This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Falcon (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 9 August 2020 (→Renamed WikiProjects: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:49, 9 August 2020 by Black Falcon (talk | contribs) (→Renamed WikiProjects: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Alternate process
The following instructions are deprecated because the WP 1.0 bot is running again and has been since Sep 2019.
Bumping thread for 180 days. JoeHebda (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
While WP 1.0 bot daily process is not running, there is a way to get current article counts (assessment wikitable) for your WikiProjects. Follow the two-step process below.
STEP ONE - Generate new project data - At Update project data page,
Choose your Wikiproject & click the Go button. Depending on how busy enwp10 tool is there may be considerable wait time. After completion, run step two.
STEP TWO - Display project table - At Project summary tables page, choose your Wikiproject and click the Make table button.
- Both of these processes can be bookmarked on your laptop. Credit to User:Adamdaley for this helpful contribution. User:JoeHebda - 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not only bookmarked on a laptop, but also a desktop. Anyone doing this must remember to call each of the bookmarks differently to avoid confusion. User:Adamdaley - 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Note - Above instructions were archived, so I am posting again with "bump" to keep from archiving until the WP1.0bot daily process is running. JoeHebda (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Suggestions
Things I miss from the old system:
- Ability to specific which result number to start from, and how many per page (useful for long lists)
- Sorting options (e.g. by title, date, importance, etc.)
- Ability to easily change which quality level is being looked at
- Talk/history links (t . h) for each entry
Kj cheetham (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving the new tool a try and reporting these issues! I've filed bugs for:
- - Custom pagination (what result number to start from/how many results)
- - Sorting options
- - Talk/history links was already filed as a bug previously
- I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Ability to easily change which quality level is being looked at". Are you referring to the big block of options that appears above the old tool's article pages? If so, I assume you mean you are able to "easily" change the quality level by editing the options in that box. We've been trying to avoid re-introducing something like that box because it isn't always relevant and useful, and can be very intimidating for users. I'd love to work with you to think of any ideas about how to change quality level otherwise. Thanks for the helpful reports! audiodude (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks! For pagination, a column with a result number, like the old tool, would be good. To make it easier to know which number you want to display a list from.
- For changing the quality level, yes I was thinking of the block of options, but I certainly agree the old tool isn't overly user friendly. Really don't want to be typing a string, but just selecting an existing option. If it was just A/B/C I'd say radio buttons, but given there are about 18 things listed on the main tables (including things like "Total" and "Unassessed"), maybe a drop down? Could also have another dropdown for Importance, to complete the filtering combinations. Then a button to actually update, rather than updating just when a different option is selected.
- Filtering by the page title text would be the only other filtering option I'd personally be considering. Even just a simple "contains text", or "starts with" or "ends with" (I wouldn't object to a regular expressions tick box though). Kj cheetham (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Audiodude: What are your thoughts on filtering mechanisms? Cheers. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Audiodude: sorry for the extra ping, just thought this section might have gotten lost a bit. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. Here's the bug for updating quality/importance and another for filtering by article title. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
add ORES score and reimplement old score value display
The old table lists included a score which was useful to sort by to identify articles probably in need of reassessment especially in stub and start levels. Implementing these as a sortable field again would be useful. Though you might also consider displaying the ORES predicted vs the current rating as a prompt to review the article.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- We decided to omit the score column from the frontend output, because the value is not currently being updated by the WP 1.0 bot. It is stale, on the order of over a year. The ORES score definitely looks interesting, but I'm worried about if I can make a single API call with all the 100 revids of the articles on the page. And even then, we currently defer looking up revids for articles because it requires a Misplaced Pages API call, so I wouldn't even have the revids to look up. Also, I'm not sure how we would allow for sorting of this column across several pages of data. I know that all sounds negative, but I do appreciate the suggestion and it's definitely something to think about. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough to omit a stale score, but good to know why. As for the ORES lookup, no worries just a feature request to think about. Regarding the sort of the columns across several pages of data that actually would be switching between queries that have an order by for the column. Given exclusion of the ORES and old score an order by the date for the class, importance, and name would be the most obvious for a query as alphabetical, reverse alphabetical, chronological and reverse chronological. Selection of the new sort should probably land the user at the page 1 again for the selected order by. If the user has the ability to jump to any page one could reasonably navigate. Though there may be interest to jump to a year or year month or letter of the alphabet which could be based on the first item in a default set list length. Anyway, possible thoughts on the column sorting approach for you.