserver database, which can be fixed by basically reinstalling it from a fresh copy (dump) of the live enwiki database. But that copy has to be very recent in order for the history files to still be available to catch up from the copied version to the latest state of the database, after which point the two are kept in sync. Those history files are very large so they are not available very far back; if the dump gets too stale then it has to be regenerated by Wikimedia before the toolserver people can use it to reinstall the database. I will post another update here when I hear anything new. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Category search enhancemet

This must surely have been asked for before but it would be very useful if category search were enhanced to have a recursive option (so it could go into subcategories).

Category loops you could doubtless catch.

To avoid the problem of potentially very deep recursion, perhaps a user specified depth parameter would work; a value of four should suffice for the majority of cases.

-Arb. (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This could be done on a case by case basis. However, it is relatively inefficient, so it would be hard to have the web tool do it, because it would take too long and the web request would be cut off by the webserver. If it was done by hand from the command line on toolserver, it would have more time to execute. Is there a specific category that you need? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Not that would be worth putting anyone to that trouble for just now but thanks for the offer; might be useful in future. -Arb. (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

New maintainers for the WP 1.0 bot: Theopolisme and Wolfgang42

I announced one month ago that I am stepping down as the WP 1.0 bot maintainer [5]. I am very happy to announce that two people have contacted me about taking over the enwp10 project: User:Theopolisme and User:Wolfgang42. They have now been given the technical rights on toolserver that will allow them take over the bot maintenance. I want to wish them the best with the project, which has been a lot of fun for me to work on the past few years. I will still be available on the wiki; I am stepping down from the WP 1.0 bot to turn my efforts to some new projects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit protected}} Hi admins! Could one of you be kind enough to change "Mozilla" at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Generate categories to "Brands"? Thanks much. (Please ping me on my talk when finished). —Theopolisme 05:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Generate categories can only be edited by administrators. — Wolfgang42 (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Nobody has ever told me the script linked from that page doesn't work, but at the same time it has not been edited since 2008. I see there is also User:TinucherianBot/Category_tree_creation which is more recent. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I was interested in trying out the script and seeing if it actually did work--if not, I figured we could unlink it/etc. —Theopolisme 13:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I've made the edit. Now I see that only a piece of the page is protected, and it has been edited more recently [6]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This script dates back to the maintainer before me. I don't know whether it predates or postdates some of the significant changes Mediawiki that required reimplementing the code in bots to log in and edit the wiki. If it predates that, then it will certainly not work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Worth a shot though, I suppose. Mind deleting Category:Brands articles by quality as well? I'm getting a "Category already exists, aborting" error (since a user already started that page) when attempting to run the bot. —Theopolisme 14:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I deleted it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, it crashed Safari the first time I tried to run it. Trying again now. If it still doesn't work, I'll take a look at the code; we might be able to salvage it. —Theopolisme 14:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Script outputted: 


Project is Brands

Creating Category:Brands articles by quality
    Creating Category:FA-Class Brands articles
    Creating Category:FL-Class Brands articles
    Creating Category:A-Class Brands articles
    Creating Category:GA-Class Brands articles
    Creating Category:B-Class Brands articles
    Creating Category:C-Class Brands articles
    Creating Category:Start-Class Brands articles
    Creating Category:Stub-Class Brands articles
    Creating Category:List-Class Brands articles
    Creating Category:Assessed-Class Brands articles
    Creating Category:Unassessed-Class Brands articles
Category:Brands articles by importance exists. Exiting.

However, doesn't look like those were actually created...so yep, I think you're right (as far as the login mechanism goes). Emailed Oleg to ask for the code. —Theopolisme 14:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot bug?

Hi, WP 1.0 bot maintains the page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Academic Journal articles by quality log. Since a few weeks, it keeps displaying reassessments daily for 2 articles (Journal of Aboriginal Health and Spunti e ricerche, even though their assessments were changed only once quite a while ago. Perhaps someone could have a look at this. --Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll take a look at the logs. —Theopolisme 05:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Just made a null edit to both of the associated talk pages to force it to "recalculate". Will keep you posted. —Theopolisme 15:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Normally that error indicates that the page is in categories for two different quality ratings or two different importance ratings. But, because of some corruption in the toolserver database, the double-ratings might be present on the toolserver even though they are not present in the live wiki. That can be verified by doing a query from the toolserver to see the categories that the talk page is in. If they do not match the categories visible on the wiki, the solution is to delete and undelete the talk page. Editing the page will not fix the corruption, in my experience. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The toolserver sysops have been working with the WMF sysops to try to get a fresh copy of the database, to eliminate all the corruption, but this has been delayed several times. In the longer term, if the WP 1.0 system ever moves to the up-and-coming Wikimedia Labs, that will probably solve many of the database issues. For the meantime, however, the toolserver database is the only way to get the assessment data quickly enough. Before we switched to that, updates were taking well over a week each, and that was years in the past, so they would take even longer now without using a database replica to read the assessment data. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Any idea when the fresh copy will be available? I've noticed similar issues with some of the other toolserver tasks, such as svick's cleanup list tracking and DashBot's unreferenced BLP lists. The-Pope (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Over the last few weeks, various threads at Wikipedia talk:Database reports, User talk:MZMcBride and WP:VPT have described various problems, the causes of which can be summed up as "the data on both rosemary and thyme is corrupt; it has been for weeks; and nobody seems to know how to sort it". For example, Tiruchirapalli Fort Railway Station began to be shown on Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing overlapping coordinates on 1 November 2012, and has appeared on every subsequent weekly run, even though the article had been fixed at 11:34, 22 October 2012‎. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Also for WP:EEng the log is re-assessing double: see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Electrical engineering articles by quality log. Is this based on the same problem? SchreyP (messages) 00:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
(WP:EEng) It seems working again, except for the double entry for December 22. I have removed it. SchreyP (messages) 09:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

Was wondering if this or some other tool will generate a list of users who have edited pages identified to a project, sorted by most recent edit? Purpose would be so that the project could identify the currently active editors and/or project members. RiverStyx23{submarinetarget} 18:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have a page that lists all of the members, then there is this tool (linked an example for the WP:CVUA). —Theopolisme (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Very nice, thank you. Um, what does the "Stalker" column tell us? RiverStyx23{submarinetarget} 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
That refers to the number of people watching that user's talk page. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Environment

Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment now has the importance parameter activated. See Template_talk:WikiProject_Environment#Display_importance. The User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Environment table now needs to be updated to list the new parameters. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done, see User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Environment or [7]. Let me know if I can do anything else for you! —Theopolisme (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

College football articles by quality log

I've noticed something buggy going on at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/College football articles by quality log. Three articles (Saint Peter's Peacocks football, Siena Saints football, St. John's Red Storm football) keep coming up as reassessed on every run of the log. Can someone look into this? Thanks and all the best, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment table won't render

I have set up the category and run the bot for George Washington University Special Collections Research Center-related articles by quality statistics. The system says the contents have been generated, but the table does not appear. I think my project name is too long and is being truncated - is that the problem? If so, I can change it. - PKM (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave the project a shorter name - George Washington University-related articles by quality statistics works now. - PKM (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Glad everything worked out! —Theopolisme (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Logs

On the WikiProject assessment logs (like this one), would it be easy enough to add the name of the person doing the assessment? So instead of "Importance rating changed from Low-Class to High-Class", it would say "Importance rating changed from Low-Class to High-Class by User:Example". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Could definitely be done. Will look into it this weekend. —Theopolisme (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If the change is because someone edited the page, then the edit in question can usually be found by looking at when the page was added to the category (in the catgorylinks table) with a join against the revisions table to pull out the editor's name. But there are two scenarios where this breaks:
  • If someone deletes the template, and someone else adds it back, the categorylinks table will show the date from when it was added back.
  • If the change was due to a template edit, there may be no edit on the talk page to match. For example, template Foo might categorize into "Category:Start-Class Foo Articles" and then someone may edit the template to use "Category:Start-Class Foo-Like Articles". Now the rating category will (eventually) update on all the talk pages even if they are not edited.
If you ignore those corner cases and just use the categorization date blindly, it should work most of the time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Number of pages counted by the bot appears to be off by one

There are 2844 pages in Category:WikiProject Statistics articles. The {{AbQ}} (here) and {{AbI}} (here) templates both show that total, but the quality by importance table at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Statistics shows a total of 2843 pages. The discrepancy appears to be in one unassessed / unknown quality page. Does anybody have a way of determining the cause of that difference? Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Illia! I've resolved the issue; the problem was that the bot hadn't run for that particular project in a few days, and, as such, the templates got 'out of sync.' In the future, you can rectify this issue by going to this page and entering the name of the project in question. Happy editing, —Theopolisme (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Illia Connell (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

N/A importance book-class articles showing up as "Other-class" not "Book-class"

I just noticed on User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Australia that there were 8 "Other-class" articles. These are all actually "Book-class" articles, but they each have importance=NA, so for some reason the Bot doesn't put them in the Book-class line, but thinks they are "NotA-class" (see the list). Can this be fixed? Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got the same thing going on with some, but not all, of the task forces listed at WP:MEDA#Statistics. According to this discussion, the problem is that nobody has actually created the cats. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Australia, I think this is a somewhat subtle error. They had two different "Book-Class" categories in Category:Australia articles by quality. The system will only take one. I think I have fixed it [8] but I need to wait for the enwiki replag on toolserver to propogate the category change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seemed to fix it. This problem comes up from time to time when someone tried to put task force categories into the 'by quality' category of the parent project. Task force categories need to be in their own 'by quality' category - the system only reads one "FA-Class", one "A-Class", etc. from each 'by quality' category. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiWork data

WikiWork data for tables for individual mathematics subject areas show the values for the entire mathematics project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Table. This could be a bit confusing or misleading. Could you either calculate the statistics for each subject area separately, or suppress the data from the individual subject area tables? This may affect other projects as well. Illia Connell (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Suppressed for now. Will work on a fix later this week. —Theopolisme (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Great! Thanks, Illia Connell (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiWork data

A couple of additional thoughts:

  1. How do you score B+ articles in the Mathematics project?
  2. Did you consider incorporating the importance rating into the scoring system so that, for example, and high importance stub gets a higher score than a low importance stub. This may make comparisons across projects more meaningful; thus a project with a few low or mid importance start or stub class articles would get a lower total score than a project with many top or high importance B or C class articles.
  3. Do you have a list of WikiWork Scores for all projects?

Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Illia. In response to your questions:
  1. We currently use the standard formula that was defined back ~2007; this doesn't incorporate B+. I can easily add a handler for it, though. I'll just weight it slightly less than B (i.e., 2.5?). Would that be good?
  2. No, I haven't considered that at the moment — currently, I'm just using the previous algorithm.
  3. Just add an onwiki table generator to the code—the script should dump its output in table format at User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork/all by 12:00 UTC.
Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
When a project add a new rating, it is set up in their ReleaseVersionParameters, e.g. Category:Mathematics articles by quality. There is an "extra1-replaces" field, which is already parsed and stored in the database, which gives one of the "standard" ratings that can be used used to replace the custom rating for encyclopedia-wide statistics like WikiWork. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to both for your replies. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the WikiWork relative scores: See below for corrected figures Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting; thanks for generating that! I think it might make sense to at some point set up some sort of script to do this—I'll definitely add it to the todo list, if only for the chance to mess around with Python's imaging/graphing functions, which I've somehow avoided for so many years... ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Something doesn't seem right here - Idaho road transport should have a lot more than 0.62... --Rschen7754 01:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Temporarily disabled. Figuring it out now. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed; graphs being regenerated. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, looks much better. --Rschen7754 23:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Relationship between average WikiWork score and the number of articles in a WikiProject

See below for corrected figures

Not unexpectedly, there is a moderate positive relationship between the average WikiWork score and the number of assessed articles in the WikiProject. (I calculated the number of articles somewhat crudely as ω/Ω.) Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

These graphs are fabulous; however, there's currently a bug in the software (had to do with the API being rather cagey about its responses) that caused all previous WikiWork scores to be incorrect. Could you regenerate the graphs once the bug is sorted out? —Theopolisme (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure - will do. Illia Connell (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
And.....fixed! Please regenerate now...you can see how different it is! :) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Graphical displays of the relative WikiWork scores

Here are the updated figures based on the latest calculations. Click to embiggen.

