User talk:Lightmouse: Difference between revisions

Hi there Lightmouse!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

heya Lightmouse ... you wrote over on that date-unlinking-brouhaha page "Sssoul proposed bot delinking of calendar dates such as 18 December and described some other features of his proposal." it's no big deal - at least not for most wikipedia purposes! - but i'm a she-sssoul. 8) Sssoul (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Humble apologies. I pride myself on making effort to avoid such errors. I even smugly tell other people how important it is to get into a habit of being neutral on a variety of dimensions. Clearly I need to take my own advice more seriously. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Lightmouse (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

smile: it's not a big deal, Lightmouse! i'm kinda used to it, on the internet, but felt like letting you know. i'm often amused by how often people on the internet assume i must be a male because i dig the Rolling Stones, can tell a Gibson from a Fender, etc. 8) Sssoul (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was trying to distinguish two types of Fender in a band only the other day but as a listener not a player. Lightmouse (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not a player either - i just dig guitars, so i like to learn about them. i have a particular weakness for vintage Gibsons - but a vintage Fender can sound mighty mighty fine too. i wish i had any gift at all for creating music ... but hey, someone has to listen to it! and being a resonant listener sure gives me great joy. anyway ... swing on, Lightmouse - this date-link brouhaha will sort itself out one of these days, and it will be very cool to see the Great Unlinking. 8) Sssoul (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

me again, Lightmouse! i woke up this morning realizing that your gallant date-unlinking bot is currently designed to unlink only years that are part of full date links, while the little Passover Parallel i put forth out there as a compromise/interim proposal blithely assumes that it could easily be adjusted to unlink calendar dates intead (whether or not they're part of full dates). is that more or less correct? (for the record, i personally favour unlinking years as well, but as i hope is clear i'm trying to propose something that would allow *some* kind of progress with the bot-assisted date-unlinking.) Sssoul (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sssoul, is a compromise necessary at all? The beauty of your proposal is that it's a gift to those who have invested their time in year pages and fear the orphanage (I suspect that this is behind a lot of the opposition to the delinking of solitary years). It's a gift because the current state of affairs is that solitary years should not be linked unless there's a strong reason to do so, with the onus, presumably, on those defending the link to explain and justify the strong reason. It's taking nothing away from the link crowd and provides a very good way to highlight year pages, with gateways into them. The "See also" option removes this need and any tension surrounding the issue and the use of bots/scripts to delink chronological items. This is why it's odd, to me, that any year-page person wouldn't support it. You may, BTW, be interested in bookmarking WT:MOSLINK#Conducting_copy-edit_from_start_to_finish, the engine room of a rewrite of MOSLINK that should include a merging into that page of the largely redundant WP:CONTEXT and the few bits of the bizarre WP:BTW that don't breach our linking rules. The revampted MOSLINK is where I envisage your "See also" option will be located. Tony (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i sure don't need a compromise - my main aim was to "reframe" the issue, in hopes that more people might see just what you're saying here: that the assorted options that have been pointed out for preserving date links someone cherishes are helpful gifts, in view of current policies, not terrible burdens. it's definitely no skin off *my* nose if no one wants to bother "shielding" their cherished links by putting in a non-date word and moving them to the "see also" section - i was just hoping some people who are resisting the changes might slowly start realizing that the bot is designed to do good, not evil, and that Options X Y and Z are available to preserve the links they love best. meanwhile, i'm off to read those links you've provided - thanks! Sssoul (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the technical question, the answer is yes. Everything you have suggested so far is capable of being done by bot. Lightmouse (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Lightmouse! Sssoul (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse my dear, it's me again ... i'm pondering the suggestion that an RFC is needed to establish whether "the community" agrees that existing meaningless date-links should be undone, and if so whether that task should be done by bot. does that kind of RFC sound to you like a necessary and/or worthwhile step? if so i might volunteer to help compose the "starting statement", to try to get it phrased clearly and fairly - but if it's just a wheel-spinning excercise i don't feel like spending much time/effort on it. if an RFC like that *does* seem worthwhile/necessary to you, is dividing it into separate questions (about calendar-date links, about bare-year date links and about whether it should be done by bot) a good way to go? should a question be added about whether or not "the community" accepts script-assisted link removal? (i get the impression that some people don't know the difference between a bot and a script.) and: if an RFC does seem like a worthwhile/necessary step, and if i did get involved in the writing of the starting statement, would you be willing to field some of my questions about how the bot would go about doing the job? i'm not 100% sure i'm picturing it properly. Sssoul (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either. I feel like we have gone through this many times and regardless of the question we ask, people might answer a different question that they have in their head. Let me think about it for a couple of days. I certainly would be very happy for you to be involved in the starting statement and for me to discuss technicalities of bot operation. I will get back to you. Lightmouse (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sssoul, thanks for your queries and suggestion. I think that having to generate separate consensus to remove features that are recommended against by our style manuals is unnecessary (whether the removal is by bot, script or hand, and whether the proscription is new or old) and that to have an RfC on them is counterproductive. I believe that calls out there for such consensus are merely a ploy by those who don't like the fact that there's a strong trend towards more disciplined linking. Who would ask for Parliament or Congress to vote again to allow the police to clean up drug dens, having already passed a law against the possession of dangerous drugs? Tony (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Lightmouse & Tony. it seems irrational to me too to claim that an RfC is necessary to confirm that meaningless date-links should be removed, but ... well, people are irrational a lot of the time, and right now the fears people have are standing in the way of the date-unlinking process. if an RfC would help assuage (or override) some of those fears then maybe it's worth having it - i'm not sure. i see real clearly what Lightmouse means about people "answer[ing] a different question that they have in their heads"; i also see real clearly what you mean about it seeming like merely a ploy. so what is the alternative to an RfC - just giving up on the idea of a bot doing the unlinking?

