Archives

July 2003 – April 2005 May 2005 – December 2006 December 2006 – January 2008 January 2008 – April 2008 April 2008 – October 2008 November 2008 - August 2009 August 2009 - September 2010 September 2010 - February 2012 February 2012 - May 2014 May 2014 - March 2016 March 2016 - June 2020 June 2020 -

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Every once in a while I see in AnomieBOT's logs related to the PeerReviewArchiver task that it's skipping processing a review page because the talk page it references is a redirect after a page move. I've cleaned a few of these up manually (e.g. Special:Diff/1323599362, Special:Diff/1317422366, Special:Diff/1311351406), but it seems to happen often enough that I'd like to automate it. Specifically, the bot would verify that the article and its talk page both redirect to corresponding titles and the moved talk page already transcludes the peer review. If all that is true, it will move the peer review page to match the new title, edit it to update any links and unnamed template parameters, and edit the article's talk page to bypass the redirect.

When I was drafting code to do that, I noticed that there's also not-yet-enabled code to remove reviews from Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar and Template:FAC peer review sidebar that the bot just closed or that aren't in Category:Current peer reviews and the associated date isn't in the past month. That was previously discussed here but was forgotten about. Currently it'd remove "July 26 Horrified" and "September 12 Lea Salonga" from Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar.

What do you think, are these things you'd like AnomieBOT to do for you? Anomie⚔ 18:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in! I think the changes made so far have been working well. I would support the bot moving PR pages to follow articles; that's something I've also done on occasion, but it's hard to notice. To be clear, would the bot only be scanning for this issue on open PRs, or scanning the entire archive of closed PRs for possible title changes? I would also support enabling the sidebar-clerking task; I don't see any reason that should be an issue. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only open PRs. Anomie⚔ 20:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA filed. Anomie⚔ 23:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLOSEPR#Closing reviews contemplates reviews running for a few weeks, a month at the outside. Yet we're regularly running reviews for two, three, four months, or more. I closed one today which was pushing six months old. So what do we want to do?

One thought is that the timeline in CLOSEPR is just out of date. It goes back to 2006 when I suspect things were just very different than they are now. So perhaps we just want to update the published timeline to more closely represent today's reality? Or do we want to get more hardnosed about closing old reviews? Or maybe somewhere in between? RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: - Are you asking about PR requests that never recieved a review? Or PR requests that did receive a review (and requestor did not close it after the review)? I suppose we want a balance between "Lots of stale/unattended PR requests clogging the system" and "closing reviews too aggressively". My gut feeling is:

1. If a PR request has gone 2 months without a review, then it should be closed in the interests of tidiness and efficiency. The requestor can always re-start the PR if they want.
2. If a PR did receive a non-trivial review, and another month went by, and the the requestor did not write "A second review is desired", then it can be closed.

Perhaps PR requestors are not aware that they can simply ask other editors to do a PR? The requestor can look in the PR queue and find another requestor and suggest a review-swap. Or they can find an active editor who might be interested in the article's subject matter. Reminding requestors that they can proactively seek a reviewer would go a long way to keeping the PR queue moving. Noleander (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think one month is a good timeline. I wish a bot could add an automatic note after 3 weeks that says "this PR will be closed next week if no one posts anything. If you want to keep this open, please ask for reviews at the Wikiprojects attached to the article". I do not know how to program bots, so I will not be doing this and instead add manual notes. Z1720 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a peer review for an article I've been working on, Tsuneari Fukuda. Unfortunately, the review I have received was not much of a review at all. I would appreciate if someone else might do me the favour of taking a look. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]