Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:40, 8 February 2008

Script removing "lk=on"

Hi Lightmouse, I've been using your script (simple "importscript" of your monobook.js...works well so far and hopefully won't cause problems!) and ran it against Civil Air Patrol/sandbox History of Civil Air Patrol, and noticed it removed "lk=on" from each instance of {{Convert}}, irregardless of whether it was previously used or not. I'm curious whether this was intentional or not; if not, might need to check into it since WP:UNITS requests abbreviations be linked on first instance, and it is good practice in any case. Cheers! -- Huntster 00:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I got to thinking that it might be a good idea to move this script to another .js page, so your monobook page can be used for other purposes in the future if desired. Better to head the potential problem off now rather than wait until several dozen or hundred editors do the same as I am and simply importscript'ing it into their monobook or similar pages. -- Huntster 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the script has been deliberately designed to remove link from units that a reasonable english speaker should recognise as 'plain english'. This is partly because Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. In addition, some people add links because they think a metric reader will not understand how far '30 feet' is but with a direct conversion, the link is not required for that purpose. The script leaves links to obscure units. I hope that explains it.

You are right about moving the script. I have also been thinking about breaking it up into modules to make maintenance easier. To be honest, I was hoping that somebody might take the script and add it to AWB or a bot or something. I have really just stolen, hacked and used trial and error to create the code. I am sure somebody clever could do a lot better. I will consider a new location and track down users of the code and let them know. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, makes sense, though I don't believe leaving the link in place hurts anything (not to mention there is nothing I've seen that proscribes their use). As for the script, breaking into modules would be a very good thing in my opinion... separate .js function files that people could call dependent upon what they wanted to use, plus an all-in-one file that calls all the separate functions for those that don't want to have to pick and choose; and of course a separate master file for the winc and other baseline functions. If done this way, it may work out so that the "dates" and "general" tabs can be done away with...three tabs do take up quite a bit of room when Twinkle and other things are in operation alongside. You might say that someone else could do the code better, but it does seem that no one has stepped up, so be happy that you have brought together such a useful script. -- Huntster 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I rely partly on my own judgement and boldness when taking out unnecessary links. Misplaced Pages guidance does say that links should be controlled. For example, wp:moslink says links should significantly aid understanding and should not be for low added value items. wp:overlink says high value links are harder to spot when low value links are present and that overlinking makes articles harder to read. It also says not to link plain english words which I think is mostly how I regard them. However, it is not really a big deal for me. If lots of people objected, I would drop the function and stick with just conversions.

I had thought about reducing the three tabs, they are not well named and do take up space. Since it is designed as a personal tool, I had not considered the effects on other users. The pick-and-choose angle is not something I thought about. Thank you for mentioning it. It is yet another reason for me to make a change. I just have to get round to it. Thanks for prompting me. Lightmouse (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the script to its own page and created two subpages. That is a start from which I can develop modules. Thanks for the suggestion. Lightmouse (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and good luck. Can't say I am any good with the actual coding, but if help is needed with anything else, just yell (both on my talk page and at the computer...I find it relaxing sometimes) ;) -- Huntster 19:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Monobook Script

Thank you for answering. ✓ Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unit links

Hi LM,
Can you adjust your script to leave the first occurrence of a linked unit linked and removed any multiple linked units? I noticed your edit to Toronto which removed all unit links. Regards — MJCdetroit 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I can answer that as follows:

• I do not know how to make the code aware of first, second, nth. I wish I did.
• I think it is a good thing to remove links to plain english terms. I regard common units as plain english. Thus I will leave a link to nautical mile, but not statute mile or kilometre.
• The convert template allows the input to be linked but not the output (and vice versa). Thus where an uncommon unit is converted to a common unit, it is possible to have a link for one but not the other.
• Part of the reason for linking units is to allow the reader to convert. If the conversion is provided, then that reason for the link is superceded by the converted value. There are other reasons for linking that will remain, of course.

