User talk:Bobblewik

units of speed

In tables like that for USS Norman Scott (DD-690), I don't really think it's necessary to put the metric equivalent for the assumed speed in the range--it's just a figure of merit, and anyone can see that the assumed speed is almost half the max speed, which is the line above, and which is converted. It's certainly wrong to do it to two significant figures, i.e. 15 knots ~~> 30 km/h.

Also, converting weapons calibers is tricky, since the English-unit values aren't necessarily precise to the millimetre. —wwoods 09:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Units of speed for ships

About measures in the Sven Foyn article.
One thing is "kW" for horsepower, another is "km/h" for knots. This is an article about a person that lived and died a hundred years ago, and the measures you use were not used at that time. When it comes to "km/h" at sea, its still not used. Ulflarsen 23:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. The question of metric units in ship articles is quite a big one. I have taken the liberty of raising the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Are_metric_measures_not_permitted.3F. Bobblewik (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

units of time

Multiple units of time

I have taken the liberty of changing "m" to "min" in Eben Moglen. I have also switched whitespacing to "12 h 34 min" (from "12h 34min") in some cases. It looks a bit odd to me, but at least it's consistent. Rl 11:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. As you probably know, there should be a space before unit symbols. I think this comes from ISO 31 and is mentioned in the Manual of Style. The abbreviations 'h' and 'min' are shown in Wikipedia and on the SI website: http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table6.html

I think time durations often look odd because more than one unit is quoted (part hours and part minutes). This is not how we normally like metric units. Thus '1 h 25 min' looks like '1 kg 24 g'. If time durations used single units like '85 min' they would be less odd and look more like '1024 g'. Although it is common for non-metric units e.g. '1 pt 3 oz'. It is the same issue when people quote '1 m 65 cm' (two units, as some people use) instead of '1.65 m' (single unit, my preference). I tolerate the written form being different to the spoken form. After all, abbreviations do precisely that anyway. As you say, what you did increased consistency and that is a good thing.

Thanks for your edits and your feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

units of inverse time

Regarding your edit to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, 'fps' is the accepted abbreviation for 'frames per second' (particularly in CG), not 'frames/s'. (If you really wanted to go SI, Hz would have been right — and it's the norm when referring to television). A quick scan of your contribs list doesn't turn up anything else where you might have changed this... but that's a mightily impressive list you've got. Keep up the good work! -- Perey 19:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have done some previous changes from fps to frame/s, but not recently. Only a few anyway. If you want to track them down, search for 'frame/s'. The SI form Hz would certainly work for me, but I was being conservative with my change. I know that 'fps' is accepted by some, but I do not regard that as reason to believe that 'frame/s' is unacceptable. I tried to do a web search to see if the term 'frame/s' is in use, but I failed. I won't promise to close my options but, in consideration of your response, I will certainly be less inclined to modify 'fps' to 'frame/s'. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 20:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

units involving light

lumens

Could you eyeball Lux and Talk:Lux?

An anon has edited Lux, changing phrases like "1000 lumens" to "1000 lumen" on the grounds that "Symbols are written in singular, e.g. 25 kg (not "25 kgs"). Similarly it is lumen not lumens." I'm pretty sure he's wrong about that—that is, it applies tot he symbols, but not to the fully-spelled-out unit names—and have cited an NIST style guide on the talk page.

What I'm much less certain of is his use of "klx," "μlx", &c. These are presumably valid combinations of an SI prefix and symbol. What bothers me is that I've never, never, never seen them in use. I've always just seen the base unit, with the value in scientific notation. E.g. instead of saying "direct sunlight is about 100,000 lux," in a scientific or technical context you'd see "direct sunlight is about 10⁵ lux," but never "direct sunlight is 100 klx." But I'm no SI guru. What if anything can be said about the use of such constructions? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have responded on Talk:Lux. Bobblewik (talk) 15:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Units of force

BQM-74

Hi again Bobblewik. Two comments on your last edit to this article: 1. Expressing thrust in lb rather than lbf is a very widely used convention in aerospace circles and publications. Since the vast majority of our articles here use lb, it probably makes more sense to follow this convention ourselves. 2. I'm not sure why you changed the metric conversion for 40,000 ft. 40,000 ft is 12,195 m - I could understand rounding to 12,200 m but to 12,000? Cheers --Rlandmann 23:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I am sure that lots of people would have an opinion on this. Could we discuss the issue in a generic talk page?

2. I am never very comfortable with conversions of altitude. In this case, the article mentioned a range expressed by the manufacturers. This depends on when the rocket motor runs out of fuel. It also depends on the number and extent of direction changes during the flight to follow an uncooperative target. Just like a service ceiling, the boundary from fully functioning to non-functioning is not sharply defined. It is a manufacturer nominal specification which is variable in operation.

I did first round it to 12,200 m because this is usually the precision I use for aircraft. But then I changed my mind because it seemed excessive precision given the very wide operating range to almost ground level. But it was a somewhat arbitrary decision. Feel free to put the value you think is best. Thanks for the questions. Bobblewik (talk) 08:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I've asked for comments on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page.

2. I hear your misgivings and agree with them. Indeed, all our performance specifications are subject to the same kinds of qualification - speed, range, climb are all highly variable. We simply have to accept published figures at their face value; indeed, since the figures provided by manufacturers/users of these vehicles are already "somewhat arbitrary", I feel that converting them is really more like a "translation" than anything else. If we were following rules about significant figures, then 40,000 ft would simply be 10,000 m, even further away! --Rlandmann 05:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Units of pressure

mb/mbar

I noticed the edit war that you are in on the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season page regarding the symbol for millibar. Actually both are acceptble symbols (the millibar page itself doesn't even say one is prefered over the other) and mb is much more common in U.S. meteorology, that being the reason that the page uses mb. --Holderca1 11:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get the NWS to go SI and use kilopascals (kPa) like Environment Canada does, and you won't have anything to argue about. Gene Nygaard 12:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem like an edit war to me. As far as I could see, there was only one edit specifically changing 'mbar' to 'mb' but I did not examine all edits. The symbols for units are defined at:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html (US NIST)
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table8.html (SI authority))

I have no objection to this being discussed somewhere. Bobblewik 20:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

google units

what is this "units possibly using google converter" i keep seeing? you should make the edit summary a link to a short description. keep in mind that google converter is wrong sometimes, notably with calculations involving kbps. convert with care. - Omegatron 13:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, I do a *lot* of conversions rapidly. I do try to take account of the many constraints that people request but it is impossible to comply with all of them. In general, think that I do convert with care. However, there is always room for improvement so I am keen to here more. I don't understand what you mean by a 'link'. Are you suggesting that I put a web page in there?

No, I mean write up a little thing on your user page and then enter your edit summary as [[User:Bobblewick#Conversions|units, possibly using Google converter]], like I do for [[User:Omegatron#Spell_checker|Spell checker]] - using US English - Omegatron

I am editing pages at an extremely fast pace and it is easier to use an identical summary. I thought that you were suggesting different summaries for each page but it is clear that you aren't. Know that I understand it, your suggestion is an excellent idea. I will do it. Thanks. Bobblewik (talk) 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just saw your edits on Snow cannon diff and got confused from your edit summary, until I looked here to see your method. For instance, on that edit you only changed &deg to a degree symbol (excepting one) and removed both links to Celcius but left one to Farenheit. Your edit summary left me wondering what you saw wrong in the first place. I would appreciate if you changed it to be a little more descriptive or linked to an explanation. Thanks a lot. --NormalAsylum (t) 15:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You ask what I saw wrong in the first place. There is no such unit as 'Celcius'. It is a mispelling of 'Celsius'. That is what I saw wrong. In addition, there should be a space between digits and unit symbols. I removed the mispelt word and added spaces. I hope that sounds reasonable to you. If not, feel free to revert it or revise it to the way that you think is best. Thanks for your feedback. Bobblewik 16:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested in what you say about it being wrong. I know that the google horsepower conversion is only the American one. I have never tried google with kbps but would be interested to hear of the issue. Can you expand on that? Bobblewik (talk) 14:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah. As you might know, units like kilobit are ambiguous and can mean either 1024 bits or 1000 bits (which google calculator doesn't mention; it just assumes the 1024 values). In context of kbps, it is always 1000 bits, though, and google still returns 1024. Other calculations like this have the same problem, so just be careful. There might be other errors lurking... - Omegatron 14:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I did not know that google did that. Interesting. Thanks. I have not used google to convert kbps at all. I have done plenty of replacements of the *unit term* 'kbps' to 'kbit/s' and 'Kbps' to 'kbit/s' (note lower case 'k'). I have done the same with mbps and gbps. I have also tried to convert 'K', 'kb' and 'KB' to 'kB' where I am fairly sure that is what was intended. I cannot recall an instance where I modified the associated numerical value. So what I have done is in line with what you say.

I am sensitive to the possibility of Google being incorrect. It is also possible that I will make errors. But I hope that an assessment of my performance overall would demonstrate a very low error rate. You will note that I say 'possibly using google converter'. I want to make people aware that google can help them with conversions. If they see this summary often enough, they might try it for themselves.

In many cases I don't use google at all, I am just suggesting that I *may* have used it. I have done so many conversions that I know many of them by heart. In addition, I sometimes don't use google to convert the units, but use google merely as an arithmetic calculator using the conversion value in official sources. For example, UK unit conversion values are defined in law at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951804_en_2.htm Bobblewik (talk) 14:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Remember it's kbit, Mbit, and Gbit. Kibit is capitalized though, since it was defined that way since computer people always write "KB", they will always write "KiB". You can link to the articles for each as you do it, too. That would be helpful to tie everything together. units like kilobit, gibibyte, megabit per second, and kibibit per second all have articles.

Of course if you make an error the wiki will fix it eventually, anyway, so it doesn't matter. :-) - Omegatron 14:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Make instructions to editors invisible to ordinary readers

Hey hi there...what are you doing by removing the fill in instruction? I was editing everything and you came in and all my info got lost...regards

The issue of visible comments for editors has been debated a few times. See what the Manual of style has to say. If you disagree with it, feel free to revert that particular change. I won't object. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik (talk) 29 June 2005 12:26 (UTC)

nope bob, i am not against it...mind if you do me a favour by reverting it back.. i am on to inserting many of the info... ps: i request that u revert it back because i don't know how to do it...am still a newbie in here...thanks! regards!

I have reverted it back to the version with fill in. I put back your spelling correction of 'Febuary' too. You could replace 'fill in' with  and that would make it invisible to ordinary readers but visible to editors.

