Template talk:Old peer review

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

why isn't article name made a required parameter

It would stop the template from breaking when article is moved. It would also let us skip the kludgey workaround. CapnZapp (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp Great idea. We can change the way this works to be a "subst" type template, which will then let the name be auto inserted. I'll give it a go over the next few weeks in my sandbox here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/Old peer review. We might as well make a few other improvements while we're here which I'll propose when I have a working template.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This change will change it so that a valid reviewedname will not add a broken link category. The reason for this is to allow my bot to facilitate its job effectively and doesn't add duplicate arguments for the template because of multiple runs. This will add a ifexist to check if reviewedname is in existence and is valid.

my version of the template here BJackJS talk 21:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor BJackJS:

done, and thank you for your work on this! P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 03:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paine Ellsworth thanks for trying to help out but your edit is not correct. There are two ways that peer review links are provided:

|archivelink= gives the full title, e.g. |archivelink=ARCHIVE LINK will go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCHIVE LINK
|reviewedname= gives the article title when the review was made e.g. |reviewedname=NAME will go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer review/NAME/archiveN (where |archive=N, defaulting to 1)

If NEITHER of the two reviews exist, then the article needs to be added to the category. Hope this helps and also fingers crossed to see your super template editing skills in this circumstance.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Tom (LT): lol – it would probably help if I had even an inkling of what you're talking about. I'll do my best and keep my fingers crossed, too. Thank you for your basic instructions! So the challenge is to maintain this template's present savoir-faire while providing BJackJS's bot with what it needs to do its job effectively, as well. I'll dive into it soon with sandbox tests and won't go live until it has your seal of approval. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 10:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Paine Ellsworth: or To editor Tom (LT): I'm not exactly sure who to mention, but my latest revision of the template has added handling for the archive link. I'm sorry about not adding that in my previous versions. BJackJS talk 11:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay BJackJS, I've put that code from your user page into the sandbox and have updated the testcases page and have done some testing in preview on a page where this template is used. So far so good. Would love to hear what Tom (LT) thinks. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 12:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth peer review is a very complex process, I feel your pain and appreciate your help

. I will make some bastardised edits to your sandbox and please feel free to correct them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Tom (LT): had to tweak the sandbox code just a teensy bit to erase spurious code on the testcases page. Hope that helps the template's functionality for normal placement and for the bot. How about it, BJackJS? Does it work for you? P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 03:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine for me. BJackJS talk 03:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See if you approve of this: the category populated by transclusion of this template, Old requests for peer review, has been wrapped in the {{Main other}} template in the sandbox. If that goes live, it will only allow mainspace articles to populate the category. That will keep the /doc, /sandbox and /testcases pages out of the category. Additionally, the category has been added to the /doc page to place the live template at the top of the category's page list. Thoughts? P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 10:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That works. My bot doesn't run on the Old requests for peer review, it actually just locates broken archive links and repairs them. BJackJS talk 16:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks and works well. Have changed 'main other' to be 'talk other' as the template is intended for use on article talk pages. Great to work with you both and I think the template is actually overall easier to edit as well, which is great.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good, and the edits are live. Thank you so much! P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 01:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth nop there's still a problem. See for example Talk:Achilles tendon rupture which is now part of Category:Pages using Template:Old peer review with broken archive link :(. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Same for Talk:Academy of Art University. This seems to be something to do with when the redirect Template:Oldpeerreview is used --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - To editor Tom (LT): I'll look into it. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 00:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - To editors Tom (LT) and BJackJS: the code has been trimmed in the sandbox, but I don't know what if anything it might do to the bot's functionality. The "if:" parser functions appeared to be getting in the way. What is really wanted is whether or not the archive page exists for a certain peer reviewed page. If it doesn't exist, then the Pages using Template:Old peer review with broken archive link category should be populated. As for the redirect, Template:Oldpeerreview, the only problem it causes is when the talk page is tested in preview with Template:Oldpeerreview/sandbox, which doesn't exist. Just add the two spaces back in between the words, as in {{Old peer review/sandbox}}, to test the sandbox in preview. Want to also mention that I wrapped the error category in the {{Talk other}} template (in the sandbox) to get the /testcases, /sandbox and /doc pages out of the category when it goes live. Let me know if you approve of the sandbox as it is now. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 01:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - To editor Paine Ellsworth: I had to reinclude a mention of 'archivelink' which somehow fell out after the changes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tested it then - code this time seems to work. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excellent, and we're live again. It will probably take a little time for the server to catch up and lose the entries from the category that shouldn't be there. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 13:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]