It is not the biggest deal for me but Misplaced Pages is generally overlinked when it comes to common units. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Lightmouse (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is generally over linked, especially in the area of multiple links of the same thing in the same article (not just units). I guess it is a catch-22, for units, I would like to see only the first time linked because I think it does help, but if your script removes the seven linkings of square kilometer in the article, I'm cool with it. I'll just have faith that hopefully somewhere down the road someone will link only the first occurrence of it. — MJCdetroit 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Spaces between numbers and units

Hi Lightmouse,

Thanks for your script-assisted editing on dates and units. I noticed from this edit to Paddy field that you changed 3000km to 3000 km, inserting a space. Would it be possible to adjust the script to insert a non-breaking space rather than an ordinary space? This prevents line breaks that leave the number at the right end of one line and its unit at the beginning of the next. For more information see Misplaced Pages:Manual of style#Unit symbols and abbreviations and Misplaced Pages:Manual of style#Non-breaking spaces. The talk page has extensive discussion about the matter.

Best regards,

Fg2 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is that there is a space. I am aware of the non-breaking space guidance but I do not agree with it because I think line wrapping in units is not a problem (or one that outways the ugliness of the nbsp code). There are one or two other people that share this heretical view. However, I have no objection to others adding a nbsp character if they want. Furthermore, I would be happy to support anyone that took the metrication script and modified it to add non-breaking spaces. The more people that make use of the script, the better. Lightmouse (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For beating me to adding the conversion templates on the page Iowa class battleship I herby award you the Editers Barnstar. Thank you for help, and keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Lightmouse (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A post with a question regarding your edits

Hello Lightmouse. I wanted to let you know that I posted a question about the edits that you are making converting units of weight and measurment to metric here . Please understand that I am not upset or trying to cause an edit conflict. I just wanted clarification on this re US articles. Also, I hoped to save you time and effort if there are some articles where these conversions should not be made. If a consensus was reached to change these that I was unaware of I apologize for taking up your time. Happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Update. Please disregard my post above. I did not look closely enough to see that your conversion did not replace the weights and measures. It simply enhanced the articles by giving both US and metric numbers. Let me compliment you for making[REDACTED] vastly better through your efforts and, again, apologize for wasting your time. MarnetteD | Talk 16:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That is ok. I am glad that you resolved the issue to your satisfaction and updated your comment here. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding edit to Slavic peoples

Hi! I saw you took out two wikilinks and wrote "Script assisted. Units/dates/other". I'm sure this is perfectly order, I would just want to know what it means so that I'm aware of it in the future. :) Cheers JdeJ (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion about dates and linking. This confusion is partly because of a badly designed 'autoformatting' mechanism that uses square brackets around *full* dates (a full date contains a month and a day) that look like links. Those dates are not full dates and do not need the brackets for autoformatting. If you want to read the gory facts, it is all in the manual of style.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! JdeJ (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for edit - but!

Hi, I noticed that you have edited my contributions in the Appley Bridge page to provide additional metric values to the quoted imperial values. Whilst I can see the value in this it does contradict the quote element of the piece. The piece is a quote from a document that didn't have the metric conversion within it. Is it correct to misquote a quote? I think it does add to it for non imperial readers but it's a discussion point I think. thanksWikipeebee (talk)

Thanks for spotting that and telling me. I have put the conversion into square brackets. I would not have minded if you had edited it to however you think is best. In fact, I still don't mind. Take a look at how it is now and if that is not quite right to you, just do whatever you think is best. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

bhp convert

Hi have you noticed that {{convert|170|Bhp|abbr=on}} doesnt work with capital B , same goes to Hp , I fixed Audi 80 and Toyota Sports 800

weird that sign doesnt work. --— Typ932  20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me who you are (your signature did not work)? I have made a change so that {{convert|170|Bhp|abbr=on}} should work now. Tell me which page you are looking at so that I can check. Thanks for the feedback. Lightmouse (talk)

I have now updated the script. It now forces Bhp, Hp, and other permutations to lower case when inside the convert template. That should fix it. Lightmouse (talk)

note for convert old cars articles

Hi, be careful when converting very old cars articles, because they can have hp in the name of model. (old tax classification). see: Talk:Morris Ten, Im also wondering if its necessary to convert displays and tyre/tire/wheel sizes, can those be excluded somehow? I think usual way to express those are only inches?, im not 100% sure of it thoug. --— Typ932  15:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the old car issue. I try to avoid them but one or two may have slipped through. I will watch more carefully.

