This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. Can you expand how the count of the number of Stubs in, for example, this table are computed by the bot? Does the bot checks all articles in a specific project for stub template(s) that can be set by the editors or does the bot use some pre-defined stub criteria (minimum number of characters, minimum number of words in the main body of the article, etc.)?

Some background: in the WMF Research team, we are working on a research proposal that can help with the expansion of stubs. The very first step for us is to understand what constitutes a stub, and how your bot counts stub can be one input that can help us get closer to finding a common definition of a stub article. There is a conversation on wiki-research-l about this topic as well, if you're interested to chime in there. Thank you! --LZia (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@LZia (WMF): Stub status (as far as this bot reports are concerned) is determined by the presence of a WikiProject banner template on the talk page with the "class" parameter set to "stub". If there are no WikiProject banners, or if there are banners, but the class parameter is blank, the article won't show up as a stub in the statistics table. The bot doesn't count words or look for stub templates at the bottom of the article. Furthermore, the talk page banner assessments are often not updated when the article is expanded. There are certainly some lengthy articles that show up as stubs in this report solely because the assessment on the talk page is out of date. Because of this, 2,897,069 is a over-estimate of the number of stubs that have been assessed for a WikiProject (but when you factor in the articles that haven't been assessed for any WikiProject, the true number of stubs is surely over 3 million). Plantdrew (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Plantdrew. It's all clear now. :) One question that comes up from reading your response: Would it be useful for this bot or other bots/efforts if we build a model that can predict (with low false-positive and false-negative) if an article is a stub, and offer this information (via API, for example) as an input to the bot? Such an input can help updating the talk pages you refer to, for example. (We are in very early stages of this research, and I'm just trying to understand if there are specific outputs that can be helpful for a bot like this one.) --LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@LZia (WMF): Some sort of automated stub detection could be useful. A problem is that the editor base interested in labelling articles as stubs is rather low. For false-negatives (stubs not labelled as such) there are 520k articles have a WikiProject Banner with no class parameter set. That's pretty much solely due to lack of editors interested in setting the class, as these articles are fairly highly visible on almost any WikiProject page. There are also false-negatives that don't have any WikiProject Banner at all; these are harder to find, and many editors don't know about the tools that can be used to find them (e.g. PetScan); it still comes down to a small editor base that's interested in this work and that knows how to do it. For false-positives (articles labelled as stubs that aren't) being able to identify them in the first place is a much bigger problem than lack of editors. I'd be happy just to have a report that gave article size in bytes for articles tagged as stubs with a particular WikiProject banner or stub template (then I could examine the larger articles to determine if stub status was warranted). Plantdrew (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I see. Let me look into this a bit more and report back here. One thing that I was reminded of off-thread is that ORES does the stub prediction, but it will probably suffer from the false-negative issue as the training set for ORES is built based on what editors have currently labelled as stub. I'll look into that, too. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @LZia (WMF): In my experience, the bot, in effect, checks the class parameter of the WikiProject template on the article's talk page. The article is a stub if an editor has set class=stub. There's no checking for stub templates or evaluation of the article against criteria. Where there are multiple WikiProjects, and they rate the article differently (e.g. Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965), for tables that combine WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics, the bot seems to report the highest class rating. I believe the English Wikipedia is the only one to use WikiProject templates with ratings, so this is not a language-independent method of identifying stubs. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Understood, Worldbruce. Thank you! --LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

LZia (WMF): Thanks for posting here. (You might also consider posting at WT:STUB.) The answers above are good technical answers, but I think you're left with the question of "what is the best way to identify a stub" (as opposed to "what ways are used by this existing tool"). Stub templates might indeed be a good indicator to consider. You might, for instance, look for the presence of class=stub in one or more WikiProject banners, check whether there is a conflicting designation in other WikiProject banners, and also check whether there's a stub template on the article itself. In cases of conflict, you might consider the most recent relevant change to be the most authoritative. And...you might also set some kind of threshold (like 5 paragraphs, or 10 citations, or something) that overrides a "stub" designation, to reduce the number of false positives (catching articles that have been incrementally and significantly expanded, without being reassessed). Lots of judgment calls, but I'd urge you to take an approach along those lines if possible, rather than simply reimplementing an existing automated process's approach. -Pete (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Pete, thanks for your note. I agree with you. Two things to share: 1) We want to make sure that we don't start working on something that has a clear answer if you ask editors. From the different conversations happening here and in the wiki-research-l list, I'm leaning towards agreeing with you, i.e., we need to build a model that predicts if an article is a stub, and that model will have, as its inputs, many of the features you mentioned (I'm doing some literature review at the moment, cuz that model may have already been built by someone). 2) One aspect we haven't touched so far here is the issue of false-negatives: all the articles that are not stub but are not labelled as such either. I don't have a good sense if this is a serious problem, especially in other languages, but if there is, building a prediction model should hopefully address that, too. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The actual criteria for assessing stubs is in the table at WP:1.0/A:

A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category. The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article all together.

See also WP:STUB § How big is too big?. Depending on your use case, it might be easier to come up with your a new term that roughly correlates with "stub", but with a more precise definition. You may also be interested in SuggestBot, which uses algorithms to give articles a 1-, 2-, or 3-star rating - Evad37 [talk] 00:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Evad37. Very helpful. Do you have examples of articles that are a collection of information in need of more work to become meaningful, and as a result they're currently labelled as stubs? I have not run into them, at least frequently, and looking into a collection of such articles would be be valuable for us, to identify other features in the article that can help us predict whether an article is a stub more reliably. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@LZia (WMF): WikiProject U.S. Roads uses that sort of assessment model, focused more around structure/organisation. See WP:USRD/A for their criteria, and see Category:Stub-Class U.S. road transport articles for the articles. - Evad37 [talk] 00:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Evad37: Thanks for the links. Just to make sure I get this right: I see Enchanted Circle Scenic Byway in Category:Stub-Class U.S. road transport articles listed as a stub. Is the article really a stub or is this one of those cases that the talk page template is not updated?

Personally I think that looks like it was not updated. But I say take away a couple of the prose sections and you would be left with mainly the lists and then you have that large stub talked about earlier. Agathoclea (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I destubbed some mid-importance stubs on WP:MICRO, the Microbiology project. The number of those articles was 90 when I started. After I finished, I ran the bot on the project to update the list, but the number of mid-importance stubs (90) stayed the same, even though it should have changed. I did change the classes on the respective talk pages from stub class to start class. Does the bot in fact change this number? Icebob99 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I see 86 mid-importance stubs, you may want to purge the project page. I've had this problem before when updating 'manually'...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it also refreshes automatically after 24-48 hours. Icebob99 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still settling into editing at a WikiProject, so please excuse any apparent ignorance. About the scale for average WikiWork: the steps are calculated in respect to distance from FA, of course, so that means that both A class and GA class are counted along the way; however, I think it would be more accurate to count either A class or GA class as one step. My reason: GA class and A class are often evaluated at the same standards, with any differences being more academic than practical. In fact, I haven't seen too many A class articles, but I have seen many GA class articles in various WikiProjects and it does seem like GA is more of a priority compared to A class. Thus, it makes sense that the purpose of A class is to rank up articles without going through the GA nomination process. How about adjusting the WikiWork calculation to consider A class and GA class as the same rank? That would mean the scale of average WikiWork would be out of 5 and every average WikiWork value for every project would be decreased by 1. I think this change would make the amount of work shown by WikiWork to be more accurate; after all, once an article is A or GA class it can practically pass for the other as well. Thoughts? Icebob99 (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A-Class is above GA-Class on the standard scale. A-Class requires a minimum of two reviewers to award in the default method, while GA-Class only requires one. The criteria for A-Class are also a bit more stringent than GA-Class. Projects that offer their own A-Class Review (ACR) may have additional requirements; some projects may require an article to be listed as a GA before it can be nominated at that ACR. Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi any TPS for this bot's owner, can you give a direction as to how the bot can be fixed to update the wikiwork factor parameters in the WikiProject tables? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

They have not been working for a loooong time, at least not for projects that I know. If it is not possible to fix the wikiwork factors, they should removed altogether. No information is better than misinformation. Micromesistius (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio and Micromesistius: You might try posting a request at WP:Bot requests. --Izno (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the pie chart at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics is inconsistent with the information in the table. Could someone take a look? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The pie chart should probably either be changed, removed or get an explanation of what it actually displays. It doesn't count articles but the number of WikiProject categories for the corresponding class. See Template talk:Articles by Quality Pie Graph#Completely broken. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The search which should run when clicking on one of the cells in a WikiProject articles by quality and importance table is down, and has been down for more than a week. People have asked about what's going on with it on a couple WikiProject talk pages that I have on my watchlist. I'm mentioning it here in hopes of getting it fixed. Plantdrew (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. Hope it gets fixed soon, I'm not able to assess any articles right now. Icebob99 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew and Icebob99: The service has been restarted and is back up. --Bamyers99 (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Icebob99 (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain if this is the correct place to post, however our [1] isn't working because we assessed[2] several articles and it is not moving start and stub from "???" column, thank you for any help,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