Incidentally, Welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to be doing very well. Please feel free to create a login account for yourself. If you sign your comments using 4 tildas (~~~~), Wikipedia will automatically put your ID and date, just like you see with mine. Bobblewik (talk) 29 June 2005 12:59 (UTC)

yup thanks for the welcome...you are the second to welcome me in here...maybe this only happens to me but i sorta think pple in here aint quite friendly. sorta a little self centred. i feel that editing wiki shld be because one feels that it is his respnsible to put facts right to allow pple to know and not to GAIN recognition in here... yup thanks for the welcome btw! take care...hoping to chat with you soon

Like everywhere, there are friendly people and unfriendly people. Even if you are here a long time, you will experience both types. That is the price of open editing. You will see people quote principles that are meant to defuse tension like assume good faith and be prepared to have your contributions mercilessly edited. You will soon pick up your own methods of survival. Regards. Bobblewik (talk) 29 June 2005 13:13 (UTC)

opps forgot to put the 202.156.2.170 29 June 2005 13:39 (UTC) sign...anyway...yup...i see lots of people editing posts for the recognistion they will recieve and some are even trying to get into good books of admins in here to gain high ranking or whatsoever....anyway where are you from?you sound friendly!

are you there?165.21.154.114 3 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)

Yes. I am here. Sorry for not getting into a chat. To answer your question, I am British. Bobblewik (talk) 3 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

metrics conversion on carbine

i appreciate your efforts on unit standardization. however, your edit comment is disingenuous. i must insist that if you are going to change capitalization and formatting, that you include it in your edit comment. i would ideally prefer you make two edits, so that i can revert one if need be. please remember that there is no "policy" on style in the wikipedia -- only guidelines. you have no substantive reason to change the things that you did which weren't unit related. be further advised that i, at least, watch pages i edit, and such quibbling over format is not looked upon as insignificant. if you wish to change style, leave a note on the talk page. xoxo, Avriette 03:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought I had responded to this a while back. Somehow it got lost. Anyway here is my response:

My edit comment is not intended to be disingenuous. My usual motivation for editing relates to units and my summary states that. I sometimes make edits while I am there that are incidental and unremarkable to me.

I was not aware that sentence case headings are seen as controversial. Feel free to format it the way you prefer. And thanks for the positive comments about units, it is good to read things like that. Bobblewik (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

125 mm Smoothbore Rounds

Bobblewik, normally your changes are welcome, however when you made substantial changes to the page 125 mm Smoothbore Rounds you managed to do 3 things

Remove the bolding (I'm assuming deliberately) on the tables of data (I am trying to follow the standard on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content for data tables). Which I have used for weapons pages - AT-3 Sagger SS.11 SS.10 Entac .
Break the quick reference http links in the data tables.
Leave several ' marks floating in the page.

The units tidy up however, was appreciated.

Keep up the good work (with perhaps a little more care).

Regards Megapixie 07:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact - futher reviewing some of your edits, there appears to be a problem with the way your algorithm/script handles data tables - it also slightly screwed up Browning Model 1917 machine gun (check the brackets on the last line in the data table) could you please review your script.

Thanks Megapixie 07:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Anti-tank rifle wz.35 seems to have a hyphen conversion problem which damaged to date year link.

Megapixie 08:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Mea culpa. I don't use a bot. All edits are manual but I sometimes use editing tools (e.g. search and replace in a Word processor). So I am responsible for it all, good or not so good. My main motivation is almost always units. I sometimes do incidental things while I am there that I think are improvements, but they are rarely as important to me as the units.

As far as the last line in Browning Model 1917 machine gun is concerned, I don't see the error that you see. I changed it to sentence case and added the metric weight in brackets. I also took the qualifying text out of brackets.

As far as Anti-tank rifle wz.35 is concerned, what I did there was convert a hyphen to the word 'to'. I prefer the word 'to' for ranges because it does not get confused with a minus. That is more important in units than dates. In this case, my manual editing wrote over one of the square brackets by mistake.

As far as the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content standard is concerned, I think you are doing the right thing to follow the standard. I happen to think the page is improved by a removal of bolding so that is why I did it. But it is not a big deal for me. I appreciate the constructive manner in which you have given me feedback. Unfortunately, as a human rather than a bot, I cannot reprogram myself to avoid errors but I will try to take more care. Thanks for mentioning it. Feel free to put the articles the way you want, including reverting any of my edits.

Incidentally, that standard is being updated and bold may not be a part of the new standard. We would welcome your thoughts at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Specifications survey. Bobblewik 09:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External Links vs. References

Bobblewik,

You recently updated a page I started (Big Stone Lake) with unit conversions (thank you) and by changing the "References" section title to "External links" (no thank you). I labeled it references because those were the sources of information I used to write the article; therefore they are formatted as references and properly called such. "External links" is the same thing as "further reading"; those items are ones that may be of interest to someone wanting to learn more, but not necessarily used as an information source for the article. Therefore this change was inappropriate, and I have changed it back. Please don't make that change again unless you confirm whether or not the items listed were actually used as references.

Thanks, Bantman 19:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The change from 'References' to 'External links' was a minor point for me. My main motivation for editing that page relates to units. I take note of your comment and understand your point. I do not mind at all that you have changed it back. I will not promise to constrain myself to confirm future changes with other editors, but I will certainly be less inclined to make this change in future and will be more likely to think of the point you have made. I hope that is in-line with the spirit of what you ask.

I appreciate the constructive way in which you have brought this to my attention. Thanks. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 18:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know your "bread-and-butter" is units and so I suspected the other edit was an add-on. I'm happy to hear you will be more cognizant of the issue in the future; all I wanted to do was raise your awareness. And thank you for your kind words. See you around! - Bantman 18:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

are you a bot?

Hello. Could I ask you whether you are using a bot or some other form of automated means for your conversions? Just out of interest. 80.255 00:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a bot and no bot has acted on my behalf. I do not know how to program or control a bot. All my edits are manual. I frequently make use of Google converter to automate the conversion of the values which I then type into copy. Regards Bobblewik 17:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning-fast edits

I was amused that you edited USS Shasta (AE-33) only six minutes after I posted the article. (You added a conversion of knots to km/h.) You must run some kind of script that monitors all new postings for non-metric units. Thanks for the edit, by the way. I would have put it in the article but I didn't know the conversion factor. ♠ Regards, DanMS 23:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't run a script. All my work involves my fingers on the keyboard. Land, sea and air vehicle articles usually contain units so if I see one in the 'Recent changes' list, I may check it.

As far as conversion is concerned, I already know the conversion of 20 knots. But in many cases I use the amazingly easy Google converter. For example, just look at how easy it is to convert: 26 ft 4 in and 20 knots in km/h.

Bobblewik 23:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That is VERY cool! I didn't know that existed. Thanks for the tip. From now on I will use that instead of calling up Start>>All Program>>Accessories>>Calculator and punching in the numbers. Google kicks a**! ♠ DanMS 03:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Units in drip irrigation

Bobblewik, please read Talk:Emitter. Summary: the scientifically respectable metric units aren't the ones normally used in practice in metric countries. --Macrakis 20:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply in Talk:Emitter. I have answered there. But I also wanted to reply to a more general statement you made there:

As a matter of philosophy, Wikipedia is an international resource, written by international contributors and targetted at international readers.

I certainly agree with this statement. However, just because it's international doesn't mean that it should exclude points of view or usages that are restricted to some part of the world. Quite the contrary: the philosophy of NPOV encourages us to document a variety of points of view, but also admonishes us not to inject our own preferences about how things ought to be. PSI and kPa are both ways of talking about water pressure that are actually used in the world at large; lbf/in² is technically correct, and appropriately used in some technical contexts, but much much rarer. It is POV to deem it superior to PSI and systematically expunge that usage. --Macrakis 04:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblewik, I've looked over some of your other edits to understand your philosophy of units. If I'm not mistaken, it is to prefer SI units rather than other metric units, e.g. 1.20m rather than 120cm or 1200mm. This is a very sensible philosophy in some contexts -- notably physics articles -- but I do not think it makes sense in general. Different fields have different practices in their use of units in metric countries. For example, furniture designers in Europe use mm, whereas architects use cm. The size of plots of land (house lots, parks, cities) is usually expressed in hectares (hA) -- sometimes in ares for small lots --, not in m² or km², but floor space is always expressed in m². Beverages are usually measured in cl, not ml or l, while gasoline/petrol is measured in liters. Gasoline mileage of automobiles is expressed in liters/100 km, not in km/liter. etc. etc. --Macrakis 23:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll throw my two cents worth in on a couple of points.

Millimeters and centimeters are SI, even if you'd spell them -re. Though centimeters (and anything else using the prefixes which are not powers of 1000) are SI, they are of limited utility and should not be used where there use is not well established, or where it is clearly a holdover from old cgs usage
It's okay to revert Bobblewik when he changes hectares. But use the proper symbol, ha, not hA.
Centiliters/centilitres and deciliters/deciliters are totally foreign to much of the world, and decreasing in use in Europe. Use the universally understood milliliters or liters. Gene Nygaard 04:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you for your feedback and interesting points. I hope I do not miss anything when I respond as follows:

just because it's international doesn't mean that it should exclude points of view or usages that are restricted to some part of the world. Quite the contrary: the philosophy of NPOV encourages us to document a variety of points of view.
Good point. Inclusiveness is part of my motivation. Changing a single non-international format to a single international format increases inclusiveness. A change in the other direction decreases it. Additional supplementary formats optimised for particular languages and regions seem unnecessary if the international version is comprehensible. But I have objection in principle to supplementing an international format with a variety of additional non-international formats.

your philosophy of units. If I'm not mistaken, it is to prefer SI units rather than other metric units
That is a fair summary, although not as I would put it. My primary preference is for SI instead of non-SI. People seem to agree about the definition of SI but not about the definition of 'metric'. For example, since 1968, the SI authority has said that SI is the 'modern form of the metric system'. It may no longer be 'modern' and you could interpret their statement as meaning 'SI' and 'metric system' are synonyms. Other than the SI authority, there is no metric system authority. But that may be an esoteric point. Your summary should predict my edits. If somebody writes 2.2 quintals claiming the 100 kg version of quintal is 'metric', I would change it to 220 kg.

