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: -- Tinu Cherian -

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually Assisted in configuration and then automatic run.

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Summary: Autoassessment for WikiProject banners based on other already assessed Project banners.

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

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function Details:

Assessing articles is an important part of the workload of most, if not all WikiProjects. However, many articles fall under the jurisdiction of two or more projects. As all projects use the same or very similar assessment criteria ( based on WP 1.0 guidelines ) , it seems silly and unwanted rework for the same article to be assessed multiple times by different projects manually. Why can't the project look at the article and tag its banner based on other project banners if it is already assessed ?

The bot wants to do this : It looks at the Talk: page for an article, and looks at the classes it has been given. Then, it adds the highest class to the template for the project that it is working for.
E.g. if a talk page of article has one Project banner with 'Start' class and 'B' class from another Project banner, '|class=B' will be added to the Project banner class to our project banner.
And also "|class=Stub" if the Bot is running over articles in stub categories (using the Kingboyk plugin option) and "|class=Cat" , "|class=Template" if it is category,template respectively etc.

This process saves hours of work (some projects have 9000+ unassessed articles!) for human editors, leaving them free to actually improve the articles in question.

The module code is borrowed from an already approved bot User:Bot0612 ( BFRA ) by Richard0612. I think BetacommandBot also did something similar earlier. and Chris G Bot 2 etc.

Discussion[edit]

What about those using the hard B-class critera, like Talk:Timeline of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. If you just add class=B without the B1=yes|B2=yes| etc etc then it will still be rated at C-class. And wouldn't this upwardly bias hundreds of assessments? Some wikiprojects are very sloppy about their assessments, and I wouldn't trust their judgements to be passed on to every other wikiproject. In fact, the only assessments that I trust enough to relay to all wikiprojects without human oversight are the formal GA and FA reviews - both of which are covered by GimmeBot Plasticup ^T/C 15:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the discretion of the particular WikiProject and its members whether they want to use this bot functionality . It cannot be run arbitrarily on every project banner on the talk page. It can run for only one WikiProject at a time and done by the request of the particular WikiProject members. We have done this exercise earlier successfully for other bots for WikiProjects like Wikipedia:INDIA , WP:Christianity etc and still gets Bot requests. -- Tinu Cherian - 15:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well that changes things. I didn't see a mention of that in the task's description, but I would be fine with running the bot on request. Plasticup ^T/C 16:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) 05:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Knock ! Knock ! Anybody here ? :) -- Tinu Cherian - 06:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over nine thousand unassessed articles? :P Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. BJ^Talk 12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well , Wikipedia:INDIA has 11K , Wikipedia:COMPUTING has 18K, Wikipedia:BIOGRAPHY has 54K unassessed articles. :)

 Doing... : Working on the trial edits -- Tinu Cherian - 05:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.  : Completed auto assessment for 25 articles of Wikipedia:COMPUTING with ((WikiProject Computing)) banner. See contribs -- Tinu Cherian - 09:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

looks good LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me as well but I can't approve it. BJ^Talk 05:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good here, too.  Approved. SQL^{Query me!} 05:42, 7 September 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.