Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Lightbot 4

[edit]

Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual

Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.

Function overview: Janitorial edits to units

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request duplicates the 'units of measure' section of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. That BRFA was very similar to the two previous approvals: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 2.

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'

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

Function details:
I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing units of measure in a variety of forms.

  • A 'unit of measure' is any sequence of characters that relates to measurement of things. This includes but is not limited to units defined by the BIPM SI, the US NIST or any other weights and measures organisation or none at all. This includes but is not limited to time, length, area, volume, mass, speed, power.
  • Edits may add or modify metric or non-metric units.
  • Edits may modify the format.
  • Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units.
  • Edits may add, remove or modify links to units.

Discussion

[edit]

I'm sorry, did I miss something or are you not "indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia"? - EdoDodo talk 13:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, yes. I have just applied to have the restriction lifted. However, an arbitrator said I need to come here first. So here I am. :) Lightmouse (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. - EdoDodo talk 14:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your past history, I have a number of concerns:

  • What will you do to prevent any repeat of the behavior that led to the ArbCom finding of fact Lightbot repeats its own errors?
  • I recall much drama over how you used to respond to talk page comments (and even remove the "stop" command) using your bot account. Do you commit to never using your bot account to respond to talk page comments or make any other edits besides those for approved tasks, as required in WP:BOTPOL#Bot accounts?
  • You state that your bot will honor {{nobots}}. Will it also comply with {{bots|deny=Lightbot}} and variations?
  • As stated, this request is far too broad and far to vague; Lightbot 3 was quite controversial for that very reason, and things have become more strict since then. Please specify exactly the types of changes the bot will be doing rather than vaguely stating "may add, remove or modify". I understand this may be a long list, and I note that explicitly listing each change does mean that adding a new type of change will require a new BRFA.
    • Note that ArbCom also asks for a statement "indicating specifically which functions you will be performing".
  • "Units of measure" should similarly be more defined. Template:Convert/list of units has an extensive list of units, which may be incorporated by reference. Are there other units on which you intend to work?
  • The edit summary you used previously, "unit/dates/other", does not fit with WP:BOTPOL's requirement that the bot "uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users". Please address this.

Given the controversy Lightbot's activities generated both before and during the ArbCom case, we must be particularly careful here to ensure that the community wants this done and wants Lightmouse to be doing it. I have posted notices at WP:AN, WP:VPR, WP:BON, and User talk:Lightbot to attempt to gather community input. If anyone knows of other pages where Lightbot's previous activities were extensively discussed (e.g. MOS, WikiProject, or template talk pages), please post a similar notice in those places and mention that you did so here. Please keep in mind WP:CANVAS. Anomie⚔ 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to provide a list of units of measure. It might take a little effort to compile but I can do it. Would that help? Lightmouse (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I used various 'units of measure' related categories on Wikipedia to create a list at User:Lightmouse/list_created_from_categories_referring_to_units_of_measure. As suggested, there is also the list of units of measure addressed by Template:Convert/list of units. There are also lists maintained by the official SI authority, by the British and US weights and measures authorities and by others. In the event of a dispute about whether something is a 'unit of measure', I'm sure the knowledgeable people at wp:mosnum can arbitrate. Has anyone ever seen any such disputes? Lightmouse (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for the units of measure you intended to work with, not every unit of measure you could possibly think of; do you really intend to do anything with amagats, almudes, agates, or adowlies? Several items on your list don't even seem to be units of measure, for example Active daylighting or Active Resistance to Metrication. And quite frankly, I don't have any confidence in your fan club at WT:MOSNUM. Anomie⚔ 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely unclear to me from this request what, exactly, the bot would do. Can you give an example of what you think a typical edit would be like? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that Lightbot was already approved to edit units of measure. This approval request is a word-for-word copy of the units of measure section of Lightbot 3. So there are thousands of examples in the contributions. For example:

If anyone knows of a better edit summary, please feel free to suggest it.
This application stands on its own merit. It doesn't require anyone to read other BRFAs if they don't wish to.
AWB has a method of addressing bot exclusions that is used by other bot owners. I'll do the same.
Feel free to look at one example of AWB code that was used in the past. Lightmouse (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be clear, is doing conversions such as the examples you post the sole task of the bot? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. It will do more than just add conversions.
  • Edits may add or modify metric or non-metric units. For example, this may add a conversion or fix an error in an existing conversion.
  • Edits may modify the format. For example, this may change 'KW' into 'kW' or 'kmph' into 'km/h'.
  • Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units. The diff examples given above show it adding templates. It may also remove or modify templates as part of maintenance e.g. if the templates themselves need updating.
  • Edits may add, remove or modify links to units. For example, it might add a link to obscure units, remove a link from a common unit, or correct a wrong or misdirected link.
I hope that helps. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Note that Lightbot 3 probably shouldn't have been approved given the lack of consensus evident in that discussion, and in reaction to criticism from the community (in part due to the approval of Lightbot 3) we have tried to become more careful about requiring a strong consensus and about not approving vague or overly-broad tasks. Although to be fair most (but by no means all) of the controversy there was related to dates rather than units.
While examples of edits are nice, we need to know exactly what types of edits are being approved here. For example, "Wrap measurements using US customary units with {{convert}} to also display them with the corresponding metric units" could appropriately describe the above 4 edits.
As for an edit summary, it should reflect what the bot is actually doing. Ideally the summaries for the 4 edits you link above would be "adding metric conversion for mph using {{convert}}", "adding metric conversion for inches using {{convert}}", "adding metric conversion for square feet using {{convert}}", and "adding metric conversion for miles, acres using {{convert}}", although just "automatically adding metric conversions using {{convert}}" would be ok. Anomie⚔ 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The code is sophisticated enough to parse a page for lots of units. I gave those examples because they were simple to understand. In reality, one edit might do 2 conversions of miles, 3 conversions of feet, 1 modification of a link, and a change of format from KW to kW. The next edit might do a completely different combination. The next edit might do a different combination again. That's why the edit summary is generic. Lightmouse (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the code is that sophisticated, shouldn't it also be able to determine an appropriate edit summary? Anomie⚔ 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately AWB doesn't have such capabilities (yet?). –xenotalk 19:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not satisfied with the "for examples" and "mights" above, because they do nothing to make the request less vague. So far, it sounds like the types of changes being considered for this task are:

