Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

I'd like to help

I understand steps 1 and 2, but after that you lost me. I have no clue what workgroup parameters, short forms, or parameter strings are. It would be really helpful if I could see what exactly it is that one of you do. Like on an article. If it's not too much trouble...~ Hyakurei (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hyakurei, thank you for the offer. We are basically checking that the parameters used in {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} is correct on all of the pages that it is transcluded on. For instance:

Amaenaideyo!!

Was: {{WikiProject Anime and manga| class=Stub}}.
Updated: {{WikiProject Anime and manga| class=C | importance=low}}.
The |importance=low and |class=C have been updated per the guidelines.

Angel of Darkness

Was: {{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=Start}}.
Updated: {{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=Start|importance=Low|attention=yes}}.
The |attention=yes parameter indicates that there are some serious cleanup to be done—this is left to the judgement of the assessor, see Anime and manga articles needing urgent attention.

YuYu Hakusho

Was: {{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=Start}}.
Updated: {{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=B|B1=n|B2=N|B3=n|B4=Y|B5=Y|B6=Y|importance=mid}}.
The B1 to B6 parameters corresponds to the detailed criteria per WP:ASSESS, in this case, the article is insufficiently referenced, coverage is insufficient, and the structure needs work (See WP:MOS-ANIME, and Tokyo Mew Mew for instance), but the grammar, supporting materials and writing style is sufficient.

Ban Mido

Was: {{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=Start}}.
Updated: {{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=Start|importance=low|merge=yes}}.
The article fails the notability criteria and WP:NOT#PLOT at this stage. It has been recommended that the article should be merged to a list of characters, hence the merge parameter is set. To clarify: the merge parameter is just to record that the cleanup team should return to the article at a later stage, it is not a replacement for the templates on the article itself, see Anime and manga articles to be merged.

Akira Yasuda

Was: {{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=Stub| listas=Yasuda, Akira|biography-work-group=yes}}.
Updated: {{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=Start| listas=Yasuda, Akira| biography-work-group=yes}}.
As this is an article about a living person, we set |biography-work-group=yes.

Hope that helps! If you have further questions, please let me know. G.A.S 05:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you very much! That helps a lot! I think I'll start reading some of the articles about Assessment and Importance and so on, and then I'll start the actual articles! Thank you again! ~ Hyakurei (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok,I have a question. Since Yu Yu Hakusho only meets 3 of the 6 B-class criteria, shouldn't it be a C-class article? Or am I way off...? ~ Hyakurei (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It technically is C class. The template will automatically change any B class article to C class unless all six B criteria have yes in them. So:

{{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=B|B1=n|B2=N|B3=n|B4=Y|B5=Y|B6=Y|importance=mid}}

is the same as:

{{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=C|B1=n|B2=N|B3=n|B4=Y|B5=Y|B6=Y|importance=mid}}

except the first will ensure the B class checklist shows, while it will not show no on the second (though there is a request in to fix that). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. uh, 2 more questions... Is is possible to not change the assessment of an article? Like if the article was a stub and still looks like a stub? And is adding templates such as "refimprove|...." part of the assessment? ~ Hyakurei (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible that the assessment won't change, though you may still need to set the importance, note if it is a list with the type="list", or note if there is a merge discussion (merge=yes) or if the article is in major need of project attention (attention=yes). Tagging the article for issues, such as needing clean up, references, etc I believe is optional. 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Aritcles with plus signs (+)

Just so you all know, the "Update assessment" links in individual worklists seem to have trouble with articles which have plus signs in their titles. I discovered this when looking through the most recent update of the quality log and noticed that the page "1 2=Paradise" had been added. Investigating further, I found that Collectonian had created the talk page instead of updating the existing one for 1+2=Paradise, the correct title. I went ahead and updated the assessment with hers, and marked the first talk page for speedy (which was quickly done). Now that I'm through rambling, I just thought I'd let you all know to be on the lookout for any articles with plus signs in their titles, and manually click to update their assessment, instead of relying on the link in the sublists (unless someone wants to make a quick run through and escape all the plus signs). —Dinoguy1000 20:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the articles may give that problem, my bad (I had to substitute these with the correct codes manually (e.g. space with "%20") when I created the assessment pages, and might have missed some). They will be easy to find and correct though (due to the log). G.A.S 04:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Crazy idea

