Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikipedia 1.0
Projects (talk)(FAQ)
Main bot list
(talk) — (stats)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Release Version (t)
(Nominations) (t)
[You can help]
Version 0.5 (t) (ending)
V0.5 to do — V0.5 bot list
CORE TOPICS
CORE SUPPLEMENT

Core topics - 1,000
(Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project (Talk)
WORK VIA WIKI
PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

*/Archive 1

*/Archive 2 (April/May 2006, mainly on setting up Mathbot assessments)

*/Archive 3 (June-Sept 2006)

This is the main discussion page for the Work via Wikiprojects part of the Wikipedia 1.0 project. Please leave comments below. For technical issues regarding Mathbot, please direct your questions and comments to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index.

WP1.0 editorial team discussions – Core topics discussions – Wiki sort discussions – FAs first discussions – Pushing to 1.0 discussions

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Minnesota

I think we have enough interested editors to do some reviewing etc. How do we get started? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! Take a look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot, set up the basic categories then tag a few article talk pages. A suitable model to use might be Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Virginia articles by quality, which seems to be going well thanks to a very experienced coordinator (he even wrote an AWB plugin to help!). If all goes smoothly, Mathbot should pick up your project then (later) the articles on its next sweep through (usually done every night, Minnesota time). If that test works then you can start in earnest with your assessments. Let us know if you hit any problems along the way, and in the meantime I'll look out for the Minnesota project appearing in the main listing. Thanks again and good luck! Walkerma 03:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool I got it figured out I think, take a look: Category:Minnesota_articles_by_Importance and Category:Minnesota_articles_by_quality am I missing anything? I hijacked our existing wikiproject template so there are like 400 uncategorized articles. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine, though I think it missed tonight's bot run - watch for it tomorrow night! For the category by importance page I'd suggest putting in the table from here rather than the quality assessment template. Other than that I think it all looks hunky dory! Cheers, Walkerma 06:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Assessment

Hello! I have gone so far as to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Assessment. What do I do now? Is this the point you come in? Inge 09:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this query when it came in, I was away and off the internet when you contacted us, as were some others who often answer in my absence. Anyway, you seem to have got things running very nicely there; just ask here if anything arises, and I will normally reply in a day or two. Having looked at your list I have one question for you- I posted a question about references in your top-level article, heraldry some time ago but this hasn't yet been resolved. If someone from the project can help with this we can add the article into Version 0.5. At present I think it would be an automatic fail for GA or FA on these (admittedly rather technical) grounds, a shame for an important and otherwise nicely written article. Thanks, Walkerma 01:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Stagecraft Assessment Help

Hi, I'm looking to set up some sort of assessment for the stagecraft wikiproject. I was hoping to do it similar to the novels project assessment and I was just wondering if someone might be able to help me do that. I don't really know where to start and any help I could get would be great. Thanks! Lekogm 16:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Assessment. If that's close enough I can probably help set it up for you.--Bookandcoffee 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that looks pretty good. I already have started working on an assessment subpage. I tried to create all the categories on my own and somehow screwed that up. Any help you might be able to give would be apreciated. --Lekogm 06:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
To prepare that area of Wikipedia for Mathbot to assess, take a look at the [[instructions on using the bot. You'll need to set up a few categories, (one for each assessment level) and place these in Category:Stagecraft articles by quality, and put that category into the main Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments category. Tag a few articles and away you go! The importance categories are done in a similar way - if people don't get upset about their articles being tagged as "low importance" (or you can call them "low priority") these are helpful in making sure the key articles float to the top of the lists. Let us know if you need more help. Walkerma 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried all that and somehow managed to screw up the categories. The template wanted to use a category that I didn't create even though I had created it already, so now I have double categories. Not gonna lie, I'm pretty lost. --Lekogm 06:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's the old upper case/lower case problem that is such a nuisance on Wikipedia. No harm done, and the bot picked things up just fine. You now have a list! I reassessed the stage lighting article as a B (for GA it needs to be passed at WP:GA), we can see if the log picks up the change tonight (it should appear in bold). Then we just need to ask an admin to delete the "Stagecraft Articles" categories and keep the "Stagecraft articles" categories, and then you can start assessing! Let us know if you need more help. Walkerma 15:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Awesome, I used the GA assessment as a test to see if it worked and I forgot to change it. If things don't seem to go well after the bot updates tonight I'll come back and let you know. What's the best way to get an admin to delete these empty categories? --Lekogm 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the Start class articles were added by the bot. All the code appears to be correct. Is there any reason this would have happened? --Lekogm 12:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be there now - I guess you fixed the problem! Let us know if there is anything wtill wrong. Cheers, Walkerma 04:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's my new issue. I have 110 articles/pages with the banner on them, but the bot only lists 97 articles. Any ideas? --Lekogm 19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be either a cache delay, in which case it'll update itself in a day or two. Alternatively, it could be caused by the server error that occurred recently that made some bots go haywire - thankfully Mathbot only misbehaved a little. See the recent comments below. If the problem persists, let us know one or two of the articles that aren't showing up and I'll try to see what's wrong. Walkerma 05:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WVWP and the release version (WP:WPRV)

Once WP:V0.5 and WP:WVWP are complete, this project could put some of its articles into WP:WPRV (release version). Otherwise, there would be no use for this project. What do you think? Eyu100 23:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiplication scale

Once this project is almost finished, articles could be put into the release version like this:

  • Quality:
  1. FA-Class is 7.5
  2. A-Class is 6.5
  3. GA-Class is 5
  4. B-Class is 4.5
  5. Start-Class is 4
  6. Stub-Class is 2
  • Importance:
  1. Articles that are needed for completeness will have their importance rating doubled
  2. Top-importance is 7.5
  3. High-importance is 6
  4. Mid-importance is 4
  5. Low-importance is 2.5

The rating of an article is its quality rating times its importance rating. Articles which have a rating of 20 will automatically be included in the release version.

NOTE: the minimum rating can be increased to get better articles (at the expense of quantity) or decreased to get more articles (at the expense of quality).