meanwhile my "compromise/interim proposal" out there seems to have attracted two whole objections - one "on principle" and one that seems to boil down to "i can't be bothered earmarking the handful of calendar-date links that i consider profoundly valuable". where did all the editors in the "birth/death-date RfC" go, i wonder ... oh well. Sssoul (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I wonder if we should go ahead with an rfc for a bot to:

• leave solitary years alone and delink all other date components/compounds unless the reader can see a non-date term.
  • blah blah [[1974]] blah blah would not be delinked by the bot because it is a solitary year.
    
  • blah blah [[18 December]] [[1974]] blah blah would be delinked by the bot because the year is not solitary.
  • blah blah [[1974 in aviation]] blah blah would not be delinked by the bot because the reader can see a non-date term.
    

As far as I can see, it is similar to Sssoul's suggestion. What do you think Tony and Sssoul? Lightmouse (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC is totally unnecessary, since the proscription against the linking of solitary years has been in WP:CONTEXT for some time. Tony (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. I withdraw the suggestion. Lightmouse (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well ... the proscription is there, but the "objection" being expressed is that there's nothing in the proscription stating "and that means existing solitary-year links should be unlinked". as i've said i think it's irrational to claim that the proscription could possibly mean "but let's keep all the ill-conceived links that we now have", but that seems to be what Shereth wants an RfC to establish. it does seem like wheel-spinning - but i don't know what other options there are that would allow some progress toward getting rid of useless date links.

and for the record, if we did an RfC i'd also hope for:

• blah blah [[18 December]] blah blah would be delinked by the bot because it's a solitary calendar-date link with no apparent value/meaning, but
• blah blah [[18 December|events on 18 December throughout history]] blah blah would not be delinked by the bot because the reader can see a non-date term. Sssoul (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But this would assume that every single recommendation for or against the usage of patterns specified in our style guides is assumed to be invalid, except for prospective usage. It would assume that style guides are irrelevant to WP as it stands now (only future edits). It's plainly nonsense for anyone to put such a proposal up for testing. In any case, the bot won't delink your second example. What is anyone worried about? Such an RfC is a ridiculous exercise, and I'd give it no oxygen whatsoever. Both of these matters is established in the style guides. Tony (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as i keep saying, i agree that claiming an RfC is needed for this seems irrational - it's Shereth who's saying an RfC is needed, and if it's going to happen i'd just prefer it to be phrased in a way that's clear, fair, sensible, etc. but okay, i won't go volunteer to help formulate it ... what *do* you view as a way forward on all this, though, since people who fear the bot keep saying "there's no consensus for unlinking"?