I am not sure what to do about tyre sizes. I have no idea what you mean by 'displays'. Can you explain? Lightmouse (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

With displays I mean there is in many car articles written like 9-inch CRT display in Buick Riviera article --— Typ932  17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

H'mm. Typ932, why do you feel it would be inappropriate to convert a video display size to metric units? Wheel sizes are in inches all over the world, but video displays...? --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure but we use here inches when speaking monitors... maybe others dont?... --— Typ932  18:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Where is "here"? --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

See my user page ,) we use inches for televisions, PC LCD/monitors, Im not sure how is the other european countries... --— Typ932  18:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What Typ932 is saying is that tyre & wheel size nomenclature is overwhelmingly still in inches round the world, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Even the metric tyre sizing system that's been in nearly exclusive use globally since at least the mid 1980s designates the wheel size in inches. I see Misplaced Pages's tyre article utterly lacks information on tyre sizing, which is odd; perhaps I will work on that. A metric tyre size looks like P205/70R14 (P = tyre for passenger vehicle, 205mm tread width, sidewall height 70% of the tread width...14 inch wheel). In colloquial conversation, "fourteen-inch wheels and tyres" is common, though of course it is encyclopædically preferable to specify the exact tyre size. It would not be appropriate to convert the wheel size to metric units; they simply aren't measured that way. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying. I did not set out to change the tyre sizes in articles, that was secondary. Lightmouse (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Migration of templates

I think we should get all templates converted to the convert template, its now missing for example PS (horsepower), and btw we have some differencies in Auto templates vs convert template, we have in project automobiles conventions instruction to use XXXX mm and not X,XXX (no comma) see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions --— Typ932  18:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The migration of templates from 'Auto' to 'convert', is a popular idea. Please lend your support at Template talk:Convert. If you want have a wishlist item (such as 'no comma'), feel free to mention that in the same place. Lightmouse (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversion templates vs. auto templates...?

Hi, Lightmouse. I just saw your conversion template applied on Dodge Dart, and the results look quite good. I have a couple of questions I hope aren't too dumb. Firstly...where is this template? I checked Category:Conversion templates and Category:Automobile conversion templates and while I spot several that are meant to achieve the same goal, I don't spot yours. What are the differences between your {{convert|415|hp|abbr=on}} and Template:Auto horsepower, Template:Auto hp, and Template:Auto bhp? It appears the {{convert}} syntax is separate from the unit-specific templates, as I see {{convert}} used successfully with different units plugged in (hp, in, mm, etc.). I'd like to apply templates like these correctly, as I make a lot of contributions to articles involving many units, and I don't want to make extra work for myself or anyone else. Thanks! --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I use a script that adds the {{convert}} templates. To find the script you have two options:

• click on the link that I put in my edit summary at the article.
• go directly to User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js

I think {{convert}} is a lot better than the 'Auto' templates. It is newer. A major advantage is that it is simpler and more flexible. As far as I know, it can do everything that 'Auto' templates do. I used to use the Auto templates but then I switched to the convert template. Some people suggest that we can replace all the Auto templates with the convert template to keep things simple. For a detailed discussion of the merits, just ask the people at Template talk:Convert.

If you want to use my script:

• 1. copy all the source text from User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js to User:Scheinwerfermann/monobook.js
• 2. clear your cache, (if you have Firefox: press Ctrl-Shift-R, if you have IE: press Ctrl-F5).
• 3. Pick an article with units that need converting and click 'Edit this page' to put it into edit mode.
• 4. Click the tab at the top right that says 'combined'.

