Jump to content

User talk:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/OverallArticles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Any modification will be lost

Unresolved

User:WP 1.0 bot is quietly overwriting the contents of this page. Either the bot should stick to the table's content, either it should verify there were no edits since its last modification, or there should be a warning. --Chealer (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bot is quietly overwriting the contents, and that is called "updating". It is happening daily to reflect the changes in numbers, and there is nothing wrong with it. --Engineering Guy (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quietly overwriting the table's headers is not called "updating", no. The use of updating the table's content is quite obvious, and there is of course nothing wrong with that. --Chealer (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were referring to the numerical values. You should have mentioned that the issue was with only the headers. The source code of the bot may have to be changed, to permanently change the table headers (and I think the only change needed is from "All rated articles by quality and importance" to "Articles and lists on the English Wikipedia"). --Engineering Guy (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
The numerical values are [part of] the table's content. The source most certainly needs to be changed. --Chealer (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect column header

One of the header cells currently reads "Importance". As explained in Talk:Wikipedia/Archive_22#Distribution_of_article_importances, the importance rated is that to a specific WikiProject, not global importance, as the context here implies.

Either the cell should read something vague like "Possible importance", or something accurate but painfully long like "Importance to the WikiProject which rated the article highest on its importance scale, if any, or None". --Chealer (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC) (updated)[reply]

Incorrect title

This currently sets the title to "All rated articles by quality and importance". As explained above, this is incorrect. This is also incorrect because even unrated articles are considered. Since a precise title would be long, I recommend changing to something vague like "Articles and lists on the English Wikipedia". --Chealer (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC) (updated)[reply]

Incorrect content

Unresolved

The grand total is currently 4,904,167, while we only have 4,748,215 articles. I did not identify what was wrong, but clearly the content is broken. --Chealer (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


There is also a problem with the categorization in columns. Some WikiProjects rate pages using more rates than those in the current columns. {{Importance scheme}} shows more rates, but projects can apparently define as many rates as they want, so I do not think this can be properly fixed. I did not determine which columns were wrong.

Note that {{Articles by Quality and Importance}} shows more rates. By the way, it also uses better structured headers than this template. --Chealer (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing totals

The totals at the bottom are confusing due to the Assessed line. Adding up a full column will result in a greater total than that displayed, since all assessed articles count twice. Perhaps more visible horizontal borders could avoid confusion. --Chealer (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confusion. Assessed articles are not being counted twice. Total = Assessed + Unassessed. That's it. --Engineering Guy (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, they count twice if you add up a full column, thankfully not in the totals displayed indeed. --Chealer (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moving forward from here I suggest that Chealer refrain from making more changes without consulting the greater community. Please feel free to ask questions or make requests at the project talk page. -- Moxy (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but how is that relevant here? In any case, see the first section. --Chealer (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop editing the page PLEASE!! -- Moxy (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid the CAPS. I do not see how that answers my question, and in any case, see the first section. --Chealer (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Time for you to read up on some basics around here so we dont have to use caps to get your attention ... pls read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#Discussion and consensus. Ok that seem and hopefully understood.....so we all know that the info is not perfect (as indicated on the page you edited about that)....do you have a proposal to fix it? Coming to a page and stopping its main function with no solution inhand is not what we do here. We look or ask for a solution. Why not bring your concerns to the village pump where editors that are aware of the coding can perhaps help. -- Moxy (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one needs to use caps to get my attention.
I just wrote such a proposal.
What do you mean by "stopping its main function"?
What coding are you referring to?
That did not answer my question. --Chealer (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The links to "x-importance articles" categories at the top bring to categories which are not even exclusive currently. While this can be fixed, these links will be useless at best in the medium term, so they should be removed. Since the templates involved are locked, I requested their removal for now. --Chealer (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "???" column uses {{Unknown-Class}}, which is about quality, so the link points to the wrong category. There is apparently no equivalent for "importance". By the way, Top-Class, High-Class, etc are redirects to Top-importance, High-importance, etc.

As for the name, I suggest "None" - in italics, to clarify this means undefined since no WikiProject has assessed, not that the article has no importance. "Not rated by any WikiProject" would be clearer, but also long. --Chealer (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These #s vs WP:FA

Just curious as to why, as of right now, this page says 5,676 FAs but WP:FA says 4,721? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/OverallArticles&oldid=1064403268"