Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 5

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

Approved.

Snotbot 5[edit]

Operator: Snottywong (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:52, Wednesday March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Pywikipedia

Function overview: Ensure that section headings are properly nested.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Headings and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. Discussion shouldn't be required for tasks which fix errors that are clearly defined by MOS.

Edit period(s): One time run, and then again infrequently (likely no more than once per week) if the backlog grows.

Estimated number of pages affected: 30,000+, see database reports here, here, and here.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: The bot will identify articles whose subsection headings are not sequential (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Headings), and fix them. For instance, in an article whose first section heading is a level 2 (==Heading 1==), and the immediately next heading is a level 4 (====Heading 2====), the bot will change the level 4 to a level 3 (===Heading 2===). The bot will only affect increasing heading levels, since decreasing heading levels may jump (i.e. jumping from a level 5 back to a level 2 heading is fine). It's important that section headings are sequential, so that Wikipedia is fully compatible with screen readers, and also so that it fully conforms with W3C standards. —SW— ^chatter 23:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

LivingBot was approved to do this in May 2009. You may want to ask Jarry1250 why that bot is no longer doing that task. Anomie ⚔ 01:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall if it was in relation to LivingBot, but there was an enormous stink created when something spent its time "fixing" header levels. My recollection (vague, I'm afraid) is that consensus was against such automated changes, despite the gloss of "accessibility requires it". Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should reword WP:ACCESS to make it suggested rather than required to keep headers sequential. I'll see if I can talk to Jarry1250. —SW— ^babble 05:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Jarry1250, and he indicated that his bot is no longer running that task. Since this task was already approved in the past, does that speed up the approval process for an identical bot? —SW— ^chatter 21:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(It seems this request has stalled...) {{BAG assistance needed}} —SW— ^{spill the beans} 18:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I know it's not controversial, but could you still drop a note at WT:ACCESS or anywhere else people look just to cover our bases? MBisanz ^talk 16:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. and note dropped. —SW— ^speak 23:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility concerns are not a gloss, and we should certainly not be downgrading accessibility-related matters from requirements to recommendations (presumably in order that they may thus be ignored by the accessibility-unaware or the accessibility-heartless). Indeed, we should be moving on the other direction. The importance of using correct heading markup is well explained in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUPhEVWu_E Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informative. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could the bot skip pages with {{TOC limit}}, because it may have been intentional to hide the headings? At the very least, heading below the limit should be human reviewed before changed. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If {{TOC limit}} can't deal with properly-nested headings then it, not the headings, is broken. Cosmetic considerations should not override accessibility considerations. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{TOC limit}} doesn't work that way. In the TOC, MediaWiki outputs an H2 followed by an H6 the same as an H2 followed by an H3. This is explained in more detail at Template:TOC limit#TOC levels versus wikitext header levels. Anomie ⚔ 10:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, nevermind; the template does not even work the way I thought it did. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A trial woopsie: headings skipped — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm good catch. Not exactly sure why that's happening, but I have a feeling it's related to having a bunch of headings in a row with no content in between. I'll run some tests on that page. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 15:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, found it and fixed it. —SW— ^comment 15:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MoS change, only false positives deliberate formatting issues that ought not override accessibility. No objections. LivingBot's issue clarified by operator. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:11, 21 April 2011 (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.