SI units rather than other metric units, e.g. 1.20m rather than 120cm or 1200mm.
Not quite. All three (1.2 m, 120 cm, 1200 mm) are correct SI and are consistent with my primary preference for SI. I have a secondary preference for powers of 1000 in unit formats. I think it can be traced to an ISO standard. The newer SI prefixes are consistent with that but not the older ones. As you might expect, I care more about my primary preference than my secondary preferences.

Different fields have different practices in their use of units in metric countries.
Indeed. I am glad you mention that. It is a popular misconception that the USA is 100% wrong and 'metric countries' are 100% right. Even 'metric countries' differ. Many have widespread non-compliances that would be criticised if it were America e.g. use of 'dunams' and 'quintals'.

As far as hectares are concerned, this has been discussed at length and I don't think there is much new to say. Hectares are widespread when addressing certain audiences. In some cases either unit is used for the same area, sometimes a piece of text will include both. But they are not as comprehensible to the general public as SI units. If I understand Gene correctly, he will tolerate hectares for areas less than 10 km².

For example, furniture designers in Europe use mm, whereas architects use cm...Beverages are usually measured in cl, not ml or l,
Hmm. It is not true to say that 'European architects use cm' and drinks are in cl not ml. The European architects that I have encountered use mm and not cm. I expect for the same reason that I do. The suggestion that drinks throughout Europe are always in cl not ml is also unsupportable. I do notice that countries differ in this respect. Some countries use 'dl' and in others it would be regarded as incomprehensible. Perhaps you could name the European country you are thinking of.

Gasoline mileage of automobiles is expressed in liters/100 km, not in km/liter.
I know. This does not fit with the idea that multipliers should be on the numerator. SI expresses volume in cubic metres and length in metres and we could reduce it to units of area. Then we might suggest that fuel should really be in units of energy just like it is when you recharge an electric vehicle or fuel your home.

I 'touch' a lot of articles at a fairly high rate. So it is inevitable that lots of people see my edits. There are a lot of weird and wonderful formats used but there are a few people that try to raise the quality of unit formats throughout Wikipedia. I hope that number of people is increasing. Hopefully, responses such as 'hmm that edit seems odd to me' or 'that edit is wrong' are less common than satisfactory acceptance. Bobblewik 14:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue with the NYC subway cars?

I noticed your RfC and went to take a look, and it seemed like a big mess. Have you tried to communicate with the anon contributor? What's been the result, if any? —Morven 04:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not tried to communicate. I guess that as a matter of etiquette, I should have done that before mentioning it. Mea culpa. It was just one of those experiences that makes me sigh. My main priority, as I am sure you know is correct use of units. The has been no real opposition to correct use of units. So I am reluctant to enter into a debate with a user about issues that do not rank first on my priority list. I should let it go, as I did the first time I was reverted.

I suspect that the contributor is an enthusiast. The content is apparently valid but the format is bizarre and there is resistance to change if done by other editors. I remember a similar experience with Ford GT90. It is no big deal but I thought that the best way of addressing it would be to allow others to see what is going on. Bobblewik 11:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:R142A (New York City Subway car). Should it be moved to Category talk page? Gene Nygaard 17:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that you had written that. Thanks for joining/launching in the debate. Incidentally, you have a stray inches in the table rather than in.

As you suggest, it does not really belong at the individual car page. Perhaps the category page or maybe better at the talk page of a parent article such as New York City Subway. Bobblewik 17:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You da man!

Just had to say that! Scott 02:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Say it as often as you like. I will not tire of hearing it. Thanks. Bobblewik 02:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only twice..."You are da man!, LOL" Regards Scott 02:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

an old edit to Holungen introduced an unknown Unicode character

Hello,

In this edit to Holungen, you introduced the Unicode character  which is an undefined "private use area" character. I have now edited it out, but I am curious what text processing program you used to produce such a character. -- Curps 10:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I think this is what I did:

copied the text into Microsoft Word.
Add a comment ending with the characters '-->'
For its own reasons, Microsoft word automatically changed those characters into something else.
I copied the text back into the article
I then noticed that the characters '-->' are not there so I added them.

This automatic change by Microsoft Word is an irritation because it happens frequently. I have not done anything about it. I suppose I can look it up in the autoreplace settings. Bobblewik 10:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date Links

Thanks for your note on date links. Everyone seems to have different ideas about it. I'm forever getting people adding date links into my articles. Chevin 18:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft specs policy

Several weeks ago, you voted in the WikiProject Aircraft Specifications Survey. One of the results of the survey was that the specifications for the various aircraft articles will now be displayed using a template. Ericg and I have just finished developing that template; a lengthier bulletin can be found on the WT:Air talkpage. Naturally, we will need to begin a drive to update the aircraft articles. However, several topics in the survey did reach establish consensus, and they need to be resolved before we implement the template. It is crticial that we make some conclusion, so that updating of the specs can resume as soon as possible. You can take part in the discussions here. Thanks, Ingoolemo ^talk 05:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Library, Trinity College

Hi, I've reverted the lowercase in Library as it plays a specific and histotical role in the College (and indeed, country). Dlyons493 Talk 20:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting that it is a proper noun rather than a common noun, that is fine. Thanks for your feedback. I see that common nouns in other section headings are capitalised. Did you recapitalise those too for some reason? Bobblewik 23:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A query from a curious cat

I saw your dewikifying edits of years in Farkhor Air Base. Is there any aesthetic reason or any other reason behind such reduction in overlinking? Just curious, since I just pounce of unwikified years wherever I see it and wikify it. :) Idleguy 13:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good question. The explanation might be easier when we consider the question Why link dates?.

The reason for the existence of date 'links' is because of 'date preferences'. For example, Americans like to see April 12, 1981 and Brits like to see 12 April 1981. If square brackets are added, the Wikipedia software amends the format so that the sequence matches that chosen by the reader in the preference settings. It should not really be called a 'link' at all, the actual 'link' to the article is merely a secondary effect.

Date elements that are unambiguous across cultures (such as a year on its own: 1981) do not involve date preferences and so do not need the square brackets for reformatting. It is explained (not very well) at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formatting and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Internal_links

This issue is widely misunderstood. Lots of dates get linked on Wikipedia and some people think that means *all* must be linked. However, this is not supported in any Wikipedia guidance. There is no assertion that reader access to date articles is insufficiently satisfied.

I think linking of solitary-years and solitary-months is overlinking. However if that is what people want, it is fine by me but I think it has just become one of the things that editors do without thinking too much.

The issue is discussed from time to time. For example at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous.

Thanks for asking here. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 15:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not true that none of the years standing alone should be linked. I have pointed out that dates are overlinked; I do not, however, agree that they should never be linked if it has nothing to do with preferences.

In your overzealous "reducing overlinking" you have now gone so far as to remove a link that was the only year mentioned in a whole article, and one that could legitimately be linked for purposes other than preferences, and were reverted on it by someone other than me. Gene Nygaard 02:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair article

Thanks for your helpful edits on the Sinclair Research Ltd article which I have worked really hard on. I am still determined to get this to FA status, despite it being rejected once so far as a FA candidate. Thanks again! — Wackymacs 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. The topic is noteworthy and you are doing a good job. I learned some things from reading it. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 20:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ndash vs 'to'

In the Miles Davis article, why convert "(date) – (date)" to "(date) to (date)"? As I understand, ndash is the appropriate typographical mark to indicate a range of something. But "to" is more readable. - Shadowhillway 15:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to avoid associating digits with anything that looks like a minus symbol. See:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/archive26#Use_of_hyphens_and_dashes_in_number_ranges. A discussion.
Manual of style says it is often preferable to write this out (for example, "4 to 7" or "four through seven") to avoid confusion with "four minus seven".
US NIST guide to avoid possible confusion, this Guide strongly recommends that the word "to" be used to indicate a range of values for a quantity instead of a range dash (that is, a long hyphen) because the dash could be misinterpreted as a minus sign.

The reader should know that a date cannot be negative, but my style is to avoid dashes with any numbers. It is not a big deal. If you prefer another style, go ahead and use it. I won't mind. Thanks for mentioning it here. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 15:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those links. I hadn't even thought about consulting the MoS. In my editing so far I've just been using common sense and a general feeling for what WP should be from reading articles. - Shadowhillway 15:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Best wishes. Bobblewik 15:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents. In the case of dates of lifespan (or some other things such as regnal dates) immediately following a person's name, that is one situation in which replacing an en dash with the word "to" is really stupid and should not be done. I agree with the replacement in the case of many measurements, but this particular usage is well established, conventional, and nearly impossible to confuse with a minus sign. I will revert such changes whenever I run across them. Gene Nygaard 15:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a whole lot of sense. Thanks for the tip. - Shadowhillway 22:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine High School massacre

Thank you for uniforming the units and links on this article, but I've restored the tables you changed. Basically, when u turned the tables into lists, it ended up distorting the continuation of the article. The tables were placed there as a sidenote to the reader since several people complained of not being able to keep the victims straight as they read, they're not ment to be lists with their own section, but sidenotes; the list of victims has its own article. Also, the location of pictures has caused a distortion in which half the list was off center than the rest. Most of all... it just made the article look ugly (no offense). Your other edits are still there, since I thought they were great and I appreciate them, but just wanted to let you know about the lists/tables. Thanks! PRueda29 18:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The table edits were the lowest priority of my edits. In fact, I started editing the table partly to because I thought it would be better to replace the top style section with class="wikitable". I also thought the text was a bit small to read. Then I considered that mandating left-align is redundant because that is the default.

After various changes I just thought that a single column is hardly a table, it is a list. I then noticed that the layout was messed up and I did not want to get further involved. Sorry about that. I don't mind at all that you reverted it. The other edits were less dramatic, but actually I think they added more value. Thanks for the feedback. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 19:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate pages

We already have pages on resistor and capacitor. I suggest you merge this page into those. Also I think circuit design is too general a title for asingle article.--Light current 01:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "... this page ...", what page do you mean? Bobblewik 01:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit design--Light current 01:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Well, I did not create the article title or the content. I merely did a few changes to format such as changing the title from word case (Circuit Design) to sentence case (Circuit design). These format changes could apply to any article and do not require knowledge of the subject matter.

I would prefer not to get involved further. Your suggestions seem reasonable to me. Feel free to do whatever you think is best. I appreciate you bringing these issues to my attention. Bobblewik 01:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program

Hi — thanks for contributing to U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program during its recent peer review (you fixed the units!). Just thought I'd let you know that I've nominated the article for FA status. — Johantheghost 16:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have just taken another look and done another unit fix i.e. added a space between a numeric value and the unit symbol (250kg -> 250 kg). I have also eliminated links to solitary years. If you look elsewhere on my talk page, you will see why but if you are unhappy about that, feel free to revert it. Units are my big thing, overlinking of solitary years is just an irritation that I try to resolve. Good luck with the article, it is very interesting and worthy of FA status. Bobblewik 17:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing again. On the years thing, I get your point about preferences etc. However, I (as a newbie here) had thought that one point of linking years is so eg. if I say "back in the 1960's, such and such..." people can click for context. Also, if I say "the marine mammal prog was established in 1960", then there's the potential to auto-generate a timeline showing everything that happened in 1960. In that case, of course, you would only want to Wikify important dates. Anyhow, I think it's fine as it is. BTW, if you think it's FA-ready, the vote is on... :-)

And thanks for carrying the torch of units consistency — that kind of thing is essential for a professional-looking reference. — Johantheghost 21:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create double redirects

They don't work. A redirect that points to another redirect will only take you as far as the second redir, not to the article. There are several reasons for this, one is to prevent loops, another is for performance, another is just to encourage tidiness. Anyway, that's the way the software works, and I don't think there's any proposal to change it.

Three redirects already pointed to watt electrical, and were broken by your making it into a redirect, affecting a long list of articles that linked to them. So before making an existing page into a redirect, please check for redirects that already point to it, and change them to point to the new target. You don't need to change the articles, just the existing redirects. Then no links will be broken. I've fixed these ones. TIA. Andrewa 06:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that double redirects should be fixed. For some reason I did not fix them in that case. Mea culpa. Sorry. Thanks for fixing them.

Incidentally, there a big cleanup and reorganisation of units of measurement articles. This is being discussed at Talk:Units of measurement. The changes to watt subarticles is part of that. SI unit (candela, watt, farad, seconds etc) articles explain their own multiples (microwatt, milliwatt, kilowatt, gigawatt etc). However, Megawatt is unique amonst Category:Units of power in having its own article. I tried to create a redirect but was reverted. If you have an opinion on the cleanup/reorganisation or just on Megawatt, I would be happy if you would share it in Talk:Units of measurement.

Thanks again for fixing my oversight. Regards Bobblewik 11:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was terse above! Lots of issues here. The discussion on redirects seems to now be at Talk:Units of measurement/Format of articles about units, so I've joined in there. Andrewa 14:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pune

Thank you for your contribution at Pune.
Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail.

Date links

It's my usual practice to wikify solitary years and months; that is the reason why I "reverted" your edit in the Erich Vermehren article. Be it as it may I also added a link to Isa Vermehren because I intend to create an article on her in the near future. It turns out that she has as interesting a life as her brother :). RashBold 17:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the existence of date 'links' is because of 'date preferences'. For example, Americans like to see April 12, 1981 and Brits like to see 12 April 1981. If square brackets are added, the Wikipedia software amends the format so that the sequence matches that chosen by the reader in the preference settings. It should not really be called a 'link' at all, the actual 'link' to the article is merely a secondary effect.

Date elements that are unambiguous across cultures (such as a year on its own: 1981) do not involve date preferences and so do not need the square brackets for reformatting. It is explained (not very well) at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formatting and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Internal_links

This issue is widely misunderstood. Lots of dates get linked on Wikipedia and some people think that means *all* must be linked. However, this is not supported in any Wikipedia guidance. There is no assertion that reader access to date articles is insufficiently satisfied.

I think linking of solitary-years and solitary-months is overlinking. However if that is what people want, it is fine by me but I think it has just become one of the things that editors do without thinking too much.

The issue is discussed from time to time. For example at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous.

Anyway it is not a big deal.

I think Erich Vermehren is a very interesting article. I am glad it exists because I learned something. Thanks for what you have done. Regards Bobblewik 15:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Range

Brakects at date. Good point made. I cant even remember putting them in! Thanks for your note on this! vcxlor 13:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. You didn't add the links, other users did. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 15:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naseeruddin Shah

Hi, on the above article, u removed the links for distinct years with the edit summary, Reduce overlinking: dates need linking for preferences to work but solitary years and solitary months do not have preferences so don't need linking. However the links are not for the proper working of preferences alone; for example, a solitary year when clicked would lead me to the page of that year which mentions the most important happenings in that year. This gives the reader the choice to understand the temporal context under which those happenings occurred. regards, --Gurubrahma 16:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the user has that choice. But I don't think that Wikipedia readers are unsatisfied in that urge. Nor do I think links to years are provided for that reason. They almost certainly exist because of a misunderstanding of date preferences.

For example, Americans like to see April 12, 1981 and Brits like to see 12 April 1981. If square brackets are added, the Wikipedia software amends the format so that the sequence matches that chosen by the reader in the preference settings. It should not really be called a 'link' at all, the actual 'link' to the article is merely a secondary effect.

Date elements that are unambiguous across cultures (such as a year on its own: 1981) do not involve date preferences and so do not need the square brackets for reformatting. It is explained (not very well) at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formatting and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Internal_links

This issue is widely misunderstood. Lots of dates get linked on Wikipedia and some people think that means *all* must be linked. However, this is not supported in any Wikipedia guidance. There is no assertion that reader access to date articles is insufficiently satisfied.

I think linking of solitary-years and solitary-months is overlinking. If that is what people want, it is fine by me but I think it has just become one of the things that editors do without thinking too much.

The issue is discussed from time to time. For example at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous. Anyway, if you want the links to solitary years in the article, feel free to put them back. Although you might wish to consider whether an article needs more than one link to the same article. Thanks for bringing this here. Bobblewik 16:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good start...

... on link-reduction with Sandy Koufax. I gave it a whack last spring but "link-creep" set back in. It is still way overlinked. Sfahey 02:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Overlinking of dates is one of the most common silly things on Wikipedia. Hopefully, more editors will start to realise that. The real solution is to find a better method of handling date formats. There is a proposal to handle this but it needs to go on bugzilla. If you can help put it there, I would be grateful. See: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#More_about_overlinking_of_dates. Bobblewik 12:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to Orders of magnitude (area)?

Where was this discussed? Why did you redirect all pages? -- User:Docu

See: Talk:Units_of_measurement/Format_of_articles_about_units. Search for '17:42, 11 September 2005'. Bobblewik 13:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion there seems a bit vague to me. Not even sure if it's about the order of magnitude pages. For previous discussion, you may want to look at Talk:Orders of magnitude. -- User:Docu

If you want to raise the matter again, feel free. Simply reverting what I do feels like a slap in the face. Bobblewik 13:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse if you felt so, but I did request your comment on the matter, besides, redirecting and removing the pages built by others may seem the same to them. -- User:Docu

I will survive. I will join you in open discussion if you want the people that spoke about it last time to clarify their statements. Bobblewik 13:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(back to margin)Yes, Bobblewik needs to be aware that there is little clear consensus for anything in those discussions—and a certain wait-and-see attitude among those willing to consider the changes. There is ongoing discussion, with many areas not really agreed upon. You, Docu, should jump in with whatevery you have to say about it. It is an ongoing process; as various attempts at reorganization are attempted, there are often new little problems which crop up. Eventually it will probably sort itself all out.

Sometimes we need to push the envelope in order to get something accomplished. But when you know :that you are soing so, some reverts should be expected and taken in stride. Gene Nygaard 14:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

units

Hi Bobblewik, I reverted your last edit to Cucurbituril let me explain why: the references itself makes use of angstroms and I want Wiki to be able to to help readers to understand that article when they access it. Now you have the scientific article mentioning angstroms but the Wiki page does not help the reader.

I also note that you remove picometer links and replace them with meter links. I stongly oppose this: one of the nice things you van do with wiki is to see on the meter page what processes or objects are on the picometer level and what lets say on the micrometer level or kilometer level, with your actions you destroy this useful information.

(comment added: 15:02, 15 October 2005 V8rik)

OK. Thanks for mentioning this here. Bobblewik 15:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Units in two chemistry articles

Hi. Is there a reason for using nanometers instead of angstrem in molecule and intercalation (chemistry)? (which I noticed you changed) In the case of molecule I guess it's quite arbitrary, but in the case of intercalation I think angstrems are more popular - people in molecular biology and chemistry are rather used to angstrems. All in all, I'm for changing everything to SI, although I don't see it as a big concern, so don't take this the wrong way :) Karol 17:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that usage is somewhat arbitrary and varies by domain. I think it varies by region too. SI terms are more than valid and commonplace in science, they are universally comprehensible to scientists and specifically encouraged by scientific publications. In any case, Wikipedia is not a specialist publication limited to biologists or chemists. It is a reference source specifically intended to cross many domains and regions. Thus the universally accessible term 'nanometre' is better than a term such as 'angstrom'. That is how I see it anyway. Bobblewik 13:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobblewik. Reference texts very often limit themselves to listing the field-specific units alone, with many authors being very reluctant to the SI unit "globalization". A suggestion: whenever you include the SI unit, it'd be both useful and educational if you left the field-specific unit enclosed in a parentheses. Thanks and regards.--Unconcerned 19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking years

I agree that we don't need to link individual months in articles, but to go through and delink years is not a well spent effort, if you ask me. Being able to reference the year article from individual articles is an important source of historical context for events. It's nice to immediately see what else was happening in the year that penicillin was invented, or when the Corvette was redesigned, or when Pete Rose was first accused of betting on baseball. If a year is important enough to mention in an article, it's important enough to link it's first use in the article. Although I don't mind unlinking second and later mentions of a year, please don't unlink first mention of individual years in each article. Thanks. Un focused 19:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This is what I said when the same topic was raised in relation to X Window System:

********************************************************

Here are my thoughts on the matter: one of the great things about Wikipedia is that it is hypertext. So a reader can easily go from one topic to another. So if the X Window article mentions network transparency, the reader can click on the link and read about 'network transparency'. That is a 'good thing'.

Since there are so many articles in wikipedia, we could go berserk and add a link to each word when such a strategy adds little value. Furthermore if we repeat a word, we could link the second instance of the word, the third instance of the word, the fourth instance of the word and so on. That may appear as a Reductio ad absurdum explanation but if we look at date links in Wikipedia we are not far off.

For example, in this article, we have four instances of the term 1986 in 4 consecutive lines. Each of those has been linked. Three lines later it is linked again. Later on in the article, it occurs again in three consecutive lines, each instance linked. It seems to me that:

* of all the links in this article, terms such as '1986' probably come at the bottom of the list for further reading.

