Jump to content

User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2008/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hectares?

I see you are changing hectares to km², example. Is this WP convention, is there some pattern to it, or what? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is easier to understand km². This is because of familiarity with km. I note that British Ordnance Survey maps are marked in 1 km² squares. I suppose you could try an experiment to find out. Take people to a hill overlooking some land and get them to estimate areas. If you think it is better the other way, feel free to revert it. I don't mind. Lightmouse (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it depends who you ask. Areas that would have been measured in acres in the past are nowadays measured in hectares, so fields, parks, and the like use them. Obviously it makes no sense to talk about a million-hecater area (but, ISTR descriptions like "30,000-acre estate" were once common). Not a big deal, but I have seen this change in the past (ha to km²) and wondered what the basis of it was. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know that farmers use hectares. I also know that using word-for-word translation would map acres to hectares, although using word-for-word translation from the old system is not the best strategy when trying to use the metric system. I suspect that is what many officials do when updating publicity material about estates etc. For good communication, I think that ordinary people are more capable of understanding familiar metric units such as m and km. Thanks for your thoughts. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Units/dates/other using AWB" edits

Hello and a couple questions. It may be that edits solely to remove links to isolated years are too trivial to do in large quantities.[1] [2] I tend to remove those links only when doing something else with the article.

This case raises a question - the year may be significant, since the event is mentioned on the article for that year. Are you checking if the article is linked from the year page? (That would have missed this case, of course.)

Finally, this edit suggests something you might want to add to your script. One of the dates in the article was given as [[2004]]-[[September 14|09-14]]. Your script removed the link around 2004, but the piped dates probably should be fixed too. Gimmetrow 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Many edits can be regarded as trivial. As long as they are improvements, I think this is acceptable. Although I agree with you that chasing trivia can be ditched if chasing non-trivia is more rewarding. Note that the two examples you quote are Featured Articles and should have attention to detail. Of course, this could be one of those joke irregular verbs - "I have attention to detail", "You are trivial", "He nitpicks".
Like you, I try to do multiple things. My script also checks for the many date formats that break formatting such as 'October 23rd' and date ranges. It also checks that various units of measurement are accompanied by a metric value. It is just that the script detects solitary years more frequently than the others things. Once I have gone to all the effort of checking an article, I might as well use the improvement offered by the script. If I were clever enough to set a threshold, I would do it. Furthermore, if AWB were able to take on some of the task (e.g. mending broken date formats within 'general fixes) that would be fine by me.
With regard to '1631' mentioning the 'Cathedral of Magdeburg' article: It is a good example of the issue. It is true that the year article mentions the sack of the city but it gives less detail than the article itself. Thus the reader gains all the context from the article itself and the other links within it e.g. to the city. There are so many date links (solitary or otherwise) in Wikipedia that I do not believe any reader clicks on them all and checks each one.
With regard to [[2004]]-[[September 14|09-14]]: It never ceases to amaze me how many different ways that editors can break date formatting. The script is reasonably successful at checking if date formatting is broken. This is because there is only a finite number correct formats. It is less successful at fixing the broken bits. This is because there is an infinite number of incorrect formats and it only tackles the most common ones. If that one is common, I can fix it. I will investigate. Thanks for your feedback, I welcome it. Lightmouse (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you turning off links in the convert template? e.g. as you did to Exmoor. If you look at the documentation for convert it states that using links for the first instance of a particular unit is acceptable. This is exactly how it is used in the Exmoor article. I suggest you revisit your decision to do these mass edits, removing lk=on from with convert templates. Also, in the UK, hectares are commonly used, so converting acres to hectares is usual. You changed this to square kilometres. As a consequence of both of these things I have reverted your edit to Exmoor. --TimTay (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is little benefit in links to plain english terms. Common units of measurement are like plain english and appear in thousands of articles. Since this topic is of wide interest, perhaps the best place to discuss the policy on common units is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I am sure that there are people there that would be interested in debating both sides of the issue. I do not mind that you revert the edit. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
But you are also de-wikifying date links willy-nilly, including from historical articles. For instance, the dates in the David Hume article make it easy to see the historical context in which his work was being done. This seems inappropriate. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the criterion for a link is that is should help understanding of the topic. Thus a link to his book: 'A Treatise of Human Nature' is good because is relevant to understanding and is a pain to type in by hand. The criterion 'historical context' is much wider in scope and implies that all dates should be linked. However, links to date elements does not explain anything about David Hume, it will just give you a list of stuff that happened in the year. Anyone that is obsessed with looking up the millions of year links only has to type in 4 digits into the search box. However, I appreciate that you have a different opinion. Lightmouse (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Norwich City FC

Hmmm. I'm grateful for your efforts with this, but I'm concerned about your using it on the FA Norwich City F.C.. Many of the changes ([3]) you've made are good, and per MOS, but some at least are to the detriment of the article, specifically over-ruling unilaterally wikilinks inserted following discussion at the talk page, at Peer Review and at the FAC. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. Feel free to put back the ones that you want. Lightmouse (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Doing so. And you've prompted me to sort out some inconsistencies with the piped links. Can I suggest you add to your script to skip FAs (and maybe GAs too)? There are so many dreadful messes out there it seems wise to avoid the ones that have gone through multiple rounds of scrutiny? --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean. The script seems to be doing well at its job of finding articles that need further work. We both have discovered that there is stuff to do. That is a good thing. It seems that FAs and GAs are flagships that should be subject to this sort of scrutiny.
On a point of detail, I noticed that you put links to months and three links to the unremarkable article '1995'. I do not know if that was also part of the discussions. So I tried looking for the discussions in three different places that you suggested but did not resolve it. Can you give me a precise link to the relevant discussions? Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I've not finished reinstating the good changes. Linking to (say) 1995 is useless, I agree. The links to the football seasons articles were good. --Dweller (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I appreciate your work. The wiki grows. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you that links to seasons are good. But how does a reader know that they are there if they are camouflaged as ordinary year links? Lightmouse (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
One more point. Links to seasons are bad if they are put with full dates. They break date formatting. Since this is generic point about how the featured article process is failing to address date formatting correctly, I think it is worth seeing what people say at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I have asked a general question about the featured article process. See you there. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts explained

Hi Lightmouse, I reverted two of your edits: in Joseph Priestley House I relinked 18th-century as many people are both unsure of what this means (1700s? 1800s?) and unaware of the many historical developments in that century.

In Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) you delinked a year (1999) that was part of a full date. There was a flood on January 19 and 20, 1999, so I had it as "January 19 and 20, 1999" I have now made it linked for both dates, i.e.: "January 19 and 20, 1999". This seems to me to follow the linking of full dates requirement of MOS, but if you have a different interpretation, please let me know,

Thanks for all of your work here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind your reverts. As far as Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) is concerned, the text was:
[[January 19]] and 20, [[1999]]
Thus '1999' was floating on its own and not part of a full date as far as the MOS is concerned.
Although you now have it as:
[[January 19]] and [[January 20|20]], [[1999]], the autoformatting mechanism will damage the date and readers will see:
  • 19 January and 20, 1999
This looks very odd. It is a frequent error in Wikipedia. It is an unfortunate 'feature' of the autoformatting software when it encounters date ranges. The only way that the date range will look correct for all readers is to eliminate all the links in the date range. This is why the MOS specifically says that date ranges should not be linked. See: [[4]]. I am not sure if you understand why it will break date ranges. If not, just ask and I will clarify further.
Thanks for your praise. The wiki keeps getting better. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind explanation - I have removed all date links in the range so it is now just "January 19 and 20, 1999". I understand the breakage, but did not realize it would happen. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome. I suspect that we need a permanent bot to address this common issue. Lightmouse (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not rerun this script on articles twice. I appreciate your work, but after you run the script, I have to go back and manually add links to helpful links such as 18th century and sometimes things like 1787 in literature (as at Thoughts on the Education of Daughters). It is frustrating to have do so a second time. Awadewit | talk 16:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not designed to rerun on articles. Sorry. Lightmouse (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the AWB script converting units quotes and refs?

See this, specifically, the "Driving Away from Home (Jim's Tune)" reference. Thanks. Will (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is designed to avoid unwanted conversions. However it does not trap everything because I do not know how to code for the difference between quote text and normal text. I usually catch quotes by eye. That is a rare case of one that slipped through. Sorry. Lightmouse (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Conversion templates vs. auto templates...?

