@DexDor - Actually, it just got resurrected. The problem we had was that our main tech person quit the project. However, in the last month a group of developers from groups like One laptop per child have begun working with us. Very little is happening on this page just yet, but that should change in the next few months. They're hoping to present the project at Wikimania in June. Walkerma (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The "latest" product was 0.8 which came out in March 2011. Even with Wikipedia's glacial pace of change on policy and direction, 5 years is a lot of ground to make up for. And I haven't seen any evidence that WMF will step in and provide any staff to restart the process. We should declare this a dead/inactive project. OhanaUnitedTalk page00:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a mess. The AR-15 page has moved to colt ar-15 and it's focusing on the colt sporter line of rifles. A minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem. The AR-15 article was in, I think v0.8 and was reviewed for v1.0. Maybe change it to the m-16 article?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, concerning B+ class-- I think it's a little ambiguous as it stands right now. B class is so much more descriptive with its six criteria, whereas B+ class sounds like B class without the criteria. There are obviously some differences; for example, B+ mentions clear in its description, but in the long run I think B+ needs something else to differentiate itself a little. Or we could just leave it be as a class that isn't adopted on the large scale, like A class. Icebob99 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a system which only Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics uses. I think the only group which would know anything about this rank is the one at that WikiProject.
There never was any authority in the editorial team here. Some people designed a grading system but never revised it after seeing it in practice. This is not a system that exists backed by any logic or experience, so lots of things about it make no sense except as the legacy of a theoretical proposal. Blue Rasberry (talk)16:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
If this project is active, the people running it should consider changing the icon. It shows a CD, which is becoming outdated as a media format, and the old Wikipedia logo, which was retired almost seven years ago.
You're right that our icon was designed for when we did releases on CD or DVD. There are a group of us that are becoming active again, and we are working to produce another collection. The main difference is that many of the people involved come from outside the English WP community, e.g., Internet-in-a box, and WP is just one part of the overall collection needed. For example, we have this hackathon planned after Wikimania this year with about 12-15 developers; I'll update the page when I get some time. Walkerma (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Oregon assessment matrix
Does anyone here know how the Oregon articles by quality and importance matrix works? I couldn’t find anyone from Wiki-Oregon team who knows how it works. All of the articles shown as needing assessments were rated at least a month ago; and since then, nothing has been added or dropped from the matrix. Bottomline … it looks like the matrix is dead in the water. Sorry, if this isn’t the right place to inquire.--Orygun (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
We're trying to find someone new who can take over the maintenance of the bot. In the meantime, the former people have been contacted via email, and we'll just have to run the bot manually. Walkerma (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@PiGuy3:It's much less active than before, but we do still have a few things going on, so I've updated the Status section accordingly. If you'd like to help us with any of these activities (particularly getting the bot running again!) please let us know. Walkerma (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Need some assessment help
Walkerma (or anyone else – Lane, are you interested?), can you make some time to run through the short list of articles at User:EpochFail/ORES audit for |class= assessments? EpochFail's trying to get an automated system for class assessment together, and I know it would be hugely helpful to your sideloading project, since so many class assessments are out of date. This could really be a case of spending one hour now and saving yourself hundreds of hours later.
Technical details: Just type your assessment for the article on EpochFail's page, so he knows what your rating was. The link takes you to a specific revision of the article, and it's important to assess that revision instead of the current one (else the software will be confused). (If you put the rating on the article talk page, then there's always a small chance that someone will revert you or that the article will change significantly, so a separate list is helpful in this instance.) It doesn't all have to be done by the same person. One assessment per article is enough; even if someone only assessed 10 or 20, or did the ones that they thought were easy, then that alone would be hugely helpful. Feel free to {{ping}} me if you have any questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes- I'll aim to do some of these this weekend. That's a very interesting idea! I agree that many assessments are out of date. 03:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to several people helping out, we've got most of them done. I think there's just 12 left to go now.
