User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2007/December

Script removing "lk=on"
Hi Lightmouse, I've been using your script (simple "importscript" of your monobook.js...works well so far and hopefully won't cause problems!) and ran it against Civil Air Patrol/sandbox History of Civil Air Patrol, and noticed it removed "lk=on" from each instance of Convert, irregardless of whether it was previously used or not. I'm curious whether this was intentional or not; if not, might need to check into it since WP:UNITS requests abbreviations be linked on first instance, and it is good practice in any case. Cheers! -- Huntster  T • @ • C 00:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I got to thinking that it might be a good idea to move this script to another .js page, so your monobook page can be used for other purposes in the future if desired. Better to head the potential problem off now rather than wait until several dozen or hundred editors do the same as I am and simply importscript'ing it into their monobook or similar pages. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the script has been deliberately designed to remove link from units that a reasonable english speaker should recognise as 'plain english'. This is partly because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In addition, some people add links because they think a metric reader will not understand how far '30 feet' is but with a direct conversion, the link is not required for that purpose. The script leaves links to obscure units. I hope that explains it.


 * You are right about moving the script. I have also been thinking about breaking it up into modules to make maintenance easier. To be honest, I was hoping that somebody might take the script and add it to AWB or a bot or something. I have really just stolen, hacked and used trial and error to create the code. I am sure somebody clever could do a lot better. I will consider a new location and track down users of the code and let them know. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh, makes sense, though I don't believe leaving the link in place hurts anything (not to mention there is nothing I've seen that proscribes their use). As for the script, breaking into modules would be a very good thing in my opinion...  separate .js function files that people could call dependent upon what they wanted to use, plus an all-in-one file that calls all the separate functions for those that don't want to have to pick and choose; and of course a separate master file for the winc and other baseline functions.  If done this way, it may work out so that the "dates" and "general" tabs can be done away with...three tabs do take up quite a bit of room when Twinkle and other things are in operation alongside. You might say that someone else could do the code better, but it does seem that no one has stepped up, so be happy that you have brought together such a useful script. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I rely partly on my own judgement and boldness when taking out unnecessary links. Wikipedia guidance does say that links should be controlled. For example, wp:moslink says links should significantly aid understanding and should not be for low added value items. wp:overlink says high value links are harder to spot when low value links are present and that overlinking makes articles harder to read. It also says not to link plain english words which I think is mostly how I regard them. However, it is not really a big deal for me. If lots of people objected, I would drop the function and stick with just conversions.


 * I had thought about reducing the three tabs, they are not well named and do take up space. Since it is designed as a personal tool, I had not considered the effects on other users. The pick-and-choose angle is not something I thought about. Thank you for mentioning it. It is yet another reason for me to make a change. I just have to get round to it. Thanks for prompting me. Lightmouse (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved the script to its own page and created two subpages. That is a start from which I can develop modules. Thanks for the suggestion. Lightmouse (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, and good luck. Can't say I am any good with the actual coding, but if help is needed with anything else, just yell (both on my talk page and at the computer...I find it relaxing sometimes) ;) -- Huntster  T • @ • C 19:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)