* of all the reasons to repeat a link, a term being unlinked for 2 lines is probably not one of them.

I think one of the reasons why this issue comes up is because of something unrelated to hypertext. It relates to date formats and date preferences. For some reason, the mechanism for permitting date preferences to work has been implemented in the same manner as a link. So that is why many complete dates are linked. However, a year word by itself does not have the date format preference issue. You are not alone in thinking that all dates should be linked but I think that many people do not understand that this is only because of date formatting, not because of a particular Wikipedia philosophy that readers are unfulfilled in their ability to check up on date articles.

This issue comes up from time to time in various places. I have a clear opinion on it and you can, of course, take a different view to me. It is only a secondary interest of mine anyway.

You may wish to refer to the following:

*Manual of Style (dates and numbers) section on date linking

*Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Internal_links Manual of Style (links) section on over linking

********************************************************

You made a reasonable debating point about significant years. I don't agree that this is a sufficient reason, but it seems a reasonable point. If significant is defined as the year is mentioned in the article then that is the same as link all years and it does not sound like the debating point anymore. If editors were to take a more finite definition of significant, I would not be so worried.

I do note that you are not defending multiple links to the same year. That is reasonable too and is in line with what is said in the manual of style.

There is a discussion on this very topic at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous. Since it is a matter of generic style, that is a good place for the discussion. Please mention your concerns over there, I would be delighted to have a more public debate about it. Thanks. Bobblewik 19:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

So I'm still not clear what software you use to do these conversions. I asked in #google_units that you include a link to a short description in the edit summary (like "Units, maybe using Google converter" that is a link to User:Bobblewik#Units or something), but doesn't look like you have.

Anyway, I started writing some javascript to do automatic unit fixing, and then remembered yours, and don't want to waste my time writing something that you've already written. Is it anything I could use? User:Omegatron/sig 01:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

For a while, I did include a link to a section as you suggested. Then I gave up.

Google calculator really is simpler and more powerful than any converter I have seen. It is also universally available. You don't have to do anything special with google to get it to convert. Just do a 'search'. For example do a search for '5 feet' and see what happens. Try it. Once you have done that, I will tell you more about what it can do. Bobblewik 09:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have used Google calculator for a lot of things. Do you use any software tools for your unit formatting? I am working on a script to do it automatically. Here is an example of what it does: [1] User:Omegatron/sig 03:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Google is the only software tool I use for unit conversion. I don't use any software tool for unit formatting.

I looked at your page and it seems interesting. The reformatting of units in parentheses into symbolic form may be suitable for automation:

Thus 10 miles (16 kilometres) becomes 10 miles (16 km)

Bobblewik 11:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I haven't written anything for that but maybe it would be good to do when I am happy with these. — Omegatron 18:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

You know... I thought you were a bot at first since I keep seeing "units, possibly using google converter" in page historys. Guess that proves your work is widespread! All I can say is keep up the good work... and perhaps you should get someone to make a BobbleBot? ;-) Deskana 21:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the positive feedback. It makes it worthwhile to read that. I would like it if somebody would use automation to help. But I am not able to do it. Regards. 22:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

Aircraft Parking

It was probably a mistake to pick that out. The standard airliner parking bay allows for a wingspan of 200' 6" as I understand it (the E350 is 200' 5" wingspan). It would fit in the general rule of "measurements for air, rail and sea transport". Rich Farmbrough 11:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Oh right, your change is good. Rich Farmbrough 11:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no general rule exempting air transport. Exemptions are specific. There are legal documents that include the requirement for aircraft altitude to be in feet. But no legal document (as far as I know) requires aircraft parking bays to be described in feet.

In any case, such an exemption is unnecessary. The description of an aircraft parking bay in feet and inches is no more remarkable than the description of a bed in feet and inches without reference to metric units. Both are entirely legal. In fact, the article mentions this situation when it says:
Thus, a fence panel sold as "6 foot by 6 foot" will continue to be legal after 2009 but a pole sold as "50 pence per linear foot" is illegal.
It is odd to mention the legal status of something as specific as aircraft parking bays, when something as mundane as furniture has the same status.

Yes I agree. And it's probably not the A350 anyway... However it's not merely a description, I believe it's governed by an international agreement, because of the required interoperability of aircraft and airports, imagine if the parking space was two inches too narrow... And the reason I put it in was that Airbus had (as I recollect) gone to within a very small distance (1 inch?) of the maximum size. But it probably would be better with a source, and in a different article.

Interesting. I really would like to see a source and the details of what exactly is mandated. Bobblewik 15:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS this page is in Category:Units of power.....

Aha. Thanks for that. It is because a discussion elsewhere on the page happened to mention it and link to it. I have removed the link. Bobblewik 14:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

I unlink months in almost any circumstance. Years I leave at the moment - because I forsee the ability to display Jewish/Moslem years etc. I'd like to see an alternative wikifying for dates, e.g. << >>. (Automatic recognition is fraught with peril, and the grief I've had over it is huge, in fact it's one reason I don't welcome the orange "You have new messasages" rectangle like I used to.) A good markup interpreter would deal with some of the thinks like "2nd to 3rd June 1999". This would leave links for things like Valentines Day. Rich Farmbrough 17:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to read that you unlink months. I had not thought about non-Christian calendars. That is an interesting point. I also find the You have new messages rectangle too dominant. In fact, a lot of the editor-centric templates are too dominant in my opinion. We should be much more subtle and make a better experience for the core function of reading the articles.

I am also not a big fan of automation as a solution to all problems. Some people suggest that articles could be converted into metric units automatically. Even more ambitious people suggest that user preferences could control the display of metric or non-metric units. I think the cure in that case is worse than the disease.

Your suggestion of an alternative mark up for date preferences sounds good to me. I think it has even been mentioned before. Here is a link into the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#More_about_overlinking_of_dates. Please add a comment to it and I will join in. Regards Bobblewik 17:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liquefied natural gas

Bobble, when you redid the Liquefied natural gas table you fliped the Exporters and Importers, making the big users the exporters and the small gas-rich countries the importers. Now why would a gas rich country like Qatar want to import natural gas? And Japan, which doesn't have any of its own, how can it be a large exporter? Be more careful please, and you'll get a cookie. WikiDon 03:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Mea culpa. Thanks to Sartorius for correcting that. And thanks to you for bringing it to my attention. I will indeed try to be more careful. Bobblewik 12:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Entry to Native Forest Restoration Trust

Good morning Bobblewik, I noticed your adjustment to the Native Forest Restoration Trust is incorrect in terms of size. My prior amendment from from figures were supplied on their offical website[[2]] (aquired land-250 hectares per annum and 6000 hectares in protected forests). Therefore your figures have incorrectly downsized the true figures reversing the articles accuracy from the previous update(s). Do you wish to change the figures to acres? or update the figures to previous amendment to match the offical website figures in hectares? --Tom Webb 16:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did not downsize the figures. 100 hectares is exactly the same area as 1 km². So 6000 hectares is exactly the same as 60 km² and 250 hectares is exactly the same as 2.5 km².

So I am not sure what you mean. Bobblewik 16:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Booblewik, I miscalculated my figure by a factor of ten :( Please continue the good work. Are you a kiwi as well? --Tom Webb 03:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No problems. I am not kiwi, I am British. Thanks. Bobblewik 11:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superscripts in HTML

It's been interesting reading your talk page just now; I've learned a lot. I appreciate your dedication to consistency and reason.

I'm writing because of the changes you just made to Neman River. You changed the superscripts from, for example, km² to km². Of course I agree the latter looks and reads much better, but I understand the special character to be far less consistent across browsers and platforms than the HTML entity; are you sure it's as accessible? I hope you're right, and I hope you've considered this.

Also, I've done a bunch of work on the Infoboxes for rivers and protected areas, and I'd welcome any suggestions from you about how to better represent units in the instructions.

Thanks for your good work, —Papayoung ☯ 16:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it is as accessible and that does worry me. Somebody that usually knows about these technical matters does it and I recently started copying them. As part of my consideration of this, I asked a question a couple of days ago at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Superscript_and_other_symbols. I would be happy if you could join in the discussion there.

As far as the templates are concerned, I have made a comment there. I would also recommend sentence case for headings as per Manual of Style (Nearest City -> Nearest city). And thanks for the positive feedback, that makes me feel good about the effort I put in. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 11:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using unicode characters directly in the text is fine. See 1 and 2 and 3.

I think we should have an option to view the edit window in either format (plain displayed unicode or HTML entities) on a per-page basis. I think I shall fill out a feature request... — Omegatron 19:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't understand all of the technical talk. I take it that a superscript like: km² is unicode. My main concern is accessibility. If the solution works for people using Lynx and JAWS, perhaps that is enough. Bobblewik 09:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MoS: Wikilinking Years

With regards to our recent edits to Grand Valley State University: Sorry, I was not aware of this specification in the MoS. Thank you for pointing it out, and I'll try to look around first before my revert radar goes up. :) Euphoria 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Thanks. Bobblewik 09:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I would love to fix those errors, but it would probably find too many false positives, I'll keep an eye out for them though as there don't seem to be too man left now. thanks [23:06, 21 November 2005 Bluemoose]

Thanks. Presumably anything between equal signs (==) can be regarded as a section heading. So I can't see how false positives would occur. Although I have no experience of bots. I appreciate you considering it anyway. Thanks. Bobblewik 09:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Merger

It seems strange that you would tag the Mini article for merging and not comment on why you think it should be done. Also shouldn't the merge tag be added to both articles involved? Please comment on why you think this is an appropriate merge. Thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 21:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britain

Why did you change the links from Great Britain to Britain on 19th century? Please respond here. --Brunnock 23:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Act of Union, 1800 means that Great Britain was not a good term for what was being described. Bobblewik 00:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Act of Union is about the United Kingdom. Why are you linking to an article about the history of the word "Britain"? --Brunnock 00:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed--you made a hash of :::theTreaty of Washington (1871) -- a treaty is negotiated between nations and not with a place. I've no problem with updating the link to United Kingdom, but Britain is just wrong it that context. older≠wiser 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Washington (1871) was inaccurate because it previously said Great Britain. If you (older≠wiser) say that United Kingdom is better, that is fine by me. Feel free to change it.