I just got a crazy idea after just watching the 2008 Summer Olympics. How about on top of the five awards we have already for Tag & Assess 2008, we also award a bronze, silver, and gold medal to those who assess the third most, second most, and most number of articles in commemoration of the Games?--十八 07:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. I actually did consider adding it, just did not get to it before. (Caveat: Based on a good job being done!) G.A.S 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting myself grounded

Grabbed a chunk at random, and first one up was Osamu Tezuka. Rated as B by two other projects, but tagged for references, so I marked B1 as N. Was that right? I'm also dubious about the massive list of works there, but wasn't sure if that was something to mark down from B for. And I thought we weren't supposed to have comic project banners on Anime and Manga pages? Doceirias (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ran through the first ten, would appreciate it if someone could double check those and make sure I'm in the right ballpark here. After that I should be good to go. Doceirias (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd concur on Tezuka. Others may be B, but you can never tell if they are real Bs or just someone sticking it on there, and different projects may have different criteria and/or have rejected C. I checked the rest and they seem fine, though if you see {{anime}} its good to replace it with the more proper {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. :)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur on the quality assessments. I disagree on the importance assessment you assigned to Oscar François de Jarjayes, as we have determined that character articles are of low priority, unless there are evidence to the contrary (this would be evidenced by a major reception section), in which case it would be mid or high importance, refer to WP:ANIME/ASSESS#Priority scale and WT:ANIME/ASSESS#Importance scale. G.A.S 05:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the importance chart, any character who has become a cultural icon - which Oscar certainly is - gets high. I'd say Oscar is easily far more influential and important than the example given on the chart, and she is at least the equivalent, probably the single best known shojo character around. Or are we only counting fame in the English speaking world? Would Doraemon not also receive a high rating? Doceirias (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right, although the article's reception section does the character no justice. G.A.S 07:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance would be appreciated. ;) Do I dare to hope that because her article is rated as High-importance, that the project will prioritise some work on her?? -Malkinann (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Completion statistics?

Should we list some statistics on how the drive is coming? We could do overall and by-user, for instance: The drive is X% completed (or X out of Y articles have been assessed) or User:Example has completed X% of their adopted range (or User:Example has assessed X out of their Y adopted articles) (exact wording can, of course, be adjusted). Thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 19:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, users should only adopt one range (200 articles) at a time, so completion statistics by user is not quite possible, though the table can be sorted by user to show how many articles each user has assessed.

One the other side, the table already provides an graphical representation of how far the drive has come, with each checkmark representing 50 articles of ~8700 articles, for 174 checkmarks in total, so I am unsure whether further statistics will be useful (as opposed to the trouble of keeping that statistics up to date), your thoughts? (By that logic, we are roughly 30% done).

Regards, G.A.S 20:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, to be honest, I only suggested this because I was too lazy to figure up an approximate percent completion. ;P That being said, a sortable table would be interesting, though I'm not sure ours is really long enough that it would be particularly useful (especially considering many of the ranges have already been marked off by people and therefore there isn't a great deal of range assignment fragmentation). Hmm... I guess, then, in short this suggestion was really just a waste of time. ^_^;; —Dinoguy1000 20:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It has always been sortable;) G.A.S 20:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I must be having an off day today (let me blame it on the fact that I'm starting work tomorrow, and I'm not looking forward to getting up at 5:30 just to work for 12 hours)... =P —Dinoguy1000 21:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Newest statistics—65/174 = 37% done G.A.S 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Newest statistics—91/174 = 52% done G.A.S^talk 05:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Newest statistics—99/174 = 56% done G.A.S^talk 16:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Newest statistics—110/174 = 63% done G.A.S^talk 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Newest statistics—127/174 = 73% done G.A.S^talk 05:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Newest statistics—152/174 = 87% done 十八 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Newest statistics—161/174 = 92% done 十八 06:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All done G.A.S^talk 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Due to the wrist strain created by typing biography-work-group=yes hundreds of times, I have requested that the template be modified to allow the acronym, bwg=yes, as well. Feel free to use it when updating assessments. Regards, G.A.S 04:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone *really* wants it, I can implement a similar alternative cwg to the current conventions-work-group parameter as well. —Dinoguy1000 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

