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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Done. I simply typed '327 acres' into Google and pressed 'Search'. It does the conversion to metric units. Hope that is what you wanted. Bobblewik 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Partial dates

Good to see you progressing with these. I've caught a few more recently. Rich Farmbrough. 20:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A lot of these can be caught by looking at 'What links here' from date elements like Tuesday and February. Unfortunately I cannot correct bizarre linking involving numerics like 22 February. I would welcome assistance with the regex that is used in User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser. Bobblewik 21:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still changing linking formats when you know that there is a lot of opposition to doing so, particularly en masse? I'm rollbacking some of your latest edits; do you have any reason why I shouldn't rollback them all? Ambi 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi, could you provide more detailed edit summaries? "AWB assisted cleanup" is not a helpful edit summary for what you appear to be doing. Consider "Change 'per cent' to '%'". Talrias (t | e | c) 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you made such a request just 3 minutes after blocking me. Your block prevents me complying with it. Bobblewik 20:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I thought I had unblocked you. My apologies; you are unblocked now. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will amend the edit summary as you suggest. I saw a suggestion somewhere that a block should also result in an entry on the users page. The same logic applies to unblocking. If that process could be automated, it would not only have helped me, it might have helped you. bobblewik 21:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 21:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on edit summaries

This edit was marginally useful, but the edit summary was definitely wrong. Just thought you may want to know before complaints start pouring in. Take care.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try to improve the edit summary but it is an inevitable feature of my process. I am doing a lot pages and sometimes my target is not present but I do other stuff while I am there. Thanks for the heads up. bobblewik 23:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Both a bad edit (removal of Wikilinked text) and a bad edit summary here. :) — mjb 06:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. The edit summary said "Doing X. Y" and did indeed do either X, or Y, or both. It had not occured to me that anyone might be unhappy about that, but I accept that you are. Given the characterisation of that as a "bad", I will consider more use terms such as "or", "possibly" and "perhaps also". I hope that you will find that more acceptable. As far as the actual edits are concerned, that is an error that should not happen in future. Thanks for the feedback. It is welcome (seriously). bobblewik 12:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it didn't. It removed an underscore from a link *of* an underscore, and didn't fix any "per cent" into "percent" or anything like that. It also removed line breaks from under section headings. I really think you should stop making these edits. Given the number of reported errors here compared with the number of edits you have done, it is not hard to imagine that there are other mistaken edits you have made which have introduced similar errors. If you don't want to stop running this script, please take more time to review the edits. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your complaint. Let me try to break it down.

You repeat the complaint from mjb about removal of underscore. So I will repeat my response. that is an error that should not happen in future.
You repeat the complaint from mjb about the absence of percent edits. So I will repeat my response. The edit summary said "Doing X. Y" and did indeed do either X, or Y, or both. It had not occured to me that anyone might be unhappy about that, but I accept that you are. Given the characterisation of that as a "bad", I will consider more use terms such as "or", "possibly" and "perhaps also". I hope that you will find that more acceptable.
You complain about the removal of line breaks. I do not understand the complaint so I cannot answer it.

Edits were either 'cleanup' or related to percent, or both. It seems that complaints relate to those characterised as 'cleanup'. I am no longer doing those. I hope that satisfies your complaint. bobblewik 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was this: "AWB assisted clean up. 'x percent' -> 'x %' in accordance with Manual of Style". The edit did not change "x percent" to "x %". This is why it is a bad edit summary. The edits you performed that article where completely unnecessary. You didn't fix anything, in fact you broke something. I find it hard to believe that if you are checking each edit to make sure it's not making any mistakes you would miss a change so simple as the one Mjb said above. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said The edit summary was this: "AWB assisted clean up. 'x percent' -> 'x %' in accordance with Manual of Style". The edit did not change "x percent" to "x %". This is why it is a bad edit summary.

Yes. Let X = AWB assisted clean up. Let Y = 'x percent' -> 'x %' in accordance with Manual of Style. I was doing X or Y or both. It had not occured to me that anyone might be unhappy about that, but I accept that you are. Given the characterisation of that as a "bad", I will consider more use terms such as "or", "possibly" and "perhaps also". I hope that you will find that more acceptable.

You said You didn't fix anything, in fact you broke something.. I will repeat my response. that is an error that should not happen in future.

