User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2008/June

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There's been a

While your at it, check out the

Thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 02:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Many editors at MOSNUM are now:

• users that are active in the binary prefix war
• anonymous accounts
• accounts accussed of sockpuppetry
• accounts that were not mature at their first MOSNUM contribution

I do not think my opinion is important anymore. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly why your opinion is important. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 12:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse,

Just chiming in with Headbomb, if the likes of these new users, socks & anons are given a fair hearing over at WT:MOSNUM, how could your opinion not be important? Come on back. What's needed is interest from real editors, if none of us show interest how could we complain about what "consensus" ends up being reached over there?

JIMp _talk·cont 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is valued Lightmouse. Please come back. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the positive sentiments. My views are well known, I am against anything that could be interpreted by readers as meaning that SI units are not permitted, even if only in secondary position. Mosnum is a bit better now that one of the sockpuppets has gone and one of the sockpuppet masters has gone. The presence of proposal text on the policy page is wrong and is an indication that things are still unhealthy. I think mosnum is still too weird for me.

I suspect mosnum will continue to be weird as long as it is dominated by those involved in the bit/byte prefix war. Lightmouse (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the proposal is on the verge of being uploaded. Last chance to weight in if you feel like it. See

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer but no thank you. I am sure you will find somebody else for your interesting study. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, what is the problem with hectares. You seem to be on a mission to remove them from WP articles, without any explanation. Here is one example.Bleakcomb (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is easier for ordinary people to understand 10 square kilometres than 1,000 hectares. It is an attempt to make the article easier for ordinary people. You will see this same value used in

Mirash open-cast coal mine

:

• The two mines cover a working surface area of 10 km2 and, if all the external dump sites from 1956-1991 are included, the mine will cover a total surface area of 11 km2.

I hope that helps. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. What evidence do you have to support your claim that is easier for ordinary people to understand? Or are you referring to yourself. Please can you stop making these type of edits ie replacing hectares with square kilometres unless there is a good reason. Let me state it plainly. Hectares are an accepted and widely used unit of measurement for land area in metricated countries (countries where metric units are actually used, not just in name only). There has been a previous movement to remove hectares from Wikipedia articles and it has caused widespread damage to those articles. Vandalism is too strong a description but they were certainly unhelpful edits. Bleakcomb (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is sometimes useful to look at the inverse problem i.e. is the use of 10 square kilometres as you see in

Mirash open-cast coal mine wrong? Lightmouse (talk

) 12:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I did not understand that the two articles were different in that respect. There are two mine articles and each of them quotes an area of 10 square kilometres. As I understand it, you disagree with metric readers seeing '10 square kilometres' when it is associated with acres and not otherwise. Have I understood you correctly? Lightmouse (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. I am not sure what you mean when you say " and not otherwise". I disagree with edits that change the converted units from hectares to square kilometres (or other metric units) where acres are the primary unit, unless there is a good reason. Bleakcomb (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that is yet another point. I still have not quite understood the first point about the presence or absence of acres. Let me try again. As I understand it, you do not mind Mirash mine saying '10 km²' but you object to the Salt Mine article saying '10 km²' because it is next to an acre value. Is that the point? Lightmouse (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What? My concern is not the text in the Mirash mine article. Please, drop it. I disagree with edits that change the converted units from hectares to square kilometres (or other metric units) where acres are the primary unit, unless there is a good reason. Bleakcomb (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why the other unit matters. As with languages, unit conversions are not required to be a word-for-word translation, otherwise the translation of "60 L fuel tank" would have to be "63 quart fuel tank". However, I do not want to upset you so if you do not want square kilometres in the Salt Mine article, feel free to remove them. Lightmouse (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is what metric users expect to see. If land area is given in acres we expect to see hectares as the conversion. Square miles to square kilometres is probably ok. I don't understand the langauge/fuel tank analogy and don't think I need to. My concern is not only with Salt Mine article, it is all the similar edits that you make. I have a mind to go along behind you and revert all your similar changes, but I thought we could come to a better understanding before that. Not only that, I have asked you to explain why you make these changes and you haven't answered. Later. Bleakcomb (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot understand why you regard '10 km²' as acceptable in one mine article but not acceptable in another just because it is next to acre. If you want to ban square kilometres from the one, then it would be consistent to ban square kilometres from the other. I do not think stalking an editor to revert edits is a good idea and it is not nice to threaten it. If you would like to discuss this issue further, I would be happy to do so. Perhaps you might feel less upset after a cup of tea. Lightmouse (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

May I chip in here? I had the SI system drummed into my head as a child and have used metric units all my life. As an adult I work as a scientist who deals with all manner of different units.

