User talk:Lightmouse/Archive/2007Dec

Wikilinks

Hi, I was wondering what the reason was for removing some of the Wiki links on the History of the Falkland Islands. I assume its a formatting convention on Wiki. The links I'm thinking off are the 1811 and 16th century type.

The other thing I wanted to ask about was Title Case. I generally use that on headings, force of habit from report writing, I was wondering if that also ran counter to wiki guidelines.

I did look for a manual of style when I first started but found the amount of material a bit intimidating, so I've just kinda gone along with editing in the same style as the article. Is there a quick and easy reference to use? Justin talk 10:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the manual does seem a bit too large. Date elements should not be linked unless they add value to the specific article, just like any other plain english words. There are a lot of *full dates" that are linked for a separate reason but those are dates that contain a month and a day. Unfortunately this separate reason causes people to be confused and link other dates excessively. The reason is related to an autoformatting mechanism - don't ask me about it, I do not like it. It is all explained in the manual...

The manual specifies Sentence case for headings. This has the benefit of allowing the reader to assume making proper nouns stand out. For example:

"Bill Gates buys apple" (if sentence case - clearly about fruit).
"Bill Gates buys Apple" (if sentence case - clearly about purchase of technology company).
"Bill Gates Buys Apple" (if Title Case - ambiguous).

Compare the use of Title Case by The New York Times with Sentence case by The Times (London). You will sometimes see 'all lower case' e.g. orange (a trendy British mobile phone company). Lightmouse (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for explaining, I'll try not to repeat the same mistakes in the future. Justin talk 20:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Thanks for asking. Lightmouse (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet

I know you mean well but it's not terribly helpful to replace wikilinked stuff 1601, which links to specific useful context, with straight dates. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no visible difference between an ordinary year links and a piped links. That is some call them 'surprise links' and some call them 'easter egg links'. We have no statistics on which links get clicked, but I expect piped year links are ignored just as frequently as unpiped year links. Presumably that is why some projects say things like

Quote: Do not use piped links to "years in music" e.g. [[1991 in music|1991]], instead add (see 1991 in music) where you feel it is appropriate.

However, I do not mind you reverting and I appreciate you making a comment here. Lightmouse (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. While there may be no visible difference between an ordinary year link and a piped year link, you can certainly see the difference when you edit them. Your argument seems to be that you removed them because you have no statistics on whether they will be clicked. Is this the case? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not remove them because we have no statistics on them. My point was not clear enough, let me try again: It is my belief that a piped link that looks like a year link will add no more value than a year link. That is my belief. I do not mind if you disagree. Lightmouse (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartridge nomenclature

Hi,

I have seen the users User:Koalorka and User:Lightmouse have been laboriously renaming and accordingly editing and reverting several articles on rifle cartridges from German origin in undoubtedly good faith. If you would like to use the AxB format for metric cartridges (as often seen in Anglo Saxon countries and others wrote is a standing Wikipedia convention) in a civilian context that is fine by me, but please consider renaming the articles to 8x68S, etc. so Wikipedia readers without specialist knowledge of cartridges do not get confused or be tempted to create unnecessary dangerous situations. If you hate the interspacing in the original European A x B format and choose to get totally rid of interspacing, please consider how 6.5x54MannlicherSchönauer instead of 6.5x54 Mannlicher Schönauer looks for a reader.

It is a pity that in some Anglo Saxon countries European A x B rifle cartridges are allotted colorful nomenclature and mm additions and these find their way into Wikipedia. I also realize most editors in Wikipedia English are probably not from Europe or can read European languages, so I assume they are unaware a rifle cartridge like an 8x68mm Spitz has never existed in its country of origin or in any other CIP regulated country. Besides being not CIP conform the name 8x68mm Spitz is rather irresponsible to use. The letter S in 8 mm cartridges from German origin provides gunsmiths, ammunition traders and users information on the particular bore dimensions to avoid dangerous situations with bullets that do not have the correct diameter, since several 8 mm bores with varying dimensions are in existence.

The CIP cartridge nomenclature format for metric rifle cartridges is: A x B plus Possible Additions (like R, RS, S, IS, Lapua, Swiss, Messner Magnum, etc.). The addition of the name of a company or person who created a cartridge, country, etc. does occur. These additions sadly do not follow logical rules. Mr. Brenneke for instance actually got the honor of the official addition of his name for creating the 6,5 x 64 Brenneke and 9,3 x 64 Brenneke (CIP uses the , as decimal separator, but that looks awkward in English). To complicate matters there really is no 7 x 64 Brenneke or 7 x 64 mm (Brenneke), etc.. CIP only knows a 7 x 64 without any further additions. The sad part for Mr. Brenneke is that the 7 x 64 happens to be his commercially most successful cartridge design.