You are repeating the complaint and I am repeating the answer. Perhaps we can move forward. What is it that you want from me? bobblewik 14:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you include "'x percent' -> 'x %' in accordance with Manual of Style" in the edit summary if you weren't actually doing that? The entire point of an edit summary is that it is a summary of what you edited (obviously). Putting inaccurate edit summaries in is very unhelpful. Don't use "or", "possibly" or "perhaps also". Make the edit summary reflect only what you have done in that particular edit. This seems remarkably obvious to me and I am surprised I am having to explain it. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing lots of consecutive edits that were X, or Y, or both. It is easier and quicker to mention X and Y. I thought it was reasonable but I accept that you do not. I will try to understand your view and take it into account. For now, I would like to stop discussing it, I am tired of discussion of this past matter and I think you are too. bobblewik 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot on SCi Opp Cl Ch

Your bots recent edit [3] here changed some percents inside quotation marks, which is Not On. Also made some other questionable percent changes. I don't think its smart enough yet.

Also... is it you removing blank lines? I don't like that much either, though I generally don't bother to revert it.

This sounds a bit confrontational, I didn't mean it to be. Just helpful feedback! William M. Connolley 22:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It is not a bot, it is me. The change inside quotation is an error. Sorry. I have corrected it. Look and see if you are happy with that.

It never occured to me that people might specifically want blank lines. Perhaps that is worthy of a debate on the Manual of Style where more people can express a view. I appreciate the feedback and did not interpret it as confrontational. Believe me, I have seen confrontations and can usually recognise them! bobblewik 23:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I'd say keep up with the blank lines—it saves Wikipedia two bytes of storage per line (unless its the only edit made), but what's with the space in front of the percentage sign? Shouldn't it be 33% as opposed to 33 %?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the space is concerned, both styles exist in Wikipedia. I picked one. It happens to be the ISO style. The style for units is to have a space. So it looks better with:

12 kg
10 m
24 V
60 W
25 %

But it isn't a big deal for me. If you don't like it, change it to the way you want. You can bet if I had chosen the other style, somebody else would have raised the opposite point. We discussed this very point in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (probably around April) but came to no conclusion other than to leave it unresolved. You could raise it again and see what people say this time round.

Thanks for the useful feedback. bobblewik 23:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that the other style was also acceptable; thanks for clarifying it for me. My concern, however, was that the space can wrap to another line. I don't know if you insert a " "; if not, that's something to consider (it also applies to all other SI units).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Non-breaking spaces. I frequently get asked about that. I went through a phase of adding them but it slowed me down. Then somebody else said that I should not add them. So I stopped. I really don't know what is best anymore. bobblewik 23:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you get to enjoy all wonders bot-ownership brings :) Really, though, what harm is in nbsps? I see the benefits, but what did people complain about? I honestly can't imagine.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. If you make 1,000 edits that are not only good, but are meta-good in that they are consistent, you get little praise. If a question arises in respect of one of them, or in respect of a difficult choice, the work ceases and you get bogged down in exceptionalism and debate. I can see why many people don't bother to tidy stuff up.

As far as nbsp is concerned, I can't remember the detail. I didn't care too much so I took the option that added fewer constraints to the work that I do care about. It is all recorded somewhere. I think User:Gene Nygaard said something about it being less than necessary. You may also find stuff in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). bobblewik 02:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, excess blank lines should always be removed. It is a bug, I feel, that the rendering of wiki-text to HTML gives extra horizontal space to extra blank lines anyway. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. bobblewik 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think the addition of   is much to be preferred, to avoid the units and the number appearing on different lines. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of your preference for this. I think I agree with you although I am not 100% sure and do not always give it top priority. In the case of software assisted (e.g. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser) edits, I should probably have considered it. I was fixing problems with 'percent' i.e. inconsistent spelling (either 'per cent' or 'percent') and mismatch with guidance ('7 percent' should be '7 %'). I am not fixing that problem right now (I am back on date overlinking) but there are still plenty to fix. If you want to deal with them yourself (with or without AutoWikiBrowser), I would welcome it, it is a simple matter to include the " ". bobblewik 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Invasion" years

I'm writing because I normally agree with reducing the overlinking of dates, but in the case of Invasion (or any list of historical events) I think linked dates are good because it allows readers to quickly put them into context with other events. It also serves as an internal cite, in a way, because readers can confirm that those events did, indeed, happen during that year and in certain cases see the exact date. These are not random links thrown into a paragraph; they are specific to each event. I do agree that unlinking the date in the caption of the photo was good; I'm going to revert your changes to the list (just because it's much easier than re-linking them all by hand) but I will keep that one. Thanks - Kafziel 16:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I welcome your comment. If we could reduce overlinking of dates to the circumstances you suggest, I think it might be tolerable. So I do not mind your revert. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 16:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray for unlinking dates!