I know how far I would have to walk to travel 1 km and that gives me a pretty good feel for area measured in square kilometres. But a hectare? Without looking it up I know that it is a unit of area that is larger than 1 square metre. I'm fairly sure (but not certain) that it is greater than 1000 square metres and less than 1 square kilometre. That narrows down the uncertainty to a mere 3 orders of magnitude.

In a nutshell: I prefer to see articles in units that I understand (km².).

Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how many Wikipedia readers know:

A: intuitively how big a kilometre is

B: intuitively how big a hectare is

C: how many hectares per square km?

My guess is group A is much larger than group B, and the difference between B and C is small. I have no evidence for this, but it seems common sense. This supports the views of Lightmouse and Thunderbird2. --Dr Greg (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know, it is a weird 100meter square, and 1% of a square kilometer. (probably) Standard usage is to go to the larger measure once you exceed 10, 1000 hectares is not a useful measure , ( who can visualize 1000 of anything?) readers who know will convert to a kilometer based measure anyway since they know how big a kilometer square is

I moved your comment to an "Inside view" section, as it says on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#RfC_guidelines, so it's not really applicable anymore. — Omegatron (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have struck it out. I hope that is fine. Lightmouse (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, though I think you can remove it altogether to keep things clean. Or move to the talk page above Greg's response. — Omegatron (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please go to Template_talk:Convert#Your_bot_is_damaging_articles where the bot edit was discussed. Lightmouse (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see additional comment there on this same topic. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[1] Is there a reason for this change? It seems unnecessary, as {{Convert/sqkm}} redirects to {{Convert/km2}}. Gimmetrow 00:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is part of rationalisation of the template. Feel free to discuss it at Template talk:Convert. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I put a stop notice on your bot after edit, which turned the date range of the actor's activity from 1914 - 1941 just to say 1941. This made one sentence read She appeared in 117 films between 1941. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That should not have happened. I will find out why it did that and fix it. Thank you very much. Lightmouse (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I found the issue and fixed it. I proved it by rerunning it on the article. Thanks again. Lightmouse (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please slow the bot down some? It's been repeatedly clogging up my watchlist every day this week, and considering that the edits it's performing are relatively minor, there's really no need for it to be going at such a great speed. Rebecca (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct to say that they are minor and not urgent. So I will do as you ask and reduce the speed. Thanks for the feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Rebecca (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate the good work lightbot is doing on enhancing consistency. Unfortunately, though, in Sunday Times Golden Globe Race, it removed the link to Friday in this block of wikicode:

. . . it it is bad luck to begin a voyage on a <!-- DO NOT UNLINK -->[[Friday]].<!-- PLEASE NOTE: this Friday is linked because the link explains the relevance of sailing on a Friday, with regard to superstition. In other words, this link adds specific contextual information to this sentence. PLEASE DON'T UNLINK IT without discussing on the talk page. JohanTheGhost, April 24 2006. -->

As you can see, I was trying to keep this link alive. I certainly don't want to stop lightbot's good work, but is there some way I can preserve this particular link? Cheers, — Johan the Ghost _seance 15:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. Leave it with me and I will respond on your talk page when I find out the details. Thanks for bringing it to me. Lightmouse (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in to this. I take it that lightbot monitors Wikipedia:Date formattings/Whitelist XXX? BTW, not wishing to lay a bunch of work on you, but it might be interesting if I could say something like

<!-- NOBOTFIX -->[[Friday]]

and have bots observe that this particular case doesn't want to be fixed. — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You will see at the link I gave you that I have requested just such a feature! We are of like minds. Lightmouse (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the logic behind removing date links from some Vgrelease templates but not all? As well as simply removing code for the sake of removing code but making the page look messy in the process? I reverted the changes to this page for now. --

The guidance about date links at

wp:mosnum

says:

• Links to date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month are not required; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links must not be used unless the reader needs to follow the link to understand the topic; see WP:CONTEXT.
• You say that the page looks messy without links. I think it looks better without them but aesthetics are a personal matter.

