User talk:Immanuelle/Abstract Wikipedia Editor

license

Could you please add a COPYING file or equivalent to the repo? Arlo Barnes (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It is now MIT licensed Immanuelle (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Creates inaccessible content

Hello! Your AI thing (unsurprisingly) makes slop articles that fail accessibility standards. They will confuse screen-readers because you're not wrapping content with paragraph tags. Thank you for your attention to this matter! Feeglgeef (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Feeglgeef can you give some examples of articles that use this correctly? The constant rendering failures make development pretty difficult but I think this is pretty fixable. Immanuelle (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Q319 is probably the best article we have so far. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Feeglgeef I am working on implementing paragraph tags Immanuelle (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It is done now Immanuelle (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

You still left a bunch of slop articles in the mainspace. Do you have any plans to clean them up? Feeglgeef (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll add the paragraph formatting right now Immanuelle (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It might take a while but I think I am making good progress on making all of the pages into paragraph pages Immanuelle (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I have decided I think trying to go through articles and clean them up like this is not a good thing to do since it is easy to potentially break articles, and there is no working undo function. So I am not gonna continue on with this. If you find one that needs the paragraph formatting, it is easy to do with this tool. Just remove all of the {{p}} things from the page and it goes into a proper paragraph. Immanuelle (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This editor has an undo function, but the undo function generally only works to go back to versions of the page also made with the editor Immanuelle (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Q762 lists

I like Q762 but it has a feature that is not supported yet. Saving this here for later Immanuelle (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Here Q12539 is one I introduced. I plan on making these simple wiki-header like things in the next release Immanuelle (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I got it running. So will be in the new release coming soon. Gennerally better formatting and everything. Immanuelle (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It is in the new release as of a bit ago Immanuelle (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

What do you want changed with AWE

I have seen sometimes contradictory views on updating AWE and what kinds of things should be done with it.

Some changes I have made in response to people here

• Fixed hardcoded python path
• Fixed "it" insertion error
• Password formatting fix
• Several function aliases
• The paragraph organization thing (although I am confused about the consensus and making the first top level comment here be about it)

Can we try to keep proposed changes to it as top level comments here and maybe say something like  Support or  Oppose in response to the top level comments so I can understand better what people generally think about the proposed changes? Immanuelle (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that we should generally group logically related sentences into paragraphs using the paragraph function. This helps with readability and screen readers. I think I saw support from @Feeglgeef and @JJPMaster, while @GrounderUK wanted every sentence to be a single paragraph for easy debugging. Immanuelle (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

That’s not what I wanted. Wrapping function calls increases the risk of complete failure of the whole logical unit, and that outcome is undesirable. What constitutes a paragraph is a matter of style and varies by language, so the paragraph function is insufficiently abstract, in my opinion. However, we do not support unbalanced tags in an HTML fragment, so for any logical unit to be realised in HTML, it must be a single call.

I think that means that when the logical unit as a whole fails (or is likely to), only the first call (or first few calls) in a logical unit should have paragraph tags; subsequent calls in the same logical unit should not be wrapped. The paragraph tags can be realised by differently named functions according to the intended semantics (“opening sentence”, “unformatted headline” or “start of paragraph”, for example). GrounderUK (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I am going to take this as being consensus enough to move back to what I used to be doing it with, because that one was both significantly easier for the tool to operate with and it seems it's most preferable among people. Wrapping every single sentence in the paragraph tag causes more issues than it's worth, and I think that your proposal is a bit more hypothetical and beyond what I can simply do by editing the tool. Immanuelle (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Moved from the Project chat. Feeglgeef (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I think moving this from the project chat was a mistake because the absolute bulk of the discussion was in the project chat, and nobody will see it here. Immanuelle (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm… and my own reply has nothing to do with the tool, as such. Perhaps we should have a general topic on the subject of what we do about paragraphs and other content groupings in the event of repeated timeouts? GrounderUK (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I am going to take this as being a consensus to do auto grouping into paragraphs of multiple statements, and I am going to take your idea as being a speculative long-term idea. Immanuelle (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Ideally the user would be able to control what's in a paragraph. But yes, content should be grouped into paragraphs of multiple sentences. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

We have different places on the wiki for discussion for a good reason. If you'd like to start a new topic on groupings, be my guest, but discussion about one tool doesn't belong on the project chat. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we're fragmenting the discussion too early. This having been moved here, nobody else is going to actually join this discussion. People are just going to get consistently upset about changes that I made, perceived as being consensus, while not knowing where to talk about them and just flooding those two threads that are the de facto places of discussion of the tool. Immanuelle (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Part of the problem, I think, is that you're trying to mass-create content when the wiki simply isn't ready, and that might be just for the dopamine release of clicking the publish or whatever button. I get the feeling you, consciously or subconsciously, think that we're in a rush here. Either way, we're trying to make articles like those of a Wikipedia, so if what your tool spits out is drastically different, that's probably a problem. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)