Your, mine, a gun writers, Wikipedia’s or the ideas of anybody else on European rifle cartridge nomenclature is utterly irrelevant in CIP member states. CIP rulings have arbitrary legal status there for all civilians. Military organizations like NATO can deviate from CIP, since governmental organizations do not have to comply with CIP rulings and standards and can do whatever the seem fit with fire arms and ammunition.

If you have serious questions on how CIP names a cartridge, I can look it up on the CIP CD-ROM. Sadly copyright prevents me from adding any official CIP lists, datasheets , drawings, etc. from that CD-ROM to Wikipedia. If you are interested in purchasing a CIP CD-ROM, I advise you to contact the CIP approved Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House in the United Kingdom.

Francis Flinch (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you haven't noticed please refer to WP:MILHIST. Metric format calibers are now AxBmm NAME, if you would be so kind as to return 5.8 x 42 mm DBP87 to the correct nomenclature I would appreciate that. Koalorka (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cunningham

Could you please stop running your script over Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope. The years are linked to provide the context of the wars in those years, and this was explained, and accepted, at WP:FAC. Thanks. Woodym555 (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising it. Since it is a general point that would apply to all articles and editors, I have started a discussion at wp:mosnum. See you there. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history of 7.5x55mm Schmidt Rubin

Can the users Koalorka and/or Lightmouse please restore the history page that got erased by article whist renaming the article to its current 7.5x55mm Schmidt Rubin title.Francis Flinch (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Links carefully chosen

I appreciate your script at A Vindication of the Rights of Men, but I do actually think that linking 1790 in literature, for example, is useful (and supported by the MOS) and FAC reviewers repeatedly demand centuries such as eighteenth century be linked. Delinking these only confuses editors. Awadewit | talk 11:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to linking '1790 in literature'. I do think that concealing the link within the text '1790' is unhelpful. Readers will not know that there is a useful article there because it is concealed. This is why some projects say things like:

Quote: Do not use piped links to "years in music" e.g. [[1991 in music|1991]], instead add (see 1991 in music) where you feel it is appropriate.

This must be new because just a few months ago, this is precisely what was recommended. I don't think that linking a timeline of literature to a year as one introduces the book is so very counterintuitive, though. If I clicked on that linked, I would not be confused, nor is anything terribly valuable being hidden.

I must say it is very frustrating as an editor to have the MOS change almost weekly. I cannot keep rereading it. I know this isn't your fault, but I want to keep promoting the idea of a stable MOS with "releases" every so often that would outline the differences between the two versions everywhere I go on wikipedia. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. The quote that I gave does not come from the MOS. However, the MOS is actively considering such a guideline. I understand your frustration with instability of guidance. Many people are.Lightmouse (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that demands that you link centuries as a general rule should be directed to the manual of style which has no such requirement. Lightmouse (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that just descends into nightmarish debates. I've tried. I've been through many FACs now and I gave up trying to fight the linking of centuries. It is a lost cause. Editors will also come through the articles again and relink the centuries if they are not linked. I've seen it happen many, many, many, many times. :) Awadewit | talk 11:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that people were saying that at FAC. I will look in there sometime and see what they say. Thanks for telling me. Lightmouse (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Use common sense.

Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule.

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Despite its name, "Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building an encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared to that goal. Zero. Tornadou 13:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Bell (football)

Gordon Bell (football) is one of the rare cases where converting yards to show international measurements is not appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you but it is not a big deal. I do not mind your revert. If we need to discuss it, perhaps we could see what the people at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) have to say. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse 10:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicon

Hi, why did you remove flagicons please [1] ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because policy is against it:

The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is strongly deprecated

See: WP:FLAGCRUFT.