Hi, Lightmouse. I just saw your conversion template applied on Dodge Dart, and the results look quite good. I have a couple of questions I hope aren't too dumb. Firstly...where is this template? I checked Category:Conversion templates and Category:Automobile conversion templates and while I spot several that are meant to achieve the same goal, I don't spot yours. What are the differences between your {{convert|415|hp|abbr=on}} and Template:Auto horsepower, Template:Auto hp, and Template:Auto bhp? It appears the {{convert}} syntax is separate from the unit-specific templates, as I see {{convert}} used successfully with different units plugged in (hp, in, mm, etc.). I'd like to apply templates like these correctly, as I make a lot of contributions to articles involving many units, and I don't want to make extra work for myself or anyone else. Thanks! --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I use a script that adds the {{convert}} templates. To find the script you have two options:
I think {{convert}} is a lot better than the 'Auto' templates. It is newer. A major advantage is that it is simpler and more flexible. As far as I know, it can do everything that 'Auto' templates do. I used to use the Auto templates but then I switched to the convert template. Some people suggest that we can replace all the Auto templates with the convert template to keep things simple. For a detailed discussion of the merits, just ask the people at Template talk:Convert.
If you want to use my script:
  • 1. copy all the source text from User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js to User:Scheinwerfermann/monobook.js
  • 2. clear your cache, (if you have Firefox: press Ctrl-Shift-R, if you have IE: press Ctrl-F5).
  • 3. Pick an article with units that need converting and click 'Edit this page' to put it into edit mode.
  • 4. Click the tab at the top right that says 'combined'.
Let me know what happens. Lightmouse (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, that's pretty slick! Thanks for the step-by-step. My happiness is tempered a bit, though, by the results when I previewed it at Ford FE engine. Since there are already manually-written parenthetical conversions of HP to kW, the HP gets converted but the old parentheticals remain. This would seem to require going through and picking out each and every one of them...? Is there an easier way? --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


To answer your question directly... There is no easy way.
Like all software, it is dumb. It looks for a number followed by a unit e.g. '265 hp'. It tries to avoid existing conversions by checking for parentheses e.g. '265 hp (198 kW)'. However, it does not scan the entire rest of the article to see if somebody has said something like '265 hp gross power in the engine (198 kW)'. As you have seen, people occasionally put the conversion many characters after the original.
On the positive side. This problem is very rare. You were just unlucky that your first attempt found it. Here are some suggestions:
  • If you find a problem, leave the article alone. It will just waste your time. There are plenty more to fix quickly.
  • Search google for articles that you know will not have the problem (use a minus sign to eliminate unwanted strings) e.g. search for 'engine hp -kW'
  • use a word processor (I prefer Microsoft Notepad) on your computer to edit the article. Copy the entire page and use search and replace. In the case of Ford FE engine, it is not easy, you will have to do it almost line by line.
  • accept that human intervention is required and live with it. Try 100 articles and then see what you think.
  • Lightmouse (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Been happily using your script since late last month, and I like it a lot, but I seem to have run into a problem with it. When I hit "combined" on Chrysler Hemi engine, the script fails to see and fix the improper "ft·lbf" torque units (many of which are preceeded by an explicit non-breaking space). The correct unit is lb·ft , and it looks like your script is set up to rectify most variants of most incorrect torque units, but I don't know enough about scripting to see why it's not fixing these in the Hemi article. Can you shed some light? Please and thank you. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The script follows Wikipedia convention of using 'ft.lbf'. I am not aware of an 'correct' and 'incorrect' format. So you are at liberty to challenge the Wikipedia convention. It gets discussed from time to time in many places e.g.:
Feel free to challenge whatever those people think.
If there is anything else you would like help with, I would be delighted to discuss it. Incidentally, I no longer maintain any script with a 'combined' tab. In the latest version the 'combined' tab is called 'dates+units' and there may be other changes. The most recent version is at: User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

