User talk:Lightmouse

Conversion accuracy

Discussion moved to: Template_talk:Convert

Please respond to this:

Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Automotive_templates:_Template:Auto_hp_and_others.

Suggestion

Hello, I wonder if you could modify the bot to be even better. Could it replace year-year or year - year into year–year? (note the en-dash) That way the dates would be fixed to comply with WP:DASH. Renata (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It could. I will investigate, thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. If you find an example page, I can demonstrate it. Lightmouse (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In this edit it did not change the dash for years Alexander ruled (1492-1506). Or was it before you implemented the change in code? In this one it did change (yay! :]) In this one it removed wikilinks from [[1860]]-[[1863|63]] but did not change the dash. Here also revmoved wikilinks from [[1959]]-[[1963]] but did not change the dash...Renata (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea! TONY (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me state upfront that this bot is not designed to fix dashes or hyphens. Frankly, I do can't see the difference. I do not care what length the little line is. However, I am always keen for support and it seemed simple to add a crude piece of code that would fix some (but not all) instances. Please bear in mind that I had to design the code to avoid false positives and that inevitably means it will miss some.

The method of avoiding false positives is to only change the hyphen if the following is true:

• the pair of solitary year links have two word characters at the left and two word characters on the right
• as above but with a comma or period after the second solitary year link

That is why it missed the date in parentheses. I have added an extra piece of code that has the following test:

• the pair of solitary year links is within parentheses.

So that should address one of the issues you raise.

They issue relating to [[1860]]-[[1863|63]] is because it defines 'year' as 4 digits. I am cautious about extending this to include two digits. The last thing I would want is a complaint about a false positive on an issue that I don't care about. If you can guarantee that there are no circumstances under which xxxx-yy is a valid string, then I can update the code.

If this bot is not efficient at this supplementary task, then it might be better to cease updates for the task or withdraw the code for that task. It would be better to leave it to somebody that fully understands the hyphens - dash issue. This comment seems negative in tone but it is not intended that way. Lightmouse (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit by Lightbot: [1] changed ISSN numbers:

• 0896-0801 → 0896–0801
• 0038-0210 → 0038–0210

There's no MoS justification for such edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. This is a false positive related to a supplementary task. See discussion in the rest of this section. I have removed the offending code. It will no longer change hyphens into dashes. Lightmouse (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot

Metric units are not necessarily commonly understood in the U.S. I don't believe it is helpful to remove links to metric names from scientific articles.—RJH (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I understand your point that metric units are not understood in the US. However, this is a matter of policy not merely my opinion. It is quite an important and general issue for many editors and many pages. Would you mind raising it at the page where the policy is formulated: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)? I would be happy to see what other people think. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but those linked-to articles aren't much help to US readers who aren't familiar with them. Can you lobby for the creation of a decent page that visually compares the metric/US units in size? TONY (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a discussion section at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)#Bot removing links to metric units and said my piece there. No offense intended, of course. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. I am glad you took it up there, that is how policy evolves. I will be interested to see the response. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

lightbot and footers

I have taken the liberty of moving this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Carriage_returns_in_footers. I hope you do not mind. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

no problem at all....thanks for your help. cheers! --emerson7 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to #Year in Foo

I have taken the liberty of taking the generic issue relating to infoboxes, stub templates, etc, to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_links_in_infoboxes_and_stub_templates. I hope you don't mind. Lightmouse (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes I do.

Your 'bot is doing a run around the material at WP:MOSLINK. Moving the issue raised, without any comment from you as the 'bot runner, to an MoS talk page, especially one other that the source of the issue, feels like you're say "Not my issue."

It is your issue since you are using the MoS as part of the reasoning for the 'bot. The MoS has an explicit section allowing a link use/style your 'bot doesn't like. Either fix your 'bot or explain, where you moved the discussions to why you would like to see an MoS other than the one the talk page is attached to amended to eliminate the exceptions.

- J Greb (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that your comment was sufficient to prompt debate from others but if you think it is insufficient without comment from me then I will add something. Raising a comment on a MOS talk page is not intended to upset you. Nor is it intended to avoid the issue. Quite the opposite, inviting other people at the guideline page to debate it is addressing the issue head-on in an appropriate forum. I hoped that you would be happy about that. Even if you are not, I hope that you will accept that I am acting in good faith. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There may be a larger debate, and in broad strokes I can see where what Lightbot is doing is with in the guide lines. There a big "however" with that though...

The current guidelines allow for exceptions, something the bot doesn't. Even if there is a discussion of the current guidelines, it seems very pointed for the 'bot to be applying the guides while ignoring part of them.

