User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2008/May

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A good idea for those that are interested. Forgive me for declining to get involved. Lightmouse (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deindenting
Lightmouse, I would ask that you not perform such mass deindent operations like on Template talk:Convert. While it is normally okay to modify indentations to preserve the flow of conversation, some indentations are set up intentionally, and sometimes third-party deindenting disrupts said flow, making it more difficult to read (for example, the "BCE/CE dates to BC/AD dates" section now reads differently than before, because context is lost. Just think about this in the future. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Multiple indents make it difficult and sometimes impossible to read on a small screen. There is no intention to remove context. If that has happened, then it is wrong and should be reverted. The intention is to set an example that others can follow. Some readers are fortunate enough to have large screens. Some are not. Lightmouse (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Beware of non units
Search for the text Chaparrel on this diff to see an instance of incorrectly adding units. Thanks! &mdash; Mrand Talk • C 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are quite right. Thanks for spotting it and fixing it. I appreciate that. Lightmouse (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You should probably avoid instances in ref tags or quotation marks such as. --NE2 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right. That is a mistake. They are very difficult to spot when in long quotes but I do catch most of them. That one slipped through. Thanks for spotting it and bringing it to my attention. Lightmouse (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another. jnestorius(talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. You are quite right. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Stephen's Episcopal School (Austin, Texas)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. --Danorton 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. --Danorton 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for discussing this issue with me. Responding to your question of the meaning of an "unreferenced fact," the repeated edits you modified indicated an area of "400 acres".  That claim is not referenced.  It is not supported by any source of information.  While you might not have introduced the underlying claim originally, edits to unreferenced claims are also unreferenced.  While I would not normally object were you to provide independent evidence to support the claim, this particular claim happens to be false.  I appreciate your efforts to help clean up this page, but please if you are going to modify unsupported claims, the most helpful edit would be to reference support of the claim and correct it if necessary. --Danorton 22:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I did not add '400 acres'. Lightmouse (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Danorton, as an uninvolved third party who happened to notice, I'm confused by your actions here. You revert Lightmouse's edit as unsourced (very strange, since he was performing semi-automated conversion work), yet you are shuffling around names and such with, similarly, no references. How are the two any different? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In this particular instance, the underlying factual claim is false, but your point is well taken, Huntster. I saw the change which also appeared "semi-automatic" to me and I simply reverted it. I intend to work towards providing more references to the material I am rearranging, but it was clear that the edit by Lightmouse was without regard to the underlying factual claim and no reference could possibly be forthcoming. The particular edit was regarding a precise numerical conversion, and a conversion on a false number can be even more misleading when converted. As I wrote above, I appreciate Lightmouse's efforts and in other contexts I can see how they would be more helpful. --Danorton 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While I understand where you are coming from, this particular edit really should not have been reverted, since we are supposed to provide conversions when feasible. If you feel strongly enough about unsourced material, or about that figure in particular, simply remove it as being unsourced until such a time as something can replace it. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether it is converted or not, it would be wrong, misleading or simply unsourced anyway. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Scale deletion
Why did you remove the link to the scale from Ludaš Lake? -- User:Docu


 * If anyone fails to understand what 3.28 means, they are in serious trouble. This has been raised at wp:mosnum and people seem to agree with me that they provide no benefit. Lightmouse (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Script assisted correction of units
Hello! I noticed that you changed the units in the Hesselberg article. I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that–according to the Manual of Style–there should be a non-breaking-space between the number and the unit in order to prevent line-breaks at that position. Please keep that in mind for your further edits. Kind regards, —  Tirk·ﬂ  “…”  07:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The stated reason for the nbsp is to avoid line wrapping. But people now just add them blindly. It comes at a cost for users of small screens. People forget that line wrapping is a *good thing*. Three out of four of those nbsp are at the left of the screen. If anyone is reaching the end of the screen at that point, they are using a very small screen and need line wrapping.


 * However, it is not a big deal. I do not mind you putting them back. Lightmouse (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Measurement conversions
I was under the impression that the first instance of a unit of measurement should be wikilinked, but I guess you learn something new everday.

