Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:18, 22 November 2008

Script to add some metric units with just one click

Thanks for the note on my talk page.

I just pretended I was a typical, naive Misplaced Pages editor and tried it out here at South Beach (nightclub).

Now, can you go fix that and make it a proper conversion? Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be delighted to make the change, if you can tell me what you define as 'proper conversion'. Lightmouse (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't correct, is it? What in the world would it mean to "reduce the temperature ... by −7 °C"? Is that the same as raising the temperature by 7 °C?

In any case, that conversion is clearly wrong. And you, like many naive users grabbing ahold of a black box like this, cannot even see the problem even when it is pointed out to you that a problem exists.

The point is, a black box like this maybe "fixes some common errors" as you claimed on my talk page. But on the other hand, it can easily introduce various other types of common errors, as I have just demonstrated. It should say that it reduces the temperature by 10 °C, for the precision of the original measurement (though I'd accept "by 11 °C" as a poorer alternative). Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that reducing the temperature by x degrees is not the same as a temperature of x. The script currently can't discriminate between those two instances and I am not sure if it ever could. The code is intended as a tool to supplement, not substitute, human skills.

• Are you saying that you like the script in general but would like it to be improved?
• Or are you saying that you don't like the script and think it should not be available to users?

Lightmouse (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Gene could have been clearer: the script is not working, and should not be available until it has been fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding unlinking of dates

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

— Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lightmouse, just so you don't miss it, here's a question I asked of you at WT:MOSNUM: "Is it possible for you to publish some statistics on how many pages your bot visited, how many delinks were made (per page avg. and total #), and how many complaints on how many pages you received? That would give us an idea of the degree of acceptance, or not, of your bot's actions."--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Lightbot/Lightmouse, but in my own case, I've gone back and reviewed my changes. In the month of October I edited about 8000 articles, usually using either Lightmouse's script or my own very similar regexes. I would guess, conservatively, that about 70% of them involved some date delinking. (This is an entirely manual review of my editing history, so figures are approximate.) I received complaints from 5 editors on my talk page (plus Tennis Expert's objections and reverts). So that's 6 out of 5600, or just slightly more than one in a thousand. I think such a low level of objections indicates widespread acceptance of delinking. There is consensus, despite all the claims to the contrary from a small number of editors Colonies Chris (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

CC, thank you for the reply: very interesting data. It is even more lopsided than I would have guessed, and good news to proponents of auto date delinking. I would urge you to disseminate your figures as widely as possible on relevant Talk pages. Be prepared, however, for challenges from opponents. If there is a way for you to open up the data to general review, please consider doing so. Thanks again.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it will be challenged; by CC's own description ("I would guess", "Figures are approximate", etc.), the results are far from precise. They don't even account for the reality that, for the most part, most editors who see the edit summary have no idea that the whole endeavour is contested and under review. Furthermore, many editors (and readers) do not understand - let alone dare to venture into - the murky world of Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies. When faced with an official-sounding edit summary, they just assume it is what must be. We cannot presume that the only objections are from those who actually go so far as to respond on CC's talk page. --Ckatz_spy 23:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can review my edit history and my talk page, and someone could no doubt write a script to do a more thorough analysis. The number of articles I edited is easily verifiable, only my estimate of the proportion that involved delinking is approximate. But even if my estimates are quite a bit off, the overall conclusion remains the same - the proportion of objections is tiny. And as for the idea that we should somehow take acccount of 'silent objectors' - I'm speechless. You can prove anything you want by imputing motives to people who haven't said anything. I think it's reasonable to believe that if people don't object, that means they don't object. Colonies Chris (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I'm not questioning your intentions; only saying that this data you've provided cannot be taken as the "widespread acceptance" it is described to be. People may not object for any number of reasons; in this case, many of them probably don't even know they can object to it. I could go through every article you, Tony, and Lightmouse have delinked, relink the dates using the same edit summary you're using, and in all likelihood the same general population of IP readers and less-experienced editors who didn't object to your edits wouldn't complain about mine either. --Ckatz_spy 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right, Ckatz. No one but Colonies Chris and his handful of cohorts objected to my relinking of dates. Tennis expert (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Objection to non-MOS date conversions

Changing all dates from US standard to Commonwealth standard is not consistent with MOS. In my view, this is unhelpful, unwanted, unjustified. Please fix the problem you have contrived.

• November 20, 2008-format is universally converted by you to
• 20 November 2008-format?

1. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Scotland (1906)‎; 11:16 . . (-26) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
2. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Russia‎; 11:16 . . (-41) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
3. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Japan (1930)‎; 11:16 . . (-17) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
4. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Japan (1891)‎; 11:16 . . (-31) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
5. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Ireland‎; 11:15 . . (-97) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
6. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of India (1891)‎; 11:15 . . (-25) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
7. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of France (1914)‎; 11:15 . . (-14) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
8. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of China (1891)‎; 11:15 . . (-26) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
9. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Canada (1961)‎; 11:15 . . (-2) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
10. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Canada (1929)‎; 11:14 . . (-25) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
11. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Canada (1922)‎; 11:14 . . (-22) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
12. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Britain (1931)‎; 11:14 . . (-108) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
13. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Britain (1906)‎; 11:14 . . (-29) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
14. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Australia‎; 11:14 . . (-106) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)
15. (diff) (hist) . . RMS Empress of Asia‎; 11:14 . . (-26) . . Lightmouse (Talk | contribs) (Date audit per mosnum/overlink/Other using AWB)

--Tenmei (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Which article? Lightmouse (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The MOS says:

• Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
• In certain subject areas the customary format may differ from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Your systemic standardization approach is designed to resolve date format disputes on a non-individual basis?

