User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2011/June

Convert
I reverted your edits to Template:Amtrak Lake Country Limited and Template:Amtrak James Whitcomb Riley which were causing the corresponding articles, Lake Country Limited and James Whitcomb Riley (train), to appear in Category:ParserFunction errors. While your edits may not appear to be a problem when just viewing the template, they are a problem when the template is subsequently transcluded in the article. The reason for this is well known, and comes from the transclusion depth complexity of the template:convert template (which is high), and when it is nested inside of a template which is nested inside of another template, we reach the dreaded transclusion depth limit. There are at least three ways to circumvent this problem: (1) don't use convert, which is what was being done before you changed it, (2) explicitly specify the precision of the numbers, which circumvents the rounding detection code, or (3) explicitly specify the number of sigfig, which also circumvents the rounding detection. Of course, an even better solution would be to offload some of the rounding code from the convert template to the MediaWiki software, but that will not happen in the near future. However, we can still dream. Luckily, when this happens, these articles pop up in the aforementioned category, so they are (usually) easy to find. Best regards. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. That's a big shame. There may be other articles with similar issues, I'll investigate. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll edit the template again, following your suggestions. Lightmouse (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've used your second option and specified the precision. Sorted. A useful technical lesson. Thanks again. Lightmouse (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

US spelling
Good catch about the issue existing only when the metric unit is first; I've missed that. Glad to hear it's not as bad as I first thought :)

Regarding the list you have compiled (thanks for taking time to do that, by the way), I think since this is a bot run, it would be OK to restore the US spelling where templates such as were used. Even if the template was clashing with the rest of the article, one still needs to look at what the first contributor's choice was, and that's not a job for a bot. Restoring the spelling that existed would maintain the status quo&mdash;if the article's spelling choices needed to be cleaned up, they will still need to be cleaned up after the bot is done. I think that would be the most reasonable approach; what are your thoughts on this?

My other concern (for lack of a better word&mdash;I don't really care that much) is why it is necessary to replace these old templates at all. Wouldn't it be easier to make them into wrappers instead (similar to how km2 to mi2 is done)? That makes it easier to take care of the spelling issue and also of the folks who continue to use the old templates because they are used to them&mdash;otherwise you'll have to repeat those runs periodically. Why do thousands of edits when one edit will suffice?

As for my template revert, feel free to re-revert (taking care of the spelling choice this time), or, if you choose the path above, it can stay as is. My only concern with that revert was breaking the spelling choice in articles that transclude that template. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 3, 2011; 17:31 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll revisit all the templates I edited and set them to the original spelling choice.


 * I can apply US spelling to all the articles in the list. I can't apply it on a per-template basis, it will be on a per-article basis. All templates in the article will be set to US spelling. I can't see any problems with that but just so you know. I agree that it will take somebody else to assess the spelling.


 * I'd like to discuss the issue about the templates in more detail. You make a good suggestion. But I have to run out the door now. More later. Lightmouse (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it! As for the parameters, it is possible to make the template into a wrapper (which supports all of its applicable parameters) and yet retain support for the old legacy parameters as well, so the old transclusions will continue to work. It's actually a rather simple task. I can look into doing it in the next week or two, if you want, but it'll probably be quicker if you ask one of the  coding gurus to do the code re-write (I'm going to have a crazy busy next week).
 * As for, yes, I can update it, but since I am not one of the regular users of that template and may not be aware of all its caveats, it would probably be more appropriate to post an edit request on that template's talk page. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 5, 2011; 15:30 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do as you suggest and take it to the talk page. No need for you to do anything, leave it with me. Lightmouse (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Lightbot edits
On the subject of US spellings (above), Lightbot seems to be adding "sp=us" to some edits where m to ft is converted to use convert. For example see the last change here and several changes in this edit. In the cases I've seen, it in inappropriate to add US spellings to non-US subjects such as towers in Switzerland, Egyptian pyramids, ancient tall buildings in Italy, and so on. Where unsure, the bot should not add "sp=us". I find your statement above: "I can apply US spelling to all the articles in the list" quite worrying.