  • Add {{convert}} to measurements using non-metric units to also display appropriate metric units.
  • Add {{convert}} to measurements using metric units to also display appropriate customary units.
  • When appropriate, use {{convert}} to display multiple alternative units (e.g. 640 acres (2.6 km2; 1.00 sq mi))
  • Correct broken invocations of {{convert}}.
  • Correct incorrect manually-formatted conversions, e.g. "100 miles (10 km)".
    • How does the bot determine whether 100 mi or 10 km is actually correct? What is the threshold between "inexact" and "incorrect"?
  • Correct spelling, abbreviation, or capitalization of existing units in measurements to match the applicable standards, e.g. 100 KW → 100 kW. This may be a side effect of applying {{convert}}, but may also be done on its own.
  • Add links to uncommon units in measurements (e.g. "100 furlong" → "100 furlong"), remove links to common units in measurements (e.g. "100 mi" → "100 mi"), or correct incorrect links to units in measurements (e.g. "1 atm" → "1 atm").
    • Would these also be done for units not in measurements?

Is that correct? Are there other specific changes being considered? Anomie⚔ 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions, Anomie. They are helpful. I think we are now moving forward.
The aim is to improve the use of units on Wikipedia. The aim can be achieved by the use of the convert template or by use of text. I'll try and rework your text as follows:

  1. Add {{convert}} to metric units so they display non-metric units.
  2. Add {{convert}} to non-metric units so they display metric units.
  3. Add text to metric units so they display non-metric units.
  4. Add text to non-metric units so they display metric units.
  5. Modify existing text conversions of units. This will be to correct errors, improve the conversion, improve appearance, improve consistency, change abbreviation, change spelling
  6. Modify existing template conversions of units. This will be to correct errors, improve the conversion, update the template, improve appearance, improve consistency, change abbreviation, change spelling
  7. Remove existing text conversions of units in order to replace it with a better template.
  8. Remove existing template conversions of units in order to replace it with better text.
  9. Remove existing template conversions of units in order to replace it with a better template.
  10. Add links to uncommon units
  11. Modify links to units. This will be to correct errors, make it more direct, improve appearance, improve consistency, change abbreviation, change spelling
  12. Remove links to common units
  13. It is not intended to add templates other than {{convert}} but if a better template exists, it will be considered
  14. For this BRFA, the scope of the term 'conversion' includes more than one unit e.g. 60 PS (44 kW; 59 hp)