So you changed something that was wrong to something else that was even more wrong -- what's the point? If you're going to go to the bother of making such pedantic changes, at least make an effort to not make incorrect changes. older≠wiser 13:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the term Britain is informed by:

Website of the British Prime Minister On this site the term 'Britain' is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The British Embassy the term “Britain” is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Foreign and Commonwealth Office guide to the EU for simplicity, this booklet uses the term “Britain”. It should be taken to mean the United Kingdom (i.e. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).
The Economist In most contexts favour simplicity over precision and use Britain rather than Great Britain or the United Kingdom, and America rather than the United States.
alt-usage-english Like the USA, the UK suffers from having no convenient adjective to describe the country or its people. The best thing that can be said for "British" is that it is not quite as misleading as "American", but it is nevertheless the established term for "relating to the UK"....So what about "Britain"? This is not a term with any legal meaning, but if you ask the English person in the street what country they live in surveys show that more will answer "Britain" than anything else. So it should probably be taken as a back-formation from "British", and therefore to mean "United Kingdom".
The British Consulate The term "Britain" is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Perhaps this discussion should moved to Talk:United Kingdom Bobblewik 12:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should either edit the Britain article or you should stop linking to an article about the etymology of the word "Britain". --Brunnock 12:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So what is your suggestion for the link (genuine question)? Bobblewik 12:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Britain? There are also situations where British Empire is more correct. --Brunnock 13:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. The article United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland seems to me to be a distraction. There is a lot of overlap with other articles and it could usefully be merged United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The various Wikipedia articles that are supposed to explain it are not easy to read. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik 14:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed UK merger

While I agree with your "leave for 7 days" theory for the majority of wikipedia articles, I believe SimonP was right when he said that it should not apply to high-volume articles such as United Kingdom (the fourth most linked article on wikipedia]]. Looking at the history, you have reverted its deletion 3 or 4 times in the last day, and every time someone has again removed it. It is clear that your ideas are opposed and are extrememly unlikely to gain support - for the sake of everyone just back down and accept democracy. Cheers - Deano 20:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've just done it again. You've got to stop doing this - you are ignoring the3-revert rule and just generally causing a nuisance. I ask you again, please stop. Deano 20:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments here. A debate on early tag removal would have been welcome. Unfortunately, the first removal of the tag started 1.5 days from when it was added. I think 1.5 days is not a reasonable length of time. Removal by stealth and by making false statements like 'debate petered out' is wrong. Just because editors did not like ideas different to theirs does not mean that they should prevent other Wikipedia readers from engaging in it.

I do not know why people are so upset about this issue, if they count 7 days from when the tag was put there, or 1 day from the last comment, it is not such a long time for them to wait.

Thanks again for bringing it here. Bobblewik 20:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that removal by stealth and false statements are useless, but all said and done it has been around 5 days since you first introduced the tag, and on the basis of United Kingdom being one of the highest-volume aricles on Wikipedia, I think it would be fair to say that an extremely significant number of people have seen it. Indeed, a significant number have commented on it. I do not condone anyone prematurely removing the tag without due debate, but I can also see that you are fighting a losing battle and there is little or no point delaying the inevitable. Deano 20:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further response. I appreciate it. The debate on the talk page seemed reasonable. I was genuine in the debate and I believe others are too. So I was quite surprised to encounter hostility to the tag itself. I made an open comment about a 7 tag expiry period in the talk page but it was not challenged there. The fact that early aggression has continued for days till nearly the reasonable deadline does not make changing the deadline more palatable. I agree that I am fighting a losing battle. I am glad that you have said that you do not condone premature removal. It would be nice if you or anyone else made that point on the talk page. Bobblewik 21:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pity the UK article is so poorly written! Tony 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bobblewik 17:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have easily breached the 3RR rule despite warnings to stop. You have now been proposed for a block for the multiple breach.FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Hi, I just reverted some minor vandalism on your user page by User:129.55.200.20. Herostratus 18:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I had not noticed that. Thank you very much. Bobblewik 19:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Units of area

I noticed you have changed some formats on areas in metric s shown here by this diff. Should I just cut and paste that uppercase "2" or am I doing something wrong. I respect your ability to explain my mistake as I know you have a lot of understanding of these measurement issues. Thanks.--MONGO 12:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just cut and paste it. That is what I always do. I am sure there must be another way, but I don't know it.

I like that format because it looks the same in edit mode but I was concerned about whether it was browser dependant. If you look at the section titled 'Superscripts in HTML' on this talk page, you will see that somebody with more technical knowledge has investigated it. If I understand it correctly, some people have suggested a bot to do the format conversions. Bobblewik 12:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A small request

Hi! When you're delinking years (a guideline I hadn't realized existed, incidentally; thanks for educating me ;-)), if it's not too much trouble, could you check that the second date in a pair remains shortened. In other words, 1508-16 should become 1508-16, not 1508-1516. —Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thanks. Since the fuss about the millenium bug, I assumed that years should always be 4 digits. It is a good question of general interest so I have asked it at talk:Manual of style. We can see what people say. I don't mind either way and will go along with the consensus. Thanks for questioning it. Bobblewik 11:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa!

Greetings! Sorry about inadvertently deleting your comment. I do not know why the section I edited thereafter repeated like five times (perhaps because we were editing at the same time), but I apologise that my remedy was a disease unto you. :) Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 15:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I noticed the duplication and was about to do something about it myself. I know you are an experienced editor and I was convinced it was accidental. I appreciate you commenting on it. Thanks. Bobblewik 15:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm not wholly without controversy, but who doesn't have skeletons in the closet? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 15:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent amendments to area measurments and date links

Hi.

I notice that you have recently edited several of my contributions with the comment:

Units. Reduce linking to solitary years and solitary months in accordance with Manual of Style.

The actual changes seems to be changing an area in hectares to the equivalent in square kilometers, and delinking a year that is not previously linked in the article. I'm mystified as to why either of these improves the article, but as I'm in the process of writing more articles along the same lines, I thought I'd better ask you to explain. And could you give me a more specific reference to the bit of the MoS you are quoting. Thanks. -- Chris j wood 15:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for bringing this here. The unit change is because it is easier for ordinary people to visualise areas in square kilometres than hectares. The guidelines for date links are at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formatting. I think you are doing a good job with those articles. Thanks. Bobblewik 21:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done!

Let me know if you think it could be improved. Martin 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take your comments into consideration. Also, I have now made an image and a quick screen cam video (which is much better) to help in understanding how the software works, they are linked to from User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser. Martin 22:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added the message "Reduce linking to solitary years and solitary months in accordance with the manual of style" to the bottom of pages, you should add messages like that to talk pages instead. Martin 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I assumed 'append message' facility was putting something meaningful in the edit summary, which would be useful. I will go back and revert the offending edits now. What does 'general fixes' do? Bobblewik 22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can add what you like to the edit summary by changing the "summary" box, or choose one of the pre-set ones, I have changed the append thing so it can only work on talk pages now, but you would have seen it on the diff. General fixed does "see also" and "external links" mistakes and removes excess whitespace and a couple of other minor things, hopefully I'll add more to this soon. thanks Martin 22:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a test and checked the diff but did not look all the way to the bottom. Mea culpa. I have reverted all those ones now. The general fixes thing is great too. I used to remove excess spaces manually but gave up making the effort. I have now started using the summary. You are the man. Have you discussed this anywhere else? Bobblewik 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really mentioned it anywhere in particular, it is still in development, which is why it's great for me that a few brave people like yourself are finding the problems. thanks Martin 23:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another point. The 'What links here' includes user pages, wikipedia pages, talk pages etc. That is all 'as it says on the tin', but I nearly failed to spot some of those and just caught it before it edited them. Would it be possible to suppress editing of such pages? And what do 'Auto tag' and 'Regex' do? Bobblewik 23:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auto tag adds wikify and stub tags when appropriate, regex enables regular expression find and replace. I am working on filtering out non-mainspace articles, but you can sort them alphabetically then remove other name spaces pretty easily. I need to write all this up on the WP:AWB page! Martin 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox French commune

Cheers for the great job you've done tidying up Template:Infobox French commune and fixing the units. Just one question - I besically translated the box from the French, where they used hectares for measuring areas. In translation I added the area in acres because English-speaking countries are 'less metric' :D . Now that you've changed the hectares to square kilometres they look bizarre next to the acre measurememnt - do you not think hectares are a more appropriate unit of measurement than square kilometres for small administrative regions such as French communes? Terrafire 19:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback.

As far as hectares->acres is concerned it is a difficult for me to give my thoughts succinctly. Here are some comments

There are plenty of articles that have square kilometres only in their infoboxes. I think country articles are one category but I have not checked. When it comes to French communes, I think there is even less incentive to add alternative units. When you say 'English speaking countries', yes they are 'less metric' but I think that all them use square kilometres in one way or another except the US.
I understand that you may think it looks odd to have have acres next to square kilometres but that only looks odd when you think in terms of word translations. I try to avoid word-for-word-translation of units because I think it is not a useful strategy. As you know, there is no alignment between the systems. Furthermore, there are many more units in one system than the other. Although 50 miles translates to 80 km, 1/4 mile translates to 400 m. People that think metric do not check what a non-metric person would say, just as the English do not say 'ground apple', they say 'potato'. I remember somebody saying that the French were irresponsible for labelling the hot tap with a 'C' because everybody knows that 'C' is for 'Cold'!
Even metric countries vary in what they use. Some metric countries commonly use decilitres whereas in others the unit is almost unheard of. Australians seem comfortable with megalitres and if you do a websearch or a Wikisearch, you will find that Australian references cause most of the results. Brits generally seem fairly comfortable with seeing areas on maps marked out in kilometre square s but Americans might find that odd. I rashly assume that Brits are happier with square kilometres than with acres or hectares.
Some of the data sources for areas are taken from 'official' publications. Official publications and farmers may not use units that ordinary people and Wikipedia readers understand. Tell somebody that a village or a park covers 2 square kilometres and it would probably be more meaningful to them than if you said it was 200 hectares.

