User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2008/April

WP:TfD
I've moved the oil barrel deletions to 31 Mar. I'd got the date wrong. Jɪmp 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So I saw. :) Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * km:h & mi:h are up for deletion too. J Ѧ ρ 08:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil
You have made a lot of automated edits using your human guided near-bot. I appreciate your work in adding the metric equivalents to all barrel numerations. However, many of them don't read correctly anymore. The units have been broken in many cases. We really don't need long strings of zeroes. The numbers originally had two or three significant digits. Please don't invent more accuracy than we had in the articles.

Initially when the article was written, we had decided on Imperial units. But you are welcome to add the metric translation to all of them if you do it right.

Here are the standard industry units and abbreviations we had decided upon:

1 bbl = 1 barrel 1 Mbbl = 1,000 barrels 1 MMbbl = 1,000,000 barrels

(These Imperial measures are a bit arcane. The M in this case is Mil for thousand, not Mega as in the metric system)

The metric standard industry units and abbreviations are:

1 m³ = 1,000 liters 1,000 m³ = 1,000,000 liters = 1 ML 1,000,000 m³ = 1 GL

Could you do me a real favor? Can you go through and copy edit your results. Here is an example:

"Demand will hit 118,000,000 barrels (18,800,000 m³) per day (bpd) from today's existing 86,000,000 barrels (13,700,000 m³), driven in large part by the transportation sector."

to

"Demand will hit 118 MMbbl (18.8 GL) per day from today's existing 86 MMbbl (13.7 GL) per day, driven in large part by the transportation sector."

Kgrr (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a fair point and I agree with you that the long strings of zero are not desirable. Unfortunately, this is a feature of the 'convert' template and the MMbbl option does not exist currently. I have made a request for it to be changed. If a change is made to the template, the articles can be updated. I would welcome your support in the request. Please join the existing discussion at: the convert template talk page.
 * Lightmouse (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Petroleum related
Thanks for all the work you've done on the petroleum history and related pages. P


 * You are welcome. If you read the rest of this page and my contributions, you will see that there are discussions going on at the manual of style and the convert template talk page about the best way to handle barrels and cubic feet. Thanks for bringing it to me and hence to more people. Lightmouse (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we're going to want to convert "barrels of oil per acre foot" (e.g. on Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin) fully to metric (or maybe to a plain dimensionless number), i.e. not to cubic metres per acre-foot but, perhaps, per hectare-metre ... or something. Is "barrels of oil per acre foot" common enough to warrent a couple of convert subtemplates?  What do you think? J Ѧ ρ 11:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. I did notice that odd unit and that the conversion was inadequate but was too lazy to do it properly. I have now done a full conversion into a dimensionless number. I have never seen the unit before and I hope I never will again. It never ceases to amaze me how many bizarre permutations of old units exist. This is one that I think should disappear. I do not think a new template is required. Lightmouse (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the efforts, but something's gone very wrong with the conversions on Athabasca Oil Sands. Please ensure the rendered numbers remain the same as before you started. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a look at that article and there were several edits. Can you be more specific and say exactly what is wrong and I will investigate further. Thanks Lightmouse (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

convert question
I've seen you use AWB to add convert statements to articles, but I can't figure out how you're doing it. Are you using a plugin? --JaGa (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I am using regex in AWB. Get yourself an AWB account and you can do it too. Lightmouse (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible faulty conversion template
Hi Lightmouse, someone suggested I should talk to you about a conversion template. It is the million barrels of oil / day to m3/d. It looks to me that the millions of barrels to m3 uses a (I think correct) coefficient of 0.159 (approx), but the barrels / day uses 0.00159. I have left some comments on peak oil, but it affects many more, of course. Stainless316 (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see. There appears to be a problem with the template itself. I have no control over that. This has been raised at: Template_talk:Convert and is being looked at. It will be corrected. Thanks for raising it. Lightmouse (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