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite helpful. I hope you don't mind, I changed it to a numbered list to facilitate discussion.
  • When might you do the text-related items (3, 4, 5, and 8) rather than the corresponding template-related items (1, 2, 6, 7, 9), besides when the conversion isn't supported by {{convert}} or another template? How often do you anticipate that happening, and/or how often did it happen when Lightbot was running previously?
  • Re #11, how might links be edited to "improve appearance, improve consistency, change abbreviation, change spelling" in a way that is not covered by #5 or #6? Or is that portion just a bit of CYA in case someone tries to whine that changing the visible text of a link (e.g. KW → kW) somehow isn't covered by #5 or #6?
  • Re #10 and #11: When linking an abbreviation, would you just link the abbreviation, pipe it to the written-out name, or pipe it to a section of the article on the base unit? For a really bad example, "kW" to kW, Kilowatt, or Watt#Kilowatt? I personally would prefer Kilowatt, as it makes the link's tooltip maximally useful to readers.
  • Re #12: Obviously if someone comes around complaining about Lightbot removing links to Mile or Metre they're just trolling. If someone complains about removal of links to a unit that reasonable people might disagree on the commonness of, will you stop and seek input from reasonable people, people much more familiar with units than the average reader, or just ignore them and keep editing?
Anomie⚔ 00:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define what a "common unit" is? Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 06:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Text conversions. By default, I try to use the 'convert' template. I think it must be the most frequent conversion method I've implemented. I think it's a 'good thing'. I started adding text conversions by hand before the convert template even existed. I might still use text because the template isn't able to do the conversion (or I'm unaware of how), or I might find it simpler to code the text version. I think I've used text for rare combinations of units - I can't think of an example but "x hp/ton" or "a gradient of two feet per mile" are the sorts of thing I mean. I've also used text when the numeric value is in words e.g. "three miles" (again, feel free to let me know if the template now supports this). Even when the template is an option, I'd like the flexibility to use text if I think it's a better method of conversion.
  • improve appearance, improve consistency, change abbreviation, change spelling. It is a bit of a catch-all clause to eliminate doubt. That's why I was previously keen on sweeping statements. Now that we're using specific language, we need specific clauses. I didn't think of mentioning upper and lower case - thanks - I think that should probably be stated.
  • Linking abbreviations. By default, I'll link to the actual article [[Watt|kW]]. I see what you mean about that being an odd one. It doesn't matter much to me if I ended up using [[Watt#Kilowatt|kW]]. However, I'm not sure if I'd use Lightbot to add links to 'kW' anyway.
  • Common units. I'd be happy for a debate about common units, either now or later. It's interesting to me that 'Square kilometer' ranks 8th from top in Wikipedia's most linked articles but doesn't even feature in a list of the 1000 most viewed articles. There used to be a list of common units defined in wp:link. I wasn't aware that it had been removed. Here is a quote from the archive version :
  Examples of common measurements include:
  * units of time (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)
  * imperial and US units (inch, foot, yard, mile)
  * composite units (m/s, ft/s)
  Links may sometimes be helpful where there is ambiguity in the measurement system
  (such as Troy weight vs Avoirdupois weight) but only if the distinction is relevant.
  In an article specifically on units of measurement or measurement, such links can be useful.
The current version is more generic:
  Units of measurement which are common only in some parts of the English-speaking world
  need not be linked if they are accompanied by a conversion to units common in the rest of it,
  as in 18 °C (64 °F), as almost all readers of the English Wikipedia would be able to understand
  at least one of the two measures. Some units of measure, like "ounce" or "pound" can be misinterpreted
  because they are ambiguous. A link might serve, if a simple statement, "troy ounce", does not.[clarification needed]
  Do not use a link for an ambiguous unit of measure unless a thorough explanation would help the article's context.
  You would then link "Ounce" or "pound" to the Troy weight or Avoirdupois weight article.
  For example, in an article specifically on measurement or on units of measurement, links to common units of measurement are useful.
I agree with almost all of both versions (although I'd reword the bit on ambiguity. The weight of a person in lb is unambigous when accompanied by kg and I think few people would think it was a troy pound even without a conversion).
Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about whether you choose to use text instead of {{convert}}, I was just wondering why you might. As for "common units", I'm really not interested in debating here whether any specific unit is common enough to be linked or not. But I do want to know what you intend to do if someone brings a legitimate dispute over commonness to your user talk page as a result of the bot's edits. Anomie⚔ 20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disputers always think they have a 'legitimate dispute'. We can stop it becoming a dispute if any question about 'commonness' can be redirected to an arbiter. Lightmouse (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But which arbiter should be chosen? I suggest WP:VPM rather than hiding it away on WT:MOSNUM where the regulars there regularly tear any dissenter to pieces. Unless things have changed in the past year, which I highly doubt. Anomie⚔ 14:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe that Lightbot should not link units of measurements at all. This would simplify this definition phase and the bot's operation – by avoiding the need to parse the conversions to see whether it is the first (which may need linking) or nth (which will not be linked) occurrence. Any units can be [re]linked manually as the cases arise. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no automatic rule that only the first instance of something should be linked. Sometimes it is none, sometimes once, sometimes more. Deciding how many instances of something on a page should be linked (if any) is something best done by a human, not a bot. My view is that this bot tries to do too much in one go. It may be that if people took the time to understand what is being done here, they would support it, but it is easier to support smaller, simpler tasks, than complex ones. I do recognise that this would increase the overall number of edits done, but it is simpler when an edit pops up on a watchlist to check an edit that changes a few things (say five) than to try and work out whether an edit making 50 or so changes in one article is OK or not. Essentially, what I am saying is that the scope of what automated editors (using AWB and the like) and bots do, should not outstrip the ability of ordinary mortals to check each edit (or a selection of them). I recently found three examples of automated edits that included errors. Can you easily spot the mistake made in each of these edits? [1], [2], [3]. My suspicion is that if a human checked any of those edits, they failed to realise the mistakes made in those edits. In other words, it is possible to write complex bots that make lots of changes to a page in one edit, but if that makes it difficult for a human to check that edit, then you have problems. Carcharoth (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your third example link, that person did make just one change to the page: they replaced all instances of "Stuffed" with "Mounted". Unfortunately they didn't realize that some of those were part of image filenames. The second is similar. That does bring up a good question, though: Does Lightbot detect if the unit is part of a page name or an image filename, e.g. File:Mrao 1 mile.jpg or File:St Paul 1 mile 94.jpg or 1500 metres? Anomie⚔ 14:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not a list of things that it will do. It's a list of things it's permitted to do. The original wording was Edits may add, remove or modify links to units.. It was another way of wording the software analysis term 'Create, read, update and delete' which is applied to each object class unless there is a reason not to. I don't want addition of links to be forbidden but I can't give you a scenario right now. Lightmouse (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lightmouse, is it possible to limit the bot to making no more than five separate changes on a single page (or whatever number seems reasonable)? And to queue the changes to be done in subsequent edits if more are needed? Also, is it possible to estimate how many pages this will affect during the initial run and how long it might take to complete? Thousands, tens of thousands pages? Days or months to complete? You say above "continuous" and "tens, hundreds, thousands", but that seems a bit vague. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to count edits that I've done to a single page.
  • I don't know how to queue changes.
  • I've been editing units for six years. I'm sure if I continued for another six years, there will still be more to do. I can't imagine this work ever being complete.
  • I said 'continuous' because it seemed like the most extreme case. Most of my unit runs have been done by creating a piece code, running it for an hour or so, then stopping and creating another piece of code to run.
  • In the past I've done a run to add a conversion with the target 'feet'. Then I've done another run with the target 'kmph' converting it to 'km/h'. Then I've done another run with the target 'KW' converting it to 'kW'. Then another run with the target 'sq. ft' converting it to 'sq ft'. An individual article might have several of these targets.
  • I sometimes write and run code that looks for multiple targets and corrects them in one pass. See one example of AWB code. In other cases, I create a piece of code that only does one thing so that it's easier for me to supervise. Some things require me to watch more carefully and do shorter runs.
  • An article that I edited six years ago to convert all instance of 'feet', might have a new value in feet added by an editor tomorrow. No article could be regarded as 'units done' and never parsing again.
I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it is generally encouraged that a bot make multiple changes in one edit when possible rather than making multiple consecutive edits, to avoid excessively flooding histories and watchlists. "Continuous" is not vague, it just means that the bot will run more or less constantly rather than running just once, once per day/week/etc, or "whenever needed". This is the sort of task where human editors will constantly be making more work for the bot and there is a huge backlog, so I for one am not particularly worried about a lack of specificity in the "estimated number of edits" field. Anomie⚔ 14:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding multiple changes in one edit, presumably there is a balance to be struck here between (i) combining edits so as not to flood the page history and (ii) keeping the edits simple and distinct enough that humans can understand the changes being made. Also, if the amount of required changes parsed by the bot is large enough that it can't be adequately described in a suitable edit summary, then presumably the bot should split the changes over several edits small enough to be described in an edit summary for each edit? Also, if a bot parses a page and detects 50 changes that could be made according to its programming, is it reasonable for those 50 edits to be made in one edit if it might confuse a human looking at the edit? I would say that a simple set of 50 changes might be understandable, but some bots are capable of edits that are complex enough that it takes a while for a human to understand what they are looking at (and even then they might misunderstand it). Is there a way to address concerns of those nature? Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to what Lightmouse wrote above, it sounds like what is being asked for is a broad enough bot approval that he can be flexible in terms of what he does in terms of reprogramming it between runs for different units. I was under the impression that "continuous" meant continual running of the same task, rather than continual switching between tasks with different programming. Given what Lightmouse has said above, I may have misunderstood. I thought he had a superscript that would look for all the above units stuff in one go and make all the changes in one pass, rather than doing it in batches. If it is done in easily understood batches, that is great. Question is, where is the line drawn in terms of getting approval for each change in programming? Maybe Lightmouse could post pages detailing what tasks he intends to do and when, and name them, and refer to those pages in his edit summaries? Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a single superscript. I have several and they're all continually being adapted. Feel free to look at: examples. Look at their history to see how they can be updated several times per day. I also do smaller versions that I don't store. I swap them in and out as required. I'll try to dig out some example edits where Lightbot or Lightmouse has done multiple tasks at once. It may also help you to know that a lot of the process involves creating article lists and filtering them in various ways e.g. create a list of articles containing 'kmph' in lower case only. This is a feature of AWB that makes it much more efficient but it's difficult to make a contract about it here. Lightmouse (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sounds like the bot will revert-war if a human reverts it - for whatever reason; this was one of the problems with Lightbot3. If Lightmouse cannot tell how often his bot has edited a page before, can it tell whether it has edited a page before?
  • Wouldn't it be more sensible - and much easier to approve - to start by asking for approval of a bot doing one thing (adding {{convert}} to miles; or even adding {{convert}} to a [specified list of units])? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone point to where edits such as these have received consensus? They, in combination with the large article lists that Lighbot uses, have the effect of excising hectares as converted units from WP. Again where is the consensus if this is what will occur if approval is given? Bleakcomb (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • False positives question about bot functionality. I do similar edits to these semi-manually with AWB, and there are some instances where identifying the conversions can be tricky. For example, "m" or "meter" in track & field related articles (referring to the name of the race), and "mm" in weapons related articles should not have convert tags on them because they're used as a name, not as a unit of measure. Similarly, there are other ambiguous uses of abbreviations like "m". A bot like this would be extremely helpful, but what measures would it take to avoid these kinds of issues? I particularly like the idea of correcting incorrect conversions, or doing one or two units of measure at a time. Shadowjams (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I admit to opposing Lightmouse on his date delinking epithet removed, this bot request seems too vague even for an editor without a history of making bot edits without Wikipedia consensus. On the other hand, he is being given conflicting mandates; although he has not shown an ability to prevent his bots from editing warring, if his bot finds 50 changes, and is required to queue them in small groups, it would be almost impossible for the the bot to then notice whether it had been reverted and stop restoring the changes.
  • I would oppose the request without a more specific mandate, code checks before runs, and an undo button on the bot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Shadowjams does edits 'semi-manually' with AWB. Over the last 6 years, I've done huge numbers of unit-related edits 'semi-manually' either as a non-bot or as a bot. Please don't assume that the entire scope of the bot will be used for unsupervised automatic edits. Many editors, including myself, have done huge numbers of automation-assisted edits to units. It's a mature janitorial process that goes on every day with very few problems. In many cases Lightbot will be doing (as it used to do) relatively short runs that will be neither fully automated nor unsupervised.