See section "WP1.0 bot not producing many logs for WikiProjects" above. Keith D (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I came across Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Amiga and importance articles by quality statistics whilst looking through red link categories, which are discouraged by WP:REDNOT. It looks like gibberish and hasn't been updated in years - could it be deleted? Le Deluge (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The bot is changing Björk to Björk and Pokémon to Pokémon. I know it has done this many times before and has been fixed but it started again. The history of each page shows how regularly this happens. Can it be fixed for good, please? anemoneprojectors 12:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Same thing happened for the Beyonce project here. Have reverted the bot for now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject articles by quality and importance tables generated by User:WP 1.0 bot don't seem to include Stub class articles. I'm looking at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Addiction and recovery, which I just manually regenerated using https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi I may have to switch back to using ((ArticlesByQuality)) over this issue. Bummer. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

On closer comparison of Wikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recovery/Assessment#Current status and Category:Addictions and recovery articles by quality, it appears the table may not have updated after all, in which case this bug report is moot. I'll keep you posted. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Link here

Shows 6 unassessed, but they all have Importance and Class ratings. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This is because the bot that updates the tables and logs hasn't been running properly, as mentioned in the thread above. You can manually force an update here (which I've just done for now, but you might want to do it in the future if the bot still isn't working).

Perfect, thanks for that link. Didn't see anywhere else to "purge" it :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Three days ago, the bot created Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Belgium articles by quality statistics.

That page has no incoming links and no edit history. It is categorised in a non-existent category, and its only contents are a red-linked template.

I encountered this page while working through the latest update of Special:WantedCategories. In the course of clearing a huge backlog there, I found dozens of similar pages, often years old: no incoming links, and no content except a redlinked template. I speedily deleted them per WP:G6, and was about to delete this one until I spotted that that it was new.

Please can someone try to stop the bot from making these pointless pages? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a mixup with Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Belgium-related articles by quality statistics. ((WikiProject Belgium)) says |ASSESSMENT_CAT = Belgium-related articles. Many WikiProject templates use this parameter to choose another name in the category system, here changing "Belgium" to "Belgium-related". I don't know how the bot works but maybe somebody activated it with the wrong name. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have G6-seedy-deleted it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen any change in the assessment statistics for a very long time despite all my work. Can someone fix this? Thanks.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Gilabrand please look at the various posts above. For the time being your choice is to do nothing or run it manually whenever you want at https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi. ww2censor (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to update with that link but see no change at all.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gilabrand: It updates the table immediately, but you have the purge the page it's on to see the changes. The logs are generated separately, later in the day where I'm from (Eastern Time U.S.). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I just checked again and I do see a difference this time. I didn't realize there was a time lag.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a time lag for the table re-creation. It's just that it won't appear until the page it's on is purged, either automatically on a schedule or manually, by an editor. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

So how does one do that?--Geewhiz (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If there's not already a "Purge" or "Purge cache" option somewhere in your menu, you can add it by checking "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache" in Preferences/Gadgets/Appearance. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A similar issue applies for WikiProject Canada. The numbers in the summary table are frozen, and the log shows no updates since February 3rd. Can the powers that be please reactivate the bot? Thanks in advance! PKT(alk) 17:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Rather than pointing out the obvious, I ran the bot for Canada. Bot has to be manually run, which you can do anytime. Brad (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

wikiwork factor broke the table. yes. Product0339^{Talk  • Project}
_{Contributions} 08:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia Release Version tools for other languages versions of wiki?Minh28397 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? Kelson (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering why this bot no longer updates projects quality logs daily? On Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Skepticism articles by quality log, the log hasn't updated since April 1st, yet many changes have been made since then. Thanks. Karlpoppery (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw the previous posts about this problem. Karlpoppery (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Karlpoppery I've just run it manually for you. The table is ready now and logs will appear a few hours later. ww2censor (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Karlpoppery (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem Karlpoppery. Because itthe bot has not been run on your project for quite a while it will have posted several chunks, so you may want to review the last few edits: see the history and you will see 3 edits to bring it up to date. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this problem, quality log nightly updates should be back Kelson (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears the bot made a full automatic run last night based on its edit history. Thanks for helping. Brad (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an active user from WikiProject African diaspora. Another informed me that the quality statistics table might not be updating regularly, just hoping to have someone check it out for me, much appreciated. WikiGuy86 (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I just ran it manually twice but Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/African diaspora articles by quality statistics has not been updated since 2010. Something else must be seriously wrong. ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Check again -- I just purged the page. It transcludes the updated table, so the last edit date from 2010 is misleading. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Stevietheman, I was looking for a way to purge that page, but that makes no difference to what I see in the edit history. However, I think what one sees are the transcluded statistics, so the bot does not actually edit the page after each run. What one really need to look at are the log pages and on checking I see this Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/African diaspora articles by quality log has been updated just now and the previous update was 2 April, so WikiGuy86 should be happy again. ww2censor (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ww2censor and Stevie is the man! for your work, all is well in the world again, lol! WikiGuy86 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

USRD and the other highway projects are using AL-Class, but when our first list was promoted at ACR, the bot logged that the page has been removed. Can someone apply whatever fix is necessary to recognize this class? Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 09:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump again Imzadi 1979 → 03:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Some reply would be appreciated. Archiving has been terminated for this thread. Imzadi 1979 → 01:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: thoughts here? Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that the bot add an additional task. Just as the bot updates User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1 and User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Canada-Roads-1, I'd like a similar table for WP:HWY. The rows needed would be based on the following assessment trees:

• Africa road transport articles (Africa, in gray)
• Asia road transport articles (Asia, in gray)
• Australia road transport articles (Australia)
• Canada road transport articles (Canada)
• Europe road transport articles (Europe, in gray)
• Hong Kong road transport articles (Hong Kong)
• India road transport articles (India)
• Latin America road transport articles (Latin America, in gray)
• Oceania road transport articles (Oceania, in gray)
• UK road transport articles (UK)
• U.S. road transport articles (US)
• Highways articles (HWY, in gray)
• Road transport articles (All Roads, in gray)

In parentheses I noted how the should be marked, with some appearing with gray backgrounds. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Bump again Imzadi 1979 → 03:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Some reply would be appreciated. Archiving has been terminated for this thread. Imzadi 1979 → 01:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: thoughts here? Imzadi 1979 → 23:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: it's been over a year. The courtesy of some reply would be nice. Imzadi 1979 → 20:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, indeed it has and for that I can only apologize. This is not a project I'm actively involved in developing aside from "fixing things as they break", frankly--I could look into something like this, but I don't want to promise anything prematurely, since I've never touched any of the custom tables code. The ideal solution would really be some more active eyes (and hands) on the project & the codebase. Theopolisme (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I have had a problem with this bot's table updating recently. A couple of hours ago (As of 03:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)), I revamped this page to this revision. A little while later, a bot changed the table to this revision. Can someone help me to get the bot to update with this table instead of this table? Thanks Jamesjpk (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC) (On a side note, is there any way to add WikiWork in the table too? Thanks!) Jamesjpk (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, this pages "belongs" ("User:WP_1.0_bot" namespace) and is modified by a bot. You can not change it. Kelson (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Kelson:! I am wondering how I could get this page, to be the table style to this page. I am wondering how WP:GOOGLE got their table to look like this, and how the WikiProject YouTube table could look this way.