A couple of the links were bad, probably due to pages being merged in subsequent years. If you remember seeing anything odd (like a redirect page instead of an article), then please make a note of that on the page, so EpochFail can double-check them. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion of significant changes to featured Japan article
As noted above, "This is a historic project that has a legacy but halted 7+ years ago." This should be tagged with {{Historical}} (same on its subpages) and it's banner "ad" mentioned at the top of this talk page retired. We should not be drawing editorial attention to something that isn't really "a thing" any more. While there is some intermittent discussion on this page, all of it (other than about how moribund the WP 1.0 thing is) would be better held in another venue. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The group is in fact very active - just not on this page. There is a meetup happening next month, which is proving popular. We actually have a grant proposal into the foundation to support our work. Earlier this week people from Kiwix completed a rewrite on the WP1.0 bot code used to generate offline selections. I have personally put in about 20 hours in the past week to work on offline Wikipedia - but none of that was coordinated here.
It's true that this particular page is no longer the main venue; but we have weekly Skype discussions and regular emails not instead. This group is much more diffuse now, since it's an alliance of Wikipedians, Wikimedians, and people from Kiwix, Learning Equality (KA Lite), Internet-in-a-box, etc. Of necessity, many people involved are not Wikipedia editors - these are people who go to schools in Haiti giving out Wikipedia content. So, do you have an alternative for where offline collections should interface with the Wikipedia community? I think this page - though quiet - is still the natural home for inquiring about this work, as it has been the "home" since 2004. Now that Kiwix has updated the WP1.0 code, we can (and will) in fact produce a lot of new selections of Wikipedia. This WILL involve much more contact again with WikiProjects as we did in 2006-2011, though much of the work this time will be done via email, etc. Walkerma (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Walkerma: It all sounds a bit dodgy to me. Wikipedia matters should be discussed transparently and on-wiki; as soon as people start discussing Wikipedia matters off-wiki, we get cliques, in-crowds ("we don't know you, so we won't let you post here"), secret societies, WP:OWNership ("this change wasn't agreed on the Facebook forum, so it should be reverted"), bad feeling and rejection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I can attest to the amount of work that has been put in to this - the entire article rating system was initiated by Walkerma and colleagues to support this project. I can agree that some feedback here would be useful, but I am sure you would be accepted if you wish to get involved. A lot of work has been done here - just so you know. Wizzy…☎21:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64:,@SMcCandlish: - I have been updating the page to publicise things like the upcoming hackathon, and to clear out obsolete material, so I'm certainly not trying to run a secret group here! All the information is published openly. If you check my back contributions, you can see I even wrote personal messages like this to many people who have signed onto this project to try and reinvigorate their interest. I've also been trying to recruit someone to help oversee the bot; at present, the only person doing that is from the French Wikipedia. The problem is that once we lost our main coding person (and bot admin), we couldn't produce new collections, so many of our active WP:1.0 Wikipedians moved onto other things. But that doesn't mean that the work doesn't need to be done; in fact there is now a much better infrastructure outside EN:WP than when we produced version 0.8, as well as all the educational charities I mentioned above. Much of the modern activity of a group like this MUST be outside EN:WP, because it involves collaborating with a broad range of people who mostly don't work on one language version of one Wikimedia project. Many of those people are putting in several hours a week trying to get Wikipedia content into schools and clinics without internet, but they are not active Wikipedians on EN:WP. Yet we need to have a presence (like this page) on EN:WP precisely for the transparency reasons you mention.
I don't have unlimited time. I've been reluctant to put a lot of time into updating this page because I've naively expected "false dawns" before (of new people reinvigorating WP1.0 )- people promising a lot who haven't followed through, etc. However, if you look at our hackathon signup page you can see we are clearly active again, and with three current & past WMF board members + one WMF manager attending the event it's clearly relevant to the WMF mission. We got our grant approved yesterday. Kiwix and collaborators have done a lot of great (and difficult!) coding work recently to make the WP1.0 project viable again, so I think I can safely say that this is no false dawn - this is a genuine (and, frankly, very exciting) renaissance of our work.