Any thoughts? Eyu100 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This scheme does look to be well thought out, with numbers picked to match with our general aims. If we want a large-scale release, we definitely need some automation. You can see how much time the two of us have spent reviewing in the last week, we couldn't possibly cope with a list of 20,000 articles! We definitely lose something when we do this, because some Start-Class articles are nicely written but incomplete (as with Luxembourg (city), but others are much longer but are very poorly written/organized. There are many article, though, which can be included without much debate.
Importance is a much more difficult thing to handle, because (a) everything is relative and (b) the majority of projects don't record it in their bot lists. I think we will need to classify the importance of WikiProjects ourselves, just into broad levels, but we won't be able to do detailed rankings without everyone hating us! Clearly an article that is Top importance in WikiProject USA is a lot more important than one that is Top in WikiProject Texas, and that in turn is more important than one that is Top in WikiProject Dallas. But how do we compare one that is Medium in USA, with one that is High in Texas, Top in Dallas? Not easy. To muddy the waters even more, I've found that some projects use the importance rankings as we specify them (i.e., as meaning importance within the project) but a few tend to alter it to compensate for the importance of their project (e.g. the Thomas the Tank Engine project puts nearly all of their articles as medium or low, because they recognise the more specialised nature of their project). Even with two projects that are apparently at an equivalent level - pop groups - most people would consider a Top importance Beatles article more important than a Top importance KLF article. I think again the solution is to automate the obvious cases, and then review the more debatable ones manually.
WVWP is currently generating two sets of lists. (1) The bot-generated lists obviously dominate, and provide us with a huge resource. However, we can't use only those lists, because we can't force projects to use the bot, and therefore we need the manual lists. (2) The manual lists are just short, but they typically contain the highest importance & quality articles from a given project, i.e. the articles we would want to use.
Overall, I'd be OK with us testing out your proposed scheme on a subset of articles, then taking a quick manual look at what we have. The only real flaw in this plan IMHO is in the importance aspect - we might limit it to articles from fairly broad projects, where even mid-importance is equivalent to something still reasonably significant. If we are using the importance ratings from a TV show WikiProject or something much narrower, we need to scale these down accordingly, perhaps on a project by project basis. Walkerma 01:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Tito raises a good point on my talk page, a stub on a Top-Importance topic would automatically go in. I think we should have a minimum quality level of B-Class for automatic inclusion. We would review any Top-Start articles manually, and only look at Top-Stub articles that are REALLY top importance (i.e. Core topics and the like). Walkerma 01:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
We can tweak the numbers; I am changing Stub-Class from a 3 to a 2 (note: if the stub is required for completeness, it will be included even if it is only mid-importance). Also, if Earth was a stub, you would include it anyway even if it is not required for importance. I think we should make top-importance articles from more general Wikiprojects. Another option would be to give the actual Wikiprojects importance ratings, but that might be controversial. I tweaked the numbers a little bit. Eyu100 04:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of asking Martinp23 if he could set up his bot to run this (or some similar algorithm). I left the formula vague for now; I envisage us testing out a sample set of project worklists, and seeing what works best. I've been thinking, we might be able to set up an additive algorithm that produces identical results to the multiplicative one suggested here, but it (probably) using much less server time. We can try a few different things, I think. Martin says he will start working on this over the coming weekend. Walkerma 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany

I just, ahem, "borrowed" the template for WikiProject Virginia to set up the assessment parameters of the new project. Please advise what else I am supposed to do. I am aware of the need for categories and will be setting them up as soon as I finish this message. Also, for what it's worth, I intend to fulfill my promise to contact the various projects as soon as the templates, etc., for the above project are set up. I figure I can advise other projects better once I know something about what I'm talking about myself. Badbilltucker 22:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing I see, Category:WikiProject Germany artciles by importance will need to be renamed with the correct spelling of articles, I think. A more serious problem seems to be that a set of categories was created with names like Category:Stub-class Germany articles (small c), but the template is designed to place articles in a category called Category:Stub-Class Germany articles (large C). However, it doesn't even seem to be doing that, because the word stub needs to be capitalised too, as Stub! capitalisation matters, or should that be CAPITALISATION MATTERS!? I've added a comment to the bot instructions, this has happened more than once before (I've done it), indeed with the #Stagecraft_Assessment_Help question just above. I changed one class=stub to class=Stub, at Talk:Klaus Naumann, and it is now generating the correct (non-existent) category. Interestingly, the talk page templates (WP:Bio, WP:MILHIST and WP:Germany) are now more than twice as long as the article itself - something wrong there?! Do any admins know how to rename/move categories? Keep trying! Thanks, Walkerma 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject American Animation

Hello, everyone. I am a member of this once-nearly defunct project that I only started to revive this past weekend. In such a midst, I have created {{USAnimation}}, our project template, and have tagged up to 76 pages with it. Right now, I am also setting up the article quality category, and will fix up the template with that in mind. In a day or two, we will announce our WP:1.0 selection. So, as soon as I've straightened up everything, please let me know. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything looks good at this point. We'll see if the bot picks it up tonight. Thanks for reviving the project (it's been lurking on my watchlist unseen for months!), and also for using the bot! Walkerma 03:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
While I was typing the above, Mathbot picked up your category. Yay! Walkerma 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ethnic groups articles by quality

Thread moved to Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Problem_at_Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team.2FEthnic_groups_articles_by_quality --kingboyk 11:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Comics

I've set up the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article Classification and the bot has worked out some stats on the brief tagging done already at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Comics articles by quality statistics but Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Comics articles by quality and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Comics articles by quality log are redlinks. Are these bot generated or do I need to set them up manually? Steve block Talk 08:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They're done automatically. They aren't redlinks to me here... Titoxd(?!?) 08:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Titoxd. If I'd waited ten more minutes... Yes, they hadn't set up when I posted, and since the bot runs at three I thought they'd set up then. Apologies, I guess these bots have a lot to do. :) Steve block Talk 09:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm having a go at setting up for comments, but what does the bot do with these comments? Steve block Talk 11:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon Collaborative Project problems

Sorry if this is the wrong to place, or I'm asking a stupid question, but I added the template to the talk page, etc etc, and Mathbot add the info to this page, but didn't create two of the links. Do you know what I did wrong? Cheers, Highway Grammar Enforcer! 09:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Now all looks good. It just took the bot six hours to get to that project, as it works on them one by one down the list. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs...

Has begun assessments. Badbilltucker 14:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'll watch for it's appearing tonight - just watch those capital letters! Are you cooperating with the long-established Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds? They have provided us here with info, they certainly were quite active. User:Elf was the contact, I think. Walkerma 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
We're in contact with them. They don't (yet) seem to have any objections to the existence of the newer group, and there may (maybe, sometime) be a merger down the line a little. Badbilltucker 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Beekeeping ...

