Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:55, 9 September 2008

Cite date

Regarding this, I have a function which converts "|date=2008-09-03" into "|date=3 September 2008". Cite episode and I think cite video produce redlinks, but I thought you might want to know. Gimmetrow 05:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be delighted to be able to add the code to the script. How can we confirm that this is an acceptable change? Lightmouse (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It would delight me, too. It's dizzying to read two formats for the same date on the same line. Some editors do feel strongly about the use of ISO in their citations, but just how many really do when they see the result of such a change can be judged only by applying the function. I'm willing to give it a go. Tony (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we just convert linked ISO into unlinked ISO? Lightmouse (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Try S Club again. I would suggest this be limited to date= fields, too. Gimmetrow 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just tried S Club again. It made no changes. What are you trying to tell me? Lightmouse (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's doing nothing to iso dates in date= fields. Gimmetrow 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I was creating the code. After I tested it, I thought we needed more debate. So I disabled it. I quite like ISO, particularly in reference material. Readers have been seeing this for a long time. I think we should just delink it into unlinked ISO. What do you think? Lightmouse (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your script changes other stuff in the refs, though. You could delink it since it wouldn't change anything - date= would still get linked by the cite template. But if "consistency" is the thing, then it's odd to have some refs with January 1, 2001, and others with 2001-01-01, no? ISO for the date= field was a recent thing. And I see no reason publication dates can't be in one format and accessdates in iso-style. Gimmetrow 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying I should go ahead and turn ']' into '2001-01-01' ? Lightmouse (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In the date= field of the most-used cite templates, it won't make a difference. Unlinked yyyy-mm-dd fields are checked for and linked if they pass the check. (Though there is a bug in the check in at least one template.) But for various reasons I wouldn't automatically unlink iso-style dates outside the date= field. Gimmetrow 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You are saying that if we turn 'date=]' into 'date=2001-01-01' it will still produce a link for the reader. If that is the case, the edit makes no sense. Like you, I see nothing wrong with more than one format in references. I wish we could code for a solution that everybody would accept. Lightmouse (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Google". 2001-01-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Google". 2001-01-01.

See for yourself. But as long as you're making other edits, no reason you can't remove unnecessary brackets. Gimmetrow 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Why are you delinking dates? Full dates should always be linked. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The guidance at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_autoformatting says:

• The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated.

It is taking a while for people to become aware of this. Lightmouse (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is. I have been an editor and an administrator for several years and edit Misplaced Pages pretty much every day and it's the first I've heard of it. Where was this discussed openly apart from between a few interested parties on the MoS page? It's a huge change and one I certainly don't agree with. It seems this has been rather slipped in by the back door and for such a major change that is the wrong way to go about things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to raise such questions at wp:mosnum? I am not sure if I can help you with the answers. Lightmouse (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on Necrothesp's talk page, with a link to a new information page on the DA issue. Referral to that page might assist when people come here seeking information about the matter. Tony (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're likely to get a lot of editors concerned about this; you might want to put a large note at the top of your user talk page briefly explaining why and directing editors to WT:MOSNUM. As the author of quite a few biographies I've no problem with the unlinking of dates in articles, although I think a lot of editors will not realise that the reason they were supposed to be linked was because of date preference. Many editors will just that "Misplaced Pages articles have dates linked" and might wrongly assume it is a newbie mistake to unlink them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I too am an author of many biographies. I'm fully aware of why dates are linked. And I totally disagree with their delinking, particularly the manner in which it seems to have been introduced. It's a big change and it needs discussion by more than a handful of date afficionados. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I mention the guideline page in the edit summary. My talk page is full of explanations. In fact, the word is getting round but it does not matter how many flashing lights, alarm bells and town criers are created, people will still think 'Misplaced Pages articles have to be linked', as you say. That was what I was told in no uncertain terms a long time ago. You are also correct that some people think it is a newbie error. However, the statistics show that the vast majority of articles stay unlinked. But this sort of debate should really be on the guideline pages because it does not matter much what I think. Lightmouse (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no mention of the guideline in any of your edit summaries! They merely say "Units/dates/other using AWB", which doesn't tell anyone anything. The "word is getting around" only because we're suddenly having dates delinked in articles we're watching. That's a fait accompli, not a discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot about that edit summary. I sometimes use another one. Would you be happy if I changed the summary or is the main issue with the policy itself? Lightmouse (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, my problem is with the "policy". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the newer summary is much better. Tony (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aviation Infobox

Hi Lightmouse, one of the changes you might have to institute in your bot's program is that the Aviation Project Group has agreed to use a date link to the "in aviation" listings for infoboxes. Can you adjust the run to leave the infobox information as is? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC).