If anyone is interested, the data and R code are here: User:Illia Connell/Graphical displays of the relative WikiWork scores/Data and User:Illia Connell/Graphical displays of the relative WikiWork scores/R code

Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary of average WikiWork scores
Minimum 1st Quartile Median 3rd Quartile Maximum
1.61 4.92 5.25 5.50 6.00
Histogram of Relative WikiWork scores
Cumulative distribution of Relative WikiWork scores
Scatterplot and LOESS of Relative WikiWork Score and Number of Assessed Articles
Note: Number of articles estimated as ω/Ω

WikiWork

Having project metrics is a very good idea. However, WikiWork is not a good metric at all.

The way WikiWork is constructed, lower ω means (or should mean) "better", higher ω means "worse", and the same ω means "no substantial change", but this is not always true:

  • If one creates an additional stub article, ω is increased, as if writing stubs is harmful.
  • If one creates an additional FA, ω stays the same, as if FAs are worthless.
  • Upgrading an article from Stub to Start is the same as upgrading an article from A to GA, while I would venture to say it's not nearly the same.
  • ω is inherently higher for big projects and lower for small projects, which does not make sense unless higher ω was "better".

One might abandon the idea that lower ω means "better", but what is the purpose of such metrics then, especially given the fact that it would be trivial to construct a metric that does not have any of the above flaws? GregorB (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The idea is to document how much work is left to be done, not how much you have accomplished already. So if you create an additional stub, you have more work to do. If you create an additional FA, you do not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, WikiWork measures how much work is left to be done, but is higher ω better or worse? It appears that the answer is "it depends". My point is that if we can't tell whether more work (as measured by WikiWork metric) is good or not for the project, then the metric is not really actionable, as project participants cannot correlate their contributions with the WikiWork figures. GregorB (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The idea with ω is to document how many assessment class changes it would take to achieve the nearly unobtainable goal of bringing all articles in the project up to FA-class. Thus, the ultimate goal would be ω=0. However, ω is a raw number that, as mentioned, is automatically larger for projects with far more articles than smaller projects. Therefore, you should not rely on ω alone to determine how the project is doing, as the raw ω won't really mean anything except that is how much work is left to be done.
This is where relative wikiwork, Ω, factors in. Ω = ω/N (where N is the total number of articles in the project) which gives the average rating of all articles in the project. Each time an article is reassessed to a higher class, the Ω will be reduced. Now, that reduction could be as small as going from say 4.056 to 4.054, but it is a measurable change that editors can see and correlate to a meaningful value--in this case, the improvement brought the average project article that much closer to C-class. Thus, the ultimate goal is also to get Ω=0.
Ω also helps address a couple concerns above. The addition of a stub does increase ω, but Ω factors in that a new article has been added and changes accordingly. The addition of a brand new FA has no effect on ω, but Ω would actually be lowered since an additional article is factoring in. -- LJ ↗ 20:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Ω might be called the "average quality" (lower Ω = higher average quality). In four cases I have enumerated above, Ω works fine in #1 (average quality is decreased), #2 (average quality is increased), and #4 (average quality is comparable), but still does not work quite right in #3 (same gain in average quality), albeit only on account of weights chosen.
A simple alternative might be:
W = a*FA + b*FL + c*A + d*GA + e*B + f*C + g*Start + h*Stub + i*List + j*Unassessed
where, say: a=100, b=40, c=40, d=40, e=15, f=8, g=3, h=1 (so 1 point is worth "1 Stub), i=3, j=0.5. This is meant to measure what has been done, rather than what is left to do, so higher is better. The weights are fairly arbitrary, but I feel that they reasonably correspond to actual work and/or benefit to the reader. As unassessed articles are Stubs at worst, they might as well be worth 1 point, but the lower value of 0.5 points provides an incentive to assess them. W behaves as it should in all four cases listed above. The average quality is W/N, and the absolute work that is left to do can be calculated indirectly as 100*N-W. GregorB (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Blank Sections for WikiWork

Just a few days ago, the Amusement Park table had the omega and WikiWork values present but now they are just blank. What happened?--Dom497 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking into this now. —Theopolisme (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 Fixing... temporarily hidden completely. —Theopolisme (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed; will be pushed during next regular run (00:00 UTC). —Theopolisme (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank-you!--Dom497 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate log

Any idea why this edit duplicated the same log entries from the previous day? The-Pope (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the bot skipped March 25th, felt guilty about it, and made two 26ths. ;) Just kidding..in all seriousness, I'll look into it. Probably just confused. —Theopolisme (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It probably means the replag was high enough on the toolserver that the bot did not know it had made that log entry already. The bot uses the enwiki_p.revisions table to tell when it edited the page, so if that table is sufficiently far out of sync the bot gets confused. The better way to avoid that would be for the bot to check the replag and not edit if the replag is too high; I never got around to coding that in, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Not updating

The bot is alleged to run every day. At this page there are said to be 15 unassessed articles. I have assessed every one of them (for example Talk:All Saints' Church, Stamfordat 12:07, 31 March 2013‎ )for this Stamford project. It still says 15 unassessed.

I tried running the bot by hand using http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/update.fcgi, which said it completed and produced a green banner. That was a few days ago. I've just checked, and the 15 are still there.

What am I doing wrong?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, until the replag drops, I don't think the bot will run correctly. Keep an eye on the actual cats Category:Unknown-importance Stamford articles and Category:Unassessed Stamford articles rather than the toolserver's copy, and you'll keep your project fully assessed. The-Pope (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
(what he said) :) —Theopolisme (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there a page on this wiki discussing the needed upgrade of the toolserver? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
There has been an enormous amount of discussion of that, but mostly on toolserver-related or WMF-related lists. The plan is for Wikimedia Labs to replace the toolserver. The WMF hired a person to work on this specifically, see [9]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Help requested to diagnose problem

WP 1.0 Bot is awesome and I have used it before.

I am setting up a new WikiProject - WikiProject Dietary Supplements - and WP 1.0 Bot is not making a table for me. Could I have help diagnosing my problem?

  1. I followed instructions on Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Using_the_bot, including tagging some articles with a WikiProject quality review template
  2. The articles I tagged are being categorized at Category:Dietary supplement articles by quality
  3. My categories are listed in Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments in the section here - "Dietary supplements", as they should be
  4. I ran the bot at my manual request at toolserver.org/~enwp10 by typing "Dietary supplement" with that capitalization and word choice
  5. The bot created Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Dietary supplement articles by quality statistics, as expected
  6. The bot did not create User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Dietary supplement as expected
  7. My WikiProject does not appear in the list at toolserver.org/~enwp10

I would like for the table at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Dietary supplement to be created and am not sure what the problem is. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Blueraspberry--glad to see you're setting up the bot! Currently, the replag on the Toolserver is quite high, which in turns means that the database replicas that the bot uses to find and assess articles are at times out-of-date (see Template:Toolserver for the current details). You can see a slightly more detailed explanation in this recent thread on my talk page. In the meantime, hang tight! The bot should recognize the category in a few hours. —Theopolisme (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Everything seems cool now. Thanks for the reply - I was confused and worried that I did something incorrectly. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Having trouble setting up the assessment of William Blake task force articles

Hey all, I tried setting up a request for the bot to start assessing articles for the William Blake task force at Poetry, but I can't get it to start the assessment of those items. The root category is at Category:William Blake task force articles. Thanks!Sadads (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading through Blue Rasberry's comment above, probably the same problem, will try it again in a couple hours. Sadads (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Phantom reassessments

At Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Physics_articles_by_quality_log, the Harrison Brown article is being reported as re-assessed in every single bot run since 27 October 2012, even though the article talk page wasn't touched since 30 September 2012. Can that be related to this problem and is the suggested solution still deleting and undeleting the article (or talk page)? — HHHIPPO 10:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like, in all likelihood, it is. I'd try deleting and undeleting. —Theopolisme (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a symptom of the problems at Toolserver that have been building up over many months. It's well known to those that prepare the database reports (see Wikipedia talk:Database reports#Many of the reports aren't being updated) that the chances of improvement in the situation are low, particularly since de.wp (who host toolserver) have decided to reduce funding. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Custom table request

Could a custom table be set up to compare WP:AURD's articles by quality and by state? Similar tables already exist for WP:USRD at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1 and WP:CRWP at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Canada-Roads-1. The "by quality" and "by importance" categories have already been set up, see Category:Australian road transport articles by state. Thanks, Evad37 (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, but the bot blanked the USRD table yesterday, and did so as well to the CRWP one. Can someone fix things to restore the statistics? Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 20:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Not updating 2

Seems that the assessment table at WikiProject Tennis hasn't been updated in while and the manual update gives an error message.--Wolbo (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Almost certainly Toolserver, see various threads above and at WP:VPT. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The toolserver has been extremely flaky lately. But it looks like the 'update' phase did run successfully on May 19. I am going to run an 'upload' job manually and see what happens. But if that works, it would also work from the crontab.
It does look like migrating to the WMF Labs is going to be the best long-term fix. I chatted with Coren yesterday on IRC and migrated my non-database-requiring bot jobs there. It was relatively straightforward. He says that database support should be close to completion. Once that is going, it will take a little work and experimentation to migrate the bot there. One of the problems will be migrating the enwp10 project database there - I think that will require some sysadmin help.
Are you interested in doing the migration when labs server is ready? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
So what would a ballpark fuzzy timeline look like here? @CBM: — The Potato Hose 22:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
At the moment, the toolserver is working - the Tennis project has been updated just now. I don't have any way to tell if toolserver will be flaky again, and I don't know when labs will be ready to even look into migrating the WP 1.0 bot there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Will the protect database be cleaned up at all before migration? Looking just at the projects starting with A I can see lots of projects with zero articles, renamed projects like AFL -> Australian rules football and Astronomical Objects -> Astronomical objects and likely duplication/incorrect names such as Algeria and Algeria-related. Then there are a bunch of projects listed under W for WikiProject, such as WikiProject Schools and WikiProject Cities, not under S or C. WikiProjects Canada, Japan & China are all listed as Foo-related, not just Foo. Does the existence of these non-projects (and I'm not talking about marked as inactive projects, but actually dead/incorrect names) or variations on the names affect performance or reliability at all? The-Pope (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't affect the performance or reliability - a project with zero articles is very fast for the bot to update, and a project that doesn't exist in Category:WP 1.0 assessments takes no time at all. On the toolserver, there is no appreciable delay until a project has a few thousand articles, and I expect WMF Labs to be even faster.
I don't trust automatic deletion of things, so any cleanup does need to be done manually. But if we delete a renamed project, we would lose that copy of its old re-assessment logs, so I generally prefer not to delete them. It would be possible to tell the web system just to not show any project with zero articles, but I am afraid that might lead to other confusion, so I never did it. There are so many projects that reading the entire list is a bad idea anyway. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

@CBM: Looks like the manual update.pl job worked, which is good. I'll keep an eye on the contribs--weird things have been happening now and then with my personal crontab on toolserver, so this might be related to that (??). Also, yes, I'll be happy to help with Labs migration (once I get my own tools over as well). Theopolisme (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Service still unavailable. Project assessment templates are of no use until the service is available. — The Potato Hose 16:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by the service. The bot updates its data from the wiki and uploads tables back to the wiki - that part seems to be working. The web pages for the bot are entirely separate from the update/upload cycle. Even if the web pages are turned off, the bot can continue to update the on-wiki tables. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I mean, sorry, when you click through to category intersections on the template, you get a response saying service is disabled. — The Potato Hose 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have re-enabled those now, since the toolserver seems to be slowly getting more stable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. — The Potato Hose 20:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Project list cleanup

Thought this really deserved it's own section. I understand that lots of people here get very concerned about things disappearing or not working, but I am struggling to fully understand why making the Project Index more accurate, complete and up to date is a bad thing. Surely we don't need to have "Electrical engineering", "WikiProject Electrical Engineering" and "WikiProject Electrical engineering" listed three times in the index? The comment about losing the log files is moot at the moment as no project's log is working on the tool server, and any actual former project should still has it's log history in EN:WP space, such as the AFL project (since renamed to Australian rules football). This list **could** be a really useful and valuable list for lots of other bots or tools, such as Svick's Cleanup list, DashBot's UBLP work or Dabsolver's project list, and maybe it is already used and cleaned up by them. But in it's current form it needs to be manually cleaned up a fair bit to be truly useful. And whilst I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes to make it all work even with the variations in displayed project name, I'm hoping that most of these changes are only cosmetic.

