Jump to content

User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2008/August

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


Lightbot

I have grave reservations about (and have mostly been reverting) a lot of the edits Lightbot has made to articles on my watchlist. I haven't reviewed any of its other edits, and it may be that in other areas, it is performing useful tasks. Take this edit for example. There are a lot of places where it changes "2,000 feet" to "{{convert|2000|ft|m}}" which renders to "2,000 feet (610 m)". This is sometimes useful, for example, on the first occasion that the height "2,000 feet" is mentioned. But it gets tedious if it is repeated every time the height is mentioned. In the case of that edit, the article already had metric equivalent the first time, and all of the additional ones added by Lightbot simply added unnecessary verbiage to the article.

In the same edit, it deletes a whole bunch of blank lines in the markup for the tables. These lines do not affect the HTML generated, far less the rendering. So why make the changes? In an article with over 2000 lines of markup, the vast majority in wiki table syntax, the blank lines make it much easier for a human to edit the tables manually, and to locate sections. When it has no noticeable affect on anything, how about leaving it to the editors who actually maintain the article how they want the source laid out?

— ras52 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I also notice that both of these types of change are not even similar to anything that the bot has permission to do, unless I'm missing something. — ras52 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The bot does janitorial edits mainly to unit and dates. The example given (List of Hewitts and Nuttalls in England) has three occasions where the unit value "2,000 feet" feet is repeated (one with a conversion, two without). The bot added two unit conversions. If repetition of units is an issue, perhaps the repetition of non-metric units could be worthy of reduction. Perhaps two conversions is not a 'lot' but I understand what you mean. I do not mind your revert at all. The removal of spaces is a janitorial edit that is a feature of AWB 'General fixes'. Even if I did not do it, somebody else probably would. The place to question AWB features that are widely used is at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Lightmouse (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Wikipedia has been over this ground many times before. You can't let loose a bot that makes textual changes like this, because of the danger of changing literal quotes, as your one did here. Hesperian 23:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot blocked

To reiterate my comment above, bots that make textual changes don't work, because they change stuff that shouldn't be changed. You can see two examples above: changing direct quotes, and changing titles. The Wikipedia community has been over this heaps of times before, and I guarantee you this behaviour would never have been approved. I have blocked your bot for now. Once you've clarified what it is your bot is approved to do, I have no objection to it being unblocked. I'll leave a message at WT:BOT too. Hesperian 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotes and titles are tricky issues. I do go to some lengths to avoid them and identify them as part of quality control. I am investigating further code measures. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Praise for Lightbot

Despite having raised 3 problems with it today, can I just pause to thank you for work on Lightbot and to appreciate the changes it makes (usually!). I mostly work on historical engineering articles and although I'm not obsessive about metricating everything, I do appreciate a post-Lightbot page where capitalisation and spacing of units has been made consistent.

If we can find a lightweight way to exclude bot-tweaking from sections of pages, and to apply this restraint by default within links and quotes, then I'll be a happy bunny (well, less of a miserable git than usual). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the praise it is good to receive. Silent acceptance is invisible. Complaints are always very visible and sometimes forcefully put. As I mentioned above, the feature you want is also a feature I want, and its absence is due to my lack of skills/knowledge. It is certainly possible to avoid the specific car names with 'xxxHP' but I will investigate further to see if something more can be done for the generic issue. Lightmouse (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot fault

See this edit which converted a good link into a red one. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the same category of false positive as pointed out by Andy Dingley above. If I can solve the problem raised by Andy, it will solve the issue you raise. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Lightmouse (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you're pretty much on it - but Lightbot also had a crack at QF 4.5 inch naval gun, here (well, this is the reversion of it, the rest of the work was all ok). Just letting y'know, y'know? --RedHillian (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No text-changing 'bot should be running if it isn't smart enough to leave wl's alone.
It should be trivial to code for this: there should be robust 'bot implementation frameworks, the frameworks should reliably recognise wl's and 'bot application code on top of ths should use the framework's structure to leave all wl's alone. I don't know what the current state of the art in wiki 'bot code is (Oh joy, more stuff I need to learn by yesterday), but it would seem that these three conditions are essential for a reasonable environment where anyone can produce a 'bot for a specific task (whatever that might be) without impractical amounts of work and cleaning up after 'bot errors. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You may wish to look at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Improve_HideText.HideMore.28.29. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Generic issue moved to: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Banning_metric_units. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Narrow gauge railway

Lightbot appears to have left a long string of error messages in this article because of an apparently inability to interpret the article's expression of the common 42-inch Cape gauge and the less common 30-inch and 54-inch gauges. The remainder of the gauge conversions appear to have been successful. Can you clean up this article? Thewellman (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was simply going to revert it. I see that somebody else has just done it. I really do not mind reverts. I have in the past adjusted some of the rail templates to accommodate spaces, but not all of them. I think that is the problem. I will investigate further. Lightmouse (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That was me - seemed like the simplest solution :) Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be 180 degrees and alternating! :) Lightmouse (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate changes by lightbot

