Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/E^pi*i batch

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

E^pi*i batch edit

Operator: E to the Pi times i (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 02:54, Saturday, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: "AWB"

Function overview: Accessibility concerns (links below) deem that tooltips should not be used for non-trivial notes. This bot will replace inappropriate uses of {{tooltip}} with footnotes.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 26#Template:Tooltip, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text

Edit period(s): One-time run; probably split into multiple parts

Estimated number of pages affected: ~1600 pages

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Function details: This bot will not perform any other fixes.

Discussion edit

Complete automation is the ideal; I will have to test some various functions within AWB to determine the optimal method for achieving complete automation. I am not intimitely familiar with AWB's template replacing function, which is why this initial request is semi-automated. I have used AWB before, though not on this wiki. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This bot has edited its own BRFA page. Bot policy states that the bot account is only for edits on approved tasks or trials approved by BAG; the operator must log into their normal account to make any non-bot edits. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{tooltip}} should not be replaced with {{abbr}} since the former is a redirect to the latter. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: The reason for replacing the template is because of accessibility concerns. Some percentage of the uses of tooltip are for non-abbreviation purposes, and the accessibility policy states that tooltip use for this purpose is not appropriate. If you read the linked pages, tooltip use is restricted to common abbreviations. The only reason {{tooltip}} still exists is because of its wide use. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no accessibility concern with using {{tooltip}} instead of {{abbr}}. Replacement would violate WP:COSMETICBOT. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: I'll highlight more specifically to what I'm referring when I say "accessibility concerns": "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text. Abbreviations are exempt from these requirements, so the {{abbr}} template may be used to indicate the long form of a word." The goal of the bot is to highlight cases where this template is being misused, i.e. by containing long sections of text. This misuse is covered by consensus.

Since you do point out the cosmetic concern, I have restricted the purpose of my bot (above) more strictly to only replace templates where they are being misused. However, I think the template should be deleted, so I am going to start a new RfD discussion to gain consensus for that. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern was the cosmetic replacement of {{tooltip}} with {{abbr}}. I have no objection to the other part. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why will you override exclusion compliance? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to do semi-automated edits to handle one specific issue: misuse of tooltips. If the bot is expanded beyond doing semi-automated edits (i.e. replacing all {{tooltip}} instances, pending this deletion discussion), I will enable exclusion compliance. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as a good reason to not be exclusion compliant. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Where would lack of exclusion compliance be problematic? If each edit is reviewed (and probably tweaked in many cases), what's the issue? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking over this quickly, it looks like a CONTEXTBOT problem - what is defined as a "trivial" use? You're talking about 80k pages, and since {{tooltip}} redirects to {{abbr}} there's no reason why a link can't be a "valid" use. If you're doing it semi-auto, you might as well just create a separate AWB account for it. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Whoops. That number you refer to is currently a relic from the previous formulation of the request, which was changed to comply with COSMETICBOT, since there is not yet have consensus to delete {{tooltip}}. I have updated the affected number. I'm a bit confused about what you mean when you refer to "trivial use" and "separate AWB account", but I'll try to clarify my current intentions: I will go through pages, fixing any non-abbreviation uses of {{tooltip}}. Since I'm using AWB, I'm filing a bot request here, since AWB may allow some level of automated editing. Each edit will be reviewed, so I'm not sure why you're referring to CONTEXTBOT. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So would I be correct in what you're planning on doing is something along the lines of converting {{tooltip|1|2}} into 1<ref>2</ref> for those 351 pages? Primefac (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Something along those lines. More specifically, I will do {{tooltip|1|2}} -> 1{{efn|2}} with {{notelist}}. In some cases this will be inappropriate, so I will instead incorporate it into the prose above explaining the table. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E to the Pi times i, I just noticed the second half of your statement - if you're doing everything manually/semi-auto, then there's no reason to file a BRFA since you'd be able to just do it as normal via AWB (ostensibly using the second account). Primefac (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: In that case, it's all up to this then. I mostly filed this because I was concerned with going too quickly with AWB, but that should not be an issue with context-dependent edits. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 00:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see ~1600 pages, not ~350. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Primefac (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like I made a copy-paste error. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} It looks like you are using this account for other tasks not related to this proposal. A flagged bot may only be used for approved tasks, if you want to run ad-hoc AWB runs you need to either use your main account, or make an account for that purpose that will not be bot-flagged. How would you like to proceed? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note this operator has been blocked twice this week. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

xaosflux They are also currently blocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. per Special:PermaLink/836136596#BAGBot:_Your_bot_request_E^pi*i_batch — xaosflux ^Talk 21:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.