I do not see the difference of style between the two pages you have given. Kelson (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The request is apparently not about style but about which quality classes to include. Each class corresponds to a category. I suspect the bot uses Category:YouTube articles by quality to look for subcategories so try placing the wanted categories there. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to report that logs for Louisville and Kentucky, and apparently many others haven't been produced since early February. Thanks to anyone who will look into this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The last logs I've seen were on 12 February and the project assessment tables are not being updated either though I have run some manually here https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi. These two very useful reports were regular for years with very few failures but in the last year or so have become erratic and offline for longer and longer periods. What can we do as no one appear to be maintaining them? ww2censor (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: and @Wolfgang42: can you take a look at this? Keith D (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Keith D: I doubt there is any use in trying to contact Wolfgang42, as he does not have permission and according to their contribution history, he has not been active here for almost 3 years and I recall Theopolisme has only responded when emailed and even he is quite busy IRL and he too is rather inactive here. We really need someone new to maintain these reports. ww2censor (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Thanks, I had not investigated their edit history just took the names from the page that indicated they were maintaining the tool. May be we need to ask at WP:VPT or possibly Wikipedia:Bot requests to see if there is someone who could look at getting it going again or even take over the maintenance of it. Keith D (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone made a request at VPT or Bot requests yet? Erick (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Sounds worth doing. I don't know if anyone has done that yet. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been running the bot manually and it works but it takes several hours to post the report. Brad (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two steps. The bot should be automatically updating the statistics table. That step isn't happening, but if you do a manual update, the table appears immediately. Once the statistics table is updated, the bot produces the assessment log. That step still happens automatically (provided the table has been manually updated), and it happens at a particular time of day, so it can take hours for the assessment log to update. It looks like what used to happen is that the statistics tables were automatically updated beginning around 0:00 GMT, then the bot did the assessment log run when the table updates were completed. Take a look at the time stamps in the edit history of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Plant and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality log. In recent months, the times for the table are all over the place (reflecting whenever somebody did a manual update), but the times for the log remain consistent (although often going days without an update). Plantdrew (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No matter what way you look at it, we really need a knowledgeable person to maintain this feature is some timely way. It's been breaking too often in recent years. Does anyone know anyone who might take on the job? ww2censor (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The bot is working if you manually start it for a set project and eventually it will post a report. Good for now but it needs a new attendant. Brad (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we need to find someone to maintain tech support; I'm starting to ask around. Is there a page to post this request to the bot approval people? Theo used to do the tech support, but I see he's gone largely inactive on Wikipedia in recent months. As ww2censor says - do you know anyone who can do this? Walkerma (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:BOTREQ I believe. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It has already been mentioned there: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#WP_1.0_bot. I've emailed Theo to ask if he knows anyone who can assist. ww2censor (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I got an offer (from a very capable programmer) to look at it (as a one-off) next month - I'll let you know if this goes ahead. In the meantime, though, we still need to find a permanent person to look after the bot. Walkerma (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I’ve been periodically running manual updates on Oregon articles by quality/importance matrix, but I can’t get rid of an unusual matrix outlier. Someone erroneously gave a Redirect page a quality rating and it was picked up in the “Other/Low” matrix box. That page no longer has any quality rating or even a Wiki-Oregon banner, but I can’t get that erroneously page off the Wiki-Oregon matrix. Is there any way to clear it off the matrix?--Orygun (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've had this problem for many years with the WikiProject EastEnders matrix. I eliminated importance for the entire WikiProject in 2013 but 70 pages remain listed under NA-importance, one of which no longer has the WikiProject banner (original page was moved and replaced with a disambiguation page). Even deleting the talk pages or even the redirects themselves doesn't help - it just moves them from redirect-class to other-class. —anemoneprojectors— 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Orygun: Drafts are frequently a culprit for anomalous entries in the matrix. For Oregon, it appears that the issue is with Draft talk:March Against Hate. I'm not sure what's going on with EastEnders; I checked a couple of the entries and they didn't have corresponding drafts. Plantdrew (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Gathering in one place information from here and the Bot's instruction page:

• Source code, last updated by Kelson a year ago.
• Last maintainers: Theopolisme + Wolfgang42. (We should update this if they're inactive or unavailable)
• Current active users looking for new maintainers: user:Walkerma, Kelson (since this bot and other kiwix tools are key to generating offline WP 1.0 snapshots)

– SJ + 00:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, SJ, for posting that here! I think they are both inactive, but we've not found a replacement. However, Kelson just emailed me to say that he thinks he fixed it, see #Quality_log_no_longer_updates. However, Kelson has too many responsibilities already on Kiwix to be able to be the official person here. Anyway, great news! Walkerma (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why the Wikiwork factors are not getting displayed in User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Beyoncé? Do I need to apply for it somewhere? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I can help, but no clue what you mean with the "Wikiwork factors"! Could you maybe give an example with an other project where this is working? Kelson (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kelson: See the bottom line (below Total) at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Plant for an example. Plantdrew (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thx, I understand better now. I need to have a look. Kelson (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No updates in about 4 days and the manual run does not work either. Brad 04:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Kelson: @Walkerma:

This change is responsible of the problem https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AWikipedia_1.0_assessments&type=revision&diff=785312604&oldid=770687996. The bot relies on a certain structure of categories, changing it makes it fails. Kelson (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kelson. @Fayenatic london: your change has broken 1.0 bot for all wikiprojects. I could revert the change, but am wary of breaking anything else. Is there any solution to this issue? Obviously we can't have a bot that does not work. Brad 20:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, here[3] are some related changes that I made. That was just mopping-up; the vast majority were made by Cydebot, starting here.[4]

Wouldn't it be better to update the WP 1.0 bot?

Despite the many pages of contribs by Cydebot, I believe that only a small proportion of projects were in the WP 1.0 category; the rest were in Category:WikiProject assessments already. Presumably they cannot have been affected by the change; were they already being processed by another bot? If so, can the latter take over this assessment work from WP 1.0 Bot? – Fayenatic London 22:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Jc37 and Explicit: in case they can help. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

1.0 Bot is currently rudderless and does not have any assigned maintainer. I'm not fully aware of the ins and outs but it's my understanding that approximately 1000 wikiprojects rely on 1.0 Bot which is not running after your change. The category was clearly explained in a hidden note. So, we can wait two months for the bot to be updated or we can reverse the changes and get the bot back asap. Brad 02:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've temporarily reinstated category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments as a parent category over Category:WikiProject assessments. If we're lucky, the bot may process the grandchild categories. If that doesn't work, we will need to do a mass rollback on the 4,650 categories moved by Cydebot and myself. – Fayenatic London 06:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, we can wait a couple days to see if the bot comes out of it's coma however, I tried making a manual run which did not go. See 1.0 Bot contributions page. If you go back to the 10th and 11th, you'll see just how many projects the bot updates. Brad 15:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I also tried a manual run from User:WP 1.0 bot on "19th-century novels task force", since the first two categories moved by Cydebot were Category:19th-century novels task force articles by importance and Category:19th-century novels task force articles by quality. The manual run did nothing. Then I rolled back the changes on those two categories, which moved them back into Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, and manually ran 1.0 bot on the same task force; this time it had a result. – Fayenatic London 19:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I just have had a look again, and indeed the category Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments needs to be pupulated back with project categories Kelson (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried looking at the project categories that were already in Category:WikiProject assessments rather than Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, not moved by Cydebot or me. The first alphabetically is .NET, but this was moved in good faith by Gamebuster (talk · contribs) on 4 June; I reverted it. He also moved one of the top-level assessment categories, Category:Articles by importance, so I tried reverting that and Category:Articles by quality back into the 1.0 category, but I confirm after another test that that is not a sufficient workaround either. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

But why is it still updating this table in Category:U.S. road transport articles by quality, as that category is still in WikiProject assessments? – Fayenatic London 22:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No updates in WP Israel assessments for quite a while. Is this connected?--Geewhiz (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Geewhiz: Probably… It's interesting that you should ask about that project. Among the bot's few contribs yesterday, it seems to be trying to create the required pages for WP Israel: it created Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Israel Assessment Statistics articles by quality statistics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WP Israel articles by quality statistics, each of which is a member of a non-existent category and transcludes a non-existent page. Did you by any chance initiate a process by the bot that would have made it create those two new pages?

In Category:WikiProject Israel I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Assessment/Statistics, which transcludes User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Israel-related, which has not been updated since 12 June; neither of these was in any assessment category (so I categorised the first one). The bot created the second new page in non-existent Category:WP Israel articles by quality, but the existing articles-by-quality category is called Category:Israel-related articles by quality, so I moved it there – not sure whether that will help. The new page probably shouldn't be needed; there was also already Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wikiproject Israel articles by quality statistics, which transcludes the same "Israel-related" bot-updated page. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't see any change, but yes, it was probably me who initiated the process. Last time the assessment stopped working I was told to update it manually with this link: http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi

But I guess it didn't work.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that does explain those pages being created by WP 1.0 bot, then. I just tried to force the bot to update "WP Polynesia" (as opposed to Polynesia or WikiProject Polynesia) and it created a similar red-linked new page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WP Polynesia articles by quality statistics. Evidently, then, the newly-created WP Israel pages are not a sign that the bot is on its way to put things right.

I deleted the new pages. I also went to the link you gave, and ran the bot for "WikiProject Israel", and that worked properly.

Now I have rolled back 150 of Cydebot's contribs, from "A" to "Alternative Views". Let's see if WP 1.0 bot starts working on those projects again.