Bearing all that in mind, I do accept your criticism that there is a lot more work to be done on these WP1.0 pages for these to reflect where we are now. I have done some work already trying to figure out the active participants. I will endeavour to do a complete rewrite of this main 1.0 page in the next week to make it reflect where we are now. All help is very welcome, and if you're interested in offline work and outreach please join the effort - especially if you're good with bots! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Quick mass reply: If this project is actually active then either this page should be maintained, or marked historical and a pointer given to the current coordination page, whether that's here, at Meta, or whatever. Lots of WP- and Wikimedia-related work is done off the wikis; there are mailing lists, IRC channels, regional meet-ups, national and international conferences, plus unofficial split-off projects like Wikimedia Deutschland or whatever it's proper name is, that have led to officially sanctioned "big deal" work, like WikiData. So, don't be alarmed. Yes, anything involving humans will generate some politics, inevitably. We'll just deal with it as it arises, like usual. What actually brought me here was that WP:CORE goes to a dead project page, and would be better usurped to point at WP:Core content policies; in the process I noticed that this page also appeared to indicate a moribund project. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. The project was fairly dead from 2013-2016, other than for maintaining the assessment scheme and the bot which is well-used. I wouldn't have any objection to WP:CORE being switched to another use; the Core Topics project was one from the very early days, which was very useful at the time, but the main protagonist stopped work on that in around 2006. Once the bot assessment scheme took off, and we also independently got WP:VA, it became less important anyway. I was planning to start work on a revamp of these pages starting tomorrow. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia article 'Cloud'; B-class or C-class?
The Wikipedia article 'Cloud' has recently been raised from C- to B-class by the 2 wiki projects that claim an interest in the article, but remains stuck at C-class on the part of Wikipedia 1.0. This might not be a problem if all 3 interested parties had 1 vote each, but I see that Wiki 1.0 has 3 votes through some of its component sub-units, while the projects have only 1 vote each. Has Wiki 1.0 reviewed the recent upgrade by the wiki projects and decided to either support or out-vote them, or has that review yet to take place? ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64:Thankyou for your clarification; I've check out the links you suggested and that part of the process is now clear to me. However, you also say I need to ensure that all B-class criteria are met to override the default C-class. I have already done that informally for the upgrades initiated by the Wikki projects. Unfortunately, the instructions for filling out the formal checklist contain some jargon I don't understand, so I'll need some help or clarification to do that. Many thanks! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
If you don't understand it, then perhaps you shouldn't be assessing articles for quality - certainly not above C-class anyway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64:Judging by the latent hostility of you last comment, it looks like I've touched a raw nerve of a type I've encountered before among the more elite Wikipedians. Yes, I'm a junior editor who can easily be dismissed by those who are higher up on the food chain. However, I and my colleagues at WikiProject Meteorology (who have given the cloud article a B-grade) probably know a fair bit more about clouds and weather than anyone at Wiki 1.0, who's dismissal of the cloud article comes with no constructive critique. In any case, there is no connection between understanding elitist jargon and making a down-to-earth assessment of an article. I've seen a fair number of other articles that have different grades or ratings from different projects for each, so maybe this article will have to settle for the same if I come to a dead end. I certainly won't bother anyone at Wiki 1.0 with my problems ever again. There are other Wikipedians I can go to for help. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31: I'm not intending to be hostile, I'm trying to explain why it's not necessarily a good idea to assess an article as B-class. My point is that if you assess above C-class, you must be able to show that the article meets all of the requirements for the chosen class. Every class above C has a defined set of requirements (B-class; GA-class; A-class; FA-class), mostly in the form of a checklist where none of the criteria are optional. By contrast, C-class and below (start, stub) are very much subjective and at the whims of different people.
The assessment criteria set out by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team (nowadays described at Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment) are the originals, from which the assessment schemes of virtually all other WikiProjects are derived. The assessment scale for WikiProject Meteorology is here, and it has the same six requirements for B-class as Version 1.0 Editorial Team - indeed, if you click the "[show]" link after "More detailed criteria", those six criteria are word-for-word identical to those described at Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment, except that the latter also has the phrase "The article meets the six B-Class criteria:".
So if an article does not meet the six B-class criteria for Version 1.0 Editorial Team, it is not going to be B-class - and there is no way that it can be B-class for WikiProject Meteorology either. Satisfy one, and you satisfy the other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31:,@Redrose64:: Thanks to you and WP:Meteorology for improving the article to this level! Fairly high-level articles like this are crucial for the success of Wikipedia, even though I know it's often easier to write more specialized articles. Many of our assessments (from the 1.0 team) are out of date, because this project has been fairly dormant (though we begin work next month on our next official selection). It's certainly true that any B-class article should meet the criteria; however, the idea of these assessments is that they should be done by subject experts - especially the first two criteria. If the consensus of the Meteorology project is that this is B-class, then we should certainly update our assessment (which I've done). To my eyes the article looks good enough to meet the B-class criteria, but I'll confirm this with the project - if there's any dispute, then I'll revert my change.