Just started and wants to use the bots. Badbilltucker 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like things there are under way just fine, and I know Martin is a bot expert (he's written a bot for both of us!). So, do you think we should wait & see if they need any help, or should we be more proactive? Thanks, Walkerma 07:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject South Dakota ...

is now set up for the bot. Badbilltucker 15:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot problems

Don't be surprised if things are held up for a while - Oleg reports that the "Bot went mad"! Hopefully he can fix things soon, but please be patient! Walkerma 06:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question and comment

Wikipedia:WikiProject Underground seems to be doing assessments independent of everyone else. Someone else might want to contact them about whether they want to set up for the bot. And, as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations, at least two members (myself and someone else) have indicated interest in setting up for assessment. I guess I'll set it up for assessment when I get my current activities finished, some time in the next millenium or so. :/ Badbilltucker 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they are using the bot, and the project shows up in the main listing. However, I notice that WP:Dogs seems to have disappeared off the bot listing - what happened? Did someone vandalise the template? I'm glad to hear about the Radio Stations project, my WP1.0 messages never seemed to be received! Walkerma 04:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The "dogs" came up today in the list. For some reason the bot does not always get the most recent information in categories. I plan to switch to a different way of getting info from categories as suggested by Salix alba and Titoxd at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index, hopefully that will help. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada & Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

I think these projects is set up for the bot now. On the Canada project sidebar, they had indicated that they would have an assessment department, so I just sorta created it. I don't think they'll get mad at me. Religion had no official members, so, as the first real member, what I say goes. Isn't autocracy a grand thing? :) Badbilltucker 20:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New table format? Can choose to keep old one?

Hi,

If you look at the sidebar down the right side of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, the version 1.0 statistics table has kinda hosed the sidebar. The table is wider than it used to be. I looked at in both Firefox and MSIE; both look bad. Is there an option to return to the old format...?

Thanks --Ling.Nut 02:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

PS we may just move the table out of the sidebar, but I'd still like to know if there's an option to return to the old table format...
Thanks --Ling.Nut 02:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
We can't easily change this back, I'm afraid - and we thought the extra information was worth the inconvenience, since now you know (at a glance) things like whether your Top importance articles are FAs or stubs.. The only other option at this point is to widen the sidebar as they did at the India WikiProject. Walkerma 04:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about changing the new one back, but rather about having two options.
I am now leaving comments across two forums; please forgive..--Ling.Nut 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
For his own sanity, Oleg has a pretty strict policy of having one standard system for all - customising the different features for all the different WikiProjects would be a nightmare to administer. For myself, I thank God every night that we have Oleg and his bot at all! Walkerma 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal & Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru

are both set up for the bot now. Badbilltucker 19:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I ran the two using the brand new web-based tool documented in the instructions. The Peru project has no articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Mainz task force

Specifically requested being set up for the bot separately. I believe that it is now ready. Badbilltucker 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be, Munich too. Are you sure you want to maintain separate lists for every German city, though? I would've thought it better to include them all together under Germany, or perhaps German cities. I realise the Australians have separate lists for Adelaide etc, but there are only ~7 major cities there, and they have a history of strong city WikiProjects. No problem though, if that's the preference of the project. Walkerma 06:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither one was my idea, although I agree that they might be unnecesarily complicating. However, they might be useful later as examples for projects which are so large as to have markedly different importance parameters. Anyway, like I said, I didn't propose them. Badbilltucker 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters

I noted that several of the categories for this project were either not made or insufficiently detailed, so I tried to ensure that they were created right. I have no way of knowing if any problems were reported, but they should be gone now whether they were or weren't reported. Badbilltucker 17:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink

is now set up for the bot. When they will actually start using it I can't really say, but I will assess a few articles myself today. I am going to join the project to give me the bona fides to do so. Badbilltucker 22:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion

Hello. I'm a member of a WikiProject Abortion. How would I and other members of this WikiProject go about joining and participating in this project? Any advice in helping to build and improve articles within our small project would be truly appreciated. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 10:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The best way I can think of is to read the Project Guide, which has been written primarily by people who have been among the most successful in project work, and implementing some of the suggestions there that apply to your project. Anything else I might say is probably already better said there. Badbilltucker 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject United States

is, I believe, set up for the bot. Badbilltucker 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Bhutan & Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia ...

are set up for the bot. Badbilltucker 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is all good work of course, so thanks! I have a question though. Are you setting up the necessary pages because the projects asked for it, or you do it first and then you hope they will use them? That would show if the recent flurry of additions to the index actually corresponds to people assessing more articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Not so much hope. I am actually a member of both of these new projects, and created the banners with assessment parameters. I will be personally assessing most of the articles myself, as I finish the current project I am working on assessing. Regarding Asian Americans below, they specifically had on their project page a redlink to the assessment division, among several other red links. I simply filled it in for them, and created the banner and userboxes as well. I have contacted the creator of that project and informed her of this. With any luck, she will be starting assessments soon. If she doesn't, I figure to try to alternate projects to get them all assessed. Badbilltucker 16:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans

is set up for the bot. Badbilltucker 16:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar

At the explicit request of the project's creator here, this project has been set up for the bot. Badbilltucker 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry...

had been earlier partially set up for assessments. I believe it is completely set up now. Badbilltucker 01:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Little League...

had created the assessment project page, but none of the categories. The categories now exist, and I believe it is set up for the bot. Badbilltucker 18:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville ...

requested set up for assessments, and now is set up. Badbilltucker 19:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean...

is set up for the bot. Badbilltucker 20:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Taoism ...

are I think both prepared for the bot. Badbilltucker 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Denmark...

has been set up for the bot. Badbilltucker 15:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Setting up for MartinBotII

Recently we tested out User:MartinBotII on data from four projects, with a view to pulling out suitable articles for release versions. I've got details of how it would work written up here. Please take a look and give feedback. Walkerma 09:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Television