A task to which I am very sympathetic. Thanks for doing it. I was so surprised to see that you had done 6 or 7 articles in a row that appear on my watchlist. Groovy. --AStanhope 15:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased that you are supportive. Thanks for the feedback. It is a welcome boost. bobblewik 16:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, when changing Ulimate, "reduce links to 'non-preference' date elements". So, OK, I'm kinda new -- can you tell me when dates ought to be linked, and when they ought not to be? Thanks! Sholom 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicagoland municipality

When you changed the "head_label" parameter to "head label", all the pages that used the template changed. It would have been helpful if you fixed these problems. -Slo-mo 09:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. I did it. - Slo-mo 09:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. That was a mistake that will not happen again. Thanks for mentioning it. bobblewik 11:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

With regards to delinking years (eg in Lawless), rather than just saying "reduce overlinking", maybe you should say that it's overlinking of years (or dates) in particular. Thanks, Andjam 12:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently do say that. But then I sometimes delink duplicate links so I change the summary. I will try to remember to change it back. Thanks for the feedback. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 12:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: Bug report

I am attempting to organise WP:BUG. You filed a bug report concerning your watchlist, noting that it only showed edits less than a month old. May I ask, does the problem persist? -- Ec5618 13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem persists. It is frustrating.

It is easy to replicate. Find any article that has not been edited in the last month e.g. Malbec, Wretham, Wretton. Add them to your watchlist. They appear in 'display and edit the complete list' but not in 'Show all'. Thanks for investigating this, I appreciate it. bobblewik 16:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Belarusy

Question, what do you mean by "reduce[ing] links to 'non-preference' date elements?" I am not going to revert the changes, but I just wonder if you could explain that summary. Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 18:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in 'My preferences' at the top of your edit window, you will see that you can format dates (e.g. 29 January 2006 -> January 29, 2006) according to your preference. It only works for users that have an account and have chosen to set it. I don't happen to find it useful, so I don't use it, but it exists. It only works with some date formats. Other date elements (e.g. a solitary year like 2003) are not changed by the preference setting and therefore do not need the square brackets for that purpose.

Unfortunately, the use of square brackets for two things:

1. Date preferences

2. Hyperlinks

means that some people are misled into believing that *all* date elements should be linked. It is all explained at:

Many thanks for bringing this here. bobblewik 19:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblewik, you know that there is a lot of controversy over that guideline, with quite a lot of opposition to it. People have asked you nicely to refrain from making mass changes to articles you don't usually edit until this is sorted out, and you've kept doing so en masse, despite having been twice blocked previously for doing so. As such, I've blocked you for 24 hours.

If you wish to make these sort of edits, why not use a second account? This would avoid the need for your main account to be blocked to stop these edits from being made en masse. Ambi 06:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really would prefer not to make these edits. However, this problem is widespread and a very noticable feature of Wikipedia so I think something should be done. As I have repeatedly said: if implementing the Manual of Style is a problem, then we should change the Manual rather than complain about editors that use it for reference. Incidentally, the 50 minutes of fast edits you refer to were drunken editing, otherwise I have been trying to keep the speed down to avoid provoking people such as yourself with blocking powers. However, the matter is that of the principle of date links and we both would like this to be resolved in the Manual of Style.

If people have new wording for the Manual, then I can understand a desire for a suspension. But such suspensions really should be documented in scope and duration. Otherwise objections become 'meta-guidance' (as I noted in my comment of 21 January).

I did refrain from such edits on the basis of 'until this is sorted out' but it did not get sorted out. I even proposed some revised wording myself. that would have added constraints but nobody responded. As I noted I have now lifted my voluntary suspension. If you think my previous suspension was too short then please tell me what the time period should be.

