User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2011/September

Lightbot

Hi Lightmouse, The Lightbot is going through ship info boxes and changing

• Ship beam=23 feet 7.625 inches (7.20408 m) to
• Ship beam=23 ft 7.625 in (7.20408 m)

Did you intend this? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, now I see what you were doing. Ignore all above. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For all your amazing contributions. Enjoy! Pinkstrawberry02 (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

US gallons is redundant when the article is about a location in the US

I noticed your bot recently converted "1.2 billion gallons (453,600 m³)" to "1.2 billion US gallons (4,500,000 m3)". As the location is clearly in the US, adding US to the gallon measure is redundant and is inconsistent with the normal method of describing volume in the US. Is there any way to remove that without removing the template entirely? Monty₈₄₅ 14:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The conversion described also seems to have changed the number of cubic meters by a factor of ten. But that is probably a good thing, because I think the bot's math is correct and the original conversion was off by a factor of ten. Sharktopus ^talk 15:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bug report

Direct quotes should not be altered. Your bot has disregarded this rule today at Boston Molasses Disaster‎. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right. Thanks for fixing that and letting me know. It's running mostly with human supervision and it's the fault of the human (me), not the code. Lightmouse (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Manuals of Style

Regarding your implementation of {{MoS-guide}} in place of {{guidelines}}, I'm concerned that it's no longer obvious that the manuals of style are guidelines. Was there a discussion somewhere about this presentation? I do think it looks better, but it seems strange for the pages to lack a distinct policy/guideline/essay type label. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussions include:

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_125#Too_much_space_used_by_headers
• Template_talk:Talk_header#Proposal:_option_for_maximum_width
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_92#Please_increase_width_of_header_boxes

As user:DePiep said "alas, ... it will bog down somewhere somehow". So I decided to be bold. I agree with you that users should know that the page is part of MOS. Clues include:

• The title of the page
• The first paragraph
• The { style } box at the right indicating other MOS pages

Frequent users don't need to be told. Many users use WP on small screens with expensive/slow bandwidth. Frankly, I think we've gone mad with templates. The default assumption should be that templates shouldn't be used unless a strong case can be made. But it's only my opinion, if you want to discuss this some more, feel free to start a discussion about it and I'll join in. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think part of it is that the passage in {{Guideline}} is a reminder not to take the guideline too seriously, although it would be nice not to see any more "my edit is one of these 'occasional exceptions' to the guideline" arguments. I can't tell what most other editors think, but to me the so-called hierarchy of policy, guideline, and essay has defined how much weight each category's passages contain. I'll be fine with trying this out, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to bring this up again in the future. It's not a big deal for me. Lightmouse (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I don't know why on Earth you didn't simply propose a modification for {{MoS-guideline}} rather than forking it. This would have obviated the need to make mass edits to roll it out and wouldn't have introduced the inconsistency whereby we've now got two template which do the same thing but deployed differently seemingly at random. I'd appreciate it if you undid the mass edits and instead worked on {{MoS-guideline/sandbox}} instead to have the desired layout. It shouldn't be too difficult to get the desired layout, and without requiring any changes to articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I did propose modification to headers, see the links to prior discussions at the top of the page (albeit for other MOS headers). User:DePiep predicted "alas, ... it will bog down somewhere somehow". He was correct, it got bogged down with discussions about everything except the issue. Believe me, I would have preferred to the simpler method you suggest. There are 58 target pages, 55 have the new template. Three have the old one: users at two pages objected to my template changes; one page was overlooked. Lightmouse (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm objecting to it wholesale in its present state. Technically the new code is two steps back and it's not at all obvious that it's beneficial to the project. Sometimes when something is "bogged down" it's because there's no consensus for it. To put this more plainly, I don't have a problem with using a smaller style under the following conditions:

1. It uses {{mbox}}, with small=yes, a well-worn system which took years to develop and deploy consistently, rather than hand-rolled HTML;
2. It replaces rather than competes with the old layout;
3. It is implemented without any changes to the required code (which implies that the edits you made to deploy it will need to be undone).