I have just set up an assessment department for our project. It appears the bot has already picked up on it. I think it's about time we joined in, but it's just that there is a lot of fandom in our area, which makes it hard to get the right people together at times :D I was just wondering where all the "up to date" information for these kinds of assessment departments is btw. I'm somewhat lost in all the WP 1.0 pages and can't seem to find a set of clear rules TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You may find what you need at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. If the guidance is more on how to run an assessment workgroup, take a look at WP:COUNCIL and the "Resources" there. I will also be writing up a guide to the 1.0 pages once V0,5 comes out. Looking at your project, it looks as if you still need to tag some article talk pages with assessments, so you can see things appear. When you do that, check for capital/lowercase letters and make sure that the right categories appear at the bottom of the talk page after tagging. Cheers, Walkerma 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we have television shows in their current run listed?--Rmky87 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible task force

Maybe this is a strange idea, but a lot of the articles right now don't fall within the scope of any projects doing assessments. A proposal has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Assessment of unassessed articles regarding setting up a group to specifically engage in assessments, and I've made a sample tempalte at {{AAA}}. I'm curious as to whether the rest of you think that this would be a good idea or not, and, if so, exactly what the formal arrangement should be. Should it be a WikiProject, a task force of some other project, or maybe something else? All responses are welcome. Badbilltucker 15:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New direction for this project

[edit] Copied from the above WP:COUNCIL link

Description 
There is currently a great deal of work being done across projects to assess articles for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, and that's great, but a great number of articles are not currently tagged by projects which assess for this, and may never be. Therefore, the purpose of this project would be to tag and assess articles not currently covered by an assessing project, for the purposes of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Badbilltucker 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments

Great idea. Questions come to mind, however. Specifically, would this group basically set up other projects which are not yet doing assessments, and do the assessments for them, or would it have it's own banner and include assessment criteria there? Personally, I would favor the former. If so, I would certainly welcome rolling the proposed Project Support Services project proposal into this one, one way or another. Badbilltucker 18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I had originally planned the latter, however the former seems a better idea. The group could probably get away with also having it's own banner for articles with no project whatsoever, including some quite important ones; Hell comes to mind. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I myself am in the process of doing all the religion related articles, and just haven't gotten to Hell yet. However, I do enthusiastically support the idea. Badbilltucker 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep. In cases where there's an existing project banner to use, it would probably be better to add that than to create some generic one. Kirill Lokshin 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
However, the project could create it's own banner to use in addition to the other applicable project banners. Badbilltucker 17:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
What would be the point? The articles only need to get assessed by a single project in order to enter the system; having an additional banner that's not actually tied to a functional subject-area project doesn't seem useful. Kirill Lokshin 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of something like the existing automatic stub template, possibly with even similar wording. Or maybe a similar addition to existing banners along the same lines as that. Or maybe a small one similar to those used by the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors or similar to indicate that the work had been done by the project. I small three or four line ad, as it were. Also, some projects explicitly say only project members can assess articles, and they might want to know why outsiders assessed the articles for them.Badbilltucker 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
For articles not covered by any project wahtsoever, these would need a seperate banner until a suitible project could be found. I guess part of the scope of this project would be to locate projects for such articles. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It would probably work best if we ran User:PockBot or something similar on a given category we know falls within the scope of a given project, and assess those articles which aren't listed as being assessed yet. Badbilltucker 17:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do! Certain projects would be very happy to have help with getting untagged articles tagged and/or assesed. :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how mnay people we would need to get this to go, considering it isn't at this point so much a project as a function. There is now a {{AAA}} template which could be added to articles to indicate who did the assessment. We'd still need some sort of project page. I've contacted the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team regarding this, and am awaiting a response. Badbilltucker 15:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Sorry I took a while to respond to the above request, I got distracted while working on this earlier. (We're also beta testing Version 0.5 :)). This idea would certainly be an excellent addition to the 1.0 project. We are moving from a manual system of picking articles (as used at Version 0.5) to an automated system (outlined here), to allow us to get much larger collection (V0.5 was only 2000 articles). One ongoing concern with the automated system is that there may be gaps in our selection, if we don't have projects representing that subject area. For example, we have about 2000 Pennsylvania articles (1000 assessed) to pick from, but no Maryland articles. This can affect even broader subject areas - we have Dance and Film covered, but many fine arts like painting and sculpture are not (I think!).

I think I would like to combine the efforts of this proposed group with WP:WVWP (Work via WikiProjects), which was very active (indeed WVWP + Oleg set up the bot assessment scheme), but which has lain dormant since the fall because of people's commitments elsewhere (e.g. to Version 0.5). People have also become less interested in contacting WikiProjects now that the projects are coming to us at the rate of about one per day! It is clear that the focus of WVWP should shift from trying to contact all projects, and switch to trying to focus inactive projects. Traditionally (i.e., last year!) many of these functions you describe have fallen to WVWP - we have recorded information manually from projects that are not using the bot, we have helped projects get started with the bot, and sometimes just given general guidance (the role now played by this council). We did a lot of assessments for projects that were new to the concept - Doctor Who, Adelaide, all sorts - just to help them get started. Once they had some examples of assessment of their own articles, they were able afterwards to perform their own assessments and start using the bot. Tagging articles that fell outside the jurisdiction of any active project was less relevant when we only had 50 projects using the bot; it is an excellent idea, and it is a natural evolution for WVWP to work on this.

Therefore I would like to propose that the 1.0 team and the Council collaborate closely on this, with perhaps a joint team. Two ways to do this:

  1. Rewrite the goals of WVWP to incorporate the new modus operandi, and also bring it under joint jurisdiction of WP:COUNCIL and WP:1.0. Much of the existing infrastructure can be used and adapted. (By the way, one of my next projects is to write a site map for the rabbit warren that is Wikipedia 1.0, that may help!).
  2. Set up a completely new project under WP:COUNCIL as described above, with a more narrow focus than WVWP, but work closely with WVWP.

