User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/2011/August

RailGauge

Please note that removing lk=on from {{RailGauge}} also removes the link to the gauge type such as Standard Gauge in the case that I was looking at. I do not think that this link should be removed. Keith D (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know it was different from 'lk=on' in other templates. Thanks for letting me know. How do we get the template to stop linking the units? Lightmouse (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Change the lk=on to allk=on, this will link the gauge name and not the units. Keith D (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried it on British Rail Class 37 and it didn't work for me. Can you give me one example page? Lightmouse (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made the change to that article so it now works correctly Keith D (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I get it now. I've gone back over the articles and added that. I'll proceed with the rest. Thanks very much for your help. Lightmouse (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

abbr=none vs abbr=off

Hi. I've had problems with abbr=off in the past, in that only "source" values appeared in full while "answer" values remained abbreviated, as in 5 miles (8 km). It was suggested that I use abbr=none instead, which solved it. Now I see your bot is editing abbr=none to abbr=off on a large scale. Has the problem with abbr=off been fixed then? André Kritzinger (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it has just been fixed. So it should do what you want now. We're in the middle of a migration in accordance with discussion at: Template_talk:Convert#What.27s_the_opposite_of_.27on.27.3F_Is_it_.27off.27_or_.27none.27_.3F. I can do part of the task but not all of it without an increase in scope for the bot so once you've read the technical discussion, please support my request at: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 17. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

nmi

Lightbot is unlinking nautical mile|nmi from aircraft specifications. I don't think that the nmi abbreviation is particularly common so it could probably do with linking.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Can you give me an example? Lightmouse (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Its in the middle of a soecification template: - here is an example - and certainly in this case is the first time that either nautical mile or nmi is used in the article. In running text I would just say nautical mile which probably doesn't need linking but spelling it out in full would probably be too long for the template and its the abbreviation which may be unfamiliar.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Linking more than one occurrance in an article would be distracting. Does Nigel mean to link just the first? I'd consider spelling it out the first time instead, on the basis that readers shouldn't have to divert to a link-target to get a basic definition. Tony (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the unit within a conversion? The thresholds for linking are (or should be) different. Lightmouse (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make a difference. I link on the first occurrence in the infobox and again in the main body. Regardless of whether they're in a conversion or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's buried within Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) but Wikipedia deems a conversion to be relevant. I'd be happy for the guidance to be updated because I happen to think nautical mile is common enough that a conversion doesn't need a link. An explicit list of units would help. Lightmouse (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with note 2. I know exactly how a nautical mile differs from a statue mile, but I don't know how it differs from a kilometer. But I think that the vast majority of readers don't know either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you want text to say:

• 'x nautical miles' (y km)'

Lightmouse (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I want it to leave the default triple conversion from nmi into mi and km as it is. I don't want either mi or km to be specified as that negate the other conversion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So that sounds to me like:

• 'x nautical mile (y km; z mi)'

Is that how you want it? Lightmouse (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

To butt in only if the article has km first, if it has miles first then 'x nautical mile (z mi; y km)' would be more appropriate. Keith D (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost now. This thread was started by User:NigelIsh. He raised a question about linking of nautical miles. It's an important and welcome point and it's now being discussed at wt:mosnum 'Links instead of conversions'. I can't keep up with the various other issues raised but they seem to involve a degree of thread drift. Interesting but possibly not as interesting as the important debate going on at mosnum about linking of units in conversions. Please feel free to join in there. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK Error

I just wanted to say thank you for picking that up with HMS Prince Charles and that a note on my talk page if I screw up again would be most welcome. Sorry if you got bitten over at DYK. It was a good catch. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. One nice response such as yours makes up for a thousand bites. :) Lightmouse (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No comma allowed in second number for range conversions

FYI, you should adjust your bot, this generated a red error. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good spot. I'll investigate and update the code. Many thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Miles

Hi. Your bot is indescriminatingly adding conversions of miles into kilometers on ship articles, assuming that they are statute miles, e.g. on Japanese cruiser Tone (1937). Given the context, these are more likely to be nautical miles.
—WWoods (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A conversion doesn't create an error. A non-specialist reader sees the word 'mile' and will assume whatever they want. It may make it apparent to specialists that the word 'mile' shouldn't have been left without being specified, in accordance with mosnum. There are lots of articles that are insufficiently converted and it may need wider discussion. On the bright side, the template makes it much easier to correct simply by adding the letter 'n'. If it'd make it any easier we could create a template that says something like 'x miles (possibly y or z km)'. What do you think? Lightmouse (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you believe "millibit/s"?