Just my thoughts for what they are worth. Bobblewik 20:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with square kilometres now, it was just a minor aesthetic quibble I suppose. For what it's worth I am a Brit, and I have to say that really I'm equally comfortable with hectares and square kilometres, I was concerned about international readers! But as you say, square kilometres are more accessible to most. Thanks again for the help; I might just pay some more attention to units in future! Terrafire 19:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. From a fellow Brit! Bobblewik 23:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens and en dashes

Hi! Can you please come and check out User:Chocolateboy's comments on the current hyphens vs. en dashes guideline on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)? I have not been here long enough to understand the issue, and a solution must be found quickly. He says that this manual and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) are inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, or something like that; I need to look up past discussions to figure out what's going on. A revert war depends on your assistance! lol, well there are less dramatic ways of putting it. Thanks. Neonumbers 23:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will take a look. Hold on. Bobblewik 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding month links to Computer

Hi there. I noticed your edits to Computer adding links to individual months. I don't think this is a good idea: see Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. --Robert Merkel 23:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mistook my edit. I took the link away. I am definitely with you on that one. Bobblewik 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I figured that out just *after* I added that talk page comment. I've since removed a couple more useless links from that article. --Robert Merkel 23:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling discrepancy

Hi - I noticed you reverted most of one of my edits on the Law article. I had no idea that was acceptable spelling. I haven't been touching things like "colour" or "honour" since I couldn't find the Wikipedia policy on that, but as for the words you reverted I didn't know that was the proper spelling of such words even in the UK. Any chance you could link me to the Wikipedia policy on UK/American spelling discrepancies? VegaDark 10:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are mistaken. I did not revert any of your edits. You must be referring to somebody else. Bobblewik 10:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - In the midst of clicking I must have somehow gone to the wrong user. My apologies. VegaDark 10:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Bobblewik 18:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I love you

I, too, have been on a crusade against unnecessary links, especially of the linked year variety. I just hate to see sooo many links cluttering up the text that add absolutely nothing whatsoever to the content. In case you haven't seen it already, Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context is a great resource to use to justify all of the good work that you are doing. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. We are of like minds. I have been wanting to do something about it for ages. Now there is a simple tool at: User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser. Bobblewik 10:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I shall have to check that out. In addition to removing linked years, I like to removed linked plain English words and multiple linkings (keeping the first occurrence intact). Check out what I did with God. That was one helluvan edit. This thing you're talking about - is it any good at determining multiple links to the same page in an article and trimming out the excess ones? --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the search and replace rules are 'all or nothing'. It cannot 'ignore the first instance'. Look at the link I gave above and you will see more info. Regards Bobblewik 11:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bobblebot

You have to be registered to run a bot, I doubt you would be given permission given the type of stuff you are doing because errors are possible. sorry. Martin 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for letting me know. Bobblewik 17:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revco

Are you aware you blanked the entire Revco page? The comment on the edit says you were reducing links, but the entire page was left blank! Someone has reverted it now, though. [3] --Birdhombre 17:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I noticed that. Very odd. I was using the assistance of the User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser, I will report it. Thanks. Bobblewik 18:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands

You have blanketed District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands so I have reverted, please redo your edits. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. I will investigate. Thanks for letting me know. Bobblewik 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reducing month and year links

Hello Bobblewik,

Just a note to say thank you for unlinking months and years. It's one of my pet hates, and I'm really glad to see someone doing something about it!

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think overlinking of date elements makes Wikipedia look silly. You may be interested to see the search and replace tool that I am using: User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik 10:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree, i have been removing such pointless linksd by hand for a long time. DES ^(talk) 22:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking permission to do this quicker with a bot. But I don't have any support just yet. Could you say a word in support at: Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F? Thanks. Bobblewik 22:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On this topic, I noticed your edit to Automobile (that I had to undo, but later restored). For what it's worth, I used the search & replace scriptlet, replacing \[\[([0-9]{4})]] with $1. The only problem was the exact dates that were linked in some locale-specific manner, but I just turned those into ISO 8601 dates (yyyy-mm-dd). Anyway, thanks for all of the cleanup work you and your bot(?) have been doing! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-17 03:27:34Z

Year links

You appear to be cleaning articles with a rule being to de-link years. What is the general rule you have about linking years?? Georgia guy 17:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I may butt in, I found these guidelines on Stephen Turner's page: (1, 2, 3). I used to commit the sin of overlinking years, but today I am born anew. Melchoir 18:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bobblewik, you might want to link to those articles in your edit summaries. Melchoir 18:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the links suggested above, and I'm still confused. It seems that every year has a Wikipedia article. Wouldn't year links make it easier to go to that page, click on "What links here", and research that particular year in history? Rick Norwood 20:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Machine-assisted tunnel vision

The Angel Moxie history now looks silly: one edit unlinking one instance of Monday, a second edit unlinking one instance of Wednesday right after the Monday of the first edit, and a third edit unlinking one instance of Friday right after the Wednesday of the second edit. Is there something about the software that makes it impossible to perform all three changes in a single pass? Bo Lindbergh 19:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was not the software. The problem was my ignorance of the software. I can now do it in a single pass. Please could you say a word in support of reducing unnecessary date links at: Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F? Thanks Bobblewik 17:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial date linking a wicked disease: bot brings smile to face

Dear Bobblewik

Your recent edit to Apple Macintosh has alerted to the existence of your wonderful bot and the related debates and vote. I note at one point on your talk page you commented that it was explained 'not very well' on MoS page. A few months ago I rewrote Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting, which were all poorly written and in places equivocal.

Please keep up the good work. Is there somewhere on the bot page that we can list articles that need botting?

Tony 23:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, my bet is that all articles need botting (Is that a word? I like it). I think this bot needs to be ruthless.

Bobblewik, what are you going to call this bot? Do you have a clever name referencing the unlinking time connection? David D. (Talk) 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback and for your open support on the bot talk page. It seems that there are a lot of people prepared to say that date linking should be reduced. As far as the bot name is concerned, it will be run with the username 'Bobblebot'. I had not thought of naming it by its function but I am open to suggestions. But the name is useless if it is not permitted to run. Please help get more support. Bobblewik 17:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Year links in basketball

Hi Bobblewik, I don't know if you have any systematic way of dealing with over-year-linked articles, but basketball, which I have recently requested peer review for, seems to have a fair few. Your assistance in de-linking some years there would be appreciated — I would myself but you seem to have an easier method (or rather, I'm too lazy... lol). If you have better things to do, though, don't worry about it... Thanks, Neonumbers 23:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Use User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser. And get other people to support my request for bot permission! Bobblewik 11:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much :-). I'll do my best. Neonumbers 11:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though, it seems as if you've got overwhelming support already — and so you should. (sorry to send two messages in such a short time) Neonumbers 11:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Morena

Hello. I noticed that you made an edit on Cris Morena when the page still had the Inuse marker. That cost me a lot of extra work. Next time you see the Inuse marker, you need to respect that sign, and wait until it is taken off to make an edit.

Antonio Ms. Morena's Man Martin

Oops sorry. That was not intentional. I would not have minded if you simply ignored/reverted what I did. Bobblewik 11:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Bobblewik. I may have been too harsh on you through. With so many people doing vandalism etc, I guess I was edgy. I guess the old saying goes, "you learn as you grow" same here for us wikipedians.

Don't wait to ring me if you ever have a question or need a favor here! Antonio Chufa Cha Martin

Thanks. Regards. Bobblewik 15:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe edit summary

About the edit summary you are using (something like: "Assisted.Reduce links to date elements eg2005->2005. See Manual of Style. Not yet a bot :( If you like this, please say so at Wikipedia talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F"). Could you pipe the last wikilink (it's an eyesore). If anything, the only wikilink in the edit summary should be to the relevent MoS section, could you link to there please.--Commander Keane 11:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used to put the relevant section of the Manual of Style but the edits are now now being considered as a good task for a bot. So the primary debate is now taking place at 'talk:Bots'. As you may know, bot edits do not appear in 'Recent changes'. So that will be welcome to you. Say a word in support if you wish. In the meantime, how do I 'pipe' a link? Bobblewik 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger, forgot to check back. By piping the link I meant Wikipedia:Piped link. For example instead of Wikipedia talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F you could use [[Wikipedia talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F|WP:Bots]], (which looks like WP:Bots) so that it's not so long in the edit summary (an eysore I called it).--Commander Keane 08:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was not familiar with the term 'piping' but I worked out what you meant. I already knew how to do it but had overlooked it. I also tried to make the summary more succinct. I had not been watching 'Recent changes' so I did not realise how bad the long summary looked. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik 09:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bug in date reduction

I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other about wikifying years, but I noticed on Fujitani Ayako that the not-yet-a-bot took ([[1995]]-[[1999]]) and made it to (1995-[[1999]]), leaving the wikilink on 1999. It's probably a simple regexp matching bug. Neier 12:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. It is not a bug. It is a feature. :)

I avoid years in full dates such as [[March 29]],[[1984]] (from Indianapolis Colts. The current regex will not match a year link if it has a preceding link. That is why it matched the first of the pair but not the second. It would delink the other if it looked at the article again.

As you suggest, a more sophisticated regex could be comprehensive in one pass. I am making detailed improvements to the regex over time. If bot permission is granted, I will seek advice on the best regex. But I will always welcome feedback such as yours. Bobblewik 13:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas present

I have added a date link reducing option for you (removes year, month, day and date links), it can be downloaded here. It does remove a lot of links so be careful! the option is under the tab heading "beta". thanks Martin 12:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I know that you are not entirely happy with reducing date links. So I am glad that we are still talking.

I tested your new version but I see that it also delinks full dates that are valid for date preferences. I don't think I would be brave enough to go that far. I do not delink full dates that are valid for date preferences. This is because consent for limited scope is easier to obtain.

I would definitely be happier to give this task away. Thanks! Bobblewik 13:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "full dates that are valid for date preferences" I dont quite understand, do you mean delinking things like 21 May? If I made it so it just did days months and years would that be better? thanks Martin 13:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use date preferences so I don't know all the valid ones. But some info is at:

In regex, my ideal would be to match and delink all dates that fail a date preference test:

Any day of the week:
- (Monday|Tuesday|Wednesday|Thursday|Friday|Saturday|Sunday)
Any month:
- (January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December)
Any decade:
- ([0-9]{4}s)
Any three digit or four digit year but not when preceded by a month/day combination or when followed by an ISO8601 month/day combination. My test has been rather crude (it does not watch for ISO dates yet). I merely look for *any* preceding link: ([^\]]{4})\[\[([0-9]{4}|[0-9]{4}s|[0-9]{3})\]\]
Any century such as: '20th century', '20th Century', '1st century'
Any month/year combination such as 'February 2002'

I also try to avoid pages that discuss calendars and the origins of week/month names. My crude way is to search for the word 'calendar' and 'god'. But that could be tightened.

Here is the search regex I have been using:

([^\]]{4})\[\[([0-9]{4}|[0-9]{4}s|[0-9]{3}|January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December|Monday|Tuesday|Wednesday|Thursday|Friday|Saturday|Sunday)\]\]

The replace field has

$1$2

The ignore field has

calendar|Calendar|god|God

Ive integrated your regex into the newest version, thanks Martin 15:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinking years

Hi.

You will have seen that I reverted a couple of your changes (to London Marathon and List of rapid transit systems). I've no fundamental quarrel with your crusade to reduce the number of year links, and since I've been aware of this issue I've cut down my usage of them. However these two articles contained long lists full of linked years, and just unlinking 2005 and leaving all the others looked silly. I will attempt to rectify these two articles properly myself, but thought you might like to reconsider the way you are unlinking so as to do all years in a given articles at one go. Regards. -- Chris j wood 13:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It did look silly to remove just one in a long list. The problem was my ignorance of the AutoWikiBrowser software. I can now do all years in a single pass but it is still a manual process. Thank you for fixing the articles. We are getting a fair amount of support for a bot to do this automatically but the argument is not won yet. Please could you express your opinion at: Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F? Bobblewik 14:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: minutes and seconds

Thanks, nice that someone noticed. I actually was inspired to do this by your year unlinking... I hadn't heard of AWB before I noticed some of your edits (great work, by the way!). As for the ?s, you're absolutely right, they're ugly. And as these parameters are optional in the template now, it's probably better to just leave them out altogether - That's what I'll do in the next batch when I come across them. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some stand-alone year links are ok, though

Sometimes, a stand-alone year link should not be deleted. For instance, the 1117 link from Miidera takes you to a page where ~~the construction of~~a battle between the members of Miidera is framed with some other concurrent historical events. There are other year links on Miidera which don't have the same type of info on the other end; but, I think that 1117 should stay. One way to tell what is important (in the sense that there is a link from the year's page to the article) is to check the "What links here". Your almost-bot may do that already, but it is something I noticed and remembered the recent talk I had a few sections up. Neier 11:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the software does not do it. Massive overlinking of dates throughout Wikipedia has meant that readers have no way of knowing which of the many links on a page contain useful information. If it is not possible for a reader to discriminate, it is difficult to define rules for software.

I do not agree that the 1117 link is useful but you have suggested a clear rule. I think that you are proposing a rule that is clear:

1. Look at ArticleA

2. Look inside the article for year link e.g. ArticleB, ArticleC etc

3. Go to ArticleB and looks at 'What links here'

4. Check if 'What links here' of ArticleB contains ArticleA

5. Use that information to modify the delinking rule.

I do not know how to do it. The date delinking regex is published in the talk page so you can see what it does. Feel free to suggest modifications. Thanks. Bobblewik 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rule as you wrote it is not quite right. The 'What links here' you need to look at is of Article A

1. Look at ArticleA (In this case, Miidera)

2. Look inside the article for year link e.g. ArticleB, ArticleC etc (So, 672, 859, 1117, 1599, etc)

3. Look at 'What links here' of ArticleA for any year links (A link from 1117 in this case) Special:Whatlinkshere/Mii-dera

4. Remove any years found in 3 from the list formed in 2 (1117)

5. Unlink the remaining years in the list from 2 (672, 859, 1117, 1599) -- Not 1117.

So, the bot would need to get not only the article, but the Whatlinkshere/ page(s). Processing the Whatlinkshere pages to find links to the main article from year pages is trivial. But I don't know enough about bots to know if they can be programmed to act on two pages at once, or not. Neier 23:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I see what you mean. Try asking the author of the software at: User talk:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser. Bobblewik 23:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking

Comment moved to talk:Manual of Style.

en dash to hyphen change?

Comment moved to User_talk:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser#en_dash_to_hyphen_change.3F

See my additional comment there. Short version - changing the way the em- and en- dashes are entered is annoying. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linking dates

Hi Bobblewik, this is just to thank you for your work in getting rid of overlinked dates. I've added my support to the page regarding your bot. I always used to link standalone years (e.g. 2005), because I saw everyone else doing it and assumed it was part of the MoS. Since realizing it wasn't, I've been removing them wherever I see them, including from early articles I wrote, but it's very helpful to have your bot around to do it. Seasons greetings to you, and all the best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Positive feedback is very welcome. Your comment in support at 'talk:Bots' is useful too. You may also wish to see comments being made at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#More_comments.

You can use the tool yourself quite easily too. See: User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser. Regards Bobblewik 22:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Crimbo!

Have a Proper and Merry Crimbo. File:Pressie.gif, in fact here is a pressie from the Doctor to you. Ho. Ho. Ho! File:Unclecrimbo.gif Dr. McCrimbo 22:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas tree

Hi, I see that your ~~bot~~ "assisted editor" took a lot of date links out of the subject article, can you give me advice as to where to read more about this topic? Some of the articles I've edited heavily have a lot of date links for what I think are good reasons so I'd like to read more so I can understand why a lot of links are considered harmful... thanks! (PS can your bot also put links back or is it only an unlinker? ++Lar 01:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy relevant to date linking is at:

If you think the policy is wrong, then it can be changed easily enough.

If you want to know more about the tool, see User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser and its talk page. If you think Christmas tree is not linked consistently with the policy in the references given above, then edit it so that it matches the policy. Alternatively, if you disagree with the policy, just edit the article in your own way, I don't mind much.

I hope that helps. Thanks for mentioning it here. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 13:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crash test dummy

You removed far more information from this article than was necessary. The description by Mary Roach of the Eighth Stapp Car Crash and Field Demonstration Conference is an important part of the history of the move from cadaver testing to the use of crash test dummies. I would remind you that this is a featured article and has been well vetted; there should be no major edits required except to material added since the article was written. Please note that while I am aware this article is no longer mine, I am extremely protective of it, and I would request that the integrity of this article be respected. D e nni ☯ 01:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do not understand your comment. I did not remove any information. Please can you say what you think I removed? Thanks. Bobblewik 13:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - the missing text wasn't missing after all - the history page display had just placed it in an unusual spot. So all is well after all. D e nni ☯ 19:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Thanks for being vigilant. That is a good thing. Bobblewik 19:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Powell

When you can, could you just run a popups-assisted cleanup on this article? Thanks. Harro5 03:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to remember to do it. You may wish to do it yourself. It is really easy. Just get it from User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser. Bobblewik 13:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for helping the clean up of my changes man. You rock so does NoFX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan2003 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the praise. That is always welcome. If you want to do something similar yourself, just get the tool from User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser. Bobblewik 13:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Year links (big struggle, slim issue)

A lot of folks are vexed by year links, one way or the other. Generally, I'm low key about people adding or removing year links from my articles, but there are some cases where I think the case for year links is unambiguous. For example, in Restoration literature and Augustan literature and their daughter articles, the articles themselves are historical surveys. Hence, anyone there is already interested specifically in the progress/regress/stasis of history over an epoch. Year links there make all the sense in the world. Whether they make sense in a biography or not, I'm not sure. Certainly they make little sense in contemporary years, where the reader knows more about the years than the year articles can say, but the goal of the year entries is to provide a quick overview, a semi-tabular presentation of the significant events in a year. Hypothetically, every time someone makes a year link, they're to go to the year article and add to it, as well (rarely happens). Anyway, for historical survey articles I've done I'll probably revert to year links. Otherwise, I probably won't get involved. Geogre 15:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know your view. If you revert a change that I do, that is fine too. Keep up the good work. Regards. Bobblewik 15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

update

Hey, new version out, with your new regex (and some other stuff). thanks Martin 20:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bobblewik 20:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits which just unwikify stuff

Comment on Wikipedia style moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Bobblewik 01:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's good that it's all under discussion, but could you do us the courtesy of stopping while waiting for the community to come to a consensus about what to do? Talrias (t | e | c) 03:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dewikilinking dates

Greetings.

I noticed this morning that you dewikilinked all the years in Beer. Looking over your talk page, I see that this is a matter of some importance for you. Allow me to suggest that "AWB Assisted cleanup" is a wholly misleading edit summary to use when de-linking every linked year within an article, to say nothing of flagging such an edit as "minor". It smacks of trying to sweep such changes (which can be extensive in an article the size of Beer) under the rug in hopes that no one will notice.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the edit summary is certainly not intended to be misleading. I think it qualifies as minor because I am not changing anything that the article says. I am not trying to sweep changes under the rug, au contraire, if you look at my contributions in talk pages, you will see that I am not only open, I am active in the community in discussing how I think Wikipedia can be improved.

I used to be very specific and if you go back far enough in my edits you will see that. I became less specific as I included many other little details. Your desire for a specific summary for specific action is entirely reasonable so I will act on your comment. I will use a more focussed edit summary in future. Thanks for raising it here and please join in the various debates. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 17:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small cleanup job

Hi - I've done some editing on Bryher (island). There's a little cleanup chore left to do, but I thought of you and so stopped myself doing it. Enjoy! SP-KP 19:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Archives: units of length, area, volume, power, mass, energy

Archives: limiting the use of metric units

Archives: style, links, United Kingdom, Wikipedia administration

units of speed

Units of speed for ships

units of time

Multiple units of time

units of inverse time

units involving light

lumens

Units of force

BQM-74

Units of pressure

mb/mbar

google units

Make instructions to editors invisible to ordinary readers

metrics conversion on carbine

125 mm Smoothbore Rounds

External Links vs. References

are you a bot?

Lightning-fast edits

Units in drip irrigation

What is the issue with the NYC subway cars?

You da man!

an old edit to Holungen introduced an unknown Unicode character

Date Links

Aircraft specs policy

The Library, Trinity College

A query from a curious cat

Sinclair article

ndash vs 'to'

Columbine High School massacre

Duplicate pages

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program

Please don't create double redirects

Pune

Date links

West Coast Range

Naseeruddin Shah

Good start...

Redirects to Orders of magnitude (area)?

units

Units in two chemistry articles

Delinking years

Linking

Bot

Happy Diwali

Aircraft Parking

Dates

Liquefied natural gas

Your Entry to Native Forest Restoration Trust

Superscripts in HTML

MoS: Wikilinking Years

reply

Mini Merger

Britain

Proposed UK merger

3RR

vandalism

Units of area

A small request

Mea culpa!

Recent amendments to area measurments and date links

Done!

Infobox French commune

Hyphens and en dashes

Adding month links to Computer

Spelling discrepancy

I love you

bobblebot

Revco

District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands

Thanks for reducing month and year links

Year links

Machine-assisted tunnel vision

Trivial date linking a wicked disease: bot brings smile to face

Year links in basketball

Cris Morena

Pipe edit summary