Also, in the second diff I linked above, the bot randomly added several conversions in a table where the other measurement already exists in another column. While there are perhaps better ways than two manual columns, now the convert template a=has been improved, Lightbot produced an ugly result and not at all an improvement. Astronaut (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather alarmingly, I've just taken a quick look at Lightbot's contribution and see a lot (many hundreds) of edits with the summary "Units of measure. sp=us". Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure Switzerland and Russia, the countries invloved in the edits I cared to look at, both use non-US spellings (even when Cyrillic is transliterated into English). Astronaut (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Thanks for your feedback. With regard to the ugly table issue, I agree. I've stopped the bot. I'll put it right and investigate how to avoid that issue in future.


 * With regard to spelling, it's not an error. I spent quite a lot of effort making sure that it works that way. The m to ft template defaults to US spelling. The convert template defaults to non-US spelling. Therefore, I'm obliged to add 'sp=us' in order to have no effect on spelling. In the example you give, the article says '126 meters' before and after the edit. Thus the spelling isn't changed.


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia guidelines don't permit us to set the spelling by the country. There are wp:mos guidelines on the issue but they're not trivial. User:Ohconfucius has a script that fixes 'incorrect' spelling variants in articles and my bot is compatible with it. If you want to know more, he and I would be delighted to discuss it with you. Lightmouse (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, response to Astronaut) Ah, actually, it's not as simple as that. The WP:Engvar guideline, a very good one IMO, says that non-US spellings only have to be used for articles that clearly have a relationship to one of the ancestral anglophone countries other than the US (my own words, but that's the effect). So an article on a Swiss- or Egyptian-related topic can be in any variety of English, depending on the one chosen (discernably) by the first major contributor. In other words, an American can start an article on such an article in US English and expect it not to be switched to, say, UK English. Tony   (talk)  16:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree ENGVAR is a good guideline and, despite being from the UK, I have upheld US spelling in the past. Unfortunately, I didn't know m to ft defaulted to US spelling so it looked like Lightbot was adding US spelling where it wasn't before.  However, there seems to be no explanation for the 2nd and 3rd change in this edit where it seems to have changed (for example) { { convert|146|m|ft}} to { { convert|146|m|ft |sp=us }} contrary to Lightmouse's design rationale - then again, the bot did make some other errors in that same edit.  Astronaut (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, the second and third change are unintended. I'll fix that at the same time as the ugly table issue. Thanks for letting me know. Like you, I was unaware of the opposing defaults. Then User:Ezhiki brought it to my attention on the Lightbot talk page. Look at the discussions between us on our talk pages for more context. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did look for the start of the discussion between you and Ezhiki, but all I found were vague references to a previous discussion.  I'll checkout the discussion on User talk:Lightbot.  Astronaut (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Weimar College
Please visit this link as your opinion and expertise would be appreciated. Fountainviewkid 21:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, thanks for you reviews on my three DYKs that dealt with Ghana's petroleum industry I have converted the barrels into metric tonnes. Hope the unit is standardized now. All three have been looked at. Could you please accord the DYKs their respective tags. Please talk to me if there are any more concerns. A friend called-- CrossTempleJay   →  talk 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed the MT/H for Tema Oil Refinery. Thanks.-- CrossTempleJay   →  talk 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lightmouse, thank you a lot for all you have done for me so far. As a young editor I am seeking to push myself to the limit to establish myself as a credible editor on WP. Your reviewing my DYKs have given me so much confidence in what I do. Thanks. Could you please accord my DYK on Tema Oil Refinery the right tag. I think you forgot to do so after your reviewing it. Thanks. A friend called -- CrossTempleJay   →  talk 20:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I put a closing positive comment there at 17:04 today. I hope that takes it forward. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect edit
Hi, this edit changing conversion templates has reversed the units so giving incorrect information. The same edit also adds sp=us incorrectly to a UK article. Keith D (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another edit which inverts units incorrectly. Keith D (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Fire arms dimensions
Please undo the recent Lightbot edits regarding the removal of precision instructions in auto conversions found in many fire arms articles info boxes. Lightbot tends to automatically 'deaccurize' these dimensional auto conversions. --Francis Flinch (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Francis, is this a matter that should be listed in the MOSNUM table? Can you educate us as to the ins and outs of this issue for fire arms, and whether it applies to other areas? Tony   (talk)  08:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Lightmouse, Thanks for your reaction on my talk page. Like you noticed auto conversion precision inconsistencies in fire arms info boxes do occur. These info boxes have been written by different editors and everybody including me sometimes makes human errors. Since these errors tend to differ I suspect that it might be quite hard to automatically remove those inconsistencies. But maybe I am wrong there, since I do not know enough about what bots are capable of. I noticed your Lightbot removing precision instructions when your bot changed dimensions on a competition arm. Such arms are ruled by exact international dimensional and other standards, that might appear ridiculous accurate for non match shooters.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ammunition is generally measured and expressed with 0.01 millimeter or 0.01 inch precision. Arms dimensions are often measured or defined with a 0.1 millimeter precision. This would be ~ 0.04 inches. Conversions from millimeters to inches are thus hard to call since the conversion is closely near the 0.05 mark. I would convert 100 mm to 3.94 in and 4 in to 101.6 mm if I opted to stay on the safe side with (match arm) manufacturers that tend be be precise in the provision of dimensional information. Converting 100 mm to 3.9 in and 4 in to 102 mm might with match arms would often already be on the course side. You could try to get advice from the WikiProject Firearms project members in this not easy to decide matter.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Francis. So, presuming this information is non-controversial, should it be noted at MOSNUM for the benefit of new editors, not to mention gnomes and bot-operators? Tony   (talk)  08:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Francis. You may or may not be aware that both the old and new templates automatically adjust precision. Thus an acceptable precision often exists in read mode even though it may not be visible in edit mode. I spent some time investigating this and looking at what other editors did. I went through the edits and in many cases, the precision was unchanged. In cases where it was changed, I've set it back either to what it was or to what I thought might be appropriate based on what you said and what I learned. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Lightmouse (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wind power in New Jersey
Thanks for your interest in above. Would you please the edits regarding units as you see fit. Djflem (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Auto templates
Do you fancy a bit of pesky template eradication? There are some templates, specifically Auto in, Auto CID, Auto lb·ft, and Auto L, which are simply shells that call convert. It would be nice to get rid of them and use the proper convert template. Let me know if you are willing and what (if any) justification you might need. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Auto in converts inches to mm, with abbr=on. I would suggest no default precision, but there is an optional parameter for precision but is rarely used (if at all)
 * Auto CID converts cubic inches to litres with abbr=on. I would suggest a default precision of 1 (rather than the 2 that convert applies) unless the optional parameter is specified.
 * Auto lb·ft converts lb·ft to Nm with abbr=on. I would suggest no default precision unless the optional parameter is specified.
 * Auto L converts litres to cubic inches with abbr=on. I would suggest a default precision of 0 (rather than the -1 that convert applies) unless the optional parameter is specified.