But I would still like to know why the bot's contribs show that it is still processing the Roads project pages, which have not been moved back into the 1.0 category. – Fayenatic London 15:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Team, are we fixing this issue? I don't understand what was the need for this change at all. Seems to be the source of all trouble. Every few days some update happens on these bots and then everything fails :( —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there any good reason to revert all the changes? Then make sure everything is running properly and after that figure out how to make the changes that were agree to so as not to screw up the whole process as has happened. ww2censor (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I reinstated the category page pinpointed by IB on the 19th, and it did not fix the issue. Kelson diagnosed above that that category needs to be repopulated, which means reverting all the changes. – Fayenatic London 07:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: is that the only category to be deleted? The discussion seems to say that the bot is checking some different format of categories to tabulate the table parameters? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The CFD discussion resulted in consensus to merge Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments to Category:WikiProject assessments. However, Kelson says ([5]) that WP 1.0 bot only works if the categories "Foo articles by quality" and "Foo articles by importance" are in Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. So it looks as if we have to undo the merge, i.e. move over 4,000 categories back into that one. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at the assessment page for WP Israel and saw no change. So what is it that you say worked properly?--Geewhiz (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong about that. I checked the bot's contributions and saw an edit to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Israel articles by quality statistics, but that's just yet another unnecessary newly-created red-linked page. I'll delete that as well. The existing page has a non-standard lowercase p in wikiproject, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wikiproject Israel articles by quality statistics, which transcludes User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Israel-related. I tried running the bot for "Wikiproject Israel", and it did not generate any changes to the table. Then I reverted the Israel-related categories, i.e. moved them back into 1.0 assessments category, and re-ran the bot. Only then did it at last update the table. This confirms Kelson's advice. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for working hard to fix this. Much appreciated! 20:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Assessment table updated but now we wait and see if the assessment log will post. There typically are several hours between table and log updates. Haven't see any updates for the A changes you made. Brad 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The A tables are updating as I post this. Brad 00:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Break

All of the tables and logs for Israel and the A's have posted successfully. Now what? Brad 12:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The A tables, and Israel, did update, and so did their logs. Therefore I have gone ahead and completed mass rollback of all the project categories that were moved out of 1.0 Assessments on 12 June. There is a weakness in using rollback: it also rolls back any immediately preceding edits by the same editor. So, if the previous edit to the same category was also by Cydebot (e.g. implementing a renaming of another parent category per an older CFD decision), that would have been rolled back too. I have therefore checked my rollback edits, and revised any where the page size changed by anything other than +2 characters. This still leaves the possibility of overlooking any preceding edits by Cydebot that did not change the character count. Well, that's the best I can do. At least we will have the vast majority of the assessments working again. Please ping me if you find any that I missed. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your excellent cooperation in this matter. Looking at the bot contribs, they appear to all be working as they should. If there are any problems left over, they will have to be pointed out as they're discovered. Hopefully some new attendants for the bot will be found. Brad 00:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I seem to always find gigantic trouble. Let's use the Catholicism log as an example. If you look at the reassessed column you will see that through the history of the log that the same articles are constantly being reassessed. This is caused by some manner of a duplicate project banner on the talk page. See the old version of this page as an example; drop open the banner shell and observe two WP:Catholicism tags. If one is removed, the bot halts the repetitive assessments. Another manner of duplication is a page that contains task forces ie: WP:Albums and WP:TheBeatles|album=yes together on the same page.

Nothing too harmful is happening except that the problem causes 1.0 Bot to make edits for no productive reason. There are thousands of articles that have this problem; WP:Women has six entire pages of reassessments daily. Another project had one article reassessing for 18 months! I've picked through some of the smaller incidences of duplication but the problem is too large scale for one or two editors to fix. Brad 14:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm I just found a triplicate! Brad 16:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if we can get someone to look at this. Thanks for flagging it. Walkerma (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to have the bot ignore pages that have double tags or I could put in a botreq to clear duplicates. But the duplicates will always be an issue so having the bot ignore and or flag duplicates is the best solution. I've also discovered a few incidences where someone has placed a category ie: project: mid-importance-stonecutters articles within the text of the talk page. This too, counts as a double tag. Brad 00:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Will try to have a look to that. I have open a ticket here. Kelson (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The last few days when it comes to posting the logs, the bot is not posting past the D's. Table updates seem to be fine. This is a similar problem we had a couple of months ago and manual updates don't help. Another botreq was recently posted here. God save the Queen. Brad 01:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No way to fix problem if problem are not described properly? Please give an example/link of what goes wrong and explain clearly what is wrong? Kelson (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot isn't updating the articles by quality logs that are alphabetically past "Dogs"; see Special:Contributions/WP_1.0_bot. Plantdrew (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I still do not get it, I see here article William Corvinus reassessed yesterday and "William Corvinus" > "Dogs". Kelson (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And Football (F) is after Dogs (D) and hasn't been updated since July 2 (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football articles by quality log) even though the table is updated daily (User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Football). The question is why is it stopping at the end of D? Nanonic (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, so you are talking about the project names... Kelson (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

One more time: The bot seems to be updating the tables just fine but not updating the logs past any project name that starts with the letter D in its title. There are no logs being updated with the project names from E-Z. Brad 20:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So I finally discovered the following "smart move"... Unprotect that page and I strongly suspect this will fix our problem. Kelson (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: could you look at the page mentioned above that you deleted then protected which may be the cause of the problem with the BOT. Keith D (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that fixed it! Nanonic (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That's my observation too. Thanks for the help: all of you! Brad 03:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The ??? column header should link to Category:Unknown-importance articles, not Category:Unassessed articles. --Jameboy (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A recent change to the MediaWiki software means that links of the form [[::Foo]] have stopped working. There's a thread about this at VPT. I've scanned a recent database dump for links of this form, and have found hundreds of the pages maintained by WP 1.0 bot (talk · contribs), for example 1, 2, 3. It might be worth adding some code to catch this. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be part of an existing bug in the bot. All examples I examined correspond to draft pages (often deleted) with WikiProject tags on the talk page so the link would go to the wrong place if the colons are just removed. For example, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cuba articles by quality log#May 4, 2017 says:

• Wainwright Libre (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class (rev · t).

But Wainwright Libre has never existed. The entry must have been caused by Draft:Wainwright Libre. Both the double colon link and the red alleged "talk" link try to link to the non-existing mainspace Wainwright Libre. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Event Venues articles by quality statistics has not been updated since 2010 - could someone possibly update it? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Event_Venues Kelson (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That page does not get updated very often as it just transcludes the results generated. For instance, look at this very active project stat table history. The Event Venues stats look right to me. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Event Venues articles by quality log? It, and the lists linked from the assessment stat table, show several articles started after 2010. BTW, it looks like a semi-active project so that may be why you are seeing little movement. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm confused. Am I making a new userpage for this bot to run on? Trying to make it work for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chiropractic/Assessment! All help is appreciated :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Semmendinger: - start with this page. The main thing is to create the parent category. Once you've set up things as on that page, you should put your WikiProject assessments on a few pages, and the bot should start recording your assessments. Let me know if you need any more help. Walkerma (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The Māori task force's quality and importance table is being incorrectly updated. The bot uses "Māori" instead of "Māori", resulting in a bunch of red links to non-existent categories. See this edit. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 04:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This will probably not get done immediately, but we'll add it to the list of bugs. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I have open a ticket here Kelson (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject New York has been renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state) and everything moved accordingly. However the bot is now editing redirects. Where is the list it runs off to amend that? Timrollpickering 11:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: - can you clarify with an example? I looked at a couple of article talk pages (including my home town!) and they seem OK. Is it still giving problems? Walkerma (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's been ignoring the redirect at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/New York and hasn't updated Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/New York (state) articles by quality log for a while. Timrollpickering 10:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I checked the bots edits and it shows Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/New_York_(state)_articles_by_quality_log was in fact just updated yesterday, and it includes an assessment change on Talk:FOIL request that I did recently. Also, the table is now being updated at User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/New_York_(state). (I suspect that the old pages simply remain there; the bot will no longer update them, though.) I notice that Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_York_(state)#Assessment has the current (active) table and a link to the assessment log. Does this mean the problem has been solved? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Micronesia_articles_by_quality_log . Federated States of Micronesia , Palikir , Typhoon Chataan , and Women in the Federated States of Micronesia all bounce back and forth between "Unknown" and the actual rankings. There isn't some kind of eternal edit war on the talk page, either, it's the same static ranking. SnowFire (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I notice that on the talk pages of those articles, the Micronesia template is listed twice - once with "Top importance" and once with "not assessed for importance." In addition, the categories show the article listed in both categories - as a result, the poor bot can't make up its mind! However, when you look at the wiki code, the template is only present once. I wonder if it's some quirk of your WikiProject template code that makes it different from others, or whether it's something else entirely - but I don't think I've seen this bug before! Walkerma (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice catch. And, not "my" Wikiproject, but... my suspicion is that "FSM" used to be its own Wikiproject, was folded into WP Micronesia as a sub-project, and some pages still have a separate FSM & Micronesia template for how the mess started. That said, ideally whoever runs the bot should create some sort of an "error, rating inconsistent, pls fix" state of course. SnowFire (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I pointed out the issue here. Brad (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at the [Project index] for Wikiprojects and the table for the WikiProject Football/United States and Canada task force is not showing up, even though there is one on the page itself. I'm also not seeing the category page show up. Is there a way to fix this so that these appear? Jay eyem (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I suspect there may be problems with some others also, which means it could be a serious bug. We don't have anyone on full time maintenance of the bot, but I'll see if we can identify the problem and fix it. In the next couple of months we want to start preparing a new offline collection, and we'll need to make sure we don't exclude whole subject areas because of a bug like this! In the meantime, please let us know if anything changes. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jay eyem:, you'll find it in the Project Index under Soccer in the United States and Canada. The Project Index doesn't index task forces alphabetically with the parent project. They're usually indexed by the task force name; I was expecting to find the US football/soccer task force indexed under U for United States but found it under S for Soccer. Task forces are handled a inconsistently by tools and reports that are designed to function with independent WikiProject banners. Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what I wanted to know, thank you very much! Jay eyem (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, last week I posted a notice of this error at "WP:VPT" and there was no response. A couple days later, it seemed to be working okay so I let it go as perhaps a passing error. Now the error is happening again.