Let me know what happens. Lightmouse (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty slick! Thanks for the step-by-step. My happiness is tempered a bit, though, by the results when I previewed it at Ford FE engine. Since there are already manually-written parenthetical conversions of HP to kW, the HP gets converted but the old parentheticals remain. This would seem to require going through and picking out each and every one of them...? Is there an easier way? --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question directly... There is no easy way.

Like all software, it is dumb. It looks for a number followed by a unit e.g. '265 hp'. It tries to avoid existing conversions by checking for parentheses e.g. '265 hp (198 kW)'. However, it does not scan the entire rest of the article to see if somebody has said something like '265 hp gross power in the engine (198 kW)'. As you have seen, people occasionally put the conversion many characters after the original.

On the positive side. This problem is very rare. You were just unlucky that your first attempt found it. Here are some suggestions:

• If you find a problem, leave the article alone. It will just waste your time. There are plenty more to fix quickly.
• Search google for articles that you know will not have the problem (use a minus sign to eliminate unwanted strings) e.g. search for 'engine hp -kW'
• use a word processor (I prefer Microsoft Notepad) on your computer to edit the article. Copy the entire page and use search and replace. In the case of Ford FE engine, it is not easy, you will have to do it almost line by line.
• accept that human intervention is required and live with it. Try 100 articles and then see what you think.
• Lightmouse (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect conversion of 3.5 inch disk

I notice that your script is being on occurrences of the term "3.5 inch disk" thereby converting the text to read "3.5 inch (89 mm) disk." This is not correct and should be stopped immediately. The disks in question are exactly 90 mm in diameter (to manufacturing tolerances). "3.5 inch" is a nominal size and should not be mechanically converted. --agr (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Can you tell me where you saw this done and I will investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Early IBM disk storage#Disk storage in 2004 Note that I have cleaned the text up. Also note that the conversion was applied to both occurrences of "3.5 inch disk." I think only one conversion is needed.--agr (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will have a look at the script to see if I can automatically avoid such references. I am fairly sure it can be done. In the meantime, I will watch more closely. Lightmouse (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversion for American Football

Lightmouse, I think that your script is a really great idea for adding conversion units for SI. However, one particular subject, American Football is a "game of inches" and the field is marked in yards. Statistics are kept in yards. Although this is not international, this is the way the subject handles the measures. While I question whether the script should be used at all on North American sports subjects, I do understand the need for international audiences to grasp the concept of yards, feet and inches in terms of their own measurement systems. The script results for the 1947 Rose Bowl article are inappropriate in a number of instances, introducing a 9% error. A four yard run is more appropriately 366 centimeters, not four meters. and a 1 yard run is 91 centimeters, not 1 meter. My opinion is that in the subject, the most appropriate place for conversion was on the particular DYK statment: "UCLA's Al Hoisch returned Illinois kicker Don Maechtle’s kickoff 103 yards (94 m), establishing a Rose Bowl and UCLA team record". This establishes the length of the run in any context. Otherwise my opinion is that the conversion adds very little value in articles on this subject and should not be modified by an automated script. Thanks, Group29 (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree almost entirely with your analysis. I do not mind any reverts or amendments you make. I will try to avoid most measures American Football. Lightmouse (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unimog

One article that definitely would benefit from this script is the Unimog article. Thanks Group29 (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lightmouse (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

possible bad conversion

see ... I think the article is talking about a shoe size. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Thanks for letting me know. I will watch out for that in future. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Kilometres

Can you tell me why you have removed the kilometres link from so many Sydney suburbs articles? We spent a lot of time adding those links to all teh articles, after an editor explained that a link was required for users who are not familiar with the metric system.J Bar (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it is excessive to link common terms. Do you share that editors opinion that kilometre should be linked in each article? If so, a good place to raise it would be at: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I would be interested to see what other people think the policy should be. Lightmouse (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hectares?