In the case of areas, I think we should have a policy about metric units of area. I'd rather not see editors preventing people seeing m2 or km2. I know that there are parts of the world (e.g. Australia and NZ) where homes are built on hectare-sized plots of land and I know that some farmers read Wikipedia and they may find the hectare easy to imagine. However, there are some readers for whom m2 or km2 are easier to imagine and I think it's wrong to remove such units. This issue has been discussed before and I think it would be good to have a policy. I'd be happy to say that I won't remove hectares if other editors won't remove m2 or km2. It really would be good to have a policy written somewhere.

Image names used to be a curse for many automated and semi-automated editors but AWB is now very good at providing protection. With respect to track&field, weapons, and areas: there are specific and general points. A specific point is that I'm mostly focussed on adding metric units for the benefit of non-specialist international readers so I'm unlikely to provide a conversion to "100 metre race" or "9 mm gun". In the case of names, I would convert "the ship had a 4 inch gun". I'm aware of the general point about names and I believe that I can handle that, although there isn't a hard rule.

Several people have mentioned scope. I admit to being confused by this but if BAG wanted to limit the scope, it could start by saying that only values in feet and metres can be converted. Then we could move on to include values in miles and kilometrs. Eventually we could ramp up the scope to include all units. I think it isn't necessary but that's just my opinion, other people think differently. Remember that BAG can suggest trial runs under the supervision of Jarry. Trying to help move things forward. Lightmouse (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to me is regarding the present request for amendment at ArbCom. In fact, I'd prefer another BAG approved any trials at this point in time. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry Jarry. You're correct. Let me rephrase my comment. I'd be happy to do a trial run for all to see and comment upon. Lightmouse (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered questions

[edit]

There are a number of questions and concerns above that seem to have been missed:

  1. What will you do to prevent any repeat of the behavior that led to the ArbCom finding of fact Lightbot repeats its own errors?
  2. I recall much drama over how you used to respond to talk page comments (and even remove the "stop" command) using your bot account. Do you commit to never using your bot account to respond to talk page comments or make any other edits besides those for approved tasks, as required in WP:BOTPOL#Bot accounts?
  3. The list of units at User:Lightmouse/list_created_from_categories_referring_to_units_of_measure is unsatisfactory. Do you really intend to do anything with amagats, almudes, agates, or adowlies? Several items on your list don't even seem to be units of measure, for example Active daylighting or Active Resistance to Metrication.
  4. What do you intend to do to provide appropriately informative edit summaries?
  5. You state "We can stop it becoming a dispute if any question about 'commonness' can be redirected to an arbiter". Which arbiter do you intend to use?

