User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2008/December

RE:Apparently bad use of hyphen at Template talk:Convert

I think your script turned on the sing=on parameter, which produced the hyphen. Perhaps it needs tweaking (the script)? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have responded at Template_talk:Convert#Apparently_bad_use_of_hyphen. That page is on my watchlist. Lightmouse (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

all dates to dmy script

The script converts December 08 2005 into 08 December 2005. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Clear your cache and try again. Feel free to make such reports at User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Future of bot delinking

If you can spare the time your input would be welcome here.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• In fact, with apologies I'm dumping the whole discussion on you (see below), as it was way off topic for MOSNUM. I hope you don't mind hosting it on your talk page, or else moving it to somewhere more appropriate. Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting

Link you posted at ANI. Did you have a hand in drafting it? Tiamut^talk 14:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't help draft it. I have been a victim of Wild West admins that 'block first and ask questions later' and I am supportive of ensuring that the powerful are supervised. Lightmouse (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only admin who's looked on with some bewilderment at the way you've been treated in general for trying to improve the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to here that. I have the same feeling about my experience here. Check my block log (4 3RR blocks from over a year ago). Three of those were due to reports filed by one now vanished editor who was edit-warring with me at the time and faced no sanctions himself. The last one was due to a 3RR report that I filed against an editor that has since been banned for being a sockpuppet. I was blocked for reverting his edits twice. Anyway, it's a very interesting proposal. I'd like to help however I can. Tiamut^talk 11:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to drop Tony a supporting comment on the adminwatch page. Lightmouse (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I need to write examples of obvious and not-so-obvious cases to standardise decision-making; perhaps these might provide ideas. Tony (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Edmonton municipal election, 1963

This is the sixth time that you've made that edit, and this is the fourth time I've come to your talk page asking you to stop making it. I am at a loss as to how to proceed. Suggestions? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't these edits constitute edit warring? Tennis expert (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, how could something so trivial in such a trivial article constitute edit warring. Lightmouse puts so much effort and skill into improving articles that it would be obscenely out of balance to call this "edit warring". I'm thinking of listing the article for deletion. How is it notable? Tony (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In case nobody has noticed, the whole category of 97 articles is owned by User:Sarcasticidealist. That kind of explains why he is being so very defensive. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Break out the torches and pitchforks! Hilarious. Just because an editor contributes heavily to a specific category of article doesn't mean they're trying to own them. Maybe try some WP:AGF? Not everyone is a date-link supporting fiend and your lack of civility is troubling. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does the edit warring policy exempt so-called "trivial" edits from its prohibition? What makes this edit warring even worse is that Lightmouse is using AWB to edit war, often making several edits per minute. He should refresh himself about the AWB rules of use. Tennis expert (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that the figures being converted are part of a direct quote, which is extremely difficult to justify. Lightmouse, I would most strongly suggest that you find a way to detect <blockquote>, {{cquote}} and similar quoting systems, and make absolutely no changes to anything inside them. In this situation, Sarcasticidealist does appear to simply be preserving the integrity of the article, not edit warring. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; I think Lightmouse realises this. For the huge improvement that he makes in the project, these occasional false-positives a small price to pay. Locke Cole, you might consider trying a friendly, non-belligerent approach. You might be surprised at the pay-off, even with people who have a different take on dates and linking. Tony (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"[F]riendly, non-belligerent approach"? Ironic advice, indeed, from someone threatening a POINTY AFD, wouldn't you think? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly true, but if such detection is possible, then that is yet another group which loses their vocal opposition to his activities. If it is possible to reduce false positives (and in this case, it shouldn't be hard), then by all means, do so. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Huntster, you don't happen to know the magic string that would enable such avoidance by a script, do you? Tony (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but I don't program bots. It should be as simple as an If-then-else type thing...If <blockquote> exists, then stop, etc etc. There are plenty of bot operators around that can answer such questions. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

• I have no strong views on date delinking, and don't really follow the debate. Accordingly, I have no views on Lightmouse's activities on that front, and view this as a totally separate issue.
• Bots are going to generate false positives. I get that, and have said as much in my previous messages to Lightmouse. I'm not asking for false positives to get eliminated; I'm just asking them to be limited to one per article. Once Lightmouse makes a mistake on one article, he should take some sort of measure to make sure that that mistake isn't repeated. I don't think that's unreasonable.
• With regards to the charges of OWNership, I don't think they're fair. I wrote those articles early in my Wikipedia career, before I knew much about the relevant style conventions. A lot of them have had edits made since that improve the articles, and I've had no complaints. I complain only when an editor repeats the same patently inappropriate edits six times on the same article.
• I don't think this is edit-warring; Lightmouse has acknowledged in the past that this particular edit isn't appropriate, so I'm basically reverting it with his consent. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist, I am sorry to have added a conversion in round brackets (parentheses). I agree that quotes should be treated differently from normal text and there are various methods (square brackets, footnotes, rephrasing to avoid the quoted unit, etc). The edit was done using AWB and in AWB it is technically simply to exclude a page that contains term 'blockquote'. I may have to do that but to date, I have not done so. That may seem strange but it is for the following reasons:

Firstly it will prevent valid edits being made to non-quote parts of articles. Secondly, there are many types of false positive. For the 'principle editor' of an article, it is a big annoyance. In this case, it has happened six times and that is even worse. Each false positive has a slightly different rate of incidence, a slightly different effect on the reader, and a slightly different volume of the complaint. Each mechanism to avoid a type of false positive comes at a different cost and a different success rate. A janitorial editor that wishes to avoid false positives can accumulate, like coral, so many different mechanisms that the efficiency/effort ratio reduces drastically. So the human inclination is to focus on false positive avoidance mechanisms that are most statistically worthwhile. That is not an excuse for regarding any false positive as acceptable, but it is an explanation of the reality that faces any editor that does half a million edits.

Both the AWB code and the monobook script will not add a conversion where there is already a conversion in square brackets. That is a very common practice for quotes with many advantages and is what I recommend. It would solve it. Lightmouse (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Small favor

Hi - the Help Desk says that you have a tool that switches date formats, could you run it by the Amelia Earhart article and switch the dates from d/m/y to m/d/y ? (I would do it myself, but I'm too lazy to do all of them one-by-one.) Thanks. AlexiusHoratius 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Ohconfucius (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely the reason semi- and full automation has an increasing role to play at WP: we need to free up editors to do higher-level stuff. Tony (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Using AWB to make controversial edits

Why are you continuing to use AWB to make controversial edits, e.g., date delinking? Tennis expert (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you meddling in other people's business asking annoying questions about oft-discussed issues when you are not even active on Wikipedia? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Other people's business," huh? Wow, that's an unusual perspective about Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Rephrased my comment. You like? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion that a question is "annoying" does not make it so. Think about it for a while. Tennis expert (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer the stupid question with a stupid answer: it's a damned site easier than delinking articles manually one at a time. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the rules of use lately concerning WP:AWB? Tennis expert (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, based on the overwhelming preliminary results of these two RFCs, it seems a stretch to continue maintaining that date unlinking is controversial. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deprecation does not mean go out and immediately start unlinking everything. If that's what people supported then the language should have been "Do you support editors/bots/scripts going out and unlinking all dates?", not "Do you support deprecation of date links?". Deprecation means stop using but leave existing uses in place. That's all that has consensus, but somehow that's been overlooked... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

< BIG YAWN > Ohconfucius (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

An RFC ends when it ends, not before. This is a simple concept that I'm surprised so many people want to ignore. Tennis expert (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

<BIGGER YAWN> There are so many important things for you guys to do on WP; please support our drive to strengthen wikilinking through smart linking. Tony (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bogus edit summaries and abuse of automated bot

I have been informed that you are the User responsible for a script used by Admins, so I repost this request here:

Please desist from using an automated bot to remove links to England, Scotland and Wales. The edit summary you employ cites "wp:overlink", however this is utterly bogus, as WP:OVERLINK states very clearly: "It is not necessary to link to very large geographic features that are known worldwide, such as continents and very large countries." England, Scotland and Wales all clearly fail that criterion. Thank you in advance. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's not referring to geographic area! --Closedmouth (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify: what is "not referring to geographic area"?--Mais oui! (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole guideline is about which words need and don't need to be linked. If something is universally known to speakers of a certain language, (and we can assume that people who speak English know about England, and that if they don't, they'll probably be searching for it rather than stumbling across a link and thinking to themselves, "I wonder what 'England' means"), the word doesn't need to be linked. The logic there is, if something is well know, it probably doesn't need to be linked, but how do you define "well known"? You can see where I'm going with this. Do you advocate the delinking of the word "Russia"? --Closedmouth (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not! "Russia" suffers from the same problem as "England" - superficially very familiar, but in reality a term which many English-speakers grossly misunderstand.--Mais oui! (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should make it clear I don't advocate the mass-delinking of terms like "England" (like I do with dates), but I do think the central concept of the guideline is very sound. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good. We are agreed then: 1. the guideline is good; and 2. let's not mass de-link countries that fail the wp:overlink criterion. So, why then are admins using this script to do just that: mass-delinking terms like "England"?--Mais oui! (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ack, that's a bad edit, and I don't think the script should be used for that specific purpose. I use it for cleaning up dates, and only cleaning up dates. So I can't answer your question, but I am now a little concerned :-/ --Closedmouth (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that edit is very, very far from an isolated incident. During the past year or so England especially, but also Scotland, has been mass-delinked on an alarming scale (often using this Lightmouse script), eg. I recently had to relink it in the lead sentence of the English language article. And how about this edit? Fair enough, the English psyche link was perhaps not essential, but de-linking the countries and glibbly claiming that a ref probably exists, somewhere, are totally unacceptable in my opinion. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

mercy: what are the chances that readers of the English-language Wikipedia are unfamiliar with what England, Scotland and/or Wales might refer to? Sssoul (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The "chances" are vast, considering that awareness of the differences between England/GB/UK is very poor in England-itself, let alone the wider planet. Scotland may be quite well-known among native English-speakers, but it certainly fails the "very large countries" criterion. And Wales?? You have to be kidding. Very very few normal (ie. non-Wikipedia/academic types) people outside the UK have ever even heard of Wales (English speakers or otherwise), let alone know anything about it. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Who among English-speakers do not know what "England" is? It would also be hard to find someone who had never heard of Scotland or Wales. The notion of smart linking is based on the idea that our brilliant wikilinking provides the opportunity to funnel readers towards high-value links. Part of our service, as writers and editors, is to funnel them the right way and to avoid the dilution of those links. Every additional link comes at a slight cost, and this adds up. Tony (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Admiral Horatio Nelson for one, and (arguably) Winston Churchill too: "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word that means more to me than any other word. That word is England." Other examples, especially from non-Yookaynians, are legion.--Mais oui! (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Just voicing my opinion that I belive Mais oui! is wrong here, and that the script is a good thing; delinking common words. I suspect this objection is more to do with up-playing England and Scotland over the United Kingdom. I see no reason why we need these terms linked a billion times over - in some cases in a single article alone! --Jza84 |  Talk  14:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the number of times I've encountered articles with "United States" or "Australia" linked up to seven times is dizzying. Tony (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about de-linking the US or Australia. My objection is to users like Jza84 using bogus Edit summaries citing wp:overlink to de-link Eng, Irl, Scot and Wales, when wp:overlink supports no such action. Please reply to what I actually wrote. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again with Tony and his own agenda regarding linking in WP just as he did with the dates. I will say again what I said before, WP is NOT a paper encyclopedia and there is nothing wrong with linking to other articles regardless of the value. Just because you don't want to click on the England link to learn more about it doesn't mean other readers won't. Just because I have heard of England or Scotland doesn't mean I know enough to relate it to the article I am reading. If we continue to delink everyting in WP then its just another encyclopedia liek all the ones at the bookstores only bigger.--Kumioko (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My main objection is not the mass de-linking per se (although I do not support the mass de-linking campaign), it is the utterly bogus reference to WP:OVERLINK in the Edit summary. Nothing in WP:OVERLINK supports the de-linking of Scotland, Wales or Ireland, and it is very, very debateable whether WP:OVERLINK supports the de-linking of England either. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Have I been misled?

The reason that I commented here in the first place was that User:Jza84 left the following on my Talk page (the highlighted bold is added by myself):

I'm not using a bot. I'm using an admin and consensus-approved script, one of the most widely such used ones. I will continue to use it.
If you have issue with it I suggest you take it up with User:Lightmouse, its main developer. I am by no means the only user; this is part of a toolbox used by hundreds of users.
I have no way of changing its content, whilst the edit summary is automated.

Upon reviewing the replies given above, I am coming to the conclusion that I have been misled/lied to. Is it possible for individual users of the script to change its content? The reply by User:Closedmouth that a certain edit was "bad" implies that this was a parameter set by that individual user, not by User:Lightmouse. And is the edit summary "automated", or can users edit the edit summary, eg. to cite wp:overlink? --Mais oui! (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Individual users cannot change the script. The script is merely a tool that editors can choose to use. If you don't like a particular edit, you need to discuss that with the editor that made the edit rather than discussing it here. Lightmouse (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So, it is you that has been responsible for the mass de-linking of Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England!! I request that you change the script immediately to remove Eng, Scot, Irl and Wales, because WP:OVERLINK states very clearly: "It is not necessary to link to very large geographic features that are known worldwide, such as continents and very large countries." Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England all fail that criterion (for slightly different reasons). Yet another "bad edit" (Closedmouth's description, not mine.)--Mais oui! (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I am not responsible for edits done by other editors. If you don't like an edit done by somebody, that is between you and them. Lightmouse (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I really am confused. User:Jza84 refers me to User:Lightmouse, but User:Lightmouse refers me to User:Jza84. Do you see the problem here?

Will somebody please take responsibility. Is that too much to ask?

Are you telling me that it is User:Jza84 who added the parameters England; Scotland; Wales to the tool? Cos he said that it was not him but rather a big boy who done it and then ran away.--Mais oui! (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is very simple. If 'Jza84' made an edit that you don't like, revert it and/or debate it with 'Jza84'. If you and he cannot agree on the principles of linking, then try the styleguide talk pages. I don't want to get involved in your dispute. Lightmouse (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. So, I was misled. IMHO User:Jza84 should have authority to use this script withdrawn until he agrees not to abuse the privilege. I am not holding my breath. I have been around long enough to know how things work around here, and I ain't on the right e-mail lists. Ha det bra. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin advice required

Right, User:Jza84 refuses to discuss his use of the Lightmouse script at either his or my Talk. He refers me here, but you refer me back to him. He reverts my edits without the courtesy of an Edit summary (eg), and he continues to parade around de-linking countries not covered by wp:overlink, using the Lightmouse script (eg). Now he just threatens to block me to shut me up. When, exactly, will Admins begin to take some responsibility for one of their own? --Mais oui! (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse has written some brilliant scripts, some of which I use -although I do not use the one which you are referring to, which is 'delink common terms'. I agree with LM: each editor takes a tool and uses it much like the US' right to bear arms. Don't blame the constitution if someone uses a weapon inappropriately. LM just makes the tools available. Editors are responsible because they are the ones who press the 'save' button. Additionally, the script was released subject to GFDL conditions, and LM cannot withdraw anyone's right to use it because he put it in the public domain. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought we'd disposed of this notion above that "England" is not some little-known corner of the English-speaking world that needs to be linked. It is covered in WP:CONTEXT. Please realise that linking trivial items (in these terms) dilutes our wikilinking system; rather, we want to cleverly present the best links for readers, undiluted. As for the admin thing, I believe it would be most unfortunate (a breach of the conflict of interest policy) if such threats are being made, but I haven't looked into the details, so I can't form a judgement. Tony (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

Plese stop removing the Baseball year template per WP:CONTEXT#Dates--Yankees10 15:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I will stop delinking the baseball template (when it is not part of broken autoformatting). Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, sorry for reverting the whole thing--Yankees10 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind you reverting. Many people think Wikipedia is generally overlinked and so needs a broad brush approach to delinking. The consequences of the broad brush can then be examined in detail as you have done. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See List of Canadian poets