units

Just wanted to let you know that I undid the delinking of femtosecond in Laser because, in my experience with ultrafast whatnot, this is such an unusual and unfamiliar timescale that further information is necessary to understand it's size. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is massively overlinked with respect to plain english terms (including common units). There is also massive overlinking with respect to orders of magnitude including unremarkable ones such as 103.
I agree with you that although second is common, femtosecond is not. That is why I thought that having 10-15 right next to it is sufficient and a link is duplication. However, I will allow you to make the judgement call. Thanks for letting me know. I do not mind at all. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful when removing links to years. In most contexts this is perfectly appropriate--I agree with your general aim, and I do plenty of such unlinking myself. But in some cases the links go to [Year] in [topic] articles. For example, the 1988 you unlinked in The Satanic Verses went to 1988 in literature, which is an acceptable link if, as in this case, one might expect the subject of the article to be mentioned there. (It wasn't, as it happens--but it is now.) You will find such "year in" links in articles dealing with film, music, sports, and some other subjects. Certainly, some [Year] in [topic] links are unhelpful and should be removed, but they shouldn't be automatically unlinked, as plain year-links are. Regards--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, links of the type [[1999 in literature|1999]] are always unhelpful (see Easter egg). Instead, consider using a form like "See also 1999 in literature" which is more useful, assuming the link will provide meaningful context in the article. --John (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In general, removing the year/date links is ok, but I guess that you (or more probably a template) have removed a bit too much, e.g. in Caligula there are changes like [[16 March]] to 16, [[24 January]] to 24 and so on. Then again, it could be my fault that I cannot read a date like 16 37 ... Tibersept (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Tibersept is right. There are millions of solitary year links on Wikipedia. Any link that looks to a reader like a solitary year link is likely to be treated like a solitary year link. This is why some people call them 'camouflaged links'. Although there is a good intention in putting [[1999 in literature|1999]], it is wasted because most people assume that readers will not know it is there. This is why Wikiproject Albums says:
  • Do not use piped links to "years in music" e.g. [[1991 in music|1991]], instead add (see 1991 in music) where you feel it is appropriate.
If '1988 in literature' is a useful reference, you should show it so that a reader will know that it is not simply another link to '1988'.
In the case of Caligula, there is an error in the code. I have fixed it. Thank you for spotting that and telling me. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you also removed[5] an "as of" link and was wondering why ... --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it is simply a redirect to a solitary year. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but they're still done for a reason. See Wikipedia:As of. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks. I will take this to a talk page. Lightmouse (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Airport Facility Directory

I noticed that you have recently edited the page for Airport Facility Directory. I have started a discussion in the Talk page and would appreciate your comments. Gladtohelp (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

Wikilinked dates

Hi Lightmouse! I saw your edits to Daboia and a few other snake articles recently. Is wikilinking the dates (years) in places like the taxobox no longer allowed? I've got about 400 snake articles of which all of the dates are wikilinked. Are these going to be the only exceptions, or are you going to change them all? Perhaps we should leave this one alone unless there's a really good reason to go through so much trouble. (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there are several issues here:
  • Guidance for links is in several places such as: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Autoformatting_and_linking and Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates. All links should satisfy the requirement that they help to understand the article. Thus if I have an article on 'computers', it might help to have a link to 'microprocessor' but just because a significant microprocessor event happened in 1972, you do not learn anything from a link to the '1972' article.
  • Rules for taxoboxes are no different that the main body of the article. Thus there is no additional reason to link something just because it is in a taxobox.
  • The autoformatting mechanism has led to a lot of 'full dates' (ones that contain day+month) having square brackets around them. This is nothing to do with 'linking' although it looks the same. An unfortunate side-effect of this is that people see full dates with square brackets around them and incorrectly believe that Wikipedia policy is to encourage the linking of all date fragments. The consequence is that there is massive excessive linking of date fragments.
This is why many editors are now removing them. I hope that helps. If you want to know more, feel free to raise it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Lightmouse (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation; it makes sense. However, it's also frustrating. I started linking these date fragments in 2006, mostly because everyone else was doing it; if I didn't link it, someone else would just come in and do it for me. Now all that should be undone, but I meant what I said: 400 articles is no joke. The last time I was faced with a task of this magnitude -- the recategorization of several thousand redirects -- a friendly admin submitted a bot request for me. Somebody else then programmed one to do about 600 of them for me, but then couldn't be bothered to do any more; I guess even that was too much work. I ended up doing the rest by hand, which took me several hours a day for about a month (last December). So, I'll not stand in your way if you want to work at unlinking these date fragments, and I certainly won't create any more such articles, but you'll forgive me if I'm currently less than enthusiastic about mounting a concerted effort. Maybe you can submit a bot request. ;-) --Jwinius (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it is frustrating. I have seen others in the same position. Do not give up. It is not the end of the world, all articles are communal, there are other editors that fix things for you. Please me which articles they are, I will investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I've given up; just that I don't feel like working on any large projects at the moment. The articles that I've worked on that you'll want to modify can be found here:

The family name articles only link to one or a few articles that will need to have the date links removed. The lists are often longer. There are some more linked date fragments here:

However, if you dig deeper using the links in the tables in these articles, I don't know what you'll find, because I haven't done any work there.

