The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Operator: — Carl (CBM · talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Perl

Function Summary: Add links to peer review pages when semi-auto peer reviews are created

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Once daily

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N (but task 1 is in trial)

Function Details: A generous user runs a script that makes semi-automated peer reviews. These generally look for MOS violations and other such things.

This task is to automatically add links to the main peer review pages to these automatically-generated reviews. To do this, I added an HTML comment to the template for the peer review page. When the script notices a new semi-automated review, it replaces the HTML comment with (subst:) Template:PR/semiauto.

The code for this task can be browsed on svn: latest revision.

Discussion[edit]

Looks like a good task. My only question would be, is the category its drawing files from checked before its run? If I created 1,000 nonsense pages formatted to look like the semi-automated PR, would it still scan them? More just a fear of it creating a large page of nonsense due to vandalism. MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The semiautomated peer reviews have to be on the correct page and have a correctly formatted section title. They aren't picked from a category. Then the peer review corresponding to the semi-auto review has to be live, and has to have the magic tag that will be replaced (and can't be replaced twice, obviously). Only if all those things happen will any edit happen. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to trial this task, without conflicting with the other ongoing trial. Can you shape the edit summaries to include "Task 1" for that task and "Task 2" for this one for trial periods? MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's very easy to do. Already the edit summaries are different (since they summarize what's going on) but I can also include the task number. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. with distinguishing edit summaries. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I coded the (server/post-expand expensive) template which this replaces. I checked some examples, and it looks very good so far! Geometry guy 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some one-time runs just now to convert the existing pages. I'll continue the trial over the next few days, on new PR pages as they are added and semiauto reviews are made. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good at Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date (which is a good page for tracking this): April and May reviews seem to be linked correctly. There are minor spacing issues, but these are probably not the fault of the bot, and we need to adapt templates and bot accordingly to fix them. Geometry guy 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the spacing is working out, see this diff [1] of a PR that was completely within the new system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PeerReviewBot. Also to run with a flag. Daniel (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.