Hi Lightmouse. I noticed an apparent impossibility in the Pioneer 10 article, namely that a 256 bit/s data rate was slowing down by 1.27 Mbit/s per day. Looks like Lightbot converted "mbps" to "Mbit" which is probably normally correct. I changed it to "millibit", hoping to avoid ambiguity. Thought you'd want to know. Overjive (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do want to know, thanks. I actually converted mbps to Mbit/s by hand. It's a *very* common error for people to put m, K, g, or t instead of M, k, G or T. You're quite right, this was an exceptional case where millibit per second was actually correct. I'll be more careful about that, I might even go on a hunt for more examples. Thank you very much for your intervention. Lightmouse (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. SQL^{Query me!} 03:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Cars wheel size

Hi, the bot converts wheel size to millimetres for example 15 in, Im not sure if any country uses millimetres in wheelsize? So this might be unnecessary conversion. -->Typ932 ^T·C 10:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link? Lightmouse (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean edit history? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triumph_TR3&action=historysubmit&diff=443649428&oldid=441919631 -->Typ932 ^T·C 12:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Metric units are used for tyres even in diameter, although the non-metric diameter is widespread. References to non-metric units have more meaning for non-metric readers than for metric readers so we need to be careful about that. I certainly don't seek out such conversions and will try harder to avoid it but it's difficult to guarantee avoidance and the occasional one may slip through. That was an example. I'm fine with your revert. Thanks for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Long ton abbreviation command

You have noticed that long ton will not abbreviate, haven't you?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Can you give me an example? Lightmouse (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at any of the ship articles that you edited today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. They look fine to me. Lightmouse (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

non-breaking spaces and numbers

Hi, I came to WP:MOSNUM looking for any guidance on non-breaking spaces and numbers (it's one of several matters of disagreement in Swarcliffe), but found only a "See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Non-breaking spaces " which had nothing much about numbers and referred me back to the empty section I'd just left. Looking at the history I find that just earlier today you'd removed a chunk of content with edit summary "Delete duplicated section", but I can't find it duplicated anywhere. I've replaced it for now. If it's duplicated somewhere else, could you re-remove it but leave a clearer indication of where to find it? Thanks. PamD (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't realise I'd left a circular reference - that's corrected now. I also didn't realise that the two pages had differing sets of advice. I hope that's been corrected now. All previous advice should be retained but the two places have been merged into one. Let me know if that isn't the case. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You've left it as "see also", not "see"... and I'm not sure the change is an improvement: it might have been better to leave the stuff which is specifically about numbers in WP:MOSNUM where it belongs, linking to the other page for stuff about nbsp in general, and with the link from the general stuff to the number-specific stuff. PamD (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lightbot 14

Some things Chris missed

• [1] Converts fluid ounces to grams [also, there's already a mL convertion there]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the ounce won't be in my routine process or code. However, I'd like the opportunity to tackle them. The only way to see all weird and wonderful permutations is to do live runs. Most of these false positives can be addressed with more experience. As I said at Lightbot15, we're in the unusual position of only doing development during BRFA trials. It's more efficient for BAG and bot operators to do development in a non-bot account prior to a BRFA. Lightmouse (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

km/s

• This could be simplify to km/s instead of km/[[second|s]]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A good point. The process and code targetted a whole range of commonly overlinked units. It didn't include units of speed (e.g. [[Kilometres per hour|km/h]]), acceleration, or units of time. Units involving time is definitely something that can be done next. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

foot

I'm not sure what the purpose of edits like these are. I can only guess it assumes we're talking about foot (unit) and that the link is incorrect. I reverted two of them, but I imagine there's lots more that need reverting. Please fix! --Juventas (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I cannot understand why you would want to revert this rather sensible unlinking. It seems to me that the link is of low value, and is being provided as a definition. 'foot', being such a common term, ought not – I wouldn't say 'never', but that's just a micron for me – for me to be linked, even for this subject. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  I agree it's sensible, but it has nothing to do with the mandate of the bot. How does it know it isn't editing an article where such a link ought to stay, such as Toe? ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 09:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, AdiM. It's definitely an edit that I didn't plan to do. I've updated the process and code with more complexity in an attempt to avoid delinking the foot as a body part. I hope overlinked body parts will be addressed but it's not for my bot. Incidentally, is there a way that we could refer to you without period characters and spaces? Lightmouse (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