I've been adding information to the List of Canadian poets article. Part of what I'm adding is links to years in poetry. This kind of linking can be useful, for instance, for someone trying to figure out the name of a particular poet when they know something else about that poet. The links are also useful for learning more about similar poets from the same period. Your bot has just removed all the links. Can you please prevent it from doing that? It's going to be one hell of a lot of work for me to restore that, since I can't just revert, having made edits since the bot struck. Could you prevent the bot from removing year-in-poetry links to any List-of-poets page? I see nothing at all in policy or guidelines that unequivocally supports removing these links, but if there is something, please point it out to me and I'll fight it out on whatever forum I need to, although we shouldn't need to fight this one out at all, since it seems pretty clear the links, in these circumstances, are useful. -- Reconsideration (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was able to revert it. I've made these changes in a number of "List of [nationality] poets" articles, and I'd like them to stick. Do you disagree with that? -- Reconsideration (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am ok with your reverts. Wikipedia is generally overlinked and so needs a broad brush approach to delinking. Individual articles that get swept by the broad brush can then be examined in detail as you have done. Keep up the good work. Incidentally, have you considered the many comments that people have made at wt:mosnum about 'concealed links'? For example, those links look just like all other solitary year links and it might be worth making the reader aware that they are special. Lightmouse (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your "broad brush", frenetic approach to delinking is harming the encyclopedia. Tennis expert (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, those links look just like all other solitary year links and it might be worth making the reader aware that they are special. I agree. That's why the first line at List of Canadian poets states: This is a list of Canadian poets. Years link to corresponding "[year] in poetry" articles. I've also added similar statements to the "Births" and "Deaths" sections for about 200 of the "[year] in poetry" articles, where I'm linking those from year to year. Any year-in-foo-ness piped/hidden link in a list can be easily identified as a link to something other than the generic year article by a simple, short statement at the top of the list. WP style supports explanations for a list, particularly when there is something not obvious. I can revert when I catch something, but can you refrain in the future from making these removals from "List of ____ poets" articles? I'll take a look at that discussion. Thanks. -- Reconsideration (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the bit at the top. I just saw the usual blue link for a 4 digit year. I will hold off for now (when it is not part of broken autoformatting) but please let me know what you think after reading the various discussions, many people have different ideas about how to re-sensitise people to date links after a long history of trained desensitisation. I am sure if you contributed to the debate, people would welcome your thoughts and respond. Lightmouse (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been looking over that wt:mosnum page and looking at two different RfC pages but I'm not sure yet where to add my comments. Is there a specific section you were thinking of or should I just add a new section somewhere, and where? Thanks. -- Reconsideration (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I found the spot: The "Year in field" discussions at the bottom of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. When you're trying to find something, it always turns out to be in the last place you look. -- Reconsideration (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats it. Lightmouse (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a proposal here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Year-in-Field links in tables and lists are just fine but should be identified Thanks again for the suggestion. Reconsideration (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So I see. It will be interesting to see what happens. Lightmouse (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Child of the Prophecy

I don't understand your recent edit to this article. The year was correctly not linked to 2001 as specified in WP:MOS but linked to an article about the literature published in 2001, 2001 in literature. I know that there is a discussion underway regarding the linking of dates but there has not been a consensus and there has been no change to WP:MOS so I don't see a valid reason to remove this link. So, I would like to revert your recent edit.--Captain-tucker (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The link looked like a solitary year and is likely to be treated like one i.e. ignored. Have you considered making the reader aware that it is different? In any case, I don't mind you putting it back. Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly common, if not an unwritten standard within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels community to link the year of publication to that year in literature for novel articles. I will revert it back. Thanks! --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Biography - Ray Joseph Cormier

I noticed you made a minor edit to my biography yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier

There are a few Editors who have it on their watch list and within minutes of any change, scan what changes have been made. Since it is my biography, I have recused myself from making any edits except for adding references, and no one else has come forward to improve it.

One of those watchers has placed a tag on the article moments after your visit, which I interpret as an intention to delete if no other editors have a contrary POV.

Would you have an opinion to express here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingturtle? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fairport Convention etc etc

Why is 1967 a "broken format" that needs "repair"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

By itself, it isn't broken. However, in that article it was:

• [[27 May]] [[1967 in music|1967]]. That full date format is a broken autoformatted date. You can see the valid full date formats described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting. You are not alone, it is a popular misunderstanding. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as a follow up... so the 'bot is clipping the pipe in infoboxes (AFAIK and acceptable use) based on the day/month being a separate linke? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in those cases to de-link the day/month? - J Greb (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you say, piped links should not be in full date links. So the piped link should not have been placed there, and when it was placed there it should have been reverted as an error. You are suggesting that, in effect, I am the creater of the link. I would prefer not to do that. In any case, these concealed links are being called into question. Lightmouse (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the WikiProject for Music deprecates the use of concealed links such as this. In any case, we want readers to click on it, so it should be more explicit: this can be through smoothly integrating it into the grammar of the clause, or (better, IMO) inclusion in the "See also" section, where there's space to provide helpful drawcards to encourage readers to follow the link as a gateway to its siblings. Tony (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the music project states:

• Do not use piped links to years in music (e.g., do not write: The Beatles Please Please Me came out in 1963). Instead, sparingly use parentheses after years mentioned in the article, such as The Beatles released Please Please Me in 1963 (see 1963 in music). In discography charts or other specialized forms, it is acceptable to use non-piped links to the 'year in music' articles. Generally avoid linking non-dated chronological items, such as "1988", "1920s" and "20th century".

I think the aviation project also came to a similar conclusion. Lightmouse (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor point though... the current MoS, and what looks to be going in the RfC, is that some egged uses of "Year in field" are justified - and this seems to be limited to tables and infoboxes where there is a space issue.

Maybe I should rephrase my question: Is it proper for the 'bot to be choosing between two equally valid "correct" formattings based solely on one editors preferred reading of the MoS?

That is, while [[Month Day]], [[Year in field|Year]] is wrong, and [[Month Day]], [[Year]] is correct for the body of the article, both [[Month Day]], [[Year]] and Month Day, [[Year in field|Year]] are valid for tables and infoboxes. Quite honestly, since most of the infoboxes are looked after by various Projects, and the MoS allows for either correction, it may be better for the 'bot to not tinker with those or tables without first seeing if the Project have a preference (cases like Music, though the table caveat is there, and Aviation as you point out). Or the RfC closes and egging the "Year in field" is made unacceptable in every circumstance. - J Greb (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

None of the projects supports the deliberate breaking of autoformatting regardless of location. The original comment was about a music link in 'Fairport Convention'. Are you talking about any other projects? Lightmouse (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm looking at it as editors trying to do 2 allowable, but incompatible things in infoboxes: autoformatting and piping. At this point it looks like the 'bot is making a judgment call on which is "more correct" within an infobox. Frankly, without the removal of the egging from the MoS entirely or a Project pointing that they would prefer the egging not be don in the infoboxes they use, the 'bot shouldn't be making that choice. Either leave it, or delink it entirely with an explicit edit summary that both intentions - piping and autoformatting - cannot be used together and one or the other must be picked in re-linking. - J Greb (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that last option. Delinking it entirely as an invalid combination with a comment. I will do that. Lightmouse (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest bot run through the aviation articles has now left solitary year links which I presume will be deleted on the next run. As far as I know the aviation project members wish to use the {{avyear}} template in the infoboxes which would make it the sole remaining date link in any aviation article, I do sincerely hope that we will be able to retain that feature at least. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As you have seen, Lightbot removes {{avyear}} templates when part of an invalid combination with autoformatting. Lightbot will eventually remove solitary years and other date elements within square brackets. There is no plan for Lightbot to remove {{avyear}} templates on their own. Lightmouse (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the bot be tuned to leave the 'avyear' template behind? It was not being used 'inside' any square bracketed dates. Many have been deleted today and I will have to restore them manually. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is currently fixing an invalid combination where the {{avyear}} template is adjacent to square bracketed day&month. It was an error to add it and it should have been immediately reverted. Lightbot is merely putting the article back in the state it should have been before the template was added in the wrong place. Lightmouse (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightening discussion, Things are rarely as simple as they first seem! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hurray! Another person aware of the issue. Thanks for your feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I absolutely hate seeing the piped 'year in film' links. Good work, de-linking them. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. One positive response like that makes up for a lot of the grief that I get. Lightmouse (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I hate seeing date links , whether they are piped or just like this: 1963. Thanks for your hard work to de-link them. BTW, I heard there is a date de-linking script, do you happen to know where I can find it? RockManQ^{Review me} 18:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, two expressions of thanks in one day. This is a good day. To get the script, add:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

to the bottom of User:RockManQ/monobook.js and clear your cache using the instructions on that page. The script only works when an article is in edit mode. When you are in edit mode, look at the bottom left for blue text just below 'What links here' and 'Special pages'. You will see text saying things like 'Delink dates to mdy'. Let me know how you get on. Lightmouse (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And I like seeing the 'year in film' links so I hope you are stopped from de-linking them .Garda40 (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Works great, thanks. RockManQ^{Review me} 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, Lightmouse has provided fine leadership in reforming quite a few aspects of WP. 2008 has been a good year in that respect. I hope and expect that this will continue; WP became a little stolid for a few years there, and we need to keep the "flexibility and reform" ball rolling, so that it remains the seventh-most-visited site on the Internet. Tony (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Please direct your attention to Wikipedia:ANI#User:Lightbot. It appears we have another malfunction. JPG-GR (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Year in X" links

Hello. I've noticed that your bot is removing "Year in X" links. I may be mistaken, but here you said:

"I hereby declare now that Lightbot not fix these errors anymore. The errors will remain concealed. That is a resolution of the discussion. I will restart the bot on the assumption that you have got what you wanted."