meanwhile, yeah i know the bot wouldn't undo my second example - that's what i said and meant. i sure hope it would undo my first one, though, because i think hardly anyone sees any real value to the vast majority of calendar-date links. Sssoul (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just who are all of these editors who plague Shereth about the bot? I'd like to see evidence. In fact, I'll ask for it now. No one complains to me, except for our old friend Ckatz. Tony (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lightmouse. You have new messages at Flash176's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's three steps forward, two backwards, isn't it. I see you just treated two dates in the article on the ABC, which I've done at least once already, not long ago. Further, my experience at "Recent changes" has shown me that many editors are quite unaware of the new practice WRT both full dates and date fragments. Interesting to see how it evolves. On the other hand, it's pleasing to see that some articles are disease-free and not our doing. Tony (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen articles delinked by more than editor because they were replaced. I think it will take time. My experience with 'Recent changes' is that many of them are linked but I am not sure if it proves editors are unaware. An editor could be aware but might only want to make a small change to an old article. I also see lots of articles with the new style and, like you, I find it pleasing. I have wondered if we need a new angle, perhaps along the lines of Sssoul's proposal for an rfc. Lightmouse (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, I think that such a move would undermine the meaning of the style guides in their entirety WRT all but future edits. Tony (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Perhaps we just need more people delinking. Lightmouse (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for your suggestions on getting your date script to work for me. I've tried it on Opera, and it works, so it seems to be a Firefox issue. No idea what, it's all beyond me! --Ged UK (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your add-ins, extensions etc. If that is too confusing, you could simply delete Firefox and re-install it. Lightmouse (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether you'd mind helping SkyWalker, who's on my talk page now. Tony (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still using Opera to run this script. I haven't had a chance to have a look at what#s causing the problem on FF. I'll let you know if Ifind a problem. --Ged UK (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have you tried disabling everything? You can then add them back in one by one. Lightmouse (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightmouse, I noticed your edit to LazyTown that linked the dates. I have a question. I know in your edit summary you linked to the MoS article on dates, but there is also this policy: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Personally, I think dates are overlinked on Wikipedia and that a lot of these links don't add anything to the context of the article. For example, how does it add to the LazyTown article to link to whatever else happened on Sept. 15, 2008? Is there a more lengthy discussion on this matter here on Wikipedia that I'm missing? I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to talk with me about it. It's confusing. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I did not link dates in that article. I delinked them. I agree with you that dates are overlinked on Wikipedia and that a lot of these links don't add anything to the context of the article. Lightmouse (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	Hi! I noticed your contributions and thought you would be a great addition to the California State University task force over at WikiProject California. Please consider this your personal invitation to join; if you're interested, you can signup here! We currently have 1183 articles under our task force and would appreciate any assistance, large or small, with getting them to good article status. (We've got 18 there so far!) Whether you decide to join or not, thank you for everything you've already done to make Wikipedia better, and oh yeah...GO STATE!
~~~~

For your info, just fixed your recent edit on West Dean House. You added the convert template, unfortunately the existing quantity had a comma, which upset the template. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found that out. It was an error in the script and I have corrected it now. I wish the template itself could accept commas but it can't. Thanks for fixing that one and letting me know. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found another one at Bohemian Grove and fixed it. Perhaps it's worth the trouble to write a script that can go back and pull any commas that are still out there stuck in the templates... Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a good idea, I have updated the script and it will remove commas. I will do a search, there shouldn't be many instances though. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you made to this article did not serve its intended purpose of converting the units, instead it inserted a big fat error message into the article, so I have had to undo it. I don't know how to do this myself, or I would just fix it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is incapable of handling commas. I have since updated the script. Thanks for spotting that and letting me know. I put the template back into the article but without the comma and it is fine now. Thanks, I appreciate what you did. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Lightmouse - this is the fifth time you have made this edit. I thought we'd resolved it after the fourth time to prevent it from happening again. Please, please give your bot a blacklist or something, so you don't do this again. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. At least now it is within 'blockquote' that should make it easier. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I can fully accept that some users may not know or want to know what an acre is. Even that acres, although relevant for the past 700 years, are no longer the statutory measure of land in the UK. But why doesn't you're bot at least use the hectare instead of the square metre? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a bot. It is just me and a monobook script adding metric units that weren't there before. If you don't like square metres, feel free to change them to whatever you think makes the article better. That would be fine by me. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I admire your diligence. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acres should probably be converted to ha instead of m3 in almost all cases. I would suggest making that the default, then handling the few exceptions manually. Ferritecore (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Ferritecore means m²; apart from that I second Ferritecore's comments as well as that by Martinevans123. I assume these comments and requests stem from Lightmouse's inclusion of the {{convert}} template for acreages. The default metric conversion unit for the acres within the convert template is hectares. Lightmouse please in future if you are to include the convert template in articles for acres, let the default hectares apply or, alternatively, specify hectares. Then editors can change them to whatever you think makes the article better. Thanks. Bleakcomb (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean m² -- thanks. Ferritecore (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sq yds->m²; acres->ha; Sq miles->km². These are the most intuitive for metric/imperial users, e.g. the UK. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job I didn't drag up any perches or roods? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have a tiny request for you. As per this and the subsequent edits to MOSFILM, do you think you can modify your script to not remove the {{filmyear}} template? Thanks :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it didn't do this. Can you give me an example please? Lightmouse (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I had accidentally hit the "Delink-year-in-X" button, which is why I accidentally reported this. My apologies. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightmouse. I saw that you were using your scriptRegExs to delink dates via AWB, and I wondered if I could help. Could you tell me how you were running your script through AWB?which RegExs you were using? Thanks :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use modules. Look in the AWB 'Tools' menu, you will see a 'Make module' option. I just add the module there. Have you used that option? Lightmouse (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know how. However, I looked through your subpages and I found some things that might be it, so I asked on #wikipedia-en-help, and they said to go for it. :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that by delinking the common term 'actress', it somehow becomes 'actor'. Please refer to this example. I don't know if there are any similar gender changes in the course of running the script, but wanted to let you know. Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The delink actress->actor function was added by specific request of a user. I believe it was on the basis that 'actor' is considered gender neutral by many people but I can't speak for the request. I have now removed the function. Lightmouse (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not thrilled about this. Many people regard "actress" as sexist. Can you advise how it's rendered now: "actress" delinked or linked? Tony (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what it does now:

• [[actor]] -> actor
• [[actress]] -> actress
• [[actress|actor]] -> actor
• [[actor|actress]] -> actress

Thus it does not change what the reader currently sees. The way it worked before was the only instance whereby it changed what the reader sees. There is nothing wrong with changing what the reader sees but it is a different concept. Lightmouse (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Iam a registered user:). Though i have not touch the tools yet maybe tomorrow i make use of that tool. I will let you know and also iam quite afraid of misusing the tool and getting banned. Also i was wondering when i have to delink articles why must i first edit the page why can't the tool show before i edit the page. It would be much easier if the tools was outside without first editing the page because when it comes to large and very large article my browser crashes for few secs. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew how to make the script show before you edit. But I don't know how.

Very large articles take a long time to process with the monobook script. The AWB script is quicker, don't be afraid of using AWB. I will help you get started. You won't get banned if you are sensible. Lightmouse (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_links_per_wp:mosnum.3F. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the delinking of years to generic year-links. But removing the Year-in-videogaming link from a video game article? At the least, I think you should be making some comment on these special-purpose links being removed besides your generic note. I am concerned you have gotten careless with a programatic shotgun. sinneed (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think it wasn't careless but purposeful, since "concealed" year-in-X links—which look like the low-value blue year links that have infected WP for so long—are unlikely to attract clicks. Please consider a much more prominent and explicit flagging, once: use the "See also" template to add "See also: List of years in videogaming" under the first section in which they might be helpful. This list can then function as an explicit gateway to all of year-in-videogaming pages, and is more likely to attract clicks than a deceptive, solitary piped year link. Tony (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• blink* "deceptive". Erm. No. In any event... why didn't he do that instead of killing the link? I look forward to your edit. sinneed (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's deceptive because it doesn't tell the reader the true destination. This is against the recommendation at MOSLINK. I didn't realise that a link remained after the edit. Tony (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that AWB is removing the [[2008 in radio|2008]] links as if they were regular [[2008]] links, as with this edit to the WNNT-FM page. I am not sure if you can alter the way AWB picks the dates or not, but just something to look out for. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 21, 2008 @ 16:27