User talk:Bobblewik/percent

space character before % symbol

keep up the good work

Just to say keep up the good work with regard to units - I think it is a good job that you are doing, though probably a thankless task at times. It is appreciated! --Ali@gwc.org.uk 17:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One expression of gratitude such as yours is more rewarding than 100 negatives or 100,000 non-responses. Perhaps that is proof of operant conditioning in action. Your edit contributions are very similar to my own. Amazing. Thank you very much for the positive feedback. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 23:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture block over Bobblewik edits of percentages

Is it really standard usage to put a space between a number and the percent sign? I've always seen it used as, e.g. "4%" and never "4 %". Thus, I think you should change the the script of your bot accordingly or leave the articles alone completely. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:41, Feb. 12, 2006

I answered that question further up this page at the section titled Bot on SCi Opp Cl Ch. I hope that helps. Thanks. bobblewik 12:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello bobblewik. I checked the page referenced in the section above, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and looked for information relating to percent signs. I found only this:

===Percentages===

The format of the numeric and percentage terms should match. Thus pair 7 with % and seven with percent.

Perhaps you would like to explain how you've drawn this conclusion. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:58, Feb. 12, 2006

I was referring to bit further up this page where I said:

As far as the space is concerned, both styles exist in Wikipedia. I picked one. It happens to be the ISO style. The style for units is to have a space. So it looks better with:

• 12 kg
• 10 m
• 24 V
• 60 W
• 25 %

But it isn't a big deal for me. If you don't like it, change it to the way you want. You can bet if I had chosen the other style, somebody else would have raised the opposite point. We discussed this very point in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (probably around April) but came to no conclusion other than to leave it unresolved. You could raise it again and see what people say this time round. bobblewik 13:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please give something other than a canned response. I am asking a specific question now? Who, besides you, supports the use of a space between a number and a percent sign? Are you just making shit up? The percent sign is not a unit of measurement, it's a symbol for the division of a number by 100. Please provide some source for the use of a space or I will block you for a greater duration. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:06, Feb. 12, 2006

Also, regardless of whether using the space is acceptable, there is clearly no consensus that there is anything wrong with spelling out "percent", according to the MoS, which states that "7%" and "seven percent" are equally acceptable. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:08, Feb. 12, 2006

The edits are not about a space. The edits are about changing '7 percent' and '7 per cent' into '7 %'. Let us be clear, I am not changing 'seven percent' to 'seven %'.

I do not want to argue with you about a space. That issue was debated at length and left permitting either. If you are interested in the topic, please look in the archives or raise it again in the MoS. If my preference is not your preference, that is fine by me. I can do either. I simply replaced the word with the symbol. The space is already there and I did not delete it. Do not get so angry with me. I can implement your preference, I really don't care. But please give me the reason that I should quote when somebody blocks me for *not* using the space. bobblewik 13:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the MoS (all hail it -.-) you should be changing "7 percent" to "7%" and "seven per cent" to "seven percent". Anything further is unnecessary. If two styles are equally acceptable, a bot-assisted crusade such as yours, solely to change an article from one style to the other is pure disruption. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:24, Feb. 12, 2006

You say that the MoS says it should be '7%' but that is not what I see. It says:

• The format of the numeric and percentage terms should match. Thus pair 7 with % and seven with percent.

Believe me, I wish that it did give a recommendation on the space but unfortunately it does not. In the absence of MoS guidance on the space, it is a personal preference issue. You block me because you want me to implement your preference for no space. What do I tell another another admin when they block me because they want me to implement their preference for a space? bobblewik 13:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. You should ask the admin to establish that such a preference actually exists and has currency.

2. I blocked you because, "in the absence of MoS guidance on the space, and because, for fuck's sake, the MoS nowhere indicates that "seven percent" is incorrect usage you should not be robotically changing it one way or the other, at all, full stop. Do not replace usages that are not incorrect, please. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:49, Feb. 12, 2006

You wrote:

• 1. You should ask the admin to establish that such a preference actually exists and has currency.

OK, I am asking you. Does your preference for no space actually exist and have currency?

• 2. I blocked you because, "in the absence of MoS guidance on the space, you should not be robotically changing it one way or the other, at all, full stop.

You are mistaken, I am not changing the space. You want me to implement your preference to remove it. I just want you to tell me why. I will need to quote you to the next person with a different preference.

• for fuck's sake, the MoS nowhere indicates that "seven percent" is incorrect usage

I agree. That is why I do not change "seven percent". What makes you think I do?

