Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:30, 15 December 2008

Child of the Prophecy

I don't understand your recent edit to this article. The year was correctly not linked to 2001 as specified in WP:MOS but linked to an article about the literature published in 2001, 2001 in literature. I know that there is a discussion underway regarding the linking of dates but there has not been a consensus and there has been no change to WP:MOS so I don't see a valid reason to remove this link. So, I would like to revert your recent edit.--Captain-tucker (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The link looked like a solitary year and is likely to be treated like one i.e. ignored. Have you considered making the reader aware that it is different? In any case, I don't mind you putting it back. Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a fairly common, if not an unwritten standard within the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Novels community to link the year of publication to that year in literature for novel articles. I will revert it back. Thanks! --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Biography - Ray Joseph Cormier

I noticed you made a minor edit to my biography yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/Ray_Joseph_Cormier

There are a few Editors who have it on their watch list and within minutes of any change, scan what changes have been made. Since it is my biography, I have recused myself from making any edits except for adding references, and no one else has come forward to improve it.

One of those watchers has placed a tag on the article moments after your visit, which I interpret as an intention to delete if no other editors have a contrary POV.

Would you have an opinion to express here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kingturtle? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop Lightbot until it's repaired

Discussion moved to wt:mosnum.

Fairport Convention etc etc

Why is 1967 a "broken format" that needs "repair"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

By itself, it isn't broken. However, in that article it was:

• ] ]. That full date format is a broken autoformatted date. You can see the valid full date formats described in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting. You are not alone, it is a popular misunderstanding. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as a follow up... so the 'bot is clipping the pipe in infoboxes (AFAIK and acceptable use) based on the day/month being a separate linke? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in those cases to de-link the day/month? - J Greb (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you say, piped links should not be in full date links. So the piped link should not have been placed there, and when it was placed there it should have been reverted as an error. You are suggesting that, in effect, I am the creater of the link. I would prefer not to do that. In any case, these concealed links are being called into question. Lightmouse (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the WikiProject for Music deprecates the use of concealed links such as this. In any case, we want readers to click on it, so it should be more explicit: this can be through smoothly integrating it into the grammar of the clause, or (better, IMO) inclusion in the "See also" section, where there's space to provide helpful drawcards to encourage readers to follow the link as a gateway to its siblings. Tony (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the music project states:

• Do not use piped links to years in music (e.g., do not write: The Beatles Please Please Me came out in 1963). Instead, sparingly use parentheses after years mentioned in the article, such as The Beatles released Please Please Me in 1963 (see 1963 in music). In discography charts or other specialized forms, it is acceptable to use non-piped links to the 'year in music' articles. Generally avoid linking non-dated chronological items, such as "1988", "1920s" and "20th century".

I think the aviation project also came to a similar conclusion. Lightmouse (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor point though... the current MoS, and what looks to be going in the RfC, is that some egged uses of "Year in field" are justified - and this seems to be limited to tables and infoboxes where there is a space issue.

Maybe I should rephrase my question: Is it proper for the 'bot to be choosing between two equally valid "correct" formattings based solely on one editors preferred reading of the MoS?

That is, while ], ] is wrong, and ], ] is correct for the body of the article, both ], ] and Month Day, ] are valid for tables and infoboxes. Quite honestly, since most of the infoboxes are looked after by various Projects, and the MoS allows for either correction, it may be better for the 'bot to not tinker with those or tables without first seeing if the Project have a preference (cases like Music, though the table caveat is there, and Aviation as you point out). Or the RfC closes and egging the "Year in field" is made unacceptable in every circumstance. - J Greb (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

None of the projects supports the deliberate breaking of autoformatting regardless of location. The original comment was about a music link in 'Fairport Convention'. Are you talking about any other projects? Lightmouse (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm looking at it as editors trying to do 2 allowable, but incompatible things in infoboxes: autoformatting and piping. At this point it looks like the 'bot is making a judgment call on which is "more correct" within an infobox. Frankly, without the removal of the egging from the MoS entirely or a Project pointing that they would prefer the egging not be don in the infoboxes they use, the 'bot shouldn't be making that choice. Either leave it, or delink it entirely with an explicit edit summary that both intentions - piping and autoformatting - cannot be used together and one or the other must be picked in re-linking. - J Greb (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that last option. Delinking it entirely as an invalid combination with a comment. I will do that. Lightmouse (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest bot run through the aviation articles has now left solitary year links which I presume will be deleted on the next run. As far as I know the aviation project members wish to use the {{avyear}} template in the infoboxes which would make it the sole remaining date link in any aviation article, I do sincerely hope that we will be able to retain that feature at least. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As you have seen, Lightbot removes {{avyear}} templates when part of an invalid combination with autoformatting. Lightbot will eventually remove solitary years and other date elements within square brackets. There is no plan for Lightbot to remove {{avyear}} templates on their own. Lightmouse (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the bot be tuned to leave the 'avyear' template behind? It was not being used 'inside' any square bracketed dates. Many have been deleted today and I will have to restore them manually. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is currently fixing an invalid combination where the {{avyear}} template is adjacent to square bracketed day&month. It was an error to add it and it should have been immediately reverted. Lightbot is merely putting the article back in the state it should have been before the template was added in the wrong place. Lightmouse (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightening discussion, Things are rarely as simple as they first seem! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hurray! Another person aware of the issue. Thanks for your feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I absolutely hate seeing the piped 'year in film' links. Good work, de-linking them. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. One positive response like that makes up for a lot of the grief that I get. Lightmouse (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I hate seeing date links , whether they are piped or just like this: 1963. Thanks for your hard work to de-link them. BTW, I heard there is a date de-linking script, do you happen to know where I can find it? RockManQ 18:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, two expressions of thanks in one day. This is a good day. To get the script, add:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

to the bottom of User:RockManQ/monobook.js and clear your cache using the instructions on that page. The script only works when an article is in edit mode. When you are in edit mode, look at the bottom left for blue text just below 'What links here' and 'Special pages'. You will see text saying things like 'Delink dates to mdy'. Let me know how you get on. Lightmouse (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And I like seeing the 'year in film' links so I hope you are stopped from de-linking them .Garda40 (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Works great, thanks. RockManQ 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, Lightmouse has provided fine leadership in reforming quite a few aspects of WP. 2008 has been a good year in that respect. I hope and expect that this will continue; WP became a little stolid for a few years there, and we need to keep the "flexibility and reform" ball rolling, so that it remains the seventh-most-visited site on the Internet. Tony (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Year in X" links