The 1.0 assessment tags getting to be redundant at this point, except for historical purposes (see the earlier discussion on this talk page). I should explain the origin of the 1.0 assessments (which I set up) - at least how I remember it (it was 11-12 years ago!). When the assessment scheme was set up for projects to use, we didn't originally have the bot to automate things, so only a few projects adopted it. However, we needed to get assessments done for articles we deemed important enough to put into our collections. Therefore we created our own talk page template and used this in cases where we needed an assessment. (Maybe someone did a bot run later, but those would be based solely on assessments by other WikiProjects.) As of now, we don't really need these tags, because since the 1.0 bot was established, pretty much every WikiProject uses the assessment scheme and there are no significant gaps to fill. When we do our next article selection for Kiwix, we will (as before) be basing the selection on data from all WikiProjects, so the Meteorology assessment alone would ensure its inclusion. I'm not sure if a GA reviewer would see a C-class assessment as a negative; many assessments are out of date, even on more active projects, and a reviewer should make their judgement based on the article, not a 5-10 year old assessment. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@Walkerma:...and thanks to you and the 1.0 team for expediting your part of the B-class review! It naturally needed the reviews of both the meteorology and 1.0 teams to get a proper and complete upgrade to the higher rating for the article. It probably won't surprise you that my ultimate goal is to get the article to at least a GA-class since it is classed as a level 3 vital article. I did in fact nominate it for just that last August since some had been suggesting I do so. I was probably jumping the gun a little, but the nomination is still standing and has until early in the new year to be reviewed before it expires. Now that the 1.0 team is getting active again, perhaps the Wiki 1.0 part of the B-class review could be used to help the meteorology team identifiy what the next improvments to the article should be. When I compare the cloud article to the precipitation article which has a GA rating (which it already had when I first became involved with Wikipedia), I see the latter article is a fair bit shorter and more concise-looking, so maybe there is a need to make some more cuts to the cloud article as well. I already moved a fair bit of secondary text to other articles to help get the B-grade, so I might find it difficult to decide if more cuts are needed and what, if anything to cut. Meteorological expertise, which I bring to the table, will be needed to make these determinations, but it will likely take editorial and organizational expertise as well, so that's where I may need further help from the 1.0 team. I hope we can work together to a reasonable degree to achieve a successful GA review. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I can really give you many good pointers on GAN; I used to do a few GA reviews in around 2007-2008 but the expectations are much different (and higher!) now. What I would suggest, though, is to get someone else from the Meteorology project to look over it. I've never written an FA myself, but there were probably about a dozen FAs where I contributed as part of a team of people to help it reach FA standard; GAs are easier, but still a second opinion from a subject expert could be valuable. Thanks for your dedication! Walkerma (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Black Falcon: Strange that I missed this post, despite being here a few times recently - I apologize. Funny - I was just wondering this same thing tonight. This information was useful at one time, but I suspect it's not needed now. Their main use is in being able to search here by release category, but I think the information is largely historical at this point. Both those releases have lists of the articles available as wikitext, so I think those categories could go. Let us know if you do a category for deletion. Walkerma (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Walkerma: No worries, and thank you for responding. Since the categories are wholly template-populated, technically they could be depopulated and deleted without a formal deletion discussion by editing the category logic of {{V0.5}} and {{WP1.0}}. However, I am not averse to starting a deletion discussion if that is preferred. -- Black Falcon(talk)17:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
No one else has commented, which may imply little interest, but if it's not difficult then by all means go ahead and initiate WP:CFD. If there's something I've overlooked this may well show it. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I started a CfD nomination for V0.5 here. I think I will hold off on nominating V0.7 until I can get a sense of whether, as you said, there are any considerations we may be overlooking. Thanks! -- Black Falcon(talk)17:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I can modify the template's category logic (and also the logic of {{WP1.0}}, which also populates these categories if |v0.5=pass), if the discussion ends with a consensus to delete the categories. That would still leave the templates intact on article talk pages.