I strongly favor the former, mainly because I think we don't want to multiply groups when we may only have a couple of active people in each! Also, despite our inactivity in recent months, there are still occasional edits to our manually listed tables and questions on our talk page. About a year ago we contacted all the WikiProjects ("all" as of Oct '05, much fewer than today) so the community has heard of us. Tables like Philosophy & Religion and (even worse) Humanities) desperately need updating, but there is a lot of valuable information on these tables that should be used. I'd like to find some way of expanding & updating lists like this bot list, which is (in effect) "All the Arts article assessments that come from projects not using the bot". It can be a lot of work, but in fact a couple of us were able to achieve a great deal when it was a major focus for us. What do others think? Walkerma 19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds brilliant, probably by far the best way to do this. I too favour your former idea, much better to run as part of the project then to become a seperate one in our own right; it will probably get off the ground quicker that way, and gain more contributers, too. Also, the fact that the project has already existed for some time, and is well known, will greatly help us. Another deciding factor is that WVWP is on the verge (i.e. may do in a year or two, seems fine for now) of going inactive, which would be a great shame as it was a highly successful Wikipedia group, whereas this would keep the old project going, just under a new direction in adition to it's present duties. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 20:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. Badbilltucker 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Great! Should the 3 of us (+ other interested parties, eg Tito or Kirill?) get together on IRC, or have a conference call on Skype, to work out the best way to do this? Or should we just thrash out our ideas over at Talk:WVWP? I'll try and do some cleanup at WVWP in the next few days, and also work on the site map I mentioned. Walkerma 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've never used IRC, and don't have Skype, so I would be much more comfortable over at Talk:WVWP. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(Copied over from [[WP:Council by Walkerma 04:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, funny. I just uninstalled Skype. :P Unfortunately, I'm having some major connection problems on my house, as my ISP decided to knock down a wire when they went to repair it, so I don't know how long it will take to fix that. Ideally, talk pages were designed for these kinds of things... we should still use them. :) If necessary, I can try connecting from school to IRC, but a set time, during the work week, would need to be scheduled. Otherwise, I like Walkerma's first suggestion better. More groups = divided effort. Titoxd(?!?) 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment of unassessed articles (New discussion)

There was a suggestion at WP:COUNCIL recently, copied above, that there should be a project which works on article assessment in subject areas where there are no formal WikiProjects. In addition, it could help set up new projects with templates and assessments. Since many of these tasks are already informally done here at WVWP, it made sense to combine the work here. This will mean a big change in what we do here (or haven't been doing, recently!). I will be busy trying to write a site map for 1.0 in the next few days, when finished that may help us see what needs to be done. What do folks think about this? Walkerma 04:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This would help us get more articles, so yes, it is a good idea. However, we should get another project to do it because doing it ourselves would take too long. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 14:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Why can't it be a seperate task force within the larger project? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we could certainly do that - though at the moment there are only a handful of active people here (I sense that in Eyu100's comment). Having said that, if we start some serious & productive activity, people will join us to help - that is the way Wikipedia works. Walkerma 15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes - particularly, as I mentioned in the original discusion, above, because this project is already well established, so the task force would quickly gain a lot of support even by Wikipedia standards. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Poke David onto helping us out somehow. He says he is "Envious of de.wp"... Titoxd(?!?) 18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, how should we start this? In other words, how can we best identify articles that are (a) not assessed yet and (b) worth spending time on? Many projects have articles related to their fields that are not even tagged simply because they are relatively obscure topics. I don't want us to waste time on those because they should get covered eventually by the relevant project, and anyway they're not that important. We need to find the important articles that haven't been assessed yet. I'd like to suggest we start with Vital articles, this is a list of the top 1000 or so, and make sure these have all been assessed. Any one of these 1000 could be major enough to be its own WikiProject, so if we find any major gaps we could try and muster up interest in starting one. We might do the same with WP:CORE and WP:CORESUP, which are other lists of important articles (about 400 from the two, some of which overlap with VA) - these should all have been assessed, but the assessments may be out of date, and we may identify gaps there too. Another fruitful source of articles could be this project - we could go through the manually-generated tables and add bot-readable tags to them.

Thanks for the comments (further above) & suggestion Tito. I've tried pestering David in the past, since he was one of the early active people at 1.0, he ignored all of my posts for some reason - but I'll contact him again. Interesting that he links to the 1.0 page. Although I have always admired what they have achieved at de, I'm getting less envious of de every day - we have an open source GPL offline reader (de's is proprietary), and we have a quarter million assessed articles (de has none!). I'm hopeful that once the Version 0.5 CD comes out (we're already planning the publicity) we will get some new blood in the 1.0 projects - and maybe others like David will get involved again. As for telephone, Skype & IRC, I like these sorts of things for brainstorming - everyone is there together, and you can be open & frank about the situation knowing that stupid things you say are not on the Web (unlike here). Still, we can certainly bounce ideas round here a lot as well.

Do others have other ideas on how to proceed? I'd like us to frame a strategy before I spend a lot of time rewriting the WVWP project description. Walkerma 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:VA isn't a bad place to start. Another possibility might be to have PockBot run on some key categories.
One important thing to do there is to check whether the untagged articles already have an associated WikiProject that isn't doing assessments yet; there are still quite a large number of such, and prodding them into doing their own assessment will get a lot more articles into the system than just tagging a few in their scope for them will. Kirill Lokshin 18:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree, the best place to start would be those lists, followed by manually identifying some important categories and running Pockbot through them (if indeed it can be modified to do so, but even I, with no knowledge of scripts at all, am reasonably confident it can be done easily). Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm doing a sweep through all of the subprojects of WP:1.0, creating templates to help people find all of the corners of the project! Having done 0.5, my top priority, I reckoned this should be next - please see my effort at the top of the project page. One page is new, VA tagging, and it is designed for doing the task we agreed upon - checking articles from the WP:VA list. At 0.5, we found this low-tech, simple system worked very well, using <s> and </s> to mark articles as being checked. Please feel free to make a start, and to adapt it as you see fit. Meanwhile I will (a) try to rustle up some help - once a few articles have been checked (to show people how it's done) - and (b) I'll get rewriting the main WVWP page to reflect our new "mission." Others are of course welcome to help with these tasks as well! Walkerma 04:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the number of banners without assessments in several of the saints articles, and came here. I think a big part of the problem with getting articles tagged with the relevant banners is the fact that many of the categories are, well, a mess. Articles that at best marginally relate to a category are included, central articles to the category often excluded. If we could fix up categorization, that might make things significantly easier. Does anyone know if anyone is actually doing that? John Carter 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of a specific project to do this, but I know in chemistry the chemistry wikiproject tends to clean up categories and discuss changes. Some things are easier to categorise than others, though. I'd try raising the issue at WP:Saints and/or WP:Catholicism first. By all means ask again for help here if you get nowhere.
Regarding the rewrite of this page and the start of VA tagging, I will start on that once Version 0.5 is completed - hopefully very soon. I'm wading through pages and pages of script output at the moment, cleaning up articles! Walkerma 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
A few of us recently put together a WPBiograply assessment drive. At about the same time, Outriggr created a beta-status script that permits assessing for different projects from the article page. We just started using it, but have found it very effective. Outriggr might be able to modify the script to meet your needs. -- Jreferee 07:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Actually, I already used it for some VA tagging. It really makes things much faster, doesn't it! When I get time to update the main WVWP page, I will recommend we use this tool. He's actually upgraded it to allow you to edit assessments without opening the talk page, but I haven't had a chance to try that yet. Walkerma 05:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science