AdM would be fine, as would anything else as long as it's obvious who you're talking about and it's not offensive. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 09:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I now see what the problem is. There appears to be substantial amount of linking of common words in these articles about fairly common pieces of clothing. I have gone and removed a number of the overlinked terms, including 'foot'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, User:Juventas. As you guessed, the 'foot' article is commonly linked when it should be 'Foot (unit)'. As Ohconfucius says, there's a lot of overlinking of body parts. The two issues sometimes cancel each other out but not always. I'm sure I can reduce, if not eliminate, the issue you raise. Thanks for bringing it to me. Lightmouse (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad edit to dab page

Hi, things like [this edit] are obviously not right. Perhaps dab pages need to be excluded from the bot's activity, or treated differently in some way?--Kotniski (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It's a very large run of tens of thousands of articles (undoing massive overlinking of common units). So although false positives are small in proportional terms, I'm disappointed at the absolute number. I've revised a whole section of the process and code in order to target disambiguation pages. It now misses a whole load more articles but is much safer. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please turn off lightbot for these articles.

Links to meter and other common units are relevant AND appropriate in articles such as

• Cubic metre
• Volume ‎
• kilometre
• Cubic centimetre

Please turn off lightbot for these articles. I undo it & it comes right back & undoes me--JimWae (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Thank you for fixing the edits and I'm sorry it repeated them. That definitely shouldn't have happened once, never mind twice. I believe I found the reason and it shouldn't happen again. I appreciate your patience. Lightmouse (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your bot

Your bot has gone across every Ontario highway page and removed the link to "km" that appeared in the intersection tables. This km doesn't have an equivalent mi, so it should be linked (which is acceptable according to WP:LINK). Can you please revert your bots removal of these links. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Does wp:link really saying link km is acceptable? It's a very common term. Either way, your opinion that the link is required is definitely needed in the current wp:mosnum discussion. Lightmouse (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In those (few) cases where there is a good reason to use the kilometre without a conversion there is likely a good reason to have a link as well, but what would be wrong with giving a conversion to miles in an article about a highway (as opposed to an exoplanet or something)? ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 22:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

degrees centigrade

Hi there ,

your bot mangled the Arenium ion article to some extent, please have a look. V8rik (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll investigate and fix it. Lightmouse (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous edit

The bot recently made this edit. Reading through the bot approval, I believe that the bot should only be de-linking units where they are used as part of a conversion. Bluap (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Lightbot 6 was constrained to units in conversions. You may wish to look at Lightbot 13 where the scope was increased. I have sympathy with the example you gave of Asterix_in_Britain so I've reverted the edit. Thank you for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case, you should probably expand the links at User:Lightbot, which only gives up to Lightbot 9. Bluap (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That page hasn't been updated in some time. Thanks for pointing it out, I've updated it. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Lightbot and “See also” sections

Would it be possible to tell Lightbot to skip “See also” sections when removing links? An unlinked item there, as in [2], is pretty much pointless. (Also, I think that nautical mile should definitely stay linked in such an article, and I'm borderline in favour of keeping a link to metre and foot (unit) too, but that'd be harder to program: maybe not removing links from articles in Category:Units_of_measure or one of its subcats.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 22:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right. The solution is to avoid units articles. That article shouldn't have been touched. I removed a whole load of units categories but that one might have got through as a redirect from something else. I'll revert that article and recheck the list. Thank you very much for letting me know. Lightmouse (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you already reverted it. Thank you. Much appreciated. Lightmouse (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen you've been reverting a few more of your bot's edits, as [3]. Thanks for that. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 23:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This too where the metre itself was the very subject of that paragraph. I'd suggest the rule of thumb that if the unit is in the singular and not immediately preceded by a number (especially if it's preceded by the), it is more likely to be talked about than used for some measurement. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 22:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the normal mode of operation has many more constraints, such as those you suggest. This run was a bold attempt to address massive overlinking. It's been very successful and false positives are actually small in proportion. But they're disappointingly large in number (i.e. more than a handful) due to the sheer large scale of the operation. I'm going to add more constraints. Lightmouse (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Linking common units=

