Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:34, 14 February 2008

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)

Been happily using your script since late last month, and I like it a lot, but I seem to have run into a problem with it. When I hit "combined" on Chrysler Hemi engine, the script fails to see and fix the improper "ft·lbf" torque units (many of which are preceeded by an explicit non-breaking space). The correct unit is lb·ft , and it looks like your script is set up to rectify most variants of most incorrect torque units, but I don't know enough about scripting to see why it's not fixing these in the Hemi article. Can you shed some light? Please and thank you. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The script follows Misplaced Pages convention of using 'ft.lbf'. I am not aware of an 'correct' and 'incorrect' format. So you are at liberty to challenge the Misplaced Pages convention. It gets discussed from time to time in many places e.g.:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions
• Talk:Torque
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Specifications survey
• Template talk:Convert
• User talk:Gene Nygaard

Feel free to challenge whatever those people think.

If there is anything else you would like help with, I would be delighted to discuss it. Incidentally, I no longer maintain any script with a 'combined' tab. In the latest version the 'combined' tab is called 'dates+units' and there may be other changes. The most recent version is at: User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

units

Just wanted to let you know that I undid the delinking of femtosecond in Laser because, in my experience with ultrafast whatnot, this is such an unusual and unfamiliar timescale that further information is necessary to understand it's size. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is massively overlinked with respect to plain english terms (including common units). There is also massive overlinking with respect to orders of magnitude including unremarkable ones such as 10.

I agree with you that although second is common, femtosecond is not. That is why I thought that having 10 right next to it is sufficient and a link is duplication. However, I will allow you to make the judgement call. Thanks for letting me know. I do not mind at all. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing year links

Please be more careful when removing links to years. In most contexts this is perfectly appropriate--I agree with your general aim, and I do plenty of such unlinking myself. But in some cases the links go to in articles. For example, the 1988 you unlinked in The Satanic Verses went to 1988 in literature, which is an acceptable link if, as in this case, one might expect the subject of the article to be mentioned there. (It wasn't, as it happens--but it is now.) You will find such "year in" links in articles dealing with film, music, sports, and some other subjects. Certainly, some in links are unhelpful and should be removed, but they shouldn't be automatically unlinked, as plain year-links are. Regards--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)