User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2011/July

Please respect WP:UNDERLINK
I am not sure you realize that reducing the number of links in a DYK hook is not DYK policy. It is an idea that has been promoted by another editor with great enthusiasm, both at Main Page:Talk and at WT:DYK, but there has never been any consensus at either spot to create such a policy. I am concerned that a personal preference for "funneling" or "targeting" links has resulted in some cases in violating WP:UNDERLINK. For example, today DYK was reported at Main Page Errors because a hook mentioned the Basque separatist group ETA did not link its name as should have been done, per WP:MOS. WP:MOS does not talk about "high value" and "low value" links or about ratios of one type to the other. It prescribes that obvious items like big geographical areas should not be linked but that anything that might need fuller explanation should be linked.

I am bringing this up with you privately on your talk page in the hope that this will be less upsetting than mentioning at WT:DYK, where I have just asked that reviewers be careful about WP:UNDERLINK, that you introduced another underlink error in DYK, now on the Main Page, a failure to link the country name Dominica. Dominica is a tiny political entity we should have helped readers to click to, per WP:UNDERLINK. Some of the changes you made in that edit were fine, but please don't remove links when it means breaking WP:UNDERLINK.  Sharktopus  talk 20:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a balancing. At one end we have overlinking, at the other we have underlinking. It's a subjective issue but my strong impression is that on average, DYK candidates arrive overlinked rather than underlinked. So the community interest in reducing DYK links is justified, as far as I can see. Yes, it may get it wrong from time to time. I'm pretty sure I didn't delink 'ETA'. Your point is well made and well taken. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, overlinking is the more common problem. And that's probably the origin of the wish expressed by some to reduce links. Thanks for hearing my point on the opposite end of the spectrum.   Sharktopus  talk  22:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're "spinning" this as "errors". I don't see them as errors. Tony   (talk)  03:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I picked up the term "errors" from Main Page/Errors, where Howard the Duck's complaint about ETA called my attention to this issue. I do consider it an "error" to break WP:UNDERLINK by removing links to "proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers." My diagnosis of the cause of such errors is that it creates confusion when reviewers repeatedly cite, as if it were policy, your preference that our Main Page should be reducing links, funneling links, and improving the ratio of high-value to low-value links. Instead, reviewers should consult WP:OVERLINK and WP:UNDERLINK -- applying those has consensus, failure to apply those will be flagged as an Error on the Main Page.    Sharktopus  talk  05:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an "error" unless someone posts about it under that "error" section; if you like, I'll start using the word "error" widely in reviews. I agree about ETA, but I see many unnecessary and dilutionary links in hooks. Tony   (talk)  05:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea my use of the word "error" would be contentious or upsetting. If you consider the word unfriendly, please don't start using it to make some kind of point. That is not what I intended, I assure you. The test for removing links should be WP:MOS, which supports removing "unnecessary" links. I consider it a mistake (is that better?) to talk about "dilutionary" links. We have no such policy. Links required by WP:UNDERLINK should be left in hooks, whether or not you consider them "dilutionary."   Sharktopus  talk  06:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you say. Do you make the "policy"? BTW, DYK rules are not policy. Tony   (talk)  06:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel we are somewhat abusing the hospitality of Lightmouse's talk page with this extended back and forth. If you want to keep talking about this, how about my talk page or your own?   Sharktopus  talk
 * I don't think he minds, but is there really a disagreement here? I'd have thought not. Tony   (talk)  07:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony1 says, "You're "spinning" this as "errors". I don't see them as errors." To me, such language indicates disagreement. Tony1 says, "So you say. Do you make the "policy"?" Is this your way of indicating agreement? My point is that people at T:DYK should stop repeating a non-rule about "link dilution" in hooks and focus on what WP:MOS says. One bad effect of talking up that non-rule is that people treating it as if it were a real rule broke WP:UNDERLINK twice within 24 hours. If you agree with me, then we have no disagreement.    Sharktopus  talk  08:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad conversions
I reverted your LightBot's conversion of BTU to kJ on Solar air conditioning, since the actual units are per hour and the BTU is a conventional way of saying that but kJ is not, I think. In general, having a bot do these conversions seems like a bad idea. Even all the candlepower -> candela conversions are questionable, if the ratings verifiable in sources are in candlepower and that remains the convention for lighthouses. Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Big guns
Can you take a critical look at the change your bot recently made to Montana class battleship ? In the article "16-inch gun" is referring to a specific type of gun (the 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun) and hence it's inappropriate/unnecessary for every reference to it to have a metric conversion - "their 16-inch (406 mm) bore" is the only reference to "16-inch" in the section that needs the conversion. DexDor (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You replied that "An image caption requires a metric value". Is that a WP policy ?  There are lots of things whose name includes a measurement where it's not appropriate to convert every occurrence in an image caption to metric. Some examples: Three Mile River, Eighty Mile Beach, Ordnance QF 25 pounder, Quarter Pounder. DexDor (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a policy but it does seem to be a widely accepted format. It's a format that was already present in the article. Lightmouse (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should tell readers the bore in metric units, but once per section is enough - the metric conversion now appears at least 5 times in this section (and the next section contains "(127 mm)" 7 times in only 3 paragraphs!). If you can't show a WP policy to justify repeating the conversion so many times I'll revert the edit and keep a close eye on future edits. DexDor (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You're complaining about conversions in the body text. I edited the caption. I think we're debating the current convention rather than the specific edit, so it's probably better at mosnum. Lightmouse (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm complaining about the same conversion appearing multiple times in a section (body text + picture captions) - especially when it's part of a proper noun. I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). DexDor (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. Lightmouse (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Two minor things
(1) Do you mind if I edit your scripts to take them out of Category:ParserFunction errors? Basically, it just involves changing '{{convert' to '\{\{convert', which still works the same, but keeps the software from thinking you are transcluding convert. (2) Watch out for range conversions, the second number can't (currently) have a comma (see recent edits to .219 Donaldson Wasp and XCOR Aerospace). Note, these are easy to find since they pop up in the category I mentioned in question 1. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Go ahead. I don't mind.