Regarding the conversion of measures, mostly this is all fine with me since I'm a big fan of the metric system. However, I want to ask you not to convert the measures found in the type locality statements in the Geographic range sections. These are mostly literal quotes from original manuscripts that should remain unchanged in our articles. Perhaps we could provide conversions after the quoted text, but I'm not sure this is necessary. You see, most of these quotes are from a long time ago and no longer make as much sense today anyway, except in a historical context. For example, "5 miles south of the Miami city limits" 70 years ago is today within the city limits. The type locality is only there to give the reader a rough idea of where the first specimen was found. Even the GPS coordinates used today will not mean as much after people have moved in an "developed" the landscape. --Jwinius (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the article suggestions, I will look into them. I see what you mean about quotes. I agree that in general quotes should not be changed. However, if non-metric readers have the benefit of the term "5 miles" and we now say that "8 km" is wrong because the city limit has moved, then it is not the fault of the metric value. Either the value '5 miles' is right or it is wrong. If you see what I mean. Lightmouse (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. Perhaps you'll care to humor me and rephrase your POV. :-) --Jwinius (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand what you mean. The place where policy on unit conversions is discussed is: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I am sure that people there will be able to help. Lightmouse (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
What I'd like to do is keep the type locality quotes intact for historical reasons. For example, if you were to discover a famous passage from a Mark Twain novel quoted somewhere in Wikipedia that included a distance in miles, would you also modify it to include the equivalent distance in kilometers? I would hope not. In my view, these type locality statements should be regarded in much the same way. If we were to convert such units of measure and do other things like correct the spellings for place names (also a popular suggestion), we would no longer have the original statements. As I've said before, perhaps we could provide conversions after the quoted text, but I'm not sure this is necessary. --Jwinius (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If the material in question is a direct quote (aka, "It was reported to be five miles away."), then it should never be converted, at least not inside the quote. If that is done, then it is no longer a quote, but rather a technical misrepresentation of the original material. If it is merely paraphrasing a quote, then adding the conversion is fine. Can you give a specific example of what you are speaking of? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
A few examples. The type locality given by Klauber in 1940 for the Totonacan rattlesnake, Crotalus totonacus is "Panaco Island, about 75 miles south of Tampic, Veracruz, Mexico, 12 miles inland from Cabo Rojo." The type locality given by Beddome in 1868 for the ocellated shieldtail snake, Uropeltis ocellata, is "at Walaghat on the western slopes of the Neilgherries in the dense forests at an elevation of 3,500 feet." Some type locality statements are in French, German, Spanish, etc., and these are quoted literally as well, usually followed by a translation between parenthesis if necessary. --Jwinius (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Given the way the Klauber quote is used (Beddome's is trickier), a direct quote or a paraphrase will work equally well...there is no reason to prefer one over the other. However, as I said before, if a direct quote is used, do not convert; if not, conversions are somewhat mandated.
Speaking to Lightmouse, I have to think that there must be a way to detect quotes and thus avoid changing anything inside of them. This is certainly an issue that has been raised here multiple times, as I recall. You might try to find someone well-versed in RegEx who could help you code something; I'd suggest looking around the AutoWikiBrowswer or bot account pages. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
How about this: a link that only works as a mouseover that produces to a popup with the conversion! That would seem like an excellent solution to me. --Jwinius (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I like coding tricks too, but we tend to avoid hiding things except for, say, non-critical navboxes that take up significant room. Not to mention, citations bloat the code enough as it is...start introducing such drastic modifications like that and it may start to become unusable. I'm sure something can be designed, but the way it is now works quite well without the unneeded complexity. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Formatting changes

Lightmouse, would you mind please not changing the formatting for gun calibres in the ship articles I write? I am referring to edits like this where you keep putting a space between the number and the "mm" abbreviation.