I'd like to participate in this. I've copied as much of the relevant stuff as I could to Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science/Assessment and the related pages (based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction/Assessment), and copied in the assessment code to the {{HistSci}}. Please let me know what else I should do.--ragesoss 21:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you have everything set up perfectly! You should see MathBot pick it up during the next 24 hours, and things should settle down after 48 hours or so. You can run MathBot manually through the project if you're really impatient. Thanks for using the bot. BTW, speaking personally as a chemist we at WP:CHEMISTRY should probably collaborate with you on getting Antoine Lavoisier up to FA status some time! Cheers, Walkerma 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style of this page

The Work via Wikiprojects page (whose talk page this is) looks kind of messed up for the moment I think, with that large {{Work via Wikiprojects pages}} on top, and now with a blown up Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics (the latter is my fault). It would be nice if the page were made more readable. I tried to reorganize things myself but I could not make it look good (and I don't know what's important and what should be on top). Anybody willing to work on this? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I will move the navigation template to the bottom, if you think that looks better. For a long time people have complained that they couldn't find their way around the maze of 1.0 pages. I am slowly writing templates for all the 1.0 projects, as a way of dealing with that, and the WVWP template is "no. 2 in a series". I put it at the top so that people would be aware that it's now available, but perhaps the time to advertise it is over. Another thing, I'm going to completely rewrite the description of the project (see "New direction..." above), so things on the page will change a lot soon anyway. The current text is out of date. As for the statistics page being "your fault", I really appreciate that information, the project is gearing up to automate the use of it. Thanks, Walkerma 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the the navigation template looks better at the bottom. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martinbot?

Is Martinbot ready to do a full test run? Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just sent Martin a message, then realised that only yesterday he left an update with "garhh" in the edit summary. He's getting really annoyed with BT! Walkerma 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport

Hi, I've just ran your bot three times and hundreds of articles seem to be missing. As you can already tell, there are several of child projects (Formula One, A1 GP etc.). Are the child projects included in the motorsport bot. The project members go round editing all parts of motorsport. Can you please try and get the children projects on the same bot as Motorsport, please. Many thanks. Can you reply on my talkpage, it's easier for me to get to. Davnel03 19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the importance part from our projects assessments

The importance rating has cause enough controversy and is not being used to its full potential in the Aircraft project. What would be the easiest way of removing this part from our assessment profile. Can we just delete the related categories and remove the code from the project banner? What will the bot do after this is done? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if you just delete the importance part of the template, this will remove all of the importance assessments at a stroke. The table should (I think!) start to show all of these as unassessed for importance. If you ever decide to revisit this (because we are starting to use importance for article selection at WP:1.0), you can go back into the history of the main worklist to dig out the information. One compromise many projects use is to agree (by discussion) on a small set - perhaps 5-10 in a project like yours - of Top-Priority articles, and only tag these - that is usually less controversial than the levels below Top. Walkerma 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible replacement of Kofi Annan on VA list?

Considering his term has now expired, I was wondering if it might make sense to replace Annan on the VA list with Ban Ki-moon, his successor? John Carter 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes this would be fine, I think, though it should be changed at WP:VA as well (if not yet done - I know the French have made that update to their list). The VA tagging list is in fact a "snapshot" of the actual WP:VA list from about a month ago, since we can't work with a moving target. Walkerma 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VA tagging

I've started going through some of the articles on the VA tagging list to ensure that the relevant projects have their banners on the talk pages. I would add the WVWP tag someone mentioned on the main page here, but I don't know what it is. Can anyone help me in this regard? Thanx. John Carter 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we may need to create a template. I'd suggest that (for now) we just write a note next to the article name on the VA tagging page. We need to discuss exactly what we plan to use for a template, how it's used, etc. Walkerma 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If we were to create a template, I have seen various 0.5 and 2006 CD article templates on several of these pages already. Might it be possible to create one standard Version 1.0 Editorial Team banner which might be able to function for the entire group? Maybe add criteria for which release if any the article is being considered for, etc. It might be easier to just update an existing template than having to keep adding a new one for every new release. John Carter 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a very good idea. We'll need to get various people to agree with that. This will be much easier to do once the CDs are released - both are due to come out in the same week (the last week of March). I'd say we should plan and write something now, but hold off implementing it until after the CDs are out. Thanks, Walkerma 16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would encourage people to use this javascript tool when looking for assessments. I haven't tried the latest "killer app" version, but even the basic version worked very nicely, and saved a lot of time when looking at what had been assessed. Walkerma 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VA Universities

I notice only Harvard University, Princeton University, and Yale University are included on the VA list. This seems to me slightly US-centric. Shouldn't at least Sorbonne, University of Cambridge and University of Oxford be included as well? John Carter 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

I think the bot may be getting confused by the ampersand in the quality category. It should be depositing the stats in Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/D&D_articles_by_quality_statistics, but instead they're showing up under Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/D. The D&D articles by quality and D&D articles by quality log links aren't showing on the main page here either. How might they be fixed? Would changing the category names from the ampersand to the word "and" work? That'd be an easy fix, if so. Please to advise, thank you very much. :) --Ebyabe 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the amphersand is most likely the problem - if I recall correctly, the bot has had problems in the past with unusual characters in project names. If that doesn't solve the problem, the best place to raise the issue is here. Cheers, Walkerma 03:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WP1.0 Arts

The template isn't working properly on certain articles - specifically the one on Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I'd fix it but I'm not sure how to and don't want to screw up a bunch of articles. Koweja 18:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I'm not able to fix it, I'll see if we can find someone who can. Walkerma 03:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessing projects