So can I suggest that:

  1. all projects listed as "-related" such as "Canada-related" are stripped back to just the actual project name, ie just plain "Canada"
  2. all projects listed with "WikiProject" as a prefix are listed without the WikiProject prefix
  3. all duplicated projects due to capitalisation are removed to only leave the correct capitalisation.
  4. Renamed, defunct, merged or zero article projects are removed or renamed only upon specific individual requests (with the appropriate checks that on-wiki logs/history exists if that is deemed worth keeping, or that it was only a proposed project that never actually got started, and not just a malformed project setup or spelling/capitalisation error). And being the nominator, I officially request that the AFL be removed from the list, as it is fully covered by WikiProject Australian rules football and by old on-wiki history files, and it's existence on this list is confusing, outdated and of no value. - The-Pope (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles by quality log - error in linking?

In the article by quality log, links to some tablespaces (e.g. File and Template) are missing the tablespace prefix. E.g. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Croatia articles by quality log - see links that begin in a colon. GregorB (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the images have simply been deleted. I might have missed the one you were talking about. Is there a page that exists (is not deleted) but the link to it is broken? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, e.g. there is a link HNK Hajduk Split seasons ([[:HNK Hajduk Split seasons]]) which should have been Template:HNK Hajduk Split seasons ([[Template:HNK Hajduk Split seasons]])
Thanks, I was looking at the wrong end. I will investigate this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
It should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing this out, it was a bug that happened with the migration of the WP 1.0 bot from the toolserver to the WMF labs server. For other maintainters: to get the bot to re-upload logs, give it a date on the command line: copy_logs.pl PROJECT 20130601. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you... GregorB (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Table correction request

May I request that the table for Wikipedia:WikiProject Films be fixed? I went there on a one-off visit and found the bottom row considerably larger. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 06:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Migration to Labs

I learned this afternoon that the WMF Labs now has database replicas for enwiki, and they do support user databases, which means that it should be possible in principle to start the process of migrating the bot to labs. I will put an outline of the steps that I know of below this post. Please feel free to expand or annotate that outline. @Theopolisme: and @Wolfgang42:: I am willing to help work on the migration. I have moved my other bots to labs already, so I have a general sense of how to get things going there. Please let me know how much or how little you would like me to look into it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

By all means--your help would be very much appreciated. I'm a) busy and b) don't have much experience with Labs, so anything you're willing and able to tackle, go for it! Theopolisme (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Steps for migration:

  1.  Done Create a "service group" for enwp10 in the tool labs
    • Created the 'enwp10' service group at [10]. I can add anyone else to this group who has shell access to the tools project - see [11].
    I have given you access to the enwp10 service group. You get to it by ssh'ing to the tools-login server and then typing 'become enwp10'. At the moment I am importing the database backup from toolserver into the database on labs. After that, I can work on migrating the code. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I have access--I think--with account Wolfgang42, shell name 'wolf'. I'm rather confused as to how the Labs permissions system is set up, though, so I'm not sure if I have the permissions I need. How would I check, and get them if I don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgang42 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
      I got everything sorted out, and now have access. I'll start getting selection_tools running over the next few days. — Wolfgang42 (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
      Great. It does look like you have access to the enwp10 "service group". I copied over quite a bit from toolserver, but it is not arranged quite the same way. The selection tools code may already be copied. One other strange thing is that the database has a strange name based on the "mysql username" of the enwp10 user. You can find the name in .wp10.conf - it is too opaque for me to remember. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  2.  Done Copy the code from the current enwp10 directories on toolserver into the new directories on labs
  3.  Done Obtain a database dump of the current enwp10 user database on toolserver
  4.  Done Import the database dump into a enwp10 user project on labs
  5.  Done Edit the configuration files on labs to reflect new locations of files
    • The file is ~/.wp10.conf . As far as I can tell, everything is updated
  6.  Done Test the update/upload scripts on lab
  7.  Done Set up the web cgi code on labs (cgi-bin is quite different there)
  8.  Done Set up crontab on labs and disable it on willow
    • I have turned off the 'upload' task on willow, but left the 'update' task running for now. Both the upload and update tasks are running on labs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  9.  Done This would be a good opportunity to remove the 'tmp' prefix from all the database table names

@Theopolisme: I think I will be ready to do an upload from the labs server in the next day or so. If that works, it should be possible to migrate everything by the end of the week, if you are ready for that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, things are running on labs, and they seem to be working correctly. The main remaining thing to look at is web-based update. This should be better on labs because we can leverage the sge system to track an update request, rather than having to write a separate daemon for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work. I'm currently working on migrating my tools as well. Theopolisme (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Skepticism

Recently WikiProject Rational Skepticism was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. All of the assessment categories have been moved to reflect this, but the bot is still updating the old locations. Could someone take a look at it? Greg Bard (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


The bot is still using "Rational Skepticism" instead of just "Skepticism" for creating these tables. These categories don't exist anymore. Please take a look at the situation: User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Rational_Skepticism should be at User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Skepticism, and the categories should be at "Skepticism" not "Rational Skepticism." Greg Bard (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sort by size?

Don't know if this is the right place to ask, but in the release version tools, would it be possible to add an option to sort by article size? That would be a great tool to find stub-class (and start-class) articles which have expanded and should now have a higher classification. --WS (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

While probably not of much use for your purpose, there is the long stubs report, but it gives no indication of their class. I will also note that size alone does not determine a stub. I believe that the largest valid stub has 37613 characters. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Many of the longest "stubs" on the the long stubs have been changed by both the "class=stub" and the stub template. I proceeded to update some more. How often is this list updated? --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It is suppose to be updated weekly. But that depends on how well the toolserver is running. You can request changes here. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
To answer your second question. There is no tool, that I am aware of, that compares the project class determination on the talk page with the presence or absence of a stub tag. I will say that it can happen all too often. Also there are probably a large number of list articles that are not assessed as list class. Don't know how big of a problem this is. Both of these should not be fixed by a bot since the bot would have no way of knowing which one is incorrect. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added thousands of talk page templates, and I would say there are many thousands of articles which should be class=list and not have stub templates in the articles, especially sports and entertainment (awards) articles. It is a big problem, but I am not sure it is an important problem. For me, the big articles on the long stubs list on science and history and politics are much more important and more interesting than the football ones. Those will be the ones I will occasionally fix. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
An interesting observation about those large stubs. There are a number of science ones (genes) on there that are among the largest and are in fact stubs. While I have not counted, I suspect that we have some stubs where we have 10 or 20 characters of text in references for each character of article text. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer my own question partially: One way of finding large stubs is looking for the stub template category, e.g. this way for medicine stubs. However this does not include stub-rated articles without the stub template. --WS (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And a related question: is it possible to have a bot go through all articles within a project and set class to redirect for all redirects? I have encountered many stub-rated articles which have been turned into redirects; manually setting the class on all of them seems a big waste of time.--WS (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Antarctica

On 4 July 2013 the 1.0 Bot updated the assessment table for WikiProject Antarctica. Oddly, the bot removed all of the articles in the FA, GA, Start, Stub, Portal, and Template classes (diff [13]). Could somebody please take a look at this and reverse this bug? I suspect it might have something to do with the creation of a "NotA-Class" underneath the NA-Class category. Thanks. Altamel (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikiwork list

Can any one direct me to any table or list containing the WikiProjects and their corressponding wiki work numbers? I remember seeing it but cannot find it now. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@IndianBio: The page is User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork/all. Theopolisme (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Thepolisme. :) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone might want to take a look over that table. I sorted it by relative WikiWork, and things are a bit screwy. The entry for Michigan road transport is right, at 1.88. However, Software should be around 5.47, and Deaf should be around 5.04. Podcasting should be at 4.83. I think the bot isn't counting all of the appropriate articles in computing WikiWork values. Also, would it be possible to have the bot display values to 3 decimals instead of 2? Thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 11:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary table

The overall summary was last updated 6 June 2013. Please update this table. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/OverallArticles was updated today. Is that the table you are asking about? Since it is transcluded, the actual page is not physically updated every time the table itself is updated. Or am I missing something? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I am glad to see the updated table that you cite, but the table I see in the menu for this discussion is an earlier one, which says at the bottom "This is the web interface of the WP 1.0 bot · Discussion page · Bug reports

Current version: revision 341, updated Thu, 6 Jun 2013 by cbm New schema branch Debug: PID 924 has handled -4 requests"--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The 6 June 2013 is still the one displayed in August 2013. Plese update it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi - I can't solve the problem myself, but I'll try to reach the people who can. It may be that they're on vacation at the moment. Walkerma (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I just checked, it does seem to be transcluding OK, it's reading the correct number of total articles for today (4,260,151), rather than 4,167,291 as seen in the 6th June version. If your copy of the page isn't showing that try refreshing the cache (CTRL-R on Firefox). Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Today the total is 4,274,609. The confusing problem is the date is still shown as "Current version: revision 341, updated Thu, 6 Jun 2013 by cbm". When or how does this date ever change, given that the transclusion appears to be just for the table.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion; this date is the last time that the source code that runs WP 1.0 bot was updated, not the last time the statistics were updated. Theopolisme (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Bug report

The report is listing 91 articles as NA class but in fact most have a start, stub or C classification. project is Bristol. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Contact us?

The table in Wikipedia:JOURNALS has the wrong number of columns. Since you wanted to be contacted about this, here's the contactification! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added an exception for the project, thanks for letting us know! Theopolisme (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Force Update of Project Summary Table?

Is there a way to force an update of the project summary table for a specific WikiProject under the new system? Inks.LWC (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I was about to ask for the same thing. The link at the Bot Guide is broken, Sadads (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
@Inks.LWC and Sadads: Sorry about the delayed response. The bot was recently migrated to Wikimedia Labs, and we neglected to update the documentation -- here's the correct link. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Theopolisme (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the new link @Theopolisme:, but an interesting bug popped up when I tried to run the update for William_Blake_task_force:

Running /data/project/enwp10/cgi-bin/update-project-web.pl

Error: No such file or directory
Hope that is useful! Sadads (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
@Sadads: Oops! I've fixed the issue; the bug should be resolved now. Thanks-- Theopolisme (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, seems to work! The new server definitely makes it run quicker, and thanks for the quick response @Theopolisme:! Sadads (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Somerset cricket

Would you be able to fix the columns for this table, pretty please? :D Harrias talk 12:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@Harrias: Done, sorry for the delay! Theopolisme (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Total number of A-class articles on enwiki

Hi, I'm continuing some of my research on article quality in Wikipedia (published a research paper on this at WikiSym this year, see link from my user page) and thought I'd improve my data gathering technique this time around. I've poked at some of the source code of WP 1.0 bot and it appears that both it and I basically take the same approach, but end up with different results. The current version of the overall table lists 1,271 A-class articles in total. If I search from Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments starting with all categories matching "by quality" and looking at any sub-category of those matching "A-Class" (branching down further if necessary), I only find 790 articles and 2 redirects. Is there some obvious mistake I'm making here? Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Although it's not blocking my progress, I'm still wondering about this. If there is a better venue for this question, please do let me know! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response - I only check this page now and again these days. The totals are supposed to avoid double counting; some articles (particularly high quality ones like A-class) will often be tagged by multiple projects, but the bot knows this and is supposed to only count each article once. Therefore I suspect the most likely reason comes from the fact that A-class is not used by all WikiProjects, and that it overlaps with GA-class articles (a historical quirk - I'll give you the history if you're interested!). For example, one project may tag an article as A-class while another may tag it as GA-class. It's possible therefore that the bot is undercounting the A-class in such cases, at least in the subcategories. This is just an educated guess, but I would judge that therefore that the upper number is the more accurate one. Walkerma (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi Guys, just a heads up. The bot has done 17th October 3 times now. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Score of articles

My question is about score of GA articles of the Cycling wikiproject see here. And my question is: How it comes that a page like Ellen van Dijk has an importance_score of only 773 compared to 1225 of 2008 Giro d'Italia and 1262 of 2010 Giro d'Italia?

I see on WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Article selection that the score of an article within a WikiProject without importance rating (like the cycling wikiproject) is only about how many times the page is visited (hitcount, internal links and interwiki links):

  • Overall article score = Importance_score + Quality score. (quality scores of these articles are the same (GA-class))
  • Importance_score = External_interest_points * (4/3)
  • External interest points = 50 * log10(hitcount) + 100 * log10(internal links) + 250 * log10(interwiki links)

Hitcount:
Ellen van dijk had much more page views over the last year than 2008 Giro d'Italia and 2010 Giro d'Italia. (for a quick view compare the last 90 days of Ellen van Dijk views (6161) with 2008 Giro d'Italia (1752) and 2010 Giro d'Italia (2755) )!?
Internal links and interwiki links:
I can't find the number of the incoming internal links and external links, but due to the fact that the article of Ellen van Dijk is translated in more languages (22 vs. 18 and 18) and has links on more wikipedia pages (405 vs. 42 and 51) I doubt that these incomming links can make such a large differences between the scores.

Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Status of migration to Labs

I'm interested in the status of enwp10's migration from Toolserver to Tools as it's one of the bigger projects. I've found this archived discussion, but some questions remain:

  • On Toolserver, there is an SGE job running (probably launched from a crontab?):
timl@yarrow:~$ qstat -u enwp10
job-ID  prior   name       user         state submit/start at     queue                          slots ja-task-ID 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3379217 1.50028 enwp10-upd enwp10       r     12/22/2013 13:27:08 medium-lx@yarrow.toolserver.or     1        
timl@yarrow:~$
Does this still serve a purpose?
r358 | cbm | 2013-01-14 23:23:41 +0000 (Mo, 14. Jan 2013) | 3 Zeilen

Update to latest version in my working copy
Has the repository already been moved somewhere else? If so, where?
Am I right to assume that both are obsolete and can be closed?
  • I've searched for external links to toolserver.org/enwp10 on this wiki, and if there were ever any, they seem to have been converted to tools.wmflabs.org :-). Is a redirect rule toolserver.org/enwp10/$OPTIONAL → tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/$OPTIONAL sufficient, or do we need to cater for any special cases?
  • You have a project "ENWPONE" in JIRA with several unresolved issues, 29 issues in total. Do you have plans on where to host/migrate your bugtracker in future?

Is there anything else that needs to be done? Thanks in advance. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight is no longer updating

Hi. I went to the assessment page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight today, and clicked on Spaceflight articles by quality log as I have many times before. For some reason that I don't understand, the page seems to have stopped updating on 6 Dec 2013.

I wonder if someone who knows more about the bot and its' page updates could have a look and let me know if they can tell why it quit updating. Thanks. N2e (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And the same thing has happened to the Good Article Log as well. Vctrbarbieri (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the bot's contributions list, it hasn't updated any Wikiprojects since December 7. BOZ (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hm, I'll try to restart the bot in a minute. Theopolisme (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but still no activity from WP 1.0 bot since December 15. BOZ (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Wolfgang42: Were you messing with something? It looks like everything was moved around... Theopolisme (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Restarted/readded/refreshed everything, bot is running now. Theopolisme (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it is catching up now. Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Theopolisme, the Spaceflight WikiProject is getting updated now! N2e (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems the WikiProject Tennis assessment table hasn't updated in a while and it doen't reflect the current status.--Wolbo (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
@Wolbo: Just updated it. In the future if the bot doesn't seem to be updating a table you can visit http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi to force an update. Happy holidays! Theopolisme (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thx! I updated the "update link" on the tennis project assessment page. Best wishes.--Wolbo (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft-class

Not sure if something needs to be updated on this end, but it seems to report pages assessed as Draft-class as "Other" and "NotA-Class". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the bot isn't recognizing the Draft: namespace when creating reports. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/U.S. road transport articles by quality log shows Draft:1969 Iowa highway renumbering as just :1969 Iowa highway renumbering, for instance, creating a redlink in the process. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Malfunction at Beyonce wikiproject assessment

The bot malfunctioned(?) at the WP:BEYONCE wikiproject assessment here. Basically it removed all the assessments of FA, GA etc and kept only the summaries. It might have to do with the recent "Move" of Beyonce Knowles and its related articles to just Beyonce. I have restored to the last good version. Can anyone check this please? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: it was not a malfunction of the bot. Rather, it was a malfunction of the talk page banner for the wikiproject. Someone moved {{WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles}} to {{WikiProject Beyoncé}}, but did not move the associated {{WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles/class}} subpage. Without that, the banner was no longer assessing for class, just importance. Now that I've moved the subpage, the class assessments should be restored as the server updates the pages again. Once things clear up, the bot will restore the assessments. Also, if the assessment categories are renamed, the table and log pages will also have to change names to match. Imzadi 1979 → 07:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Imzadi. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two 'core topic' projects in the tools?

What is the difference between Core_topic and Core_topics (with an 's')? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Speed Skating

Can the WikiProject Speed Skating Assessment table be updated to also show Category, Disambig, File, Project and Template articles or is this a user setting? Thx, --Wolbo (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this talk page still being monitored?--Wolbo (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@Wolbo: Since those pages are not articles per say, they are not included in the tables -- the "NA" row reflects the total number of them, though. Theopolisme (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thx for the reply! I'm a bit puzzled because the WikiProject Tennis Assessment table does contain these separate categories. Can you provide an explanation for this difference?--Wolbo (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, yeah, it's possible. But it will require creating new assessment categories following the general format of Category:FL-Class Speed skating articles as well as updating documentation/tons of pages that will need to be recategorized and such. Personally, I'm not sure if it's worth it, but does the WikiProject see a need for this? Theopolisme (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You also need to edit {{WikiProject Speed Skating}} so that QUALITY_SCALE =extended, not = yes. Then make the cats & update the documentation as suggested above. The-Pope (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Historical data and importance weighting

Are the historical values of the Wiki work factors stored anywhere. Also can you make it show only the work for Top and High or Top High and Mid importance? I'm looking at the Economics project Jonpatterns (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot

Hi, the GA log has not been updated recently. Is there a reason for this? Thanks, Matty.007 08:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

See #WMF Labs server down?, above. Sorry about this. Theopolisme (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about scope of page types

I notice that the assessment box for User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Latinos is missing some types, with a more complete list at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/San Francisco Bay Area. How can the latinos types be updated? can i just add them manually, or does someone at Project Central have to add them? its not a big deal if its lots of work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Animated films work group

Hello! Recently, the parameter |Animated= was added to the {{WikiProject Film}} template, in order to include articles in the Animated films work group. I have started to add the parameter to talk pages, however the articles are not being added to the project with the proper classification, since the Film project does not use the |importance= parameter. Therefore, they are showing up on the assessment table for animated films as "Other". I understand that this one is unique, because it's technically a work group of the Animation project, but none of the other Film task forces use importance. Is there any way to have these articles default to the importance for the {{WikiProject Animation}} template? Fortdj33 (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few days, but I thought that I would follow up on this. The concern is really just how the data is displayed on the assessment table, which still has an "Other" column that is unnecessary. Therefore, if a script can simply be added to modify the display of the table, no additional parameter on the project banner would be necessary. For example, something that would make film articles default to the value of |film-importance=, if present on the {{WikiProject Animation}} template, and default to "NA" if the parameter is not present. Can it be done? Fortdj33 (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
What you seem to be asking cannot be done. {{WikiProject Film}} cannot "see" the values of parameters passed to {{WikiProject Animation}}. Imzadi 1979 → 14:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
That was my initial suggestion, but as I said in my follow-up, what really matters is how the articles are displayed on the assessment table. So if an article has both the {{WikiProject Animation}} and {{WikiProject Film}} banners, the table should reflect the value of the |film-importance= parameter on the Animation banner. Otherwise, a value of "NA" would be preferable to "Other". Fortdj33 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The project index for WP 1.0 bot includes two entries for one project: WikiProject Law and "WikiProject Legal". As a result, the bot continually recreates User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Legal, which has been superseded by User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Law. How can one remove the duplicate entry? Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, if this is not the right place to inquire, could someone point me to the correct location? Any appropriate direction would be appreciated. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Exporting article lists as a csv file

Hi, I'm trying to create a spreadsheet with the article titles of the Top-Importance articles on all of English Wikipedia sorted by Score. I have this query

http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=&namespace=&pagename=&quality=&importance=Top&score=&projectb=&qualityb=&importanceb=&limit=5000&offset=1&sorta=Importance&sortb=Score&reviewFilter=0&releaseFilter=0&category=&categoryt= ...is there a way to get the full results of this search (40,000 articles) into an exportable file? Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Great question @Ocaasi:. Seems worthwhile to add a request on WP:Bugzilla to have a "download" link added to that screen -- I have wanted this in the past too. -Pete (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Pete, this is a volunteer-driven project without a Bugzilla presence. So, Ocaasi, your request has been noted; if I have some time, I'll see what I can do. Theopolisme (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You could use WP:AWB or WP:CATSCAN based on a recursive search of Category:Top-importance articles. That relies on all of the project importance articles being correctly setup to also place them in the Top-importance article cat tree too. The-Pope (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

WMF Labs server down?

The main link for the Release Version Tools at http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/pindex.fcgi seems to be down. The link to the old toolserver page is defunct. Do we know when we will get this working again? Is the bot still running normally? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like everything was migrated to a new server and broke in the process. I've emailed the mailing list; hopefully someone there can provide guidance. I tried following their "migration instructions" but they didn't seem to work... Theopolisme (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for looking into this and letting us know. Unfortunately I had to use the old URL in a publication I submitted recently. Any word yet? Walkerma (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
There were never any helpful responses. I ended up spending around 3 hours figuring out how to make everything work again; it involved rewriting configuration files, numerous restarts, etc. This is due mainly to the poor infrastructure and huge lack of documentation on Wikimedia Labs. tl;dr migrated datacenters, disabled all crontabs, changed how webservices worked... *sigh*. Everything should be working now, though! Please give it a try, Walkerma. :) Theopolisme (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Theopolisme. Is there any way to update Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Good articles by quality log now, or will the bot add the missing days when it updates it next? Thanks, Matty.007 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It should add the missing days at its next update (unless the datacenter change affected its databases...). Theopolisme (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant - the release version tools are all working now! Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you; I use this tool all the time. I really appreciate it!Brirush (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It is still down, and has been for at least a week. For example, the link at the top of this section gets a 404 message. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot down?

I noticed that the bot hasn't edited in about 6 days. Any word on its return? Imzadi 1979 → 17:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

See my post two sections above. Matty.007 18:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Has the bot got hickups?

Note the entry for Peter Black (Welsh politician) appearing on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wales articles by quality log on a daily basis without further change to the banner since April 7. I also noticed other changes missing in the logs. Agathoclea (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Jade Etherington was missing, and I highly doubt that there was only one GA yesterday. I have suspected for a few weeks that the bot is playing up a little, but I'm not sure. Thanks, Matty.007 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Peter Black (Welsh politician) had a duplicate {{WikiProject Wales}} tag, which confuses the bot. This should fix it.
About missing changes: what is missing, and from which log? Jade Etherington is not tagged for WikiProject Wales.
P.S.: I don't run this bot, I just remembered seeing the symptoms before. — HHHIPPO 09:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It never appeared in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Good articles by quality log, and I think that a suspiciously small number of articles are there. Thanks, Matty.007 09:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I see. I think that's a malfunction of the bot. Here's some more details I found: the bot used to post each day's log on the following day, but since March 23, it is posting the daily logs on the same day, that is, 6-7 hours after the day started. I can imagine that it now misses all activity that happens on any day after the bot ran. For example it missed Jade Etherington, who was promoted to GA at 10:42 UTC.
Pinging the operators Theopolisme and Wolfgang42. — HHHIPPO 10:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
As an example: the article Leonardo hotels is redlinked in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Germany articles by quality log but its removal is not indicated. Agathoclea (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that fits: the article was deleted at 9:27 and the log was written at 6:24. We need to wait for the operators to set the bot back to compiling each day's log on the following day rather than the same day. — HHHIPPO 13:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledging the issue, will investigate shortly. Theopolisme (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hhhippo: I think I've set up a fix. Please let me know if things look any better in the coming day or two. Sorry for the delay! Theopolisme (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@Theopolisme: No problem, and thanks for the fix! I actually think my error description wasn't complete, but I'll wait for a few bot runs before investigating further. — HHHIPPO 21:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's two problems I can see at the moment: (1) as you're probably aware of, the online tool is currently unaccessible. (2) While the bot is now posting each day a list of activity that happened the previous day (as it should), it is labelling these lists (both in the section header and in the edit summary) with the dates the lists are posted, not with the date on which the listed edits happened. (What's described as "Log for April 30" is actually the log for April 29, posted on April 30.)
I can't tell yet if the lists are complete. Having the online tool back would be great for comparing, but I'll also try to test some samples against other tools. — HHHIPPO 20:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@Hhhippo: After just a few headaches, the tool is now back online -- hopefully that will help :) Theopolisme (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Theopolisme: page has not updated in two or three days. Thanks, Matty.007 18:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Theopolisme:, the bot has not run on the WikiProject assessment tables and the wikiwork parameters from a long time. Has the issue been resolved? I see that for the Madonna Wikiproject, the bot last ran on April 12, 2014. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

404 on enwp10 tool

http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/ gives a 404 for all tested links in for example User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography. It was reported at Wikipedia:Help desk#WikiProject Assessment tables - Four hundred and four! which says "have not been working for a week". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see RockMagnetist also reported it 10 May at #WMF Labs server down? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
What amazes me is that there aren't a flood of reports about this. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist, PrimeHunter, and Czar: Hi everyone! Sorry for the delay -- I've been quite busy with real life and didn't see this until now. The server the bot and webservice run on is WMF-operated and out of my immediate control, so I was a bit mystified by this problem as I haven't done anything with the bot for a while. Thankfully, after an hour or two of investigation, I believe that I have fixed the web tool (yay!)...still investigating reports about problems with the on-wiki updates, though. Theopolisme (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It works for me now. Thanks! RockMagnetist (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Appreciated czar ♔ 21:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Update on recent outages

Hi everyone!