If an article on DYK interests me, I'll look and see what needs to done (usually its measurements conversions). So far I've unwittingly made 2 other editor's lives easier by putting in a convert as they were converting the measurements manually --​​​​D ​​tbohrer​​​ ​talk • contribs 14:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Persondata dates
Hi! Someone using your script edited an article I'm writing and it removed links on years. Most of those removals I think are okay, but at least one isn't: inside the template. Its two "DATE OF..." parameters are suggested to be link, even when all you have is the year. So, it would be a good thing if you were to edit your script to make Persondata a special "avoided" case.

Another question: this one I'm not sure, but aren't birth and death dates in biography articles, as a general rule, linked? In the edited article I'm referring to, I had the text thus:  Name (born year)... . Even in these cases are linked years frowned upon? -- alexgieg (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Birth and death. Previous guidance was inclined to support year links in many places. It was largely a side-effect of autoformatting mechanism. The current guidance is now much less supportive of year links. As far as I know, there is nothing that says a link should be provided in birth and death dates. They are just like any other date fragment in the text. That is my interpretation. However, if you want other opinions then feel free to raise it at the talk page of wp:mosnum.


 * Persondata: could you give me the example where somebody removed the link. I will look into it. Lightmouse (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see now that you gave the example. That looks to me like a correct removal. As I say, feel free to ask at the talk page of wp:mosnum. I hope that help. Thanks for bringing it here. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see! After reading carefully the link you provided it's clear to me that pure years, without a month and a day, shouldn't be linked. I'll point it out in 's talk page and correct the documentation examples. Thanks! -- alexgieg (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Glad that is sorted. Lightmouse (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Edmonton municipal election, 1963
Please do not insert Template:convert in the above article, as you have done three times now. The use of acres in the article is an exact quote from a referendum question, and therefore should not appear as square kilometres to some people. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not have put the template in there if I had known it was a quote. So that was a mistake. Sorry. I will try to make sure it does not happen again.


 * I usually check the raw text for quote indicators. Have you considered adding some form of indication that it is a quote? Lightmouse (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Faberrebe
Hello. With this edit you made a change to the article Faberrebe (an article about a grape variety), changing the original unit inside a undefined undefined from 689 ha to 6.89 km2. This was not a helpful edit, since a) the 689 ha was a direct quotation from the online statistical document with is clearly cited as reference [3] at the end of that sentence and b) hectares is a clear example of a discipline-specific practice as to units in the viticultural/wine area - km2 are in fact never used, to the best of my knowledge (and as you can see from my edit history, wine articles is what I mainly busy myself with). The WP:UNITS part of WP:MOS, which have bearing on both a) and b), should be familiar to you I think. I you for some reason absolutely want to see km2 measures in WP:WINE articles I would instead suggest adding this measure as an additional conversion at the end, without removing the hectare measure which will usually be taken from the source or the acre conversion. Two other things concern me. First, I seem to recall that we have had the conversation about units in sources for wine article before (but obviously with little effect), and second, I notice that during the minute you performed this edit (21:56) and the two minutes surrounding it, you made a total of 7 AWB edits per minute, i.e., you gave each less than 9 seconds of consideration. Are you really able to tell the context of the item your editing in such a short period of time, check units of sources and so on, in order to comply with e.g. MOS? If not, I'm not sure if you are using AWB in an entirely responsible way and abiding by the rules of use, since they - as I'm sure you're already fully aware - require you to "Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices." To be perfectly honest, I very much prefer to be using my editing time constructively contributing to articles rather than reverting edits or writing text like this, so I hope that I don't have to enter into this kind of discussion with you a third time. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I have done as you suggest and provided 6.89 km² as an additional conversion to make the article more accessible to Wikipedia readers that are not wine specialists. I hope that is ok. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done as you suggest and provided 6.89 km² as an additional conversion to make the article more accessible to Wikipedia readers that are not wine specialists. I hope that is ok. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect rounding of artillery weights and measures
Hello, I see you've introduced metric conversions into the pages for a whole load of British artillery specifications. Which is good if the conversion is correct, but you seem to have just rounded quite a few numbers e.g. 5 feet exactly is not 1.5 metres; 40 lb exactly is not 18 kg. The figures given in all these pages in imperial measures are exact, not approximations, and need to be translated into equivalent exact metric equivalents, otherwise the page's accuracy diminishes. So please could you consider changing the conversion to provide an exact metric equivalent ?. Regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for bringing this here.