Twice in recent days, first at Tahlee[1] and then at Australian Agricultural Company[2], Lightbot changed, of all things, a book title in the references from A Million Pounds, A Million acres to A Million Pounds, A Million acres (4,000 km²). This is an inappropriate change. I've reverted both errors. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are indeed errors. I will have a look and try to improve things. Thank you for catching them and pointing them out to me. Lightmouse (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A similar problem at Barnwood House Hospital - two conversions were added to quoted text. Since the quotes were historic, and given the context, I don't think metric readers will be alienated.Staug73 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the conversions in square brackets. Lightmouse (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Lightbot error - replacing image tags

I just found this error where Lightbot has added a conversion within an image tag. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Please see Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Improve_HideText.HideMore.28.29. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote on unit symbols for liter

We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RailGauge template

I see you've been replacing the customised {{RailGauge}} template with the {{convert}} template, for example here. As the convert template requires more parameters to obtain the same result, can you explain why you believe it is necessary to do this please? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Many rail articles have insufficient conversions so I have been correcting that. The rail template seems to be inconsistent with itself (railgauge|24 versus railgauge|2ft) and inconsistent with other conversions. Using the convert template, it is all consistent:
  • a miniature {{convert|12|in|mm|sing=on}} gauge steam locomotive ... it has a {{convert|2600|ft|m|abbr=on}} track span, {{convert|80|ft|m|abbr=on}} drop, and {{convert|50|mi/h|km/h|abbr=on}} top speed
  • broad gauge of {{convert|5|ft|3|in|m|abbr=on}}. A range of 4-4-0s engines worked Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania. These engines varied from small locomotives to express passenger racers with {{convert|6|ft|6|in|m|abbr=on}} drivers
I have also been adding conversions for numbers written in full and I do not know whether the railgauge template can do that:
  • he recently constructed a five-inch (127 mm) gauge railway in his garden
It just seems an unnecessary complexity to have two different forms. Lightmouse (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The RailGauge template was developed to replace a number of individual templates for each gauge, bringing consistency throughout. If you have any problems with it, I suggest you discuss it at the template's talk page, rather than wholesale replacement. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to improve some rail articles that did not have metric conversions and had excessive date links. The railgauge edits were incidental to that. Lightmouse (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, It's just plain wrong for bots to even try changing input parameters to templates they're not deliberately coded to manipulate. Nor should a generic 'bot like this go near such a specific template like {{RailGauge}}. What would happen if {{RailGauge}} was also auto-categorizing pages into "2' gauge railway lines"? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of the bot edit that you are thinking of? Lightmouse (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

'bots should be cautious. If they're not deliberately setting out to modify anything that's passed to a "sensitive" piece of code (quotation, wikilink, external link, template, parameter to a template, parser function or (&deity; preserve us) a call to DPL) then they should keep their robotic little paws well away! There's enough body text out there to keep them busy.

Secondly, a "topic specific" template like {{RailGauge}} may easily have behaviours above and beyond those of a more generic {{convert}} template. 'bots can't be expected to know just what, so again they should keep away. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Both fair points. I just want to make sure we are both talking about the same thing. Can you give an example of a bot edit that you are talking about? Lightmouse (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad edits

I'm not sure what this bot is supposed to do. I reverted part of its edit to I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles) because it changed a quotation of the song lyrics, which is clearly wrong. It unlinked some other dates which I guess is what it's supposed to do, so I didn't touch that part. --Weeble (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't supposed to do that. Thanks for fixing it and letting me know. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't convert names of external links!

FYI, in Ingleton, North Yorkshire your bot made a conversion inside the name of an external link. (the last edit here) It shouldn't do that! --Dr Greg (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. Thank you for fixing it and letting me know. I appreciate it. Lightmouse (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js

Hi Lightmouse. I was pointed to your script by Tony, and I have it transcluded in my monobook. I was wondering if you knew whether it was compatable with User:Brighterorange/punctuation.js I had that installed already, and it too creates an extra tab on the edit screen, but it always seemed to override your script. Can the two work side by side in any way, or would both scripts have to be copy/pasted into one script in order for them to run. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My response is the same as that from Brighterorange. I do not know how the functions work or why a clash exists. I would be willing to make changes if you find out. Lightmouse (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have another question about actually using the script. When I click on the [delink iso] tab the article reloads to the "Current revision"/"Your text" page, and has a little clicky button with a green triangle. I click on the button to show the improved diff view, and nothing happens. Just a box with a long horizontal grey line through it. When I click "save page", it just goes back to the article page without having made any changes. When I click on the history, it's not even as if I made a WP:DUMMY edit. There is simply no history of any change I made. Is something wrong with how I'm doing it? This has happened on every article I've attempted it on.Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First you have to test it on something with ISO dates. Try User:Lightmouse/sandbox. If that does not work, then it could be a clash with something else in your monobook, or with a browser plug-in that you have. Lightmouse (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I tested it there and the same thing happened, except that I saw this:

"18 suggestions: year linkfix date formatfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix year linkfix ..."