I can't imagine why you do this but "40mm" is every bit as common a usage as "40 mm", in fact considerably more so IMO, and with space at a premium in infoboxes, it really doesn't help to be adding this whitespace. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot distinguish between articles that you write and the articles that everybody else writes. For matters of style, we can refer to guidance:
Since the use of a space is a matter of policy, a request for a change in policy needs to be raised at the policy page i.e. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Feel free to copy this question to that page. Lightmouse (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
A quick search on Google shows that the unspaced usage is twice as common as the spaced usage. So I'm not sure why we should be utilizing the less common usage, it isn't how things are usually done on Wiki.
Perhaps I'll take it up at Wikiships to see what other users there think first. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Surface measures for vineyards

Hello Lightmouse, I just noticed this edit to the article Bordeaux wine, where you introduce the number of square kilometers of vineyards in Bordeaux. (As a member of WP:WINE I have that article on my watchlist.) Not much harm in that individual edit, since previously only the acre measure (which is not used in "metric" countries) was included. But then I realised I've seen square kilometer measures introduced in other wine-related articles, for example in Alsace wine, where you converted the highly appropriate hectare measure to square kilometer with this edit. I would like to ask you not to convert surface measures in wine-related articles to square kilometers, and absolutely not remove hectare measures! The reason is that the unit km2 is never used in the professional wine literature or the texts of any formal wine-related regulations that I know of, and is therefore not really helpful to readers of wine-related articles. In Europe, the unit used for vineyards is hectare and nothing else. (I doubt that you see km2 for any other agricultural purposes either, but that is outside my area of knowledge.) The reason for this is that vineyards and individual wine-making businesses often cover something like 5-100 ha, making that unit very convenient, and the same unit is used for entire regions or countries. Since acre is the measure used in the US and several other English-speaking countries, ideally, wine articles should have <no of hectares> (<no of acres>) or <no of acres> (<no of hectares>) rather than a single measure, depending on what is used in the region/country in question. But, as I mentioned, km2 isn't really helpful. As an example, the #1 wine "bible", the Oxford Companion to Wine edited by Jancis Robinson, in its latest edition (Oxford University Press 2006, ISBN 0198609906) lists the total vineyard surface by country in a table with two columns - hectares and acres, and does not mention square kilometers.
If you base your edits on some general policy, I'd be happy for a pointer to the text for that policy, because then we (as in WP:WINE) need to have it changed. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Colonial Coast

I am currently working to gather support for WikiProject Colonial Coast, a project aimed at improving the pages related to the Colonial Coast of Georgia (includes the cities of Savannah, Brunswick, St. Marys, and Waycross), and would like to know if you are interested in helping to contribute to this. Thanks! Jaxfl (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - Feel free to come over and comment on, add suggestions to, and/or discuss the WikiProject Colonial Coast proposal.

Hectares and acres again

Hello, I'm afraid your answer gave my the impression that my message did not got across: km2 is not a relevant unit of measure for vineyards. In your reply you did not provide any links to agreed policies or reliable sources, only general opinions. Actually, the way I read your reply, you even go as far as to mock the sources considered relible by the active memebers of WP:WINE! That's not the way you convince me that what you're doing on the wine-related articles is improving the quality of this encyclopedia. A good suggestion is to edit articles on subjects you understand, and no other. My request that you do not remove relevant units from wine-related articles definitely remains - they are quite frankly not helpful. Tomas e (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. You have a rather non-standard way of handling your talk page! Archiving what I wrote to you in a page that is not linked from your talk page, and then reply on my talk page? That was a first for me.

I did not mock anything. I tried to answer you as best I can. If you think otherwise, I apologise for you gaining that impression. I answered on your talk page because your original was archived. I understand that you disagree with me and that is ok with me. I hope you can understand that I disagree with you and that it is ok with you. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A request