 * I understand that you are talking about precision. Precision is part art, and part science. I do not know the precision that you want but whatever you want, you can make happen. The convert template has a default precision. You can change the default if you want. It is all explained at Template:Convert and people on the talk page will help. I hope that helps. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did not intend to change a quote or a name. Thanks for correcting those. And I see you have adjusted the precision manually. Just to give you some examples of how the template can do what you want, if you put:
 * 555 lb you will get 555 lb (default precision)
 * 555 lb you will get 555 lb (default precision less 1 sig fig)
 * 555 lb you will get 555 lb
 * 555 lb you will get 555 lb
 * 555 lb you will get 555 lb

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

fps
Please stop blindly converting fps to frame/s. Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with this - fps is a standard term in filmmaking, and furthermore, most of these articles already noted the meaning in a parenthetical note. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One term is accessible to specialists+everyone else and one term is more exclusive to specialists. Using the more accessible term will be of benefit to all Wikipedia readers. No specialist will suffer, some even use the term themselves (e.g., http://www.4rfv.co.uk/industrynews.asp?id=16328). There does not seem to be a downside. Lightmouse (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Measurement links, overlinking?
Hi, I believe the measurements are relevant to the article as someone not familiar with a particular system of measurement can quickly use them as reference to bring the various values into perspective. Also curious why you only chose to remove the metric values? And what about the infobox? Koalorka (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that Wikipedia should be accessible to specialists and non-specialists in all countries and domains. Obscure units like quintals should be linked or converted. However, some units are so commonplace that they become like plain english. The Wikipedia guideline says that common units of measurement similar to plain english do not require linking in each article. See wp:overlink and the footnote that gives examples of common units including millimetre and metre. Note that common units of measurement have so many links that they are in the top few of the most-linked articles.


 * You are correct to point out that the article contains other common units that I did not edit. Yes, according to the guideline they should be treated the same and do not deserve links if they are common units. There is nothing to stop another editor fixing those too.


 * If you would like to debate the guideline with other editors, I am sure that they would welcome your thoughts on the talk page. Lightmouse (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Merhaba!İm turkish.Help me please!Thank you--Erhanakar (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you want. Lightmouse (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

AWB
It seems like you are using a script in AWB with the “units/dates/fixes” edit summary. How exactly do you run a script through AWB? Thanks, «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 01:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have an AWB account? Lightmouse (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Go to User:Lightmouse/javascript conversion and copy the text. Then go to the 'Tools' menu in AWB. Select 'Make module' and paste the text into the white area (deleting the text that is there. Check the 'enabled' box and click the 'Make module' button. Then when it says 'Module compiled and loaded' in green, click 'Done'. You can then edit articles using AWB in the normal way using the 'start' but it will also use the script. Let me know how you get on. The guys at the AWB talk page may help you. I am off now. Lightmouse (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask you to remove the part of the script where it will replace under scrolls (_) I did a RFBA and they are requesting it. Thanks for the help. «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 12:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not understand where it would do that. That might be an AWB feature, not a script feature. Have you turned off the 'General fixes' and everything else? Lightmouse (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be the problem. Thanks again - «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 12:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Feel free to copy the script to your own page and you can modify it in anyway that you choose. I happen to know the strengths and weaknesses of my own script and modify it frequently for different purposes. I do not guarantee it for anyone else. Caveat emptor! I will try to help you if I can. Good luck. Lightmouse (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for letting me use it:

Thank you. I appreciate it. Lightmouse (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Is it the //Created by... parts? «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 13:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. I can't see any text that says '//Created by ' Lightmouse (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On this it says "Script originally by ...." Is that the part where you should "comment out or delete a few lines that I know will cause you problems" I should have been more precise. Sorry - «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 13:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what I meant. I have now just edited User:Milk's Favorite Cookie/javascript conversion. Take a look at the edit summaries and you should see what I mean. Lightmouse (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 13:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple of test edits, and everything seemed to go well. If there is any problems when the bot is running, I think I may know someone who can fix it. Thanks, «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 14:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually your test edits did reveal something. Take a look at: 152 mm howitzer M1938 (M-10). It converted '340 barrels' into cubic metres thinking that it was barrels of oil. It was actually gun barrels. You will need to fix that article. Now, when you edit articles you need to watch out for things like that. You can comment out the barrel section if you want but something else will crop up. AWB allows you to double click on the green or yellow section and it will undo just edits to just one paragraph. Try it, I think you will like it.