 * 2. Interesting. I used to do a purge of commas as the last thing in the script. Then when I saw the template tolerate them I removed the line. I'll put it back. Thanks.
 * Lightmouse (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am now basically done with point 1. I responded to your query on my talk page.  Basically, I think all the "x to y" conversion templates are fair targets at this point, given the prior TfD results.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  18:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Template conversion
Hi there; any reason why you are converting templates on footballer articles? I see nothing wrong with the template previously in use...regards, GiantSnowman 10:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * Yes. The height template is was proxy for deprecated templates: 'Template:M to ft in' and 'Template:Ft in to m'. See Category:Depreciated conversion templates. These are being replaced. Lightmouse (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no notes at Template:Height to say the template is being phased out... GiantSnowman 20:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So I see. You're right. There is a note at: 'Category:Deprecated conversion templates' that says: and another at: 'Template:M to ft in' that says: This is one of the last of several. There was a whole series of 'Auto' conversion templates and I don't think they got notes but since I didn't do them I can't tell you how it was done. I don't think many people read those notes or care much either way but that's just my opinion. If you think a note would help, I don't mind. What do you think? Lightmouse (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ''The templates in this category have been superceeded by undefined undefined . Once they have been replaced by undefined undefined please list them for deletion.
 * ''This template is depreciated. Use undefined undefined instead.


 * Well my thought is that seeing as the template is fine, to stop converting it. Did you even get approval for your bot task? GiantSnowman 21:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Many templates were fine but were deprecated and then replaced. Since you feel strongly about it, I've stopped. Lightmouse (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Out of interest, was the task approved? I can't seem to find the approval page... GiantSnowman 22:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. See Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_13 Regards Lightmouse (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link - but I see no reference to the template? GiantSnowman 22:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It says Edits may edit the format. Adding and editing templates has always been part of it. If you don't think that covers it, perhaps we need to make it explicit. Lightmouse (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I thought that bot tasks were meant to be specific... GiantSnowman 22:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Acres again
Stop converting acres to m2 when you add the convert template it is better in this case to accept the default especially when there are already other uses of convert that convert to ha. This was stopped at least once before. If this continues, you will be responsible for any actions that need to be taken to stop the bot! Vegaswikian (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also with acres DO NOT OVERRIDE decisions by other editors about what units to convert to. Defaults are the desired choice for many editors and your bot should not be making changes! Vegaswikian (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And now I see you are converting ha to m2. That is it.  Stop this vandalism now! Vegaswikian (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand the MOS, you only need to show unit conversions once so if you convert 50 ft to meters and then the article uses 50 ft a few paragraphs later, you should not convert again since it was already done so readers know what the conversion is. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the recent Lightbot edits are questionable - e.g. possibly altering the meaning slightly (I'm not enough of an expert to be sure they're not - and given the range of subjects I doubt if LM is either) and introducing unwarranted precision. I also think archiving previous discussions after only a few days and not providing a link to the archives is a bit unreasonable - users are likely to want to see if LM has been asked to stop making certain sorts of edits before. (PS Vegas - which article are you referring to?) DexDor (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite a few, Symphony Park being one that was using ha and the bot converted one use of acre to m2. The bot would be better off it it just did not specify the output units.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The $6 billion project is projected to include 11000000 sqft of space on 61 acres. Plans call for 1908000 sqft of office and medical space, 5200000 sqft comprising 3,200 residential units, 3 hotels providing and estimated 1,800 to 2,300 rooms in 1575000 sqft of space with 475000 sqft of retail. The area is also expected to include 60000 - 100000 sqft of casino space.
 * Vegaswikian, please don't accuse LM of "vandalism"; it's not constructive—he works hard to make WP units and values better for our readers. And LM, be very careful with acres, please: it's a contentious and complicated area. We'd do a great service to the project if all editors in this thread could contribute to better guidance. I'm starting a discussion at MOSNUM talk for this purpose—to get community input, not least of which should be yours. Does everyone not agree that more detailed guidelines are necessary for the conversion of acres, which has long been a problem on WP? The article already had numerical problems, even before conversion was raised. Like this, from the article in question:

Erk. I really find the raft of zeros all over the place to be reader-unfriendly. Tony  (talk)  10:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've commented there. Lightmouse (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bug
See this. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Feet per second
Lightmouse, can you get your bot to recognise the "per second" in "feet per second"? J IM ptalk·cont 15:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It does recognise 'feet per second' but not 'feet per second' (look at the spaces in edit mode). The error in the article fooled the code. Thankfully not many articles are like that but I'll add extra coding just in case. Thanks! Lightmouse (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

 * Lightmouse, I made some edits at WP:Symphony Park and am wondering if you would take a look at the changes I made and revert if necessary. That applies to all my edits.  I am concerned about changing your meaning.  What about updating the History section?  I would like very much to work with you on that.  I am at UTC-7.  Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. You're doing great work. Keep it up. Lightmouse (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. You made my day sunnier.  Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Line breaks
Have you considered having the bot use or  to prevent line wrap between digits and unit? --Kvng (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of my conversion edits use the convert template. That automatically controls wrapping in accordance with wp:mosnum, if you want to know more, just ask at Template talk:Convert. I prefer not to get too involved in manipulating spaces. However, other bot and manual editors do get involved so the issue is well covered. Thanks for your comment. Lightmouse (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Me again
Hello - can you please explain your recent "Mostly units" edits to the template on footballer's articles? Thanks, GiantSnowman 01:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I came to ask that as well. Specifically, could you point me to the discussion where it was agreed that people's height in imperial should be measured in whole inches only. I thought the whole point of height was that it was easier to use than convert because it defaulted to levels of precision commonly used to express people's heights, which included half-inches where convert didn't. Please see Template talk:Height. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your comments. The common way of expressing height is to the nearest integer (cm or inch). People adding metric units tend to end up with greater precision than people adding non-metric units. It's understandable how that can happen but it's inconsistent. Anyway, it's just a simple setting to make the precision consistent. I don't know how people choose one template over the other in cases where the capabilities overlap. Where would we go to discuss it (wp:mosnum perhaps)? Lightmouse (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You NEED to discuss such widespread changes BEFORE introducing them! Please stop these actions while we await the outcome of the discussion. GiantSnowman 11:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems minor to me. However, on the basis of your request, I've stopped setting it to integer precision. Trying to help. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I would suggest stopping any and all bot tasks related to these kind of templates until consensus is reached. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant. I've stopped any and all bot tasks related to the height template. Lightmouse (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thank you. GiantSnowman 12:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have commented there. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved your question
Art LaPella (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Lightbot
Why is lightbot abbreviating extremely short words like feet or meters in conversion templates? I've just had to undo a large number of these senseless abbreviations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * It's to make infoboxes more compact. See: Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
 * ''In tables and infoboxes, use unit symbols and abbreviations—do not spell them out.
 * Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I only abbreviate those units that will force the entry onto a new line. So I expect that this will be a regular thing between me and your bot.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me an example article, so we can discuss it? Lightmouse (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, look at this diff: . The bot has deleted the links for long ton, knot, nautical mile and shaft horsepower, abbreviated meters and forced the conversion of knots and nautical miles when I explictly wanted the base triple conversion into miles and kilometers. Deleting the links, which appears to be a default, is the biggest problem, followed by forcibly limiting the conversion of nautical units like knots and nautical miles to just kilometers. American users aren't going to give a damn about kilometers, but are going to want to know what the nautical units mean in units they're more familiar with. The abbreviation of short units like feet, yards and meters is essentially pointless as it saves all of 2-5 letters. IMO, the bot should be focused on abbreviating longer words like milli- and centimeter which have real potential to expand their entries onto additional lines.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. For context, that one wasn't wholly the bot, it was partly a human (i.e. me). There are lots of articles with infoboxes that have inadequate conversions and inconsistent abbreviation. So the bot and the human worked together to add conversions and to abbreviate per MOS guidance. It's easier to do them both at the same time. I hope that explains the abbreviation issue for you.