Details: project = Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment. After running the "Update project data" for WP Catholicism, the numbers remain the same in that "???" column. Even though I updated the articles with "importance=" assessments.

Anything that can be done to fix would be great! Thanks, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I see 38 articles in Category:Unknown-importance_Catholicism_articles. Make sure to purge the assessment page to get the latest version. Easiest way to purge is a null edit; open page edit, change nothing, and save. Should purge. Brad (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I have been doing the Purge (under Move, on toolbar) to clear the page cache. For example on WP Cath. Assessment page, for Stub articles it shows 13 before & after purge, even though all 13 articles have "importance=low". Wonder if the error could be with "Article lists" not picking up the correct value & throwing an incorrect result? This is totally beyond anything I know about so I may be just guessing. Or is the error with "Update project data"? All 13 articles are updated with "importance=low" & are still being reported into the "???" column. Hope this clarifies. — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Today, I logged off & ran "Update project data" from IP address. It reduced the number of articles down to 4 articles remaining. Three of these are articles with non-Alpha-Numeric characters in the title. Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles is now empty since I completed assessment of all those articles. — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, I logged off & ran "Update project data" from IP address. It changed the number of articles, so I logged in & updated "importance=" on these, then re-ran the update. SAME PROBLEM = articles in "???" column remains unchanged. — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@JoeHebda:I see that it still hasn't cleared by itself - I had hoped it would. It's a curious bug! We don't have anyone working regularly on maintaining the bot, but we have someone who occasionally checks over things. Normally he only gets involved if the bot actually stops running altogether. I'll ask him about it when he is next working on it; we will be putting together a new article collection soon for WP:1, so we will need to look at the bot code again then. However, this seems so random, I'm not sure we'll be able to identify the problem! Walkerma (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Walkerma - Thanks for the update. Wondering if the same issue exists with other WikiProjects? So far this is the only one that I've seen. — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Walkerma - Yes, something definitely is "off" in that "???" column as today the wikitable on "Stub" line shows a count of 2 articles, yet when I click on the wikilink, only 1 article shows. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Catalan-speaking countries has a WikiWork row with a different width than the other rows. How can it be fixed? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been getting this message for several days now while attempting to access assessment information:

There was an error connecting to the database. This is most likely a temporary condition. Please try again in a few minutes. If the problem persists, please contact User:CBM on enwiki.

The error message is: Unknown database 'p50380g50494_data'

WP 1.0 bot revision 541, updated Sat, 6 Dec 2014 by theopolisme

Does anybody know something about this? -- Dolotta (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting the same problem which has been raised by others with CBM as per the error message. But they say they are not the maintainer, so hopefully raising it here may help?...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Walkerma...Jokulhlaup (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping - I've asked for help. Walkerma (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• This is happening right now with the scale table for WP:PHARMACOLOGY as well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No runs since October 31 Brad (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably for the best, at least until the Draft namespace and Unicode bugs are fixed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep up trying to get help. Walkerma (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Asking for help

Greetings (Brad101—Ahecht—Walkerma—Jokulhlaup)  – This issue is being reported at several places including WP:VPT at Article stats table Problem. In addition, the process to update Assessment tables is broken, and in need of immediate action. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Reporting that "Article lists" are now working. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Reporting that "Update project data" is erroring out with this message There was an error connecting to the database. This is most likely a temporary condition. Please try again in a few minutes. If the problem persists, please contact User:CBM on enwiki. The error message is: Unknown MySQL server host 'labsdb1001_42.eqiad.wmnet' (0) WP 1.0 bot revision 541, updated Sat, 6 Dec 2014 by theopolisme

Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

URL for above error http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the message I heard from my friend from FR:WP who is looking at it, who unfortunately has been very busy lately:

I finally had a look to the problem... and this is not totally trivial.

1. The database servers used by the bot are outdated and one crashed end of october. This is why you see a problem
2. I have somehow access to the data (at least I think so) but we need to migrate the data to the new system.
3. I'm currently trying to migrate the data
4. Unfortunately the new system does not exactly work like the older one and I will need to make changes in the code. Nothing really massive I suspect but still a bit of work. As a conclusion I think the community will have to work probably around an additional week without the bot :(

So it looks like it's not a simple problem, but once he gets to work on it (hopefully in a week or so) he should be able to get things more stable for the longer term. Or is anyone else planning to work on this before then? Walkerma (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think I have fixed most of the problem and finally things went a bit more easily than I thought. New versions of the stats pages are currently being uploaded by the bot. Kelson (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheers & Congratulations Kelson! Both the "Article lists" and "Update project data" are running correctly now. I manually ran Update for WP Catholicism & it has the newest assessment table. Thanks so much. :-) — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Super, —PaleoNeonate – 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I see no change in WP Israel article lists/article assessment.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

While the database is now running on a server and seems fully accessable, I did a manual run on one project yesterday which worked but expected to see the daily list populated and on my watchlist by today. That has not happened. However manual runs did appear to work as I have just run a different project that I watch and it appeared on my watchlist. So until the automation is fixed editors may want to try running their project statistics manually from: https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi ww2censor (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@GeeWhiz: I just ran the "Israel-related" list manually. I don't see an "Israel" project listed. Did it appear on your watchlist? ww2censor (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no technology background so don't really know how these things work. But this page, for example, has not been updated since October: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Israel-related articles by quality log, and when I assess articles based on the listing for Wikiproject Israel, the number of articles in each category (stub, start, etc.) remains unchanged.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings ww2censor and Geewhiz - On those pages that are not showing updated, maybe you just need to click on "More" on toolbar, then "Purge" to force a page refresh? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Geewhiz you need to look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Israel-related articles by quality statistics and you will see that the actual statistics have been updated. When you do a manual run you see a results report that lists the individual stats and the totals I see on that report for the Israel-related run are the same as those transcluded into the page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Israel-related articles by quality statistics, so it is working. What is not working, as you mentioned, are the quality logs that usually were updated within 24 hours of a run but as yet, that either is not working or, is delayed for some reason. I can't assist you but the tables for the projects I am interested in do work and give the updated statistics. I don't know who can assist on your Israel problem. BTW, JoeHebda I don't know which pages you suggest purging. ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

logs not posting

Hi ww2censor and Geewhiz, To clarify, for a WikiProject, that would be the "Assessment" page, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment. The links within the wikitable are working correctly, i.e. "Article lists" as well as the "Update project data" process.

What is not working is the log Bot for WikiProjects. For example Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log is stopped at October 30, 2017. This is totally beyond my knowledge. Does anyone know how to get the bot started again? Or if it is safe to do so? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the logs are important from my POV. Brad (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Success at last. The quality logs on my watchlist started to appear today, so thank you to whoever fixed the problem. Hopefully that's the end of the problems for a while. ww2censor (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Great :) Kelson (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for fixing that, Kelson! There are many WikiProjects grateful to you! Walkerma (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

But Kelson one hiccup I notice is that the links in the quality log to the articles link directly to the articles but the links to the article talk pages also link to the articles and not to the talk pages. ww2censor (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hope this is fixed now, still found an other place where the DB name was hardcoded. Kelson (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The logs seem to have stopped posting for project names starting with QRSTUVWXYZ; it finished A-P. Brad (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There is still no change in this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel/Assessment --Geewhiz (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gilabrand: here is the statistics table User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Israel-related that includes articles as recent the day before yesterday and here Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Israel-related articles by quality log is the quality log from yesterday, so they are being updated. The table on the page you linked contains the same statistics and is current. Look at this article that was assessed on the 18th and appears in the statistic and the log. It would not be there if no update was taking place. I don't know what you are looking at that makes you say it is not working for your project. ww2censor (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The updating of the log stopped in October and just started again. But when an article that appears in the list of WP articles is assessed or reassessed, the numbers in the quality assessment chart do not change, even after a few days. I don't know how you can conclude that it's working. I know the starting figures and I know that I have worked on articles and changed the assessment, so I can assure you the numbers are not changing.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't see it that way but I don't have to totals from October when the logs stopped being updated. When I click on your projects 386 unassessed articles, it brings me to the listing of those 386 articles (actually the first 250 of the 386) and in that list appear articles that cannot have been assessed in October because the talk pages have had the project's assessment banner added since then, but you insist the totals have not changed. It makes no sense to me. I can't even suggest anything further for you. ww2censor (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

{ping|Gilabrand)){ping|Ww2censor))Kelson and I will be starting soon on creating a new WP:1 selection, so we'll get a "global" view of how the bot is behaving. As Kelson said before, there may be some bugs that are present as a result of the move to the new server, but most of these should become apparent as we work through the statistics. It just may take a couple of months to track down the problems in the code. Thanks for spotting these bugs - it's very helpful. Walkerma (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, Hoping that I am explaining this correctly. When I look at entries at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log, there are a number of articles included in the log that have timestamps from years back, and not for the log date. Problem is for every date shown, not just random.

