229:(5) The classes are alphabetized based on a numeric "ranking" which is also used as part of the formula for calculating an article's release version score. Since FLs have a high ranking, they end up higher in the table. Because of the way that the project tables are generated, I do not have an easy way to change the sort order without hard-coding exceptions. So this is an issue worth discussing, but I have to make it a lower priority right now because of the difficulty/benefit ratio.
59:
31:
226:(4) is a quirk of the current categorization, where Bplus class articles are both in the Bplus category and the GA category. This is necessary for the old bot, but it makes the new bot confused. At some point I will fix the categorization on the wiki and then it should be fine, just like Redirect-class was fine for Gymnastics
1005:
could do semi-dynamically, with another table in the database. There are issues to worry about - like new rating levels being added - that we would have to worry about. I opened a JIRA request about it at ENWPONE-13. Could you comment there to explain how you created those graphs in the originally? — Carl
663:
OK, I hear what you're saying and that's pretty much what I assumed was going on with that particular table (it looks fine now, BTW). However, would it not be better to have the bot simply ignore all pages with an NA-Class rating, and therefore make importance a secondary consideration rather than an
426:
The summary tables will look just like the tables that are being displayed on the web tool. Actually that web tool generates wikicode for the table first, then uses
Knowledge's servers to parse it into HTML, then displays that HTML to you. This will make it easy for the on-wiki tables to look exactly
1004:
Those graphs are interesting, and I do think people would be intersted in them. On the other hand, the easiest way I can see to make them is to look at the history of the assessment tables that are stored to the wiki. Is that how they are actually made? If so, it seems like the sort of thing that we
546:
I think we are looking at this somehow with different perspectives, so that I am not quite catching the point of your feedback; sorry about that. I investigated rebuilding the
Lancashire table to see what was going on without the NA class, but now that the class is in the database I am afraid to try
891:
I think that the new system is ready for beta testing. There are quite a few things that still need to be done, but getting feedback from a wider collection of users will be very helpful in shaping the direction of development. Please feel free to use this page for discussion, and file any bugs at
568:
Here is what I think should have happened. As long as the importance was assessed, the bot would notice all the NA quality articles; as long as the quality was recognized, the bot would also notice all the NA-importance articles. But because it did not recognize the NA rating, it would replace it
135:
Support for some additional classes (Current, Future, Category, Disambig, Portal, Template) but apparently not others (Book, File/Image, Merge, Needed, Project, Redirect, User). No support either for
Deferred-Class (as used by WP Firearms) or SL-Class (used by WP Plants). Also no support for
515:
That's not quite what I was asking with regard to the
Lancashire & Cumbria table. Previously the table was picking up two specific NA-Class pages, not the whole 40 pages that are in the category, and I was wondering why that was when it seems that NA-Class pages are ordinarily ignored?
348:
My viewpoint here is that I want the system to support all the quality and importance ratings that a project happens to use, but whether a rating is supported "by default" or via
ReleaseVersionParameters is just a configuration issue. Either way the nonstandard ratings are
159:"Feature requests" suggests that pages in user space are ignored, and I can appreciate the reasoning behind that. However, it may interfere with projects that do tag pages in that namespace, userboxes for example, or those (few) projects that have User-Class.
757:
We came to the same conclusion regarding NA-Class quality; I added it and restarted the updates. But the new update started where the other was stopped, with "Belgium-related". It will wrap back around to cover the A articles at the end of its run. So
297:
In general I'm finding the ??? row a little confusing, in large part because of the "Unassessed link" which really isn't accurate. If there is no appropriate link as you say, then why try and link it at all? A plain text "Other" would be better,
590:
If you see another project that has the same problem the
Lancashire one did, let me know and I will investigate it thoroughly. I also want to double check if the current table seems correct to you. I will double-check again myself, too. — Carl
186:
I can explain nonstandard ratings in the context of the
Gymnastics project, which you pointed out. They use a quality rating (Redirect-Class) which the bot does not include by default. (I am very happy to have a discussion about which classes
307:
As for #5, that seems fair enough for FLs, but less so for the others. I don't know very much about these numeric "rankings" that you refer to (you may have to talk me through it a little), but it seems that
Current & Future
689:
On a related note, I have two other observations related to NA ratings. First, it appears from looking at most tables that NA-importance is included by default, which seems rather illogical when NA-Class is not. Second, the
325:
One other thing: I assume the summary tables uploaded to wiki will essentially be the same as they are now? I do have a few thoughts on this, but there's a couple of things I'd liek to run by Martin first. Regards.
214:
We do need to have a discussion about which quality classes should be included by default. One issue with projects using nonstandard classes is that it is less obvious how some of these relate to release
762:
shows the new settings. Actually, I changed the sort order just now to move "Current" and "Future" higher up in the list; it will take another update for that to be live on all the projects. — Carl
105:
Per request by email, I'm offering my initial observations on the toolserver assessment stats. I've only really had a quick(ish) look at the summary tables, but these are the things I've noticed:
209:
Really the ??? row is just a catchall for unknown classes; I need to make this more clear in the user interface. The reason there is not a better link is that there really is no appropriate link.
370:
279:
template? For the most part these classes relate to non-article content, so I don't see any big problem with regard to release versions. A wider discussion would probably be a good idea.
362:
The issue with
Lancashire and Cumbria was exactly the same as with Gymnastics. Once I added and configured ReleaseVersionParameters, and updated the project, the table became correct
569:
with "Unknown" (which is now "Other" in the tables). Once the bot was told about the NA quality and importance ratings, so that it recognized them, then it made the table correctly.
959:
Maybe I misread it; I thought it was talking about the bar graphs on the project index page. I'll check with
Headbomb to see if there was something else he had in mind. — Carl
143:(though not in the table for WP Statistics, another project which uses the class), but it's not there now. Also, IIRC, it was misplaced between A and GA rather than GA and B.
181:
Thanks for the feedback. One thing that I see now is that I need to document several things more clearly. I also see several improvements I can make to the user interface.
288:
What about the two ??? articles in the Lancashire & Cumbria table? Are they showing up because of the Low-importance ratings (both should really be NA-importance)?
76:
132:, for example). The ??? row appears to include articles with assessments that are either unsupported by the project banner or unrecognised by the tool.
197:
853:
About the tables that are uploaded here: would it be possible for them to be in HTML format? It would be good if you could offer your input to
196:
To make the bot recognize their extra quality rating, all the Gymnastics project has to do is tweak a template on their assessments category (
200:) one time. I added this template just now and updated the project's data (without editing the source code of the bot at all). The result is
114:
626:
I have fixed the problem with 'Unknown-importance' not being recognized, as well. The data for the projects is updating right now. — Carl
374:
273:
44:
977:
484:
156:
and other such templates, i.e. FL with List and Current & Future above the various non-article classes rather than below.
261:
Regarding nonstandard classes, the impression I had both from reading the front page and my own previous enquiries is that
896:
on toolserver. The existing bot will still be running, so this beta test does not affect anything on-wiki right now.
110:
925:
I'll try to answer questions here as they come up, but please be patient if it takes me a while to respond. — Carl
390:
In any case I have hard-coded the table to refer to unrecognized classes as "Other", which I agree is more clear.
85:
363:
129:
403:
Re #5, it is easy to put "Current" and "Future" articles between "List" and "Book" just like they are in
265:
of them (both for quality and importance) would be supported. I gather from your comment above that only
694:
table has an "Other" importance column in place of "NA", and I'm wondering if there's a reason for that.
366:
759:
17:
413:, by just setting ReleaseVersionParameters correctly. I am working to document that template today.
140:
691:
201:
125:
407:
150:
91:
1017:
987:
971:
950:
937:
866:
820:
774:
728:
638:
603:
525:
496:
466:
439:
335:
252:
175:
162:
Projects without importance assessments still get a redundant importance column in their tables.
89:
87:
58:
47:. Comments and suggestions are very welcome. Please start a new section for each new issue.
862:
854:
724:
521:
492:
331:
171:
1012:
966:
932:
815:
769:
633:
598:
461:
434:
247:
204:
which does include the class as it should. This also gets rid of the ??? quality row.
981:
944:
808:. I have updated the data for that project, and now the table is better. — Carl
893:
858:
720:
517:
488:
327:
167:
130:
http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/table.fcgi?project=Lancashire+and+Cumbria
1008:
962:
928:
811:
765:
629:
594:
457:
430:
243:
365:. The one remaining article that is causing a '???' on that table is
719:
Tables for projects without importance ratings are looking good. :)
483:
Thanks for the above, I'll have a proper look at everything later.
37:
This is a talk page for the new version of the Knowledge 1.0 bot.
901:
141:
http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/table.fcgi?project=Mathematics
126:
http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/table.fcgi?project=Gymnastics
487:
is the de facto naming convention for such categories though.
92:
52:
25:
269:
will be supported by default, while others will require the
371:
Category:Unknown-importance Lancashire and Cumbria articles
139:
What about Bplus-Class? I'm positive I saw this earlier at
136:
Bottom-importance or No-importance, or NA-Class/importance.
146:
It might be an idea to order classes the same way as in
908:
The most helpful comments on the new system are about:
806:
805:
Re Aesthetics, the category was not set up correctly:
375:Category:Unassessed-importance Lancashire articles
454:BTW bugs (1) and (7) above are fixed now. — Carl
191:be default, but there will always be exceptions.)
547:to delete it (don't want to break the database).
377:; is there some fine distinction between these?
223:(1) is a user interface bug that I need to fix
921:Extra features that you wish were implemented
8:
101:Feedback on the toolserver assessment stats
485:Category:Unknown-importance foo articles
427:like the tables on the web tool. — Carl
198:Category:Gymnastics_articles_by_quality
109:??? in the importance columns links to
373:. I thought that article should be in
113:rather than specific subcategories of
7:
115:Category:Unknown-importance articles
232:(6) This will need more discussion.