Also, isn't it possible to create a {{convert}} subtemplate to be able to output something like "250 acres (1.01 km2; 101 ha)" and satisfy both groups? Anomie⚔ 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The {{convert}} template could be made to do this if it doesn't already. I would suggest that you don't, however, as a general policy. One metric conversion for acres is really enough. Multiple conversions (metric ones, in particular) take up space and don't add much useful information. I would suggest that there is a good chance of a consensus on which metric unit to use. I would also suggest that for expediency in determining the result of this request for approval that the approval is not predicated on that consensus being formed. That is, that approval not be given for this account to remove hectares or make edits in relation to conversions of areas given in acres, at least in the short term until consensus has formed. Further on consensus; the result of the discussion at the link provided above would appear to be slightly towards using hectares. There have been several such discussion and this is usually the outcome. I do think further discussion should be taken to a appropriate place and if consensus forms, that a guideline (rather than a policy) be made.
The page structure and indenting have become a bit confused, so I will repeat this comment from Lightmouse, above:

I'd be happy to say that I won't remove hectares if other editors won't remove m2 or km2.

And what happens if other editors don't comply with your demands? Can this be read as I will make numerous edits with this bot account without consensus unless other editors do as I say? Let's get back on track. This discussion is concerned with the approval of the operations of a bot account. Other editors will continue to make edits to articles in accordance with normal editing policies. That is, I don't think it is appropriate for you Lightmouse to tell other editors what edits they are or are not permitted to make. And here is not the place to lay down the law, either. Simply remove any actions resulting in edits that lack consensus or are controversial and I'm sure chances of approval will be improved.
Further increases to goodwill could be garnered by offering to use the bot account to enable conversions of acres in accordance with a subsequently documented consensus. Bleakcomb (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. “What will you do to prevent any repeat of the behavior that led to the ArbCom finding of fact Lightbot repeats its own errors?”

    I undertake to advertise on the bot page that the bot will comply with both {nobots} and {bots|deny=Lightbot} and variations. Where editors raise queries on the bot page or my talk page, I will assist them in tagging an article that is at issue. The bot will be used for uncontroversial unit-related janitorial functions. I think ArbCom was referring to “errors” as the delinking of dates, which ‘’was’’ controversial at the time.

  2. “I recall much drama over how you used to respond to talk page comments (and even remove the "stop" command) using your bot account. Do you commit to never using your bot account to respond to talk page comments or make any other edits besides those for approved tasks, as required in WP:BOTPOL#Bot accounts?”

    Yes, I will.

  3. “The list of units at User:Lightmouse/list_created_from_categories_referring_to_units_of_measure is unsatisfactory. Do you really intend to do anything with amagats, almudes, agates, or adowlies? Several items on your list don't even seem to be units of measure, for example Active daylighting or Active Resistance to Metrication.”

    The purpose of the bot is to add conversions to units of measures, rather than merely implementing a conversion tool of predefined scope, such as the convert template. I found it difficult to respond to your earlier request for a specific, finite list, because I’m unaware of a single source of units of measure. I linked to the extensive Wikipedia-derived list to show how varied and obscure some units can be – some of which, of course, are unconvertable.

  4. “What do you intend to do to provide appropriately informative edit summaries?”

    I am able to provide an edit summary that will distinguish between links and conversions. Thus, it would be able for other editors to see whether the edit has involved a link, a conversion, or both.

  5. “You state "We can stop it becoming a dispute if any question about 'commonness' can be redirected to an arbiter". Which arbiter do you intend to use?”

    With respect to linking, the boundaries between what is “common” and what is not can be subtle and in many cases can be argued both ways. Linking is not a high priority for the bot, however, if there are occasions on which editors take issue with the definition of “common”, I will seek community input through WP:VP. I will avoid entering disputes with editors who hold strong opinions.

In response to the query about the conversion of acres, I believe Anomie has the most practical solution: to be inclusive by converting to both ha and km2 (or m2 for smaller areas). Where acres are already converted to either, the bot will make no change to the unit.
Lightmouse (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Note that the documentation for {{bots}} specifically states:

    In particular, in the encyclopedia spaces:

    • Avoid using the template as a blunt instrument
    • Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community
    • Remove the template tag once the underlying problem has been resolved.
    Your proposed solution is contrary to this, and I am not sure advocating permanent use of {{nobots}} or {{bots|deny=Lightbot}} on many articles is a good idea. Also, it seems to me that ArbCom was referring to Lightbot's doing this at all, given that one of the 4 pieces of evidence linked from the finding of fact was specifically about unit conversion.
  3. You threw together a list of things including items you knew you had no intention of converting and items that cannot possibly be converted. That does not seem to be a good-faith attempt to answer the question.
  4. So what edit summary do you intend to use?
Anomie⚔ 14:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Anomie’s issues, 2 August

[edit]

Thanks for your points, which have prompted me to think through the bot operation further. Here are my responses:

  • Query: Note that the documentation for {{bots}} specifically states [in encyclopedia spaces]: (a) Avoid using the template as a blunt instrument; (b) Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community; (c) Remove the template tag once the underlying problem has been resolved.Your proposed solution is contrary to this, and I am not sure advocating permanent use of {{nobots}} or {{bots|deny=Lightbot}} on many articles is a good idea.