See a stop in bot's function and a talk comment at Template:Avyear. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC).

Minor script bug

When performing some of the actions, such as "Delink all dates to dmy", this will delink {{dts}} templates even if they are already delinked (i.e. {{dts|2008|1|1}} would become {{dts|2008|1|1}}). Perhaps add a check in there before adding the code again to each dts? Gary King (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some code in there to do exactly that. It must be faulty. I will take a look. Can you give me an example article please? Lightmouse (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Try here. Gary King (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Traced the fault and fixed it. Thank you. Please double check it. Lightmouse (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, please can you comment on my bot request at: Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Date autolink removal by Lightbot

Although date autolinking has been deprecated on MOSNUM, it is NOT (at this time) the case that there has been consensus approval for the mass deletion of existing links. You might want to suspend doing so on properly formed date links until there is. (Cf. a couple of proposals regarding this.) Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 00:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The linked "proposals" seem to hold little water and to be going around in circles. There are major snags inherent in their development and adoption. On the other hand, what LM and others, including me, are doing is to conduct much-needed date audits. These are no quick and dirty applications of bots, but sensitively managed improvements of a number of aspects WRT dates, with human oversight. They improve the reading experience of our readers. They reinforce the need among WPians to manage dates properly. They promote their consultation of MOSNUM and CONTEXT among a broad range of WPians through edit-summary links. And not least, they perform a valuable service to WPians in enabling conformation and consistency with the MoS. These reasons probably explain why there has been only a miniscule incidence of reversion or complaint, and even little comment, compared with the number of audits. Tony (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A proposal is a proposal nonetheless, Tony. Don't be dismissive of other editors' efforts to get their opinions expressed and consensus to be reached.

Also, call a spade a spade, for pete's sake! To paraphrase The Princess Bride: you keep using that word, audit. I do not think it means what you think it means. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is not removing autolinks. Lightmouse (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A technicality, perhaps. Lightbot is not removing auto-formatted dates, but you, Lightmouse, are auditing removing date links using AWB. See here, here, here, and here, for example. If there are proposals that are being discussed, please respect the process and stop until a final consensus has been reached. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You may consider it a technicality to distinguish between the actions of a bot and those of a human, but I can assure you that other people take it very seriously. So it is important to get the owner of the edit correct before investigating. That is all. Anyway, as far as delinking actions of humans is concerned, it seems to me that the only solution is to change the wording at wp:mosnum to forbid it. Can we take this to the talk page of wp:mosnum? Lightmouse (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The point for my comment is due to what looked like your total dismissal of everything Askari Mark had said by making that distinction. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your bot is converting knot to kn

Your bot is changing |Ship speed={{convert|28|knot|km/h|1}} to |Ship speed={{convert|28|kn|km/h|1}} . Please stop doing it. It makes the page harder to understand. Knot is meaningful to a wide range of people. Kn is not.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot no longer does this. Lightmouse (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was doing this at 17:43, 5 September 2008. Thanks for stopping it.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have just changed the code today after your feedback. Lightmouse (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tennis articles

Please figure out a way to at least temporarily stop Lightbot from changing tennis-related articles. A discussion is ongoing in the tennis project about date linking. Lightbot should refrain from doing anything until that discussion has ended. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, you've already announced that you're in favour of ditching single-year links, of which there is a virtual blue blizzard in tennis-related articles. Are you not also in favour of cleaning out the date autoformatting so that our readers can easily identify the high-value links? If not, perhaps I might link you to a convenient information page on this matter. Please let me know. As far as consensus goes, I think you're clinging to the idea of WikiProject "consensus" (I'm unsure it exists in this case) above the common-sense movement in the WP's highest-level style and format authorities.