Hi Lightmouse. Per your contrib list you appear to be cruising at high pace, but with such an automated efficiency that I'm prompted to remind you of the ABW Rules of use. I see several useful changes (per WP:DATE etc.) but also a great body of changes that are not contextual improvements that suggests decisions are made too quickly. Please keep in mind that in the realm of agriculture outside U.S. and commonwealth countries, hectares are used to express land area for reasons of practicality, and is consistently used in RS that isn't in anyone's interest to be removed from. MURGH disc. 01:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I will also need to add my voice to this chorus. The use of sq km in wine articles is very foreign and will be the cause of more confusion to the readers than help considering there is no reliable source (magazine, books, regional websites) that refer to wine regions and vineyard areas in sq km. It is overwhelmingly consistent to see ha/acre. Especially consistent english/metric conversion and wiki-linking the first appearance of each measurement, there will be little to no confusions in the articles if we follow the reliable sources and use ha/acre. While I certainly appreciate your good faith efforts, and many of your edit have otherwise been of tremendous benefit, this is one area that your good faith efforts are a tad misguided. AgneCheese/Wine 02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is the comment I made previously to another wine enthusiast about the relevance of terms used in domains:
Thanks for your comments. The policy that I am following is that Wikipedia is not "professional wine literature" or "formal wine-related regulations". It is an encyclopedia available to people of all countries and all professions and non-professions. I agree that specialist terms such as hectares, lakhs, dunams, quintals, hectolitres, jō are relevant but they are not the only consideration when trying to communicate to ordinary people. Otherwise Wikipedia would be unreadable beyond the few articles in your own domain. An equivalent but more widespread and more widely understood plain term is always worthy of consideration, we should consider speaking in plain terms. More people comprehend 4 km² than understand 400 hectares.
The comparison with American use of acres is not an excuse for hectares because we do not regard translation word-for-word between Swedish and English as always the best idea. Americans do not consider what metric countries do when considering their units. If they did, they would use quarts for petrol rather than gallons because quarts are the closest word-for-word translation of litres. Furthermore, Americans are often confused about units and frequently translate acres into square miles to make it easier for themselves.
I hope that explains it. I disagree with you but welcome your comments as part of the usual debate.
I would like you to know that I have understood your point about domain specialist publications. I hope you understand my point that Wikipedia is not a domain specialist publication. I think this is a case where I respect your right to disagree with me, I hope you will respect my right to disagree with you. Lightmouse (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You make some good points but one large one that is being missed is that the use of acre/hectare is not a specialist usage, but rather the most common, everyday usage that any individual (wine novice, enthusiast, expert alike) will encounter in any sphere of the wine world. It is essentially universal usage which is what makes the inclusion of sq km (particularly at the exclusion of ha or acre) so very foreign and out of place. It is like trying to describe the Economy of the United States in Euros rather US dollars. Rather than help the "non-wine person" understand the topic, it will actually hinder their understanding since they won't encounter the usage of sq km in any other communications or information relating to wine. I don't think there is any support in wikipedia policy for that. AgneCheese/Wine 08:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not think anyone is suggesting the exclusion of hectare and acre. Units are not a matter of seeing the right one, it is about understanding. Kilometres are all around us and maps are marked out in square kilometres. It is easier for ordinary people to understand 4 km² than understand 400 hectares. The only way we could prove comprehension is to take people to the top of a hill and asked them to point out an area of 400 hectares, then point at an area and aske them to guess the area giving the answer in hectares. Then take another group and do the same for km². I think the second group would be more successful. I agree that people may see numbers and units when they read about wine just as many people see land area in dunams. But I do not think that means Wikipedia readers comprehend them. I think it is wrong to ban square kilometres, particularly when the numbers get large. We should take into account comprehension as well as specialism. It is not one or the other, it is a balance judgement. Lightmouse (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Desert Rock Airport

Your changes to Desert Rock Airport and I suspect other airport articles are, I believe, is in error. The articles already listed the metric length and width of the runways. Since it appears to be the industry standard, they are listed with both the length and width in ft and then in meters. So by adding the convert template, you have converted one of the two pieces in feet and you are displaying the metric equivalent twice. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So I see. Thank you for letting me know. I will correct that and investigate further. Thanks again. Lightmouse (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Lightmouse -- I have, in the last few months, seen the light and found the "convert" template, and have started ever so slowly to make improvements to the units in the New Hampshire geography articles. So I am delighted to see that you are going ahead so quickly on the lakes articles. Thank you! --Ken Gallager (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. If you want to use AWB or run a script to add conversions, I can help you do it. Lightmouse (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thanks from me as well. I'm glad to see the information in the lake infoboxes consistently formatted. -- User:Docu

Loveland, Ohio

Just a heads-up: quite a few articles place large quotes inside {{cquote}} and related templates; I think the usual practice for quotes is to link judiciously, but not use templates like {{convert}} that actually change the text. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I usually see quotes and avoid them. I missed that one. It is particularly difficult to know that it is a quote if the quote is very large because the cues are a few characters at the beginning and end. Thanks for spotting it and correcting it. Lightmouse (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2008/February&oldid=1141110182"