    Response: Indeed. I do not expect this to be a common issue, but where an editor raise queries on the bot page or my talk page, I will, if they wish, assist them in either temporarily tagging an article at issue with the specific {{bots}} until the underlying issue has been resolved, or I will add it to a whitelist. These options will be explained on the bot page. I will be only too pleased to address the root problem with editors.

  • Query: Also, it seems to me that ArbCom was referring to Lightbot's doing this at all, given that one of the 4 pieces of evidence linked from the finding of fact was specifically about unit conversion.

    Response: I have learnt from my mistakes, and ArbCom has recently stated that it is willing to give me another chance to prove my bona fides in bot operation.

  • Query: You threw together a list of things including items you knew you had no intention of converting and items that cannot possibly be converted. That does not seem to be a good-faith attempt to answer the question.

    Response: I am sorry I gave this impression; I misunderstood your original question (Template:Convert/list of units has an extensive list of units, which may be incorporated by reference. Are there other units on which you intend to work?) as asking for the full gamut of remotely possible terms. I cited a long list that includes unfamiliar items, some of which, as you rightly pointed out, are not convertable. I believe the project will be served best if I am able to identify obscure or inconsistent units and convert them appropriately.

  • Query: So what edit summary do you intend to use?

    Response: The three edit summaries would be:

    "unit links edited"

    "unit conversions edited."

    "unit conversions edited, unit links edited"

Lightmouse (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Lightmouse has shown himself to be quite responsive to comments about technical errors in his bots which he can easily fix. The arbitration case was essentially about his lack of judgement as to which tasks to implement and the lack of response to any bugs which would take hours or days to fix. Leaving aside the technical considerations, the request above (even as refined in the comments) is far too broad for someone currently under an arbcom restriction of this type. Since the problem prevously was an inability to judge which unit conversions would be uncontrovertial, I would want to see a list of actions which the bot will take in explicit form, even if this is a long list. Further changes then to be approved by a request for additional functionality. The list should be of the type:

  1. Sees "1000 miles", creates "1000 miles (1600 kilometers)"
  2. Sees "100 F", creates "100°F/40°C"
  3. Sees "1000m²", creates "0.001km²"

AKAF (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While generally agreeing with Ohconfucius' comments there, I do not agree that the scope or targets of a bot is a non-technical issue which the BAG may not assess. Indeed I would argue that the root problem of the arbitration, under which ruling Lightmouse now labours, was an overly broad scope for that bot. Further, I think that restricting the scope of the current request would be advantageous for Lightmouse, since this would result is a clearer consensus from the BAG, which he could then use when provided negative feedback from users. Since the final outcome of the arbitration case was essentially that Lightmouse showed a poor ability to judge which changes would be uncontrovertial, I think that the onus is on him to show that he understands the problem. AKAF (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AKAF, it is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", but I'm wondering why you've chosen to visit this particular venue to insist on extremely detailed requirements of an applicant when you have made only two other edits this year on WP. Is this a special interest? Tony (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a special interest, since I was an "interested bystander" in the arbitration about date delinking (I made a submission in evidence and probably a few other comments) I have been inactive lately, since I have been on a wikibreak after a series of particularly stressful interactions with one particular editor (thus the delay in commenting on this request). I do not have any alternative accounts. Since I'm not a member of the BAG I cannot give Lightmouse any requirements, but I am simply making my opinion clear. I do not think that the basic thrust of my suggestion is different to those of Anomie or Chacaroth above. AKAF (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


AKAF, you asked for a list. It’ll take a long time to write because there are hundreds of units and each unit has several related edits. Here is a start to the list:

  • Sees "miles", creates "miles (km)"
  • Sees "°F", creates "°F (°C)" and corrects wrong spacing
  • Sees "Celcius" creates "Celsius"
  • Sees "celcius" creates "Celsius"
  • Sees "celsius" creates "Celsius"
  • Sees "degF" creates "°F"
  • Sees "degC" creates "°C"
  • Sees "° C" creates "°C"
  • Sees "° F" creates "°F"
  • Sees "km/sec" creates "km/s"
  • Sees "m/sec" creates "m/s"
  • Sees "ft/sec" creates "ft/s"
  • Sees "A x B inch" creates "A × B inch"
  • Sees "A x B in" creates "A × B in"
  • Sees "Km" creates "km"
  • Sees "km/hr" creates "km/h"
  • Sees "kmph" creates "km/h"
  • Sees "kmh" creates "km/h"
  • Sees "x MPH" creates "x mph"
  • Sees "x M.P.H." creates "x mph"
  • Sees "kilogramme" creates "kilogram"
  • Sees "gramme" creates "gram"
  • Sees "kgs" creates "kg"
  • Sees "KHz" creates "kHz"
  • Sees "x lb (y kilograms)" creates "x lb (y kg)"
  • Sees "x lb" creates "x lb (y kg)"
  • Sees "x kg (y pounds)" creates "x kg (y lb)"
  • Sees "x kg" creates "x kg (y lb)"
  • Sees "x miles (y kilometres)" creates "x miles (y km)"
  • Sees "x miles" creates "x miles (y km)"
  • Sees "x kilometres (y miles)" creates "x kilometres (y mi)"
  • Sees "x kilometres" creates "x kilometres (y mi)"
  • Sees "x metres (y feet)" creates "x metres (y ft)"
  • Sees "x metres" creates "x metres (y ft)"
  • Sees "x feet" creates "x feet (y m)"
  • Sees "x feet (y metres)" creates "x feet (y m)"
  • Sees "x yards" creates "x yards (y m)"
  • Sees "x miles" creates "x miles (y km)"
  • Sees "x kms" creates "x km"
  • Sees "x lb" creates "x lb (y kg)"
  • Sees "x troy ounces" creates "x troy ounces (y g)"
  • Sees "x troy pounds" creates "x troy pounds (y kg)"
  • Sees "x square feet" creates "x square feet (y m2)"
  • Sees "x sq ft" creates "x sq ft (y m2)"
  • Sees "x sqft" creates "x sq ft (y m2)"
  • Sees "x sq.ft." creates "x sq ft (y m2)"
  • Sees "x Sq Ft." creates "x sq ft (y m2)"
  • Sees "x sq feet" creates "x square feet (y m2)"
  • Sees "x square yards" creates "x square yards (y m2)"
  • Sees "x sq yd" creates "x sq yd (y m2)"
  • Sees "x sq yds" creates "x sq yd (y m2)"
  • Sees "x square miles" creates "x square miles (y km2)"
  • Sees "x sq miles" creates "x square miles (y km2)"
  • Sees "x acre feet" creates "x acre feet (y m3)"
  • Sees "x board feet" creates "x board feet (y m3)"
  • Sees "x barrels" creates "x barrels (y m3)"
  • Sees "x bbl" creates "x bbl (y m3)"
  • Sees "x cubic feet" creates "x cubic feet (y m3)"
  • Sees "x cu ft" creates "x cu ft (y m3)"
  • Sees "x cuft" creates "x cu ft (y m3)"
  • Sees "x pounds force" creates "x pounds force (y kN)"
  • Sees "x lbf" creates "x lbf (y kN)"
  • Sees "x horsepower" creates "x horsepower (y kW)"
  • Sees "x HP" creates "x hp"
  • Sees "x hp" creates "x hp (y kW)"
  • Sees "x brake horsepower" creates "x brake horsepower (y kW)"
  • Sees "x bhp" creates "x bhp (y kW)"
  • Sees "x shp" creates "x shp (y kW)"
  • Sees "x ihp" creates "x ihp (y kW)"

Is this kind of fine-grained approach the sort of thing you mean?

I’d like to simpify all of this by obtaining generic permission i.e. "Lightbot will convert units". I don’t believe there have been any controversy about what constitutes a unit. However, if it needs to be specified, the following text should leave no doubt: "A unit is an item defined by the BIPM SI, the US NIST, Wikipedia, or sources that define historical, arcane, or little-known units. This includes units of time, length, area, volume, mass, speed, and power."

You (AKAF) also said: "the problem prevously was an inability to judge which unit conversions would be uncontrovertial". You said it twice in similar wording so I take it that you regard it as a key issue. Could you point to where ArbCom said this so I can see for myself which units shouldn't have been converted. Alternatively, if your comment wasn’t based on an Arbcom statement, I’d still like you to tell me the unit conversions you think were problematic in previous runs of Lightbot so I can avoid them. The whole point of a unit editing bot is that the scope includes the many hundreds of units, rather than having to come back to BAG hundreds of times to ask permission to convert each unit. If you don’t want to tell me the units that mustn't be converted, will you please tell me that units that can be converted? Lightmouse (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}
This bot is simple in concept (maintain units of measure, add conversions). We're now spending a lot of time and effort discussing increasingly fine levels of detail. If a list of "units that may be converted" is required for BAG approval, can somebody give me a suggestion as to what that list of units might be. Anomie suggested a scope of units (those addressed by the convert template) that I thought was too limited (e.g. the bot adds value by seeking out obscure units and spellings/formats that aren't in the convert template). However, we could start a trial with that scope. Can somebody from BAG help move things forward? Lightmouse (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A list of units is needed, and not all of the units listed above could be simply handled by a bot. For those, I would need to see a precise regular expression for matching. (As a simple example, "x barrels" could refer to a count of a number of barrels.) Unless the bot remembers what it did and doesn't reinsert its edits when reverted, anything which could have a different meaning in the "original" version should not be converted by the bot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lightmouse has submitted a detailed list, and now he needs to supply the exact regexes to be used?!? Je rêve!Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the community revokes its "finding" that Lightmouse has been non-responsive to criticism, and has refused to adjust his bots after being informed that they were producing faulty results, details should be required by BAG. I suppose the community has to trust BAG as to whether the bot details are (probably) correct.
As Lightmouse has stated that he does not know how to prevent the bot from edit-warring, the bot must be restricted to clearly uncontroversial edits. Some of the changes on the most recent list above (1) actually aren't within the original stated mandate of the bot (e.g., "x" to "×" is not "unit conversion" or "spelling correction", although a worthy cause), or (2) are likely to (at least occasionally) make clearly incorrect edits (e.g., "as much fun as 12 barrels of monkeys"). Furthermore, at least some of the changes should not be done within direct quotes (e.g., correcting "Celcius"), and he (Lightmouse) doesn't mention even an attempt at recognizing direct quotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Lightbot 5, I've withdrawn the claim of a community ban, because I can't find it. I remember it occurring, but it may have been wishful thinking.
However, while looking for the ban, I found significant evidence that he had been non-responsive to criticism, his bot engaged in edit-warring, and that he refused or was unable (addition here) to adjust his bots after being informed that they were producing faulty results. Obviously, this was before the ArbCom decision in 2009, so I willing to consider the possibility that he has reformed. He still (apparently) doesn't know how to stop his bot from edit warring, though; he only mentioned being nobot-compliant, not any other checks for preventing the bot from reinstating its edits if reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. So at least we are now clear that 'the community' had nothing to do with it in so far as you could find, contrary to what you asserted. Don't you agree, then, that that needs to be rephrased? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There were many community complaints on ANI, many relating to the bot doing something that Lightmouse insisted it couldn't do; I just couldn't find community sanctions. Still, I'm willing to admit the possibility that he knows what he did wrong, and won't repeat it. That, however, does explain the reasonable demands that he report what the bot is supposed to do, so we can see whether it actually does that, or something completely different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAICT, there have been a number of mischaracterisations and false allegations already on this page. Lightmouse has had the good grace not to create a commotion over them, choosing instead to address substantive issues and fellow editors concerns. So please forgive me for being a little pedantic, and ask you to get back to the technical issues and stop stirring the pot. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you bringing up the matter? I had been willing to assume that he's learned from his mistakes. You, on the other hand, don't think he's made mistakes, so it would be better if you left the field. ArbCom found that his bot edits were so disruptive that he was to be prevented from using bots indefinitely, but appears willing to reconsider the issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I am the only person to believe that the legend of Lightmouse is too clouded in myths, then I apologise. but AFAICT, there are just too many of those myths being perpetuated on this page, including your allusions to a community ban. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the partial listing, especially since I realise that generating it is probably quite a bit of work. I think that the finished list should leave noone in doubt about what your bot will do and the only thing for the BAG to do is clarify how/if/when additional units can be added to the bot. As for the comment "the problem previously was an inability to judge which unit conversions would be uncontrovertial", I do apologise, since I had conflated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date_delinking#Lightmouse_topic_banned with the user discussion on your page about the acre/km² conversion. I should perhaps reformulate to say that your previous conversions sometimes struck me as being unfamiliar with metric units. I have some questions about your list:
  • Sees "x HP" creates "x hp" - Why not create "x hp (y kW)"? Are you performing multiple passes?
  • Sees "kgs" creates "kg" - How do you distinguish between the short forms of "kilograms" and "kilogram seconds"?
  • Sees "x barrels" creates "x barrels (y m3)" - What happens when the text refers to true barrels eg: "Captain Blackbeard loaded 10 barrels of salt pork aboard", equally I think your script will not distinguish between various fluid barrels (bbl) and oil barrels (bbl).
  • Sees "x bbl" creates "x bbl (y m3)"- as above
  • Sees "kmph" creates "km/h" - Any reason why you don't use kph, which would be rather the correct form when p rather than / is used?
  • Sees "x pounds force" creates "x pounds force (y kN)" - Surely Newton, rather than Kilonewton is the correct selection here, since 5 lbf (0.02 kN) doesn't read very well?
  • Sees "x pounds force" creates "x pounds force (y kN)" - as above. Actually, is there a reason you don't use kgf?
I would like to see the entire listing, since I think an argument could be made that about 10% of your conversions (7 entries above) are doubtful. Regards, AKAF (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the short form of kilogram seconds "kg-s"? I'm not sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Query Sees "x HP" creates "x hp" - Why not create "x hp (y kW)"? Are you performing multiple passes?