Lightmouse 10:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable enough, thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Thanks for questioning it here. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse 10:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Parks

Hi, when you're editing so many article so quickly, please take the time to see your end result. For instance, at Rosa Parks, your edit broke the infobox {diff). I know it can be tempting and rewarding to get so many edits done so quickly, but do take enough time be careful! Thanks, --Joanne B 10:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thank you for fixing that and for letting me know. Lightmouse 13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error

In assuming good faith, i'll let you spot where the script stuffed up in this edit. Cheers, Timeshift (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for spotting that. I have corrected the error. I will investigate improvements to the script. Lightmouse (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lightmouse (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Script-assisted changes

Whatever script you are using to make changes to pages is removing grammatically correct hyphens. For example, in Reception history of Jane Austen and Jane Austen, it removed hyphens from the compound adjective "eighteenth-century" and "nineteenth-century". If you are going to replace these terms with "18th-century" and "19th-century", please replace them with the hyphenated version. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 13:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's important. Tony (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my preference for digit formats, I am fairly sure that I have never changed a word format ('eighteenth century') into a digit format ('18th century'). Can you give an example of where I have done that?
I do not subscribe to the "hyphens for adjectival forms" rule. The discretionary hyphen is a tool to aid communication. I would only add a hyphen to an adjectival form if it resolves a reasonable ambiguity (e.g. "black-cab driver"). Some eminent people have also said that hyphens are used excessively (e.g. Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, Sir Ernest Gowers, and Fowler). Please think about that point of view, even if you do not agree with it. In response to your requests, I have changed the script. It should leave hyphens alone. Lightmouse (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date unlinking tool

How does It work? Should I copy the whole code? What parts are important? Kameejl ^(Talk) 13:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this:

Go to User:Kameejl/monobook.js and add the following text to the bottom:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js'); //[[User:Lightmouse/monobook.js]]

Clear your cache by pressing Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox (press Ctrl-F5 in IE)
Go to an article with an unnecessary solitary year link and press the 'edit' tab
You will now see another tab with the label 'combined'. Press that.
The script will check for unnecessary date links and unconverted units. If you are happy with what it has done, simply press 'Save page' as normal.

Let me know how you get on. Lightmouse 13:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Lightmouse! Tony (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your email is not activated; I wanted to warn you about someone who has a mania against the automated delinking of trivial chronological items. Better not to make it too public at the moment. Tony (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to leave email inactive by default. However, I have activated email temporarily. Feel free to use it. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works great! Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

millihertz

Your script seems to have changed milliHertz, mHz, to megaHertz, MHz in the article [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Corona&oldid=173261162] [2]. I have remedied the error.Cstaffa (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it did. I see that is an error. Thanks for bringing it here. There are many many instances of where people incorrectly write 'K' for kilo, 'm' for mega, and 'g' for giga. That applies to all units, not just hertz. The script was deliberately designed to detect and correct these. It never occured to me that a millihertz would ever be deliberately intended. How common do you think that is? Lightmouse (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just Googled it; the dominant usage seems to be for variations in frequency rather than absolute frequency. It may be fairly common in astrophysics.Cstaffa (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, I should have thought of searching the web. I looked just now and see what you mean. I searched Wikipedia and the Corona article was the only result. A search for microhertz produced a couple of results. The script is so useful for correcting the many errors with megahertz that I am thinking of keeping it and just watching for false positives. I will have to think about this. Lightmouse (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've discovered another of the pitfalls of overreliance on those scripts. Do hope you have it set up to correct "megaHerz" to megahertz; "Megahertz" is a little more problematic, since you'll need to see if it is capitalized for some other reason such as being the first word in a sentence. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not correct 'megaHertz' although non-initial capitals would be easy to correct. I think all the letter case corrections relate to symbols only. Lightmouse (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

Please stop removing wikilinks to dates and centuries in the history section of this article with your little script. You are effectively acting like a vandal. Kindly desist. --Mathsci (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I improved the article. I am not a vandal, please assume good faith. Lightmouse (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year wikilinks

You removed the YEAR in baseball wikilinks from the currently featured article, Lee Smith (baseball player). And you removed the YEAR in literature wikilinks from the Madeleine L'Engle article. Do you think there should be no wikilinks to those? --Pixelface (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think links that are camouflaged as plain year links should not be used. There may soon be some guidance about this, see: wp:mosnum. Unless you make it clear where the link is going, the reader will think it is just a year link. They will then ignore it just as often as they ignore solitary year links. If the links are needed, you might want to put something like 'see [year in blah]'. Lightmouse (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you to hold off on your edits for now? I think such sweeping changes should be discussed by a larger group of editors before being implemented. This affects articles under several different WikiProjects. I could start a discussion at the village pump if you'd like. --Pixelface (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Lightmouse, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

Good luck, and have fun. --Tommosimmo (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Script-Assisted Screw-Ups

I know you mean well, but I wish you would not do script-assisted edits trying to put in metric conversions and that sort of thing. I have fixed the problems your script-assisted editing created on Monmouth class cruiser. I however I note that on 15 December you did an incredibly vast number of script assisted edits on different articles. Please can you go through them and fix the problems your activity created. I really do not have time to fix the problems myself. If you do not have time, then please revert your changes.