When I clicked on fix, it says "Changing text in wikEd is not yet supported." So I guess if I remove WikEd, everything should work? Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, that was Advisor.js. OK, so here's where I'm at now. I deactivated WikEd and I am now able to use the date script. I tested in your sandbox (and reverted my edits). In the edit window I have two tabs -- [delink iso] and [part dates], and they allowed me to delink isodates (2008-08-08) and stand alone years, but not full dates such as [[8 August]] [[2008]]. Is this how it is supposed to be? Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded Image:Matthewedwards Editing.JPG, which shows what tabs I have. After discussing with User:Tony1, it appears I am missing an [all dates] tab. I am wondering if I don't have this because I have the extra delete/protect admin tabs? Any help you can give regarding this is appreciated. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You are missing four tabs:
  • 'all dates'
  • 'year in blah'
  • 'units'
  • 'units+dates'
I do not know why. Lightmouse (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I have decided to remove everything from my monobook except your script, and add each script back in one-by-one. Through the process of elimination I should be able to find what it is that is conflicting! Thanks for your help through this, Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot

Any idea on when your bot will be running again? I've got a job for it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish I knew. It was blocked. See: Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Request_for_corporate_memory_on_common_bot_screwups. Please read that. Your job might be a good reason to get the block lifted. Lightmouse (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well after reading that I know what the answer would be. I'd be told to do it myself using AWB and regex. Thanks anyway. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Power conversion figures

I appreciate you going through some of the aircraft articles to provide altitude and speed conversions etc; however, if possible, could you please avoid changing the power-weight conversion figures? The weights are expressed in lb and Kg while the power is expressed in units of hp-kW hence the power to weight ratios should also be expressed as kW/kg, it can be confusing to express it as Watts/kg which differs by a factor of 1,000. Thanks, Minorhistorian (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For tireless work fixing units, dates and useless wikilinks, especially in aircraft articles.
- Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Lightmouse (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem - you do amazing work - I often watch you run through aircraft articles and improve them. Sorry your bot got taken down, it was generally doing good work, too. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I am not too worried about the bot. I live in hope of getting permission again. Lightmouse (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I hadn't realised your bot was still blocked. I'll discuss it with the admin who blocked it, but as I see it, the problems occurred when you tried to add {{convert}} to existing articles. If you can remove this functionality from the bot (which wasn't part of the original functionality), and assuming User:Hesperian agrees, I'll happily unblock it. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The false positive rate went up when I started to add conversions. I am sorry about that. I will take this functionality out on the current bot and will discuss a separate request for that function. If you unblock it, I will be grateful. Lightmouse (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No objection from me. Hesperian 23:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim Gray (computer scientist)

You just added Category:Living people to the article which isn't really right, might need to tweak your script - SimonLyall (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have raised it at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Category:_living_people. Please continue the discussion there and I will watch what is said. Lightmouse (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ft·lbf vs. lb·ft in automotive articles

Howdy, Lightmouse. This topic is still not resolved. Your script(s) use ft·lbf as the English torque unit, which may not be the best choice for the automotive articles. Kindly please take a look here. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking lightbot

Hi lightmouse,

The problem that I see, is that at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot you described the function details as one set of things and you did start doing things that way in the first few days after the bot was approved, but then at some point, without approval, you added some more tasks and started to have the bot do raw unit conversions and de-linking of units. Thus, making changes to the visible text and dramatically increasing the false positives (as was pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Request_for_corporate_memory_on_common_bot_screwups).

At this point, just unblocking it would be stepping on the toes of the blocking admin—Hesperian. My suggestion is that you get together with Hesperian and explain/reassure him that you will be abandoning the old approved and unapproved tasks that lightbot was running. Then create a "new task" for the swapping of the codes for {{convert}} (mi2-->sqmi, etc) so that that task and only that task can be approved. If that goes well then maybe you can get additional tasks approved later. When you ask for a task approval, be very specific and after approval do only what you've asked for. Good luck. —MJCdetroit (yak) 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Tivedshambo said something similar in the "Barnstar" heading above.—MJCdetroit (yak) 18:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Hesperian might be reassured by my observations that Lightmouse conducted the running of the bot with sensitivity and politeness, and systematically gathered data WRT its functions and users' reactions. He appeared to be regularly responding to feedback by modifying the script. This is bot-management at its best, IMO. Tony (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tony; that's good to hear. As I said above, I have no objection to an unblock now that the problems have been ironed out. In fact, why am I talking about it?; I'll just go and do it myself... done. Hesperian 03:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. Lightmouse (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see that things have been worked out. Start her up and keep trucking! —MJCdetroit (yak) 16:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Transcluding sections of a page

I'm pretty sure you can't do it without adding a bunch of fancy template code (e.g. <noinclude></noinclude>s) to the page you're transcluding. JIMp talk·cont 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Transcluded protected templates in articles