 * There's also Auto Lrev. I've been working on these by hand (made the hardcodes of & substed them), I've done  but the bot would get them done quicker. J IM ptalk·cont 17:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In principle, yes. I'd be happy to take it on. Those are out of my current bot scope. For the past few months, I've been trying to extend the approval and I think they would be covered within 'edit the format' of:
 * Lightbot 13 request for approval "Janitorial edits to units that contain at least one unit of length, area, or volume"
 * Lightbot 14 request for approval "Janitorial edits to units that contain at least one unit of mass"
 * and we could make it more explicit by saying 'add, edit, or remove templates'. Your comments at those applications are welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 14. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Report page?
Lightmouse, there's valuable stuff being uncovered on this page. You might consider, whenever you have a low-activity RL period, starting a sub-page—possibly in tabular form—so that issues can be briefly noted (probably after the fact) and linked to. It would be a public resource. Tony  (talk)  17:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's on my to do list. I'll move it up. Lightmouse (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Lightmouse, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Lightmouse/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)
The article The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is undergoing the featured article candidacy process here. I recommended converting the article's dates into something more readable, but I don't want Coolug to waste time converting them manually. I know you're responsible for Datescript, but I'm not familiar on how to use scripts like these. Would you be able to convert the article's dates in one fell swoop? Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd love to help but can't. I've asked User_talk:Ohconfucius and I'm sure he'll help. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Lightmouse, thanks for this! cya Coolug (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Lightbot 14
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 14 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