 * Please take it slowly and do a lot more test edits, checking each modification it makes within the page. I would like you to be more aware of its strengths and weaknesses and I am not sure that you are yet. Lightmouse (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What if I want to use a different script? I tried it but it will not work. «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 20:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not sure what you mean. The language used by AWB code is slightly different than the language used by monobook code. You can translate one into the other. I think it would be good for you to learn how the code works. I can give you some homework... Please give me more detail about what script you wanted to use and what you are trying to do. Lightmouse (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like the following scripts in "AWB code": User:Magnus Manske/LinkFixr.js, WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Formatter, and User:Jj137/general.js. Hope you can help! Thanks, «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 14:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Those are way too complicated for me. I can't help you with them. Sorry. Try the AWB talk pages. Lightmouse (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

 * Very nice. I appreciate that. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ships
Gun Calibres It is unsafe to do an automatic metric conversion of a nominal gun calibre in inches. The correct approach is to find out what the actual metric calibre was.

foot-tons. A foot-ton is a unit of measure. It is the unit of energy or work, being equal to the work done in raising one ton against the force of gravity through the height of one foot. The metric equivalent is 3.036948 kilojoules.

A foot-ton can also be a unit of torque. One foot-ton is the torque created by one ton force acting at a perpendicular distance of one foot from a pivot point. (One ton = 2240 pounds). The metric equivalent is 3037.032204 newton-metres.

Please be careful in placing automatic metrications in text using a some kind of automatic editing system. They usually make mistakes just like it did in the HMS Captain (1869) article.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't feel offended. The metric system is an extremely bad and confusing system. It is to be hoped that one day it will be abolished. But in the mean time I suppose it is unfortunately necessary to quote complicated metric values of measurements.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that gun calibres are odd. In many cases the conversion is correct. However, the use of parentheses shows that the metric value is not the calibre, it is just a conversion of the nominal value to give a rough idea. If anyone challenges the parenthetical value, then the template can be edited easily.


 * I agree with you about the foot-ton. That is a bug in the script. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I can fix it.


 * Yes, automated systems do make mistakes. So do manual systems. I think the error rate of the script is very low and is getting lower all the time, thanks to feedback such as yours.


 * Confusing metric system: thanks for that - you made me smile. Perhaps the UK and US will promote a single set of units including a single international 'gallon' that we can all use. Lightmouse (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversions
What do you type in AWB to make it do the conversions from say Miles to Kilometers? I want to (or you can) do it to List of countries and outlying territories by total area because most Americans don't know how big #### Kilometers is.  C t j f 8 3 Talk 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I go to 'Tools', 'Make module' and insert some code. You are free to use it but I do not support it for anyone but me. See: User:Lightmouse/javascript conversion. Lightmouse (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't set up for the script you have to work (I don't think), would you know how to make a script for it to work, I just want this page converted to have sq miles too.  C t j f 8 3 Talk 17:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, it is not set up for the script:
 * The script only adds metric units.
 * The script does not convert if there is no unit name adjacent to the number.
 * I do not know how to do what you want. Sorry. Lightmouse (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * LM, I think that I can help him out. I'll continue the discussion over at his/her's talk page.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 12:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks
Thanks for converting the measurements on Keokuk's Reserve, I used to do them all by hand but it just got too tedious, then I used the templates but got annoyed by those as well. I thought it was only fair, since most of the world wouldn't know a mile off hand. IvoShandor (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. Glad to be of assistance. Lightmouse (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Delinking units in infoboxes
Why did you de-link some of the units in Oswego_Lake ? -- User:Docu


 * I delinked them because plain english terms and common units of measurement should not be linked. See wp:overlink and the associated footnote. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't state that this applies to something else then article texts. For context in infoboxes, it can be useful. -- User:Docu