What a mouthfull that is-anyway, Lightmouse, is there any way that I can prevent the insertion of these templates in articles that I work on? I have reverted already on one article and I noticed a quicker page load time. Not everyone has high speed internet, some are still in dinosaur-dial-up mode. Please respond here on your talk page for easier reading. Sincerely Marcia Wright (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two ways to prevent the templates being inserted:
  1. you ask an admin to protect the page so that it cannot be edited
  2. you eliminate the need for the template by adding metric units manually. Thus with the page in view mode, simply copy the metric units and add them into the edit mode text. Thus {{convert|6000|ft|m}} produces 6,000 feet (1,800 m) using the template or 6,000 feet (1,800 m) without the template (you have to view this talk page in edit mode to see the difference).
I am not aware that the template causes an unnacceptable burden on page load. I am sometimes on dinosaur dial-up so if that is true, something should be done. I know nothing of these technical matters. Please raise it with the experts at Template talk:Convert. I will watch for their response there. Lightmouse (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Lightmouse, I will not consider Option 1, it goes against the core spirit of WP, but Option 2 is a possibility (and more work for me alas). The third option is to just live with it. Thanks again for responding.Marcia Wright (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

100 acres = 0 km²

Just to let you know, the metrication script left something odd on a page I edited:

Desert Rock Airport covers 100 acres (0 km²) and has one runway:

The script converted what's in the parentheses from hectares (40) to square kilometers (0), which wouldn't have been a problem if the area figure were larger, but apparently the script felt no digits beyond zero were significant. Michael Patrick (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see what is wrong. The original conversion contained a parameter '|0}}' that specified rounding to zero decimal places. This was fine in the original conversion but not for km².
  • {{convert|100|acre|km2|0}} --> 100 acres (0 km2)
  • {{convert|100|acre|km2|1}} --> 100 acres (0.4 km2)
  • {{convert|100|acre|km2|2}} --> 100 acres (0.40 km2)
  • {{convert|100|acre|km2|3}} --> 100 acres (0.405 km2)
  • The conversion is usually fine without that parameter: {{convert|100|acre|km2}} --> 100 acres (0.40 km2)
I am sure that the script can be amended to fix that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Lightmouse (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

lk

Hi Lightmouse, would it be possible to set your script to use lk=in when you replace a linked unit with the convert template? e.g. Here you replaced 

17 nautical miles

with 

{{convert|17|nmi|km}}

thereby discarding a link that would have been retained if you had instead used 

{{convert|17|nmi|km|lk=in}}

Hesperian 23:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is possible but wp:context says that there should not be links to Plain English words, including common units of measurement. There was a recent discussion about this at wp:mosnum. My impression was that the guideline has support. Other issues were raised including the suggestion that where conversions are provided, there is even less of a reason to provide a link. I would be happy to see further discussion. Lightmouse (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought "nautical miles" qualified as a plain English word, but it's no problem if you disagree. Carry on as you were rather than let this hold you up. Hesperian 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion for replacing a linked nautical mile with a 'lk=in' conversion is fairly reasonable. I actually agree with you that the unit 'nautical mile' is not 'plain English'. I had a similar conversation with MJCDetroit on this page. The phrase 'second tier' seems to me to fit units like 'nautical mile'. See [[3]]. My opinion is that the vast majority of unit links are excessive and the benefits of a conversion are so strong that even second tier units should not be linked when in a conversion. However, I would not die in a ditch over it. I appreciate your thoughts though, such feedback always makes me question my code and that is a good thing. Lightmouse (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahunt's talk

I couldn't help but notice you mention some 'handy tabs' for use when editing. Do tell what these things do, they might help me!--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. – Quadell (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question...

Are we not linking dates anymore? I didnt get the memo... Qb | your 2 cents 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It has not yet deprecated (although it might come to that), but it is now merely an option. See extensive discussions at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
So long as it remains optional, can you please not delink all dates? Seems to be jumping the gun. - auburnpilot talk 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I always thought it was odd that all dates were linked... but it wasnt my place to question it. Thanks, I'll check out the discussion. Qb | your 2 cents 19:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

I was curious as to the reasoning behind this edit, specifically the change of [[Austria|Austrian]] to [[Austria]]n, as well as the same for Brazilian. It seems to be a bit of a silly change if both methods do the exact same thing. The359 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, edits that eliminate duplication have the following benefits: they make the code more compact; they can make raw text more readable. That type of edit is made by a lot of people. If you want to debate its merits, the people to talk to are at: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot and dates

