The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.
per the following BOTREQ change wikiproject templates that have class= or class=Unassessed to the lowest rated class that other projects have rated that (either stub or start)
After attempting to asses a large number of un-assessed articles for various WikiProjects (WikiProject Biography and WikiProject District of Columbia for example have 70130 and 5137 respectively), I realized that a huge majority of those articles fall under multiple projects and alot of those have already been assessed in one of those projects but not the others. So, my suggestion for a bot is for it to search talk pages for a pre-existing assessment and then add the same assessment to the other project tags on the same talk page. Seems pretty simple to me, and it would alleviate alot of assessment backlogs on pretty much every WikiProject. Hope someone can help me out here. Thanks! Drewcifer3000 03:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
its a simple task for BCBot, but the thing is different WikiProjects have different scales. if there are two projects that have the same scale and there is consensus for doing this I can have BCBot start working on this PDQ. Î²command 04:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. That's a good point. Well, in my experience, the majority of articles which are unassessed are almost always either Stub or Start classes. If an editor put any time or effort into an article to get it to B or above, they would've taken the time to assess it themselves 9 times out of 10. So, basically a lack of assessment is a pretty good indication of its assessment level in the first place. And, as far as I can tell, Stub and Start classes are pretty much the same across any type of article or project. A Stub assessment is based mainly on its size (or lack thereof), and a Start assessment basically means "better than a stub." So various WikiProjects would assess a Stub/Start article exactly the same, regardless of the type of WikiProject it is, right? So what if this proposed bot only copy/pastes Stub/Start assessments, since B and above is an admittedly more complex task and different among various WikiProjects. Even if it concentrated only on Stub/Start assessments, such a bot would still DRASTICALLY alleviate alot of assessment backlogs. Thanks again! Drewcifer3000 04:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
:I agree that a stub is a stub for all projects and probably true for start class as well. Saying that, when I work significantly on an article I normally wait for someone else to change the assessment. I would support a bot that only did stub/start. :: maelgwn - talk 04:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
:If you find two wikiprojects that have similar ill start out looking into this. Î²command 06:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
::Well, like I said, I'm pretty sure every project has basically the same descriptions of Stub and Start classes. For instance, WikiProject Biography and WikiProject District of Columbia all have virtually identical language. Not only that, but I've noticed a great deal of WikiProjects use the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment scale (172 WikiProjects total including the much backlogged WikiProject Biography, a category of which can be found here). So if nothing else, I suppose it would be simple to incorporate all 172 of those WikiProjects into the scope of such a bot. And, the added bonus of that might be that since they all use the same identical assessment scale for all levels Stub though FA, the bot could be expanded beyond just Stub/Start classes. I think using that category of Projects would make a wonderfully robust and useful bot, rather than just doing the stub/start class thingie I mentioned above. Drewcifer3000 19:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
/me slaps forehead. "!= "quality=" I could do the class assessment if users wanted, but we would need to start out on a small scale to get things going. Î²command 23:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I was being unclear with my language earlier. Hopefully everything makes sense now. If you want to start slow, I'd recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Education. It has about 530 unassessed articles, about 1/4 of which have already been assessed for another project. Drewcifer3000 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
:Its clear, Id work off template inclusion. (the category system is shit and its useless for working with bots) Im going to think about this and ill start coding as soon as my move to commons bot is operational. Î²command 03:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Just thinking about this some more.
Obviously FA is FA so all templates should have FA, tho I doubt there are any that need fixing. *GA is also GA, so cases where an article is rated GA and their is a lower rating on a template could be fixed, but if it is rated A in one project it should be left alone.
Start and stub are the same in all cases, so they could be matched.
I would see what the community response after the bot is operating as to whether rating's should be matched at other levels.
maelgwn - talk 03:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So basically what you're saying is that only the A rating is specific to various projects and that it might not necessarily translate the same across projects? What about B?Drewcifer3000 03:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
:A and anything lower could be mixed. B and anything lower could be mixed and with A. I started thinking this could be extended to those which already have some assessment that is clearly wrong. :: maelgwn - talk 11:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
:Of course Ill crosspost and cross my T's and dot my I's and get a green light. Î²command 03:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, awesome. Let me know when you have time to get a prototype or something up and running. I can't wait to see it in action. Thanks again! Drewcifer3000 03:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC) So far it seems a great idea, but I do some thoughts on how this bot could be of great help to Wikipedia:Stub sorting:
Articles beneath a certain size could be easily classified as stubs, although I'm not sure what a safe cutoff is (surely under a paragraph). Classifying exceptionally stubby stubs (in addition to the functions listed above) would be very helpful.
Many articles that are classified as Stubs do not have an appropriate stub template anywhere on the article itself. As most WPs have stub templates, it should an easy matter to add an appropriate generic stub template ( , , etc. ) to the bottom of the article, which would greatly help in stub sorting.
Also, the bot should definitely leave a comment on the article's talk page, something like "This article has been automatically assessed for Wikiproject blahblah by BCbot, to match the existing assessment by WikiProject other. If you feel this assessment to be inaccurate, please adjust the assessment appropriately, or discuss it on the project's talk page. Please do not revert the assessment to Unassessed, as it will likely be automatically assessed again." ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That last thing about adding a message on the talk page sounds, to me, like a great idea, the others sound good too... Jeffrey.Kleykamp 05:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Im not comfortable with sub sorting. Î²command 16:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
:K, I've made a separate request below at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 40#Stub sorting bot. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::Ive gotten a start on the bot for auto assessing, Ill start beta testing within a week. Î²command 19:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Awesome! Drewcifer3000 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
We all know my Modus operandi. Î²command 01:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
So same framework/editrate/etc as previous tasks? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:yeah its the same as my last 7 BRFA's and my future BRFAS pywiki and maxlag=5 Î²command 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup. ~ Wikihermit 01:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
trial done ~50 edits (im a few under) Î²command 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.