I'm hoping to clarify a few things in regards to bot and web service outages over the past few weeks.

  • WP 1.0 bot and the associated web service run on Wikimedia Foundation-owned and maintained servers (Wikimedia Labs).
  • I (as the tool) have an account on Labs; I am able to run programs there, so that they execute on their servers 24/7 as opposed to only when my machine is on and connected to the internet.
  • The Labs admins made some changes that essentially resulted in all WP 1.0 bot scheduled tasks being deleted. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/labs-l/2014-May/002374.html
  • Not only were scheduled tasks deleted, some changes were made to the servers that meant reconfiguration and restarting were necessary.
  • For a period of about a week or so, WP 1.0 bot did not run simply because its scheduled tasks were deleted. After I was alerted about this problem, I began investigating the issues, but with limited time and resources (WP:REALLIFE).
  • I was able to restart the web service a day ago and tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10 is once again functional.
  • I have just reconfigured and restarted all scheduled wiki-editing tasks: table updating, log updates, and the like. These will probably take a bit of time to catch back up -- if something is still not being updated in a few more days, please ping me to ensure I receive the message.

Thank you all for bearing with me!

Theopolisme (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for maintaining these wonderful tools czar ♔ 02:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you very much for both maintaining and fixing them! Best, Matty.007 16:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add my thanks. It's a pity that you have to fix problems created by Labs admins. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, why is there no importance table (such as on [14]) in [15]? Thanks, Matty.007 19:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

New wikis and new languages

Hello. Adding new wikis and new languages to this great tool is intended or not? If intended inform me here and I'll help you. - George Talk 16:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

API request & offer for more stable web service

Hi Theopolisme, I'm currently looking for an API acccess to integrate individual page assessment data into XTools Page History. Possible?

In addition I can offer you a more resilient webservice setup on toollabs, including a webwatcher that restarts webservice on failure. Tested & approved with Xtools and other tools, serving >100,000 request without stalling. see [16]

You can poke me on #wikimedia-labs. Cheers. --Hedonil (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem with links?

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/New Zealand - I used to be able to double click on the totals under any of the sections and get a list of articles that made up the total. This no longer happens - is this part of the ongoing work? The tables are really useful NealeFamily (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Getting the Project class show up in the assessment table

Hi all! How do I get the "Project" class show up in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Romania articles by quality statistics table? For example, it shows up in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Dacia articles by quality statistics. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:01, 18 June 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:

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)

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)

Bot not updating assessment tables?

Hi, the table at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Hampshire hasn't been updated since 13th June, but the bot does seem to be updating the log (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Hampshire articles by quality log) correctly. Also the 404 error problem reported above is back - all the tools.wmflabs.org links in the table generate 404 errors. WaggersTALK 08:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Same for the Ireland WikiProject. Nothing since 12th June. Can we get some sort of communicationas to what is going on? ww2censor (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep - it's like Basil Fawlty's parrot[17]. Sarah777 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be good to get some sort of communication from the concerned persons. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Echo the above for WP:Rivers, taking a leaf out of a previous thread - I will ping the operators @Theopolisme: and @Wolfgang42:, hopefully they can restore normality to these useful tables, and their not dead - just resting...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW, you can run it manually from here as I just did for the Ireland project. ww2censor (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
That page was returning a 404 error when I posted the original post, along with all the links to Labs from the table. Looks like that's now sorted so hopefully the bot will be back up and running soon. WaggersTALK 07:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This link is now showing "No webservice" and I was hoping to regenerate the WP:Louisville table. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if Theo has been on holiday for the last couple of weeks - he has no contributions since 20th June. I'll see if I can raise someone else to work on this! Walkerma (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Walkerma, the tools seem to be working again...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It was, for a while, and I ran it for two projects, but now it's down again. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently it's a fairly general issue (server?), and it's affecting several of the tools on the WMF server. That means it's beyond our control - unless someone has a backup server we can use! I'll keep pestering people and I'll post here when I hear anything more. Walkerma (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC) It does seem to be updating things today, at least. Walkerma (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Tool not working for the past two months

Can we get an update; has it been abandoned? None of the links on the tool server are working and I cannot submit an update request. It would be a shame! - Sweet Nightmares 14:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Oddly, the articles by quality logs are still regularly updated, so I guess the bot is not completely down. GregorB (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
There is something going on in the web server query part of the labs port; I do not have commit access to the tool anymore, so I can't really go around to try to poke and fix it. We need to wait for either Theopolisme: and Wolfgang42 to show up, or ask someone else familiar with the perl side of things to help. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. I've been really busy with work outside of Wikipedia, but I set up a daemon to automatically restart the webservice whenever it crashes (the crashes are not caused by us, but rather by issues with wikimedia labs where the site is hosted). The site should be up now. My apologies for all the trouble it's been having lately! Theopolisme (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: No worries, I totally understand, I was just checking for a pulse is all. :) Glad to hear it's up and running again; looks like everything is working swell. Thanks so much for all the work you've put into this! - Sweet Nightmares 03:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for getting it back up and all your work behind this great tool. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Theo! Walkerma (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Blank table

The table for the bot on Wikipedia:WikiProject Kyrgyzstan and Wikipedia:WikiProject Kyrgyzstan/Assessment is not loading. There are no articles listed in the table. Is there anyway someone could help me with this? Thanks! Pmelton87 (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Pmelton87: Fixed:
1) Added Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments to Category:Kyrgyzstan articles by quality
2) Changed Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Kyrgyzstan articles by quality statistics to transclude User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Kyrgyzstan --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic. Thanks!Pmelton87 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Bot Problem?

The WP 1.0 bot has not updated the WikiProject Radio Stations quality and importance table since June 10. Prior to June 10, this was done just about everyday. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

See the above two discussions, but I have just run it manually for you, as you can do from here if things don't reautomate. ww2censor (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Completely missed the other two discussions. Big "DUH!" on my part. Thanks for running the bot manually and for the link, much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The WP 1.0 bot isn't updating the WP:GLAM/Pritzker stats. I've tried getting it to run manually, but it isn't updating the table on our project page. Can you help? TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@TeriEmbrey: I ran it manually and it updated. Javascript has to be enabled in the browser when selecting the project on the manual update page so that it can copy the project name to the text box. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Bamyers99 Many thanks! TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WIkiProject Australian Sport

WIkiProject Australian Sport needs to be updated. It hasn't been for over a month. What is wrong? NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 01:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just done a manual run but can someone still check. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 01:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft Class

Hi there, Draft class articles (ie Category:Draft-Class Australia articles) are showing up in the table as "Other class". Can this please be fixed, as Draft class becomes more commonly used. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's bot generated, so the bot code will need amending. The bot operators are Theopolisme and Wolfgang42. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Nevada

Last update July 2! Ideas? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: The automatic updates are not running. A manual update request can be done at update assessment stats. --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Would be nice to have a link in the table. Some of us forget things to easily. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there's something wrong with "articles by quality and importance tables", like this one for example, it lists 4 unassesed mid importance articles, but if you click it, it list just one article, which by the way has already been assessed. It has has not worked in 4 months Lbertolotti (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see the post two above yours. — HHHIPPO 19:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated/missing days

At WP physics, WP 1.0 bot has added the logs for October 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27 twice, but never the one for October 26. I'm not sure if that's a problem, and I didn't check if there was anything to log on the 26th or if it's maybe included with another day. Just thought I'd let you know in case you want to check if there's something serious behind this. — HHHIPPO 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiWork factor cross-project comparison

Are there any tools for large-scale comparison of WikiWork factors within the bot? I'm currently looking at reviving a WikiProject, and am intrigued to see what comparison of a project's Ω and total articles yields. I have a hypothesis that 'model' WikiProjects are more likely to have a lower Ω when taking article numbers into account, which would help in identifying WikiProjects more successful in promoting articles, but am currently unsure how to confirm this using data from the bot. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sasuke Sarutobi: Not sure if I'm misunderstanding your question, but Ω already takes article count into consideration. ω is the raw aggregate number of classes, and is divided by the number of articles assessed by the project to obtain Ω. If you're trying to see if Ω is correlated with article count (i.e. if a high article count tends to be associated with lower Ω), then I don't think the bot can help you; you'll have to obtain the raw Ω and article count scores for a large sample of projects and use something like Excel to compare them. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY], creator of Ω, 09:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment logs

The assessment logs are inaccessible due to what I presume is a bug. I would have reported it as such but the bug reports page returns a 404 error.

Steps to reproduce
  1. Visit the Project index
  2. Select any letter and click the "log" link in the data column.
Expected behavior
The project's log should be displayed.
Actual behavior
The error message "Project '[name]' is not in the database," even when the project name works just fine for things like the article list or assessment tables, proving it is, in fact, in the database.

I do hope this will be fixed soon; I need access to the assessment log in order to create some assessment graphs (manually poring through the on-wiki log will take too much time since I need to go back through February). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This bug is still active. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

WP India - Template category wrong pointers, counts

As we embarked on a Tag and Assess mini-drive, I found that the statistics shown at WP:IND had a problem with "Template" class row. Here is the bulleted list of observations:

(a) Template link - it was pointing to Category:Template-Class football in India articles instead of Category:Template-Class India articles. See my edit difference.

(b) Template counts showed 28 under NA importance and 2 under Unassessed importance. The actual links lead to the Wmf Labs links NA Class count and Other count.

(c) Please see India project statistics where the links are shown. The templates counts should actually come from Category:Template-Class India articles amounting to about 3500+ templates, while the statistics show only 28. The 28 are from Category:Template-Class football in India articles which is a sub-project.

(d) The Wmf labs pointers and/or Category counts of the project are messed up, only for Template class India articles.

(e) Please see citation : WMF Labs - Template class list from English Wikipedia Category. 2014-11-15. Accessed: 2014-11-15 (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6U7R8w2My) The list of articles are not from Template-Class India articles, but from Template-Class football in India articles. The entries in the form at the top of the page were working fine. Now the "link" / "foreign-key" or some such relationship seems to have been messed up. It is probably that a small mistake during the "Football in India" project creation has caused this.

Kindly help is fixing this problem.

VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My manual update of the India project statistics has been overwritten by the bot run on 16th November (which is first time it has run in about 5 months - after mid-June 2014).
Hence Template link again points to the "football in India" sub-project, instead of India templates category!
FYI. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@VasuVR:That was me running the bot manually after updating Category:Template-Class football in India articles to move it out of Category:India articles by quality and into Category:Football in India articles by quality. Unfortunately the bot is using an older copy of the wikipedia database to generate the statistics. It could be a couple of days before the bots database sees the change. I will keep checking it periodically and run the bot again when it is up to date. --Bamyers99 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@Bamyers99: - thank you. I will check for a few days. Hope the templates counts will now come from the correct category and go up to 3500+. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@VasuVR: The stats have been updated. For future reference, an update request can be done at update assessment stats. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Bamyers99: Excellent. Thank you very much. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 00:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Overcounting by the bot

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/OverallArticles: total articles reported as 4,753,346.

Special:Statistics: content pages reported as: 4,656,736.

Has this discrepancy been investigated before? Back in April I scribbled down some related observations and theories; although it was outside the 99% confidence interval, it wasn't obviously absurt and it was plausible that there wasn't a strict error anywhere—i.e., the bot was just counting differently to me. Now, however, it's definitely either counting some non-articles as articles or some articles twice. (My hunch is that it's redirects with assessment being counted as articles, as might be created by page moves, but that really is just a hunch.) Facing the Sky (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Help creating new table for WP1.0 bot

I'm working on a new page for my WP:GLAM/Johns Hopkins University project, and I would really like to include an article assessment table. I think I've done most of the steps, but I can't quite figure out how to generate the table itself. Could someone help me with this? Thanks! archivist 20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Feature Request can I have an API?