re: WP:OVERLINK
Thanks for dropping the link to the MoS discussion on the Talk page. I didn't know where your edit had come from. I've replied with an expansion of my reasoning on the MoS talk page. Rossami (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude
Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 Lightmouse (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with AWB
see diff. Your edit in the Michigan article inserted a conversion where there was already one and removed the word mile completely. You may need to adjust your mile code to not remove the whole word&mdash;just the link. Regards, &mdash; MJC detroit  (yak) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. Thanks for letting me know. I was trying to get rid of links to common units of measurement as per wp:overlink. Perhaps it would be better to get a bot to do this. Lightmouse (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dinner Party
If you are who I think you may be, then your dinner party tonight was fun, and do check out my Bushwick page. But, if this thought is a case of mistaken identity, then feel free to delete this subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noremacmada (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Piped links
Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 Lightmouse (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB
Please stop running AWB repeatedly on articles. I have had to undo changes on Anna Laetitia Barbauld several times now. The first time is helpful - the second, third, fourth, etc. are not. Awadewit (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not intend to run it multiple times on the same article. I see that the last time it hit the article was over 10 weeks ago, so that might explain it. Sorry about that. Is there a particular reason for a link to '18th century'? Lightmouse (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Most readers are unfamiliar with the history of the eighteenth century. Awadewit (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, links to centuries are not required on that basis. If that were so, then each century would need a link in each article. It is not necessary to read the '18th century' article to understand that article. Since this is a matter of general interest and interpretation, perhaps we should raise this at wp:mosnum. Lightmouse (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They may not be required, but it is a good idea. I didn't say that it was necessary to understanding the article (not the threshold for linking anyway) - such a link and its consequent reading would promote a fuller understanding of the article. An article about an eighteenth-century figure, such as Barbauld, would be better understood if someone read about the history of the period, thus the link. We also link topics that are related to the article - the history of the period that someone lived in is not irrelevant to their life. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will try to leave it the way you want it. I will try to avoid it in future but if it happens again, it will be an accident so please just revert it. Lightmouse (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB on Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula
I've never used AWB, but is there some way you can tell it to link only the first instances of units of measure? The MOS states you should only wikilink on the first instance of any applicable link. I had (almost) everything linked only on the first instance and AWB screwed it all up. Not that I don't appreciate the help, but for GA and FA class article this could mess things up. Just thought you should know. Thanks anyway! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish I knew how but I do not. Incidentally, links to common units of measurement contravene wp:overlink, even the first ones... Lightmouse (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, interesting. I didn't know that. Like dates, a lot of people seem to think you should link to measurements. There seems to be a lot of division among these things, but that is good to know... I thought it was kinda dumb anyway. Who doesn't know what an inch is? Thanks! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Using policy pages as scratchpads

 * User talk:Jimp

It is certainly not the standard way of going about things. A note on the page alerting people to the fact that discussions related to the particular section in question are in progress would be a useful thing to have but spelling a proposal out in full is likely to cause confusion. My thoughts on this really haven't changed since 9:06 am GMT 18 April 2008 when I voiced my approval of the removal of the proposal (then in the guise of policy) by you & Thunderbird2. My preference would have been to have had it removed again but, not wanting an edit war, I thought that by labelling it as a proposed guideline a compromise might be reached. Still, I feel that we might be setting a dangerous precident here. I'd not want to see this kind of approach taken again. J Ѧ ρ 01:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