Convert
I reverted your edit here and here, until this: 50 by is fixed (currently showing a template loop). I will see if I can fix it, but until that happens, or someone else fixes it. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I remember, you should use instead, and if it has "abbr" then use   Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We should be able to work something out here. People will think it's plain old  (as opposed to /3) and will get puzzled when it fails. But there should be a way to get it working. J IM ptalk·cont 17:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As Jimp says, something can probably be done. I'll investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I tracked back over the relevant contributions and fixed one more. Thanks for that. Lightmouse (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just wondering if your bot respects (or whether you have plans to respect) spelling settings for units? I have reverted the edits at Mount Feathertop because it changed all the spellings from European to US and we use European in Australia. EfvBrPKj (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers, thanks for the response (on my talk page) that you hadn't seen that conversion format before. I wasn't sure of the correct format for conversions and I found that one on another page I was watching.  I'll change it over to "convert" which I assume is more widely used.  EfvBrPKj (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I went through Mount Feathertop and Mount Bogong again. The convert template doesn't recognise 'sp=C' so I removed it. It isn't necessary to specify 're' spelling rather than 'er' anyway because it's the default. I hope they're how you want them now. Lightmouse (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hello! I noticed you contributed to Middlesex University entry on Wikipedia. If you studied at that University, please consider including this userbox on your userpage. Simply paste  to your userpage. Thank you. Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Lightbot 12
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 12 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

DYK removal
Heads up on : when you remove a hook from preps, also remove the credits below (I've done that), find the promotion edit in the T:TDYK history, restore the nomination (you've done that), and add a comment why did you return the hook (I usually append to that) - this would prevent immediate re-promotion. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented on this entry that was returned for reasons cited above, please respond. I don't think the question was clear enough.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MS. I hope reverting a move to prep won't be required again. As I said below, comments need to persist for a reasonable time so they can be seen. I suggest at least 24 hours is needed. Lightmouse (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize.
I should not have struck out your comment re Baku Museum DYK discussion. I was afraid the review would be deleted per the orange DYK-no symbol before I was through gnawing on the bone! ;) Sorry for that.  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  01:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for saying sorry. I appreciate it. Lightmouse (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for your message. I'm sorry if I caused any inconvenience although I had no way of knowing if the message had been seen or not. I am always careful when moving suggestions to the prep pages. Harrison49 (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind response. As you say, it's impossible to know if a comment has been seen. The only way to solve it is to leave a reasonable amount of time after the last comment. I would expect to be given at least 24 hours. That's an easy test to apply and if it's made explicit in the guidance, busy reviewers with real life commitments would at least know when to check. Do you think this process issue is worthy of discussion at the talk page? Lightmouse (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I did check the response myself however, and it seemed reasonable. I think perhaps it would be best to see if this is becoming a widespread problem, so give it a bit more time to see before raising it on the talk page. Harrison49 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

How does the bot know?
Hi there. How does the bot know this? I'm asking since when writing it I did not know myself, so I'd like to learn. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't know so it took the advice of a human (me). I made an assumption based on the fact that the event took place in 1913 and was reported in 1952. Both dates are from before metrication in Australia. I'm open to challenge. Does it sound reasonable? Lightmouse (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, the edit had b so I assumed it was fully automated, making me think there was some automagic trick involved. I must admit that I don't have historical understanding of the matter, so if it makes sense to you I'm OK with it. All I did was summarize (reliable) sources. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's interesting to know. I didn't realise that's how it seemed to an onlooker. It's good to have people tell you how things look to them. Anyway all bots that use the AWB tool have a capability of starting an edit but not pressing 'Save'. It's then up to the human to do more editing, save, or cancel. I'm pretty confident that it was the 'long ton' but like I said, I'm open to challenge. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)