I'll have a poke about with the sandbox code later on to see if I can further improve it. Once it's in a reasonable state, I'll be TfDing the new template if it hasn't been undeployed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

{{MoS-guideline/sandbox}} now accepts a small=yes parameter; see its test cases page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's link between consensus and change but I don't believe consensus was an issue in the discussions or in the response to the new template. The aim was to improve the signal to noise ratio by reducing space taken up by low-added-value template space/content. That has been achieved in MOS pages and MOS-talk pages. Your update looks like what we needed all along. I welcome your help and your conditions seem reasonable. I don't mind at all if it involves tfd and undo. Thank you very much. Lightmouse (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, well: in that case I'll push the sandbox code live later on, roll back the changes to articles, and T3 the forked template. If you want a small header on a given page just add |small=yes to the syntax. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Great. My watchlist will let me know when you've done the roll back. When I see that, I'll go and add |small=yes. Thanks again for your help. Lightmouse (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a good outcome; thanks to both of you. Tony (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've deleted the forked template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot changing units in quotes

Just to let you know you bot is adding conversions within quotes such as this edit, which is not appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying, fixing and reporting that. You're quite right. That shouldn't have happened. The bot was running as designed, it was the operator that was malfunctioning. Lightmouse (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Adjective form used incorrectly

Wanted to let you know that in this recent edit, the bot appears to have switched inappropriately from the noun form of the unit to the adjective form. Perhaps it was confused by the hyphen in the old text? Loop202 (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The cause was the overlap between "x foot" and "y foot-pounds". It's up to the human (me) to catch all instances of those and this was an exceptional case where one slipped through. I'll investigate and see if I can add code to take more of the burden away from the human. Perhaps a dedicated 'foot-pounds' run might help. Your comment is much appreciated. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:ParserFunction errors

It would be a good idea to check this category after your bot runs. I started to fix Ethanol fuel in the United States, Fredericksburg, Texas, Lake Manitoba, Morris (town), New York, Northridge, Los Angeles, and Spratt's Complex, but gave up and just reverted the edits. The more disturbing improper edits were the ones that did not result in parserfunction errors, like missing numeric spans, missing usage of adj, and others. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to fix things and I understand why you gave up. The irony is that I was using bespoke code and looking at each edit before pressing save manually. But there were so many permutations (imperial and US, US and U.S., linked and unlinked, billion, million and 000,000) that I overlooked basic details that apply to all units. I'll spend some time and go back over these. I appreciate the report and the tip about the category. Thanks again for your time and effort. Lightmouse (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And more (see Apple Campus) ... Frietjes (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Each edit recently has been examined by human eye, it's the human that keeps missing these. I'll have to find a way to make code to take the burden. Lightmouse (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Units for ethanol fuel

This is to let you know that I reversed changes made by you and your bot in several ethanol related articles. Please go to the talk page here to participate in the discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unit conversion not straight forward with diving cylinder sizes

Please see Talk:Bailout bottle#Invalid metric conversions. -- 180.251.9.172 (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

US gallons is redundant when the article is about a location in the US

I noticed your bot recently converted "1.2 billion gallons (453,600 m³)" to "1.2 billion US gallons (4,500,000 m3)". As the location is clearly in the US, adding US to the gallon measure is redundant and is inconsistent with the normal method of describing volume in the US. Is there any way to remove that without removing the template entirely? Monty₈₄₅ 14:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The conversion described also seems to have changed the number of cubic meters by a factor of ten. But that is probably a good thing, because I think the bot's math is correct and the original conversion was off by a factor of ten. Sharktopus ^talk 15:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response. I've only just spotted these comments.

• To answer the first question: The template can be set to add US or imperial. I don't know if it can be set to say neither. The place to ask would be at: Template talk:Convert.
• To answer the second question: Yes. The original conversion was wrong. I didn't notice that, it's almost undetectable but I have seen such errors before when I've been doing detailed tests. The template is correct.

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Modiin Energy

Regarding this edit at Modiin Energy, the bot corrupted article titles and quotes within citation templates. Please modify its algorithm so it only modifies prose inside the article proper.—Biosketch (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying that and letting me know. I was just fixing it when I saw that you got there first. The current edits are not algorithm only, they're part-human. It's a short-term task that requires human oversight and manual edits. It's almost complete. This was a rare one that slipped through. It was the human that made the error here, not the code. Sorry about that. I appreciate the feedback, it helps me improve. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok great, and thanks for the improvements to the article.—Biosketch (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Page chops

Small problem here, with an easy fix. There's an erroneous space in <!-- cubic what?-- > that blanks everything beyond this point.  -- WikHead (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that and letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Linking to category