Hi, your bot recently made this edit, which delinked several years e.g. [[1875 in association football|1875]]. I thought per WP:CONTEXT#Dates, linking standalone years to relevant topic articles was perfectly acceptable? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Same here... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been assuming that piped year-links are untouched by the bot. Tony (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you are correct that it is 'acceptable' in that there is no prohibition. However, several people have pointed out that they add no value for the reader because they look identical to a solitary year and will almost certainly be treated as such (i.e. ignored just like all other solitary years as simply blue clutter). This is why some projects say things like:
There may be a better way. However, I do not mind if you revert. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether one tab can treat all including the piped year-links, and another everything but. I envisage lots of annoyed comments on my talk page if I remove piped linkes. Tony (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're now delinking dates then linked solitary years will regain their significance as a potential link to something of interest though. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'part dates' tab was created to eliminate all date fragments, including 'year in blah'. That included camouflaged links. At the request of Tony, I took 'year in blah' out but it is still included in the 'all dates'. See McDonnell Douglas MD-80. I think interest in piped links is just another a symptom of the obsession with date linking in general. If it really is important, I can move it out of 'all dates' too. Currently, I do not think it is really that important but I am open to debate. The problem is not significance of the link, it is camouflage. Incidentally, Rambling Man, do you use the script? Lightmouse (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. I'm too old-fashioned for all that... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dts2/dts

Also, on List of Birmingham City F.C. managers, conversion of {{dts2}} to {{dts}} has resulted in the list of dates now appearing in US (month-first) format rather than the appropriate international (day-first) format. cheers, Struway2 (talk)

Thought it was probably acting under orders, that's why I posted elsewhere, thanks. Struway2 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Unit conversions

I reverted the edits on ALSSP as I had not capitulated yet (although I did fix the errors pointed out by User Have a Gorilla). The main issue I have is the conversions in Lassen National Forest size measurement. I believe that this is much easier to read: 

  Lassen National Forest is a 1.1 million-acre national forest located in northeastern California.

as opposed to this: 

Lassen National Forest is a 1,100,000-acre (4,500 km2) national forest located in northeastern California.

with the metric units: 

Lassen National Forest is a 1.1 million-acre (4,500 km2) national forest located in northeastern California.

The readability should not be reduced just to have conversions added to the article. Cheers, Marcia Wright (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. If Wikipedia was a publication just for Americans, then we could rank metric units lower than the needs of Americans for readability. However, Wikipedia is an international publication. This is why international units are so important. If somebody from Austria wants to know about Lassen National Forest, your good work on such articles makes the information available to them. You have raised an interesting issue about the balance between readability for one regional group and accessibility. Since this is a general point for many articles about American geography, I will open a debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Lightmouse (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am NOT saying that metric units should be omitted, I AM saying that for your conversion/template to work, you had to write out this huge number (example #2), versus example #3, which has the metric units but not the long,
impossible-to-read numbers. I, also, appreciate it when reading something that includes standard as well as metric units. "American" has nothing to do with it. Regards, Marcia Wright (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I misunderstood. If I understand you correctly, this is about '1.1-million' versus '1,100,000'. If that is the case, I agree with you. The template does this for some units but I am not sure if it does it yet for acres. I will ask. Lightmouse (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Thankyou Yes! That is what I meant. Please correct this on the discussion you just opened and thankyou for the kind words as well.

Looking forward to future collaborations with you. Marcia Wright (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the discussion. I am glad that we are almost there, there is still the precise acre value in the infobox that lacks a conversion. I have asked for the template to provide a 'million acre' version. If this is provided, it will benefit a lot of articles. You may or may not be aware that the template allows many articles to be made accessible to the metric audience and it can be added automatically, but nobody minds if you turn the template into a manual form. It does not matter how the information gets onto the screen, as long as it is there. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pointless edits

Please keep Lightbot from making pointless edits such as this in order to replace "knot" with "kn" in {{convert}}. As you are aware, there has been considerable reaction in the past against your replacement of the unambiguous, yet still completely functional "knot", by the less-intuitive "kn" in Lightbot weeps. As it stands today, there is no consensus for changing "knot" to "kn" within uses of Template:Convert. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what constitutes 'considerable reaction' but I note your link to dissent by two editors plus yourself. Since this is not visible to readers but it is a matter of simplifying the template as a whole, can you be more specific about your objection? Lightmouse (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your bot is replacing knot with kn again. This is unhelpful. Please stop it.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you program the bot to replace kn with knot - that would be helpful.
Another thing you could do, would be to make it look for where articles use non-standard units such as French kilometres in articles about ships and nautical matters, and convert to standard units i.e. nautical miles.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The template code is getting very complicated with lots of variants that are not visible to the reader. It is being simplified to use an abbreviation at no cost to the reader. I do not know how much a French kilometre differs from a standard kilometre, and which articles use it. Can you give an example and I will take a look? Thanks Lightmouse (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot, you seem to be disregarding the cost of maintenance. The longer form makes it easier for the Wikipedian to recognize what the wiki code is saying. As with a programming language, a variable named "iWCR" is more concise, but "iNumberOfWidgetsRemaining" is much easier to read, even if the end user doesn't see any difference. Finally, you haven't indicated any actual benefit to these changes. I know you're trying to be helpful, but I think you'll stir up less controversy and gain greater support if you act a little less aggressively. Back off a bit. --Danorton (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that iWCR is less explicit than iNumberOfWidgetsRemaining. I also agree with you that obtaining greater support is a good thing. I have never been accused of aggression and I am a disturbed that you think I have been. You may be unaware of how much I do respond to feedback, including your own. Can you give me a link to where you think I have been aggressive? The changes to the code options is a matter for stakeholders at Template talk:Convert not Lightmouse. It does not matter what we decide here, other editors will only change if the issue is discussed there. I suggest we move the discussion there. Lightmouse (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop Lightbot until its behavior is documented