@Walkerma: Sorry for not replying sooner - I accidentally unwatched this page. Talk:Strontium contains a banner that states, "This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia." However, the banner does not add any categories for WP1.0. Talk:Gray wolf, on the other hand, contains a banner (collapsed by default) that states, "This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team." as well as "This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia." I am not sure if one or the other is preferred, or if it's best just to leave the banners alone. -- Black Falcon(talk)21:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Just a note that the 0.5 and 1.0 template modifications are complete. I removed the category-related code while attempting to leave all of the other text in place. Ping me here or post on my talk page if I removed too much code from the templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll take a look in the next day or two just to double-check, and also take care of any additional cleanup that may be required. Also pinging User:Timrollpickering (who closed the discussion) to keep him apprised. -- Black Falcon(talk)06:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
We would very much like to have an index for future releases, including Version 0.9 which is just beginning at this time. This section of the talk page is for people to share ideas and test results.
Why an index?
These article collections are being used in places such as schools as a major source of reference material. Kiwix provides a search box and some index terms, but there is no overall index to use for browsing. Article categories provide some structure, but can lead to wrong general categorisation. WikiProject tags can also provide some means of classification. An index gives a particular type of structure and organisation to a body of knowledge. The closest to an index for the online Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Directories_and_indexes#Encyclopedia_proper.
Our goal is to provide an index that can be used to browse for general concepts that are less easily found via text searches. For example, to find Frédéric Chopin one may simply search for "Chopin" - but what if the question is "What are some famous Polish musicians and composers?" An index might list such things - under both music and Poland. This would allow the user to explore the available content based on general concepts, rather than simply doing specific "Google-type" text searches.
Alphabetical - this is easy to produce, but probably has the least value when a search box is available
Topical - organisation by subject area, for example "organic chemistry" or "classical music"
Geographical - organisation by place. Many articles are about people or events that relate to specific places, and we tend to think of Galileo as Italian, Confucius as Chinese, etc.
In addition to these, others may be considered:
Chronological - as mentioned above, many articles relate to people or events, which also have specific points in time
Data-based versions of the above, for example Dewey Decimal (for topical) or geolocation (for Geographical).
Methods for preparing an index
Some ideas suggested so far (these overlap somewhat):
Identify specific Features of those articles that would help to classify them.
Use the program to classify new articles (or articles that haven't been assessed in awhile).
Human can confirm that the program's article classification is correct.
Use this to create an index, or a categorization of articles. It could build upon the already existing category tag system, but it doesn't need to. It could use things like similarity in wiki-links to known topics, wiki-data, intro paragraphs, word counts, etc.
@Morriswa: No, if you look at the bot's contributions you'll see a big pink box indicating that the bot is blocked. AFAIK this is because it was creating bad page links, links that begin with two or more consecutive colons. The blocking admin, Cyberpower678 (talk·contribs), should be able to point to where this is being discussed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's a lot of work - the bot had to be switched to a new server, and there are some difficult bugs to work out - plus, he has to do it in his free time from his day job. So it will take a while, unless there's someone else with the tech skills who can work on it full time. Walkerma (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @Qwerty6811:! We had to put things on hold since January, but now we can start work on V0.9 again. If we're lucky, you'll be getting a lot of help from ORES and/or WikiTrust. I'll be in contact in a month or so, when things will (hopefully) get busy. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Etzedek24:, I probably fixed the error. It seems like the categorization and template usage in Category:Start-Class Comics articles of NA-importance didn't work for a hybrid project assessment (using both quality and importance in 1 category). See the edit history of this cat for my change - I simply used Category:C-Class Comics articles of NA-importance as an example for a functional analogous category. But we'd have to wait 1-2 days to see if the bot creates new assessment tables with the newly corrected category structure and correct display of values. It should in theory, but it's a bit too early to say for sure. GermanJoe (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I noticed there was a thread earlier about the bot being down. I checked that out, and saw that the bot was live again and making contributions. However, the log at WP:COMICS has not been updated in nearly a month. Is this a problem on our end? Please do ping me with a response. Thanks much. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Does not appear to be running on any of the logs I watch, the last one alphabetically would be for WP:YORKSlog has not been updated since 3 January 2018. There were articles tagged yesterday so would have expected an overnight run. Keith D (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there! I am a PhD student from the Czech Republic and I do my research on Wikipedia (assesing quality of articles). I would like to ask you how the SelectionBot works in terms of quality? I mean how it categorize articles to A,B,C category. I know the criteria of quality on Wikipedia, but I dont understand, how the bot really works. It assess quality based on users experience with article or it does automatically. The question is if the assesing quality of articles (A,B,C, start, stub) is made by human or by bot? I will be very glad for the answer and my research too!--Wikiditor (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I posted some basic information on your user talkpage (without technical details). It got a bit lengthy :), so I moved it over to your userspace - hope it helps with your research. GermanJoe (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Accessibility issues with "Importance" and "Class" colors
While WP 1.0 bot is blocked, there is a way to get current article counts (assessment wikitable) for your WikiProjects. Follow the two-step process below.