Same problem in the article William Thomson, Lord Kelvin. The bot delinked a distance given in miles only, which I have relinked because much of the world is metric and some readers may not understand miles. What WP:Link#What generally should not be linked actually says is: "Avoid linking units of measurement that aren't obscure. If a metric and a non-metric unit are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), there is no need to link either unit because almost all readers will understand at least one of the units." So please reprogram the bot to delink only when mi AND km are both provided, or else to delink mi and ALSO provide the conversion to km. Dirac66 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your quote of wp:link is correct. Adding a link to mile doesn't bring it into compliance with guidance. Metric readers shouldn't, and almost certainly don't, read articles then look up unit articles, get out a calculator and work out what '380 miles' means in km. That's why linking unit articles doesn't add much value, if any. A conversion should be provided, as you say. Along with many other editors, I've added *lots* of conversions. It would be a great help if you could add conversions, but if you don't then don't worry - it won't be long before one of us does it. Thanks for the pointer. Lightmouse (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see that the bot has now added a conversion template which is the best way. Thanks. Dirac66 (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Lightmouse (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop delinking units

Stop delinking stuff because it is "obvious". E.g. cubic inches. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Obvious units should usually not be linked. It's a form of overlinking. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Here too, it took a link to Metre off a sentence about the definition of the metre. If I were you, I'd pause the bot until I was confident enough that all those issues are resolved. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 23:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that one it shouldn't have done. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As you may have seen, I've paused the bot while I investigate further. One of the issues is that there has never been (to my knowledge) any major janitorial clear up of overlinking of units. This is a *huge* run of tens of thousands of articles and the false positive ratio has been very small but so many articles it equates to a noticeable number. I do have a process for avoiding articles like Introduction_to_special_relativity but clearly the scope of the process is insufficient. I'm working on it and may have more to say later. Lightmouse (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Aero engines

Many aero engine articles have been adversely affected today by delinking, the 'once only' links given in the lead (per WP:UNIT i.e. ...and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs. Even if you programme the bot to avoid lead sections the first occurrence of a unit may well not be seen until further sections in an article. Removal of unit links from specifications tables has been welcome however. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noting the welcome improvements. For the parts of the edit you're less happy with, please can you give me an example? I'd like to investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is one delinking operation in an article lead [4]. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good example. It was:

• engine of nine litre (560 cu in) capacity

I've now set it to:

• engine of 9 litres (550 cu in) capacity

I've also converted the power units. I don't think the link to litre adds value for metric readers, nor do I think the link to the cubic inch adds value for non-metric readers. They're almost plain English terms in the respective systems. Do you think they're required? Lightmouse (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are that non-obscure units shouldn't be linked. It's a matter of house style. You're lucky that there's a discussion about that very guidance at: wt:mosnum. I'd welcome you're comments there. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of 'MCM' for million cubic metres

Everybody knows that MCM means cubic metres, right? No. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 03:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that obscure unit. I searched and found many instances where 'mcm' was neither explained nor linked. In very cases it was linked. In several cases, it was explained. It's much simpler just to use a proper format than to use an obscure one and try to explain it or hope that a link will discharge the author's obligation to communicate well.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention - I've seen lots of other obscure abbreviations in need of clarity (e.g. MLD, LPD). Lightmouse (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

To confuse matters, in US usage, the prefix "M" means "thousand", and "MM" means "million". Bluap (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I've been doing a search. MCM has been used for:

• MCM = 1000 circular mil
• degree MacMichael
• micrometre
• million cubic micrograms

Very confusing. If only there was a standard way of expressing units that was the same in all countries..... Lightmouse (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Links instead of conversions

Agreed with all the above. Until you can code the bot to ignore first instances of a link, please stop damaging articles with it. I think you're simply assuming that all the units you delink are "common" or "obvious", when the fact of the matter is that many people who use Imperial units don't understand metric, and vice versa. Those links are important to understanding. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's quite a strong statement to accuse me of damaging articles. I accept criticism for my flaws and it may not be apparent but I do make a lot of changes in the light of feedback such as yours and that of the above editors. I'm probably one of the most prolific editors when it comes to adding conversions to units and fixing unit-related defects. The tedious task of going through articles and making them easier to understand benefits massively from automation. That's why it's the tool used by many editors, it probably wouldn't be done otherwise. Those of us that add conversions usually do it to unlinked units. There are so many weird and wonderful ways of linking that the links actually prevent conversion. Ideally, we'd delink and convert at the same time but it's more efficient this way.