If you think that page needs links, I do not mind you reverting it back to how you like it.

Thanks for the comments. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because something isn't required doesn't make it forbidden. And it wasn't just the dates, it took [[Japan|Japanese]] and turned it into [[Japan]]ese. I just don't think that linking half of a word looks very good. I would suggest another round of bug fixes maybe, just letting you know ^_^. --

talk

) 04:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will investigate that. Lightmouse (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not knocking your bot, I see now what you were trying to do. It just looks lopsided with only some dates linked but not all. And I've had people tell me that linking is better than not. I agree it's an aesthetic. But my view would be that very little of an infobox -needs- to be linked, but it's there cause it's a utility part of the page not necessarily the article itself. As for the Japanese link... I think that might be overkill. --

talk

) 04:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll support Lightmouse on this issue, because I too remove links from lone years per MOS, and pipe links in that fashion as well per

WP:MOSLINK#Form. Personally, I think something like [[Japan]]ese looks better than [[Japan|Japanese]] because it takes up a bit less room and is visually clearer regarding what is linked (at least in my own mind). The MOS is there to provide uniform guidance regarding how to do things. No, it isn't against policy or anything to do things differently, but Wikipedia is at times severely lacking in uniformity, and the MOS attempts to guide us away from that. — Huntster (t • @ • c

) 06:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• /cu*
• /sq*
• //sq*

I've picked through some of them and it seems that the only real trouble is cum and //sqkm (which you're on to) but this might need further investigation. JIMp _talk·cont 03:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into them. I have the following points:

• Can you update the user guide.
• Some users have monobooks that add sqkm etc. Can you advise them of the change
• Will we add a new function so that the code determines the format. We have hard coded the choice for sqmi and sqkm but we could leave it up to the user. :Thus readers will see 'sq mi' because the code is sqmi not mi2. Readers will see 'km²' because the code is km2 not sqkm.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• The guide's updated ... unless something's slipped through.
• How do we find those with sqkm in their monobooks?
• Do you mean make it such that ft3 etc. gives "ft³" instead of the "cu ft" it now gives? Will we need that or will MOSNUM be revised to settle on one ... or the other?

also

• There may be some combos like sqft sqm which need a look into.
• I've sneakly gone and swapped all the disp=slash that I could find to disp=s. Could your bot go a root out any left over? And what are your thoughts on keeping both disp=/ and disp=s. It would make things easier if there were only one option. I'm talking several dozen redirects.

JIMp _talk·cont 08:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Monobooks: To find sqkm in monobooks, just use Wikipedia's own advanced search function and search for sqkm.
sqft: I have not got all the answers but I would like it to be more wysiwyg. Yes, I am suggesting that ft3 code is reserved for "ft³" and sqkm code is reserved for "sq km". I am not suggesting that the code works - we could continue with the present practice and implement the ban on behalf of mosnum. It is just that I think it is better to match the input formats to the output format. Perhaps MJCDetroit would have an opinion.
combos: They will have to be sqft m2 if we follow the concept.
disp=/ would be more wysiwyg but we do not have to go mad if we don't want to
The bot can do all the things you are suggesting. I will have a go when I can. Lightmouse (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be recycling those "cu" and "sq" subtemplates but first a note on them to tell of their depreciation. JIMp _talk·cont 02:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put notes on many of the subtemplates to be recycled. I've put a few up for deletion. One significant hold-out is sqmi sqkm with just over a hundred transclusions. Once Lightbot has tackled them I'll recycle that one too. JIMp _talk·cont 06:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Lightbot has not tackled any of the double unit templates like 'sqmi sqkm' yet. It will do it soon and I will let you know. Lightmouse (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've tackled most of them but sqmi sqkm was took big a job for a mortal. There's I've already put {{

db-author}}s on the others besides sqmi sqkm ... unless there are ones I've overlooked. JIMp _talk·cont

07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot has done some more. We are making progress. Take another look and let me know what you think. Lightmouse (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It broke an image link by fixing an abbreviation. [2] Hopefully you can fix this. Thanks. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. So it did. I have updated the code and tested it on that page. It works correctly now. Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it. Lightmouse (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In this edit Lightbot unlinked a date due to

Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately it is not something for Lightbot. There may be other bots more suitable. I suggest that you ask the people at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Best wishes. Lightmouse (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I use the JS for manual clean up? (If this can be done, JS isn't my language)

Be my guest but Caveat emptor (if anything is wrong with it, don't blame me). I will try to help you if I can. Lightmouse (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[3] So I guess it doesn't work in Safari. :D

I know nothing about Safari. But I do know that there are different versions. For example, I have to have one version for AWB and another version for monobook script. Try User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js. You can even create your own monobook with that code. Lightmouse (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Both are messed up in Safari (Javascript is fun, eh?). Is the Lightmouse/ script targeting Firefox? (AWB is IE, so I'd assume that is what that script targets)

AWB is IE and the script has to conform to that. The monobook script works in Firefox. The differences are quite small, for example if you want to search for a space character in AWB, you just use a space character but in Firefox you have to use /s. I see from your contributions that some of it works. I suggest that you reduce it down to something that works, then just add code in small increments until it breaks. Lightmouse (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather just use Firefox (JS scares me), only reason I'm using Safari is I'm in the middle of a game of Civ 4 on my PC. :D

I find javascript scary too. But I have done what you are doing - copy code from others and tweak it. Somebody must know if monobooks work in Safari. Lightmouse (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide links to your bot task requests?--Rockfang (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot Lightmouse (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.--Rockfang (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, you recently changed

I agree with you that non-metric people may not have a 'standard of reference' or a 'knowledge of meaning'. That is why a conversion is vital for non-metric units. If you look at

wp:overlink

, you will see a statement with a footnote:

• In general, do not create links to ... Plain English words, including common units of measurement
• Examples of common measurements include:
  • units of time (millisecond, second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year)
  • metric units of mass (milligram, gram, kilogram), length (millimetre, centimetre, metre, kilometre), area (mm², etc.) and volume (millilitre, litre, mm³, etc.)
  • some imperial and US units such as inch, foot, yard, mile, etc.
  • combinations of the above (e.g. m/s, ft/s).

You will see that common units of measurement rank high on the list of

wp:mosnum

but that page has been taken over by people involved in a binary prefix war.

Perhaps a better place is the village pump policy page. Lightmouse (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no need to take it that far. I just give you a hard time, occasionally ;D Seriously, you do fine work, Lightmouse...even if a little overenthusiastic at times hehe. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is always worth raising these issues. I accept that I may be one of Wikipedias enthusiasts or a pedants...

After the discussion has gone back and forth a bit, it might become clear that there are nuances that will suit all. For example, I did consider changing 'lk=on' to 'lk=out' or 'lk=in'. This would mean that only the non-metric unit would be linked. I could still do that if it is likely to increase acceptance of delinking of common metric units. What do you think? Lightmouse (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea which may be a good middle ground. However, I think the number of U.S. residents who haven't a clue what Metric is, much less how to deal with it, is seriously underestimated...yes, I'm playing both sides of the issue here. I know I could ask people I live around what a meter is, and for many of them, their expressions would go blank ("Meter? Isn't that what you measure gas (or electricity) with...?" aka, a

electric meter). I suppose my biggest issue here is that while we use conversions to make it easier for a worldwide audience to relate, we are still an encyclopedia, and it seems remiss to pass up an opportunity to educate when it is as easy as providing a link (people will click out from an article on a site like this just to see where it goes). — Huntster (t • @ • c

) 10:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Let us think about it in steps.

• Where a non-metric unit and a metric units are associated (i.e. showing a conversion from one to the other), you do not need to know what the other unit is. Thus if you say 1000 blobs (3,000 gorks), the blob user and the gork user can understand the text even if they do not know what the other term is. Incidentally, Americans see metric terminology all the time on packages in the supermarket (mandated in the US by the FPL Act) yet many Americans will say that metric is not used in America - suggesting that what people say and what people see are different.
• I think it is reasonable to expect a reasonable reader to know that converted terms are parallel. Thus the gork user may not have seen a blob before but it is clearly similar when shown as 1000 blobs (3,000 gorks). Thus when you ask people around you, do not ask them to define 'meter', show them a card that says "the cliff is 100 meters (300 ft) high" and ask them if the cliff is higher than their house.

The issue of encouraging people to go to other pages is another matter. Lightmouse (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That war had been taking up half the page for years. For the last two or three months the war spilt into new territory and was taking up almost all the page. I think things have calmed down a little at MOSNUM in the past week or so. A different topic might even stand a decent chance of being noticed again.