For example, on log for November 30, 2017, article List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy but on View history, it shows last update was on "3 November 2017‎". Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe the problem was found here but it's happening with many projects. Brad (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing, if you look at Talk:Pastoral trips of Pope John Paul II (which is actually a talk page of a redirect) you can see. ((WikiProject Christianity|class=List|importance=Low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Mid)) ((WikiProject European Microstates|class=List|importance=Low|Vatican City=yes|Vatican City-importance=Mid)) ((WikiProject Catholicism|class=List|importance=Low|Vatican City=yes|Vatican City-importance=Mid))

There is a duplicate call to WP:Catholicism due to catholicism=yes in the first line, and a different importance on the first and last line, which produces a endless chain of changes in the quality log...Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou Jokulhlaup for identifying this. It totally explains why these lines keep reappearing in the logs. Glad to learn something new (again). I've done cleanup on most (but not all) for these article Talk pages. Will check tomorrows log for additional ones. Thanks again. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that drafts are incorrectly linked by the bot. An example: Special:Permalink/803852075#Assessed (for Draft:The Da Vinci System). These are now more common since the beginning of WP:ACTRIAL. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the code was grabbing the list of namespace names from a database originally on toolserver, but that database likely predates the addition of the draft namespace. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This should be fixed now, see https://github.com/openzim/wikimedia_wp1_bot/issues/1. Please reopen the bug if not. Kelson (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bot adding double colons

@Theopolisme and Wolfgang42: The WP 1.0 bot seems to be causing lots of Multi-colon errors (wikilinks starting with two colons, such as the one inserted for Parq Vancouver here, are not longer being parsed by mediawiki). Can you add a function to the bot to filter out the extra colons before updating the templates? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahecht: Yes, I was just about to ask for the same thing, and I add my voice to Ahecht asking that this be addressed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This is related to my above-post too. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of these errors are caused by the program not knowing what to call the draft namespace and just leaving it blank. Unfortunately, Wolfgang42 and Theopolisme have been mostly inactive since 2015. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone should probably email them. --Izno (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The same thing has started happening with links to the Category namespace, which used to be correct. Keith D (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I confirm that I also saw this in the last log update. —PaleoNeonate – 13:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Theopolisme and Wolfgang42: The bug may have been fixed before, but it's back as strong as ever. Right now there are 6403 lint errors of type multi colon escape: 2 in the Talk space, 4 in the User talk space, and all the rest (6397) multi colon escape lint errors created by WP 1.0 bot. Guessing an average of 4 errors per article, there are about 1600 different Wikipedia space articles created by WP 1.0 bot that have the multi colon escape lint error. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Is that better now? I have made a test run on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Boston_articles_by_quality_log. Kelson (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Precisions

For precision, here are two diffs showing the bogus links: [6], [7]. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

We seem to have a lot of these minor bugs at the moment - often relating to non-alphanumeric characters. I've asked for some help from someone who has looked at the code. Thanks for the reports, Walkerma (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue is under discussion although it would have been nice to have a message left here. Brad (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What needs doing to get the bot working/unbanned? Brad (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brad101: - User:Kelson has said he will work on it - he has fixed it on several previous occasions - but it will take him about two weeks. We'll just have to hold tight till then. Walkerma (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Is that better now? I have made a test run on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Boston_articles_by_quality_log. Kelson (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Kelson Walkerma Brad101 Gilabrand: I manually ran 3 different projects and all generated tables seemed fine. On my reading of it, the drafts now also appear in the results and link properly to their pages. Let's see if the logs get generated tomorrow or after an automated run. ww2censor (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I confirm that Category: and Draft: space assesment appear to be corrected (cannot confirm for Template: yet), and that the bot resumed activity for WP:SKEPTIC (log). Many thanks! —PaleoNeonate – 13:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I can confirm that project logs were generated and came through today for those I have on my watchlist. However, both links to the articles and their "talk" pages actually only link to the article and not to the talk pages. Kelson, great work, but do you think this is something you can deal with or do we need someone else? ww2censor (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not get it. A concrete detailed example please Kelson (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Kelson I see what the problem WAS. The pre-1 December log entires viewed in diffs made prior to the 14 January run have the article and talk page entries both linking only to the article BUT since the update any new entries are correct, so something resolved the problem that is now just a legacy issue we will hopefully not see again. Though it now seems just academic, if you look at this diff the new links for 1 December are correct (but were added on 14 Jan) but the 30 November ones are not correct. BTW, when do you think the stats will be running automatically again? ww2censor (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Good :). Please open a new paragraph about this stats problem, I'm not aware about that. Kelson (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The assessment page statistics for WP Israel continue to be incorrect. From what I see, the figures have not changed since mid-December, although a few reassessments I did today seem to have registered.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not a semi-colon problem, please open a new paragraph an explain in detail what is wrong. Kelson (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not a technical person and don't know what's wrong. All I know is that the WP Israel assessment page and statistics log are not working and not updating.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Links? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Israel-related_articles_by_quality_log&action=history is updated! Kelson (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Bot needs to update from Dec 27 to current. Brad (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me that unless someone was extraordinarily active on Jan 13, after two weeks of doing nothing, then it seems that the bot has simply aggregated all of the changes under the Jan 13 header. In other words, all the assessment changes are in the log. If that's true, then if the bot is run daily it will stay up to date. Walkerma (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I noticed a run to update the WP:SKEPTIC log for december. However, there were no updates since then. —PaleoNeonate – 12:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have now seen a run, although all updates were put on the same day. Still better than nothing of course. —PaleoNeonate – 03:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Have put a new fix, hope this will work fine now, all days. Kelson (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks promising, thanks again! —PaleoNeonate – 03:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I am here from tools.wmflabs.org , I am not sure who runs it or can edit the tool, but I was wondering if it's possible to add category search function to the tool. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

When I try to use the current category option, it fails to work. Govvy (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: - Unfortunately, we don't have anyone actively writing new code - we only have someone from FR:WP who can do maintenance when absolutely needed. If you do any work with the code, please keep us updated here! Walkerma (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with javascript and basic, but beyond that... I really wouldn't call myself a coder! Govvy (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Could someone help me set up the categories and assessment table for Gun politics task force? I'm having a bit of trouble following the instructions and it looks like it would be easier for someone with admin or AWB rights. –dlthewave ☎ 15:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC) @Dlthewave:I just saw your message last night? Were you able to get things set up? Looking at something like this page, it looks like you sorted it out. However, if you're still having problems please let me know, and leave me an example of an article tag that has those problems? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Walkerma: Yes, I was able to sort everything out. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 11:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Great bot! Just wanted to say thanks for the bot - and for the supporting documentation. Very easy to use! Cypherquest (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Several times for WikiProject Catholicism I ran "Update project data" https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi. On page Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment the "???" column is not updated even though I corrected all 21 articles for "importance=". I did cache purge, browser purge, logged out & in... Don't know how to fix so I'm reporting here. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: I just reran the bot and everything looks updated now. See User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Catholicism. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: - Thanks! Did you run same update.fcgi (above) that I did? Wondering why it worked for you & not for me. Is there a newer bot out there? — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: Yep, here. There's been times before where I have told the bot to update a WikiProject and the bot runs, but the table doesn't update. I usually just wait a few hours and try again. Just figure it is buggy sometimes. And you're welcome! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Version 0.5 articles by quality and its subcategories were deleted based on this discussion, but "Version 0.5" still appears in the index. How often is the index updated, or is there a way to manually remove a deleted project? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The category creation tool is returning a software error. Can anyone check? — Ganeshk (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/mathbot//cgi-bin/wp/wp10/gen_cats.cgi

I'll ask about this. I was hoping it was just a temporary problem, but it's been down every time I've checked. Thanks for reporting it. Walkerma (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems like its only doing projects beginning with A&B but only a few at that. In my case the Ships project has not updated since the 16th. Brad (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The assessment tables are updating but not the logs. Brad (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