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.
Display project table - At Project summary tables page, choose your Wikiproject and click the Make table button.
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. Adamdaley (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the workaround. I've commented out the template link to the bot-imported assessment table and added a direct link to the tool-based table on our WikiProject pages. I'd advise other WikiProjects to do the same until the ownership issue is resolved. LibraryGeek (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
As of this writing, that link works just fine and a random check of assessments from various pages generated by the tool shows that it's keeping up with changes in assessments. It's the logs I came here to show concern for. The log for the WP I mainly do assessments for was last updated on November 4, 2018. There have been lengthy gaps like that before, but it causes me to wonder if this is one more subproject that's slowly going the way of the dinosaurs. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@RadioKAOS and LibraryGeek: - Our people are working on fixing the code as time allows, but we haven't seen any progress as yet. Also, they are working on writing completely new code, to try and avoid the problems we've been having. In the meantime, you can request a one-off log update, and I think those are still working, if you need one urgently. Once I hear of significant progress, I'll update - but the best place to check is the WP1.0 technical talk page. Walkerma (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The new code had a couple of bugs, but they have been fixed and it's now working OK on a test set of 22 projects, though it's only updating the tables for the time being. Hopefully we can get updates across all WikiProjects soon. Walkerma (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Walkerma: Thanks for update. Looks like it has been running regularly with no obvious problems for last month, apart from a missing one on 2 April. So I would go for all projects when you can. Keith D (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the project page listing the last release at over a decade ago. Some sort of overhaul of the content would be good to give folks an idea of where this is up to would be good...@Walkerma:? cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
No! The project has changed, and we don't really produce specific collections in the same way - we work to guide and support offline work, and to connect end users with the technical people; that's much harder to write up on a page than the "Version X" collections that we used to put together. I'm aware that I haven't updated the page much since our Hackathon in 2017. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to spend a day rewriting the page to reflect the new situation properly, or even to do my part to help support the coders. Right now, there's a lot of work going on (not by me!) rewriting the bot, and there is regular contact between active participants (2-3 times per month), and almost daily emails. Walkerma (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
{{R from city and state}} marks all those redirects as printworthy but I don't think that's accurate: lots of cities are only in one state or it would be trivial to find the city entry you're looking for in a print edition. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯15:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I suppose it would be best for the aforementioned templates to default to unprintworthy but accept a parameter for overriding this. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Webley Revolver for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro6417:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- continuity - used at this WP article and sisters for 19 years - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America - participants British & US Congress with their respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure - results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury - reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader - prominent adherents - 15 Pulitzer history winners
- modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow
I'll start by saying that I have never been a member of this project (aka a noob, please be kind), but I have seen it in passing since the early days. My question, which is similar to one asked in 2019, is of what happened to this project and why its original release date has been delayed for over a decade. What happened? I'm just curious. — Paper LuigiT • C01:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Polar coordinate system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Malcolm X for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated IG Farben Building for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Procellariidae for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Operation Auca for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Monarchy in the United Kingdom FAR
I have nominated Monarchy of the United Kingdom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Slayer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Featured Article Review: Andrew Jackson
I have nominated Andrew Jackson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FinnV3 (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Alfred Russel Wallace
I have nominated Alfred Russel Wallace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Albatross for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I have rated it as B-class. You are welcome to check and revert for this project if you disagree, but please leave reasons and actionable comments if you do. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 09:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Mário de Andrade for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