I think it is also worth mentioning that having a template do the conversions creates unnecessary server load, and it is better to enter the conversions by typing. If you try doing this you will create less anomalies, and produce better results.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback.

Can you be specific about what you think is wrong? I can amend the script.
Questions about technical issues (e.g. server load), need to be directed at the people in Template talk:Convert.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Your script editted the Title of Citations and even editted the URL for the citations --SingleIssueComplainer (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed now. Lightmouse (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

I will give the original with a bullet point, the results of your script in indented italics, and what should have been done indented.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Monmouth class cruiser

Class length=463 ft 6 in (141.27 m) overall

Class length=463 ft (141 m) 6 in (141.27 m) overall

The script did not recognise that there was a metric conversion, and did not recognise that the length was 463 ft 6 in, thought it was 463 ft.

22,000 hp

22,000 hp (16,000 kW)

The template produces a figure of 16,000 kW. But there is a sufficient difference between 22000 ihp and 16,000 kW to create confusion about what the power really was. An intelligent manual conversion of 16,400 kW would produce less confusion.

Class speed=approximately 23 knots (24 knots in Lancaster and 24.7 knots in Suffolk

Class speed=approximately 23 knots (24 knots in Lancaster and 24.7 knots (45.7 km/h) in Suffolk

The script encountered three speeds and only converted one of them. There were two good choices:

Convert the 23 kts

Convert 23 kts, 24 kts, and 24.7 kts

fourteen 6-inch

fourteen 6-inch (152 mm) guns

This is quite dangerous because you have assumed that a 6-inch gun is 152 mm. In the case of British 6-inch BL, it is (I checked with manufacturer's figures for Elswick 6-in guns quoted in Brassey's Naval Annual 1924). However, as a general point it can be dangerous to assume that just because a gun is called a given calibre it is exactly that calibre.

Russian cruiser Rurik (1892) (Please note that I have not fixed the problems with what the script did to this article)

For length beam and draught, your script converted beam and draught, but not length. Unfortunately there are more problems than this - which are not your fault. The figures quoted are not the same as quoted in Conways. It would be more useful to quote the figures in Conways and their metric equivalents, as quoted in Conways.

Propulsion: 2-shaft VTE 13,250 indicated horsepower. Your script did not convert this. By the way, since indicated horse power is correct, it is best to state ihp or indicated horsepower. If you ever come across nominal horsepower (nhp), it should not be converted to kW.

Ship range=6,700 nautical miles (at 10 knots)

Ship range=6,700 nautical miles (at 10 knots)

Should have converted 6,700 nm, and 10 kts.

Armament was left unconverted in the infobox. For some bizarre reason a previous editor had converted the calibre of the Russian 6-in guns to 152mm, which is correct to the nearest mm. He left 8-in and 4.7-in unconverted. The 8-in are 203mm, and the 4.7-in are normally described as 120mm (not 119mm). I do not know whether the assumption that a 15-in torpedo is 381 mm is correct.

The armour thicknesses are unconverted by your script.

Thanks for the examples.

Feet and inches. Yes, you are right, the script identifies feet but fails to recognise inches. I will amend the script, thanks.
Conversion of '22,000 hp' to '16,000 kW'. By default, I match the 2 significant figures. Precision is part art and part science, part personal preference. If you prefer to increase that to 3 sig figs, that is fine by me.
Failure to convert various values. Yes, you are right, the script does not convert everything. I wish it could. It will not convert values adjacent to a parenthesis character i.e. '(' or ')'. This is a simple mechanism to avoid converting values that already have a conversion. The armour values in inches use the quote character " and my script does not convert quote characters because they have multiple uses. Incidentally, the manual of style states that quote characters should not be used for feet and inches. After I have done the latest update relating to feet&inches, the hit rate will be even lower. If you know of a way of increasing the hit rate without false positives, I will be delighted to implement it.
Conversion of nominal values. The issue is interesting and wide-ranging. It should probably be addressed as a policy at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) or somewhere like that.