I have just compiled a list of all the nominal Projects out there, and will be forwarding a list of those engaged in assessment not already listed here as doing so comparatively shortly. One question, though. At least a few projects place all their articles in a single "unassessed" class. I'm guessing you'll want to have those Projects separated out from the others? John Carter 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is very helpful, thank you for working on it. Are these just the active projects? The list should be compared against those in the sub-directories of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. I'm thinking that perhaps we should highlight the non-assessing projects in 'bold font as a simple way to highlight them. I think what you're doing is definitely the direction we need to be going in.
Could we have an IRC meeting about how to proceed with this project? Several people are interested in helping, we just need to get everyone working in the same direction. There are also some very knowledgable people and/or bots we could bring in to help us. Thanks, Walkerma 16:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a list of all the projects doing assessments, although there don't yet seem to be any inactive projects that do assessments. I have no objections to the IRC meeting, although I admit I have myself never used it so I'm not really sure how to proceed. John Carter 19:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, this is the master list for projects using assessments, any list we used should be based on that. It's updated by bot so it's always within a day or so of being perfect. More later... Walkerma 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I only learnt about IRC last summer, take a look at this message which helped me get started using Chatzilla. I simply downloaded it, clicked a couple of times, and found myself online. You see a list of the people who are logged in, and you type text into a box - when you hit enter it appears in everyone's screen as part of the discussion. IRC is widely used when Wikipedians want to have a virtual meeting. I'll give the IRC channel in the description below. I've already contacted a few people who may be interested. Walkerma 04:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC meeting

I'd like to propose we have an IRC meeting soon to plan a strategy for this project for the next year or so, held at #wikipedia-1.0. Please read this discussion to see what we're planning. I will be away in Chicago (& busy during daytime Chicago time) from 24th-29th March. What dates & times (specify time zone) would be good for people who are interested? Weekends work well for me, during evenings UTC. Walkerma 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite my concerns on your talk page, this could turn out OK for me to join in. Afternoons UTC are generally when I can get online, and Friday and Saturday evenings are very good aswell (also UTC). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Weekend evenings are good for me as well this week. When and at what time? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about this Sat evening UTC (afternoon in the US) - perhaps 1900 UTC? Walkerma 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, we probably need some time for people to download and set up Chatzilla (or whatever). Would Sunday evening 1900 UTC (afternoon in the US) work OK? Walkerma 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Should be able to be there at that time. John Carter 19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Assuming I can set it up OK, I should be able to make it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The time works for me. MahangaTalk to me 02:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I should say that it apears I will no longer be able to make it - my computer is getting nothing but 404 errors from Freenode, and I don't think it's a problem their end, as previous attempts have had a similar result. My computer just doesn't like it. :-(. All I can do is ask that someone drop a note on my talk page saying what was decided; I'll just have to go along with it. Sorry, wish I could be there, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You can try http://www.ircatwork.com if your IRC client acts up. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That works fine. Thanks! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Time
Sunday evening 1900 UTC (2000h CET, or 3pm US Eastern Daylight Savings Time).
Proposed agenda items
  • After VAs and core topics (incl. the supplement), then what?
  • Ways to find the subject areas that currently have poor coverage by projects.
  • How best to organize the work.
  • MartinBotII and Version 0.5 update
  • (please add more as needed)

[edit] WikiProject Environment template

I'm trying to figure out how to add class and importance ratings on the {{environment}} template. I did some fiddling around and I think I got it working. How can I get the importance rating to show in the template, like {{cvgproj}}? I copied the importance code from {{album}}, which doesn't show it. Could someone check it out for me. Thanks. MahangaTalk to me 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm hopeless at these fancy templates, but I know that often they don't show the importance unless the parameter is entered. Make sure you look at an example that has importance=some valid parameter. If that doesn't work, let's hope Kirill Loshkin, Kingboyk or other template expert can help. Walkerma 02:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The easiest thing would probably be to copy the relevant code from a template that does show them; but, really, the code is the same as the code that shows the class, with just a different parameter being used and different text displayed.
(If you can't get it working by Sunday evening, I may be able to fix it for you; but I doubt I'll have the chance to look at it until then.) Kirill Lokshin 15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everyday life / Sports

Can someone who knows what they are doing start the "Everyday life" page and its subsections (incl. sports) please? I have content to add, but there's not place for it yet, and I just wandered in. I'm often WP:BOLD but not when I don't know the templates and formatting yet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and get something put up tomorrow night. Which projects are you reporting for, so I can make sure I cover those? Thanks, Walkerma 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just WikiProject Cue sports and its "child" WikiProject Snooker for now. I'm sure once the section is open others will wander in. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten this, but it's almost 2am and I have to work tomorrow! Maybe tomorrow night? Walkerma 05:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries. Pushing 2am myself, and it's not like I need to spawn a flurry of beer-fuelled activity in the wee-hours. No big hurry. If a week passes I'll ping you about it.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shiny new template

As requested on the IRC meeting, here we have {{WP1.0}}. This template will [hopefully] supercede all of the Editorial Team's banners, including v0.5, v0.7, v1.0, {{WPCD}}, and templates for Vital articles and core topics.

Currently, it is still in beta stage; while I think I did a lot of conditional statements right (see for the template voodoo), it is still missing several things. I did not add those things as I wanted to make sure they were going to be used beforehand.

The template can replace all of the v0.5 templates; the built-in functionality should do it transparently. However, I'd like someone to double-check the category structure I put in the template, as I'm not sure whether I missed something or not.

Some other issues:

  1. It doesn't work with small=yes yet, mostly because I don't know how to do so :P;
  2. I would love to have something similar to the MILHIST "hide" function, to hide all the tags by default;
  3. I haven't put the class parameter in for VAs, CORE or CORESUP, mostly because I'm waiting for the go-ahead signal from those projects;
  4. I did not put importance in, as agreed to;
  5. I did not put the projects list parameter, because I wasn't sure how WP:1.0 would like to handle and display that info.