And a manual run also just produces the tables but not the logs. ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I've requested help - we'll see if things can be fixed. Walkerma (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Your manual run may have worked. My understanding of the bot is that it will update the tables right away but logs are posted hours later and only once a day. Ships project logs were updated with all of the missing days included. Wait and see what happens in the next day or two. Brad (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The logs arenot showing daily. It ran for a few consecutive days & then stopped again. Also, I just ran the Bot for WP Catholicism and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment page has incorrect numbers for the "???" column. for Stubs it displays 1 but when I click on it, 3 articles show. I did purge the page before viewing. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings Brad101  — Walkerma : Wondering what can be done so Assessment logs are created daily? Has something been changed lately causing this issue? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any changes, but I still haven't had any response. I'll keep trying. Walkerma (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Today is Sept. 3 & last logs are on Aug. 31st. When looking at "User contributions" for the Bot, it is still running daily but not making logs. Each day the bot stops processing at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki). Wondering if something is broken at this WP? Or maybe the next WP in line to be processed? — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Logs are now apparently running! Let's keep an eye on things, though. Walkerma (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Walkerma: From "View history" the logs were not created on these dates

• July 14
• August 1, 4, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29
• September 1, 2

Questions

1. What is making the Bot stop creating logs?
2. What makes the bot decide to begin making the logs again?
3. How does the Bot "know" which days are missing?
4. Should this issue be taken to Village Pump-Technical?

Lastly, should this Bot be divided in half or two Bots? Pass # 1 = Update all assessment tables, then Pass # 2 = create logs.

Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't have anyone on en:WP who is able to maintain the bot, so we have to ask User:Kelson who is more active on fr:WP. He is familiar with the code, but his main focus is on new releases of Kiwix, and his time is very valuable so I don't like to bug him unless it's serious. So it's very hard to get any major changes to the code, though Kelson does what is needed to keep the bot running. It would be great if we could get someone local to this project with the know-how and the time to maintain the bot and to make occasional improvements to the code; however, our last couple of recruitment attempts failed. The problems that occurred at fairly regular intervals before related to (I think) a memory usage part that would max out and have to be expanded. Kelson rewrote the code in March or so, and migrated it to a new server, to try and eliminate that ongoing problem permanently - but apparently the bugs persist. Do you know anyone who could help? Walkerma (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Walkerma: At Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log Revision history when I click on "contribs" for WP 1.0 bot, it shows what appears it is looping & then stalls out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WP_1.0_bot.

At 21:13, 4 September 2018, it completes "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bible articles by quality log", and then waits until 23:54, 4 September 2018.

It begins "User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)", works on more assessment tables & never continues with creating logs.

It looks like looping between Tables/Project/Biography (military) and Tables/Project/Biography and Tables/Project/Military history.

While doing assessments for Category:Unassessed biography articles did notice some kind of inter-connection with these 3 WP. Just a theory but could there be some kind of "tangled web"? Causing the bot to repeat & eventually timeout? I certainly do not understand how any of this WP internal-plumbing works, & do not really need to know.

Perhaps at Village Pump-Technical there may be someone who can dig into & fix. If the Bot is not broken, maybe changes are needed at 1 or more of above WP. — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite busy IRL for the next 2-3 days, but as time allows I'll try to reach Kelson again. In the meantime, if you can find someone on en:WP to help, that would be great! Your idea of a "tangled web" is interesting - perhaps it is getting into some type of logic loop that makes it get stuck. 11:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Walkerma: For Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log September 6 the log is missing. Sept.7 is there so somehow 6th was skipped. If I remember correctly, that was the day I did a few article cleanups from the assessment table, then manually ran the Bot for WP Catholicism. This might be another issue--why no log when manual run of the Bot? — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting comments about Bot problems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Popular pages. Might be a different bot, but a clue about how to fix? — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Walkerma: For Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log September 9, the log is missing. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Walkerma: For Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log September 10, the log is missing. I will manually run the Bot for WP Cath. & see if that will trigger logs? — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping track! Kelson is aware of the problem, but he has a big software launch going on and may be too busy right now. However, he has asked us to gather requirements for a new bot and visualization tool, since he says: "The current solution is not adapted anymore to the needs and can not be further developed properly". So I will start a new thread soon, when I get a break from work. Walkerma (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Walkerma: Oneof my concerns is reliance on 1 person for Bot maintenance. While I am not familiar with Kelson, I wonder how a team can be assembled to create a new bot?

I myself know nothing of how to code a bot. Since I joined wikipedia in 2014, Nettrom has done a great job fixing and improving Suggestbot. User:Nettrom maintains User:SuggestBot which scans all of Wikipedia. On Wikipedia:Community portal is ((open task)) which is updated from Suggestbot. — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree - but really we've had no choice. On two occasions we've put the word out for bot help and got no response, despite the fact that this bot is one of the most heavily used on en:WP. For about three years we had a couple of people doing maintenance but they didn't really have the tech skill to amend the code very much. (They still knew more than me!) I think bot maintenance isn't too much work once it's stable, but a rewrite is a major undertaking. The only reason maintenance became such an issue is because it's almost 10 years since this bot had a major rewrite, and much of the infrastructure has changed since then. Kelson does in fact lead a whole team of developers (in fact I had Kelson + four of his developers stay at my house last year!), but their main focus is obviously on Kiwix, which is now officially maintained and supported by WMF. I would say, though, that if Nettrom (and/or others) is/are willing to work on this in the next few months then we should definitely encourage him! Walkerma (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: See this discussion on my talk page, where it seems we may have someone new who is willing (and able!) to help with the bot. That would be excellent news! Walkerma (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Bot looping

Greetings, when looking at "User contributions" for WP 1.0 bot it seems to be looping after it completes Bibliographies, and does not make any logs for Bio WPs. And stops making logs for all following WP.

06:37, 12 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-401)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki) (current)

05:30, 12 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+402)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

05:08, 12 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki) (current)

04:50, 12 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-402)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

04:16, 12 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

04:03, 12 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+402)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

02:39, 12 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-402)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

23:07, 11 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+402)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

22:54, 11 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-402)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

22:47, 11 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

22:35, 11 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+402)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

21:55, 11 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-402)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

21:37, 11 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+545)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

21:30, 11 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-754)‎ . . Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bibliographies articles by quality log ‎ (Log for September 12, 2018 (2G r541)) (current)

There must be some inter-connection between these WP causing the bot to repeat. Or with over 5-million articles, the workload is overwhelming the bot? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible alternatives

@Walkerma: Following below, random thoughts and ideas.

When I look at "Popular pages", for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Popular pages it is a different Bot that runs at start of each new month, and takes 15 to 20 days to get to WP Catholicism. Brings to mind questions

• Can only those WP Biography and History (and sub-projects) be ran as a completely seprate job?
• Can bot be changed to run weekly instead of daily?
• Does bot skip Inactive WikiProjects? (to lighten the load)
• Should bot be split into 2 different bots with specific jobs/tasks, for example

Job 1 = Create all the logs of WP updates,changes, deletes, etc.

Job 2 = Replace Assessment tables

Hope this helps. — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Cloud services

Today, found Cloud Services page and wondering if people there could help with creating a new Bot, or fixing existing? — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That whole infrastructure looks invaluable, thank you so much for the link! I am going to look more into it as I start work on the next version of WP 1.0 Bot. audiodude (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI - I copy/pasted below from WP:VPT so it is recorded here.

Greetings, for several days now when attempting to run tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi and getting "504 Gateway Time-out" instead. Not sure who to contact so I thought to start here at VPT. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC) ping|JoeHebda is a platform for developers to host their programs. So no, not all the tools.wmflabs.org platform is down, only the enwp10 tool :)

ping|Hedonil|Kelson|Theopolisme, project maintainers of https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10 tool. --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I reported at Phabricator, open task T204844 is "504 Gateway Time-out on enwp10 tool". — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Pings to maintainers: ping|Theopolisme, ping|Kelson, and ping|Hedonil. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux Framawiki: you should note that neither Hedonil nor Theopolisme are inactive users here, only Kelson is helping out. ww2censor (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wwcensor: thanks, I got that from the list here, looks like it has been updated. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

--

I have restarted the Web service manually and it is back. Kelson (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Posted by — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Questions

Please excuse my ignorance, but is this enwp10 tool different than the bot that creates the assessment logs? If they are two different softwares, is enwp10 stopped/shutdown while WP 1.0 bot is running? So they are not conflicting?

Wondering Kelson (talk) if multiple people know how to restart "enwp10 tool"? In case it stops again.

Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

User:audiodude will soon be able to do that soon. Kelson (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

September assessment bot logs

Tracking for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log.