C-class/B-class assessment

While I'm sadly a bit too busy to help out at the moment, I did notice Kraftlos assessing Welcome to the N.H.K....by changing B to C. It was my understanding that all B articles are to be left as B, and have the six targets for B class individually assessed. It's a bit more work, but...that's the job. Not to be snotty or single you out for anything, Kraftlos; you just happened to hit my watchlist. Doceirias (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not worry about being busy, everyone of us have other duties as well. It is not necessary to update the B to a C, as the template does that automatically, but filling out the checklist is important. If the article is really not up to standard (i.e. it adds no value to fill out the checklist, assess it too "start" instead. I will assess the outstanding checklists myself after the assessment drive is done (refer to WP:ANIME/CLEANUP#Non-article work).

Hint: consider using AWB to browse through the talk pages, and a second browser to open and view the articles. It seems to work much easier, especially if you add a few "search and replace" rules to add "importance=low" to the parameters if it is not there, or "B1=...B6=" if the article is assessed as B or C class, and it has not been added yet.

I am currently also assessing the current backlog at Category:Unassessed anime and manga articles, so if I seem less active here, it is not completely true;)

Regards, and thanks for your continued help.

G.A.S 06:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a major thing, but I have noticed that if you have your preferences set to activate "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article", then the page header incorrectly show a B for an article even if the article is being auto reassessed back to C. Not sure if it can be fixed or is worth the effort though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not without going through – and fixing – all articles in Category:Automatically reassessed anime and manga articles and Category:Automatically reassessed anime and manga articles. The other method would be to have the gadget updated. Note: those categories has much less members now than last time I looked (At that time there were ~900 outstanding) G.A.S 07:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Article class: Redirect

Hi, one of your participants pointed me to the following line. "NB: Do not tag or assess redirects; remove the project banner from redirects." Which made me wonder: why not set class=redirect? What's the point of the option in the first place? -- Goodraise (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That option has only been added to the banner template within the last week or two, the instructions has not been updated yet. It would depend on the nature of the redirect though: if it is due to a merger, I would say it is OK to set |class=redirect, but otherwise removing the banner may be a better idea. G.A.S^talk 04:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who added the option, though I had no specific use in mind for it at the time. Since then, though, discussion has pointed to using it on redirects created by merges, as G.A.S pointed out - and, I would say, specifically on merged articles whose talk pages have discussion. —Dinoguy1000 17:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the instructions. Hopefully no-one will miss it;) G.A.S^talk 17:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: It is not necessary to update this retrospectively. G.A.S^talk 17:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"New! NB: Tag or assess redirects with |class=Redirect." Sounds like even redirects not created by merges are supposed to wear that tag. Is that the current state of affairs? -- Goodraise (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of getting chewed out, I'd say you're free to tag any redirects you want to, as long as they actually redirect to an article within our scope, or could otherwise be expected to fall within our scope. If you're looking for the "official dogma" on what redirects we want tagged, depending on who you ask, that would either be "nothing" or "those with discussion on the talk page/redirected as a result of merges". —Dinoguy1000 20:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Dinoguy. Usually, when a page is moved, the talk page is moved along, and an actual redirect is created in its place. Do we need to change or tag it? It does not really matter to me; but unlike a redirect from merge, these redirects have no history. Regards, G.A.S^talk 20:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What is important, is having the correct redirect template (e.g. {{CharR to list entry}} on the redirect; but those are picked up easier from the assessment log. G.A.S^talk 21:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Well, as this is the second time that I've come upon a page that needs to be moved that needs an administrator's help (like to a destination that already exists as an redirect for an example), and I think I myself wouldn't like getting a whole lot of messages at my talk page for that purpose, I am thinking maybe we should dedicate a section here to get the admins' attention.