As far as I can see, there is no active discussion of a revised wording in the Manual. If you have proposed rewording and want a suspension of current guidance, then please say so in the talk page of the MoS. There are quite a few editors like me that like to implement the MoS and are interested in this topic. I hope that sounds reasonable. bobblewik 13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

911

I'm not going to get into the debate of whether year links should be removed or not, as I have no real strong opinion on the issue. I would ask, though, that you please be more careful in your efforts to remove these date links to not remove links to things that are not dates. The topic header is the specific example that brought this to my attention. On the Google Maps page you removed the link to "911", with the edit summary of removing date links. But in this case, the link was not a date, but the phone number for the US emergency telephone system. Now, the link was bad, as the correct page for this system is 9-1-1, and I have replaced the link on the G-maps page, correcting it as well. But the link should not have been removed as a date when it is not a date. Reguardless of whether date links should be removed, links to the 911 system pages fall outside that effort, and should be either fixed or left intact. (Preferably fixed, but I know that's outside the scope of your current effort.) I would bet that the majority of links to 911 should actually link to 9-1-1, so unless you want to examine each for context, you may be better off just leaving that one number untouched by your efforts. - TexasAndroid 12:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the feedback. I will exempt this numbers and others such as 112. bobblewik 11:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year links

You have repeatedly removed the four solitary year links in Adriaen van der Donck, which are linked because they are significant and helpful to a reader who doesn't know off the top of their head what else was happenning in 1618. I agree that all the annoying 2003's should be stripped, but please be more careful reviewing your de-linking in context. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with other people that say that solitary year links are rarely needed. Linking things like American popular music is useful because nobody could guess that the permutation of plain english words would have an article. Anybody interested in any of the thousands of date element articles can enter them in the search box. In that respect, readers do not need their attention drawn to the presence of a date articles any more than plain english articles. I do note that you take a different view.

You say that links to 2003 etc should be stripped. This puts us both in agreement about the principle of reducing overlinking to dates. We merely disagree about the extent. This problem has grown much larger than the problem of linking to plain english words. Perhaps there needs to be more debate about how exactly to reduce the overlinking rather than leaving it up to individuals. Thanks for your feedback, I would be happy if you wanted to reiterate this in the Manual of Style talk pages. bobblewik 11:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning there should be no links to Albert Einstein because anyone could enter his name in the search box. I put in the rare year link for the same reason as any other obvious-syntax link: because it makes the reader's job easier.

The average reader certainly knows general historical trends in the 1900s but needs some touchstones to know historical context in the 1600s. Obviously there is no clear line, which is why I think it requires careful case-by-case consideration of what will help the reader. I brought it to your attention because I was unsure if a half a minute would be enough time for me to properly evaluate every year's relevance.

Also I wanted to try to prevent more iterations like this: [4] [5] [6] [7]. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The repeat iterations are not intentional. I was merely applying the same guidance to the current copy and coming to the same conclusion. Sorry for that, I will try to leave that article according to your preference.

As far as your Albert Einstein example is concerned, that is different to my example. I was merely making a comparison with plain english words. 'Albert Einstein' is not one plain english word, it is two non-plain english words. Perhaps I did not communicate the idea very well. If I understand you correctly, you are applying the following style guidance:

1. Link to solitary years to make the reader's job easier.

2. Do not link solitary years in the 1900s but link to solitary years in the 1600s.

Both those are valid propositions for you to follow even though I do not follow them myself. Unfortunately the Manual of Style does not contain such guidance. It actually opposes the first. The interesting concept of a date threshold (e.g. between 1600 and 1900) has been mentioned before but is currently totally absent.

There is a huge mismatch between the guidance and the implementation. Quite a few of us that think that guidance on date links need more clarity, or more implementation, or both. Perhaps you might agree with me on that. If more constraints are added along the lines you suggest, that is fine by me. I would be very happy if you were to raise this on the MoS talk page. Perhaps new wording can emerge that satisfies more people. As long as we can eliminate the mismatch between guidance and the implementation, I will be happier. bobblewik 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the year links from Hrafnkels saga. I've never really liked year links but when I wrote that article I thought they were the standard so I included them. But they're really just clutter.

My only problem is that once the year has been delinked a sentence fragment like "arriving on the east coast around 900 with his teenage son" looks slightly awkard. I guess I should write "around the year 900" or "around 900 AD". Something to ponder. Anyway, keep up the good work. - Haukur 15:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thanks. I agree with you that the text can often be improved, particularly if the year does not have 4 digits. There are quite a few editors with a history and experience of year links similar to yours (i.e. not liking them but thinking they are standard). It would be great if you read the current text of:

and express your views on the issue in the talk page (of the first two in particular). There is also an opinion survey in the first one. Unfortunately there are many people hostile to removal of date links and your opinion would help those of us campaigning for decluttering. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I reverted your delinking of years in History of the Netherlands. Personally I find that clicking on a year is a great way to get some context of the event, and linking is definitely useful in most cases. Also note that almost all featured articles have linked years. Seeing that more people have protested here, I think you should consider trying to get some community consensus before making these changes to multiple articles (personally I think you will find that most people appreciate linking years, but I'm not sure). Junes 16:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comments. The guidelines and reasons for date linking are explained at:

Some of the protests that you mention are from editors that are unaware of the guidelines or disagree with them. If those guidelines do not provide an adequate represention of community consensus, they should be changed. The process is straightforward. If you want to propose a change of wording to the guidelines that I have been using, feel free to do so on the relevant talk pages of the guidelines. Thanks and keep up the good work. bobblewik 17:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobblewik, I reverted most of your link removals at Rulers and heads of state of Ethiopia because I believe that in a table or list of rulers the dates that their reigns began or end are relevant links & need to be kept as a help to the reader. However, reviewing your edits, I do agree with some of them (for example, I don't know how links were added to months alone at some points), & made an effort to remove some of the year links -- although in a manner different than you had done. I hope you understand my reasoning & that you consider making an exception for explicit lists of this kind. -- llywrch 17:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reasoned response. There is widespread misunderstanding and some people think everything has to be linked. It is not only months (as you have seen), it is even days of the week! I think the problem started because square brackets are used for two purposes:

1. 'date preferences'
2. 'hyperlinks'.

There is some debate about separating those two functions in order to reduce the confusion. In the meantime, as I say, the guidance is at:

I am glad that you can now see that date linking has gone too far and have done some delinking. If people did not go berserk with date links, then there would not be such a need for a cull. Your suggested guideline for reign dates is certainly 'implementable' but it is not currently in Manual of style. I don't happen to agree that such years are worth linking but if you proposed rewording the Manual of style to include that guideline, I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons along with many other editors. The guidelines as used by myself and many other editors could then be changed if necessary. I will try to avoid that page if I can and I do not mind if your revert or otherwise modify any of my edits. Thanks for bringing it here. bobblewik 18:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't see the utility of date linking in the lists I described above; if there is anywhere they should be liberally used, it is there. Anyway, I intended to argue my case at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) immediately after posting here, but I find I need to take some time to compose my words. -- llywrch 20:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I really would like to agree with you but that is not how I think at the the moment. Perhaps when you argue your case and others join in the debate, I may understand a bit more about the practical application of your proposal. Unfortunately, the status quo is a serious mismatch between guidance and the implemented links. We need to change either the implemented links or the guidance or perhaps a bit of both. There has been a fair amount of discussion about the guidance but only a few editors actually implementing it. Many editors are unaware of the guidance and have a mistaken and fuzzy groupthink that date elements should generally be linked when that is almost the opposite of the guidance.

My agreement is not important anyway if enough other people agree to a proposal for change. That is the great thing about Wikipedia. I will go along with the Manual of style even if it changes. Take your time and look at the existing guidance and previous discussions. I am sure that I will notice if and when you make a proposal in the talk page of the Manual. In the meantime, I am happy that we have agreement in some of the other respects.

Regards. bobblewik 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblewik, This last set of comments has helped me crystallize what I think is the main reason you keep getting blocked for your edits. I think that since many people feel that the year de-linking is disruptive, and since the MoS only says "there is no need to link it", "should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so", and "it's usually undesirable to insert"... but, none of these are flat out forbidden. Nor, does the MoS say "all date links should be removed". By removing so many links, it is essentially making a blanket statement that there is no "strong reason" for the links in the first place.

As many have mentioned, there are several cases where you've edited articles with (apparently) strong reasons for having the links.

So, there are some debates still going on; and without a clear policy on removal of the links, I think a large enough percentage of your edits are often seen as destructive that some admins feel it warrants a temporary block in order to cool the jets, as it were.

Anyway, that's just my opinion – I don't mean to put words in Talrias or Ambi's mouths. Regards, Neier 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblewik, you've been asked nicely, you've been given a short block as a warning, and you continue making these changes at rapid speed, despite it being obvious (as evidenced by your own talk page) that many people view these changes as being disruptive and not being supported by consensus or policy. Please discontinue until this is sorted out, or I will have to block until such an assurance can be given. Ambi 04:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has not been revert-warring over this. Many of us welcome the changes and those who don't revert them without problems so I don't really see any disruption. But perhaps Bobblewik could add something like "revert freely" to his edit summaries to make it clearer that he is just making a suggestion rather than trying to force the issue. - Haukur 07:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is massive overlinking of dates in Wikipedia articles that contravenes policy as stated in:

My edits are intended to improve Wikipedia articles and bring them into line with that policy.