I have submitted a stop request. Please do not start it again until its behavior is documented on its User page. --Danorton (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that. Done. Lightmouse (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. What prompted me was the removal of a wikilinked "20th Century". I do not see where this behavior is documented. When you document it, it would be helpful to include a link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking.--Danorton (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the process for approval, this behavior does not seem to fall within the scope of the bot's approval. Please stop all behavior that has not been documented and approved. --Danorton (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean. Can you tell me what you think is the problem? Lightmouse (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, please identify where the bot has been approved to change "[[20th century]]" to "20th century". The bot is doing this, but I don't see where this specific behavior has been approved for this specific bot. --Danorton (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot request said Unlinking date fragments .... It gave some examples. Lightmouse (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Danorton, please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking—the second bullet should answer your query. Tony (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the second bullet item of that link does indeed refer to removing links like 20th century. I cannot find where date framents includes 20th century. I also share Danorton's request that such behaviour be documented on the bot's user page. I just read the two approval requests and I could not see where it states that approval is given for changes resulting from Manual of Style guidelines. In fact I would be quite concerned if such approval exists. -84user (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being dumb, but could you explain your previous point—that you'd be concerned if approval for changes in accordance with MoS exists? Tony (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that most people wouldn't have a problem with Lightbot were it better documented. The documentation that is there (actually referenced instead of being directly on the user page) is written for very experienced Wikipedians involved in the bot approval process. This bot is going to be making changes everywhere and it's typically going to be making corrections to novice edits. The documentation needs to be on the bot user page, it needs to be clear and complete (no regexs allowed) and for each type of change it makes, it needs to have a reference to the policy or guideline that it addresses. I suspect that new Wikipedians won't mind if they have an understanding of the purpose behind the edits, but as it is, this bot is going to stir up a lot of trouble without better documentation. With proper documentation it will help educate and inform new Wikipedians and help reduce the number of novice mistakes entered in the first place. There will be more annoyance than benefit unless you suspend the bot and don't restart it until it its behavior is thoroughly documented, especially targeting novice Wikipedians. --Danorton (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - Please suspend this bot! (sdsds - talk) 10:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

sdsds, please can you be explicit about what you do not like and give example edits? Lightmouse (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And may I add that such a call should be accompanied by explicit issues, which Lightmouse has a record of treating seriously. Bots are an important way of improving the project, and your substantive feedback, rather than "Please suspend", would be helpful to that goal. Tony (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse people keep telling you what they don't like when your bot edits articles. You listen; you respond; then a few weeks/months we find that you have been carrying on doing it just as if nobody had complained. All the things the bot does can be defended (just like everything else in life). Your bot does some useful things. It also annoys with pointless edits. Here are some examples:

  • Converting 'knot' into 'kn'
  • Converting XXXs [[XXX|XXXs]] into XXXs [[XXX]]s
  • Delinking dates (it used to be standard for dates to be linked, now you enforce your standard that they should not)

Support a block. I wish a block could be put on your bot for the time being.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WIth respect, I do believe that this request is impulsive and does not take the facts into account. Toddy, can you provide further reasoning for why your "wish" should be supported? The removal of date links is well established and endorsed in three of WP's premier style guides, and indeed this must be followed in featured content. This is not at all "[Lightmouse's] standard", as you assert above; it is widely supported as improving the formatting of WP's article texts, including readability and visual appearance. Date links are now regarded as trivial and damaging to our high-value links through dilution in the "sea of blue". The place to raise this is WT:MOSNUM, where there are experts in such matters who will be pleased to answer your queries. On your first issue, the knot vs kn, I'd be pleased for your input, but I seem to think that Lightmouse is following accepted practice. If not, let's talk it through here. On the second issue, can you point to where this change is deprecated, and to how you believe it damages the text. Yours in good faith. Tony (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the supporting comment. With regard to 'pointless edits', I have never understood that criticism. Complaints are usually based on a belief that the article is made worse by an edit.

  • Converting 'knot' into 'kn'. This is an issue of the template code simplification and can be discussed at the template talk page. In any case, I don't believe that the bot does this now. It may have done in the past. Can you give an example?
  • Converting XXXs into XXXs. Are you really saying that the bot should be blocked for that?
  • Delinking dates. Delinking non-full dates is not controversial. It is what the bot is approved to do.

Lightbot switchable per Project?