Anyways, I am wondering if someone can help moving Gatcha gacha to Gatcha Gacha to keep the title in accordance to WP:NAME, thanks in advance. -- クラウド６６８ 17:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. You can also tag the target page with {{db-move}} to have this done. G.A.S^talk 16:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit of automated help

I have made a bot request to have all remaining articles' importance automatically rated as low, this should cut the time required to assess these articles in half, as it would no longer be required to edit and save the talk pages just to add the importance parameter.

G.A.S^talk 05:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the biography pages are automatically assessed as stubs if they have a stub template on them - could this be implemented too? --Malkinann (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes, although this is not required. We only have 64 unassessed articles at the moment, while at Wikiproject Biography the situation is a bit more dire with ~62000 articles. In fact, our situation is reversed. Many articles are (rightfully) assessed as stubs, but have no stub templates on them. Many of them require multiple stub templates, but a bot cannot really be used as a bot cannot apply judgement in applying the stub templates.

Regards, G.A.S^talk 11:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Already Merged Article

While editing I came across and article, which was previously a stub, but has been merged into another article. So when I click on the article name, it takes me to the page it was merged into. How do I assess this article (one previously a stub)? Hyakurei (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The "change assessment" link should link to the old talk page correctly - it should now read |class=redirect). Regards, G.A.S^talk 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Another thing. The update assessment link for Train+Train leads to the one for Train Train, which is another different article. Do I just put the assessment on the talk page of Train+Train then? Hyakurei (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes (Special characters in names do not always work correctly). G.A.S^talk 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Debriefing

Tag & Assess 2008 is now officially over. It has been successful, but will not be repeated during 2009. The purpose of this debriefing is to discuss ways of improving the next drive, so that it attracts and keeps more participating editors, so that it's run more efficiently.

I request everybody's comment on the following: —G.A.S^talk 16:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Joining the drive

What attracted you? Have you done this before with other projects? How did the we compare? How did it differ?

Instructions and support

Were the instructions clear or did you struggle with them? What would you improve? Was the guidance of scope adequate? Were the comments on assessment levels clear? Is there anything you'd like to see simplified? Were your questions answered swiftly enough on talk pages?

Tallies and worksheets

Did you find these easy to use and navigate? Is there anything about them you'd like to improve? Can you think of a better way of doing

Timing

Do you prefer to work on tagging in huge chunks, or a bit at a time? When would be an ideal time for you to work on a drive? During holidays? Or doesn't it really matter?

Pet hates

Did anything really bug you?

Rewards

What did you think about the service award/barnstar structure? How could it be improved? How could it be changed?

I thought everything was set up nicely and before I knew it I could work very efficiently. But once I stopped working from home I simply didn't have time/didn't want to sit in front of my computer more than I had to. Doceirias (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Joining the drive

  I was bored at the time not doing much for work/school and not able to much on some of the articles I was working on or other real-life projects and happened to stumble on it by happenstance when I saw a notice on the main page somewhere and it seemed simple enough (though I admit to stumbling quit badly early), which brings me to your next point.

  Instructions and support

  I think it might be better to have a criteria for how we should deal with FA/FL/GA articles we come across we don't really think are up to stuff (maybe they had too much creep since they were listed, FE. so someone doesn't make a similar, or worse, mistake I did. Furthermore, I think a place to look for tags to use would be helpful. There were some more common examples, but I placed a an "attention" tag twice, something I would not have known existed, had I not seen it before.

  Timing

  Not really any particular time. I usually worked on a few sections, went did something else, came back and did some more. I tried to clear a lot right away.

  Pet hates

  Beyond any guidance about what to do about higher-ranked articles....I think that it should have been made clearer what to do in the case of a recent B-class assement when I diagreed with it.

• That i didn't find out about this sooner or i would have gotten a better reward and done more.

  Rewards

  I think next time you might make awards to newcomers who might or might not do much, but try their best. If this is their first time some people might feel a bit intimidated and giving special awards to those who never done something like this before might show a more welcoming atmosphere for everyone to participate. I also think having an exclusive award each time is a good idea.

• じんない 00:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)