Was that only referring to "Year in Radio" links, or all "Year in X" links?--Rockfang (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent and clear-cut example of a piped link that should be removed without any question or hesitation. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. But, disagreeing on stuff on Wikipedia is ok. :) If you'd like to remove the link, I won't revert you. My main concern was Lightmouse doing something that he said he wouldn't.--Rockfang (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The diff you listed is a delinking in narrative, which should always be delinked without debate (per consensus and MOS). What is up for debate (and I didn't understand the whole story at first) is delinking in infoboxes and tables, etc. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say "always"? If you are referring to here, it says "unless there is a reason to do so." Here it mentions the disadvantages, but unless I missed it, neither says to always delink "Year in X" links.--Rockfang (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer the original questions:

• Due to frustration at the hostility, I declared that Lightbot would not fix these errors. I was hoping that would stimulate somebody else to fix them. However, it seems that people are prepared to complain when others fix errors but are not willing to fix errors themselves. So I decided that I would start fixing them again. I have no objection to other people fixing errors in any way they want and it is good when people are grateful for defects being eliminated.
• Combining a concealed link with autoformatting is wrong because it is a broken and invalid format. It has always been wrong. It is wrong if you like concealed links and it is wrong if you don't like concealed links. It is wrong if you like autoformatting and it is wrong if you don't like autoformatting. It was wrong before the RFC and it will be wrong after the RFC. It has never been permitted in any location on any page.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Delinking

Your bot (Lightbot) is removing links to dates (example: December 22, 1995) all over articles. Is there a reason it's doing this? Or is it a malfunction? Elbutler (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a glitch, the removals of date links are to ensure compliance with WP:MOSNUM, which states:

*Linking: Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so.
*Autoformatting: Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable).

Please also refer to emerging consensus on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to those two RFCs that are still 11 days away from closing and, therefore, currently provide neither an emerging nor a real consensus concerning anything. Tennis expert (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, Tennis guy, it's now clear that your undertaking not to engage me isn't worth squat. About your retirement... Ohconfucius (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucious, don't stress it. Eleven days from now the clearly emerging consensus in both RFC will be beyond dispute of rational thinkers. In the meantime, let's avoid the constant wikilawyering that seems to have become endemic these days and get back to improving articles. Oh, and Lightmouse, sorry for the talkpage hijack, although that seems popular these days too. All the best. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in eleven days it'll be clear there's a consensus to deprecate (but not mass delink) dates only used for auto formatting. It'll also be clear that there's no consensus (or consensus in support) of autoformatting of some type (which, since auto formatting is the status quo, means we stick with finding a way to automatically format dates). Also clear from the RFC will be the situation regarding when date links should be made: clearly date links are appropriate in at least some contexts, so automatically removing them would be acting against consensus. Yes, I too can't wait for these RFCs to close and the consensus to be crystal clear for those who wish to disrupt Wikipedia for their own personal gains. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no problem waiting. User:Elbutler asked a valid question which I felt in a position to offer a response, so I did. So far, so good. What I object to is the badgering emanating from some quarters. I already know what Santa will bring, so I will surely enjoy myself this Christmas. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused what this "personal gain" thing is? This is a charitable organisation and we're all here (well, those who work in article space) to continue to improve and enhance articles. Who's gaining what, exactly? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Because apparently there are those amongst us who feel a perverse need to force their point of view on the readership of Wikipedia. Almost like some kind of game or a power trip. And it's unfortunate that the spirit of compromise and consensus is lost to these people (who are quicker to take a "nyah, nyah, we won" approach to discussion (despite it being clear that things aren't settled)). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Because apparently there are those amongst us who feel a perverse need to force their point of view on the readership of Wikipedia." Indeed, it would so appear. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• So when will you and your compatriots be stopping this attitude and engaging in reasonable discourse? Soon I should hope. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, it's hard to fathom the logic behind Cole's posts, or to locate the evidence he seems to be invoking. If he wants to continue disrupting the move towards improving WP, fine, we'll be here to forge on regardless. Sorry Cole, but the world moves on. Tony (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome to look for yourself at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. And if anyone is disrupting Wikipedia it's those who continue to delink dates when it's clear that the community supports date linking "in some situations" (far from the "never link a date" attitude which you yourself were swearing was the consensus view). The only thing deprecated is linking dates purely for auto formatting (not because they're links to potentially useful material). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer the original question:

• Combining a concealed link with autoformatting is wrong because it is a broken and invalid format. It has always been wrong. It is wrong if you like concealed links and it is wrong if you don't like concealed links. It is wrong if you like autoformatting and it is wrong if you don't like autoformatting. It was wrong before the RFC and it will be wrong after the RFC. It has never been permitted in any location on any page.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And that's why a variety of edits have suggested that the bot remove the brackets from only the month-day pair to resolve the autoformatting issue while leaving the contextual link intact. There is no consensus for removing properly placed "year in foo" links from infoboxes, tables, and other places clearly permitted by the manual of style. - Dravecky (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

See the comment above from J Greb 17:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC) where he said:

• Either leave it, or delink it entirely with an explicit edit summary that both intentions - piping and autoformatting - cannot be used together and one or the other must be picked in re-linking.

That is what I have done. Lightmouse (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion from one editor is not "consensus". There is a strong consensus that these contextual links belong in the infoboxes and for some reason you have chosen to continue removing them under the guise of fixing autoformatting even though other simple options exist. That you continue to do so after repeated promises of reform is difficult to fathom. - Dravecky (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are getting anywhere. Can we discuss the best way of handling broken formats at wt:mosnum ?

The issue here is what you are doing; therefore, it is entirely appropriate to have this discussion here. Tennis expert (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't personalise the discussion (your emphasised you). We need to keep this within the confines of professional discourse. The same goes for Cole's acccusations of corrupt behaviour above ("personal gain"). Tony (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no intent to personalize the discussion beyond that we are discussing the repeated controversial edits of a single user (and his bot) and in that sense some personal responsibility for assurances about editing behavior made by that user should be considered. - Dravecky (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Glitch

Hi again Lightmouse. Please see here for an interesting glitch report. It references this edit of mine. As always, thanks for your good work in developing and maintaining this script. Any plans to re-enable ISO delinking? Best wishes, --John (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a false positive. It looks like an unusual set of circumstances. I have an idea of why the code did it but I can't think of a good/easy way of preventing it. These reports are very useful, some I can fix immediately, some take some time and thought before a fix, and some don't get fixed. This one is clearly in one of the last two categories. Keep the reports coming and keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So, the script is malfunctioning and you're saying, "Well, we'll just have to live with it"? Tennis expert (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh

I don't understand this edit. Can you explain it to me? - Mark 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If you look at wp:overlink, you will see that it says:

• It is generally not necessary to link... plain English words, including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided).
• Examples of common measurements include... metre... yard...

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark, you may revert that edit as with any other edit. See WP:BRD. Tennis expert (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, I have no poblem with removing overlinking. I was just confused by the edit summary. :) - Mark 01:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to WP:ANI

I'm posting this to your talk page to make sure that you see this. This is also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lightbot. The "complaints" mentioned in my post were made by User:Dravecky.

I ask that this bot stop operating until these complaints are fixed. I am not blocking the bot at this time as it is not running. However irrespective of the bot's task, (ignoring that there is currently an RFC on the MOS guideline that this bot is acting on), if the bot is creating a mess it needs to stop. Lightmouse, why is the bot doing this? If it is a bug, please fix it, or disable the buggy function(s) before the bot runs again. In short please fix the buggy behavior. My comments do not apply to whether or not the bot should be running at all, merely the fact that we have a buggy bot operating —— nixeagle 20:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I ask that you respond at the ANI section, and not here or my talk page. Thanks and hopefully we get this sorted out. —— nixeagle 20:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Notification concerning WP:AN and your use of AWB

I am sure you will be interested in the discussion here. Tennis expert (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates

The discussion is not yet over and there is no deadline. To use AWB for mass date unlinking in these circumstances seems a bit WP:POINTy and verges on the m:DICKish. I would suggest you resist the temptation. I don't think I need to give you the list of things that might happen if you pursue this course of action, so let discretion be the better part of valour, eh? Guy (Help!) 21:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Delinking

Hey, Mind just stopping till this RfC concludes and we get consensus?