Some of the complaints are from people that are unaware of, or disagree with, that policy. I have also received praise, and there is a silent majority that make no complaint or praise. If implementing the Manual of Style is a problem, then those that disagree should change the Manual rather than complain about editors that use it for reference. Ambi has made some specific suggestions and I will address these:

I should not make fast edits. I am now trying to keep the sustained rate below 120 edits per hour. I understand that is in-line with guidance. If it is not, please tell me what the limit is.
I should suspend editing of this type. I did refrain from implementing current policy on basis of 'until this is sorted out'. it did not get sorted out. I even proposed some revised wording myself. that would have added constraints but nobody responded. As I noted I have now lifted my voluntary suspension. If you think my previous suspension was too short then please tell me what the time period should be. If people have new wording for the Manual, then I can understand a desire for a suspension. Suspending a policy or a constitution on the basis of 'until this is sorted out' is too vague. Suspensions of policy should be

stated in scope and duration
reasonable in scope and duration
only in place while the proposer of the suspension is active in proposing new policy

If there is no limit on such a suspension, it becomes 'meta-guidance' (as I noted in my comment of 21 January).

I would really like to see more debate in appropriate places. bobblewik 13:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on Wikipedia has always been an attempt at writing down the views and wishes of the community. You know that there is quite a lot of opposition to your edits, so you're using a bot to try and change them across the entire project before your critics can get the policy changed back to what it was before you began this crusade. This is really poor form.

I don't care if you change it on articles you write, for instance - the same treatment that applies to BCE/CE. What I care about is forcing the issue across the board, on articles you would never even bother reading, let alone writing, and effectively taking the attitude of "fuck consensus" because you have a bot and can get away with it.

As such, I've again imposed a preventative block. I will happily unblock if either a) you agree to make bot edits (i.e. 120/hour - far more than can be reverted manually without massive effort) from a seperate account, as most people with bots do, so your main account can be left untouched or b) stop making bot edits until it is clear that you have even majority, let alone consensus support for them, when it is very far from clear that is the case. When you're making changes on such a massive scale, it is the height of rudeness to impose them regardless of what anyone else thinks. Ambi 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello,

Thank you for reducing the number of links I added to the Philip Snowden article. It surely is less distracting for the reader now. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and will be far less obsessive in linking dates in the future. Again, thanks for the heads up. Be healthy. Michael David 11:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth

I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here against User:Mr j galt (talk · contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An unblock and a caution

I'm unblocking you after consultation with Ambi. I think we can assume that she'll block you again if you resume your delinking of dates. - Haukur 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still blocked. bobblewik 10:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? [8] - Haukur 10:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still blocked

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by Ambi Reason given: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Bobblewik". The reason given for Bobblewik's block is: "Continues to make disputed edits under main account at bot-speed (120/hour) despite being ask (see our blocking policy) You are not blocked from reading pages, only from editing them. If you were only intending to read a page and are seeing this message, you probably followed a red link. These are links to pages that do not exist, so they take users to an editing screen. You should have no problem if you follow only blue links. If you would like to know when the block will expire, please see the block list. bobblewik 11:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This autoblocker is a PITA. Try now. [9] - Haukur 11:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep up the good work

Just to say keep up the good work with regard to units - I think it is a good job that you are doing, though probably a thankless task at times. It is appreciated! --Ali@gwc.org.uk 17:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One expression of gratitude such as yours is more rewarding than 100 negatives or 100,000 non-responses. Perhaps that is proof of operant conditioning in action. Your edit contributions are very similar to my own. Amazing. Thank you very much for the positive feedback. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 23:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"x %"

Is it really standard usage to put a space between a number and the percent sign? I've always seen it used as, e.g. "4%" and never "4 %". Thus, I think you should change the the script of your bot accordingly or leave the articles alone completely. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:41, Feb. 12, 2006

I answered that question further up this page at the section titled Bot on SCi Opp Cl Ch. I hope that helps. Thanks. bobblewik 12:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello bobblewik. I checked the page referenced in the section above, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and looked for information relating to percent signs. I found only this:

===Percentages===

The format of the numeric and percentage terms should match. Thus pair 7 with % and seven with percent.

Perhaps you would like to explain how you've drawn this conclusion. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:58, Feb. 12, 2006

I was referring to bit further up this page where I said:

As far as the space is concerned, both styles exist in Wikipedia. I picked one. It happens to be the ISO style. The style for units is to have a space. So it looks better with:

12 kg
10 m
24 V
60 W
25 %

But it isn't a big deal for me. If you don't like it, change it to the way you want. You can bet if I had chosen the other style, somebody else would have raised the opposite point. We discussed this very point in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (probably around April) but came to no conclusion other than to leave it unresolved. You could raise it again and see what people say this time round. bobblewik 13:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give something other than a canned response. I am asking a specific question now? Who, besides you, supports the use of a space between a number and a percent sign? Are you just making shit up? The percent sign is not a unit of measurement, it's a symbol for the division of a number by 100. Please provide some source for the use of a space or I will block you for a greater duration. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:06, Feb. 12, 2006

Also, regardless of whether using the space is acceptable, there is clearly no consensus that there is anything wrong with spelling out "percent", according to the MoS, which states that "7%" and "seven percent" are equally acceptable. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:08, Feb. 12, 2006

The edits are not about a space. The edits are about changing '7 percent' and '7 per cent' into '7 %'. Let us be clear, I am not changing 'seven percent' to 'seven %'.

I do not want to argue with you about a space. That issue was debated at length and left permitting either. If you are interested in the topic, please look in the archives or raise it again in the MoS. If my preference is not your preference, that is fine by me. I can do either. I simply replaced the word with the symbol. The space is already there and I did not delete it. Do not get so angry with me. I can implement your preference, I really don't care. But please give me the reason that I should quote when somebody blocks me for *not* using the space. bobblewik 13:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the MoS (all hail it -.-) you should be changing "7 percent" to "7%" and "seven per cent" to "seven percent". Anything further is unnecessary. If two styles are equally acceptable, a bot-assisted crusade such as yours, solely to change an article from one style to the other is pure disruption. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:24, Feb. 12, 2006

You say that the MoS says it should be '7%' but that is not what I see. It says:

The format of the numeric and percentage terms should match. Thus pair 7 with % and seven with percent.

Believe me, I wish that it did give a recommendation on the space but unfortunately it does not. In the absence of MoS guidance on the space, it is a personal preference issue. You block me because you want me to implement your preference for no space. What do I tell another another admin when they block me because they want me to implement their preference for a space? bobblewik 13:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You should ask the admin to establish that such a preference actually exists and has currency.

2. I blocked you because, "in the absence of MoS guidance on the space, and because, for fuck's sake, the MoS nowhere indicates that "seven percent" is incorrect usage you should not be robotically changing it one way or the other, at all, full stop. Do not replace usages that are not incorrect, please. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:49, Feb. 12, 2006

You wrote:

1. You should ask the admin to establish that such a preference actually exists and has currency.

OK, I am asking you. Does your preference for no space actually exist and have currency?

2. I blocked you because, "in the absence of MoS guidance on the space, you should not be robotically changing it one way or the other, at all, full stop.

You are mistaken, I am not changing the space. You want me to implement your preference to remove it. I just want you to tell me why. I will need to quote you to the next person with a different preference.

for fuck's sake, the MoS nowhere indicates that "seven percent" is incorrect usage

I agree. That is why I do not change "seven percent". What makes you think I do?

Let me clear. It is a binary option: space; or no space. Just tell me which I must use and let me work in peace. bobblewik 14:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am implementing your personal preference for no space. Why are you still blocking me? bobblewik 14:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict (sorry): I've unblocked you. I apologize for re-blocking you the way I did, but I had intended to do so at the end of the first hour, but that did not stick. I see that you have been willing to compromise to some extent so I will leave you alone. Please, the next time you are interested in mass-changing thousands of articles, make sure your actions reflect a fresh, tangible consensus first, thank you. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:41, Feb. 12, 2006

OK. I am raising the absence of guidance on the MoS talk page. If editors can be blocked for failing use a particular style, it is no longer an option. The MoS is the place to document forbidden options. Please feel free to contribute. bobblewik 14:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think without a space is better ("7%" or "seven percent"); however, I can't believe how bad-tempered the admin above comes across (perhaps I have missed the long-drawn out losing of temper, but "Are you just making shit up?" seems totally uncalled for). I am also struggling to understand why you were threatened with being (and, it would seem, actually were) blocked for something so trivial.