Links to units shouldn't be provided per MOS, and particularly when there's a conversion and/or there's a common unit involved. The units involved are common. So I hope that explains the link issue.

In many ship articles, nautical miles are provided as double conversions, not triple. So I was just following that convention. I take your point that it may be an undecided issue so I won't be systematically removing the miles from the triples. Thanks for drawing it to my attention.

If we need to debate this and/or the MOS guidance more widely, I'd be happy to join you at wt:mosnum. Thanks for your patience. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see where WP:MOSNUM says not not link. In fact it says to link ambiguous units, although I'll admit that these units aren't ambiguous, just relatively unknown and deserving of a link, IMO. These aren't common units to anyone other than sailors and perhaps aviators. And if the MOS forbids a link in a conversion then why is it so easy to add such a link to the template? I'm happy to have you and your bot clean up conversions and the like, but I'm not going to abbreviate things in the interest of standardization when it takes more trouble to add the command to abbreviate (I write all of my conversions manually) than is gained by doing so. Thus I'll never abbreviate feet, meters and the like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, it may be WP:Linking that discourages linking of common units like feet and inches, metres and square metres. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, I haven't looked. And I have no problem with removing links from such common units, but the nautical units are far less well known and should be linked, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No disagreement there. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another example is - where IMHO the edit is not an improvement to the article. The onus should be on Lightmouse to show that the changes he's making are required by WP:MOS and even then WP:IAR still applies. DexDor (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello again DexDor, The edit composed of seven parts: The guidance doesn't explicitly state that a converted unit is better than a linked unit but I think that's the convention, leaving links as an option for obscure units. Thanks to User:Sturmvogel, I'll be seeking clarification of the MOS guidance. It's quite a strong negative to say the "edit is not an improvement". Are you unable to see anything positive about the edit? Lightmouse (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 14 knots - added a conversion.
 * 30 knots - added conversion
 * 35 knots - added a conversion.
 * 50 kts - added a conversion.
 * 500 nm - added a conversion.
 * 800 nm - added a conversion.
 * 1800 nautical miles - replaced a link with a conversion.
 * I can see the benefit in some standardising the way units are presented (assuming that the editor is _very_ careful not to do anything that might change the meaning etc). In the case of Osa range vs speed data I'd have no problem if there was plenty of space, but when it's squeezed into an infobox the edit changes a neat 3-line data-set into a mass of digits, units and brackets spread over 6 lines (I realise that the exact way it's displayed and the users perception of it will vary). For me, the negatives of the edit outway the positives. Do you give consideration to things like appearance of the article, the space the data takes up on the screen and ease of comprehending the data - or do you just look at a few characters at a time ? DexDor (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The first problem that I see with the Osa article are the bullets. WP:Ships/Guidelines states that bullets shouldn't be used in the infobox, which would free up some space. Just use breaks at the end of every line as necessary. The second thing is that the infobox is supposed to present a summary of the ship's information. To my mind, presenting three sets range @ speed figures should be reserved for the main body; the infobox should be limited to only one of them. I'd also suggest limiting the installed power line to just the total horsepower for each version and move the engines to the propulsion line where they more properly belong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion
DexDor, would you mind editing the article to the way you'd like to see it? That would allow me to see exactly what you mean. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the bullets by BRs (as per SV66's comment above) and removed the knots conversions (the main emphasis should be on the range values and "knots" is linked a few lines above). It then fits on 3 lines (with my display settings anyway). I'm not saying that's the perfect way to display the data, but IMO it's more readable than it was. DexDor (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

nbsp
Hi Lightmouse, I like the work your bot's doing. One small thing though. Regarding this edit, I completely agree that "100km" should be changed to "100 km", but shouldn't the bot also add a non-breaking space between the number and the unit (per Manual of Style (dates and numbers)? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment. The main priority of the bot is to add conversions. Additional tasks are simply things I happen to like from a wishlist. I'm not a big fan of the Nowrap template or &amp;nbsp; as a means to control wrapping. I leave it to the many people who add it via manual or bot edits. Where I add the conversion template, it includes wrap control consistent with mosnum. Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If it's not a main priority or anything, that's fine. Perhaps something to consider for the future? Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hraschina meteorite‎
Please send your bot over there. Thanks. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've edited the article but I'm not sure what you want. Is there something in particular you'd like help with? Lightmouse (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

sp=us
sp=us should not be deleted. Units should match the general spelling in the article, and sp=us is not usually put in the template unless the article is in US spelling. I have reverted two bot edits so far, and will continue to do so for at elast the articles I watchlist. Don Lammers (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It looks like the bot is only removing this when abbr=on is set, which doesn't affect the output (as was pointed out to me in one of the articles). Don Lammers (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)