It'd be for the best with all the noise thats currently being made and such...

—Reedy 21:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's just two guys making all the noise. It'll go away. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's always amazing how you minimize the consensus situation to always be in your favor. The only consensus in the (still running!) RFC is that dates linked purely for auto formatting should be deprecated. Not "killed with fire!", just deprecated (which does not mean going around and automatically removing them). There's even consensus that month-day and year links should "sometimes be made": obviously such decisions cannot be made in an automated (and I would challenge even a semi-automated) fashion. A script doesn't know if a date link is relevant or irrelevant or meets the community standards for inclusion. With that in mind all mass delinking of dates should stop. Deprecation should continue when for purposes of strictly auto formatting, but other date linking should continue of course per the consensus discussion at the RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Your personal pronouncement? I'm quaking in my boots. Tony (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tony, really, how are you being helpful in this situation? Ignoring consensus is not acceptable, and things will only escalate from this point forward if you insist on pretending things went the way you imagined. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think Locke's intervention here is at all helpful. I was trying to understand Nimbus' concerns, then he comes here with his talk page spam regurgitating a tired argument (which precious few agree with) on a tangent to the issue under discussion. You may gather that Nimbus was talking about year in aviation articles, which are hardy impacted by the current delinking - his concern is caused by Locke's RfC, which put it on the agenda. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• You're confused. My response was to you, not to Nimbus (nor was it related to anything Nimbus said). This discussion came about because of a discussion at WP:AN. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Good, at least that clarified something. In that case, you really shouldn't have posted here. The last time I looked, this page's title is [User talk:Lightmouse] ;-) I have now split this part off from the original discussion Ohconfucius (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently you're not understanding the original subject of this section. I've removed your erroneously split section. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• The split was correct, so it's going back. You admitted that the response was to me, not to Nimbus (nor was it related to anything Nimbus said). The original subject was clarified after discussion with Nimbus. Take it away again, I don't care. I'm sure Lightmouse is pissed off by now at this discussion usurping his talk page. I'm outta here. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• The original discussion was began by Reedy, not Nimbus. Your initial response was to Reedy, not Nimbus. My response was to you, not to Nimbus. Your discussion with Nimbus is the one that doesn't belong, if anything... —Locke Cole • t • c 08:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucius captured the mood perfectly: it's just two guys who are making a huge amount of noise.

"things will only escalate from this point forward"

Cole, please calm down and avoid making threats. We should be working together, not getting steamed up on a personal level. I've offered wikifriendship twice already, as a show of good faith. I've never seen WPians who don't have something in common that can be a binding element for collaborative editing. Tony (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

He's right. This was suppose to be about telling Lighmouse to wait, but instead you're arguing on someone's else's talk page. Think how Lightmouse feels, getting all those alerts just for them all to be angry comments. If you're going to fight, do it on your own talk pages. Elbutler (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not just 2. I have objected to the "electronic shotgun" on 2 occasions, and my objections were removed almost instantly. I think that the general delinking of dates is a grand idea. I have seen only a very few problems with it. But I think it is too soon to be running a bot through the "world" shooting dates. My objections were minor, and I did not pursue the matter after making my (minor) points. I was disappointed in the response, as I felt that bot-driver was hiding behind a consensus that did not cover a mass-delink, but hey, life includes that too. :) ALL that being said, it is a cool bot... some of the dates it delinked without mangling were pretty impressive. All the best. sinneed (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen some extremely creative ways of linking dates on my travels. I am also impressed that most of them are stripped cleanly and without error, but I do know that LM relies on our feedback to lower the error rate. BTW, my statement above should be read with the emphasis on the whole of "...just two guys making all the noise" and not "just two guys". Happy editing! Ohconfucius (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Weekdays

Is User:Lightbot's removal of links to weekdays (which I have only just corrected) even where they aren't part of a date (and even on disambiguation pages) an intended behaviour? —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 01:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Days of the week should generally not be linked because it is just a plain English term. The same applies to months. Some editors see widespread date linking on Wikipedia and overlink date fragments as in 'monkey see, monkey do'. This means that other editors have to do mass purges of them from time to time by delinking days of the week and months in all except a few limited cases. You identified one of those limited cases where the link should have been left alone. Thanks for correcting it and bringing it to my attention. Lightmouse (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Can such instances be marked (so your bot ignores them next time round)?

Also, Shouldn't your bot notify the editor who added the wikilink (with Wikiblame) and give a better explanation of its actions with links (to the policy it is enforcing, the procedures it is following and where to suggest bot improvements) in the edit summary (or even on the talk page).

Otherwise, not only are "mistakes" by your bot less likely to get fixed, but the original editor (or another) will probably re-add the wikilink, so you aren't resolving the underlying problem (i.e.: educating your fellow users). Perhaps if you describe them as monkeys, you have a low opinion of their ability to be educated. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 13:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You raise several issues:

• Marking of links. It isn't possible to mark an individual link as 'must not be removed'. It is technically possible to mark an entire article but it is not cost-free, it would make a lot more work. In any case, you couldn't guarantee that other editors would respect any mark. There are quite a few editors that delete links to days of the week and months.
• Notifying editors. Tracing an editor that added an unnecessary link might be possible. But it would turn a trival delinking task into a larger task of tracing and discussion. It isn't something that appeals to me.
• Use of the term 'monkey'. I don't think editors are monkeys. The phrase Monkey see, monkey do is a common phrase and you will see it has its own Wikipedia article and I happen to think it is helpful. We all (myself included) don't always read manuals we often just copy a style that we see used by others. Incidentally, I am a big fan of civility and yet would accept the phrase being applied to how I have learned many things. It is actually a good method. However, feel free to consider the explanation as 'copy what you see'.

Lightmouse (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with "dates to dmy"

Hi Lightmouse. Seem to have encountered a problem with the "all dates to dmy" (which I presume also affects "delink to dmy"). On Duffy (singer)#Touring, there is a date - "11 December, 2008" - which hasn't been caught by the "all dates to dmy" which I applied on the page in this diff. Is that a bug in the script, or does it deliberately not convert already UK-style dates with a comma between the month and year? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 13:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is deliberate. There is no way to know if the comma is part of the date or a legitimate part of the sentence structure. Lightmouse (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I managed to automate the process on the above page by converting the dates to mdy format, then back to dmy (which didn't seem to have any adverse effects). ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 13:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting solution. Good luck. Lightmouse (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop the rampant use of automated process until you fix script

Please stop improperly converting to square kilometers or square meters when it should be hectares.

And most of all, you have participated in the discussions at Template talk:Convert and are fully aware that your use of "sing=on" in that template is improper. You are not using it for singular forms, but rather are using it when what you want is the adjective form. The proper parameter is "adj=on".

So go back and fix all the ones you have done improperly, too. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Gene, I understand that you may be upset (I'm one for ha, too, but LM may have reasons for retaining this). However, please engage with him in a more friendly way—you are both valuable members of the community. Tony (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the use of "sing=on" which Lightmouse knows to be wrong which bothers me the most. The situation with respect to hectares is probably also clearer now than it once was, in various discussions showing support for their use which can be dug out if necessary; let's see if Lightmouse has any convincing reasons for not using them. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And, for anyone who is wondering how I know that Lightmouse knows that what he wants is the adjective form and that what he should be using for that is "adj=on", his (and my) participation in Template talk:Convert#Apparently bad use of hyphen makes it absolutely clear. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Delinking nationalities

I am told you have developed an automated script that delinks nationalities indiscriminately. Can you show me the mandate for such mass delinking of nationalities on biographical articles? Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote a script. Which edit are you talking about? Lightmouse (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Toyota F engine

Please be aware that Toyota has engines called "F", "2F" and "3F" Toyota F engine. It has nothing to do with temperatures, so it doesn't need to be converted from Fahrenheit to Celsius. Thanks. Stepho-wrs (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. I was focussed on horsepower -> power. I must be tired and will take a break. Lightmouse (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Convert in aircraft specifications

Please do not use the convert template in aircraft specifications like you did with the IMAM Ro.57 article. This merely results in repitition of data.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. That should not have happened. Thanks for spotting and fixing it. Lightmouse (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Area conversions

Please read the surrounding text when doing those automatic square mile to hectare or square km conversions. In several cases (e.g. Bronx, Crotona Park), I've already done the conversion into the most appropriate unit and precision, so your conversion just adds redundancy. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I usually spot such things but you are quite right to highlight that article. I took another look and made some further changes. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the bot is currently going round the Scottish island infoboxes converting hectares to km2? It may be only ones that are larger than 100ha, but I don't think it s necessary and simply causing inconsistency. Cheers. Ben MacDui 21:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"It seems to me that larger areas should be expressed in square kilometres. They are easier to understand for ordinary people and are seen on maps as grid squares." You may be right, (although I doubt users familiar with the metric system will have much difficulty myself), but a little consistency would help too. The majority are currently in hectares and acres. Can I suggest a brief discussion at WP:ISLET, which I will begin now? Ben MacDui 08:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have seen your posting there and will watch it. Lightmouse (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Conversions in a quote

Thank you for your bot edits in Kew Asylum. However, I purposefully left the measurements in Vivian's block quote unconverted as it's a quote. I will revert them as per WP:UNITS Shelbypark (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. You are quite right. You may know, or may wish to know, that some editors like to provide square bracket conversions inside quotes. Lightmouse (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Measuring soldiers

This edit changed 800 foot soldiers to 240 metre soldiers. Not a major problem, of course; but could you perhaps re-code your AWB so it doesn't convert soldiers? Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen that before and usually spot it but this time I didn't. Very silly of me. I will watch more closely. Thanks for spotting and correcting it. Lightmouse (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these fixes, Lightmouse. Perhaps one should gather the more amusing examples for a retrospective, rather like clips of bloopers from the cutting-room floor. From real-life, I'm reminded of the Council workers who responded to the metric conversion memo by changing the beautifully inscribed ivory organ-stop knobs on the Sydney Town Hall organ from, for example, 8' Flute to 2.439 m Flute. Tony (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Oh no, I see by coincidence that the bot has done it too, above! WP imitates life. It's akin to "cheaper by a country 1.6 kilometres"! Tony (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice examples. If you can help with the organ stop issue (see above), I would be grateful. Talking of councils and translations, you may be amused by: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7702913.stm Lightmouse (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was very funny. Unfortunately the BBC article goes on to urge more jobs for the 2.5% of Welsh people who are fluent in Welsh.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

British steam locomotive power class

Many British steam locomotives had a power class that ran from 0 to 9 with either a "P" suffix for passenger engines, and "F" suffix for freight. Lightbot has been erroneously interpreting these as a temperature. Changing "Power class 4F" to "Power class 4°F (-16°C)" doesn't make a lot of sense. Thanks. Iain Bell (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I spotted one or two of those myself and corrected them. Can you give me an example, or a category and I will investigate further. Lightmouse (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles I spotted and corrected were: SECR C class, SECR P class, SR Q class, SR USA Class, and S&DJR 7F 2-8-0. Good job it couldn’t change the name of the last one! Iain Bell (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. Those are useful. Lightmouse (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with naval articles

Your bot is making a mess of naval articles. I'll give a few examples from the first three I checked, USS Grunion (SS-216), USS Herring (SS-233), and USS Silversides (SS-236).

1. Removing lk=on from convert templates on first use of a unit. Not a big deal, but why?

2. Removing convert templates for no apparent reason.

3. Converting gun bore measurements. This is, or can be, wrong, because guns are often named by a bore and caliber that are not exactly what you'd find if you measured the bore. It's kind of like a nickname. It often happens when the bore is changed slightly for a new projectile but the gun retains the old name for convenience. In this particular case, the Japanese three inch naval gun is a 76.2 mm, not a 76 mm. I know it sounds like a minor rounding error but that's the actual name of the gun, not just a measurement.

4. Sometimes a "yard" is a spar that carries a sail, not a unit of measurement. Appending "(3 m)" to "mast no. 4 was also fitted with three yards" is incorrect and silly. This is the second time in two days we've had to revert this.

I'll undo the ones I know of, but I can't check them all. Rees11 (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, I am finding issues with this recent series of edits to ship articles as well (in fact, other issues than those mentioned above). Will post a more thorough explanation shortly, after I've reviewed a bigger sample. Appreciate if you would hold off on these types of edits in the meantime. Maralia (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after going through thousands of edits:

1. Changing conversion templates to plaintext: I have no issue with this in general, but you should always use nonbreaking spaces between numerals and units of measure. This edit and this one introduced MOS errors into FAs by not using nonbreaking spaces.
2. Adjectival errors: This edit improperly changed an adj=on conversion template to a plaintext non-adjectival version.This edit wrongly changed a plaintext adjectival construct (13-knot convoy) to a plaintext non-adjectival one (13 knot (24 km/h) convoy). This edit and this one improperly changed a sing=on to adj=on.
3. Randomness: This edit broke a conversion template by inexplicably changing 'knots' to 'kns'.
4. Context problems:

1. This edit adds conversion via template where plain text conversion already existed (and is now duplicated). This edit did the same thing, as did this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one.
2. This edit added a convert template inside a quotation, as did this one and this one.

All of the listed edits have errors that need correction. I only went as far back as this edit (20:44, 23 December 2008), so there are conceivably more errors. I have to say I'm particularly baffled at the changes from conversion templates to plaintext without nonbreaking spaces; why ignore half the functionality of the template? Maralia (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys. I will try my best to respond to them.
1. There is massive overlinking of common units of measurement on Wikipedia. If you look at wp:overlink you will see that it says that these should generally not be linked:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided).
  

2. The removal of the convert template was due to a previous conversation with another editor. It is not something I wanted to do. I will investigate whether this is still necessary. My preference is to eliminate this function i.e. stop removal of the template.
3. Converting gun bore measurements. I have come across this issue before but I think the universal default conversion is '1 inch=25.4 mm' and then amendments are made where required (such as the Japanese gun you mention). I would be happy to see a discussion.
4. A mast can indeed be called a yard. Thanks for spotting that and correcting it. I had not thought of that false positive but I will investigate further. Thanks.
5. I have to admit that I don't give much thought to nbsp. I know that it seems important to some others. In some cases, I think nbsp is excessive or unnecessary. The examples of 'USS Siboney' and 'USS Bridgeport' are two excellent cases where the presence of nbsp in the conversion makes no difference. However, as I said in response (2), the removal of the template is under review.
6. As far as I can see, the only difference is a little short line (a hyphen or a dash). There are many editors that use a little short line in such cases and there are many that don't. There is no ambiguity in either case. For better or worse, the Wikipedia style is to add these little lines and I should be able to code for that by looking for 'adj'. However, as I said in response (2), the removal of the template is under review.
7. Replacement of 'sing=on' for 'adj=on'. I have been told that these two parameters are identical (present the unit in singular form plus a little short line). Personally, I would like a 'sing=on' parameter that does what it says (presents the reader with a unit that looks like the singular form without a little short line) but I have lost that argument. In the meantime, the general view is that 'adj' better than 'sing' and some people have suggested a bot should replace all instances of 'sing' with 'adj'. I hope that helps.
8. Randomness. The change of knots to kns is wrong. I will find out what happened and fix it. Thanks.
9. Duplication of conversion. Yes, duplication is a class of false positive that is difficult to eliminate entirely. But the examples you quote are helpul for possible tracing of false positives already made and improvement of future coding. Thanks.
10. Conversions inside quotes. This is another class of false positives that is difficult to eliminate. If most articles are converted, this will become less of an issue because the reduced workload for conversion will be achievable by manual methods. Some quotes contains a conversion in square brackets, and in those cases the false positive doesn't occur.
All useful feedback for tracing some of those issues and improving future coding. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I feel confident that I am "another editor" on which you are pinning your actions on in item 2, I will explain to you once again with the sincere hope that you will read, re-read (if necessary), and understand this time, Lightmouse.