I see you are changing hectares to km², example. Is this WP convention, is there some pattern to it, or what? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is easier to understand km². This is because of familiarity with km. I note that British Ordnance Survey maps are marked in 1 km² squares. I suppose you could try an experiment to find out. Take people to a hill overlooking some land and get them to estimate areas. If you think it is better the other way, feel free to revert it. I don't mind. Lightmouse (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends who you ask. Areas that would have been measured in acres in the past are nowadays measured in hectares, so fields, parks, and the like use them. Obviously it makes no sense to talk about a million-hecater area (but, ISTR descriptions like "30,000-acre estate" were once common). Not a big deal, but I have seen this change in the past (ha to km²) and wondered what the basis of it was. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that farmers use hectares. I also know that using word-for-word translation would map acres to hectares, although using word-for-word translation from the old system is not the best strategy when trying to use the metric system. I suspect that is what many officials do when updating publicity material about estates etc. For good communication, I think that ordinary people are more capable of understanding familiar metric units such as m and km. Thanks for your thoughts. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Units/dates/other using AWB" edits

Hello and a couple questions. It may be that edits solely to remove links to isolated years are too trivial to do in large quantities. I tend to remove those links only when doing something else with the article.

This case raises a question - the year may be significant, since the event is mentioned on the article for that year. Are you checking if the article is linked from the year page? (That would have missed this case, of course.)

Finally, this edit suggests something you might want to add to your script. One of the dates in the article was given as ]-]. Your script removed the link around 2004, but the piped dates probably should be fixed too. Gimmetrow 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Many edits can be regarded as trivial. As long as they are improvements, I think this is acceptable. Although I agree with you that chasing trivia can be ditched if chasing non-trivia is more rewarding. Note that the two examples you quote are Featured Articles and should have attention to detail. Of course, this could be one of those joke irregular verbs - "I have attention to detail", "You are trivial", "He nitpicks".

Like you, I try to do multiple things. My script also checks for the many date formats that break formatting such as 'October 23rd' and date ranges. It also checks that various units of measurement are accompanied by a metric value. It is just that the script detects solitary years more frequently than the others things. Once I have gone to all the effort of checking an article, I might as well use the improvement offered by the script. If I were clever enough to set a threshold, I would do it. Furthermore, if AWB were able to take on some of the task (e.g. mending broken date formats within 'general fixes) that would be fine by me.

With regard to '1631' mentioning the 'Cathedral of Magdeburg' article: It is a good example of the issue. It is true that the year article mentions the sack of the city but it gives less detail than the article itself. Thus the reader gains all the context from the article itself and the other links within it e.g. to the city. There are so many date links (solitary or otherwise) in Misplaced Pages that I do not believe any reader clicks on them all and checks each one.

With regard to ]-]: It never ceases to amaze me how many different ways that editors can break date formatting. The script is reasonably successful at checking if date formatting is broken. This is because there is only a finite number correct formats. It is less successful at fixing the broken bits. This is because there is an infinite number of incorrect formats and it only tackles the most common ones. If that one is common, I can fix it. I will investigate. Thanks for your feedback, I welcome it. Lightmouse (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you turning off links in the convert template? e.g. as you did to Exmoor. If you look at the documentation for convert it states that using links for the first instance of a particular unit is acceptable. This is exactly how it is used in the Exmoor article. I suggest you revisit your decision to do these mass edits, removing lk=on from with convert templates. Also, in the UK, hectares are commonly used, so converting acres to hectares is usual. You changed this to square kilometres. As a consequence of both of these things I have reverted your edit to Exmoor. --TimTay (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is little benefit in links to plain english terms. Common units of measurement are like plain english and appear in thousands of articles. Since this topic is of wide interest, perhaps the best place to discuss the policy on common units is at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I am sure that there are people there that would be interested in debating both sides of the issue. I do not mind that you revert the edit. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But you are also de-wikifying date links willy-nilly, including from historical articles. For instance, the dates in the David Hume article make it easy to see the historical context in which his work was being done. This seems inappropriate. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the criterion for a link is that is should help understanding of the topic. Thus a link to his book: 'A Treatise of Human Nature' is good because is relevant to understanding and is a pain to type in by hand. The criterion 'historical context' is much wider in scope and implies that all dates should be linked. However, links to date elements does not explain anything about David Hume, it will just give you a list of stuff that happened in the year. Anyone that is obsessed with looking up the millions of year links only has to type in 4 digits into the search box. However, I appreciate that you have a different opinion. Lightmouse (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Norwich City FC