Response This is an unfortunate feature of going into this level of detail. Yes, I would probably turn it directly into "x hp (y kW)", as you point out.
Query Sees "kgs" creates "kg" - How do you distinguish between the short forms of "kilograms" and "kilogram seconds"?

Response I've done hundreds, if not thousands of kgs->kg edits already as Lightbot/Lightmouse. It's an extremely common error. It keeps recurring so I've done repeated runs. As far as I know, I've not once edited a case of kilogram seconds. In fact, kilogram seconds is very rare, I tried looking for one just now but couldn't find one.

Query Sees "x barrels" creates "x barrels (y m3)" - What happens when the text refers to true barrels eg: "Captain Blackbeard loaded 10 barrels of salt pork aboard", equally I think your script will not distinguish between various fluid barrels (bbl) and oil barrels (bbl).

Query Sees "x bbl" creates "x bbl (y m3)"- as above

Response I've done hundreds of edits to barrels. I'm well aware that it's an ambiguous unit. In many (if not most) runs, I create list of target articles. I then process the list to ensure it's about oil barrels. I probably need to restate that this bot will often (e.g. in this case) be running in manual mode with visual checking.

Query Sees "kmph" creates "km/h" - Any reason why you don't use kph, which would be rather the correct form when p rather than / is used?

Response The guidance at wp:mosnum says "When unit symbols are combined by division, use a slash to separate the symbols (e.g., for the metre per second use the symbol m/s, not mps)..."

Query Sees "x pounds force" creates "x pounds force (y kN)" - Surely Newton, rather than Kilonewton is the correct selection here, since 5 lbf (0.02 kN) doesn't read very well?

Response Again, this is a feature of trying to explain code in detail here. Yes, I may simply use newtons to keep it simple. However, in many cases, the values are so high that I prefix the output. This is why the code gets complicated and I may do several runs (e.g. creating a list for aircraft engines and running the conversions, then a list for rocket engines).

Query Sees "x pounds force" creates "x pounds force (y kN)" - as above. Actually, is there a reason you don't use kgf?

Response The metric unit of force is newton. It's the default unit used in metric countries. There are occasions where kgf was used and occasions where it can still be seen (e.g. original data from wartime Germany). But that wouldn't affect a conversion where no metric value is provided at all.

Query I would like to see the entire listing, since I think an argument could be made that about 10% of your conversions (7 entries above) are doubtful.

Response I feel like I'm in a game of "guess the phone number". I keep putting in more effort and providing increasing levels of detail. But that just leads to more questions. I know what the old approval looks like but after all this discussion, I don't know what the new approval will looks like. I thought it was simply matter of restating the previous Lightbot BRFA with just the units component, and amending if needed based on real examples of where it may have made systematic errors. I can see now that I was wrong about that.
I now think I need to end this BRFA and start again. I can demonstrate that it is possible to maintain/convert units using automation. We can end the fear, uncertainty and doubt that is holding us all back by running a limited bot trial. I'll create a new request "Lightbot 5" which will simply say:
  • Edits may add conversions to the following metric or non-metric units: foot, mile, mm, cm, m, km, plus their squares and cubes.
We can then go from there. Lightmouse (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 5. I hope that will allow us to move forward with less fear. Lightmouse (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, have just skimmed) Is this request withdrawn, then? –xenotalk 19:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I withdraw this request. Lightmouse (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4&oldid=1138381443"