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

{{Newbot|E^pi*i batch|}}

Operator: {{botop|E to the Pi times i}}

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 {{tl|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: {{search link|hastemplate:"tooltip" insource:/\{\{[tT]ooltip[^{{!}}]*\{{!}}[^}]{50}/|~1600 pages}}

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

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)

• {{TakeNote}} 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)
• {{tl|tooltip}} should not be replaced with {{tl|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 {{em|not}} appropriate. If you read the linked pages, tooltip use is restricted to common abbreviations. The only reason {{tl|tooltip}} still exists is because of its wide use. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• :: There is no accessibility concern with using {{tl|tooltip}} instead of {{tl|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": {{tq|"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 {{tlf|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)
• :::: My only concern was the cosmetic replacement of {{tl|tooltip}} with {{tl|abbr}}. I have no objection to the other part. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Why will you override exclusion compliance? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• :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 {{tlf|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)
• :: 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)

• 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 {{t|tooltip}} redirects to {{t|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 {{tlf|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 {{tlf|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)
• ::So would I be correct in what you're planning on doing is something along the lines of converting {{tooltip|1|2}} into 12 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 {{t|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)
• ::{{U|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)

• I see {{search link|hastemplate:"tooltip" insource:/\{\{[tT]ooltip[^{{!}}]*\{{!}}[^}]{50,}\}\}/|~1600 pages}}, not ~350. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• :Good catch. Primefac (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

• {{TakeNote}} 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)

:{{t1|OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} 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)

• {{adminnote}} this operator has been blocked twice this week. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

::{{u|xaosflux}} They are also currently blocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

:{{BotWithdrawn}} per Special:PermaLink/836136596#BAGBot:_Your_bot_request_E^pi*i_batch — xaosflux ^Talk 21:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

: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.