I was just at Temp talk:Convert saying, no don't put sing=on in there instead since this does something different but if it's a question of grammar as Huntster's indicating above then this is what you want though we could perhaps get rid of the sing=ons altogether replacing them with adj=ons.

I agree that common units such as the foot & metre need not be linked. I've grown up in a metricated country but the foot is no less familiar a thing than a squirrel. I wouldn't expect the word squirrel to be linked in an article with little relation to the animal.

JIMp _talk·cont 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was the wiki mark-up removed from the death date? Daytrivia (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind I see and will repair. Daytrivia (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just writing the reply. These things are hard for humans to spot but easy for bots. Thanks to the wikiprocess with bots and humans, the article will get better and better. Lightmouse (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving this issue to AWB. You would be surprised what you learn from talking to them and how open they are to debate. See Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Removal_of_blank_lines. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - you are obviously more aware of who-does-what in the community than me. Let's see what it leads to. – IbLeo (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

instead of removing all of the links to the years in the baseball articles can you use the

I am not sure that the code for Lightbot could do that easily. I can imagine quite a few false positives if it turned each year into a baseball year (for example it might break autoformatting). I think there are bots and editors that are better qualified for that task. Have you considered

wp:botreq? Lightmouse (talk

) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted all the bot changes to articles about the band 10cc. The bot was changing the standard representation of the band's name and, worse, changing the name of album cover images, thereby removing them. Grimhim (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right, the band name should not have been changed and the image filenames should have been left as they were. I will investigate to see if I can tighten up the code. Thanks for identifying and fixing those things. And thanks for going back and fixing the date links. Lightmouse (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I stopped your bot due to this edit to the Paramedics in the US article. My concern is two fold. First off, why is it wikifing the reference section? There really is no reason for things like dates to be wikified there. Second, it is doing other edits such as [[Ballistic vest|ballistic vests]] -> [[Ballistic vest|ballistic vest]]s. Shouldn't the entire word be inside the brackets, especially when divided up like that?

JPINFV (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Every edit that the bot made to that article was correct in the context which they were made. To address the things you mentioned above, yes, full dates should always be wikified so that user preferences can take effect. Also, it changed [[Ballistic vest|ballistic vests]] to [[ballistic vest]]s, which is also the correct proscribed form. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hunster. I appreciate you bringing this here and do not mind you stopping the bot. To JPINFV, please take a look at the response from Hunster and the subsequent edit and see if you think the article is better now. Thanks Lightmouse (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't stop the bot. I just reverted JPINFV's revert since the bot did nothing wrong. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you didn't. My response was unclear about that, sorry. The thanks for stopping the bot were directed at JPINV. I appreciate you helping out because it is always useful to have a third party view in such cases. Lightmouse (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't unlink the decade list from the

You are right. It should not have done that. I will fix that. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your bot borked the wikilink to 4AD on the page for The Wolfgang Press. I fixed it, but you need to be aware that the page 4AD is for a record label and not the year. -- Foetusized (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that and pointing it out to me. I will investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made a change to the code. 4AD should be left alone now. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Per my earlier request here, please stop inserting

Thank you for your feedback. There must be a way to fix this. I have asked at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Unflagged_quotes if there might be a solution to this problem. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

An

Thank you. I appreciate your help. I have restarted it. Lightmouse (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot removed important paragraph markings in quotations in

People often think that all date fragments should be linked but it is not true. As with plain english words, links are only needed if they help. You can see policy at

wp:overlink. Best wishes. Lightmouse (talk

) 09:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know why the English edition is different to the non-English editions. I am always seeking to make the English edition more suited to non-English readers by adding metric units. So I am sympathetic to the principle. If links to date fragments are needed for international consistency, then the policy needs to be changed. Please feel free to start the debate at those policy pages, I will be interested to read what people say. Lightmouse (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is different to the non-English editions because of the huge amount of rules, guidelines, manuels, ... I am not going to do what you suggest because the matter doesn't interest me enough considering the effort I would do for it by starting a debate. Greetings,

OK. Thank you for raising it with me. I am sorry that I cannot be any help. Lightmouse (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) I was only wondering why dates aren't linked anymore suddenly, in fact, but I see there exist some conventions regarding to this, so in the future, I won't revert your changes anymore (as I did a few times on articles on my watchlist). And although I don't really agree with these conventions, I'll accept them from now on, no problem :)

talk

) 15:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In line 52 of this edit, Lightbot removed the wikilink around "as of 2007." This action contradicts Wikipedia:As of, which recommends that such statements be wikilinked so that editors can more efficiently maintain articles' currency. --zenohockey (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you look on the talk page of Wikipedia:As of, you will see that it is a very questionable issue. I see that the debate has petered out, perhaps it is time to raise it again. Lightmouse (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the code. It should no longer remove links to 'as of xxxx'. Thanks for your feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to dates aren't useful in most of the cases, thanks! --

You are very welcome. I appreciate the support. Lightmouse (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your bot worked on rail profile today. Unfortunately, one of the algorithms is too coarse. In this article, one of the image names includes the text "155lb". The bot detected this and inserted a space, creating a redlink (since fixed).

So I don't have to fix the article again, could you tweak the bot to avoid image filenames?

Thanks -- EdJogg (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - incidentally, when the bot inserts a space between the number and unit, could it add a non-breaking space please, as this confirms to WP:MOS and avoids us needing to add them manually. Thanks -- EdJogg (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the image filename and fixing it. I have modified the code so that should not happen again. I am not a big fan of adding non-breaking spaces myself for a variety of reasons but I have no objection to other people adding them. There are other bots that add them automatically. Thanks again for picking up the filename. I appreciate it. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather not have an NBSP either, but in order to prevent a number and its unit from being separated by an automatic page break you only have two options: NBSP or no space. I have no problem with the 'no space' option since the result is usually quite clear enough. If Mediawiki could be intelligent enough to not break a line following a number, then this would not be a problem, but I'm not sure whether that is even possible. However, until it is, it is standard practice when preparing for a Good Article (or FA) nomination to add NBSPs, because you can be certain that at least one of the reviewers will check for them.

Regards -- EdJogg (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I would appreciate your comments here and here. Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to walk away. Right or wrong no longer matters. Lightmouse (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that is good advice. The trouble is that I really miss those "good ol' days" with good natured banter with the likes of Tony, McCandlish and Anderson - all of them strong-minded and all willing to accept opposing opinions. Do you think those times are gone for good? I hope not. Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the normal debate was good. I am sure that normal debate will resume eventually. Lightmouse (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry, I'm not hounding you, just more aware of what to look for after your bot has passed by!

Could you add another template to your exceptions list please? If you examine {{

(PS - you'll need to check the history of handcar if you are interested in seeing what happened. I just realised that there is a simple way of avoiding attracting the attention of the bot in the first place - replace the parameter with the number-of-inches equivalent number! (Done) However, I'm sure there are many other articles in the same situation.)

Regards -- EdJogg (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising this. I took a look at the history of that article and I can see what you mean. I will have a think about it and see if I can get the bot to avoid those. But I am glad that you found a solution. If you ask me again in a 3 days, I might be able to do what you did for all the articles you want.

Have you considered using the 'convert' template? Ask the people at Template talk:Convert because I am sure that the needs of rail articles can be catered for. Lightmouse (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Lightbot made these changes, including categorizing a recently dead person as a Living Person; removing valid wiki-links to the various century articles, etc. I don't know what caused it to do this, but you may want to check! Nimur (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this to me. The links to date fragments are often said to be an unwanted side-effect of autoformatting which is only intended for full dates. People often think that all date fragments should be linked but it is not true. As with plain english words, links are only needed if they help. You can see policy at

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Unwanted_addition_of_category. They might know what is going on. Take a look and see what they say. Regards Lightmouse (talk

) 18:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The AWB code has been updated as you will see if you follow the link. This generic issue for people marked as recently dead should not happen again. Thank you very much for bringing it here. Lightmouse (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! That was the really unusual action; the wikilinks are a matter of style policy; but adding the category was definitely a bug! Nimur (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please adjust Lighbot so that it doesnt delete <p> tags inside blockquotes or quoting templates (for example, {{

Look at Dextropropoxyphene which I've left in its current state. It has a bunch of dates written as 31st December 2007, but your script doesn't attempt to correct these ones. Thanks -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me. The bot has not touched that article as far as I know. You are correct, the bot would not amend those dates anyway because it only amends them as part of delinking. It would be a lot more difficult to amend unlinked dates and I am not actually aware that there is anything wrong with unlinked dates like that. Lightmouse (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