Hello. I've noticed that your bot is removing "Year in X" links. I may be mistaken, but here you said:

"I hereby declare now that Lightbot not fix these errors anymore. The errors will remain concealed. That is a resolution of the discussion. I will restart the bot on the assumption that you have got what you wanted."

Was that only referring to "Year in Radio" links, or all "Year in X" links?--Rockfang (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent and clear-cut example of a piped link that should be removed without any question or hesitation. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. But, disagreeing on stuff on Misplaced Pages is ok. :) If you'd like to remove the link, I won't revert you. My main concern was Lightmouse doing something that he said he wouldn't.--Rockfang (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The diff you listed is a delinking in narrative, which should always be delinked without debate (per consensus and MOS). What is up for debate (and I didn't understand the whole story at first) is delinking in infoboxes and tables, etc. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say "always"? If you are referring to here, it says "unless there is a reason to do so." Here it mentions the disadvantages, but unless I missed it, neither says to always delink "Year in X" links.--Rockfang (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer the original questions:

• Due to frustration at the hostility, I declared that Lightbot would not fix these errors. I was hoping that would stimulate somebody else to fix them. However, it seems that people are prepared to complain when others fix errors but are not willing to fix errors themselves. So I decided that I would start fixing them again. I have no objection to other people fixing errors in any way they want and it is good when people are grateful for defects being eliminated.
• Combining a concealed link with autoformatting is wrong because it is a broken and invalid format. It has always been wrong. It is wrong if you like concealed links and it is wrong if you don't like concealed links. It is wrong if you like autoformatting and it is wrong if you don't like autoformatting. was wrong before the RFC and it will be wrong after the RFC. It has never been permitted in any location on any page.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Please direct your attention to Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:Lightbot. It appears we have another malfunction. JPG-GR (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Delinking

Your bot (Lightbot) is removing links to dates (example: December 22, 1995) all over articles. Is there a reason it's doing this? Or is it a malfunction? Elbutler (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a glitch, the removals of date links are to ensure compliance with WP:MOSNUM, which states:

*Linking: Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so.
*Autoformatting: Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable).

Please also refer to emerging consensus on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to those two RFCs that are still 11 days away from closing and, therefore, currently provide neither an emerging nor a real consensus concerning anything. Tennis expert (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, Tennis guy, it's now clear that your undertaking not to engage me isn't worth squat. About your retirement... Ohconfucius (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucious, don't stress it. Eleven days from now the clearly emerging consensus in both RFC will be beyond dispute of rational thinkers. In the meantime, let's avoid the constant wikilawyering that seems to have become endemic these days and get back to improving articles. Oh, and Lightmouse, sorry for the talkpage hijack, although that seems popular these days too. All the best. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in eleven days it'll be clear there's a consensus to deprecate (but not mass delink) dates only used for auto formatting. It'll also be clear that there's no consensus (or consensus in support) of autoformatting of some type (which, since auto formatting is the status quo, means we stick with finding a way to automatically format dates). Also clear from the RFC will be the situation regarding when date links should be made: clearly date links are appropriate in at least some contexts, so automatically removing them would be acting against consensus. Yes, I too can't wait for these RFCs to close and the consensus to be crystal clear for those who wish to disrupt Misplaced Pages for their own personal gains. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no problem waiting. User:Elbutler asked a valid question which I felt in a position to offer a response, so I did. So far, so good. What I object to is the badgering emanating from some quarters. I already know what Santa will bring, so I will surely enjoy myself this Christmas. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused what this "personal gain" thing is? This is a charitable organisation and we're all here (well, those who work in article space) to continue to improve and enhance articles. Who's gaining what, exactly? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Because apparently there are those amongst us who feel a perverse need to force their point of view on the readership of Misplaced Pages. Almost like some kind of game or a power trip. And it's unfortunate that the spirit of compromise and consensus is lost to these people (who are quicker to take a "nyah, nyah, we won" approach to discussion (despite it being clear that things aren't settled)). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Because apparently there are those amongst us who feel a perverse need to force their point of view on the readership of Misplaced Pages." Indeed, it would so appear. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, it's hard to fathom the logic behind Cole's posts, or to locate the evidence he seems to be invoking. If he wants to continue disrupting the move towards improving WP, fine, we'll be here to forge on regardless. Sorry Cole, but the world moves on. Tony (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome to look for yourself at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. And if anyone is disrupting Misplaced Pages it's those who continue to delink dates when it's clear that the community supports date linking "in some situations" (far from the "never link a date" attitude which you yourself were swearing was the consensus view). The only thing deprecated is linking dates purely for auto formatting (not because they're links to potentially useful material). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Glitch

Hi again Lightmouse. Please see here for an interesting glitch report. It references this edit of mine. As always, thanks for your good work in developing and maintaining this script. Any plans to re-enable ISO delinking? Best wishes, --John (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)