There is an ongoing discussion about links at wt:mosnum. Please feel free to comment there. Lightmouse (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand the situation. And I know you do a lot of good work, and that's appreciated, it's just that this particular issue has been tossed around for a very long time, with no resolution provided. If you can't address the problem of leaving first instances intact, then find another bot programmer who can help you out. I'm sure they won't mind. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Long tons

Can you please not delink long ton from articles, as you did here? "Ton" is a common unit, but "long ton" is definitely not. Many thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that article says:

• Displacing 27,500 long tons (27,941 t)

The long ton is supported by a conversion into tonnes. The guidance says If a metric and a non-metric unit are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), there is no need to link either unit because almost all readers will understand at least one of the units.. With both those displacement units, who isn't covered? Lightmouse (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is because "long ton" is a unit mostly specific to ships that is not common in Imperial use. I think you are thinking of short tons. So yes, some may understand what tonnes/metric tons are, but many (especially in the US) won't understand either. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So it seems that metric readers know tonne and Americans know short ton (and some may know tonne - as metric ton). You're suggesting the long ton is less well known in the US and I suspect knowledge of it in the UK isn't guaranteed. There is a discussion at wt:mosnum about links to specific units which needs more input - please comment there. In the meantime, I'll change the code so that long ton doesn't get delinked. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination

Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comma in range conversion

No commas are allowed in the second number in a range conversion. If you leave them in, like you did here, you get errors. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew that but I forgot. It's not a coding error, the code can't do ranges yet. It's a human error - from time to time I spot a range and do it by hand. Thanks for picking it up. Lightmouse (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing degree symbol

Hi! I don't think your bot should remove the degree symbol from °C, as in [5] [6] [7] [8]. Or am I missing something? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It shouldn't do that. It was a bug. It was already reported and fixed but it's taken a while to trace and correct affected pages. Done now. Thanks for contacting me about it. Much appreciated. Lightmouse (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Delinking in

I have undone a delinking of in. While "inch" may be a common unit, the abbreviation "in" is probably not so readily understandable to those not familiar with the imperial system. SpinningSpark 16:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You could be right that 'in' isn't obvious to a metric person. When it's part of a conversion and/or combination such as "6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) tall" or "50 mm (2.0 in) blade", it matters less. But on its own, its more of an issue as you suggest.

I note that the example you quote is:

• The basis of the system is the mil, or 0.001in.

I'd have written that as:

• The basis of the system is the mil, or 0.001 inches (0.025 mm)

With the word spelt out in full and correctly spaced, it's much easier to read directly. It also saves the poor reader from the effort of having to look it up. I think many cases of links are being used as an inferior substitute for succinct communication. I'll investigate this a bit further for the 'in' abbreviation, particularly when not in a conversion or a combination. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I hadn't thought about it in this detail before. Lightmouse (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lightbot deliniking letters in discussions of character sets

See ISO-8859-9 for an example, look in history as I reverted it.Spitzak (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting, fixing and reporting that. I can see what happened and will fix it. I'll take a look and see if it occured elsewhere. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Knots

Hey Lightmouse, I'm pretty sure this is a bug. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in the middle of working on it. Thanks for contacting me about it. Lightmouse (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Lightmouse (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:Jc3s5h

The bot edited a unit-related article, Non-SI units mentioned in the SI‎. Editing that article at all is a bug, even though the edit was harmless. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Also International System of Units. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The edits made the following change:

• [[knot (speed)|knot]] -> [[knot (unit)|knot]]