According to

Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Dates it should be 31 December 2007. Thunderbird2 (talk

) 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I thought that all dates in an article (e.g. "1805", "2008", etc.) had to be linked. Now the Lightbot comes along and is delinking all the dates I inserted into Nachman of Breslov, Nathan of Breslov and others. Should I be concerned? Are any dates supposed to be linked? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

People often think that all date fragments should be linked but it is not true. As with plain english words, links are only needed if they help. You can see policy at

wp:overlink. Best wishes. Lightmouse (talk

) 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. There is a discussion on this very topic at

wp:mosnum. I look forward to seeing you there. Lightmouse (talk

) 19:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed your bot's edit to Shag Point Branch. Part of the edit stripped [[April 1|1 April]] [[1908]] of all its coding rather than just the unnecessary "April 1|" part. I've now edited the article so that the date appears according to user preferences, but I thought I better point this out to you. - Axver (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting one. The code is designed to address non-autoformatted dates and to leave autoformatted dates alone. It does this in many different passes over the article. This allows it to address a variety of date-related text strings. It is not designed to turn a non-autoformatted date into a formatted one. It could do, I suppose. I think it is interesting that nobody complains about broken date formats. I am sure this is because the benefit of autoformatting is vastly over-rated. The number of people that use autoformatting is very small. That makes me wonder if it is worth the effort in changing the code. But I will have a think about it. Please also take a look at the ongoing discussion at:

wp:mosnum. I appreciate you raising this with me. Thanks Lightmouse (talk

) 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Was wondering why Lightbot would remove wikification from a specific year (1984, 1998, etc.) or from a century (18th century, 19th century, etc.) or from a "s" (1800s, 1980s, etc.)? These seem like exceedingly useful wikifications that allow for people to follow them, but this bot is removing them. (perhaps unintentionally?) Thanks! Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Your bot is overapplying the policy you continually quote. It says "Such links [date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month] must not be used unless the reader needs to follow the link to understand the topic; see

WP:CONTEXT

."

How can your bot possibly understand if there is a contextual reason for inserting a link? It is absurd to just remove all instances without considering that there may be a valid reason for including a link.

Since these links don't detract from the meaning of the articles in any serious way, why expend so much effort in removing them and potentially annoying so many editors? Surely edits should only be made by a bot when there is a very clearly identifiable case and they are completely uncontroversial.

☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 05:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please at least have the bot include a link in the edit summary pointing to the policy that it's enforcing. --Doradus (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. There is a discussion on this very topic at

wp:mosnum. I look forward to seeing you there. Lightmouse (talk

) 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

this edit has popped up an expression error in the 1st conversion in the North Rankin A section. I can't see why - your code looks fine to me. Could you have a look please. Moondyne 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a bug in the convert template. I have fixed the article and will report the bug. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Cheers. Moondyne 02:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The removal of years (1989, 2004, etc.), centuries (15th century, 16th century, etc.), and "s" years (1800s, 1980s, etc.) should not be continued until the issue is settled. I realize that there is a discussion underway, but there is certainly significant disagreement on the issue to warrant not continuing until policy is set. Thank you. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Last few days I've noticed that your bot has been removing links to all years, even when only mentioned once, I'm not too sure why.

People often think that all date fragments should be linked but it is not true. As with plain english words, links are only needed if they help. You can see policy at

wp:overlink. Best wishes. Lightmouse (talk

) 04:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. There is a discussion on this very topic at

wp:mosnum. I look forward to seeing you there. Lightmouse (talk

) 19:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you run your bot in 2 phases, one to identify a list of dates for unlinking, and the second to do the actual unlinks after a human review. I noticed that tonight it is unlinking dates in biographies, in some cases key dates like career start, career end, birth and death years, (such as Charles Lanyon) at three edits a minute; I will take a look at the above linked discussion too. So I stopped it (but I won't be offended if you restart it after reviewing my comment.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that you have joined the linked discussion and I think that is the best place to continue the discussion. I will see you there. Lightmouse (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am watching the discussion there. I am not aware of how to code the bot in the manner you describe, however as a temporary measure I can make it skip any article containing a given string. I will restart the bot but make it skip any article that contains the strings 'birth' or 'death'. I hope that will go some way to gaining your support. Thanks and I appreciate your feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the 3 day wait, (I stopped watching your page after your first reply.) I think a better option would be to skip the first line of each article, and to skip infoboxes. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how to skip the first line or infoboxes. If I did, I would do as you ask. Lightmouse (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've brought this up at