I would like to treat the output of this bot as an API. I would like to build a bot that does specific quality analysis on Medical project pages, and I would prefer not to replicate the functionality already available in the Release Versio Tools Bot. In order to do this I would need to modify list2.fcgi to simply export json and/or csv instead of an html table in response to queries. I would configure a form checkbox to enable this mode from the gui permitting it as option...

There could be another way to get this done that I do not know of and if that is the case I would be more than happy to be answered with a link.

Would a patch to do this be accepted? Any chance of moving this to git for better distributed development?

Ftrotter (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ftrotter: This may not actually be helpful depending on what you're planning to do, but I saw the question in passing and I couldn't resist: scraping the bot's wikicode tables is a 100% feasible way to do historical analysis of article quality. File:Wikipedia article assessment graph.svg has BSD-licensed Python to do precisely that for the overall table, and it's not even all that horrible! Facing the Sky (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Facing the Sky: That looks very similar to what I want to be able to do. Essentially, I don't need an API b/c this tool writes back to a wikipedia page, and wikipedia itself has an API. Will move forward with this approach. Thanks for the suggestion! --Ftrotter (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Table updates

As the bot is still not updating the project tables I have been using the form to create the table. But the form appears to be not been shown. Going here now just give a blank page. Is there a problem with the form and when will the bot be updating the table as it generates the logs again? Keith D (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have the same issue. The team running this bot is really good, though, so they should have it up soon.Brirush (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Theopolisme and CBM: Ping maintainers. Keith D (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Since the BOT hasn't been working, it comes up as a bank page. Adamdaley (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The bot team needs to get the bot up and running ASAP. It's been like a week. Adamdaley (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually the bot has been misbehaving for almost 6 months since at least 12 June last when it stopped updating the assessment tables but at least we were able to run it manually. Now we have nothing, no assessments at all and no one saying they are working on it. This problem really needs to be addressed. ww2censor (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm losing my interest and faith in Wikipedia at the moment. Something needs to be done about this bot. Adamdaley (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The link is still down it seems. This is really frustrating. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@CBM, Theopolisme, and Wolfgang42: your reply is requested to this and a handful of other threads. Imzadi 1979 → 07:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Other than Wolfgang42, the other two editors have not being active here for around a year, so may not have seen the pings. I have emailed them directly and hope at least one of them responds. Theopolisme is also on Freenode and IRC so maybe someone can make contact there. ww2censor (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I am around sometimes, but I am no longer a maintainer of the bot. Please don't ping me for it. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
In that case it might be best if you removed your name from the maintainer's list at the Wikimedia Tool Labs. ww2censor (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I just got an email from ww2censor. I haven't looked at the 'bot since it moved to WMFlabs (in fact, that bit of the tool I've not looked at at all), so it may take me a while to get up to speed, but I'll see what I can do. — Wolfgang42 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So sorry about this series of problems. Investigating too... Wolfgang, email me if you spot anything. Theopolisme (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Theopolisme: Turns out I'm not a maintainer of the tools project, so I can't investigate. — Wolfgang42 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ww2censor, Adamdaley, Wolfgang42, Keith D, and Brirush: & others... Hello everyone! My humblest apologies for my lack of response (and inaction) for the past few months. For the past couple of hours I have been investigating and getting the bot back up and running. The webservice had crashed (as was clearly apparent to end users!) a few weeks ago, and so my first project was to get the site online. We are now using the webgrid lighttpd daemon combined with trusty and bigbrother, which should keep the site from going down in the future. Next issue was the fact that for some reason the bot was no longer updating tables on-wiki, *but* (as I discovered in my investigation) data was still being updated on the server. It turned out that a change in the API had tripped up the bot (since for some reason I missed a notification about said changes...). I updated the relevant API calls, and the bot should now be uploading tables/logs as scheduled. Please let me know if any other issues are encountered; it may very well be that there were other changes that I missed... Again, my apologies for the inconvenience! Theopolisme (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Theopolisme. Manual updating is working fine for the projects I tested but don't know about the auto updates. I presume they will be ok now too. ww2censor (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Theopolisme, the bot is up and running doing auto updates for the tables too. Thanks again for giving time on this. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 04:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Request provide statistics for WikiProject Vespidae

Request provide statistics for Wikipedia:WikiProject Vespidae. If this is not the place to make the request, kindly enlighten me where/whom to approach. Thanks in advance. AshLin (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@AshLin: I happened to notice that this index page itself gives the link to instructions for setting up statistics for any project, towards the end of the page. Quote - If you would like to add a new WikiProject to the bot's list, please read the instructions - unquote. Hope this helps. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, @VasuVR: done! :) AshLin (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

New Project GLAM/Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library

I've created the categories for my new project (see Category:Newcomb_Archives_and_Vorhoff_Library-related_articles) and tagged a test article, but I can't seem to get the assessment table to generate. This is the first one of these I have done since before we changed the Toolserver, so maybe I've done something wrong. Can you advise? Thanks! - PKM (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@PKM:, have you followed these instructions. I didnt know about it too but once they were followed WikiProject Vespidae stats tables came up. AshLin (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@AshLin: Thanks, I did indeed miss a step. @Bamyers99: thanks for fixing this for me. - PKM (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome :) AshLin (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Trying to use assessment log for Project Military history, says "Military history" is not in the database

G'day, The assessment log page isn't accepting Military history as the project name. What am I doing wrong? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you typing it with an underscore; "Military_history"? Plantdrew (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep. This is the error message at the bottom of the screen. "Project 'Military_history' is not in the database." The underscore syntax works for the Article lists tool, but not for the Assessment logs one. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Well in the drop down menu "Military_history" is listed, so I manually ran it (http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi) as well as also manually typing "Military history" (without the underscore) and on this page history both assessments I ran clearly show up as 12:10 and 12:15 today plus the assessment log is being update regularly as you can see. In that regard everything looks fine to me. However the result table itself appears to be missing many entries that I see in other assessmeent logs I watch as it just gives total pages without any importance rate listings. Are you sure you are watching the correct page? ww2censor (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hang on. I'm talking about this page here. I need to run a report on assessments in a specific time period. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, that is a diffenet thing. I never saw or used that tool but looking at the project list at the top left, I see "Military history" as well as other projects I am interested in are all listed in the database but putting their name into the form to generate the assessment says none of them are in the database. Sorry can't assist on that one as it seems like a technical issue. Maybe @Theopolisme: who fixed the non-working assessment log tool recently can assist though it may be best to email. ww2censor (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I had a similar issue, but it was archived with no response: Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index/Archive 7#Assessment logs —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
This actually is a significant issue. For example, MILHIST cannot complete its quarterly reviewing awards process without this information. Can we get a fix on it, please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Did you make contact with Theopolisme as suggested? I suspect he is the only one who can help but you need to email him. ww2censor (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Have done now. Sorry, I appear to have suffered selective reading syndrome there... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Tools.wmjlabs project page is blank - are tables updating?

Hello ... the page at http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/ is blank. This is the project page linked from http://tools.wmflabs.org/ . I am presuming that this is not normal. I started poking around when I saw that the date stamp for the assessment table Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Company_articles_by_quality_statistics shows a last updated date of 15 Jan 2012. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ceyockey: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Company_articles_by_quality_statistics transcludes User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Company which is the page that the bot updates. The last update was January 25, 2015. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bamyers99: Thanks for clarifying that ... my oversight :-) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You are correct that http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/ is blank again even though the individual project assessment tables are still being created. However, links from the tables also go nowhere either. Previously it was completely broken, except for manual runs, from about June to Novemebr last year but during that time it did not even automatically produce project tables. I think we need to email User:Theopolisme again. ww2censor (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Restarted & should be live again... thank you for emailing me, Ww2censor. I don't know why the service was not automatically restarted, as generally when it crashes like this, the auto-restart mechanism I configured kicks in and "wakes it back up" automatically... in any case, let me know when/if other issues arise. Theopolisme (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Another maintainer as backup?

It would be good to look for another maintainer as backup (if anyone is willing or has connections to willing programmers). Please note, that I am not criticizing Theopolisme (or anyone else) in any way - after all this is a voluntary project and his help is greatly appreciated. But it would be better to have at least 2 (or even 3) maintainers for such a huge and widely used project, especially when the project or its environment aren't completely stable. Just some food for thought, while we wait for the fix :). Thanks again to Theopolisme and the other maintainers for their efforts. GermanJoe (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

+1, any help would be appreciated given my lack of time for all things WIkipedia-related lately. Theopolisme (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Unable to get it to work properly

Am trying to get this very complicated "assessment statistics" table to work [18]. C quality articles are not listed.

Even though there are a lot here [19]

They however do not show up here [20]

Full list of articles is here [21]

Wondering if anyone knows how to fix this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: The Toollabs database is currently about 6 hours behind in receiving updates from the production database. Any changes made to the production database will not be seen by the stats bot until the Toollabs database catches up. Current Toollabs database delay. --Bamyers99 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes not sure that is the issue though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You also have Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Sanitation) listed as C-class article. While this may work, I am not sure mixing namespaces in a class is a good idea. Maybe worth trying to remove the banner for now (and see what happens after the delay period). GermanJoe (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Updated after another manual bot check - seems to be OK now :). The bot probably got confused with the initial hyphen renaming and category title movements - but that's just a theory. GermanJoe (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks yes appears to be working now :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unable to get it to work properly2

I've not been able to set up assessment statistics for articles in Category:Ant task force articles. I filled in "Ants" or "Ant task force" (sorry cannot remember, this was two weeks ago) at this page. The bot created Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ant task force articles by quality statistics, but it has remained empty ever since. Any help would be appreciated. jonkerz ♠talk 07:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I sent a mail to Theopolisme (planned to send one anyway) to point to this problem. 2 categories are missing (see warnings on Template:WikiProject Insects) and the category naming is a bit non-standard (most task forces don't include "... task force ..." in their "project" designation for statistical purposes), but I am not sure that causes the problem. GermanJoe (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello @Jonkerz:, to get the bot started, the 2 main categories (... by quality and ... by importance) had to be added to "Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments". I added them and ran the bot manually - it collected Ant task force assessments (please double-check, if all classes are filled correctly). You should still add the 2 missing class categories (see above), even if you don't plan to fill them, and get "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/ant task force articles by quality statistics" deleted (the bot uses the uppercase "...Ant..." page). GermanJoe (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, GermanJoe! It works like a charm, cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 10:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Freezing

User:EngineeringGuy has reverted the freeze claiming that 'The table has to be updated daily. "Freezing" it is not going to fix any problem.' Of course, the table does not have to be updated, let alone daily. As for fixing problems, freezing obviously does not fix problems per se. It simply works around User talk:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/OverallArticles#Modifications_will_be_lost. Anyone willing to actually fix the bot is most welcome. I have restored the workaround meanwhile. --Chealer (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games and eSports Task Force

Two Things:

One

The assessment table for Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games doesn't seem to be updating, and hasn't seemed to be updated for weeks. Take a look here [Category:Unassessed video game articles] the numbers don't match up

Two

Is it possible to get an assessment table for Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/eSports?

--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

GA log broken

It's giving the full list of GAs as removed and readded every day now, looks like. See [22]. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:GA-Class Good articles was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 25#Category:GA-Class Good articles. That may cause confusion. Category:Good articles still exists. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the log for Good Articles hasn't been updated for a few weeks now. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's surprising nobody has used it as the basis for a daily updated wiki app. Sort of like how there's already a weekly featured article report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.237.36 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Project counter ?