Hmmm. I'm grateful for your efforts with this, but I'm concerned about your using it on the FA Norwich City F.C.. Many of the changes () you've made are good, and per MOS, but some at least are to the detriment of the article, specifically over-ruling unilaterally wikilinks inserted following discussion at the talk page, at Peer Review and at the FAC. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. Feel free to put back the ones that you want. Lightmouse (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Doing so. And you've prompted me to sort out some inconsistencies with the piped links. Can I suggest you add to your script to skip FAs (and maybe GAs too)? There are so many dreadful messes out there it seems wise to avoid the ones that have gone through multiple rounds of scrutiny? --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. The script seems to be doing well at its job of finding articles that need further work. We both have discovered that there is stuff to do. That is a good thing. It seems that FAs and GAs are flagships that should be subject to this sort of scrutiny.

On a point of detail, I noticed that you put links to months and three links to the unremarkable article '1995'. I do not know if that was also part of the discussions. So I tried looking for the discussions in three different places that you suggested but did not resolve it. Can you give me a precise link to the relevant discussions? Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've not finished reinstating the good changes. Linking to (say) 1995 is useless, I agree. The links to the football seasons articles were good. --Dweller (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I appreciate your work. The wiki grows. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you that links to seasons are good. But how does a reader know that they are there if they are camouflaged as ordinary year links? Lightmouse (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

One more point. Links to seasons are bad if they are put with full dates. They break date formatting. Since this is generic point about how the featured article process is failing to address date formatting correctly, I think it is worth seeing what people say at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I have asked a general question about the featured article process. See you there. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts explained

Hi Lightmouse, I reverted two of your edits: in Joseph Priestley House I relinked 18th-century as many people are both unsure of what this means (1700s? 1800s?) and unaware of the many historical developments in that century.

In Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) you delinked a year (1999) that was part of a full date. There was a flood on January 19 and 20, 1999, so I had it as "January 19 and 20, 1999" I have now made it linked for both dates, i.e.: "January 19 and 20, 1999". This seems to me to follow the linking of full dates requirement of MOS, but if you have a different interpretation, please let me know,

Thanks for all of your work here, Ruhrfisch _><>° 14:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind your reverts. As far as Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) is concerned, the text was:

] and 20, ]

Thus '1999' was floating on its own and not part of a full date as far as the MOS is concerned.

Although you now have it as:

] and ], ], the autoformatting mechanism will damage the date and readers will see:

• 19 January and 20, 1999

This looks very odd. It is a frequent error in Misplaced Pages. It is an unfortunate 'feature' of the autoformatting software when it encounters date ranges. The only way that the date range will look correct for all readers is to eliminate all the links in the date range. This is why the MOS specifically says that date ranges should not be linked. See: ]. I am not sure if you understand why it will break date ranges. If not, just ask and I will clarify further.

Thanks for your praise. The wiki keeps getting better. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind explanation - I have removed all date links in the range so it is now just "January 19 and 20, 1999". I understand the breakage, but did not realize it would happen. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>° 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I suspect that we need a permanent bot to address this common issue. Lightmouse (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the AWB script converting units quotes and refs?

See this, specifically, the "Driving Away from Home (Jim's Tune)" reference. Thanks. Will 16:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)