| Revision as of 18:54, 20 August 2008 editLightmouse (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers148,333 edits →Question...← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:05, 20 August 2008 edit undoAuburnPilot (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,289 edits →Question...: cNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| :It has not yet deprecated (although it might come to that), but it is now merely an option. See extensive discussions at: ]. Regards ] (]) 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | :It has not yet deprecated (although it might come to that), but it is now merely an option. See extensive discussions at: ]. Regards ] (]) 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::So long as it remains optional, can you please not delink all dates? Seems to be jumping the gun. - ] ] 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:05, 20 August 2008
lk
Hi Lightmouse, would it be possible to set your script to use lk=in when you replace a linked unit with the convert template? e.g. Here you replaced
17 nautical miles
with
{{convert|17|nmi|km}}
thereby discarding a link that would have been retained if you had instead used
{{convert|17|nmi|km|lk=in}}
Hesperian 23:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible but wp:context says that there should not be links to Plain English words, including common units of measurement. There was a recent discussion about this at wp:mosnum. My impression was that the guideline has support. Other issues were raised including the suggestion that where conversions are provided, there is even less of a reason to provide a link. I would be happy to see further discussion. Lightmouse (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought "nautical miles" qualified as a plain English word, but it's no problem if you disagree. Carry on as you were rather than let this hold you up. Hesperian 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your suggestion for replacing a linked nautical mile with a 'lk=in' conversion is fairly reasonable. I actually agree with you that the unit 'nautical mile' is not 'plain English'. I had a similar conversation with MJCDetroit on this page. The phrase 'second tier' seems to me to fit units like 'nautical mile'. See ]. My opinion is that the vast majority of unit links are excessive and the benefits of a conversion are so strong that even second tier units should not be linked when in a conversion. However, I would not die in a ditch over it. I appreciate your thoughts though, such feedback always makes me question my code and that is a good thing. Lightmouse (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ahunt's talk
I couldn't help but notice you mention some 'handy tabs' for use when editing. Do tell what these things do, they might help me!--Editor510 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:RFBOT
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. – Quadell 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Question...
Are we not linking dates anymore? I didnt get the memo... Qb | 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- It has not yet deprecated (although it might come to that), but it is now merely an option. See extensive discussions at: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- So long as it remains optional, can you please not delink all dates? Seems to be jumping the gun. - auburnpilot talk 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)