Probably not the most vital statistic, but could someone have a look at User:WP 1.0 bot/Data/Count please? Looks like the bot stopped counting in mid-2013 for some reason. The count is used on this talk page's project page and is currently empty. Thanks for your help. GermanJoe (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme:, when you have time, could you look into this minor problem please? The project count is still maintained as "Project index" on the tool's page, it just doesn't get uploaded anymore. GermanJoe (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiWork factors

New Zealand politics articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 2 3
FL 1 1
A 1 1
GA 2 2 4 11 19
B 24 26 50 56 156
C 34 109 228 508 13 892
Start 37 441 1,881 27 2,386
Stub 34 1,490 8 1,532
List 1 16 65 262 1 345
Category 617 617
Disambig 7 7
File 21 21
Project 7 7
Redirect 41 41
Template 542 542
NA 1 2 1 4
Assessed 63 190 823 4,213 1,236 49 6,574
Unassessed 2 2
Total 63 190 823 4,213 1,236 51 6,576
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 25,197 Ω = 5.05

We have a couple of WikiWork factors and they are nicely explained. All good. I wonder whether we could or should have a third metric that deals more explicitly with the proportions of articles that are rated stub class. The Stub Contest gives some ideas why it might be good to expand stubs to something more useful for users of Wikipedia. To that end, I suggest we should consider a metric that directly shows the proportion of stubs. I'm thinking of summing up all articles from FA down to Stub (i.e. not including list or book classes or the likes). The number of stub articles divided by that sum would give a percentage stub articles of the total. This would be between 0% (no stubs at all) and 100% (i.e. every article within a project's scope is a stub). Thoughts? Schwede66 20:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Schwede66: - I'm confused - does it go on existing ratings or does the process make its own? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll explain what I mean based on the assessment table shown. I'll make some calculations, and these refer to the numbers in this version of the table; the table on the right is dynamic, i.e. it will update itself over time and you could no longer understand the numbers that I'm talking about, hence the link to a particular version of the assessment table.
There are currently two WikiWork factors shown: ω and Ω. The first one counts the number of articles that have a quality rating of relevance, i.e. it excludes things from List class down. The second counts the number of quality improvement steps that those articles would have to go through to all become FA class. The number of steps divided by the number of articles gives omega. That is, it looks at it from the FA class perspective. The aim is to all articles to FA class. If a Wikiproject had no stubs whatsoever, you could not determine that by looking at the omega value. What I am proposing is to look from the other end. How many stubs are there as a proportion of all articles with a relevant quality rating? This would be expressed as a percentage, from 100% (all articles within a Wikiproject are stub class) to 0% (none of the rated articles within a Wikiproject are stub class).
I've worked through an example. When I use the figures in the table that I have referenced, I get slightly different figures (ω = 17,933; Ω = 5.279), but that may be because those values get calculated at a different time that the assessment data are compiled. Based on those values, the "stubbiness" would be 42.9% (1,456 stubs divided by 3,397 rated articles). Let's assume that we had a blitz on stubs, and 100 stubs were improved to start class. Resulting values are: Ω = 5.250 (i.e. it hasn't moved much) and "stubbiness" = 39.9%. The closer you get to getting rid of the stub articles, the less meaningful the omega value becomes, as it measures the number of steps to FA class. But with the "stubbiness" percentage, you have a good indicator how a particular project is going. Makes sense? Schwede66 17:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding a project to the project list

I am probably missing something simple. But how do I get WP:GLAM/Pritzker added to the Project list? TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@TeriEmbrey: Are you referring to the index of participating Wiki projects [23]? Pritzker is listed as "Pritzker Military Library-related" - or did you mean a different list? You can also search for "Pritzker Military Library-related" in "Project summary tables" and "Article lists" - both seem to work OK. GermanJoe (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: I found it. Many thanks! TeriEmbrey (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Project table curiosity

In the Ireland Project table under the results for "Other" there appears an item that links to an apparently non-existing page Volunteer Ireland. There is neither a page nor a talk page and the log is empty. And it is rated "Mid". So why does it appear? Last time I checked there were 2 such results but one has since disappeared. ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: There's a Draft:Volunteer Ireland with a talkpage banner causing this entry. As far as I understand the problem, draft namespace is not fully supported by the bot. The bot can manage drafts as extra class, if that setting is configured in the assessment categorization (see drafts in WP:GER assessment table). But the bot's statistic views and lists don't know about drafts as separate namespace and will treat such pages as "regular" article links. GermanJoe (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryDisambigDraftFilePortalProjectRedirectTemplateNA???Total
6802471,4835,56530,71626,91183,39826,2721847817526202,8623,2893311101,346
Can we get the code that generates the Version 1.0 Editorial Team tables changed to fully support "Draft" class (as it does the other extended classes - Category, Disambig, File, Portal, Project, and Template, and as template AbQ does above) instead of lumping drafts into other? That's what you're seeing, Ww2censor. Stick "Draft:" in front of the name of the errant page and you'll find it, e.g. Draft:Volunteer Ireland. The result that disappeared was most likely approved at AfC and moved into article space, or it may have been deleted or reevaluated as not in the scope of WikiProject Ireland. Worldbruce (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
That answers the questions. Thanks. Perhaps the code will be fixed so such draft pages get classified correctly. Either way I'll know if I see some again. ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot status?

I noticed the last update to User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Bangladesh (and all the other individual project tables I checked) was just over a week ago, on 16 June 2015. Is there an estimate of when ordinary daily updates will resume? Thanks, Worldbruce (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed the same for the Louisville and Kentucky projects. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 07:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the problem was due to a recent file system failure at the Tool Labs. Everything seems to be in working order now, manual update works, so I'd like to see daily updates continue too, I suppose nothing is preventing them now. GregorB (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, pinging Theopolisme... GregorB (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Since the manual update only updates the tables, I'd like to see logs being updated again. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Me too (maybe a cron job which have to be readded after the big crash) - I tried "the manual update", [24], I have never used it before, and typed "chemistry", and the result was this Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/chemistry articles by quality statistics new page ... Christian75 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That's odd - true, you typed a lower case "c", and the page got created by error, but still these things should not happen... GregorB (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
IIRC Theopolisme is more easily contacted by email rather than pinging. ww2censor (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, a good point, I've just dropped him an email... GregorB (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't remember if it was lower case or not, and I didnt play with it afterwards. Christian75 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note, this was replied to & fixed at User_talk:Theopolisme/Archive_21#WP_1.0_bot and via email Theopolisme (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Article bugs

I have found two articles that are non-existent, but are actually being counted as being articles. The first one is. The Windows Club being in the WikiProject Microsoft Windows section. The other article is in the WikiProject Military History Biography called Robert LaRue Miller. Unfortunately, in either one there no article exists. They are however countered towards the table statistics. Adamdaley (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adamdaley: Draft:The Windows Club and Draft: Robert LaRue Miller both exist. The bot has not been updated to support Draft-Class and the Draft: namespace correctly, and when it updates the assessment logs, it omits the namespace portion of the draft titles. Imzadi 1979 → 07:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's the Robert LaRue Miller article: [25]. Basically the same as the other one in the statistic table. Except in another table and different Project and article name. Adamdaley (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Adamdaley: let me try again to explain the situation. The Draft namespace was created in December 2013. At that time, the bot was not updated to account for it. When I tagged File talk:Interstate 696 pedestrian plazas Oak Park.jpg for the U.S. Roads WikiProject, the bot saw that new assessment. It knows about the "File" and "File talk:" namespaces, so when it added that new assessment to the USRD log, it linked to File:Interstate 696 pedestrian plazas Oak Park.jpg. The bot also knows about "File-Class", so it could log it as the correct assessment.
Now, when someone added the six wikiproject banners and assessments to Draft talk:Robert LaRue Miller, the talk page that corresponds to Draft:Robert LaRue Miller, the bot tried to process that assessment like it would for any other talk page. It doesn't know about "Draft:","Draft talk:" or "Draft-Class", so it gets confused. The bot drops the "Draft talk:" prefix from the talk page and doesn't replace it with "Draft". So instead of linking to Draft:Robert LaRue Miller, it links to Robert LaRue Miller, a redlink on the assessment log. At the same time, the bot can't handle Draft-Class as an assessment, so it logs it as "NA-Class"
In short, you don't have non-existent articles for those projects, you have mis-linked and mis-assessed Draft pages showing in the assessment logs because no one has bothered to update the bot in the last 19 months. Imzadi 1979 → 08:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Double counting?

There are now more than 5 million articles in the overall stats, approx. 100k more than in the Main Page counter (4909k at the moment), so is there some double counting going on? GregorB (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

+1 Just noticed this, Sadads (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
+1, Is this because the same article may be rated more than once, for example by different wikiprojects? -- The Anome (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Could be, but I have the impression that, given the average number of WikiProject banners per article (1.5 or even more, perhaps?), this would result in an even higher count. GregorB (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The bot is designed to only count an article once - otherwise we'd have about 20 million "articles" by now! The answer, I think, is simple; WikiProjects now use the bot to count many things that wouldn't count as articles such as drafts or redirects - take a look here, for example. I'm not sure why they need to do that, but I'm sure they have good reasons! We should perhaps discuss whether or not we want to exclude these types of things from the total; maybe it's not important enough to worry about, as long as people understand what that "unassessed" group contains. Walkerma (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
That's probably it. Still, these pages are not really "unassessed" then, should perhaps be displayed as "Other". GregorB (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Walkerma and GregorB: thank you, between you, you have just answered a question that's been puzzling me – working on WikiProject Albums, I always wondered why there were literally thousands of album articles with an "NA-class" rating... it's because many of them were created by one editor and then AfD'd by another as being not notable... clicking on the album link in the list takes you to the redirected page, usually the article page for the artist. It does mean however, that it appears there are thousands and thousands of album articles that need to be improved upon, when really they don't "exist". Richard3120 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Richard3120, GregorB: Some projects reclassify such pages using Template:Redirect-Class, which generates a category based in Category:Redirect-Class articles. This is a "non-standard" class but it's well-used. Alternatives would be just deleting the banners, or ignoring them and accepting & making it clear that NA includes some of these redirects. The ideal, of course, would be for the bot to recognize, but we don't have an active coder at the moment for the bot. Walkerma (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Walkerma, thanks for your reply – what you say about the Redirect-Class category is exactly what somebody told me when I posted my query on the Help:Redirect page. I'll see if there is some way around this issue, if not, we just have to live with what the bot tells us. Richard3120 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Mathematics B+ rating

In Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0 Mathematics articles can get a B+ rating, I think this rating is a lower rating than the GA rating but the but WP bot 1.0 (link <--> User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Mathematics-Overall -->

seems to put it higher (to the left) of GA, PS I started a discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to make sure my idea is correct.WillemienH (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Handling Draft articles

Right now, the WP1.0 tools treat draft articles as "Other" in the WikiProject assessment tables and Tool Labs interfaces. It should list them as "Draft" and provide appropriate links to them (right now they link to non-existent article pages). Kaldari (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Pie chart

@Theopolisme and Wolfgang42: I've just added a <graph> chart to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics. As the table it also needs periodic updating. May you let WP 1.0 bot update the chart as well?--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kopiersperre: The chart is very wide (and the width param doesn't work). Can you fix it please? emijrp (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I had a go, and got it looking more reasonable (to me, at least!) on the main stats page. Please check that I didn't break any code - I'm a bit of an amateur at editing things like this. Walkerma (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment logs

When looking for the assessment history/logs, it does not return any results. Entering a project results in "Project 'X' is not in the database." and entering a project name results in an empty list. I have seen in the archives that this problem has existed before. If it is just temporary, sorry for posting this. Kerenskij86 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Kerenskij86, but can you give a specific example to show where you're looking? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women not getting statistics page

The bot has run the log page several times now for the above project, but I'm not seeing a statistics page created yet. Any ideas what might be happening? John Carter (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: I updated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Women articles by quality statistics to point the right statistics table. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Project to set up

Hey. I've been doing assessments for Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges and, while doing so, noticed that there was no table for the project. I tried setting up the table through the guidelines, but nothing's been popping up. Everything's in order so I don't know why I can't get the bot to make any logs, tables, or anything. Wizardman 00:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You didn't add the Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments to the quality and importance categories. I did. Wait a couple of days and see if you get results from the bot, and, if you don't, contact me and I'll see what I forgot to do this time. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Wizardman: I issued a manual run to get the table created and restored the table transclusion in the project. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Figured it was something simple I was somehow missing. Thanks! Wizardman 01:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Certificate Problem

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T112608

In the last 20 minutes I've been receiving invalid certificate problems. The "https://tools.wmflabs.org/ etc" for the "Wikipedia Release Version Tools" comes up as invalid certificate. I realize I haven't put in the full URL, but you will understand what I mean. Adamdaley (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Adamdaley: The https certificate has expired for wmflabs.org. It is in the process of getting renewed. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft class

The bot doesn't seem to display draft classes. For example, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality statistics doesn't include the 350 or so drafts and so the total is underreported. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiWork factors not working on project

The table at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Psychoactive and recreational drugs is not displaying the WikiWork factor in the table. The template appears to be in the table so I don't know what the problem is. Thanks for your help. Sizeofint (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody watch this talk page? Sizeofint (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Disney Redirects not being read right

Two future Disney movies, Toy Story 4 and Frozen 2, are currently redirects and listed as such. However, the bot seems to read them instead as an unknown class and low importance. Elisfkc (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If a project doesn't have Draft class enabled properly, you get some funny behavior with drafts that have the project banner on their talk page. That is what is going here, see Draft:Toy Story 4 and Draft:Frozen 2; the respective redirects are showing up where they're supposed to. Plantdrew (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Wikiproject