43:. More information is available on
980:... and I hope it's the former...
915:Things that don't work as expected
312:should have a higher ranking than
124:to Unassessed in some tables (see
24:
976:Heh, I understood something like
943:Where's the UI for request #15?
912:Things that don't work correctly
57:
29:
899:The URL for the new system is
1:
1018:21:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
988:17:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
972:20:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
951:20:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
938:01:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
902:http://toolserver.org/~enwp10
918:Things that don't make sense
894:bug tracker for this project
867:13:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
821:02:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
775:01:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
729:01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
639:01:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
604:22:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
526:20:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
497:23:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
467:23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
440:21:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
336:14:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
253:13:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
235:(7) is a user interface bug.
220:For the smaller bugs above:
176:03:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
111:Category:Unassessed articles
45:the other side of this page
1040:
120:An extra ??? quality row
274:ReleaseVersionParameters
39:The bot is currently in
887:Beta testing 2009-12-16
367:Talk:Empress_Ballroom
18:User talk:WP 1.0 bot
1016:
970:
936:
819:
773:
637:
602:
465:
438:
251:
98:
97:
51:
50:
1031:
1006:
985:
960:
948:
926:
809:
763:
627:
592:
455:
428:
412:
406:
278:
272:
241:
155:
149:
93:
61:
53:
33:
32:
26:
1039:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1030:
1029:
1028:
983:
946:
889:
855:this discussion
410:
404:
276:
270:
153:
147:
103:
94:
88:
66:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1037:
1035:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
954:
953:
923:
922:
919:
916:
913:
888:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
369:, which is in
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
341:
340:
339:
338:
320:
319:
318:
317:
302:
301:
300:
299:
292:
291:
290:
289:
283:
282:
281:
280:
256:
255:
238:
237:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
217:
216:
211:
210:
206:
205:
193:
192:
183:
182:
164:
163:
160:
157:
144:
137:
133:
118:
102:
99:
96:
95:
90:
86:
84:
81:
80:
72:
71:
68:
67:
62:
56:
49:
48:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1036:
1019:
1014:
1010:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
989:
986:
979:
975:
974:
973:
968:
964:
958:
957:
956:
955:
952:
949:
942:
941:
940:
939:
934:
930:
920:
917:
914:
911:
910:
909:
906:
904:
903:
897:
895:
886:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
822:
817:
813:
807:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
776:
771:
767:
761:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
730:
726:
722:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
693:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
640:
635:
631:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
605:
600:
596:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
527:
523:
519:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
468:
463:
459:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
441:
436:
432:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
409:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
337:
333:
329:
324:
323:
322:
321:
315:
311:
306:
305:
304:
303:
296:
295:
294:
293:
287:
286:
285:
284:
275:
268:
264:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
249:
245:
239:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
221:
219:
218:
213:
212:
208:
207:
203:
199:
195:
194:
190:
185:
184:
180:
179:
178:
177:
173:
169:
161:
158:
152:
145:
142:
138:
134:
131:
127:
123:
119:
116:
112:
108:
107:
106:
100:
83:
82:
79:
78:
74:
73:
70:
69:
65:
60:
55:
54:
46:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
924:
907:
900:
898:
890:
314:non-articles
313:
309:
266:
262:
188:
165:
121:
104:
75:
63:
41:beta testing
40:
36:
857:. Regards.
760:Big Brother
122:in addition
692:Aesthetics
664:equal one?
349:supported.
202:this table
408:cat-class
215:versions.
166:Regards.
151:cat class
77:Archive 1
310:articles
64:Archives
240:— Carl
189:should
16:<
1013:talk
982:Tito
978:this
967:talk
945:Tito
933:talk
892:the
863:talk
859:PC78
816:talk
770:talk
725:talk
721:PC78
634:talk
599:talk
522:talk
518:PC78
493:talk
489:PC78
462:talk
435:talk
332:talk
328:PC78
298:IMO.
267:some
248:talk
172:talk
168:PC78
128:and
1009:CBM
963:CBM
929:CBM
812:CBM
766:CBM
630:CBM
595:CBM
458:CBM
431:CBM
263:all
244:CBM
1011:·
984:xd
965:·
947:xd
931:·
905:.
865:)
814:·
768:·
727:)
632:·
597:·
524:)
495:)
460:·
433:·
411:}}
405:{{
334:)
277:}}
271:{{
246:·
174:)
154:}}
148:{{
1015:)
1007:(
969:)
961:(
935:)
927:(
861:(
818:)
810:(
772:)
764:(
723:(
636:)
628:(
601:)
593:(
520:(
491:(
464:)
456:(
437:)
429:(
330:(
316:.
250:)
242:(
170:(
117:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