Please also review the wording, and feel free to take the template out for a spin. The usage is as follows:

{{WP1.0 
| class = (as usual)
| comments = (as usual)
| orphan = yes / no
| VA = yes / no
| core = yes / no
| coresup = yes / no
| category = same as v0.5
| v0.5 = nom (throws an error) / pass / held / fail
| v0.7 = nom / pass / held / fail
| v1.0 = nom / pass / held / fail
| WPCD = yes / no
}}

Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, you should work with User:Kirill Lokshin who is the drive behind {{ArticleHistory}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}}. I think that would benefit all. Too many templates are doing too many things already, and Kirill seems to know what he's doing when it comes to talkpage banners. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Kirill already checked it, and added the collapsing feature, so that is done. Small=yes would be nice, but that I don't know how to do... however, checking the wording, checking the links within the template, and checking the category structure (meaning, did I forget to add an important category?) are still left to do. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed the wording "is part of ... (article list)" to "is one of the (article list)" in two locations on the template, as I think the latter flows more easily. I might be wrong though. John Carter 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Installed it at Talk:Albinism. However, I'm a little concerned that the template is pretty much undocumented. There's nothing explaining what the orphan, VA, core and coresup parameters are for, and even other stuff is only documented in the templates being replaced. Many users would also ask what is the different between pass and held. Etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Also installed it at Talk:New Delhi and discovered that "|v0.5=fail" doesn't seem to do anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the template, and for the examples we can look at. I notice that the WPCD categories are not showing up at all- shouldn't we see those? Also, on Albinism I see that 1.0 categories are being generated, but we don't have a 1.0 release yet, so these are all redlinked. Could you remove the V1.0 references until we reach that point? As for v0.5=fail not doing anything, does it need to? I don't know that we want to advertise too loudly the fact that an article failed V0.5 - unless there is a reason we need to? Thanks, Walkerma 04:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: 0.5: I'm not sure hiding failure is good. Highlighting it is fairly likely to generated fix-it editing action, esp. since it implies that unless fixed it will also fail 0.7 and 1.0. Cf. failed GA and failed FA templates. Maybe its just me, but it seems that they generate a certain amount of activity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the template is not documented yet, mostly because I haven't gotten around to it yet. I will do that, once I have the time, or until somebody beats me to filling out Template:WP1.0/doc. As for the 1.0 cats - I thought I had removed them earlier today? Unless somebody changed the template while I wasn't looking, those should be gone. I'll have a look there. As for v0.5=fail, v0.7=fail, et al, what we did originally was to just remove the {{0.5 nom}} template, so I just kept using that behavior on the new template. As for WPCD - that is exactly the kind of thing I asked about when talking about checking the category tree - it is too complex, and I was bound to miss something. I'll see what I can do. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've commented out the 1.0 categories, and readded Category:Wikipedia CD Selection. In the process, I found Category:Wikipedia Release Version. What is that one for? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not really sure we will need the Release Version template at all; I think your new template covers the same ground and more. We may need to delete it if it is not in use. Thanks, Walkerma 05:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Contact with Contact with" error

I looked in one of the already-established topical sections on the page to which this talk page is attached, and all of the tables in it have headings like "Contact with Contact with WP Rational Skepticism". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessing projects

Please see here for a list of all the projects currently engaged in assessments. I would try to add them to the lists here, but find that the fact that they aren't the same as the layout of the project Directory makes it harder for me to figure out where they go. The projects in alphabetical order are the ones that aren't yet included one the lists of projects doing assessments, the ones by page on the bottom are those which are already included in the contact pages. Is there any way to maybe contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council to perhaps develop a uniform breakdown of these projects? John Carter 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This might not be quite as simple as you think. I regularly do assessments of articles within the scope of WP:CUE, but I use WP:SPORTS and/or WP:BIO assessments, because WP:CUE is too small to support its own assessment dept. I'm actually working (slowly) on a WPP "mega-template" that could kind of revolutionize the WPP assessment concept: it would be a single talk page header, for WP:CUE (or whatever project, in the generic version) that handled assessment parameters from other, more general projects (and with special stuff for WP:BIO, since it is just, well, different due to WP:BLP). I think only a tiny handful of the WP:SPORTS "child" projects have assessment depts., and this is true of many other overarching WPPs' "children", so this might be emminently useful when I'm done with it. However (to get back to the point) it could complicate the entire concept of "WikiProjects doing assessments", depending upon what the goals of such a catalogue are. If the goal is to ID WPPs that have assessment departments, there's no effect at all, but if it is to ID WPPs that are bothering to get into the assessment process, you'd have a very different story. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the purpose of having the list is to
  • (1) know whose banner can be reasonably placed on an article that hasn't yet been assessed to allow assessment of the article, and
  • (2) to know how far along the assessment unit is. I acknowledge that some of the smaller projects might not have sufficient content to set up their own assessment departments, but that's not the point at least to me. I do hope that someone else with more experience adds comments for the Editorial Team as a whole, though.
John Carter 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll see if we can get WP:COUNCIL to use the same organisation scheme as we do, though that may be difficult. It would certainly help to harmonise things, even WP:GA uses the same set of categories as WP1.0. I'm very busy at the moment - tonight was pretty much a one-off - but I'll try to work on this some more when I can. At least I got the main WVWP page done.... (please edit as you see fit). Walkerma 07:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Let us know here when you do that. I for one will argue for it at COUNCIL. The more uniform we make this stuff the better it will work. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The "child projects" like WP:CUE don't need and I would argue shouldn't have their own assessment departments and templates. Share the infrastructure, it's much better that way - less talk page clutter, less pages to maintain, more hands on deck. I think the runaway success of WP:WPBIO and {{WPBiography}} proves this. --kingboyk 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is what I'm getting at. I'm actually working on a new {{Cue sports project}} that will be able to use WP:SPORTS assessments to prevent the tagging of WP:CUE-scope article's talk pages with both projects' tags. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martinbot, yet again

I have been inactive in this project for a while. I am coming back to work on the release version, but what happened to Martinbot? The assessments were originally going to start in January, but nothing has happened. Has British Telecom fixed his internet connection yet? Also, we might want to consider letting projects rate each other after we do a full-scale test with the multiplication scale and linkranking. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 16:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Eyu100! Martin was inactive for a very long time because of the BT connection, or lack thereof. We chatted on the phone last month. He now has a Toolserver account and is setting things up on there. You can see a lot of the developments during your absence here and here. He had told me he would be testing it last weekend, but I haven't heard anything as yet - he mentioned that he needs the Toolserver to be upgraded, supposedly happening soon. I think it's also a very complicated piece of code to write, so it may take him a few weeks. He plans to do testing over the next couple of months, then once some important exams are over in June he should be able to devote a lot of time to it. In the meantime we need to keep reviewing and nominating manually, I think. Walkerma 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/r/Wikipedia_talk%7EVersion_1.0_Editorial_Team_Work_via_Wikiprojects_d82a.html"