They corrected erroneous links. Intentional edits implemented as intended. Looks good to me. Lightmouse (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I noticed your default summary "mostly units" is not very clear. I'd suggest you put a more explicit summary such as "Janitorial edit concerning units of measurement. Report bugs, errors, and suggestions at User talk:Lightbot., or something similar (per BOTPOL). In general the more explicit the summary (Janitorial edit concerning units of measurement: 0× Unlink common units; 2× Add conversions. Report bugs, errors, and suggestions at User talk:Lightbot.), the better, although this level of detail might be a bit too much to ask for from Lightbot. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change the summary along the lines you suggest. Lightmouse (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but the whitespace in those really could use some tweaks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

".Delink" → "Delink" ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I use punctuation marks like that for tracking. Lightmouse (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't really see how that'd work, but then again, it's not very important. If it's useful to you, keep it around. Anyway I'll shut up now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to retain the option of doing things like that. I don't mind you commenting on it. Your comments are welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

disambiguation pages

Can Lightbot be programmed to treat disambiguation pages differently to avoid stupidity such as this or this or this or this? older ≠ wiser 18:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It already has. Thanks for reporting it just in case. Lightmouse (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I didn't intend to sound so snide in characterizing the edits as stupidity. older ≠ wiser 20:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did wince at the wording but I took the hit because you reported edits that shouldn't have been made. I appreciate your clarification of the wording. Lightmouse (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bot edit summary "Delink non-obscure units."

Hello Lightmouse, I've seen quite a few of these edits in the last week, latest one being [9]. In all of these cases the the summary has started with "Delink non-obscure units.", but no delinking is taking place. Would you be able to adjust the rule(s) so that the summary is a closer approximation of what is actually happening? —Sladen (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That edit changed:

• 148 mph (238 km/h)

to

• 148 mph (238 km/h)

What makes you say it wasn't a delink? Lightmouse (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

D'oh sorry, I'd missed the lk=on in this case. Please continue as you were, and I'll try and pay more attention. (I thought I'd seen a few examples earlier where it hadn't done anything and just went "oh not again"). My apologies, —Sladen (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. We all make false positives from time to time. :) I'm glad we cleared it up rather than you saying 'Oh no, not again', again. Lightmouse (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the edit summary remained obscure to me, and I don't think changes should be made to an archive, such as Portal:Germany/Did you know/Archive. I reverted once, but now see it again. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What edit summary would you prefer? It appears to be commonplace for archives to be edited, including that one. But you could be right that it isn't necessary. Lightmouse (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know enough to answer the first question. - I edited archives myself, for example after a person's page was made a DAB, but this seems less necessary, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the archive issue, I hadn't thought about it previously. You may be interested in an edit summary discussion. Lightmouse (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem with convert template, that your bot edits are exposing

There is a problem with the convert template, that your bot edits are exposing:

• {{convert|4|kn|km/h}} produces 4 knots (7.4 km/h), which is fine.
• {{convert|4.5|-|5.5|kn|km/h|abbr=on}} produces 4.5–5.5 kn (8.3–10.2 km/h), which is not OK because it says "kn" not knots.

I have not reverted your edits that produce this, because my guess is that it is easy for you to fix the bug with the template.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want knots abbreviated, then don't use "abbr=on". For example, {{convert|4.5|-|5.5|kn|km/h}} produces 4.5–5.5 knots (8.3–10.2 km/h). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You said

• "it says "kn" not knots ... it is easy for you to fix the bug with the template"

The template is operating as the developers intend and in accordance with WP guidance. Therefore it isn't a bug. It's ok for you to not like it but I don't have permission to change it. If you give me an example of an edit, I'll take a look. Lightmouse (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Example - [10].--Toddy1 (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Good example. The input was 'x-y knots' so the output should be 'x-y knots'. It's a range which is handled differently to non-ranges. I know exactly where to look and how to fix it. Thanks for the precise link. Lightmouse (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unusual format

See this. The first conversion missed the actual number. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit changed:

• IHP = 5,500

to

• {{convert|,|IHP|abbr=on}} = 5,500

You're correct. It's an unusual format that I haven't encountered before. I've updated the article and will add extra code for formats like that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Lightmouse (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It continues, here and here. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've got enough examples now to know what's going on. As you can see, I've stopped the bot while updating the code. I'll trace and fix any others (if somebody else doesn't do it first). Much appreciated. Lightmouse (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)