MJ
Hi would you be appeal to give the Michael Jackson article a good copy edit? Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlinking dates using AWB
Please don't unlink statements in the form of as of 2008. Those are there for a reason, as explained in As of. Thanks. --Russ (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have previously looked at that page. It has good intentions but see Links to "As of xxxx": how large a benefit? and get back to me. I would appreciate your opinion. Lightmouse (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't previously aware of the update after option; that seems like a better approach to me, too. --Russ (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into it further. I have now raised a discussion at wp:mosnum. Your contribution there would be welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Spaces
Your edits aren't perfect: have a look at this diff. You changed June 2007 (with a space) to June2007 (no space). Can you please fix that and any similar erronous edits? --  (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I think I know what happened. I will fix it. Lightmouse (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlinking years using AWB
Something is going on with AWB whenever it auto-formats dates. While I'm going to guess it doesn't change January 11, 2001 (without a non-brekaing space), it does change January 12, 2001 to January 12, 2001 (with the non-breaking space). That isn't correct - the non-breaking space is required to prevent separating the month-day and the year (as I've been told on WP:FAC, anyways). &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sure that this must not happen and that is why it is removed. Please ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). They should know. See you there. Lightmouse (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But I also notice the year is no longer linked? Was this intentional? Btw, I was trying to figure out the codes to use to automatically wikify full dates. Will you be able to assist in this, since you already know how to remove wrong links from dates? Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct. The year is no longer linked because linking the solitary year has no function. I cannot help you with linking full dates because I do not do it. I am sure others can. Just ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Lightmouse (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Years are apparantly linked, and widely so, when the day and month are linked, so I doubt your action would be complying with that aspect of the MOS. Meanwhile, I was not asking for your help to link full dates. Rather, I was asking if you know the codes used to allow AWB to actually pick up a range of dates so that I can use the replace function.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The MOS says Links to date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month are not required; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations.
 * If you think that what I am doing is inconsistent with the MOS, please ask the people at the talk page. It will be better for you to get an independent opinion rather than take my word for it.


 * The rules are very clear, as you cite it youself. Solitary years will not be linked, but they are linked when they do contain both a day number and a month. Kindly see the table at Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 which makes everything very clear. You have delinked the year January 12 2001, which is obviously a full date format, and which will require it to be linked as January 12 2001, and not January 12 2001 . I hope the guidelines are clear enough about this without needing to ask the obvious in the talk page?--Huaiwei (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha. You are correct to point that out as an error. I thought you were referring to solitary years. There must be a bug in the script that I need to fix. Can you tell me which page? Lightmouse (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha I see. I can no longer remember when I first spotted the bug, but I believe it was something similar to this: . I think the date range confused the software? If I recall correctly, date ranges should be completely unlinked?--Huaiwei (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have corrected that page. It is very hard to work with date ranges for various reasons. I do most of them by hand. Lightmouse (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, it will sometimes delink a year like January 12&nbsp2001 . This is correct because the nbsp breaks the autoformatting. Lightmouse (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that you are asking if AWB can pick up a range of dates. I am unable to provide you with advice about something that I do not do. I am sure that others can, just go to the AWB talk page. Trying to help. Lightmouse (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. But I am curious how you are able to get AWB to detect those dates to unlink them?--Huaiwei (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is quite laborious. I look first for square brackets Lightmouse (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No automatic detection of ranges? Ah I will have to do additional research then. My intention is to follow the said MOS such that there is at least come consistency in the way dates are presented. I doubt these add clutter, and anyone who has an account and who set the preferred date format are actually using it.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For me, it hardly matters whether you say 'April 26' or '26 April'. It means the same to me. I would like to be able to '26th April' or 'April 26th' but this is forbidden. Do you have a preference set? If so what do you set it to? Lightmouse (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AO MfD
Shouldn't this discussion be happening at WP:MfD? Why is it here instead? Will it automatically go to WP:MfD tomorrow or something? Noca2plus (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know how it works. This is the first time I have nominated something. If it is in the wrong place, feel free to move it. Lightmouse (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

lol... that makes one more time than me! (at least on MfD) I was asking because I was going to respond to  on wp:mosnum regarding his argument over the discussion venue. That is, I was going to point out that this was already on MfD... which is when I discovered the proposal wasn't on the main WP:MfD page. Before directing people there, perhaps you should use the template to get some admin confirmation about the MfD placement (and whether the existing template on WP:AO will update accordingly if it gets moved). Unfortunately, I'm not much help. Noca2plus (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is now at Miscellany_for_deletion
 * Thanks for pointing out the location error. Please make your statement there. Lightmouse (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

improper section in MOSNUM
Yes, this green slab has been in MOSNUM for some time now. Consensus has not been gathered for it, and I can't understand why it was slapped on the project page at an early stage. I think it's time to take action.

I'm quite happy to be part of a consensus-gathering exercise, but only using due process.

If you take the appropriate action, I'll certainly support you. TONY  (talk)  12:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's distressing watching the Wiki process fall apart at MOSNUM. What are we to do about this aggressive turn of events? TONY   (talk)  16:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)