That's what it feels like is being ignored. - J Greb (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

J Greb, thanks for your comment. Can you provide specific examples of where you believe guidelines are being ignored? TONY (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The first change in the edit here and the fist change here. - J Greb (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

ISSN

Comment and response now included in User_talk:Lightmouse#Suggestion. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Date ranges between double square brackets?

Question: how does Lightbot handle date ranges between double square brackets?

Example:

• Iran Premier League (2001-2002) exists and is in that format linked from a few pages, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Iran_Premier_League_(2001-2002);
• Would Lightbot change that to Iran Premier League (2001–2002)? And if so, would Lightbot create the appropriate redirect (possibly by moving a page)?

See also relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And see MOS: the hyphen needs to be an en dash. The page should be moved so the title is correct. TONY (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See response at User_talk:Lightmouse#Suggestion. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot removal of br tags

Issue moved to Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Line_breaks_in_equations. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

guidance brackets

Done! Note that I've streamlined the process. Copy straight from edit box onto a word document and use my specialised macros. One removes any upcoming [[word]], one removes the brackets around [[month day]] and inserts a hard-space between them (month day) and works on the inverted order too. Others transform full dates and insert the hard-space, but a a separate macro is required for each century, would you believe, and for br vs am formats. Makes it a breeze.

Then I just past back into the edit box with a stock invisible note at the top .

How's that? TONY (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That is great. Have you considered (a) using your monobook or (b) getting an AWB account? It would be even simpler. I could help you. Lightmouse (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

“Metric is ‘common’” bot

Lightmouse, it’s beginning to dawn on me that there is some bot running around de-linking metric units on the assumption that “everyone knows metric” and, further, that you are behind this bot. Please see my 00:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC) post here on Talk:MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This is not a separate bot, the bot for date delinking does a few supplementary tasks. Some tasks relate to units and this is one of them. All supplementary tasks are intended to be consistent with guidance and reason. I have now modified the code and it should now only to delink common units that are part of a conversion e.g. '6 feet (1.8 m)'. Anyone that does not understand feet can look at the value in metres and vice versa. I hope that seems reasonable to you. I am watching the debate at wp:mosnum, so I will see any further points you make there. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

cite web

Thx for advice on the other matter. As for the template, I fear we're going to end up with just an editor's choice of blue-linked autoformatting, forcing the variety that is used in the main text of the article. I was hoping for black, unformatted, manually keyed in dates in the use of the template. Maybe that will be it, but I find it hard to work out what's going on. TONY (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

2000 AD

There's a slight issue with links to 2000 AD, since some of those are likely malformed links for 2000 AD (comic), which 2000AD also redirects to. Since 2000 AD is a dab page, not a year page, I don't think the bot should be removing them, since it doesn't meet its purpose. I notice above there is a similar issue with 4AD, so I should imagine the solution would be to implement similar coding. There are editors who fix the malformed links to dab pages, so it would be helpful to leave the links to the 2000 AD page alone, as well as links to the 2000AD redirect page. Granted it is a bit of a mess, and likely it may be too late now given how long the bot has been running, but c'est la vie. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 10:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I enjoy the comic. Thanks for pointing it out. I will investigate the code and get back here. Lightmouse (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have applied the '4AD' exemption to '2000 AD' and '2000AD'. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ta. I'll get on and sort the incorrect links out going to 2000 AD. Hiding T 10:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

stubs

I noticed that the bot moves stubs to the very end of the article. You might want to reconsider this. Information in the article's code should roughly mirror the information in the article as it's presented, and stubs appear in the article above categories -- so that's where stubs should be in the code as well. I generally put stubs above navboxes (if any) and cats, which is where they work best in the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a feature of AWB general fixes. The AWB sequence is said to be based on Wikipedia:Stub which says stubs should be:

• "placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last."

Personally, I don't care which order is standard. So my opinion is not much help to any debate of this issue. Would you mind raising this at Wikipedia talk:Stub? Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the main reason for placing stubs after categories is so that normal article categories are shown before the stub cats, which really, in my opinion, should be hidden from normal view. It is mostly an aesthetic thing. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Date wikilinking

Your bot, Lightbot, removed all the year links from this article. Can you tell me why it did this? The approprate guideline is WP:CONTEXT#Dates which says "Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it". If some users prefer it, I don't think your bot should be removing them in such a sweeping way. rhebus (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot requests for removal clears for removal of randomly wikilinked months and days not years.Geni 08:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's the other way around – month/day combinations are acceptable because they format according to user preferences. Gary King (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You missuderstand. The bot is cleared to removes say july or 16 but not 2002.Geni 08:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this here. This has been the subject of extensive discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Would you be kind enough to read what other people have said and add your thoughts there? Many thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)