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Without the ORES, could another option be to have the page size listed? That would at least in some cases serve as an indication that an article has been expanded and may need reassessment, or a quick indicator that an article has been merged and redirected without the assessment being updated. --Sable232 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- A sortable column for page size would definitely be useful I think if possible. --Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Audiodude: What do you think about a page size column? -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- A sortable column for page size would definitely be useful I think if possible. --Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Without the ORES, could another option be to have the page size listed? That would at least in some cases serve as an indication that an article has been expanded and may need reassessment, or a quick indicator that an article has been merged and redirected without the assessment being updated. --Sable232 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough to omit a stale score, but good to know why. As for the ORES lookup, no worries just a feature request to think about. Regarding the sort of the columns across several pages of data that actually would be switching between queries that have an order by for the column. Given exclusion of the ORES and old score an order by the date for the class, importance, and name would be the most obvious for a query as alphabetical, reverse alphabetical, chronological and reverse chronological. Selection of the new sort should probably land the user at the page 1 again for the selected order by. If the user has the ability to jump to any page one could reasonably navigate. Though there may be interest to jump to a year or year month or letter of the alphabet which could be based on the first item in a default set list length. Anyway, possible thoughts on the column sorting approach for you.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
We don't store that data in our WP1 database, so we would either need to start doing so (but in that case wouldn't it get outdated?), or we would need to make an API call for each article in a given category. It might be possible for certain article item counts, say 50-100, to show the page size in its own column. But given 3389 articles, how do you allow the user to sort by page size without making API calls for all of them? It would be too slow and costly. I'm open to ideas if I'm missing something here. Thanks, audiodude (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I guess it's a balance between keeping it up to date at a cost, and the data being too stale to be useful. Doing an API call for every article every time someone looks at a list is obviously too much, and doing it once a month and storing the data would likely be too old some of the time. But what about a weekly update of page size...? Just wondering really, not heavily pushing for it! -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- With some reworking of the bot's database schema, we could probably record the page size at the time that the article rating changes. However, I don't see how this is useful unless you could compare against the current page size, which is what I believe @Sable232: was talking about. The absolutely current page size would require an API call, however the once-a-week page size might be able to be calculated during normal ratings sweeps. So assuming this is possible, let's say an article was rated on 2019-08-20, and had a page size of 102,310 bytes. Then would it be useful to see "Page Size (this week)" of 110,407 bytes? I'm just trying to figure out the precise use case. Alternately, I just had a thought, which is: we could do the API lookup for a specific view of a specific project, as an experiment, and see if it ends up being useful. So if you're viewing all Low importance/Stub quality articles of Lakes, say, it shows the page size at article rating time and current. If it turns out to actually be useful we can figure out a way to enable a similar feature globally. audiodude (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- At a simplistic level of use case, I was thinking in terms of if you see a Stub article with a large page size, or a B class article with a tiny page size, you know it might be worth investigating if the rating is suitable. And could find what counts as "large" or "small" for that project by sorting based on page size. Wolfgang8741 might want to comment further. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Audiodude and Kj cheetham: I think the the page size at assessment is worth exploring and could provide the nudge to check if a page should be reassessed. I think the most useful information to present would be the current page size (weekly should be sufficient) and a calculated % difference from the original size. I don't know if presenting the size when assessed matters unless someone wanted to run an analysis of the deviations (then there should be a data download option for the table). That said logically the size between stub, start, and C might present the most significant changes in page size, while B and above may be less significant. Though that is a guess, where an analysis of the articles would confirm or deny this. I kind of wonder if the number of changes to the page since the last assessment may also be a hint. Again we should expect more stability as a page matures other than maintenance of the wiki styles. Though I don't know the origin of the original score and what that was based upon either. Even the most basic indication will be helpful over having no diff of bytes or number of edits since last assessed. To sum - lets run the experiment proposed on Lake Stubs and see where this gets us. