Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 58


 * 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

Yobot 58
Operator:

Time filed: 13:40, Saturday, August 19, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview:Remove blank lines between list items.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility and Bots/Requests for approval/BG19bot 9

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: Initially ~120,000

Namespace(s): Articles

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

Function details: This is an accessibility issue, see WP:LISTGAP. A list will be generated monthly that includes articles with blank lines between list items. List is generated using Checkwiki software. AWB will then be run on the list with general fixes enabled. Latest AWB version added the ability to remove these blank lines. Any spaces or tabs on the blank lines and AWB won't fix, these must be done manually (for now).

Discussion
I would like to take over a task already approved for and. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (Commenting as a community member, not BAG member, per my recusal) I strongly support this task. It does not violate COSMETICBOT due to the underlying accessibility issues. To explain this to those unfamiliar with it, currently these list items are read by screen readers as "Start list, List Item #1, End list, Start list, List Item #2, End list, ...". This change makes them read "Star list, List Item #1, List Item #2, ..., End list", which is the proper way for it to be read. Having said that, the regex underlying the particular general fixes relevant to this task should be loaded manually as find-and-replace in AWB and then "general fixes only" should be skipped. This will prevent cosmetic-only edits while still allowing all general fixes to run. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A couple of questions.
 * Is this new code or identical code from the bot being taken over?
 * Are you running genfixes with this?
 * — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 15:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I 'll ask Bgwhite to send me is code. I am certain he will have no problem with that. I think Bgwhite was running general fixes too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that your BRFA is almost a copy of his, so if the code is identical and the bot's operating parameters as well, I see no reason to then speedily approve this.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 15:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if you do :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Echoing here. If the code is the same and task has approval, I can see no reason not to speedily approve this. If the code is different, I think a trial may be necessary to iron out any issues before open editing. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not in support of skipping trial for a 100,000+ edit job and have approved a short trial first below - assuming it goes well this should be able to move forward with a standard approval. — xaosflux  Talk 12:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * General community approval was established related to the other BRFA. Trial approved to demonstrate that the implementation of the process is free of technical issues. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please post link to difs here after running. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Any update on this?— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 23:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Starting soon. Magioladitis (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been 2 weeks. Do you have an ETA of when you plan to start this?— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 23:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 19:28, 11 October 2017 (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.