BTW, I must congratulate the tennis editors on a fine job. My date auditing thus far has revealed a very good part of WP's sports effort. (Just one thing: the Australian dates are usually in the wrong format.) Tony (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

an odd thank you

while I don't always agree with the date de-linking, I understand why you're doing it. It's indirectly the reason I'm here. When you/your bot edit articles such as this one I realise how many articles I'm still watching for no good reason other than I had the tickbox set to auto-watch for a while. So thanks for help cleaning my watchlist. :) TravellingCari 02:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Travelling. I've left a link to the DA information page on his talk page. Tony (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for date delinking

Hi Lightmouse, I see on Tony1's talk page that you are helping with the automatic date delinking. If it is not too much trouble, would you be able to run the script on Battle of the Alamo? I am beginning to prepare this article for FA status, and there are already lots of wikilinked dates to deal with. If this is not the kind of request that is easy to fill, then please just say so and I will do it manually. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

I'm surprised! "-264 characters" - That seems a lot, doesn't it!
Well done, and keep up the good work. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by -264 characters. Can you provide a link to the edit you are talking about? Thanks for the praise, I appreciate it. Lightmouse (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That should teach me not to assume that other people will know what I'm talking about, (but it probably won't!)
I meant, your date edits to the Victoria Cross page reduced the length of the page by 264 characters. (Assuming 8 characters per date, that means 33 dates.) That seemed like a lot of dates to me, and I was surprised.
Oh yes: this edit. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. I see now. I am not sure whether the numbers are bytes or characters but it makes not difference to me, I don't notice them anyway. Lightmouse (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(For possible future reference, 1 ASCII character occupies 1 byte. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

OOH. That is very useful to know. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

hide bot edits button

I had it on, but since none of the pages I run the script on are on my watchlist, it seems not to matter either way. Tony (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment was actually directed at TravellingCari. He said 'I just wish there was a way for it not to clutter the watchlist'. Lightmouse (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Which means he's watchlisting articles he cleanses. Fair enough, but I'm careful not to clutter my WL with more than what is absolutely necessary. SMcCandlish has TWO THOUSAND articles on his ... no wonder he takes extended breaks from MOS and MOSNUM.

The tennis person is apparently reverting some of my work, according to The Rambling Man; while it's worth persisting for a little while, since some people come around quickly, when faced with a one-person screech-fest I think the area he "owns" is probably best left for a while. Pity the readers, and the tennis editors who want the improvement. Plenty of stuff for us to get on with, where improvements are appreciated. Tony (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a really incivil comment, Tony1, and not appreciated. Tennis expert (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it was griping, but you were undoing improvements to articles that you agree with, which is hard to take when we put so much work into such improvements. You've since attempted to personalise the issue and to focus it entirely on me by starting the RFC on my "behaviour". Even some of your own supporters find that a bit much. Tony (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What RFC are you talking about? I started no RFC about you or anyone else. Tennis expert (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I just found the RFC. Not only did I not start it, I had nothing whatsoever to do with and do not endorse it. Although I disagree with many things you have done lately, I have never had the intention to escalate our disagreement to that level. I'm sorry you are going through this now. Honestly. Tennis expert (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lightbot

I don't usually frequent that part of Misplaced Pages and don't know what I'm doing there now. Also, I realize now that it is a discussion; there is no vote. I don't have anything to add to the discussion so I just withdrew my statement. Gary King (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now I see, I think somebody was a bit rude to you. I understand your withdrawal. Thanks for explaining that. Lightmouse (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, regarding this bot edit by lightbot. Is there any reason why links to "years in athletics" should be delinked? Surely this kind of approach would eventually render those articles useless and/or orphaned? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Folkboy, several Wikiprojects now advise against such "hidden" links. A better way, which actually encourages readers to click on them, is to reword the first occurrence so that it doesn't look like a useless year-link, and to remove the rest of the hidden links, which are readily accessible through that first one (which is usually prominently positioned at the top). Tony (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)