 * I happen to think that the 'foot' as a unit of measurement does not need a link. Some people say that links are needed for people that do not its length and need to find out the conversion, however even that does not apply when the conversion is right there. There may be people that speak english but have not heard of the non-metric unit and need to look it up. I have some sympathy with that argument but have not bought it entirely. If you think a link to 'foot' is required, just go ahead and revert. I don't mind. Lightmouse (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out a reasonable format for the values in infobox lake. Given the various formats and units people use, it might be preferable to link them to their definitions. Depth/elevation are fairly straightforward, but area and volume are a bit more mixed, thus my preference to use x y for all of them. Maybe the infobox field should be split in three: "value"/"units"/"note". At least for volume this would definitely be a plus. -- User:Docu


 * I think I understand. From what I have seen with other infoboxes, it can be an advantage to keep it simple and avoid hard coding anything. It looks like that is what you are doing so I think you are doing the right thing. Most editors will converge on the same format. Some won't but you may need the flexibility. Lightmouse (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bytes and bits - checking units before formatting
I happened to notice your edit to theJazz while looking for something else. It gave bitrates of the digital radio station as 96 kBps and 128 kBps, and your edit changed those to kbyte/s. While I agree that upper case "B" is usually bytes rather than bits, the previous editor clearly didn't know that. Those figures are clearly kilobits per second as no radio station is going to be broadcast at 128 kilobytes per second, which would be high for video! I don't think your bot currently makes this change, but I just thought I'd point this out in case it is expanded and makes wrong edits in future. Regards,  J Rawle  (Talk) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see, the script that I use is much like a spell checker. It modifies format but not meaning. That is its design purpose. The script goes beyond that purpose and identifies meaning from context in just one area: text that says 'x miles at y knots' will be converted to 'x nautical miles at y knots'. Beyond that, I cannot think of any other investigation of meaning.


 * Sometimes I spot such errors and I fix them by hand. Other times, I do not see them or I am not sure if they are wrong. The script misses some too because it is designed to be conservative for the very reason that you imply i.e. it could introduce an error of meaning where none existed previously. One advantage of the script is that concealed errors like the example you give are made more visible. The error becomes more striking to people like you with domain knowledge.


 * Note that the Manual of style says:
 * The symbol for the bit is ‘bit’, not ‘b’. The byte may be represented by either one of the symbols ‘B’ and ‘byte’, but not ‘b’ or ‘o’ (French octet). Unless explicitly stated otherwise, one byte is eight bits. Decimal or binary prefix symbols may be added to either unit symbol. The choice of decimal or binary should be made with regard to common usage in the subject area, and clarification is recommended.
 * By extension, the symbols for the units of data rate kilobit per second, megabit per second and so on are 'kbit/s' (not kbps or Kbps), 'Mbit/s' (not Mbps or mbps), etc. Similarly, kilobyte per second and megabyte per second are 'kB/s' (not kBps or KBps) and 'MB/s' (not Mbps or MBps).


 * The same problem of meaning versus naming occurs when people say "the NASA spacecraft was 5 miles (8 km) high" and it is really nautical miles i.e. *9 km* because NASA is weird enough to use nautical miles for altitude. Conversions into kilometres makes the error visible to those with domain knowledge. It is satisfying when I get feedback from people like yourself telling me that they have made a fix that improves the article after seeing a change done by my script. It is less satisfying when people say that I must not make these changes of format unless I can fix the underlying error of meaning (people do tell me this sometimes).


 * As with spelling errors, unit format errors are fairly easy to fix. That is why I wrote the code. It is much harder for scripts to fix errors of meaning. It is a very widespread problem. If you have any good ideas for how automation could help, I would be happy to hear it. Lightmouse (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Start_date
Could you take a look at Template_talk:Start_date? Rettetast (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you but I do not know how to do it. Lightmouse (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Kilometres
I've noticed you keep removing the link to kilometre from all the suburb articles. I've seen other editors going back into the Sydney suburb articles and reverting your edits. Is there any reason or benefit with what you're doing? J Bar (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * The policy stated at wp:overlink is:
 * In general, do not create links to:
 * Plain English words, including common units of measurement
 * A footnote gives examples of what might be classed as a common unit of measurement. This includes the kilometre.
 * You may be interested to note that common units of measurement are some of the most frequently linked items.
 * I hope that helps. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)