1. I have never objected to the use of Template:Convert for displaying conversions of knots, mph, and km/h. Please reread that with the emphasis on the word never, as in never objected, period. Going further, I have asked you on more than one occasion in the past to specifically not perform this action since it allows subtle errors and/or undetected vandalism to creep into articles.
   • To be more succinct:
     • {{convert|15|knot}} →
     • Replacing {{convert|15|knot}} with the text "15 knots (28 km/h, 17 mph)" →
2. What I, and others, have had issue with you in the past is within uses of Template:Convert, your removal/replacement of the parameters "knot" and substituting the less-standard, less-intuitive, and more-obscure abbreviation of "kn". Because Template:Convert/knot redirects to Template:Convert/kn, use of the parameter "knot" presents no difference in appearance, load time, or accuracy in the article for the readers (those for whom we write this encyclopedia).
   • Examples:
     • {{convert|15|knot}} produces 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)
     • {{convert|15|kn}} produces 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)
   • Note that there is no difference in the output generated by either of these. But, the former example is explicitly clear to editors what unit is being converted by avoiding the non-standard abbreviation of "kn" (see this discussion).

I hope that you will carefully read and understand my comments. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A "yard" is not a mast, it is a spar. If you are going to edit the text, you need to know the difference.

For gun bores, the problem is knowing when the amendments are necessary. The Japanese naval gun is a good example. It's often called a "three inch" because it was copied from a British design by that name. When the Japanese metrified they renamed the gun to "Type 41 8cm." The only way to know that is to do some research, something a bot can't do. The only thing a bot can do in this case is leave the text alone. It would not be acceptable to add a conversion and hope a human editor later notices the mistake.

Are you planning to go back and review all the edits? I can't, there are too many. Is there any way you can modify the bot so human review takes place before the changes are committed? Rees11 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your bot is changing the formatting of conversions that are already there, e.g. from
|Ship range= 4,940 nautical miles at 12 knots <br/> &nbsp; (9,200 km at 22 km/h) to
|Ship range= 4,940 nautical miles (9,150 km) at 12 knots (22 km/h).[1] The former arrangement is superior, IMHO, because it puts the combination of distance & speed on one line, for both metric and non-metric units.

Range	4,940 nautical miles at 12 knots   (9,200 km at 22 km/h)
Range	4,940 nautical miles (9,150 km) at 12 knots (22 km/h)

Compare:
—WWoods (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The former is also better because it groups range/speed together for each measurement system.

Please stop this bot until all these problems are fixed. Rees11 (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is designed to add conversions where no conversion exists. The most popular conversion format is 'xx miles (yy km)' where the conversion is adjacent *and* in parentheses. Lightbot is very efficient at avoiding that popular conversion format because it is easy to detect one space and one parenthesis character. It is not so efficient at avoiding the infinite variety of conversions where the converted value appears many characters away. In fact, unpredictable conversion formats are, by definition, impossible to avoid. You gave an example of USS Paul G. Baker (DE-642) and you will see that Lightbot added a conversion to the 'nautical mile' value even though a conversion already existed many characters away. Thus the article ended up with a duplicate conversion. I noticed that it had done so and reprogrammed Lightbot to go back and eliminate one of the duplicate conversions. It seemed to me that the adjacent conversion using the template was preferable and I simply chose to stick with that one. It was not a deliberate targetting of such formats. However, now that we are sharing opinions on conversion formats, I happen to like the format used by the template whereby each source unit is adjacent to its converted unit. Lightmouse (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot problem

How can I stop User:Lightbot from doing this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Reporting it here is the right thing. I will investigate further. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot caused Useless Edits

Made useless edits on 9885 Linux. Removed necessary stub and Metre link. Lantay77 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It correctly removed the link to metre in accordance with wp:overlink that says:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided).

It didn't remove a stub. Which stub do you think it removed? Lightmouse (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Stub tag was removed by the preceding edit. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying the Lightbot removed a tag, if so, which one? Lightmouse (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, one of the two stub tags was removed by another editor in the preceding edit. I don't understand the complaint - it's not a huge deal, because one tag was a subset of the other. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As of links

Hi. I have made a bot request to convert the remaining 'as of' links and I learned Lightbot had done this kind of things. Would you be interested to continue this work ? Especially in oder to orphan month links (some are in templates), so we can finally delete them. Then the year links, and see what to do of them at RFD. Thanks, Cenarium (Talk) 14:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to continue with this. Please give me the 'before' and 'after' raw text. Lightmouse (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Below are the most frequent cases, others are probably rare and can be revisited later or done manually.

list

[[As of March 2007]] → {{As of|2007|03}}

[[as of March 2007]] → {{As of|2007|03|lc=on}}

[[As of April 2007]] → {{As of|2007|04}}

[[as of April 2007]] → {{As of|2007|04|lc=on}}

[[As of May 2007]] → {{As of|2007|05}}

[[as of May 2007]] → {{As of|2007|05|lc=on}}

[[As of June 2007]] → {{As of|2007|06}}

[[as of June 2007]] → {{As of|2007|06|lc=on}}

[[As of July 2007]] → {{As of|2007|07}}

[[as of July 2007]] → {{As of|2007|07|lc=on}}

[[As of August 2007]] → {{As of|2007|08}}

[[as of August 2007]] → {{As of|2007|08|lc=on}}

[[As of September 2007]] → {{As of|2007|09}}

[[as of September 2007]] → {{As of|2007|09|lc=on}}

[[As of October 2007]] → {{As of|2007|10}}

[[as of October 2007]] → {{As of|2007|10|lc=on}}

[[As of November 2007]] → {{As of|2007|11}}

[[as of November 2007]] → {{As of|2007|11|lc=on}}

[[As of December 2007]] → {{As of|2007|12}}

[[as of December 2007]] → {{As of|2007|12|lc=on}}

[[As of January 2008]] → {{As of|2008|01}}

[[as of January 2008]] → {{As of|2008|01|lc=on}}

[[As of February 2008]] → {{As of|2008|02}}

[[as of February 2008]] → {{As of|2008|02|lc=on}}

[[As of March 2008]] → {{As of|2008|03}}

[[as of March 2008]] → {{As of|2008|03|lc=on}}

[[As of April 2008]] → {{As of|2008|04}}

[[as of April 2008]] → {{As of|2008|04|lc=on}}

[[As of May 2008]] → {{As of|2008|05}}

[[as of May 2008]] → {{As of|2008|05|lc=on}}

[[As of June 2008]] → {{As of|2008|06}}

[[as of June 2008]] → {{As of|2008|06|lc=on}}

[[As of July 2008]] → {{As of|2008|07}}

[[as of July 2008]] → {{As of|2008|07|lc=on}}

[[As of 1998]] → {{As of|1998}}

[[as of 1998]] → {{As of|1998|lc=on}}

[[As of 1999]] → {{As of|1999}}

[[as of 1999]] → {{As of|1999|lc=on}}

[[As of 2000]] → {{As of|2000}}

[[as of 2000]] → {{As of|2000|lc=on}}

[[As of 2001]] → {{As of|2001}}

[[as of 2001]] → {{As of|2001|lc=on}}

[[As of 2002]] → {{As of|2002}}

[[as of 2002]] → {{As of|2002|lc=on}}

[[As of 2003]] → {{As of|2003}}

[[as of 2003]] → {{As of|2003|lc=on}}

[[As of 2004]] → {{As of|2004}}

[[as of 2004]] → {{As of|2004|lc=on}}

[[As of 2005]] → {{As of|2005}}

[[as of 2005]] → {{As of|2005|lc=on}}

[[As of 2006]] → {{As of|2006}}

[[as of 2006]] → {{As of|2006|lc=on}}

[[As of 2007]] → {{As of|2007}}

[[as of 2007]] → {{As of|2007|lc=on}}

[[As of 2008]] → {{As of|2008}}

[[as of 2008]] → {{As of|2008|lc=on}}

Cenarium (Talk) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Leave it with me for a few days. Lightmouse (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lightmouse (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Missed one...

See the edit history of When It Rains.... Both you and your script that I use wouldn't get the "December 27th" in this article. I had to manually take out those brackets. Don't know what was going on here... Dismas|^(talk) 04:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The link contained a double space between 'December' and '27th'. I could add code to fix such errors but it is so rare that I would rather not handle it myself. It is a generic error that is ideal for AWB 'General fixes'. See the request for it to be added to AWB. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 13:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actinoleuca campbelli macquariensis millimetre

Why are you removing the millimetre link with this bot? GrahamBould (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The guidance at wp:overlink says not to link:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided).