Hi, re this edit - as you noticed, putting a category name between two pairs of square brackets doesn't create a link, but places the page into that category. If you do wish to make a regular link to a category, there are two ways of doing this. One is to use the {{cl}} template without the word "Category:" - that is, {{cl|Occupations by type}} produces Category:Occupations by type. The other way is to use the normal double square bracket syntax, but insert a colon before the word "Category:" as well as after it - that is, [[:Category:Occupations by type]] produces Category:Occupations by type. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Aha. I knew there was a way but I couldn't find or remember it. Thanks! Lightmouse (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Lightbot conversions of imperial distances

Hello. Noticed this conversion which replaced "the 26.2-mile London Marathon" with "the {{convert|42.195|km|mi|adj=on}} London Marathon", which produces "the 42.195-kilometre (26.219 mi) London Marathon". Not only changing from imperial-first to metric-first, but also adding an additional 2 decimal places. It did a similar thing here with the phrase starting "At 13.1 miles"... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Marathons and half marathons are metric distances. See:

• Marathon "The marathon is a long-distance running event with an official distance of 42.195 kilometres"
• Official rule website "In 1908 the distance was officially set at 42.195 km"

So that's why non-metric is secondary to metric. The extra decimal places may sometimes be more than necessary. I don't mind if you reduce the decimals for approximate expressions, my main concern is that the conversions were the wrong way round. Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I take your point that metric should be used where we're talking about the exact length of a marathon race. But if it's an approximation, as my first example above, or a measure of distance run along the course, as the second example, I'm not totally convinced the IAAF's unit of choice should override the units used in the rest of the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's a metric race, then that system should be first. If you want to approximate the distance, the same applies. Putting the wrong system first and approximating it leads to a cascade of conversion errors. Metric values are normal in races, as is mixing systems according to which system is the official one. Lightmouse (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

minor bugs in lightbot

You might like to check out the history on usoi dam Lightbot just made an edit (I've not reverted it yet)

1) the comment is in error - it said it 'delinked common unit' there was no link (I think not anyway)

2) in converted a (US) unit 'acre feet' into 'acre.ft'

• typing in acre.ft into wikipedia gets you a search page
• typing in acre feet or acre-ft gets you the correct unit

I'm not familiar with the US unit acre foot - but I think that the lightbot has not made the page easier to understand. So I'd suggest either getting it to ignore acre feet - or telling it to change acre feet to acre-ft (rather than acre(dot)ft).

3) being from the UK (where we used to have the imperial system) I think 'acre foot' is really archaic and odd - so personally I'd actually want it linked (as something interesting rather than delinked as something common) - I imagine the same goes for all of europe (and probably much of the rest of the world) as they never had the imperial system of measures. Sure imperial measurements are common - miles, feet, acres even , but acre feet seem obscure compared to cubic feet.

Cheers EdwardLane (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the page in read mode, you'll see that it hasn't changed the unit name at all. The edits are just a technical issue to do with the template code. I do agree that it's a bizarre unit. You'll note that the bot was ensuring that conversions were provided. I sympathise with your view that a link should be present. I may go back and add links to it. Thanks for your helpful feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I only looked at the diff, so I didn't spot that the convert template code was using different 'backstage' text to the live text. EdwardLane (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Linking obscure units multiple times

In reviewing Lightbot's recent edits to Souris River, I noticed that it linked acre foot in every use of Template:convert in which it appears. My question is this: since a dutiful editor would follow the guidelines at WP:REPEATLINK and not link every appearance of the term in such a short section, I was wondering if the bot could be changed to only link the first appearance of an obscure measurement in an article—or a section, if you think that would be more prudent. What are your thoughts? Would it be difficult to do something like that? —LinkTiger (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I rarely add links units at all. That run was extremely unusual. If you look at the previous section to this one where delinking of units was being discussed, I concluded that the only solution was to go back over recent edits (it edited that page recently) and add links. Unfortunately, multiple links were the result. I don't like it any more than you do, but it was the least worse option. Feel free to revert or amend as you think fit. I don't know how to write code that will select a part of an article. I wish I did, I could do *lots* of good things. Thanks for your feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll revert the extra links in this particular article. In the grand scheme, it's not a big issue. Thanks for your prompt response. —LinkTiger (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Opium

Just letting you know I reverted the bot at Opium: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the unit and conversion adjacent. Lightmouse (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)