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Wolfgang8741: That all makes sense for the most part, and we can try our experiment, sure. The thing I don't understand is that you say we should compare to the "original size". What is original size? The size at the very first ever revision? It seems to me that actually the size-when-assessed is much more useful information. Like "This became a Start article when it was 18k bytes long. As of this week, it is 30k bytes long". Added a bug on Github. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Just to add, I don't think the size when the article was first created (if that's what "original size" means) would be very useful after it has been first assessed, as Audiodude says, size-when-assessed would be more helpful. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Audiodude, for the explanations, as well as your excellent work on this. Can you clarify which parts of the external interest scores are unavailable? There are three components to that score - page links, no. of hits and no. of other language versions of the article. Are any of those numbers available? Even one out of three could be useful here. I'm someone else who finds the scores useful. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Just to add, I don't think the size when the article was first created (if that's what "original size" means) would be very useful after it has been first assessed, as Audiodude says, size-when-assessed would be more helpful. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Wolfgang8741: That all makes sense for the most part, and we can try our experiment, sure. The thing I don't understand is that you say we should compare to the "original size". What is original size? The size at the very first ever revision? It seems to me that actually the size-when-assessed is much more useful information. Like "This became a Start article when it was 18k bytes long. As of this week, it is 30k bytes long". Added a bug on Github. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Audiodude and Kj cheetham: I think the the page size at assessment is worth exploring and could provide the nudge to check if a page should be reassessed. I think the most useful information to present would be the current page size (weekly should be sufficient) and a calculated % difference from the original size. I don't know if presenting the size when assessed matters unless someone wanted to run an analysis of the deviations (then there should be a data download option for the table). That said logically the size between stub, start, and C might present the most significant changes in page size, while B and above may be less significant. Though that is a guess, where an analysis of the articles would confirm or deny this. I kind of wonder if the number of changes to the page since the last assessment may also be a hint. Again we should expect more stability as a page matures other than maintenance of the wiki styles. Though I don't know the origin of the original score and what that was based upon either. Even the most basic indication will be helpful over having no diff of bytes or number of edits since last assessed. To sum - lets run the experiment proposed on Lake Stubs and see where this gets us. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- At a simplistic level of use case, I was thinking in terms of if you see a Stub article with a large page size, or a B class article with a tiny page size, you know it might be worth investigating if the rating is suitable. And could find what counts as "large" or "small" for that project by sorting based on page size. Wolfgang8741 might want to comment further. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- With some reworking of the bot's database schema, we could probably record the page size at the time that the article rating changes. However, I don't see how this is useful unless you could compare against the current page size, which is what I believe @Sable232: was talking about. The absolutely current page size would require an API call, however the once-a-week page size might be able to be calculated during normal ratings sweeps. So assuming this is possible, let's say an article was rated on 2019-08-20, and had a page size of 102,310 bytes. Then would it be useful to see "Page Size (this week)" of 110,407 bytes? I'm just trying to figure out the precise use case. Alternately, I just had a thought, which is: we could do the API lookup for a specific view of a specific project, as an experiment, and see if it ends up being useful. So if you're viewing all Low importance/Stub quality articles of Lakes, say, it shows the page size at article rating time and current. If it turns out to actually be useful we can figure out a way to enable a similar feature globally. audiodude (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
SIA class articles don't display in table
The extended classes and even Redirect a non-standard class appears in the table, but the non-standard class SIA class is not being displayed in the table. It does display in the horizontal summary of Category:SIA-Class_Lakes_articles. Shouldn't SIA appear in the table like any non-standard class? Template:Class
 FA |  A |  GA | B | C | Start | Stub | FL | List | Category | Disambig | Draft | File | Portal | Project | Redirect | Template | NA | ??? | Total |
| 6 | 0 | 45 | 165 | 665 | 4,318 | 11,495 | 1 | 609 | 2,522 | 136 | 20 | 138 | 1 | 43 | 1,035 | 149 | 10 | 2 | 21,360 |
Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify I was referring to the WP Lakes table.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I don't see that category in the old tool either. And it doesn't even appear in the summary table on Misplaced Pages. I'm not exactly sure what the behavior should be here. Are you using a custom "replaces" directive in your template somewhere? audiodude (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm, indeed. I'm not sure the SIA ever was implemented as its own class in the editorial table, but as a distinct type from disambig and being a specialized list the expected behavior would be similar to redirect, list, disambig and have its own row in the table. There is a chart of classes on the SIA page that are possibly used by project. At the very least set these as part of the list row or other rather than keep in Unassessed as it currently is being handled. The implementation in the WP Lakes Template is |QUALITY_SCALE = inline |class={{class mask |{{{class|}}} |FQS=yes|redirect=yes|SIA=SIA|SETINDEX=SIA|SET INDEX ARTICLE=SIA}} which I don't know if that answers your question on the "replaces" directive. While WP 1.0 is used for primarily for identifying content to include in an offline version of WikiPedia it would make sense to track these classes in the table to assess for their type of readiness of inclusion and as a project it helps focus on types of pages that need development attention.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I don't see that category in the old tool either. And it doesn't even appear in the summary table on Misplaced Pages. I'm not exactly sure what the behavior should be here. Are you using a custom "replaces" directive in your template somewhere? audiodude (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is what you need: ReleaseVersionParameters template. I believe you need to set the extra1-* attributes. You actually shouldn't use "replaces" because you're adding a new category. This template is used on your main Category:Lakes articles by quality page. For an example, see the Astronomy project. Hope this helps, audiodude (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer, I'll read more of the docs rather than following an outdated or incorrect example that seemed like it should work... first time working on templates. Still learning. :) Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is what you need: ReleaseVersionParameters template. I believe you need to set the extra1-* attributes. You actually shouldn't use "replaces" because you're adding a new category. This template is used on your main Category:Lakes articles by quality page. For an example, see the Astronomy project. Hope this helps, audiodude (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Table link bug
On say https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Women_scientists/articles?quality=B-Class if you go to the "Back to table" link at the upper left it takes you to https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Women_scientists which is effectively blank. It should actually go to https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Women%20scientists to make it work it seems? -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for reporting! Created a bug. I'll fix it right now. audiodude (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Sort order for diacritics and the like
Some (perhaps all) diacritics and similar should be ignored in sorting article titles.
For an example of the current problem, see https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/New_Zealand_politics/articles?quality=Assessed-Class&importance=Top-Class. The title "Āpirana Ngata" (which begins with a macronised A) appears at the bottom of the article list (excluding templates and books) rather than among the A's near the top. This is a particular problem for New Zealand articles, where macrons are not infrequent.
For another example, see https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Hawaii/articles?quality=Assessed-Class&importance=High-Class&page=5. I believe the ʻokina should be ignored, so that "ʻAi Noa" and "ʻĀhihi-Kīnaʻu Natural Area Reserve" (for examples) should appear among the A's. Nurg (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
No new log entries?
Changes to WikiProject Theatre don't seem to be logged consistently at the moment. The bot didn't log a change I made a few days ago. It did however log some changes the next day. Then I made a bunch of changes to assessments yesterday. The bot cleared the older entries but no new ones were logged. Seems odd. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 11:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is WP:VPT#Toolserver replication lag for enwiki is now over 36 hours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (séance) 23:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Song articles by quality log hasn't has new content added for a couple of days. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Same cause. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for response, I guessed so, but worth mentioning. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Same cause. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Song articles by quality log hasn't has new content added for a couple of days. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (séance) 23:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect actions
Hello, there appears to be a problem on the 3 August 2020 run of the BOT. It has assessed items that were renamed in the previous run and removed the articles that they were renamed to. So it is indicating that it has reassessed redirects and removed that actual articles. See Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Yorkshire articles by quality log for example. Keith D (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is WP:VPT#Replication lag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Renamed WikiProjects
What is the process for cleaning up WikiProject tables when a project and/or its assessment categories are renamed? For example, I just renamed the assessment categories of WikiProject Appalachia and triggered a manual update of the table, yet the update is happening at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/WikiProject Appalachia instead of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Appalachia, and the table still links to the old, now-deleted category names. I am also not sure how to change Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Appalachia articles by quality log to Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Appalachia articles by quality log (in my experience, simply moving the page does not work), and puzzled by the separate existence of User:Audiodude/Tables/Project/WikiProject Appalachia. Assistance would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon 22:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)