Let me clear. It is a binary option: space; or no space. Just tell me which I must use and let me work in peace. bobblewik 14:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I am implementing your personal preference for no space. Why are you still blocking me? bobblewik 14:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict (sorry): I've unblocked you. I apologize for re-blocking you the way I did, but I had intended to do so at the end of the first hour, but that did not stick. I see that you have been willing to compromise to some extent so I will leave you alone. Please, the next time you are interested in mass-changing thousands of articles, make sure your actions reflect a fresh, tangible consensus first, thank you. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:41, Feb. 12, 2006

OK. I am raising the absence of guidance on the MoS talk page. If editors can be blocked for failing use a particular style, it is no longer an option. The MoS is the place to document forbidden options. Please feel free to contribute. bobblewik 14:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think without a space is better ("7%" or "seven percent"); however, I can't believe how bad-tempered the admin above comes across (perhaps I have missed the long-drawn out losing of temper, but "Are you just making shit up?" seems totally uncalled for). I am also struggling to understand why you were threatened with being (and, it would seem, actually were) blocked for something so trivial.

Keep up the good work, despite these nay-sayers. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you can see, there is nothing that I can do if an admin abuses blocking powers or swears. Thank you for the kind words. bobblewik 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you do not know, you can still edit your talk page when blocked, and there is a "help me" template - {{help}} - which can be added to your talk page to attract admin attention. Or you could try e-mailing an active admin, or going to the IRC channel. After the event, there is also WP:AN or WP:ANI. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just been catching up with WP:BOT and the consensus there is that "fast" editing with AWB (more than a couple of edits per minute) is indeed bot-like behaviour, and it also says to "block bots without hesitation", so I can understand where Freakofnurture is coming from.

Please can I entreat you both to take a deep breath and walk away at this point. Feelings may be hurt on both sides, but please don't let us fall out over this.

I have said enough already (I never expected this to escalate to WP:ANI) so will shut up right now. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

% change

You made a change to which I don't think "percent to %" applies. "1/4 %" does not look right, and I don't think any Manual of Style would recommend such a thing. Qutezuce 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Fractional percentages are so rare that I do not mind either way. But I agree with you that '1/4 %' does not look as good as either '0.25 %' or '0.25%'. Thank you for improving the article. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately, fractional percentages are common in at least two places: math textbooks and classes and IRS instructions and forms! Thanks Hmains 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, then it may be something that is more common in the US than elsewhere. Perhaps I should have said rare in Wikipedia. bobblewik 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, could you provide more detailed edit summaries? "AWB assisted cleanup" is not a helpful edit summary for what you appear to be doing. Consider "Change 'per cent' to '%'". Talrias (t | e | c) 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you made such a request just 3 minutes after blocking me. Your block prevents me complying with it. Bobblewik 20:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's because I thought I had unblocked you. My apologies; you are unblocked now. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I will amend the edit summary as you suggest. I saw a suggestion somewhere that a block should also result in an entry on the users page. The same logic applies to unblocking. If that process could be automated, it would not only have helped me, it might have helped you. bobblewik 21:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 21:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

More on edit summaries

This edit was marginally useful, but the edit summary was definitely wrong. Just thought you may want to know before complaints start pouring in. Take care.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to improve the edit summary but it is an inevitable feature of my process. I am doing a lot pages and sometimes my target is not present but I do other stuff while I am there. Thanks for the heads up. bobblewik 23:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI - Both a bad edit (removal of Wikilinked text) and a bad edit summary here. :) — mjb 06:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The edit summary said "Doing X. Y" and did indeed do either X, or Y, or both. It had not occured to me that anyone might be unhappy about that, but I accept that you are. Given the characterisation of that as a "bad", I will consider more use terms such as "or", "possibly" and "perhaps also". I hope that you will find that more acceptable. As far as the actual edits are concerned, that is an error that should not happen in future. Thanks for the feedback. It is welcome (seriously). bobblewik 12:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No it didn't. It removed an underscore from a link *of* an underscore, and didn't fix any "per cent" into "percent" or anything like that. It also removed line breaks from under section headings. I really think you should stop making these edits. Given the number of reported errors here compared with the number of edits you have done, it is not hard to imagine that there are other mistaken edits you have made which have introduced similar errors. If you don't want to stop running this script, please take more time to review the edits. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your complaint. Let me try to break it down.

• You repeat the complaint from mjb about removal of underscore. So I will repeat my response. that is an error that should not happen in future.
• You repeat the complaint from mjb about the absence of percent edits. So I will repeat my response. The edit summary said "Doing X. Y" and did indeed do either X, or Y, or both. It had not occured to me that anyone might be unhappy about that, but I accept that you are. Given the characterisation of that as a "bad", I will consider more use terms such as "or", "possibly" and "perhaps also". I hope that you will find that more acceptable.
• You complain about the removal of line breaks. I do not understand the complaint so I cannot answer it.

Edits were either 'cleanup' or related to percent, or both. It seems that complaints relate to those characterised as 'cleanup'. I am no longer doing those. I hope that satisfies your complaint. bobblewik 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary was this: "AWB assisted clean up. 'x percent' -> 'x %' in accordance with Manual of Style". The edit did not change "x percent" to "x %". This is why it is a bad edit summary. The edits you performed that article where completely unnecessary. You didn't fix anything, in fact you broke something. I find it hard to believe that if you are checking each edit to make sure it's not making any mistakes you would miss a change so simple as the one Mjb said above. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You said The edit summary was this: "AWB assisted clean up. 'x percent' -> 'x %' in accordance with Manual of Style". The edit did not change "x percent" to "x %". This is why it is a bad edit summary.