I appreciate the detailed feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exponents

I reverted this edit of yours. Wikipedia:Manual of style (mathematics) advises to use <sup>3</sup> instead of the character ³, yet you replaced the latter with the former. The edit summary indicates that this edit was done with the help of a script in your monobook.js . I wondered if you could please remove the part of the script that implements this. Thanks, Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made that amendment. Lightmouse (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted change to direct quote in Drunken trees

I reverted the units change you made in a direct quote in Drunken trees. The {{cite}} templates include a quote field which should be treated as a direct quote, and not modified, including adding wikilinks and unit conversions. I suggest you update your script to ignore all text within double braces so it doesn't modify any templates at all. Dhaluza (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. By reverting the whole page edit, you also reverted a correct edit to '0 °C' but I have put that back. Unfortunately, I do not know how to filter for quotes, particularly when the quote is very long. I usually catch them by eye but missed that one. That one was particularly tricky since there were quote characters within quote characters. Thanks again. Lightmouse (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was within a template--there were no quote characters, only a '|quote=' field definition. You should check for braces for template definitions and only specifically edit infoboxes, or at least not edit cite templatesDhaluza (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look. I see what you mean. There may well be a way to prevent false positives of that type. Unfortunately, I do not have the skills to code for it. Fortunately, this must be a very rare false positive (this is the only time I have ever encountered it). Lightmouse (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to update your script to use   between numbers and units rather than an ordinary space. I corrected your edit to Drunken trees but you need to check your other work. Dhaluza (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your script conversions to DynCorp are not universally applicable

On the DynCorp page you made several script assisted conversions from hectares to km². This is not the appropriate unit of measurement for this context (land management, forestry), and the values are expressly given in the Department of State report using hectares as the official unit.

As per hectare: "The hectare is commonly used in many countries, especially in domains concerned with land planning and management such as agriculture, forestry, and town planning where the use of square metres would be cumbersome."

Again, I am sure you mean well, but specific sciences use specific units for good reason, and I would particularly refrain from converting values such as 171,613 to 1,716.13 as it implies a level of accuracy that does not necessarily exist. Furthermore values taken from citations which should never be changed, only commented upon with ISU conversion.Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Square kilometre is more widely known than the hectare. If Wikipedia were an in-house publication for one specialism, it might be reasonable to use specialist units such as hectares, dunams, stremma, arpents etc. However, Wikipedia is not just for specialists in any region or domain.

I did not change any quote. So I am not sure what you mean there. And I do not know what 'ISU' means.

As far as 171,613 and 1,716.13 are concerned, you are talking about precision versus accuracy. They both have the same precision. There are many people out there who object to changes in precision. Personally, I would have dropped the precision to 1,7613 as you imply. So it seems we agree on that. However, to avoid being criticised by you, I would have to accept criticism from them.

I appreciate your feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of which unit of SI you feel is more 'well known', values taken (quoted) from source material should not be converted. I would suggest you place your conversions as asides in a form such as 1234 ha (12.34 km²). I work in GIS, so I admit I may be partial, but your converted values just sounded absurd when read in context with the article.

It is not just a question of precision; I doubt that the area sprayed was exactly 171,613 ha, but rather rounded up or down as required. When one sees fractional values (as exists after your conversion) it often imparts a sense of higher 'precision' than really exists. I too object to changes in precision but only when the values are authoritatively accurate, which in this case, are not.

Sorry about the ISU confusion, it is occasionally used by self-hating Frenchmen such as myself as an alternative to the more widely accepted SI, particularly since SI conflicts with another acronym used in my specialty. Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that quoted text should be retained. The text that I changed has no quotes marks. Therefore I assumed it is not a quote. Have I failed to see them?

I agree with you that people tend to round up or round down to integer values of the unit in question. As you say, the precision is probably excessive in that context. I see nothing wrong if you wanted to reduce the precision down to the nearest square kilometre. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with the principle that hectare values greater than 1 square kilometres should always be accompanied by square kilometre values. I am not sure what you would like for precision then. If you edit it to form that you can accept that has square kilometres, then I can see what you mean.