Hello, I'm part of the Wikiproject above and joined recently. I've noticed we don't have a quality statistic box like this and I was wondering if anyone would like to show me how to insert (and create) one to put into the Wikiproject, thank you in advance! Adog104 Talk to me 00:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Tampa Bay articles by quality and importance table is being generated daily (more or less), so it's just a matter of adding it to the WikiProject Tampa Bay page. The text to insert is: {{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tampa Bay articles by quality statistics}} --Worldbruce (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Worldbruce! I very much appreciate it! Adog104 Talk to me 01:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:AbQ Pie

See Template talk:AbQ Pie please, the diagram could need automated updates for the total number of articles of various ratings, otherwise the diagram produces highly misleading results. Some central value to store those numbers in a template-accessible way would work. --mfb (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment Logs

Hello, I noticed the Assessment Logs tool does not return anything for any search. For example, when I enter "Africa" for project name, it says "Africa is not in the database". Also, when I click on the "log" link of any project on the project index list. For example https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/log.fcgi?project=Africa, I get the same message about the project not being in the database. Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damao98 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiWork factors not updating

WikiWork factors are not getting updated for Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Assessment (other contents of the table are updated). Micromesistius (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it hasn't been updating since July 2, 2015. Just a heads up. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles in draft namespace marked as Draft Class should have the draft namespace (i.e. "Draft:") in the generated links in a table like this one. They don't, so the link goes to a usually non-existent article in mainspace. (Ignore Danny Johnson (Guitar Hero) because right now this is in mainspace but marked as "draft".) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's a known problem, but we haven't had anyone developing the code who could fix it. I was talking with some developers today, so we may be able to get some help, but I don't think we'll be able to fix it any time soon - sorry! Walkerma (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting page moves

When a page called A has been moved to a page called B, the log will say that A has been removed and B accessed with the same ratings that A had before it was moved. However, if B has then been moved back to A, the log will only say that B has been removed, not that A has been accessed. For example, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality log says that List of things named after Leonhard Euler has been removed and List of concepts named after Leonhard Euler accessed under December 29, 2015, and List of concepts named after Leonhard Euler removed under December 30, 2015, but it does not say that List of things named after Leonhard Euler has been accessed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting us know about that! We're hoping to recruit someone soon to work on developing the code, and we'll ask them to look at this - though we have some major features that need to be worked on first, so it'll take a while. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to maintain this feature on zh-wiki but the link is dead Panintelize (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Panintelize, I don't understand. Can you show me the link you're referring to? We have people beginning to revise the code right now, so now is a good time to get such problems fixed. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
this, it's on the bot user pagePanintelize (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll see if we can get that updated. In the meantime, I think the links given top-right (in the template) on the main WP:1 page should all be live, and we also now (as of last week) have some github repositories:
Let me know if these solve your problem - if so, could you perhaps update the link at User:WP 1.0 bot to use the best one? Cheers. Walkerma (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot has stopped updating page

Hi, it appears that the bot has stopped updating Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Greek articles by quality log since October. Could someone fix this? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The bot seems to have stopped updating the WikiProject pages the last week or so... It has been displaying an error for me which has been "Error: No such file or directory". Adamdaley (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I've emailed the person who does maintenance - they look as if they haven't been on recently, which is why it apparently wasn't followed up on sooner. We do have some new people starting to look at the code with a view to developing it further, though I don't think they've edited the actual bot itself; I'll make sure that wasn't the cause. Walkerma (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll have a look to the problem this week end. Kelson (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem should be fixed now. Kelson (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiWork factors

Hi, just noticed that these appear to have disappeared from our project's table. Is there any reason for this? Keith D (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this page is not edited by the wp1bot, can you please be more specific? A diff between good and bas revision would be really helpful. Kelson (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Kelson and Keith D: that page transcludes wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Yorkshire articles by quality statistics, which is updated by the bot. Imzadi 1979 → 17:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I have a vague recollection of the row been present but just randomly checking I cannot locate a version of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Yorkshire that had it. Keith D (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I have the same issue with WP:RECDRUGS. Sizeofint (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly your question, this is "why this page/template has not been updated for the past 5 years?" Kelson (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Hampshire County, West Virginia

In the WikiProject Hampshire County, West Virginia assessment table, the featured articles aren't being included? Is there a fix for this? Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sort by quality date

I'm trying to automatically generate a list of articles in a given WikiProject sorted by the date when they were reassessed as GA. This comes pretty close, but I don't see how I can sort by date. Any ideas? czar 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've wanted to sort by date myself at times. I don't think it's possible within Wikipedia at present, but it would be a nice feature. You can copy-paste the table into a spreadsheet and then sort by the date column as a work around. You'll have to copy-paste twice since results per page can't go over 1000 (but do set it higher than 200 so you don't have to copy-paste 6 times). Plantdrew (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiWork factors for Madonna project

Hi all I have seen that the Wikiwork factors for the Madonna, the work factor is stuck at 3.06 from a long long time, even though around 7-8 GAs have been promoted for the project and updated in the table. Can anyone guide me if there's something wrong? —IB [ Poke ] 09:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Imzadi1979 can you take a look at my query? —IB [ Poke ] 10:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have any connection to the operation of the bot that updates that table. Imzadi 1979 → 13:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Most WikiProjects have a corresponding quality log page. However, there is no quality log page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Disambiguation articles by quality log and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Disambiguation articles by quality log are redlinks). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Good article log

What has happened to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Good articles by quality log (that is displayed here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Log)? According to the revision history, User:WP 1.0 bot hasn't run in a year. The WP:GA community is missing out on this statistical information. Thanks to anyone who can look into this and find out what happened. Prhartcom (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft pages in the Wikipedia data tool

Is it just me or does the Wikipedia data tool not display draftspace pages correctly? It seems to be dropping the draft namespace and just linking to the mainspace versions? For example, this listing doesn't link to a single page in draftspace but only the mainspace ones. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)`

That's been a known problem for years. It seems that some progress has been made in the last few months; when you click on the listings, there is now a banner that provide a link to the draft. Plantdrew (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Some projects were moving all their drafts around thinking they weren't showing up. It seems odd that one namespace has this issue and no others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It's just that the Draft namespace is far newer than any of the others. By the time it was created, or at least by the time anyone started associating drafts with projects, maintenance and enhancement of the tool had long since petered out. Perhaps the tool could have been written to work with any namespace that might be created, but plainly it wasn't. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what the bot is doing

@Theopolisme and Wolfgang42: I'm looking at this edit history and it looks like the bot is endlessly repeating through a small number of states every day. What is it doing? What is the point of it? Is this intended or some kind of malfunction? --Cyde Weys 01:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

the problem seemed to me to be reminiscent of previous instances where multiple templates were on a single talk page, and sure enough, Education Program talk:Louisiana State University/CHEM 4558: Mass Spectrometry (Spring 2015) has lots of talk pages transcluded onto the one page. I would suggest that either Rd Education Program talk domain is excluded from the bot runs, or the program finds another way to link to articles without transcluding talk pages that include the WikiProject templates. The-Pope (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Stats table for WP:Wales

The stats table for WP:Wales has not updated since January, as far as I can see. Wales_articles_by_quality_statistics history shows a 23 Jan amendment "Setting this page to transclude bot-generated table". Would someone who knows please advise on how to get the Project page displaying a current stats table. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The edit you refer to is from January 2010. If you drill through to the page being transcluded, User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Wales, you'll see that it was last updated on 26 April 2016. Two days old is about as good as the bot gets. Sometimes it updates daily, sometimes there are gaps of a week or two. Through the miracle of transclusion, the figures appear on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wales articles by quality statistics without an edit to that page. Worldbruce (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Worldbruce. I'll rein in my impatience and wind back my wild January misapprehensions... --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiWork values for WP:Wales

A further Wales query. The Wikiwork factor this morning, using the live table, shows wikiwork values of ω=61,925 and Ω = 5.34 ... so do all of the historic tables for Wales going back to 8 Feb. I can just about cope with the Ω staying the same (whatever we do, it's fractal in nature, and we end up in the same place) but I'd have anticipted the ω value would increase as the number of articles increases. Whatever, I'm this morning looking askance at invariate ω & Ω and thought to ask here for comment. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Poor formatting in tables

The assessment table at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sidebar is poorly formatted. While looking around for the cause I found two other examples at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment#Statistics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Article grading. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Where can I find the API for the tool?

? Couldn't find any hint on https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi

I was thinking about creating some visualization of WikiProjects with requests similar to this: User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Genetics but don't know how to get these results as json or xml.

--Fixuture (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Theo is the one in charge of this, but apparently he's not responding. I'm looking into this myself, so I'll let you know if I can find anything out. Walkerma (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
There is some useful information here with raw data available here. I'm not sure if this will give you what you need, though. Walkerma (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft Class Missing

@Theopolisme and Wolfgang42: Why is User:WP 1.0 bot tabulating Category:Draft-Class Green Bay Packers articles as NA-Class for Wikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay Packers (see here: User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Green Bay Packers). I would like the bot to add a new row for Draft-class, something I feel like I have seen it do before for other projects. If you could provide any assistance, it would be appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Gonzo fan2007:, both editors have been rarely editing recently. As WP:WikiProject Germany has Draft-settings active, I'll try to give you a few pointers for now. "Draft" is no standard class, but can be configured as additional "extra" class (= quality rating). You can find a somewhat technical description of the necessary parameters at Template:ReleaseVersionParameters#Extra_quality_and_importance_ratings (the example uses an extra "BPlus" class, but the same principle applies for an extra "Draft" class). If you need a practical example: the source text of Category:Germany articles by quality includes the currently active "extra1=" parameters for Germany-related drafts. An analogous setting in your project's quality category with your project's name should work. Note: Links to drafts within the bot's own article listing don't work (like here for example), but that behaviour is a known bug for drafts. General counting, statistics and categorization are OK though. GermanJoe (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks GermanJoe! I will check this out and let you know if I have any questions. Appreciate the assistance! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

probably the wrong place to ask

…and I'm sorry for that.

At the Star Trek WikiProject page we have a "recent changes" gadget of some sort that regularly updates as Star Trek-related articles are edited. I started there. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/mainpage/changes led me to Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Star Trek articles by quality log which led me to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Star Trek articles by quality log which is maintained by WP 1.0 bot (talk · contribs) whose talk page led me here.

Here's my question: recently (like, within the past few months), the "recent changes" as it appears on the WikiProject page has stopped lumping together all articles' edits under a drop-down arrow. Now, at Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Star Trek articles by quality log, they show as collapsed, but when that makes it to the WikiProject page, that feature isn't working. Can you possibly point me in the right direction to find someone who can help me with this coding? — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire

I am in the process of setting up a new project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire) which is a spin off of another project. I wanted to get it added to this awesome bot but seem to be having some trouble. I got all the categories made, but when I run the update via here it doesn't seem to add it to the index. Not sure what I am doing wrong. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Bot doesn't seem to run

Hi, I'm here representing WP:RRTF. Our article classifications chart hasn't been updated since January this year, and using the "run bot right away" tool on the bot's page doesn't seem to do anything either. I've tried making null edits to the template page and our page as well; no luck. Just wanted to let you all know, in case the issue hasn't been noticed (or is just happening to us). It's not critical for our task force to have this up and running, but if the bot is truly down, I might take down our chart as it paints a misleading picture of our article status. Thanks for reading! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@2ReinreB2: After you moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Percy Jackson Task Force to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Rick Riordan Task Force on 17 November 2015, the bot switched (on 20 January 2016) from updating a table for Percy Jackson to updating a table for Rick Riordan. The RRTF project page needed to be updated to use the new table name. See if you now have the statistics you would expect. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Worldbruce -- Yeah, it looks much better now. Thanks! Somebody came along and helped with that bit of the name change; just sort of assumed they took care of everything. Thanks again, and happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikiwork factor numbers

Does anyone know if the Wikiwork numbers are working anymore? In the Madonna wikiproject, it does not go down when articles are promoted, has been constant at 3.06 for the past 1 year although close to 15 articles have been promoted. —IB [ Poke ] 08:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned this in January as well but it hasn't been updating since July 2, 2015. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: has anyone contacted the bot owner? I sent him an email. —IB [ Poke ] 11:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think to send him an email; I just saw that the bot still seems to be doing other tasks and the owner hasn't edited in quite a while. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index/Archive_7&oldid=1190142217"