Can we enable or disable the bot User:Lightbot on a per Wikiproject basis? I can see some Wikiprojects would choose to request Lightbot "service" if you will, while other projects may prefer to handle those tasks manually. Apologies if this has been already discussed. -84user (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that the operation of a bot which clearly corrects breaches of WP's chief styleguide, the MoS, should be at the whim of WikiProjects, particularly in relation to FAs and FLs within the ambit of those WikiProjects. At the very least, I'd be requiring a cast-iron assurance by any WikiProject asking to opt out of the Lightbot service that such breaches would be fixed manually throughout the topic area with a similar promptness that the bot can achieve.
Anything less would compromise the quality of the text for our readers. A far better option would be an agreement by such a WikiProject to liaise actively with Lightmouse to provide feedback on its operation in the articles within its ambit. That would be highly beneficial for the project. Tony (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As Lightbot makes changes stipulated by guidelines and not always by policies, it should be switchable. Even if it only made changes suggested by policy, I feel it should still be selectable. I note the following from Wikipedia Policies and guidelines:

"...[B]e prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia."

Currently, Lightbot does not allow an editor to use human judgment and ignore the rules. This is a violation of the Ignore all rules pillar. Lightmouse, I generally like what you're doing, but you seem to be continually creating more work for yourself. You need to bend a little more, or Lightbot will end up with considerably more detractors than supporters. --Danorton (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the IAR thing is widely looked at sideways with a smile by editors who value the cohesion that guidelines bring to WP; without these guidelines, hitting a WP article at the top of a google search will be more like any other site. Many people wonder just what IAR really means, and in day-to-day practice, it holds little or no weight. In fact, I've seen it brought up as a defense on only one or two occasions, and then half-heartedly. Dan, I wonder what role you see for the guidelines if IAR can nullify any at will by rogue editors. There's already a "use commonsense in their application" rider at the top of MoS, which is just as rarely brought into play.
An editor can, in fact, ignore the corrections of MoS and other breaches that LightBot corrects, simply by reverting. Anyone can do this, and the fact that in the huge number of pages that the bot has treated, very few have been reverted, is evidence that its functions are either welcomed or accepted. Lightmouse appears to me to be very willing to engage with editors who have issues. Tony (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that the intention of IAR means simply to ignore all rules, but rather that human judgment in individual cases needs to take priority over written rules that apply across a wide range, and human judgment needs even more to take priority over automated (bot) interpretation of such rules. Lightbot entirely precludes human judgment in individual cases. "Rogue editors" can be managed better by human editors than by a bot, especially with the types of corrections that Lightbot enforces, which are, for the most part, uncontroversial.
I see a pattern of two types of challenges to Lightbot changes: 1) Changes relating to style guidelines (generally not even policies) which the human editor is unaware of and 2) Changes relating to subtle human interpretation which Lightbot is not likely to become aware of. The volume of former challenges can be reduced by better documentation of Lightbot's behavior that includes references to specific related sections in the Manual of Style (turning the edit into an opportunity to educate and inform). The volume of latter challenges can be reduced by allowing Lightbot to be controlled on a per-article basis. (As I feel that Lightbot is more useful than bothersome, it should by default be turned "on" unless instructed otherwise.) Better documentation and per-article control will allow Lightmouse and affected editors to focus their energies towards more productive tasks. --Danorton (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done...

But it's a lil unhelpful...gimme a list of what it does.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'units' tab adds metric units. For example, go to Virginia Port Authority and press 'edit this page', then press the 'units' tab. You will see that where it has square feet, it will add a conversion to square metres. The 'part dates' tab removes links from solitary years, try it in Bob Humphrys. After you have pressed the tab, it will leave you in edit mode so that accept or reject what it does, or do more tinkering. It is up to you whether you use it or not. Lightmouse (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe when I'm more experienced.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Volume

Since linking of units is a generic matter, I have taken the liberty of moving the discussion to MOSNUM. See you there. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking of units is not the issue: Lightbot's forceful editing is the issue. This discussion belongs here, not there. Please move it back or at least restore the original text so that this bot-specific discussion can continue here. --Danorton (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar, a quickie

When we say the Battle of Hastings took place 14 October 1066, we are using the Julian calendar then in effect, which differed from the present calendar, the Gregorian, by having leap years in every year ending in 00, not just some of them. The Julian calendar is, over time, perceptibly different from the actual tropical year: its year averages 365.25 days, not 365.242199; Pope Gregory (I forget which number) had a replacement devised in 1582 to (mostly) fix this.

If we project the Gregorian calendar backward in time, the difference from the Julian would change century by century. It is now 13 days; when Gregory first made it, the difference was 10 days; in 1066, it would be six days, so Hastings took place on October 20, 1066 (Gregorian). They agree for the third century; going back further, they diverge again the other way.