Yes. Let X = AWB assisted clean up. Let Y = 'x percent' -> 'x %' in accordance with Manual of Style. I was doing X or Y or both. It had not occured to me that anyone might be unhappy about that, but I accept that you are. Given the characterisation of that as a "bad", I will consider more use terms such as "or", "possibly" and "perhaps also". I hope that you will find that more acceptable.

You said You didn't fix anything, in fact you broke something.. I will repeat my response. that is an error that should not happen in future.

You are repeating the complaint and I am repeating the answer. Perhaps we can move forward. What is it that you want from me? bobblewik 14:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So why did you include "'x percent' -> 'x %' in accordance with Manual of Style" in the edit summary if you weren't actually doing that? The entire point of an edit summary is that it is a summary of what you edited (obviously). Putting inaccurate edit summaries in is very unhelpful. Don't use "or", "possibly" or "perhaps also". Make the edit summary reflect only what you have done in that particular edit. This seems remarkably obvious to me and I am surprised I am having to explain it. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was doing lots of consecutive edits that were X, or Y, or both. It is easier and quicker to mention X and Y. I thought it was reasonable but I accept that you do not. I will try to understand your view and take it into account. For now, I would like to stop discussing it, I am tired of discussion of this past matter and I think you are too. bobblewik 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bot on SCi Opp Cl Ch

Your bots recent edit [1] here changed some percents inside quotation marks, which is Not On. Also made some other questionable percent changes. I don't think its smart enough yet.

Also... is it you removing blank lines? I don't like that much either, though I generally don't bother to revert it.

This sounds a bit confrontational, I didn't mean it to be. Just helpful feedback! William M. Connolley 22:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

It is not a bot, it is me. The change inside quotation is an error. Sorry. I have corrected it. Look and see if you are happy with that.

It never occured to me that people might specifically want blank lines. Perhaps that is worthy of a debate on the Manual of Style where more people can express a view. I appreciate the feedback and did not interpret it as confrontational. Believe me, I have seen confrontations and can usually recognise them! bobblewik 23:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Me again. I'd say keep up with the blank lines—it saves Wikipedia two bytes of storage per line (unless its the only edit made), but what's with the space in front of the percentage sign? Shouldn't it be 33% as opposed to 33 %?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as the space is concerned, both styles exist in Wikipedia. I picked one. It happens to be the ISO style. The style for units is to have a space. So it looks better with:

• 12 kg
• 10 m
• 24 V
• 60 W
• 25 %

But it isn't a big deal for me. If you don't like it, change it to the way you want. You can bet if I had chosen the other style, somebody else would have raised the opposite point. We discussed this very point in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (probably around April) but came to no conclusion other than to leave it unresolved. You could raise it again and see what people say this time round.

Thanks for the useful feedback. bobblewik 23:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the other style was also acceptable; thanks for clarifying it for me. My concern, however, was that the space can wrap to another line. I don't know if you insert a " "; if not, that's something to consider (it also applies to all other SI units).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Non-breaking spaces. I frequently get asked about that. I went through a phase of adding them but it slowed me down. Then somebody else said that I should not add them. So I stopped. I really don't know what is best anymore. bobblewik 23:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you get to enjoy all wonders bot-ownership brings :) Really, though, what harm is in nbsps? I see the benefits, but what did people complain about? I honestly can't imagine.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite. If you make 1,000 edits that are not only good, but are meta-good in that they are consistent, you get little praise. If a question arises in respect of one of them, or in respect of a difficult choice, the work ceases and you get bogged down in exceptionalism and debate. I can see why many people don't bother to tidy stuff up.

As far as nbsp is concerned, I can't remember the detail. I didn't care too much so I took the option that added fewer constraints to the work that I do care about. It is all recorded somewhere. I think User:Gene Nygaard said something about it being less than necessary. You may also find stuff in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). bobblewik 02:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO, excess blank lines should always be removed. It is a bug, I feel, that the rendering of wiki-text to HTML gives extra horizontal space to extra blank lines anyway. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. bobblewik 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the addition of   is much to be preferred, to avoid the units and the number appearing on different lines. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of your preference for this. I think I agree with you although I am not 100% sure and do not always give it top priority. In the case of software assisted (e.g. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser) edits, I should probably have considered it. I was fixing problems with 'percent' i.e. inconsistent spelling (either 'per cent' or 'percent') and mismatch with guidance ('7 percent' should be '7 %'). I am not fixing that problem right now (I am back on date overlinking) but there are still plenty to fix. If you want to deal with them yourself (with or without AutoWikiBrowser), I would welcome it, it is a simple matter to include the " ". bobblewik 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)