I hope that helps. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that whole section is prefaced "generally not necessary to link" which is not the same as "not to link" and certainly no cause for the bot to sweep through thousands of articles blindly removing a possibly useful link from an infobox. - Dravecky (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it does say 'generally'. However, I think that Actinoleuca campbelli macquariensis is a good case where the guidance applies. If you would like other opinions, perhaps we should ask what people at wt:mosnum think. If you post there, I will see it. Lightmouse (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dravecky, please provide instances of where it is useful to link millimetre, and we'll take it from there. Tony (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot minor interwiki issue

See [2], where Lightbot changes from one incorrect ordering to another. That isn't a big issue - it was already wrong previously, and now it's manually fixed. However, it is at least suboptimal behavior. Any idea what's causing it? It could be the three letter prefix, but I can't figure how Lightbot picked that particular order as correct. Anyhow, as I said, it's a minor issue on its own, but you might want to look into it. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is not designed to change the order. That is a feature of AWB 'General fixes' which Lightbot just happens to have set to 'on'. I don't know much about it but look at the AWB faq for 'What interwiki link order does AWB use?'. If that doesn't answer your question, just post at that page and somebody should answer you. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for responding. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot keeps removing pre-infobox space.

See recent Lightbot changes to Hydraulic ram for an example. The {{Hydraulics}} template is a standard infobox template that looks poor when is only separated from the preceding text by a single newline. It is impractical to modify the infobox template to adjust its top margin, and so it seems reasonable to continue to put two spaces before such end-of-page infoboxes. However, Lightbot keeps removing these spaces. If pages with two empty spaces rendered the same as pages with a single empty spaces, then you could argue that Lightbot should remove the space. However, Lightbot is modifying how the page looks. That's obnoxious. Additionally, even if two spaces were treated the same as one by Wikipedia's markup interpreter, it may be useful for editors to add a little extra space to the source document for clarity. Do you have a comment? —TedPavlic | (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I do have comments. Firstly can you try to avoid words like 'obnoxious', they are unpleasant particularly for a first encounter with somebody that is acting in good faith. Secondly, removing empty lines is not a Lightbot primary task or part of Lightbot code, it is a feature of AWB 'General fixes' and Lightbot has that 'General fixes' set to 'on'. Therefore it is possible that any of the 2,200 users of AWB will do the same. So the best place to ask about this is at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. I usually find the people there very helpful. If you post there, I will join the discussion as required. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. See Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#AWB_policy_on_double_spaces. —TedPavlic | (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I see your polite question there and I will watch to see the response that you get. Lightmouse (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, sorry to butt in. I'm glad to read that this is an AWB feature rather than something specific with the bot. Regardless of the merits of a single linespace versus two, the concern I'd have in this particular case is that the bot is essentially edit warring with the above user. The bot made an edit yesterday that included the removal of that double space, and the user made an edit to reinsert it. The bot made a further edit today that again included the removal of that double space, which the user has now reinserted again.
I think it's been suggested previously, but it's worth putting out there again — have you ever considered adding a filter to the bot so that it doesn't go back to articles that it's previously edited, or at least doesn't go back to them again until a certain period of time has passed? That would have avoided this situation, as well as that one from a few weeks back where the combination of the bot and your user scripts had added a distance conversion on several occasions over a period of months (I think it had to do with an election in Canada), all of which had been reverted.
In the end, while it could have been any of the 2,200 users of AWB, in this case it was the bot both times. Despite the intentions, which I'm confident were good, the optics aren't great. Mlaffs (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bots, like humans, can visit the same article on multiple occasions to do different things. The first occasion it fixed a redirect. The second occasion it delinked common units of measurement. On each occasion, AWB General Fixes were made. Many humans do exactly the same. So the issue is not about bot or a human editor. The issue here is about the status of spaces as a 'General fix' and our first action is to establish the facts about that feature. We can continue to speculate here in our mutual ignorance about the coding of that or we can ask the people that know at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. I propose the latter. Lightmouse (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true — both bots and humans can visit the same article on multiple occasions to do different things. I've done that myself. There are some pertinent differences, though. A human might recognize that it had edited the article previously, further recognize that it had already made the edit that it was about to make again, and look at the history to see why it didn't stick the first time. A bot might not have that ability. A human making an edit, the primary purpose of which was to fix a redirect, might be pointed to WP:R2D and reminded that such edits are not necessary and generally discouraged. A human making only AWB general fixes might be pointed to the AWB rules of use, which caution against making insignificant or inconsequential edits, such as only removing white space or underscores from links — the other components of the first edit made in this case.
So, yes, the issue is about the status of spaces as a general fix, and I'll be sure to leave here and head to the discussion that's started regarding that issue. However, that issue gave rise to my question, about which I genuinely wondered, which seemed innocuous enough, and which I thought might even lead to productive discussion. That you completely avoided answering that question is curious, but it's your talk page, so I'll take my leave. Mlaffs (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to avoid the question, I thought that you were focussed on main issue and I try to focus on that. I had limited time to engage in multiple sidetrack issues that crop up but will not contribute to the main issue. My experience is that if I get involved in discussion about side issues that are not part of the solution, it is not always satisfying for either party. However, since you have prompted me for an answer, here goes... If I understand it correctly, you want to know if it is possible for Lightbot to avoid a second edit of an article. Yes, it is technically possible. You also wanted to know if Lightbot could avoid an article for a period of time. Yes, that is also technically possible. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot Causes False Edits

Lightbot has repeatedly created false edits on the demographics section of Eden Prairie that contain information which is counter to the census bureau's data for the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryps5 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to:

1. Give a link to the edit that you say is 'false'.

2. Give another link to the edit that you say is a repeated 'false edit'.

3. State which part of each edit is 'false'.

4. Define 'false' for each instance.

5. Sign your comment.

If you are able to give me this information, I will investigate and see what happened. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not delinking everything

Diff the bot delinked Foot (length) but not Inch (length). A note not regarding your bot but your script many people use, it will delink New York but not Idaho or something similar. Can it either remove links to all states or not remove the links? Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of the article 'Inch (length)'. I see that it is a redirect with only 3 articles that link to it. It doesn't seem worth the effort of coding. Thanks for the suggestion but I don't think I will add it.

As far as geographical links such as 'New York' is concerned, I respond to user demand and pay little attention to what gets listed. You will have to ask the users but I understand that their aim is to reduce overlinking of geographical entities that are so widely known as to be almost 'plain english'. Thus to get into the list, a geographical entity would have to be widely known, and that is quite different from being a 'US state'. But if you want to know the real answer, you will have to ask the users.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm good

You seem to be doing a bug run. What was behind this edit? I'm guessing it had something to do with links to m/meter, but many articles link to m/letter. Gimmetrow 02:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not good. I will have to do something about that. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you have against the letter "M"?

Why is your bot delinking M and m while leaving other single-letter links intact? It makes things look funny when there is a row of 26 single-letter links in a table, and 25 of them are linked, while "M" is the only letter that isn't linked... AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please give me a link to the page where I did this. Lightmouse (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO%2FIEC_8859-15&diff=260967804&oldid=255900309 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO%2FIEC_8859-3&diff=260967819&oldid=232477719 happen to be on my watchlist... AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The bot was designed to reduce overlinking to common units of measurement in accordance with wp:overlink that says generally not to link:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement...

The letter 'm' is used as a symbol for 'metre' and was used in some of the excessive links. This is now a known issue. I have stopped the bot and will work on a solution. Thanks for reporting it. Lightmouse (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Delinking Question

I am curious as to why your bot (Lightbot) is delinking "Meters", "Square Miles", and "Kilometers" (among other forms of measurement). Normally these are to be linked. I can find nothing saying these had to be delinked or where consensus was formed to delink them. Could you please get back to me? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:16

The answer is next to your post. Look above this section where I said: "The bot was designed to reduce overlinking to common units of measurement in accordance with wp:overlink that says generally not to link:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement...

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry if it is a mistake....

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_have_blocked_LightBot J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems to be running fine now. No worries. Lightmouse (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I reblocked the bot. It says at WP:MOSNUM that "the first occurrence of each unit should be linked." It looks like the bot is removing these links as well. I have no problem with delinking units and dates in general, but if the MOS says to link the first occurance and delink the rest, perhaps the bot should not be delinking ALL occurances in an article, just the ones after the first? I'm not trying to wheel-war, and I mean no offense, but I want to make sure that the bot is editing to make articles more in compliance with the MOS, not less. Please advise if I am reading MOSNUM incorrectly, or if I am misrreading what the bot is doing, and I will fix my own problem. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a conflict between statements in WP:MOSNUM and WP:OVERLINK. There is a dicussion at WP:ANI over what to do about this. Any admin can feel free to unblock if the situation has been resolved. I have to run for like an hour or so, but I will be back to check in on this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)