User talk:Lightmouse/wishlist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

7 July[edit]

Is there a reason the "all dates to dmy" AWB script would not delink [[7 July]] in John Kingston? Got me baffled. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems to be 7 July in general. diff --Closedmouth (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how that looks odd to you. Users were getting false positives relating to:

So I wrote some code specifically to protect the text string '7 July'. The same applies to the text string 'september 11'. You should find that 'July 7' and '11 september' are not protected. I might be able to another layer to allow [[7 July]] itself [[september 11]] to run through a loophole (but only when linked). The code will then become three layered (normal, protected, loophole in protection) and it is non-trivial but I will see what I can do. Anyway, I hope that clears up the mystery. Lightmouse (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting problem and solution. Wouldn't it make more sense to create all the relevant redirects in 'the other format'? That way, the linked titles would display in the 'correct' format according to the national requirements of the article in question? For example, 11 September attacks and July 7, 2005 London bombings already exist as redirects. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you really want to take people on with that? Lightmouse (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. I presume these reports were in your talk page? I must have missed them but will go back for a closer look. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I found one such discussion here, where the editor was concerned that such changes "might accidentally create redlinks". It would become moot if there are redirects for all the variants. Are there any other related complaints? Ohconfucius (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be it. The redirects for the wrong date for these date-related article titles don't exist, so it probably be a good idea to create them. I am not so keen on unprotecting them in the script, even though it would simplify the code. Can you get a supporting opinion from anyone else? Lightmouse (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If I came across these specific dates, like I came across 11 September variants, I performed manual work-arounds in all cases. Keep the dates protected in the script, by all means, as the majority of users of the scripts would never see it to protect. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lightmouse, makes sense now. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have gone through all the permutations of titles with dmy and created redirects for all those I can think of. I have also been through all articles linking to these, to see what other names exist. Ditto September 11 attacks. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That will help. Lightmouse (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Brought from my talk page:begin
On Teachers' Day (oldid) the script missed the second date (September 11) when clicking "Delink dates to mdy". Thanks, §hepTalk 23:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Brought from my talk page:end

See the discussion above for the reason (protection of links to articles containing dates in the title) and the complicated solution (three layered protection: normal; protected; loophole in protection). Done now. Clear your cache and try again. Lightmouse (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of this page, probably looked over an editnotice? Either way, thanks for the fix. §hepTalk 20:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Monobook script:All dates to mdy[edit]

In Apollo 11, there are several dates within citation templates with missing commas, which the script failed to pick up. The workaround for now seems to be to convert all to dmy and then back to mdy. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The date part of the script is designed to:
  • delink dates
  • reformat dates between dmy and mdy
Within those two functions, it will correct punctuation failures. Thus when you forced it to reformat the dates, it corrected the punctuation. Outside those two functions it will not correct punctuation failures. I think that explains what you saw. Lightmouse (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it's got now't to do with the citation templates. Also, from what you are saying that it's 'normal' behaviour for what you wrote, and that it's not meant to correct those errors described. I was assuming that the scripts would pick up formatting errors, and correct these even if no conversion takes place. Would it be possible to alter the script so that 'September 23 2006' becomes 'September 23, 2006', in compliance with MOSNUM? Ohconfucius (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My heart sinks and my head spins when people mention anything to do with citations, the citation people were coming out with a solution Real Soon Now. So I didn't examine it in detail. However, I tried a couple of tests on that article and I think the script 'works as intended'. The example is neither a delinking task nor a reformatting task, so it is not in the current scope. It is an example whereby the scope boundary has been revealed. We could increase the scope and try to solve the technical problem. I am not too keen but it seems a reasonable request and can be a wishlist item. Lightmouse (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Lightmouse (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Monobook script:All dates to dmy[edit]

Screen grab

There are some commas remaining after conversion from [delinked] mdy dates to dmy dates when auditing 1st Strategic Aerospace Division. Please refer to image. Note that converting all to mdy and back again fails as a workaround. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So I see. I think all the examples are associated with date ranges. That gives me a clue. Date ranges are tricky. I will investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"[[October 26]] [[1944]]–[[May 24]] [[1945]]" becomes "26 October 1944–May 24, 1945" in 104th Division (United States)

Common terms[edit]

I just noticed there may be a spelling mistake in the script: Phillipines (should be Philippines). Ohconfucius (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Delink all dates for AWB[edit]

[1] Use with caution and at your own risk. Rich Farmbrough, 07:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC).