Grants talk:Project/Rapid/-jem-/Precisions management/Report

Report accepted

Hello -jem-, thanks for your work on this tool. I’m sorry that the global pandemic hindered some of your plans, but I’m glad to see that you have achieved your primary goal. While the interface is in Spanish and a bit hard to navigate for me, I assured that the tool and functional described in the proposal have been successfully developed! I have a few follow-up comments and questions that I would like you to address:

• The links provided to the help files do not work. Could you please fix this? I encountered the same error when clicking to “Ayuda” on the tool page.
• Given that the primary target is the Spanish Wikipedia for now, did you receive any feedback from the Spanish Wikipedians in regards to the tool and its application? I’m asking this because to ensure that the tool is useful, the best would be to hear the community feedback.
• Could you please estimate how many content pages will be affected and improved with this tool on the Spanish Wikipedia?

Thank you again for your time and dedication! I am accepting your final report; this grant is now complete. Best regards, DSaroyan (WMF) (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, DSaroyan, and thank you for the approval and support. About your questions:

• Yes, you are right, it was my mistake. It is fixed now.

• The tool idea was proposed, evaluated and supported at the time by the community here, along with three other ideas (upper in the page), two of which have been my previous rapid grant proposals. Now that the tool is ready for use, I plan to make a new announcement/campaign to promote its use and receive feedback in Wikipedia in Spanish, and especially and more directly and even individually among several people, also members of Wikimedia Spain, which, by their activity and interest in this type of new ideas and tools, I know they can put it to good use. But I haven't done it yet because, in these last weeks and for some days more, and because of the "novelty" of the pandemic, we are having an accumulation of online editathons and training sessions that I fear are absorbing all the dedication of those people I mentioned, and that surely would leave my tool in the background, so I want to wait a little. Then, if it's okay with you, I will be glad to add a new section in this talk page, and ping you, to comment about the use given to the tool and the feedback received.

• Let's try to estimate :). The most reliable number I can calculate is the total number of pages that the tool can identify as problematic in the current conditions. Right now we have 7410 titles with incoming redirections from its title without parenthesis in the main space, and 67 in the Anexo: space, of which, and according to my first checks, we can estimate around 5% of "false positives" because the parenthesis is rather a real part of the title and not a precision, as in certain chemical compounds. In other cases the content of the parenthesis should be part of the title but not with the parenthesis, so in any case a transfer will be necessary and I can also consider it a "valid positive"; taking all that into account, in the end we would have a little more than 7000 titles left that could be fixed. We would have to add up the cases to be fixed by the mandatory rules and occasionally by other rules, which are more difficult to estimate, since in many cases a community consensus should be reached first on the most appropriate patterns, and there is a specific case like the counties of the United States, with 15 928 appearances right now, in which I foresee that many (even all, because eliminating the word "condado" is a possibility) may need a move. Making a conservative estimate, I think at least 2000 titles would need a transfer, so my total "downward" estimate of possible corrections in Spanish Wikipedia right now is 9000. I think that's the figure you want to know, because from there, saying how many will be actually corrected from the tool will depend on how long the term we want to consider; the longer the term, the more use will be given to it and the more corrections can be made, but also the more Wikipedia will continue to evolve on its own: articles will be created, articles will be deleted, and users will make moves by their own to fix cases (and sometimes also to introduce new problems), so everything becomes much more complex. However, if you're interested in any other estimates that take into account time frames or other circumstances that you'd like me to consider, let me know and I'll try to do another analysis.

Thanks again and regards, -jem- (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello -jem-, thanks so much for your detailed response.

• Thanks for fixing the links!
• It's great to see that the ideas for your tools have been initially proposed by the community! I think that this fact already suggests that the community will be happy with the new tool. I don't want to take your and community's time especially in these difficult times, so feel free to skip collecting and adding the community feedback here.
• Wow, the number is impressive! Hopefully, it will be useful for other communities and on even more pages. :)

Thanks again for your work! I'm wishing you all the best for your future projects. --DSaroyan (WMF) (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

DSaroyan, just one clarification (and I realize that my phrase was not clear at all): the idea was proposed by me, and then evaluated and supported by the community. Of course I am a member of the community and all my ideas come from the needs I detect during my work with the community, so I try to foresee what ideas will be more useful and likely to be accepted. Ok about the rest of your text. Thanks again and for sure I'll be proposing new projects, as rapid grants or in other ways. Regards, -jem- (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)