All of the customary dating formats are equally applicable to Julian or Gregorian dates; I did not know that ISO declared it was only Gregorian, but if ISO is concerned chiefly with dates after the standard is enacted, that makes sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The 26th of August

I see you've been working on this. Might want to grab another function from my script. Some lines have a few false positive though. Gimmetrow 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The 'st|nd|rd|th' bit was next on my list to add. Lightmouse (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I realize your script handles some of that elsewhere, but do you have anything that handles dates like the 26th of August? Gimmetrow 21:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never attempted to handle '26th of August' it never occured to me till I saw your code. I have commented bits of your code out because this code is used a lot by other people. Thus it has to be much more conservative than I would like for myself. I have done a lot of the '20th Century' decapitalisation to '20th century' and watching for false positives by eye e.g. '20th Century Fox. I modified the code and it now will only decapitalise 'Century' if the next word starts with a lower case. That has dropped the false positives right down to a very low level:

txt.value=txt.value.replace(/(\d(?:st|nd|rd|th)(?:\s|-))Century((?:\s|-)[^A-Z])/g, '$1century$2');

In any case, the incidence of unnecessary 'Century' capitalisation has gone right down too. Perhaps as a result of code like this. So it is hardly worthwhile anymore. There are quite a few things like that in my tabs that I need to migrate to the toolbox buttons.

I can be more brave with the code that I use with my AWB account, see User:Lightmouse/Lightbot/javascript conversion. Although I struggle to keep improvements and bug fixes in synch between monobook, Lightmouse AWB script and Lightbot AWB script. Lightmouse (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"deg" → "°"

One little quirk on the units script: I ran it on Bodega, California, which features a link to bodegacalifornia.com. After I ran the script, "http://bo°california.com/" was how the URL read. It seems that "deg" automatically becomes a degree symbol, even when the letters are surrounded by other letters. Michael Patrick (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Welcome feedback. I have updated the script and it won't do it now. Feel free to run it on that article again and see for yourself. Thank you very much for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

script problems

I think I might have to go back to your version before it all went awry, and copy it across to my monobook until it's fixed. It was going so well ... :-) Tony (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Don't do that. If it is really bad, I will revert it a few versions myself. Lightmouse (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Try now. The new code from Gimmetrow that allows us to switch between mdy and dmy is a major feature. We need that. Unfortunately it works in a different way and I don't understand it all. That is why we both have to be a little tolerant of downtime. It is frustrating for you but think how frustrating it might be for me too when I try to learn new code, merge old and new code, and add features without breaking the old ones. I have gone back a few versions and we will build it up again. Let me know if the mdy<->dmy switching works for you now. Lightmouse (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's still the same. Yes, it was a major improvement, since so many articles have mixed formatting and it allows the script to audit at a much deeper level. But this feature did work for a few days; it all worked beautifully. I don't understand what has happened, and why it's not possible to locate the version that did work, and for me to load it by pasting it in temporarily. Briefly:
  • "Delink all dates" is dead.
  • Neither "Delink all dates to dmy" or "... mdy" forces the other format to change, and seems to have developed all of these glitches—critically, the one where unlinked month is mangled with the previous word.

Off to bed. Tony (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

infobox templates

Indeed, the birth–death one is particularly prevalent, like leprosy in biblical times. There are another few I've noticed. Do you want me to list them here as I come across them? Tony (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We can have a list in the wishlist. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Date script

Have you removed the date-removing script from your monobook? Suddenly, the tabs do not appear in the edit mode for me. It is as your script is not transcluded in my monobook anymore. And it was working so well! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The script is still there. Instead of tabs, see the commands on the left side of the screen in the 'toolbox' for example 'Reformat dates to dmy'. Lightmouse (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 12:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

From time to time the script will stop working or behave strangely. If that happens, look at my contributions or the history of the script itself to see if I have made a recent change. If you want any changes or bugfixes, just tell me at User:Lightmouse/wishlist. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; it appears to be working well, although I need to run it on more articles to see whether the "and" problem has gone. Earlier today, I reverted my monobook to one of your versions from 25 August, which worked OK, except that it was scrubbing "year in" pipes. Now I've gone back to the transcluded version, and yes, the q tab is there. Great. Tony (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good I am glad. I am now working on your demonyms. So please be patient if it stops again. It will get more stable when these features are well tested and debugged. Lightmouse (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Googling dates with inconsistent date formats: thanks. Once you get away from FAs, there's a much higher incidence of inconsistent formats—more than 50% I'd say. I only bother to point it out when it's a real mess. Even some of our most visited articles are in this category. Tony (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I thought inconsistent formats would be rare too but now that I am doing the work, I can see many of them. The discusson on dts and dts2 seems to have fizzled out. Lightmouse (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Holy smokes the warning in the tab is huge now. Any chance to make it smaller, or when will it disappear? Or even better, just let me set a variable in my monobook to disable it for myself. Gary King (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

4AD

Thank you for your script, it's brilliant. Quick question/feature request, though, would it be possible to ignore the article 4AD? It comes up quite often on band pages and such and is a bit annoying to fix, especially in discographies that list which label each album was released on. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no dates in that article, Closed—only years. Tony (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Blah! sorry, I worded that badly, I meant in an article, don't change [[4AD]] to 4 AD. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the feedback. I fixed the '4AD' and '2000AD' issue once already but that was with an AWB script. I have fixed it with this script now. Let me know if it causes a problem. Feel free to use User:Lightmouse/wishlist. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Closedmouth (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2008/August&oldid=1142543899"