Questions: Wondering if the bot is actually running? Or is a live person manually forcing bot to run? — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject redirect

Today Kelson (talk) while reviewing the logs for User:WP 1.0 bot, I find that after regular bot processing there are many entries for Biography (military).

• 05:47, 22 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-545)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki) (current)
• 05:14, 22 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki) (current)
• 04:33, 22 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
• 04:31, 22 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+545)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
• 04:22, 22 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-545)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
• 03:51, 22 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+545)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
• 03:50, 22 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-545)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
• 03:48, 22 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)

• 00:24, 22 September 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+344)‎ . . Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Zoo articles by quality log ‎ (Log for September 21, 2018 (2G r541)) (current)

Investigating further, I find a redirect for Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography (military) that points to #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military]], a sub-directory of WP Biography. Wondering if this is causing the bot issues? — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

September 28, 2018 - enwp10 not running

Greetings @Kelson: and @Audiodude: The web service for enwp10 is not running & needs to be restarted. After timing out it shows 502 Bad Gateway. Requested from wikitable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Now running. Thank you. :-) — JoeHebda • (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

September 29, 2018 - enwp10 not running

Greetings @Kelson: and @Audiodude: The web service for enwp10 is not running & needs to be restarted. In browser tab it shows "Loading" and never times out with any error. Eventually browser says "no internet connection" (not true). Requested from wikitable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Now running. Thanks :-) — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Great, I have setup a monitoring solution on this service in a attempt to reduce the overall down time. Let see if we can do better ;) Kelson (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok @Kelson: monitor is a great idea. When it trips off then a better idea of what might be conflicting/causing it to stop. And when it happens. Just guessing ,but if it is being stopped before the assessment bot runs, then maybe just need to add more code to restart when assessement bot is done. :-) — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

October assessment bot logs

Tracking for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log.

Greetings @Kelson: and @Audiodude: The web service for enwp10 is not running & needs to be restarted. In browser tab it shows "Loading" and never times out with any error. Requested from wikitable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Running again. Thanks. JoeHebda (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Audiodude: From the bot logs, last night it finished all the Copying assessment table to wiki at 21:17. Then it started with Log for October 8, 2018 (2G r541) creating project log files.
---
• 21:17, 8 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+6,317)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/AFC articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 8, 2018 (2G r541)) (current)
---
• 21:17, 8 October 2018 (diff | hist) (0)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
---
Definitely a long shot-but wondering if starting the bot job 1 or 2 hours sooner would help? JoeHebda (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: I don't think starting the bot earlier will have any effect. The bot does not have any kind of "time limit", it simply starts at a certain time and runs until it is finished. audiodude (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Audiodude: Digging back through last several days, I see, Yes, the bot keeps running. Just stops making logs at Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history project.

---
• 21:48, 6 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+174)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
• 21:42, 6 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+660)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Big Brother articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 6, 2018 (2G r541))
---
• 21:33, 5 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+1)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
• 21:17, 5 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-14,238)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 5, 2018 (2G r541))
---
• 02:32, 5 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-1)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
• 02:03, 5 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+177)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Zoroastrianism articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 2, 2018 (2G r541)) (current)
---
• 22:59, 3 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+1)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
• 21:41, 3 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+20,896)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 3, 2018 (2G r541))
---
• 21:37, 2 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+2)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
• 21:28, 2 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+1,407)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bihar articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 2, 2018 (2G r541))
---
It does not seem to matter what project prior to "Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history". It just stops making logs when it gets to that project.

Silly question: does the bot not like the "Comma" in the project name? Maybe a different name, without "," & one of the bot's problems solved? JoeHebda (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: This is interesting, but I think the actual logs of the bot tell us more about which project it is getting hung up on. I'm going to take a look at those now and get back to you. I don't think the comma has anything to do with it, though, as I successfully ran a "dry run" of that project just now and it queried the database just fine, and when I used the API method that copy_logs.pl uses to retrieve the log page, it also worked. audiodude (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like today it got past the South Pacific military history project and died on Biography: [8]

Still no stack trace or explanation in the logs of why it died though. I assume Biography is a big project (the logs say there were 1005 entries for it) and it might have run out of memory? audiodude (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

So I tried a DRY_RUN of copy_logs.pl with project=Biography and sure enough I got this error: DBD::mysql::st execute failed: MySQL server has gone away at ./copy_logs.pl line 572.. According to this page, it indicates that the query might have been killed by the server. I have seen references to a "query killer" in the code comments before, so this seems to be the most likely case.

Ideally, the bot would just continue with the next project, which is definitely something I have planned for the next version of the bot. audiodude (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I asked for help in the wiki toolforge IRC channel, and it looks like there's nothing particularly wrong with the query that seems to be "causing" this. It does in fact seem to be failing "randomly". Again, I think the long term solution is to skip the project when this happens and go on to the next one. audiodude (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Audiodude: Thanks for discovering the actual cause for processing to randomly abort. From your previous comments below.

The bot uses this category exclusively for seeding its list of projects. Since shows over 1.6 million articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment). Wondering if that WP & all it's sub-projects could be removed from this tree & a seperate job/process be created to run just that bunch? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Audiodude: Wondering how long WP Bio runs if I manually request enwp10 tool? Will it tie up resources for a long time? Let me know your thoughts before/if I should attempt. JoeHebda (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: Not sure how long it would run for, but note that running it manually doesn't keep it from being run as part of the automated run, so it might not accomplish what you're setting out for. audiodude (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Audiodude: 1. Any logic in WP 1.0 bot program so that it skips assessments if already done that day via enwp10 tool? If yes, then bot might have a better success in creating logs.

2. What makes the bot switch over from doing assessments to creating logs?

3. Is there a way of forcing the bot to skip assessments and begin creating logs? Especially since logs are missing the last 4 days.

4. Another idea - if there were 2 jobs, first one starting assessments only, then 1-2 hours later start second job that does logs only.

At this point I'm almost "running on empty" for solutions to this long-standing issue. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC) JoeHebda (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Audiodude: and @Walkerma: From the bot logs, last night it stopped at 20:52. The next entry for 14 Oct. at 08:14 was me manually running enwp10 tool for WP Saints this morning. Questions are below.
User contributions for WP 1.0
• 08:14, 14 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-123)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Saints ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki) (current)
---
• 20:52, 13 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-23,772)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 13, 2018 (2G r541)) (current)
---
• 20:51, 13 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-7,281)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 13, 2018 (2G r541)) (current)
---
• 20:51, 13 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-34)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 13, 2018 (2G r541) [chunk 1 of 5]) (current)
---
• 20:51, 13 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+94)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 13, 2018 (2G r541) [chunk 2 of 5])
---
• 20:51, 13 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-157)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 13, 2018 (2G r541) [chunk 3 of 5])
---
• 20:50, 13 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+9,089)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 13, 2018 (2G r541) [chunk 4 of 5])
---
• 20:50, 13 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-9,000)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 13, 2018 (2G r541) [chunk 5 of 5])
---
• 20:45, 13 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+788)‎ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bihar articles by quality log ‎ (Log for October 13, 2018 (2G r541)) (current)
---
Question: Even though the bot is started same time each day (cron job) can it be manually run a second or more times? And if yes, will it pickup where it last left off? That way it will catch-up with all the pending work not completed. JoeHebda (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings @Walkerma: and @Audiodude: Last night it looks like the WP 1.0 bot started processing time of 19:11. Wondering if that is the normal scheduled start time?
From the logs, it stopped (again) at
---
• 02:28, 15 October 2018 (diff | hist) (0)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki) (current)
---
Reporting that Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log was last updated on October 8. After the bot stops, how is it manually re-started?

Is there a problem of letting the bot run 24/7?

How far behind can the bot be & still able to process backlogged work?

Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Last week

Hi again, in looking at "WP 1.0 bot" logs from last week it looks like when the bot gets behind, it just keeps running 24hrs plus. A question - what does cron do when it attempts to start the bot & it is already running? Could cron be the random "bot killer"? JoeHebda (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walkerma: and @Audiodude: Thinking there must be something in error with either category tree or WP content pages? Repeats of same table? Here's the logs for Military history and Biography (military).
• 02:28, 15 October 2018 (diff | hist) (0)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
---
• 02:24, 15 October 2018 (diff | hist) (0)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
---
• 01:19, 15 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-10)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
---
• 00:48, 15 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+10)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
---
• 00:04, 15 October 2018 (diff | hist) (0)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
---
• 22:52, 14 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-10)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
---
• 21:52, 14 October 2018 (diff | hist) (0)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
---
• 21:43, 14 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-137)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Biography (military) ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki)
---
JoeHebda (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walkerma: and @Audiodude: Looks like the bot stopped 03:49, 17 October 2018 (diff | hist) (0)‎ User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history ‎ (Copying assessment table to wiki) (current)

Please can it be restarted? Still missing Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism articles by quality log since Oct. 8th. Any way to force logs?

JoeHebda (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)