I do not think I have ever seen 'ISU' to mean 'SI'. That is why I did not understand originally. I see now that I could have worked it out from the context. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A query

Hi, I'm curious why you de-linked those dates. I thought dates like December 22 need to be linked, per MoS. Am I missing something? Thank you. Turgidson (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style says "Do not autoformat dates that are ... in date ranges"

I presume that you have not set a date preference or have set it to the US format. Set your preference to the non-US format and look at that example. You will then see why date ranges must not be linked. Lightmouse (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those date ranges can be linked just fine. All you need to do is remove the piping on the second one, leaving "During the night of December 22–December 23, Bucharest ...", rather than removing the linking. It needed to be changed; the way you changed it isn't necessarily the best way, because it then leaves behind an article with horribly inconsistent formatting both to those who have preferences set and those who do not. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, date ranges can be linked that way. However, humans persist in writing 'December 22-23' rather than 'December 22 - December 23'. I agree with their choice because I think the latter format is cumbersome. However, if people choose to use that cumbersome format, I will leave it alone. As long as broken dates are fixed, we are better off.

Inconsistent formatting within articles is a widespread problem. It is currently being discussed at wp:mosnum, as you may know. Your input there is welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanations. I went with December 22–December 23. Just a feedback comment: in a situation like December 22–23 (which I've seen a number of times), I'd say it's better to go to this solution, than lose all the markup, and have to chase back the place where it was, in a long article. Turgidson (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am glad that the broken date remains fixed and one more person now knows about the problem with date ranges. It will be a long time before everybody knows. Perhaps you might want to mention your preference for that option at wp:mosnum because the current guidance appears to say not to link date ranges at all. Lightmouse (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dates in infoboxes

Take a look at this too - or are dates in infoboxes not supposed to have wikilinks? — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The requirements for dates in infoboxes are just the same as anywhere else in the article. Lightmouse (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have a mature answer please, and not a smart-arse snidey retort. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a mature answer. It was not intended to be taken as a smart-arse snidey retort. I am sorry if you took it in a negative way. Please assume good faith. Lightmouse (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you, perhaps, now like to answer my question? I am not a wikipedia policy-obsessed drone, so would genuinely like to be pointed in the right direction in terms of date policy. I've tried to read the policy, but it is the least well-written piece of junk I've ever scene. Given that you appear to be applying this policy, then you are in a good position to surmise in a simple or concise way what the policy for date-linking or not is; something the policy fails to do miserably. I apologise for being a grinch, but I'm sick of this place and its petty rules that appear to do nothing for the project as a whole, and merely alienate people like me who value knowledge and learning but appear to hit against brick walls when trying to find anything out about the wikipedia project, being given answers that would be intelligible only if you knew what you were asking about in the first place, as ably demonstrated by your good self.

Merry Christmas

— MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 13:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I kept failing to see your comments because they were embedded within another discussion. I have moved them now to their own section.

You will have to forgive me for not giving you a reply that satisfies you. I am trying to answer but clearly I do not understand the question. Let me try again. You said:

"are dates in infoboxes not supposed to have wikilinks?"

I could not answer that directly because there is no specific guidance that says "dates in infoboxes must have wikilinks" or "dates in infoboxes must not have wikilinks". That is why said:

The requirements for dates in infoboxes are just the same as anywhere else in the article.

Thus if one editor adds a link and another removes it, there is nothing in any guidance that says either is wrong. I was trying to be helpful and let you know that there is no difference between infoboxes and anything else. Editors like you and me are on our own with respect to guidance. I hope that is clearer. If not, please could you try asking in a different way. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - thanks for that. I've noticed a lot of people removing wikilinks to dates in articles, so thanks for the clarification that there's apparently no guidance on it (which is why I was so frustrated in my search for it). I've noticed there are some things like "1998 in music" which serve to replace a link to a year in an article, say, dealing with an album released in that year; and the same for 1998 in film. These are obviously more helpful than just a link to a year-based article. I've never seen the need to actively remove linked years from articles, but like any other link, they should not be repeated. I shall continue this approach and not feel that I shouldn't continue to add year wikilinks to any new articles or major revisions I contribute to. Thanks for your patience and help - it was easy to interpret your replies as being aloof or dismissive rather than the actual fact that you were as innocent on this as I was! — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 16:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you dig around, you will find some guidance. But there is no difference between infoboxes and anything else, as far as I know. If you are interested, you may wish to read:

Manual of style on dates
Manual of style on links (section on date links) "Years should not be linked to articles, such as '2003 in music' or '1985 in film', especially when part of a date."
Manual of style on links (section on overlinking) "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true: ... Low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century ..."
Wikipedia:Album#Dating "Do not use piped links to "years in music" e.g. 1991, instead add '(see 1991 in music)' where you feel it is appropriate."

As you say, many people are editing such links. You may wish to contribute to the active discussions on the talk pages of the guidance and you will find out more about the history of such links. I appreciate your feedback. Lightmouse (talk)