Keep up the good work, despite these nay-sayers. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as you can see, there is nothing that I can do if an admin abuses blocking powers or swears. Thank you for the kind words. bobblewik 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi, thanks for fixing Current computer and video games events to be compliant with the MoS. I put a lot of work into the page (hope you like it), but I'm never so good at the little details. Which is why contributors like you are so important! Cheers! Jacoplane 15:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I appreciate the thanks. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 15:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"date" changes

what exactly are you changing?

are you changing dates formated as:

mmm dd yyyy,
dd mmm yyyy,
dd mmm,
mmm dd,
yyyy,
decades (2000),
centuries (21st century),
or what?

I would appreciate knowing exactly what this issue is about?

Thanks Hmains 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I understand the question. I am not changing dates. I am (or was) removing *square brackets* from:

ddd [[Tuesday]]
mmm [[February]]
yyyy [[2006]]
decades [[1990s]]
centuries [[21st century]]

I did not remove square brackets from:

dd mmm, yyyy [[12 January]], [[2006]]
dd mmm [[12 January]]
ISO 8601 dates [[2001-01-15]]

These are used for the date preference mechanism. Part of this whole problem is because square brackets are used for two entirely different functions:

1. Reformating the date to a user preference

2. Hyperlinking to an article

Many editors see square brackets on 'date preference' formats and falsely conclude that *all* dates must have square brackets.

I hope that is the answer you need. bobblewik 19:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I choose, may I copy my question and your answer into the discussion you opened on another, MoS page. Thanks Hmains 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you may. bobblewik 21:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

% change

You made a change to which I don't think "percent to %" applies. "1/4 %" does not look right, and I don't think any Manual of Style would recommend such a thing. Tnikkel 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional percentages are so rare that I do not mind either way. But I agree with you that '1/4 %' does not look as good as either '0.25 %' or '0.25%'. Thank you for improving the article. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, fractional percentages are common in at least two places: math textbooks and classes and IRS instructions and forms! Thanks Hmains 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then it may be something that is more common in the US than elsewhere. Perhaps I should have said rare in Wikipedia. bobblewik 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format issues

Greetings. Thanks for making changes to articles according to the MoS! This really helps to give Wikipedia a consistent look-and-feel, and makes things more professional-looking. I am a programmer and know just the basics of perl, but I've never been able to write a bot, and I'm always grateful to those that can and do, in the interest of improving Wikipedia.

In regards to the conflict above with unlinking dates: I frequently defer to Ambi on policy issues, and I know she consistently works hard to protect the project, but I have to disagree in this case. It's quick and easy to bring pages inline with the MoS, and if the MoS changes, it'll be quick and easy to change things back. Yes, that would be a hit on the servers, so it would be best to figure out policy before making the change - but it doesn't look like this particular policy is in flux. Perhaps an RFC should be started on whether a "delinking years" bot should be run, whether it's alright to delink years without a bot (as I do frequently), what years a bot should delink (e.g. 1900+ only), and whether the MoS should be changed. Either way, even if there is disagreement, I think you deserve thanks for taking the initiative to bring Wikipedia up to MoS standards.

Could you help me get started on getting something like this going? I only have access to Windows machines, unfortunately. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:27, 14 February 2006 (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

metrics conversion on carbine

125 mm Smoothbore Rounds

are you a bot?

Lightning-fast edits

Date Links

A query from a curious cat

Sinclair article

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program

Pune

Date links

West Coast Range

Naseeruddin Shah

Good start...

Delinking years

Linking

Bot

Aircraft Parking

Dates

Superscripts in HTML

MoS: Wikilinking Years

reply

A small request

Adding month links to Computer

I love you

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

Possible bug in date reduction

Christmas present

Unlinking years

Re: minutes and seconds

Some stand-alone year links are ok, though

Linking dates

Christmas tree

Colin Powell

Thanks

Year links (big struggle, slim issue)

Dewikilinking dates

Small cleanup job

Partial dates

Edit summaries

More on edit summaries

Bot on SCi Opp Cl Ch

"Invasion" years

Hooray for unlinking dates!

Template:Chicagoland municipality

Edit summaries

Follow up: Bug report

My Belarusy

911

Year links

Thank you

Babe Ruth

RfC opened for Mr j galt

An unblock and a caution

keep up the good work

"x %"

Thank you

"date" changes

% change

Format issues