• You can make a unilateral change across the Canadian Pacific fleet, which is considered reasonable, as long as it results in consistency across the fleet -- which you construe as an over-all enhancement of Misplaced Pages quality? Yes? No?
• I had been following the convention already established in whatever article I'm working on; but your position appears to be that this nicety doesn't matter because happy-go-lucky Lightmouse will standardize post hoc? Yes? No? --Tenmei (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'convention established in the article' is relevant but it is a secondary consideration. See Misplaced Pages:Mosnum#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In this instance, your work not only improved the quality of Misplaced Pages texts -- you also affected the level of sophistication I'll be able to bring to bear in future articles I create or edit. --Tenmei (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links to years in poetry

I noticed that Lightbot removed links to years in poetry and years in literature with this edit at Thomas McCarthy (poet). I assume it's been done elsewhere. It seems the links, in lists of books or works, would seem useful. Could we stop this from happening? Reconsideration (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The topic of concealed links comes up frequently at wt:mosnum. The problem with concealed links is that people will treat them just like ordinary year links i.e. ignore them. That is why many people and projects say that links should indicate that they are not just plain year links. That article is an excellent example, some of the concealed links go to 'poetry' and others go to 'literature'. I have edited the page so that the links are wysiwyg. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that and edited it back (I thought I'd made a mistake). I'll change it back to your version. Is it possible to keep lightbot from removing the link entirely? -- Reconsideration (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is technically possible for Lightbot to stop removing the links. But since the links look like ordinary year links and will be ignored, what is the point of them? Lightmouse (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why so certain they will be ignored? These aren't links in regular prose but in lists devoted to works. If widespread -- and they've been in a lot of lists of works -- readers will figure it out, although perhaps not immediately. I've never seen a list of works that links just to the regular year, only to poetry or literature. Reconsideration (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is that the full phrase "1930 in literature" can look a bit bulky on a list. See T.S. Eliot#Bibliography. I think it would make the list a bit harder to read, therefore annoying to readers. Reconsideration (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems self-evident to me that concealed links that look like a year link will be treated like one. But your counterargument about them figuring it out is sufficiently interesting and general to be raised on one of the MOS pages. I agree with you that the wysiwyg link is longer. I would be happy to see what other people at the MOS talk pages think about this trade-off. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I think we sometimes lose sight of how hard it is to get the average reader to hit a wikilink. This is partly what underlies the clear movement in WP towards more selective linking and, as at issue here, more explicit linking. Reconsideration, can you link me to a problem example where it's apparently clunky to make a year-in-X link explicit in the running prose? I'm interested in trying to determine the possibilities for doing this, and hard examples are the acid test. Please be aware that the "See also" option gained considerable support on this page when touted last month: rather than linking in the main text, there's the possibility of selecting the most important year-in-X links for the topic and listing them as you wish in the See also section at the bottom, as gateways into all articles in that class. Remember that there's a user-friendly nav box to sibling articles at the top of all year-in-X articles. I hope this helps, and I look forward to further discussions on the matter. Tony (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

Regarding this edit, I was just wondering what your rationale was for changing from one date style to another...after all, isn't there an arbcomm ruling that forbids that kind of thing? Guettarda (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to bring the article into line with: Misplaced Pages:Mosnum#Full_date_formatting. It isn't always easy to apply the guidelines so if you think I haven't got it quite right, feel free to improve the article in line with guidance any way you think is best. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of As of (date) links

Instead of removing links of the form ], like As of 2008, as you did this in the article RV Thomas G. Thompson (diff), please replace them with Template:As of. In this article the replacement should have been {{as of|2008}}. Using this method allows editors to quickly find dated statements that may need to be updated or removed in the future. (As you can see from an updated version, the year/date no longer shows in the blue that seems to so greatly bother you.) Removing the link without templating it make the task of keeping our encyclopedia up-to-date for the readers more difficult on everyone. I encourage you to examine the template documentation for all of the options, like upper and lower case, etc. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I will do this. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualised: Royal Albert Hall October 10, 1997

Just to let you know, I reverted part of your edit to Royal Albert Hall October 10, 1997 because the name of the album does have 'October 10' that way around, not '10 October'. --VinceBowdren (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightmouse (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing the titles of references

Please refrain from changing the title of references cited in articles as you did in SS Kroonland (diff). As nice as it would be if all reference titles were in accordance with Misplaced Pages style guidelines, regrettably, we must keep the references titled as they were published. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Lightmouse (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing dates in quotations

Please refrain from changing dates that are parts of quotations is you did in edits to SS Caserta (diff), SS Czar (diff), SS Dante Alighieri (diff), and SS Duca d'Aosta (diff). As nice as it would have been if Admiral Gleaves had followed our Misplaced Pages style guidelines when he published his book, he was, regrettably, long dead by the time they were established. Please respect the dead by not altering their words. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)