Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.1

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: –xeno^talk

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python and/or AWB

Source code available: on request

Function overview: Add |alt=Stub icon (or a more descriptive alternate text - to be determined) to images on stub templates for greater web accessibility. May be done by converting stub templates to use {{asbox}}.

Edit period(s): One time run (initially), periodically (if necessary)

Estimated number of pages affected: 2500+ 11,000+

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: When an image is the only content in a link, a screen reader will output the filename of the image [1]. For example, on encountering {{album-stub}}, the screen reader will output "Gnome-dev-cdrom-audio.svg This album-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". This is suboptimal, as the filename of the image is irrelevant. It has been proposed (permlink) to provide alternate text (eg. "Stub icon") for these stub templates.

Please note Xenobot is already approved for find/replace jobs of this nature; this BRFA is to ensure community consensus exists for this particular run.

Further to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Straw poll on standardizing with a meta-template, this task may involve converting the stub templates to use Template:Asbox which can then provide "Stub icon" as a default alt text.

Discussion

• As suggested at the VPM thread, it may be worthwhile to expand this task to other images of this nature, such as those used on portals, wikiproject templates, and the like. However, in those cases it will likely be difficult to find a suitable generic alternative text. –xeno^talk 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a plan. I do note however that this is an endless job, because stubs are simply not standardized. As such it is likely in the future the same problem will spread again. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping we could encourage the stub project to ensure newly created stubs have alt text, but I could run the bot again periodically if that endeavour proves unsuccessful. –xeno^talk 18:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you're editing all those stub, there's a bit of standardisation of classes/ids you could be doing. Best to ask TheDJ about that though. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Maximizing the utility of the edits is A Good Thing™. –xeno^talk 18:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Err... Does anyone know if there is there a reason stubs don't use a meta template? We ought hard-code the default alt-text... –xeno^talk 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found Template:Asbox (about 500 out of the 3000 use this), so I might look into replacing hand-hacked stub templates with the template versions. –xeno^talk 03:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh sorry, I thought you were aware of this. Please read: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Clean slate, standardization once more (.7B.7Basbox.7D.7D proposal). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I wasn't. I've commented there, and initiated a straw poll to see if there is consensus to move to standardized meta-template form. –xeno^talk 13:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've updated the BRFA [2] to note that this task may be completed via conversion to {{asbox}}, which can provide "Stub icon" as default alternate text. –xeno^talk 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I found a line at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#When to specify: "Icons and other images without links need not have alt text if the images are decorative and have no function. [3] Use "|link=" to disable the link that would normally be generated for an image. For example, [[Image:P Eiffel.png|24px|link=]] generates an image with empty alt text." Going to ping around and see if this is preferable. –xeno^talk 03:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a screen reader user, I'd rather have the alt text be "stub icon" than have nothing at all. I can confirm that the problem described above is real, and I support this request. Graham87 06:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xeno: I was the one who wrote it. I added important information about copyright, because when we remove a link we need to find another way to credit images. Since there are hundreds of different images, I simply don't know how we can possibly mention them all in Wikipedia:Graphic credits. Dodoïste (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I will proceed as originally planned. –xeno^talk 13:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have followed up at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions #W3C accessibility guidelines and image copyright notices about the copyright issues, which need to be addressed regardless of whether it's better to use alt-text or no-link here. Eubulides (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Seems to have rough consensus. –xeno^talk 02:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Yes, my reading of it too. A further trial will probably be necessary, but given the fluctuation of consensus, the extended process is probably going to be of benefit. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 11:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{BotTrialComplete}} I bungled a few, so I ended up making 34 edits [4]. Getting the hang of it now. –xeno^talk 14:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a good idea to me! Now if we could only standardize userboxes to use category-suppression too. :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Still no objections made. Would be happy to do a bigger trial to test the waters more. –xeno^talk 12:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please address this diff: [5]. I'd also like to see the trial run against a more diverse sample. Otherwise, this task has been executed excellently thus far. — madman bum and angel 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yikes. Thanks for catching that. That was when I was using a fairly clumsy find and replace logic, the latter edits are using a more comprehensive regex. If I am approved for a further trial (say another 100?) you will see a more diverse sample. –xeno^talk 18:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Approved for extended trial (80 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete., with a diverse sample if you could. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• {{BotTrialComplete}} [6] The errors in the first handful (subject/qualifier mismatch) were layer 8. FWIW, the first several hundred edits of this task (if approved) will be manual, to ensure no errors in the logic pop up. There's so much diversity among these templates, it's slow work making a regex for each variety and making sure they don't conflict (and I'm no regex expert!). –xeno^talk 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned about the recurrence of errors, at the same time, I'm pleased to see you're monitoring your bot's performance well. Are you comfortable that the fixes you have made should cover further automated edits? — madman bum and angel 03:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm becoming more and more experienced with regex as I go along. I think logic I'm using now is pretty tight. Like I said, I will manually review the first several hundred edits before setting the bot to autosave, and even then, spot check it as it goes. –xeno^talk 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Straw poll on standardizing to asbox is carrying 13-0-0. Haven't had any objections at my talk page to the changes. –xeno^talk 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Approved. It's clear there is a consensus here, and I trust that xeno will be able to turn that into a functional change. Of course, this will mean checking edits, and then checking them again, but there is no reason to nag about it constantly. Thusly, I am approving with madman's (slight) concerns noted. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 14:49, 31 July 2009 (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.