All done. I think. Lightmouse (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lightmouse. Also, sqkm is still clinging onto life ... only in the non-article space but it would seem that this still counts when it comes to putting the thing up for deletion. JIMp _talk·cont 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the monobooks are the only outstanding issue. Would you be able to ask people to change them? Lightmouse (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is mostly user pages and I'm not about to go messing about with someone's monobook. JIMp _talk·cont 05:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added a comment to people with it in their monobook. Many of them have copies of my monobook code and I must admit, I only updated it yesterday after discovering I was adding templates with '|sqkm|'. Lightmouse (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Doh, thanks for the reminder Lightmouse, been meaning to do that. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that the metrication script has performed edits leading to error messages from the convert template. In place of a square-kilometer figure in parentheses after an acreage figure, I found within the parentheses a red-lettered error message. That template has some updates about no longer accepting certain codes, such as "sqkm," and requesting codes like "km2" in their place. Just for your information. Michael Patrick (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you are right. I have fixed the bug in the script and corrected the pages. I am glad you told me. Thank you very much. Lightmouse (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you again for your script. Michael Patrick (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanx for the info I updated my script --— Typ932^{T | C}  12:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there. I believe I've updated my monobook correctly; if you've a moment might you please take a quick look and see if you spot any egregious errors? Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. It could be worth looking at the history of User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js to identify the other edits that I made since your last update. Lightmouse (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed you tend to replace conversions from acres to hectares with conversion to km2. I don't understand why this is. Acres are similar in size to hectares, and so make for a good conversion. Ditto miles and km. I think showing conversions of acres to km2 makes for units of sizes that are too dissimilar to make sense. --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look. Can you give me an example? Lightmouse (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

An example of this (which I've reverted) is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martlesham --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. I think it is easier to understand large areas (like 10 square kilometres) using square kilometres rather than hectares. More ordinary people know how long a kilometre is and if you look at a map you will see kilometre grid squares. Comparing units between systems often works but word-for-word translations can sometimes be inappropriate for ordinary people within the target system. Otherwise we would erroneously translate litres of petrol into quarts of gas. That is my what I think anyway. I do not mind if you have a different opinion and your revert is not a problem for me. I appreciate your feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. In the UK, land is generally sold in acre/hectare size, so it's usual to use these units to describe packages of land. I agree with you that it's difficult to visualise that, but there you go. I would generally use sq. miles/sq km where it's important to visualise the size of larger packages of land. --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hectares are the standard equivalent. TONY (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1. As an aside, land is no longer sold in acres in the UK. According to the Land Registry website, registration went fully metric in 1995. Although a web search reveals the acre is still widely mentioned by estate agents.

2. Phil has hit the nail on the head, the harder-to-visualise hectare is common in source data provided by estate agents, agricultural or other specialist documents. Specialists may find them familiar. This issue, to me, seems analogous with using nanometre and micrometre rather than angstrom and micron. Quotes need special treatment. Otherwise, for lay readers should use units that are easier to visualise: large units for large areas and small units for small areas. Town, county, and country sizes seem right to me when quoted in square kilometres. The hectare is intermediate in size so it is easier to tolerate in the middle sizes but I do not think ordinary British people find the acres or hectares as accessible as the square foot, square mile, square metre or square km.

3. I know that people from Australia may feel more comfortable with it than British people because of increased usage there.

4. As I said above we should take note of 'equivalent units' but be careful with word for word translations for non-specialists. The litre of petrol might appear to translate to quarts of gas but Americans use gas in gallons. The US dry pint of grated carrots would appear to translate into mL but it is non-US recipes use grams of carrots. The french word for teaspoon is cuillère à café not cuillère à thé. Lightmouse (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note on this one. The bot recently updated the

Incidentally, the railgauge template and the convert template do exactly the same thing. There are quite a few templates (e.g. auto templates, 'weight' templates, and 'height' templates) with similar functions. The convert template is a generic one that is very popular. Do you think the rail people would like to join forces with the people at Template talk:Convert? Lightmouse (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)